ver a noun
is of the second person, it is in the nominative case independent;" (_Ib._,
p. 130;) and still more so, in supposing that, "The principle contained in
the note" [which tells what interjections _require_,] "_proves_ that every
noun of the second person is in the nominative case."--_Ib._, p. 164. A
falsehood proves nothing but the ignorance or the wickedness of him who
utters it. He is wrong too, as well as many others, in supposing that this
nominative independent is not a nominative absolute; for, "The vocative is
[_generally_, if not _always_,] absolute."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 142. But
that nouns of the second person are not always absolute or independent, nor
always in the nominative case, or the vocative, appears, I think, by the
following example: "This is the stone which was set at nought _of you
builders_."--_Acts_, iv, II. See Obs. 3d on Rule 8th.

OBS. 8.--The third person, when uttered in exclamation, with an
interjection before it, is parsed by Kirkham, not as being governed by the
interjection, either in the nominative case, according to his own argument
and own rule above cited, or in the objective, according to Nixon's notion
of the construction; nor yet as being put absolute in the nominative, as I
believe it generally, if not always is; but as being "the nominative to a
verb understood; as, 'Lo,' _there is_ 'the poor _Indian_!' '0, the _pain_'
_there is!_ 'the _bliss_' _there is_ 'IN dying!'"--_Kirkham's Gram._, p.
129. Pope's text is, "_Oh_ the pain, the bliss _of_ dying!" and, in all
that is here changed, the grammarian has perverted it, if not in all that
he has added. It is an other principle of Kirkham's Grammar, though a false
one, that, "Nouns have but two persons, the second and [the] third."--P.
37. So that, these two being disposed of agreeably to his own methods
above, which appear to include the second and third persons of pronouns
also, there remains to him nothing but the objective of the pronoun of the
first person to which he can suppose his other rule to apply; and I have
shown that there is no truth in it, even in regard to this. Yet, with the
strongest professions of adhering to the principles, and even to "the
language" of Lindley Murray, this gentleman, by copying somebody else in
preference to "that eminent philologist," has made himself one of those by
whom Murray's erroneous remark on _O, oh_, and _ah_, with pronouns of the
first and second persons, is not only stretched