Who, but a child taught by language like this, would ever think of _speaking to a noun_?
or, that a noun of the second person _could not be spoken of_?
or, that a noun cannot be put in the _first person_, so as to agree with _I_ or _we_?
Murray himself once taught, that, "Pronouns _must always agree_ with their antecedents, _and_ the nouns for which they stand, in gender, number, and _person_;" and he departed from a true and important principle of syntax, when he altered his rule to its present form.

But I have said that the sentence above is obscure, or its meaning absurd.

What does the pronoun "_they_" represent?
"_Substantives_," according to the author's intent; but "_gender, number_, and _case_," according to the obvious construction of the words.

Let us try a parallel:" To scriveners belong pen, ink, and paper; and _they_ are all of primary importance when there is occasion to use them, and of none at all when they are not needed." Now, if this sentence is _obscure_, the other is not less so; but, if this is perfectly _clear_, so that what is said is obviously and only what is intended, then it is equally clear, that what is said in the former, is gross absurdity, and that the words cannot reasonably be construed into the sense which the writer, and his copyists, designed.
32.

All Murray's grammars, not excepting the two volumes octavo, are as _incomplete_ as they are _inaccurate_; being deficient in many things which are of so great importance that they should not be excluded from the very smallest epitome.