uns have any first person, or any objective case. Of
course he supposed that all nouns that were uttered after interjections,
whether they were of the second person or of the third, were in the
nominative case; for he gave to nouns _two_ cases only, the nominative and
the possessive. And when he afterwards admitted the objective case of
nouns, he did not alter his remark, but left all his pupils ignorant of the
case of any noun that is used in exclamation or invocation. In his doctrine
of two cases, he followed Dr. Ash: from whom also he copied the rule which
I am criticising: "The _Interjections, O, Oh_, and _Ah_, require the
_accusative_ case of a pronoun in the _first_ Person: as, O _me_, Oh _me_,
Ah _me_: But the _Nominative_ in the _second_: as, O _thou_, O
_ye_."--_Ash's Gram._, p. 60. Or perhaps he had Bicknell's book, which was
later: "The _interjections O, oh_, and _ah_, require the accusative case of
a pronoun in the _first_ person after them; as, _O, me! Oh, me! Ah, me!_
But the nominative case in the _second_ person; as, _O, thou that rulest!
O, ye rulers of this land!_"--_The Grammatical Wreath_, Part I, p. 105.

[442] See _2 Sam._, xix, 4; also xviii, 33. Peirce has many times
_misquoted_ this text, or some part of it; and, what is remarkable, he
nowhere agrees either with himself or with the Bible! "O! Absalom! my
son!"--_Gram._, p. 283. "O Absalom! my son, my son! would _to_ God I had
died for thee."--_Ib._, p. 304. Pinneo also misquotes and perverts a part
of it, thus: "Oh, Absalom! my son"--_Primary Gram._, Revised Ed., p. 57.

[443] Of this example, Professor Bullions says, "This will be allowed to be
_a correct English sentence_, complete in itself, and requiring nothing to
be supplied. The phrase, '_being an expert dancer_,' is the subject of the
verb '_does entitle_;' but the word '_dancer_' in that phrase is neither
the subject of any verb, nor is governed by any word in the
sentence."--_Eng. Gram._, p. 52. It is because this word cannot have any
regular construction after the participle when the possessive case
precedes, that I deny his first proposition, and declare the sentence _not_
"to be correct English." But the Professor at length reasons himself into
the notion, that this indeterminate "_predicate_," as he erroneously calls
it, "is properly in the _objective case_, and in parsing, may correctly be
called the _objective indefinite_;" of which case, he says, "The following
are also examples: