(Definition.)

Possessive pronouns are so called because they contain in themselves a possessive meaning, — being derived from the possessive case of personal pronouns, and represent the name of the object possessed.

(Remarks.) 1. The possessive pronouns are eight in number. Four of these, ours, yours, hers, theirs, cannot possibly be followed by nouns, and therefore can never be considered as possessive case of the personal, as some erroneously suppose.

2. Two, viz., mine, thine, may be used for my, thy,― possessive case of personal pronouns,—in solemn, formal, or poetic style.

3. The remaining two, viz., his, its, are also the possessive case of the personal pronouns.

4. The character of the four, mine, thine, his, its, is determined by their position or office in the sentence.

5. In declension they are all defective, as, on account of their possessive meaning, they all want the possessive case; but are all used in the nominative, or objective case, and without change of form in the two numbers. All the forms are shown in the paradigm.

6. The fact is these words are, from their nature and use, compound or complex elements, as they contain the possessive case of the corresponding personal pronouns, and the implied substantive idea or element of the object possessed; which latter element may be in the nominative or objective case; and this, being the basis, predominates, or gives character to the whole. The relation is therefore twofold,— first, possessive; second, subject or predicate nominative, or objective.

7. In parsing the possessive element or character is sufficiently explained by the name possessive; and they are therefore to be parsed precisely like the substantives they represent. The person and gender in the paradigm refer to the person and gender of the antecedent of the possessive element; and need not be spoken of in parsing unless it be required to parse both elements, which may be done with propriety.

The definition of relative pronouns in most grammars applies equally well to other classes of pronouns. Such a definition is defective, as it does not explain the distinguishing characteristics of relatives. I submit the following:

(Definition.) Relative Pronouns are those words which are used in explanatory clauses to represent and explain some noun or pronoun, called the antecedent, in the preceding clause; or they may sometimes relate to the whole of the preceding clause regarded as a sub

stantive; they therefore serve to connect the clauses, and hence are called also Adjective Subordinate Conjunctions.

Relative pronouns are to be distinguished as substantive and adjective; and the line of distinction divides simple and compound as well as interrogatives, which are certain relative pronouns used in asking questions. Adjective relatives deserve to rank first then among adjective pronouns, which name they take when they are followed by nouns which they limit.

We have seen that pronouns are divided into two generul classes; and it is an interesting coincidence at least, that adjectives are also divided into two general classes, descriptive and definitive; so too, nouns, into common and proper; verbs, according to their use, into transitive and intransitive, and according to their form, into regular and irregular; and conjunctions, into coördinate and subordinate.

Definitive adjectives are divided into five general classes, viz., pronominal, numeral, article, proper-substantive, restrictive. But we might banish the article,—i. e., the name,-if it were not for the whims of gramarians, as referred to in the last article. Then there would not be one class less, but one more, as the article would make two distinct kinds: the would be demonstrative, and an, indefinite, or better, unspecifying. But these, since there is nothing pronominal in their character, could not be classed with the demonstratives and indefinites already mentioned.

To the descriptive belong the participial and substantive descriptive adjectives.

Thus far has been presented only an epitome of this intensely interesting subject; probably too brief for some to duly understand or appreciate. And many persons would be likely to regard this treatment of the subject unfavorably, as being "too philosophical and abstruse," especially for younger scholars. We don't want to teach it all at once to the younger scholars; but by easy and gradual lessons; until finally the whole subject is mastered; and they have something worth striving for, and worth having, and to make the acquirement both easy and effectual, it is necessary to represent the subject either by a concise tabular arrangement, or better, by a pictorial representation in the shape of a diagram or tree,- or rather, two trees, one representing the pronoun, and the other the adjective,the branches representing the divisons and subdivisions,—uniting above to represent the union of the two in adjective pronouns and pronominal adjectives, in a manner, or by a principle, analogous to

the occasional union of trees in nature itself. If the scholar, or the teacher, does not here find something as interesting and as useful as Arithmetic, or Algebra, or Geography, or any other study, I am mistaken. These principles apply to general grammar,—to the grammars of all languages. Of course it will be found that in some languages there are some classes not enumerated here; but this results from idiomatic usages. To conform to the present customs it may be best to parse the substantive pronouns merely as personal pronouns, possessive pronouns, or relative pronouns; and interrogatives, merely as interrogative pronouns.

But we seldom find suitable models, or formulas, for parsing relative pronouns, and especially compound relatives. For instance, the teacher should know, and the scholar should be taught, that, to parse "what," for example, in the sentence, "I have possessed your grace of what I purpose," he is not called upon to parse "that that,” or "that which"; since "what," unlike the other compounds, is not a compound, but a primitive word,-from the Saxon hwat, or hwat,— and is called compound merely because, while it represents the antecedent, like all other relatives, it is used also to embody the idea of the antecedent itself. But the same is sometimes said of who and which when the antecedent is unexpressed; not with the same propriety, for by good usage the antecedent is inadmissable before what, but is easily and necessarily understood before who and which. Though for all I am able to see, usage alone makes the distinction. In parsing then, it is well enough to talk about "that which," &c., as being the equivalents of what; but parse WHAT. All thus far said relates to the substantive and declarative use of what.

Having said so much about parsing what, I will propose the following concise formula: What is a compound relative pronoun, neuter gender, third person, singular number, and the antecedent principle [of it] is objective case after of: (Rule ;) but the case of the relative principle, according to the rule for the relative, " depends on the construction of the clause to which it belongs :" objective case after purpose; (Rule.) The relative part is also an adjective subordinate conjunction, connecting the clauses, "I have possessed your grace of what," and "I purpose what;" (Rule.)

What is necessarily repeated in classifying the clauses. The compounds of what, as whatever, whatsoever, are to be parsed by the same model, with the additional remark that the antecedent principle

[part, or element,] is modified by ever, or soever, as the case may be,—an indefinite limiting adjective element having the force of any. In parsing the adjective pronouns and pronominal adjectives, as well as the other definitive adjectives we should be more explicit than merely to state the general class. Thus, "these" in the sentence, "These are Thy glorious works," is a demonstrative adjective pronoun; and in the sentence, "These things are true," "these" is a demonstrative pronominal definitive adjective.

The subject of the conjugation of the verb in the next number will close this series of articles on grammer.

J. M. R.

EXTRACT FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE---1865.

REPORT OF THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE IN 1791.

Ar a town meeting of the Freemen of the town of Providence, held, by adjournment, at the State House, on Monday the 1st day of August, 1791.

WHEREAS, the School Committee, who were, on the 6th and 13th days of June last, appointed and continued to make report respecting a petition pending before the meeting, for the erection of schools in this town, the expense whereof is to be paid out of the town treasury, presented the following report, to wit;

To the Freemen of the Town of Providence, to be convened next by adjournment, the underwritten members of your School Committee, in pursuance of your resolution at your last meeting, report:

After the most deliberate and mature consideration of the subject, we are clearly of opinion, that the measure proposed by the petitioners is eligible, for many reasons:

1st. Useful knowledge generally diffused among the people is the surest means of securing the rights of man, of promoting the public prosperity, and perpetuating the liberties of a country.

2d. As civil community is a kind of joint tenancy, in respect to the gifts and abilities of individual members thereof, it seems not improper that the disbursements necessary to qualify those individuals for usefulness, should be made from common funds.

3d. Our lives and properties, in a free State, are so much in the power of our fellow citizens, and the reciprocal advantages of daily intercourse are so much dependent on the information and integrity of of our neighbors, that no wise man can feel himself indifferent to the progress of useful learning, civilization, and the preservation of morals, in the community where he resides.

4th. The most reasonable object of getting wealth, after our own wants are supplied, is to benefit those who need it; and it may with great propriety be demanded,-in what way can those whose wealth is redundant, benefit their neighbors more certainly and permanently, than by furnishing to their children the means of qualifying them to become good and useful citizens, and of acquiring an honest livelihood?

5th. In schools established by public authority, and whose teachers are paid by the public, there will be reason to hope for a more faithful and impartial discharge of the duties of instruction, as well as of discipline, among the scholars, than can be expected when the masters are dependent on individuals for their support.

These, among other reasons, have led your Committee to investigate the means of accomplishing an object so desirable as the establishment of a competent number of schools in this town, to be supported at the town's expense. The Brick School House and Whipple Hall are buildings conveniently situated for our present purpose; but, as the former is, in part, and the latter wholly, private property, it will become necessary that the individual owners should be compensated, and the entire property of those buildings vested in the town.

The large number of inhabitants on the west side of the river renders it indispensably necessary that a suitable School House be erected on a lot to be provided for that purpose on that side of the river. It would also be proper that a fourth School House should be provided, on a convenient let to be procured near the lower end of the

town.

When your Committee consider, that, according to the late enumeration, there are in this town twelve hundred and fifty-six white males under sixteen years of age, they cannot estimate the number of scholars lower, than to require, at the Brick School House, a principal Master and Assistants; at the School House on the west side of the river, a principal Master and Assistants; and a principal Master and Assistants at each of the other School Houses; to be appointed by, and amenable to, a committee to be chosen by the Freemen annually assembled according to law, to be called the Town's School Committee, for the