i, p.139.Though this, as I before observed, is not altogether true, he doubtless had very good reason to distinguish, in his teaching, "between _the sign_ and _the thing signified_." Yet, in his own definitions and explanations, he frequently _confounds_ these very things which he declares to be so widely different as not even to have a "necessary connexion." Errors of this kind are very common in all our English grammars.

Two instances occur in the following sentence; which also contains an error in doctrine, and is moreover obscure, or rather, in its literal sense, palpably absurd: "To substantives belong gender, number, and case; and _they_ are _all of_ the third person _when spoken of_, and of the second person _when spoken to_."-- _Murray's Gram._, p.

38; _Alger's Murray_, 16; _Merchant's_, 23; _Bacon's_, 12; _Maltby's_, 12; _Lyon's_, 7; _Guy's_, 4; _Ingersoll's_, 26; _S.

Putnam's_, 13; _T.

H.Miller's_, 17; _Rev.T.Smith's_, 13.