name the preposition as such, and define the name, is, perhaps, all that is
necessary. But in syntactical parsing, in which we are to omit the
definitions, and state the construction, we ought to explain what terms the
preposition connects, and to give a rule adapted to this office of the
particle. It is a palpable defect in nearly all our grammars, that their
syntax contains NO SUCH RULE. "Prepositions govern the objective case," is
a rule for _the objective case_, and not for the syntax of _prepositions._
"Prepositions show the relations of words, and of the things or thoughts
expressed by them," is the principle for the latter; a principle which we
cannot neglect, without a shameful lameness in our interpretation;--that
is, when we pretend to parse syntactically.

OBS. 6.--Prepositions and their
objects very often precede the words on which they depend, and sometimes at
a great distance. Of this we have an example, at the opening of Milton's
Paradise Lost; where "_Of_," the first word, depends upon "_Sing_," in the
sixth line below; for the meaning is--"_Sing of man's first disobedience_,"
&c. To find the terms of the relation, is to find the _meaning_ of the
passage; a very useful exercise, provided the words have a meaning which is
worth knowing. The following text has for centuries afforded ground of
dispute, because it is doubtful in the original, as well as in many of the
versions, whether the preposition _in_ (i. e., "_in the regeneration_")
refers back to _have followed_, or forward to the last verb _shall sit_:
"Verily I say unto you that ye who have followed me, _in_ the regeneration,
when the Son of man shall sit _in_ the throne of his glory, ye also shall
sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."--_Matt._,
xix, 28. The second _in_ is manifestly wrong: the Greek word is [Greek:
epi], _on_ or _upon_; i. e., "_upon_ the throne of his glory."

OBS. 7.--The prepositions have, from their own nature, or from custom, such
an _adaptation_ to particular terms and relations, that they can seldom be
used one for an other without manifest impropriety. Example of error:
"Proper seasons should be allotted _for_ retirement."--_Murray's Key_, p.
173. We do not say "_allotted for_," but "_allotted to_:" hence _for_ is
either wrong in itself or misplaced. Such errors always vex an intelligent
reader. He sees the terms mismatched, the intended connection doubtful, the
sense obscured, and wishes the author