s equivalent to
saying, that "one and the same sentence" _may be two different sentences_;
may, without error, be understood in two different senses; may be rightly
taken, resolved, and parsed in two different ways! Nay, it is equivalent to
a denial of the old logical position, that "It is impossible for a thing
_to be_ and _not be_ at the same time;" for it supposes "_but_," in the
instance given, to be at once both a conjunction and _not_ a conjunction,
both a preposition and _not_ a preposition, "_as the case may be_!" It is
true, that "one and the same word" may sometimes be differently parsed _by
different grammarians_, and possibly even an adept may doubt who or what is
right. But what ambiguity of construction, or what diversity of
interpretation, proceeding from the same hand, can these admissions be
supposed to warrant? The foregoing citation is a boyish attempt to justify
different modes of parsing the same expression, on the ground that the
expression itself is equivocal. "All fled _but John_," is thought to mean
equally well, "All fled _but he_," and, "All fled _but him_;" while these
latter expressions are erroneously presumed to be alike good English, and
to have a difference of meaning corresponding to their difference of
construction. Now, what is equivocal, or ambiguous, being therefore
erroneous, is to be _corrected_, rather than parsed in any way. But I deny
both the ambiguity and the difference of meaning which these critics
profess to find among the said phrases. "_John fled not, but all the rest
fled_," is virtually what is told us in each of them; but, in the form,
"All fled but _him_," it is told ungrammatically; in the other two,
correctly.

OBS. 18.--In Latin, _cum_ with an ablative, sometimes has, or is supposed
to have, the force of the conjunction _et_ with a nominative; as, "Dux
_cum_ aliquot principibus capiuntur."--LIVY: _W. Allen's Gram._, p. 131. In
imitation of this construction, some English writers have substituted
_with_ for _and_, and varied the verb accordingly; as, "A long course of
time, _with_ a variety of accidents and circumstances, _are_ requisite to
produce those revolutions."--HUME: _Allen's Gram._, p. 131; _Ware's_, 12;
_Priestley's_, 186. This phraseology, though censured by Allen, was
expressly approved by Priestley, who introduced the present example, as his
proof text under the following observation: "It is not necessary that the
two _subjects of an affirmation_ should