tence, it corresponds with _such_, and
is immediately followed by a verb, as in the sentence now given. This is
probably done _from an ignorance_ of the real nominative to the verb. The
sentence _should stand thus_: 'These (_perhaps_ bonnets) are not such
(bonnets) _as_ (those bonnets) are (which are) worn.' Then] _are_ .... is
the substantive verb, third person, plural number, indicative mood, present
tense, and agrees with the noun _bonnets_, understood."--_Chandler's Common
School Gram._, p. 162. All this bears the marks of shallow flippancy. No
part of it is accurate. "_Are worn_," which the critic unwarrantably
divides by his misplaced curves and uncouth impletions, is a passive verb,
agreeing with the pronoun _as_. But the text itself is faulty, being
unintelligible through lack of a noun; for, of things that _may be_
"_worn_," there are a thousand different sorts. Is it not ridiculous, for a
great grammarian to offer, as a model for parsing, what he himself, "_from
an ignorance_ of the real nominative," can only interpret with a
"_perhaps?_" But the noun which this author supplies, the meaning which he
guesses that he had, he here very improperly stows away within a pair of
_crotchets_. Nor is it true, that "the sentence _should stand_" as above
exhibited; for the tautological correction not only has the very extreme of
awkwardness, but still makes _as_ a pronoun, a nominative, belonging after
_are_: so that the phrase, "_as are worn_," is only encumbered and
perverted by the verbose addition made. So of an other example given by
this expounder, in which _as_ is an objective: "He is exactly such a man
_as_ I saw."--_Chandler's Com. Sch. Gram._, p. 163. Here _as_ is the object
of _saw_. But the author says, "The sentence, however, _should stand_ thus:
'He is exactly such a man _as_ that person _was_ whom I saw.'"--_Ibid._
This inelegant alteration makes _as_ a nominative dependent on _was._

OBS. 22.--The use of _as_ for a relative pronoun, is almost entirely
confined to those connexions in which no other relative would be proper;
hence few instances occur, of its absolute equivalence to _who, which_, or
_that_, by which to establish its claim to the same rank. Examples like the
following, however, go far to prove it, if proof be necessary; because
_who_ and _which_ are here employed, where _as_ is certainly now required
by all good usage: "It is not only convenient, but absolutely needful, that
there be certain mee