against twenty English," there would still be two prepositions, but where would be the impropriety, or where the sameness of construction, which they speak of? Between is incompatible with against, only because it requires two parties or things for its own regimen; as, "The combat between thirty Frenchmen and twenty Englishmen." This is what Smollett should have written, to make sense with the word "between."
OBS. 15.—With like implicitness, Hiley excepted, these grammarians and others have adopted from Lowth an observation in which the learned doctor has censured quite too strongly the joint reference of different prepositions to the same objective noun: to wit, "Some writers separate the preposition from its noun, in order to connect different prepositions to the same noun; as, 'To suppose the zodiac and planets to be efficient of, and antecedent to, themselves.' Bentley, Serm. 6. This [construction], whether in the familiar or the solemn style, is always inelegant; and should never be admitted, but in forms of law, and the like; where fullness and exactness of expression must take place of every other consideration."—Lowth's Gram., p. 96; Murray's, i, 200; Smith's, 167; Fisk's, 141; Ingersoll's, 228; Alger's, 67; Picket's, 207. Churchill even goes further, both strengthening the censure, and disallowing the exception: thus, "This, whether in the solemn or in the familiar style, is always inelegant, and should never be admitted. It is an awkward shift for avoiding the repetition of a word, which might be accomplished without it by any person who has the least command of language."—New Gram., p. 341. Yet, with all their command of language, not one of these gentlemen has told us how the foregoing sentence from Bentley may be amended; while many of their number not only venture to use different prepositions before the same noun, but even to add a phrase which puts that noun in the nominative case: as, "Thus, the time of the infinitive may be before, after, or the same as, the time of the governing verb, according as the thing signified by the infinitive is supposed to be before, after, or present with, the thing denoted by the governing verb."—Murray's Gram., i, 191; Ingersoll's, 260; R. C. Smith's, 159.
OBS. 16.—The structure of this example not only contradicts palpably, and twice over, the doctrine cited above, but one may say of the former part of it, as Lowth, Murray, and others do, (in no very accurate English,) of the text 1 Cor., ii, 9: "There seems to be an impropriety in this sentence, in which the same noun serves in a double capacity, performing at the same time the offices both of the nominative and objective cases."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 224. See also Lowth's Gram., p. 73; Ingersoll's, 277; Fisk's, 149; Smith's, 185. Two other examples, exactly like that which is so pointedly censured above, are placed by Murray under his thirteenth rule for the comma; and these likewise, with all faithfulness, are copied by Ingersoll, Smith, Alger, Kirkham, Comly, Russell, and I know not how many more. In short, not only does this rule of their punctuation include the construction in question; but the following exception to it, which is remarkable for its various faults, or thorough faultiness, is applicable to no other: "Sometimes, when the word with which the last preposition agrees, is single, it is better to omit the comma before it: as, 'Many states were in alliance with, and under the protection of Rome.'"—Murray's Gram., p. 272; Smith's, 190; Ingersoll's, 284; Kirkham's, 215; Alger's, 79; Alden's, 149; Abel Flint's, 103; Russell's, 115. But the blunders and contradictions on this point, end not here. Dr. Blair happened most unlearnedly to say, "What is called splitting of particles, or separating a preposition from the noun which it governs, is always to be avoided. As if I should say, 'Though virtue borrows no assistance from, yet it may often be accompanied by, the advantages of fortune.'"—Lect. XII, p. 112. This too, though the author himself did not always respect the rule, has been thought worthy to be copied, or stolen, with all its faults! See Jamieson's Rhetoric, p. 93; and Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 319.
OBS. 17.—Dr. Lowth says, "The noun aversion, (that is, a turning away,) as likewise the adjective averse, seems to require the preposition from after it; and not so properly to admit of to, or for, which are often used with it."—Gram., p. 98. But this doctrine has not been adopted by the later grammarians: "The words averse and aversion (says Dr. Campbell) are more properly construed with to than with from. The examples in favour of the latter preposition, are beyond comparison outnumbered by those in favour of the former."—Murray's Gram., i, 201; Fisk's, 142; Ingersoll's, 229. This however must be understood only of mental aversion. The expression of Milton, "On the coast averse from entrance," would not be improved, if from were changed to to. So the noun exception, and the verb to except, are sometimes followed by from, which has regard to the Latin particle ex, with which the word commences; but the noun at least is much more frequently, and perhaps more properly, followed by to. Examples: "Objects of horror must be excepted from the foregoing theory."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 268. "From which there are but two exceptions, both of them rare."—Ib., ii. 89. "To the rule that fixes the pause after the fifth portion, there is one exception, and no more."—Ib., ii, 84. "No exception can be taken to the justness of the figure."—Ib., ii, 37. "Originally there was no exception from the rule."—Lowth's Gram., p. 58. "From this rule there is mostly an exception."—Murray's Gram., i, 269. "But to this rule there are many exceptions."—Ib., i. 240. "They are not to be regarded as exceptions from the rule,"—Campbell's Rhet., p. 363.
OBS. 18.—After correcting the example. "He knows nothing on [of] it," Churchill remarks, "There seems to be a strange perverseness among the London vulgar in perpetually substituting on for of, and of for on."—New Gram., p. 345. And among the expressions which Campbell censures under the name of vulgarism, are the following: "'Tis my humble request you will be particular in speaking to the following points."—Guardian, No. 57. "The preposition ought to have been on. Precisely of the same stamp is the on't for of it, so much used by one class of writers."—Philosophy of Rhet., p. 217. So far as I have observed, the use of of for on has never
