...that fooL preferred your style to mine. Certainly it had been better to have said, Which Wohfy, CsV. That relative ought very seldom to be omitted, and...particularly requisite to preserve a symmetry between the two mtmbers of the sentence. Yoa omit the relative too often, which is a colloquial barbarism, as Mr. Johnson...

...fools preferred your style to mine. Certainly it 1iad been better to have said, « which Wolsey,' &c. That relative ought very seldom to be omitted, and...with them, as the modish French style runs into the otlter extreme." p. 76. . It appears from this account that die French translations of Dr. Robertson's...

...that fools preferred your style to mine. Certainly it bad been better to have said, Which Hfohey, &c. That relative ought very seldom to be omitted, and is here particularly requisite to preicrve a symmetry between the two members of the sentence. Yo« omit the relative too often, wlu.ch...

...fools preferred your style to mine. Certainly it •had been better to have said, Which Wolsey, fcfc. That relative ought very seldom to be omitted, and is here particularly requisite to preierve a symmetry between the two mtmbers of the sentence. Yon omit the relative too often, which...

...fools preferred your style to mine. Certainly it had been better to have said, uA;rA Wolsey, ¡¡с. That relative ought very seldom to be omitted, and is here particularly requisite (o preserve a symmetry between the two members of the sentence. You omit the relative too often, which...

...fools preferred your style to mine. Certainly it had been better to have said, " which Wolsey," &c. That relative ought very seldom to be omitted, and...too often, which is a colloquial barbarism, as Mr. Johnfan calls it. Your periods are sometimes, though not oiten, too long. Suard will be embarrassed...

...fools preferred your .style to mine. Certainly it had been better to have said, " which \Volsey," &c. That relative ought very seldom to be omitted, and...requisite to preserve a symmetry between the two members ot the sentence. You omit the relative too often, which is a colloquial barbarism, as Mr. Johnion calls...

...fools " preferred your style to mine. Certainly it had been better " to have said, which Wolsey, $c. That relative ought very " seldom to be omitted, and...preserve a symmetry between the two members of the sen" tence. You omit the relative too often, which is a collo" quial barbarism, as Mr Johnson calls...

...said, "which Wohey t 8$c. That relative ought " very seldom to be omitted, and is here par" ticularly requisite to preserve a symmetry " between the two...embarrassed " with them, as the modish French style run& " into the other extreme." * * Considering the critical attention which Mr. Hume appears to have...

...that fools preferred your style to mine. Certainly it had been better to have said, which Wolsey, etc. That relative ought very seldom to be omitted, and...is a colloquial barbarism, as Mr. Johnson calls it. A copy of the History of Charles the fifth was sent to Voltaire, who in historical description had...