subject of a verb still without a rule:  for rules of government are applicable only to the words governed, and nothing ever agrees with that which governs it.[325] To say, with Murray and others, “Participles have the same government as the verbs from which they are derived,” is to say nothing by which either verbs or participles may be parsed, or any of their errors corrected:  those many grammarians, therefore, who make this their only rule for participles, leave them all without any syntax.  To say, with Murray, Alger, and others, “Adverbs, though they have no government of case, tense, &c., require an appropriate situation in the sentence,” is to squander words at random, and leave the important question unanswered, “To what do adverbs relate?” To say again, with the same gentlemen, “Conjunctions connect the same moods and tenses of verbs, and cases of nouns and pronouns,” is to put an ungrammatical, obscure, and useless assertion, in the place of an important rule.  To say merely, “Prepositions govern the objective case,” is to rest all the syntax of prepositions on a rule that never applies to them, but which is meant only for one of the constructions of the objective case.  To say, as many do, “Interjections require the objective case of a pronoun of the first person after them, and the nominative case of the second,” is to tell what is utterly false as the words stand, and by no means true in the sense which the authors intend.  Finally, to suppose, with Murray, that, “the Interjection does not require a distinct, appropriate rule,” is in admirable keeping with all the foregoing quotations, and especially with his notion of what it does require; namely, “the objective case of the first person:”  but who dares deny that the following exclamation is good English?

   “O wretched we! why were we hurried down
    This lubric and adulterate age!”—­Dryden.

OBS. 6.—­The truth of any doctrine in science, can be nothing else than its conformity to facts, or to the nature of things; and chiefly by what he knows of the things themselves, must any one judge of what others say concerning them.  Erroneous or inadequate views, confused or inconsistent statements, are the peculiar property of those who advance them; they have, in reality, no relationship to science itself, because they originate in ignorance; but all science is knowledge—­it is knowledge methodized.  What general rules are requisite for the syntactical parsing of the several parts of speech in English, may be seen at once by any one who will consider for a moment the usual construction of each.  The correction of false syntax, in its various forms, will require more—­yes, five times as many; but such of these as answer only the latter purpose, are, I think, better reserved for notes under the principal rules.  The doctrines which I conceive most worthy to form the leading canons of our syntax, are those