_Interjections must be followed_ by
the objective case of the pronoun in the first person; as, O _me!_ Ah _me!_
and by the nominative case of the second person; as, O _thou_ persecutor!
Oh _ye_ hypocrites!"--_Merchant's Murray_, p. 80; _Merchant's School
Gram._, p. 99. I imagine there is a difference between O and _oh_,[440] and
that this author, as well as Murray, in the first and the last of these
examples, has misapplied them both. Again: "_Interjections require_ the
objective case of a pronoun of the first person, and the nominative case of
the second; as, _Ah me! O thou_"--_Frost's El. of E. Gram._, p. 48. This,
too, is general, but equivocal; as if one case or both were necessary to
each interjection!

OBS. 7.--Of _nouns_, or of the _third person_, the three rules last cited
say nothing;[441] though it appears from other evidence, that their authors
supposed them applicable at least to _some nouns_ of the _second person_.
The supposition however was quite needless, because each of their grammars
contains an other Rule, that, "When an address is made, the noun or pronoun
is in the nominative case _independent_;" which, by the by, is far from
being universally true, either of the noun or of the pronoun. Russell
imagines, "The words _depending_ upon interjections, have so near a
resemblance to those in a direct address, that they may very properly be
classed under the same general head," and be parsed as being, "in the
nominative case _independent_." See his "_Abridgment of Murray's Grammar_,"
p. 91. He does not perceive that _depending_ and _independent_ are words
that contradict each other. Into the same inconsistency, do nearly all
those gentlemen fall, who ascribe to interjections a control over cases.
Even Kirkham, who so earnestly contends that what any words _require_ after
them they must necessarily _govern_, forgets his whole argument, or justly
disbelieves it, whenever he parses any noun that is uttered with an
interjection. In short, he applies his principle to nothing but the word
_me_ in the phrases, "_Ah me!_" "_Oh me!_" and "_Me miserable!_" and even
these he parses falsely. The second person used in the vocative, or the
nominative put absolute by direct address, whether an interjection be used
or not, he rightly explains as being "in the nominative case independent;"
as, "O _Jerusalem, Jerusalem!_"--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 130. "O _maid_ of
Inistore!"--_Ib._, p. 131. But he is wrong in saying that, "Whene