OBS. 4.—A very common rule for apposition in Latin, is this: "Substantives signifying the same thing, agree in case."—Adam's Latin Gram., p. 156. The same has also been applied to our language: "Substantives denoting the same person or thing, agree in case."—Bullions's E. Gram., p. 102. This rule is, for two reasons, very faulty: first, because the apposition of pronouns seems not to be included it; secondly, because two nouns that are not in the same case, do sometimes "signify" or "denote" the same thing. Thus, "the city of London," means only the city London; "the land of Egypt," is only Egypt; and "the person of Richard" is Richard himself. Dr. Webster defines apposition to be, "The placing of two nouns in the same case, without a connecting word between them."—Octavo Dict. This, too, excludes the pronouns, and has exceptions, both various and numerous. In the first place, the apposition may be of more than two nouns, without any connective; as, "Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law."—Ezra, vii, 21. Secondly, two nouns connected by a conjunction, may both be put in apposition with a preceding noun or pronoun; as, "God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."—Acts, ii, 36. "Who made me a judge or a divider over you."—Luke, xii, 14. Thirdly, the apposition may be of two nouns immediately connected by and, provided the two words denote but one person or thing; as, "This great philosopher and statesman was bred a printer." Fourthly, it may be of two words connected by as, expressing the idea of a partial or assumed identity; as, "Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."—2 Thess., iii, 15. "So that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God."—Ib., ii, 4. Fifthly, it may perhaps be of two words connected by than; as, "He left them no more than dead men."—Law and Grace, p. 28. Lastly, there is a near resemblance to apposition, when two equivalent nouns are connected by or; as, "The back of the hedgehog is covered with prickles, or spines."—Webster's Dict.

OBS. 5.—To the rule for apposition, as I have expressed it, there are properly no exceptions. But there are many puzzling examples of construction under it, some of which are but little short of exceptions; and upon such of these as are most likely to embarrass the learner, some further observations shall be made. The rule supposes the first word to be the principal term, with which the other word, or subsequent noun or pronoun, is in apposition; and it generally is so: but the explanatory word is sometimes placed first, especially among the poets; as,

"From bright'ning fields of ether fair disclos'd, Child of the sun, refulgent Summer comes."—Thomson.

OBS. 6.—The pronouns of the first and second persons are often placed before nouns merely to distinguish their person; as, "I John saw these things."—Bible. "But what is this to you receivers?"—Clarkson's Essay on Slavery, p. 108. "His praise, ye brooks, attune."—Thomson. In this case of apposition, the words are in general closely united, and either of them may be taken as the explanatory term. The learner will find it easier to parse the noun by rule third; or both nouns, if there be two: as, "I thy father-in-law Jethro am come unto thee."—Exod., xviii, 6. There are many other examples, in which it is of no moment, which of the terms we take for the principal; and to all such the rule may be applied literally: as, "Thy son Benhadad king of Syria hath sent me to thee."—2 Kings, viii, 9.

OBS. 7.—When two or more nouns of the possessive case are put in apposition, the possessive termination added to one, denotes the case of both or all; as, "For Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife"—Matt., xiv, 3; Mark, vi, 17. Here wife is in apposition with Herodias', and brother with Philip's; consequently all these words are reckoned to be in the possessive case. The Greek text, which is better, stands essentially thus: "For the sake of Herodias, the wife of Philip his brother." "For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect."—Isaiah, xlv, 4. Here, as Jacob and Israel are only different names for the same person or nation, the four nouns in Italics are, according to the rule, all made possessives by the one sign used; but the construction is not to be commended: it would be better to say, "For the sake of Jacob my servant, and Israel mine elect." "With Hyrcanus the high priest's consent."—Wood's Dict., w. Herod. "I called at Smith's, the bookseller; or, at Smith the bookseller's."— Bullions's E. Gram., p. 105. Two words, each having the possessive sign, can never be in apposition one with the other; because that sign has immediate reference to the governing noun expressed or understood after it; and if it be repeated, separate governing nouns will be implied, and the apposition will be destroyed.[344]

OBS. 8.—If the foregoing remark is just, the apposition of two nouns in the possessive case, requires the possessive sign to be added to that noun which immediately precedes the governing word, whether expressed or understood, and positively excludes it from the other. The sign of the case is added, sometimes to the former, and sometimes to the latter noun, but never to both: or, if added to both, the two words are no longer in apposition. Example: "And for that reason they ascribe to him a great part of his father Nimrod's, or Belus's actions."—Rollin's An. Hist., Vol. ii, p. 6. Here father and Nimrod's are in strict apposition; but if actions governs Belus's, the same word is implied to govern Nimrod's, and the two names are not in apposition, though they are in the same case and mean the same person.

OBS. 9.—Dr. Priestley says, "Some would say, 'I left the parcel at Mr. Smith's, the bookseller;' others, 'at Mr. Smith the bookseller's;' and perhaps others, at 'Mr. Smith's the bookseller's.' The last of these forms is most agreeable to the Latin idiom, but the first seems to be more natural in ours; and if the addition consist [consists, says Murray,] of two or more words, the case seems to be very clear; as, 'I left the parcel at Mr. Smith's the bookseller and stationer;' i. e. at Mr. Smith's, who is a bookseller and stationer."—Priestley's Gram., p. 70. Here the examples, if rightly pointed, would all be right; but the ellipsis supposed, not only destroys the apposition, but converts the explanatory noun into a nominative. And in the phrase, "at Mr. Smiths, the bookseller's," there is no apposition, except that of Mr. with Smith's; for the governing noun house or store is understood as clearly after the one possessive sign as after the other. Churchill imagines that in Murray's example, "I reside at Lord Stormont's, my old patron and benefactor," the last two nouns are in the nominative after "who was" understood; and also erroneously suggests, that their joint apposition with Stormont's might be secured, by saying, less elegantly, "I reside at Lord Stormont's, my old patron and benefactor's."— Churchill's New Gram., p. 285. Lindley Murray, who tacitly takes from Priestley all that is quoted above, except the term "Mr.," and the notion of an ellipsis of "who is," assumes each of the three forms as an instance of apposition, but pronounces the first only to be "correct and proper." If, then, the first is elliptical, as Priestley suggests, and the others are ungrammatical, as Murray pretends to prove, we cannot have in reality any such construction as the apposition of two possessives; for the sign of the case cannot possibly be added in more than these three ways. But Murray does not adhere at all to his own decision, as may be seen by his subsequent remarks and examples, on the same page; as, "The emperor Leopold's;"—"Dionysius the tyrant's;"—"For David my servant's sake;"—"Give me here John the Baptist's head;"—"Paul the apostle's advice." See Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 176; Smith's New Gram., p. 150; and others.

OBS. 10.—An explanatory noun without the possessive sign, seems sometimes to be put in apposition with a pronoun of the possessive case; and, if introduced by the conjunction as, it may either precede or follow the pronoun: thus, "I rejoice in your success as an instructer."— Sanborn's Gram., p. 244. "As an author, his 'Adventurer' is his capital work."—Murray's Sequel, p. 329.

"Thus shall mankind his guardian care engage, The promised father of a future age."—Pope.

But possibly such examples may be otherwise explained on the principle of ellipsis; as, [He being] "the promised father," &c. "As [he was] an author," &c. "As [you are] an instructer."

OBS. 11.—When a noun or pronoun is repeated for the sake of emphasis, or for the adding of an epithet, the word which is repeated may properly be said to be in apposition with that which is first introduced; or, if not, the repetition itself implies sameness of case: as, "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water."—Jer., ii, 13.

"I find the total of their hopes and fears Dreams, empty dreams."—Cowper's Task, p. 71.

OBS. 12.—A noun is sometimes put, as it were, in apposition to a sentence; being used (perhaps elliptically) to sum up the whole idea in one emphatic word, or short phrase. But, in such instances, the noun can seldom be said to have any positive relation that may determine its case; and, if alone, it will of course be in the nominative, by reason of its independence. Examples: "He permitted me to consult his library—a kindness which I shall not forget."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 148. "I have offended reputation—a most unnoble swerving."—Shakspeare. "I want a hero,—an uncommon want."—Byron. "Lopez took up the sonnet, and after reading it several times, frankly acknowledged that he did not understand it himself; a discovery which the poet probably never made before."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 280.

"In Christian hearts O for a pagan zeal! A needful, but opprobrious prayer!"—Young, N. ix, l. 995.

"Great standing miracle, that Heav'n assign'd Its only thinking thing this turn of mind."—Pope.

OBS. 13.—A distributive term in the singular number, is frequently construed in apposition with a comprehensive plural; as, "They reap vanity, every one with his neighbour."—Bible. "Go ye every man unto his city."—Ibid. So likewise with two or more singular nouns which are taken conjointly; as, "The Son and Spirit have each his proper office."—Butler's Analogy, p. 163. And sometimes a plural word is emphatically put after a series of particulars comprehended under it; as, "Ambition, interest, glory, all concurred."—Letters on Chivalry, p. 11. "Royalists, republicans, churchmen, sectaries, courtiers, patriots, all parties concurred in the illusion."—Hume's History, Vol. viii, p. 73. The foregoing examples are plain, but similar expressions sometimes require care, lest the distributive or collective term be so placed that its construction and meaning may be misapprehended. Examples: "We have turned every one to his own way."—Isaiah, liii, 6. Better: "We have every one turned to his own way." "For in many things we offend all."—James, iii, 2. Better: "For in many things we all offend." The latter readings doubtless convey the true sense of these texts. To the relation of apposition, it may be proper also to refer the construction of a singular noun taken in a distributive sense and repeated after by to denote order; as, "They went out one by one."—Bible. "Our whole company, man by man, ventured in."—Goldsmith. "To examine a book, page by page; to search a place, house by house."—Ward's Gram., p. 106. So too, perhaps, when the parts of a thing explain the whole; as,

"But those that sleep, and think not on their sins, Pinch them, arms, legs, backs, shoulders, sides, and shins." —Shak.

OBS. 14.—To express a reciprocal action or relation, the pronominal adjectives each other and one an other are employed: as, "They love each other;"—"They love one an other." The words, separately considered, are singular; but, taken together, they imply plurality; and they can be properly construed only after plurals, or singulars taken conjointly. Each other is usually applied to two persons or things; and one an other, to more than two. The impropriety of applying them otherwise, is noticed elsewhere; (see, in Part II, Obs. 15th, on the Classes of Adjectives;) so that we have here to examine only their relations of case. The terms, though reciprocal and closely united, are seldom or never in the same construction. If such expressions be analyzed, each and one will generally appear to be in the nominative case, and other in the objective; as, "They love each other;" i. e. each loves the other. "They love one an other;" i. e. any or every one loves any or every other. Each and one (—if the words be taken as cases, and not adjectively—) are properly in agreement or apposition with they, and other is governed by the verb. The terms, however, admit of other constructions; as, "Be ye helpers one of an other."—Bible. Here one is in apposition with ye, and other is governed by of. "Ye are one an other's joy."—Ib. Here one is in apposition with ye, and other's is in the possessive case, being governed by joy. "Love will make you one an other's joy." Here one is in the objective case, being in apposition with you, and other's is governed as before. "Men's confidence in one an other;"—"Their dependence one upon an other." Here the word one appears to be in apposition with the possessive going before; for it has already been shown, that words standing in that relation never take the possessive sign. But if its location after the preposition must make it objective, the whole object is the complex term, "one an other." "Grudge not one against an other."—James, v, 9. "Ne vous plaignez point les uns des autres."—French Bible. "Ne suspirate alius adversus alium."—Beza. "Ne ingemiscite adversus alii alios."—Leusden. "[Greek: Mae stenazete kat hallaelon]."—Greek New Testament.

OBS. 15.—The construction of the Latin terms alius alium, alii alios, &c., with that of the French l'un l'autre, l'un de l'autre, &c., appears, at first view, sufficiently to confirm the doctrine of the preceding observation; but, besides the frequent use, in Latin and Greek, of a reciprocal adverb to express the meaning of one an other or each other, there are, from each of these languages, some analogical arguments for taking the English terms together as compounds. The most common term in Greek for one an other, ([Greek: Hallaelon], dat. [Greek: hallaelois, ais, ois], acc. [Greek: hallaelous]: ab [Greek: hallos], alius,) is a single derivative word, the case of which is known by its termination; and each other is sometimes expressed in Latin by a compound: as, "Et osculantes se alterutrum, fleverunt pariter."—Vulgate. That is: "And kissing each other, they wept together." As this text speaks of but two persons, our translators have not expressed it well in the common version: "And they kissed one an other, and wept one with an other"—1 Sam., xx, 41. Alter-utrum is composed of a nominative and an accusative, like each-other; and, in the nature of things, there is no reason why the former should be compounded, and the latter not. Ordinarily, there seems to be no need of compounding either of them. But some examples occur, in which it is not easy to parse each other and one an other otherwise than as compounds: as, "He only recommended this, and not the washing of one another's feet."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 143.

"The Temple late two brother sergeants saw, Who deem'd each other oracles of law."—Pope, B. ii, Ep. 2.[345]

OBS. 16.—The common and the proper name of an object are very often associated, and put in apposition; as, "The river Thames,"—"The ship Albion,"—"The poet Cowper"—"Lake Erie,"—"Cape May"—"Mount Atlas." But, in English, the proper name of a place, when accompanied by the common name, is generally put in the objective case, and preceded by of; as, "The city of New York,"—"The land of Canaan,"—"The island of Cuba,"—"The peninsula of Yucatan." Yet in some instances, even of this kind, the immediate apposition is preferred; as, "That the city Sepphoris should be subordinate to the city Tiberias."—Life of Josephus, p. 142. In the following sentence, the preposition of is at least needless: "The law delighteth herself in the number of twelve; and the number of twelve is much respected in holy writ."—Coke, on Juries. Two or three late grammarians, supposing of always to indicate a possessive relation between one thing and an other, contend that it is no less improper, to say, "The city of London, the city of New Haven, the month of March, the islands of Cuba and Hispaniola, the towns of Exeter and Dover," than to say, "King of Solomon, Titus of the Roman Emperor, Paul of the apostle, or, Cicero of the orator."—See Barrett's Gram., p. 101; Emmons's, 16. I cannot but think there is some mistake in their mode of finding out what is proper or improper in grammar. Emmons scarcely achieved two pages more, before he forgot his criticism, and adopted the phrase, "in the city of New Haven."—Gram., p. 19.

OBS. 17.—When an object acquires a new name or character from the action of a verb, the new appellation is put in apposition with the object of the active verb, and in the nominative after the passive: as, "They named the child John;"—"The child was named John."—"They elected him president;"—"He was elected president." After the active verb, the acquired name must be parsed by Rule 3d; after the passive, by Rule 6th. In the following example, the pronominal adjective some, or the noun men understood after it, is the direct object of the verb gave, and the nouns expressed are in apposition with it: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers"—Ephesians, iv, 11. That is, "He bestowed some [men] as apostles; and some as prophets; and some as evangelists; and some as pastors and teachers." The common reader might easily mistake the meaning and construction of this text in two different ways; for he might take some to be either a dative case, meaning to some persons, or an adjective to the nouns which are here expressed. The punctuation, however, is calculated to show that the nouns are in apposition with some, or some men, in what the Latins call the accusative, case. But the version ought to be amended by the insertion of as, which would here be an express sign of the apposition intended.

OBS. 18.—Some authors teach that words in apposition must agree in person, number, and gender, as well as in case; but such agreement the following examples show not to be always necessary: "The Franks, a people of Germany."—W. Allen's Gram. "The Kenite tribe, the descendants of Hobab."—Milman's Hist. of the Jews. "But how can you a soul, still either hunger or thirst?"—Lucian's Dialogues, p. 14. "Who seized the wife of me his host, and fled."—Ib., p. 16.

"Thy gloomy grandeurs (Nature's most august. Inspiring aspect!) claim a grateful verse."—Young, N. ix, l. 566.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE III.

ERRORS OF WORDS IN APPOSITION.

"Now, therefore, come thou, let us make a covenant, I and thou."—Gen., xxxi, 44.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the pronouns I and thou, of the nominative case, are here put in apposition with the preceding pronoun us, which is objective. But, according to Rule 3d, "A noun or a personal pronoun, used to explain a preceding noun or pronoun, is put, by apposition, in the same case." Therefore, I and thou should be thee and me; (the first person, in our idiom, being usually put last;) thus, "Now, therefore, come thou, let us make a covenant, thee and me."]

"Now, therefore, come thou, we will make a covenant, thee and me."—Variation of Gen. "The word came not to Esau, the hunter, that stayed not at home; but to Jacob, the plain man, he that dwelt in tents."—Wm. Penn. "Not to every man, but to the man of God, (i. e.) he that is led by the spirit of God."—Barclays Works, i, 266. "For, admitting God to be a creditor, or he to whom the debt should be paid, and Christ he that satisfies or pays it on behalf of man the debtor, this question will arise, whether he paid that debt as God, or man, or both?"—Wm. Penn. "This Lord Jesus Christ, the heavenly Man, the Emmanuel, God with us, we own and believe in: he whom the high priests raged against," &c.—George Fox. "Christ, and Him crucified, was the Alpha and Omega of all his addresses, the fountain and foundation of his hope and trust."—Experience of Paul, p. 399. "'Christ and Him crucified' is the head, and only head, of the church."—Denison's Sermon. "But if 'Christ and Him crucified' are the burden of the ministry, such disastrous results are all avoided."—Ib. "He never let fall the least intimation, that himself, or any other person, whomsoever, was the object of worship."—Hannah Adams's View, p. 250. "Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."—1 Tim., v, 17. "Our Shepherd, him who is styled King of saints, will assuredly give his saints the victory."—Sermon. "It may seem odd to talk of we subscribers"—Fowlers True Eng. Gram., p. 20. "And they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters; for I will pour their wickedness upon them."—Jeremiah, xiv, 16. "Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants."—Philippians, ii, 25.

"Amidst the tumult of the routed train, The sons of false Antimachus were slain; He, who for bribes his faithless counsels sold, And voted Helen's stay for Paris' gold." —Pope, Iliad, B. xi. l. 161.

"See the vile King his iron sceptre bear— His only praise attends the pious Heir; He, in whose soul the virtues all conspire, The best good son, from the worst wicked sire." —DR. LOWTH: Union Poems, p. 19.

"Then from thy lips poured forth a joyful song To thy Redeemer!—yea, it poured along In most melodious energy of praise, To God, the Saviour, he of ancient days." —Arm Chair, p. 15.

RULE IV.—POSSESSIVES.

A Noun or a Pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the name of the thing possessed: as, "God's mercy prolongs man's life."—Allen.

"Theirs is the vanity, the learning thine; Touched by thy hand, again Rome's glories shine."—Pope.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE IV.

OBS. 1.—Though the ordinary syntax of the possessive case is sufficiently plain and easy, there is perhaps, among all the puzzling and disputable points of grammar, nothing more difficult of decision, than are some questions that occur respecting the right management of this case. That its usual construction is both clearly and properly stated in the foregoing rule, is what none will doubt or deny. But how many and what exceptions to this rule ought to be allowed, or whether any are justly demanded or not, are matters about which there may be much diversity of opinion. Having heretofore published the rule without any express exceptions, I am not now convinced that it is best to add any; yet are there three different modes of expression which might be plausibly exhibited in that character. Two of these would concern only the parser; and, for that reason, they seem not to be very important. The other involves the approval or reprehension of a great multitude of very common expressions, concerning which our ablest grammarians differ in opinion, and our most popular digest plainly contradicts itself. These points are; first, the apposition of possessives, and the supposed ellipses which may affect that construction; secondly, the government of the possessive case after is, was, &c., when the ownership of a thing is simply affirmed or denied; thirdly, the government of the possessive by a participle, as such—that is, while it retains the government and adjuncts of a participle.

OBS. 2.—The apposition of one possessive with an other, (as, "For David my servant's sake,") might doubtless be consistently made a formal exception to the direct government of the possessive by its controlling noun. But this apposition is only a sameness of construction, so that what governs the one, virtually governs the other. And if the case of any noun or pronoun is known and determined by the rule or relation of apposition, there can be no need of an exception to the foregoing rule for the purpose of parsing it, since that purpose is already answered by rule third. If the reader, by supposing an ellipsis which I should not, will resolve any given instance of this kind into something else than apposition, I have already shown him that some great grammarians have differed in the same way before. Useless ellipses, however, should never be supposed; and such perhaps is the following: "At Mr. Smith's [who is] the bookseller."—See Dr. Priestley's Gram., p. 71.

OBS. 3.—In all our Latin grammars, the verb sum, fui, esse, to be, is said (though not with strict propriety) sometimes to signify possession, property, or duty, and in that sense to govern the genitive case: as, "Est regis;"—"It is the king's."—"Hominis est errare;"—"It is man's to err."—"Pecus est Melibœi;"—"The flock is Meliboeus's." And sometimes, with like import, this verb, expressed or understood, may govern the dative; as, "Ego [sum] dilecto meo, et dilectus meus [est] mihi."—Vulgate. "I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine."—Solomon's Song, vi, 3. Here, as both the genitive and the dative are expressed in English by the possessive, if the former are governed by the verb, there seems to be precisely the same reason from the nature of the expression, and an additional one from analogy, for considering the latter to be so too. But all the annotators upon the Latin syntax suggest, that the genitive thus put after sum or est, is really governed, not by the verb, but by some noun understood; and with this idea, of an ellipsis in the construction, all our English grammarians appear to unite. They might not, however, find it very easy to tell by what noun the word beloved's or mine is governed, in the last example above; and so of many others, which are used in the same way: as, "There shall nothing die of all that is the children's of Israel."—Exod., ix, 4. The Latin here is, "Ut nihil omnino pereat ex his quae pertinent ad filios Israel."—Vulgate. That is,—"of all those which belong to the children of Israel."

"For thou art Freedom's now—and Fame's, One of the few, the immortal names, That were not born to die."—HALLECK: Marco Bozzaris.

OBS. 4.—Although the possessive case is always intrinsically an adjunct and therefore incapable of being used or comprehended in any sense that is positively abstract; yet we see that there are instances in which it is used with a certain degree of abstraction,—that is, with an actual separation from the name of the thing possessed; and that accordingly there are, in the simple personal pronouns, (where such a distinction is most needed,) two different forms of the case; the one adapted to the concrete, and the other to the abstract construction. That form of the pronoun, however, which is equivalent in sense to the concrete and the noun, is still the possessive case, and nothing more; as, "All mine are thine, and thine are mine."—John, xvii, 10. For if we suppose this equivalence to prove such a pronoun to be something more than the possessive case, as do some grammarians, we must suppose the same thing respecting the possessive case of a noun, whenever the relation of ownership or possession is simply affirmed or denied with such a noun put last: as, "For all things are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's."—1 Cor., iii, 21. By the second example placed under the rule, I meant to suggest, that the possessive case, when placed before or after this verb, (be,) might be parsed as being governed by the nominative; as we may suppose "theirs" to be governed by "vanity," and "thine" by "learning," these nouns being the names of the things possessed. But then we encounter a difficulty, whenever a pronoun happens to be the nominative; as, "Therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's"—1 Cor., vi, 20. Here the common resort would be to some ellipsis; and yet it must be confessed, that this mode of interpretation cannot but make some difference in the sense: as, "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed."—Gal., iii, 29. Here some may think the meaning to be, "If ye be Christ's seed, or children." But a truer version of the text would be, "If ye are of Christ, then are ye Abraham's seed."—"Que si vous etes a Christ, vous etes done la posterite d'Abraham."—French Bible.

OBS. 5.—Possession is the having of something, and if the possessive case is always an adjunct, referring either directly or indirectly to that which constitutes it a possessive, it would seem but reasonable, to limit the government of this case to that part of speech which is understood substantively—that is, to "the name of the thing possessed." Yet, in violation of this restriction, many grammarians admit, that a participle, with the regimen and adjuncts of a participle, may govern the possessive case; and some of them, at the same time, with astonishing inconsistency, aver, that the possessive case before a participle converts the latter into a noun, and necessarily deprives it of its regimen. Whether participles are worthy to form an exception to my rule or not, this palpable contradiction is one of the gravest faults of L. Murray's code of syntax. After copying from Lowth the doctrine that a participle with an article before it becomes a noun, and must drop the government and adjuncts of a participle, this author informs us, that the same principles are applicable to the pronoun and participle: as, "Much depends on their observing of the rule, and error will be the consequence of their neglecting of it;" in stead of, "their observing the rule," and "their neglecting it." And this doctrine he applies, with yet more positiveness, to the noun and participle; as if the error were still more glaring, to make an active participle govern a possessive noun; saying, "We shall perceive this more clearly, if we substitute a noun for the pronoun: as, 'Much depends upon Tyro's observing of the rule,' &c.; which is the same as, 'Much depends on Tyro's observance of the rule.' But, as this construction sounds rather harshly, it would, in general, be better to express the sentiment in the following, or some other form: 'Much depends on the rule's being observed; and error will be the consequence of its being neglected? or—'on observing the rule; and—of neglecting it.'"—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 193; Ingersoll's, 199; and others.

OBS. 6.—Here it is assumed, that "their observing the rule," or "Tyro's observing the rule," is an ungrammatical phrase; and, several different methods being suggested for its correction, a preference is at length given to what is perhaps not less objectionable than the original phrase itself. The last form offered, "on observing the rule," &c., is indeed correct enough in itself; but, as a substitute for the other, it is both inaccurate and insufficient. It merely omits the possessive case, and leaves the action of the participle undetermined in respect to the agent. For the possessive case before a real participle, denotes not the possessor of something, as in other instances, but the agent of the action, or the subject of the being or passion; and the simple question here is, whether this extraordinary use of the possessive case is, or is not, such an idiom of our language as ought to be justified. Participles may become nouns, if we choose to use them substantively; but can they govern the possessive case before them, while they govern also the objective after them, or while they have a participial meaning which is qualified by adverbs? If they can, Lowth, Murray, and others, are wrong in supposing the foregoing phrases to be ungrammatical, and in teaching that the possessive case before a participle converts it into a noun; and if they cannot, Priestley, Murray, Hiley, Wells, Weld, and others, are wrong in supposing that a participle, or a phrase beginning with a participle, may properly govern the possessive case. Compare Murray's seventh note under his Rule 10th, with the second under his Rule 14th. The same contradiction is taught by many other compilers. See Smith's New Grammar, pp. 152 and 162; Comly's Gram., 91 and 108; Ingersoll's, 180 and 199.

OBS. 7.—Concerning one of the forms of expression which Murray approves and prefers, among his corrections above, the learned doctors Lowth and Campbell appear to have formed very different opinions. The latter, in the chapter which, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, he devotes to disputed points in syntax, says: "There is only one other observation of Dr. Lowth, on which, before I conclude this article, I must beg leave to offer some remarks. 'Phrases like the following, though very common, are improper: Much depends upon the rule's being observed; and error will be the consequence of its being neglected. For here is a noun and a pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that is, under the government of another noun, but without other noun to govern it: for being observed, and being neglected, are not nouns: nor can you supply the place of the possessive case by the preposition of before the noun or pronoun.'[346] For my part," continues Campbell, "notwithstanding what is here very speciously urged, I am not satisfied that there is any fault in the phrases censured. They appear to me to be perfectly in the idiom of our tongue, and such as on some occasions could not easily be avoided, unless by recurring to circumlocution, an expedient which invariably tends to enervate the expression."—Philosophy of Rhetoric, B. ii, Ch. iv, p. 234.

OBS. 8.—Dr. Campbell, if I understand his argument, defends the foregoing expressions against the objections of Dr. Lowth, not on the ground that participles as such may govern the possessive case, but on the supposition that as the simple active participle may become a noun, and in that character govern the possessive case, so may the passive participle, and with equal propriety, notwithstanding it consists of two or more words, which must in this construction be considered as forming "one compound noun." I am not sure that he means to confine himself strictly to this latter ground, but if he does, his position cannot be said in any respect to contravene my rule for the possessive case. I do not, however, agree with him, either in the opinion which he offers, or in the negative which he attempts to prove. In view of the two examples, "Much depends upon the rule's being observed," and, "Much depends upon their observing of the rule," he says: "Now, although I allow both the modes of expression to be good, I think the first simpler and better than the second." Then, denying all faults, he proceeds: "Let us consider whether the former be liable to any objections, which do not equally affect the latter." But in his argument, he considers only the objections offered by Lowth, which indeed he sufficiently refutes. Now to me there appear to be other objections, which are better founded. In the first place, the two sentences are not equivalent in meaning; hence the preference suggested by this critic and others, is absurd. Secondly, a compound noun formed of two or three words without any hyphen, is at best such an anomaly, as we ought rather to avoid than to prefer. If these considerations do not positively condemn the former construction, they ought at least to prevent it from displacing the latter; and seldom is either to be preferred to the regular noun, which we can limit by the article or the possessive at pleasure: as, "Much depends on an observance of the rule."—"Much depends on their observance of the rule." Now these two sentences are equivalent to the two former, but not to each other; and, vice versa: that is, the two former are equivalent to these, but not to each other.[347]

OBS. 9.—From Dr. Campbell's commendation of Lowth, as having "given some excellent directions for preserving a proper distinction between the noun and the gerund,"—that is, between the participial noun and the participle,—it is fair to infer that he meant to preserve it himself; and yet, in the argument above mentioned, he appears to have carelessly framed one ambiguous or very erroneous sentence, from which, as I imagine, his views of this matter have been misconceived, and by which Murray and all his modifiers have been furnished with an example wherewith to confound this distinction, and also to contradict themselves. The sentence is this: "Much will depend on your pupil's composing, but more on his reading frequently."—Philos. of Rhet., p. 235. Volumes innumerable have gone abroad, into our schools and elsewhere, which pronounce this sentence to be "correct and proper." But after all, what does it mean? Does the adverb "frequently" qualify the verb "will depend" expressed in the sentence? or "will depend" understood after more? or both? or neither? Or does this adverb qualify the action of "reading?" or the action of "composing?" or both? or neither? But composing and reading, if they are mere nouns, cannot properly be qualified by any adverb; and, if they are called participles, the question recurs respecting the possessives. Besides, composing, as a participle, is commonly transitive; nor is it very fit for a noun, without some adjunct. And, when participles become nouns, their government (it is said) falls upon of, and their adverbs are usually converted into adjectives; as, "Much will depend on your pupil's composing of themes; but more, on his frequent reading." This may not be the author's meaning, for the example was originally composed as a mere mock sentence, or by way of "experiment;" and one may doubt whether its meaning was ever at all thought of by the philosopher. But, to make it a respectable example, some correction there must be; for, surely, no man can have any clear idea to communicate, which he cannot better express, than by imitating this loose phraseology. It is scarcely more correct, than to say, "Much will depend on an author's using, but more on his learning frequently." Yet is it commended as a model, either entire or in part, by Murray, Ingersoll, Fisk, R. C. Smith, Cooper, Lennie, Hiley, Bullions, C. Adams, A. H. Weld, and I know not how many other school critics.

OBS. 10.—That singular notion, so common in our grammars, that a participle and its adjuncts may form "one name" or "substantive phrase," and so govern the possessive case, where it is presumed the participle itself could not, is an invention worthy to have been always ascribed to its true author. For this doctrine, as I suppose, our grammarians are indebted to Dr. Priestley. In his grammar it stands thus: "When an entire clause of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea, or circumstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case. Thus, instead of saying, What is the meaning of this lady holding up her train, i. e. what is the meaning of the lady in holding up her train, we may say, What is the meaning of this lady's holding up her train; just as we say, What is the meaning of this lady's dress, &c. So we may either say, I remember it being reckoned a great exploit; or, perhaps more elegantly, I remember its being reckoned, &c."—Priestley's Gram., p. 69. Now, to say nothing of errors in punctuation, capitals, &c., there is scarcely any thing in all this passage, that is either conceived or worded properly. Yet, coining from a Doctor of Laws, and Fellow of the Royal Society, it is readily adopted by Murray, and for his sake by others; and so, with all its blunders, the vain gloss passes uncensured into the schools, as a rule and model for elegant composition. Dr. Priestley pretends to appreciate the difference between participles and participial nouns, but he rather contrives a fanciful distinction in the sense, than a real one in the construction. His only note on this point,—a note about the "horse running to-day," and the "horse's running to-day,"—I shall leave till we come to the syntax of participles.

OBS. 11.—Having prepared the reader to understand the origin of what is to follow, I now cite from L. Murray's code a paragraph which appears to be contradictory to his own doctrine, as suggested in the fifth observation above; and not only so, it is irreconcilable with any proper distinction between the participle and the participial noun. "When an entire clause of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea or circumstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case; thus, instead of saying, 'What is the reason of this person dismissing his servant so hastily?' that is, 'What is the reason of this person, in dismissing his servant so hastily?' we may say, and perhaps ought to say, 'What is the reason of this person's dismissing of his servant so hastily?' Just as we say, 'What is the reason of this person's hasty dismission of his servant?' So also, we say, 'I remember it being reckoned a great exploit;' or more properly, 'I remember its being reckoned,' &c. The following sentence is correct and proper: 'Much will depend on the pupil's composing, but more on his reading frequently.' It would not be accurate to say, 'Much will depend on the pupil composing.' &c. We also properly say; 'This will be the effect of the pupil's composing frequently;' instead of, 'Of the pupil composing frequently.' The participle, in such constructions, does the office of a substantive; and it should therefore have a CORRESPONDENT REGIMEN."—Murray's Gram., Rule 10th, Note 7; Ingersoll's, p. 180; Fisk's, 108; R. C. Smith's, 152; Alger's, 61; Merchant's, 84. See also Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 150; "Abridged Ed.," 117.[348]

OBS. 12.—Now, if it were as easy to prove that a participle, as such, or (what amounts to the same thing) a phrase beginning with a participle, ought never to govern the possessive case, as it is to show that every part and parcel of the foregoing citations from Priestley, Murray, and others, is both weakly conceived and badly written, I should neither have detained the reader so long on this topic, nor ever have placed it among the most puzzling points of grammar. Let it be observed, that what these writers absurdly call "an entire CLAUSE of a sentence," is found on examination to be some short PHRASE, the participle with its adjuncts, or even the participle alone, or with a single adverb only; as, "holding up her train,"—"dismissing his servant so hastily,"—"composing,"—"reading frequently,"—"composing frequently." And each of these, with an opposite error as great, they will have to be "one name," and to convey but "one idea;" supposing that by virtue of this imaginary oneness, it may govern the possessive case, and signify something which a "lady," or a "person," or a "pupil," may consistently possess. And then, to be wrong in every thing, they suggest that any noun on which such a participle, with its adjuncts, "depends, may be put in the genitive case;" whereas, such a change is seldom, if ever, admissible, and in our language, no participle ever can depend on any other than the nominative or the objective case. Every participle so depending is an adjunct to the noun; and every possessive, in its turn, is an adjunct to the word which governs it. In respect to construction, no terms differ more than a participle which governs the possessive case, and a participle which does not. These different constructions the contrivers of the foregoing rule, here take to be equivalent in meaning; whereas they elsewhere pretend to find in them quite different significations. The meaning is sometimes very different, and sometimes very similar; but seldom, if ever, are the terms convertible. And even if they were so, and the difference were nothing, would it not be better to adhere, where we can, to the analogy of General Grammar? In Greek and Latin, a participle may agree with a noun in the genitive case; but, if we regard analogy, that genitive must be Englished, not by the possessive case, but by of and the objective; as, "[Greek: 'Epei dokim'aen zaeteite tou 'en 'emoi lalountos Christou.]"—"Quandoquidem experimentum quaeritis in me loquentis Christi."—Beza. "Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me."—2 Cor., xiii, 3. We might here, perhaps, say, "of Christ's speaking in me," but is not the other form better? The French version is, "Puisque vous cherchez une preuve que Christ parle par moi;" and this, too, might be imitated in English: "Since ye seek a proof that Christ speaks by me."

OBS. 13.—As prepositions very naturally govern any of our participles except the simple perfect, it undoubtedly seems agreeable to our idiom not to disturb this government, when we would express the subject or agent of the being, action, or passion, between the preposition and the participle. Hence we find that the doer or the sufferer of the action is usually made its possessor, whenever the sense does not positively demand a different reading. Against this construction there is seldom any objection, if the participle be taken entirely as a noun, so that it may be called a participial noun; as, "Much depends on their observing of the rule."—Lowth, Campbell, and L. Murray. On the other hand, the participle after the objective is unobjectionable, if the noun or pronoun be the leading word in sense; as, "It would be idle to profess an apprehension of serious evil resulting in any respect from the utmost publicity being given to its contents."—London Eclectic Review, 1816. "The following is a beautiful instance of the sound of words corresponding to motion."—Murray's Gram., i, p. 333. "We shall discover many things partaking of both those characters."—West's Letters, p. 182. "To a person following the vulgar mode of omitting the comma."—Churchill's Gram., p. 365. But, in comparing the different constructions above noticed, writers are frequently puzzled to determine, and frequently too do they err in determining, which word shall be made the adjunct, and which the leading term. Now, wherever there is much doubt which of the two forms ought to be preferred, I think we may well conclude that both are wrong; especially, if there can easily be found for the idea an other expression that is undoubtedly clear and correct. Examples: "These appear to be instances of the present participle being used passively."—Murray's Gram., p. 64. "These are examples of the past participle being applied in an active sense."—Ib., 64. "We have some examples of adverbs being used for substantives."—Priestley's Gram., p. 134; Murray's, 198; Ingersoll's, 206; Fisk's, 140; Smith's, 165. "By a noun, pronoun, or adjective, being prefixed to the substantive."—Murray's Gram., p. 39; also Ingersoll's, Fisk's, Alger's, Maltby's, Merchant's, Bacon's, and others. Here, if their own rule is good for any thing, these authors ought rather to have preferred the possessive case; but strike out the word being, which is not necessary to the sense, and all question about the construction vanishes. Or if any body will justify these examples as they stand, let him observe that there are others, without number, to be justified on the same principle; as, "Much depends on the rule being observed."—"Much will depend on the pupil composing frequently." Again: "Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians coming to attack him."—Rollin, ii, 86. "Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians' coming to attack him." That is—"for their coming," and not, "for them coming;" but much better than either: "Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians to come and attack him." Again: "To prevent his army's being enclosed and hemmed in."—Rollin, ii, 89. "To prevent his army being enclosed and hemmed in." Both are wrong. Say, "To prevent his army from being enclosed and hemmed in." Again: "As a sign of God's fulfilling the promise."—Rollin, ii, 23. "As a sign of God fulfilling the promise." Both are objectionable. Say, "As a sign that God would fulfill the promise." Again: "There is affirmative evidence for Moses's being the author of these books."—Bp. Watson's Apology, p. 28. "The first argument you produce against Moses being the author of these books."—Ib., p. 29. Both are bad. Say,—"for Moses as being the author,"—"against Moses as being the author," &c.

OBS. 14.—Now, although thousands of sentences might easily be quoted, in which the possessive case is actually governed by a participle, and that participle not taken in every respect as a noun; yet I imagine, there are, of this kind, few examples, if any, the meaning of which might not be better expressed in some other way. There are surely none among all the examples which are presented by Priestley, Murray, and others, under their rule above. Nor would a thousand such as are there given, amount to any proof of the rule. They are all of them unreal or feigned sentences, made up for the occasion, and, like most others that are produced in the same way, made up badly—made up after some ungrammatical model. If a gentleman could possibly demand a lady's meaning in such an act as the holding-up of her train, he certainly would use none of Priestley's three questions, which, with such ridiculous and uninstructive pedantry, are repeated and expounded by Latham, in his Hand-Book, Sec.481; but would probably say, "Madam, what do you mean by holding up your train?" It was folly for the doctor to ask an other person, as if an other could guess her meaning better than he. The text with the possessive is therefore not to be corrected by inserting a hyphen and an of, after Murray's doctrine before cited; as, "What is the meaning of this lady's holding-up of her train?" Murray did well to reject this example, but as a specimen of English, his own is no better. The question which he asks, ought to have been, "Why did this person dismiss his servant so hastily?" Fisk has it in the following form: "What is the reason of this person's dismissing his servant so hastily?"—English Grammar Simplified, p. 108. This amender of grammars omits the of which Murray and others scrupulously insert to govern the noun servant, and boldly avows at once, what their rule implies, that, "Participles are sometimes used both as verbs and as nouns at the same time; as, 'By the mind's changing the object,' &c."—Ib., p. 134; so Emmons's Gram., p. 64. But he errs as much as they, and contradicts both himself and them. For one ought rather to say, "By the mind's changing of the object;" else changing, which "does the office of a noun," has not truly "a correspondent regimen." Yet of is useless after dismissing, unless we take away the adverb by which the participle is prevented from becoming a noun. "Dismissing of his servant so hastily," is in itself an ungrammatical phrase; and nothing but to omit either the preposition, or the two adverbs, can possibly make it right. Without the latter, it may follow the possessive; but without the former, our most approved grammars say it cannot. Some critics, however, object to the of, because the dismissing is not the servant's act; but this, as I shall hereafter show, is no valid objection: they stickle for a false rule.

OBS. 15.—Thus these authors, differing from one an other as they do, and each contradicting himself and some of the rest, are, as it would seem, all wrong in respect to the whole matter at issue. For whether the phrase in question be like Priestley's, or like Murray's, or like Fisk's, it is still, according to the best authorities, unfit to govern the possessive case; because, in stead of being a substantive, it is something more than a participle, and yet they take it substantively. They form this phrase in many different fashions, and yet each man of them pretends that what he approves, is just like the construction of a regular noun: "Just as we say, 'What is the reason of this person's hasty dismission of his servant.'"—Murray, Fisk, and others. "Just as we say, 'What is the meaning of this lady's dress,' &c."—Priestley. The meaning of a lady's dress, forsooth! The illustration is worthy of the doctrine taught. "An entire clause of a sentence" substantively possessed, is sufficiently like "the meaning of a lady's dress, &c." Cobbett despised andsoforths, for their lack of meaning; and I find none in this one, unless it be, "of tinsel and of fustian." This gloss therefore I wholly disapprove, judging the position more tenable, to deny, if we consequently must, that either a phrase or a participle, as such, can consistently govern the possessive case. For whatever word or term gives rise to the direct relation of property, and is rightly made to govern the possessive case, ought in reason to be a noun—ought to be the name of some substance, quality, state, action, passion, being, or thing. When therefore other parts of speech assume this relation, they naturally become nouns; as, "Against the day of my burying."—John, xii, 7. "Till the day of his showing unto Israel."—Luke, i, 80. "By my own showing."—Cowper, Life, p. 22. "By a fortune of my own getting."—Ib. "Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay."—James, v, 12. "Prate of my whereabout."—Shah.

OBS. 16.—The government of possessives by "entire clauses" or "substantive phrases," as they are sometimes called, I am persuaded, may best be disposed of, in almost every instance, by charging the construction with impropriety or awkwardness, and substituting for it some better phraseology. For example, our grammars abound with sentences like the following, and call them good English: (1.) "So we may either say, 'I remember it being reckoned a great exploit;' or perhaps more elegantly, 'I remember its being reckoned a great exploit.'"—Priestley, Murray, and others. Here both modes are wrong; the latter, especially; because it violates a general rule of syntax, in regard to the case of the noun exploit. Say, "I remember it was reckoned a great exploit." Again: (2.) "We also properly say, 'This will be the effect of the pupil's composing frequently.'"—Murray's Gram., p. 179; and others. Better, "This will be the effect, if the pupil compose frequently." But this sentence is fictitious, and one may doubt whether good authors can be found who use compose or composing as being intransitive. (3.) "What can be the reason of the committee's having delayed this business?"—Murray's Key, p. 223. Say, "Why have the committee delayed this business?" (4.) "What can be the cause of the parliament's neglecting so important a business?"—Ib., p. 195. Say, "Why does the parliament neglect so important a business?" (5.) "The time of William's making the experiment, at length arrived."—Ib., p. 195. Say, "The time for William to make the experiment, at length arrived." (6.) "I hope this is the last time of my acting so imprudently."—Ib., p. 263. Say, "I hope I shall never again act so imprudently." (7.) "If I were to give a reason for their looking so well, it would be, that they rise early."—Ib., p. 263. Say, "I should attribute their healthful appearance to their early rising." (8.) "The tutor said, that diligence and application to study were necessary to our becoming good scholars."—Cooper's Gram., p. 145. Here is an anomaly in the construction of the noun scholars. Say, "The tutor said, that diligent application to study was necessary to our success in learning." (9.) "The reason of his having acted in the manner he did, was not fully explained."—Murray's Key, p. 263. This author has a very singular mode of giving "STRENGTH" to weak sentences. The faulty text here was. "The reason why he acted in the manner he did, was not fully explained."—Murray's Exercises, p. 131. This is much better than the other, but I should choose to say. "The reason of his conduct was not fully explained." For, surely, the "one idea or circumstance" of his "having acted in the manner in which he did act," may be quite as forcibly named by the one word conduct, as by all this verbiage, this "substantive phrase," or "entire clause," of such cumbrous length.

OBS. 17.—The foregoing observations tend to show, that the government of possessives by participles, is in general a construction little to be commended, if at all allowed. I thus narrow down the application of the principle, but do not hereby determine it to be altogether wrong. There are other arguments, both for and against the doctrine, which must be taken into the account, before we can fully decide the question. The double construction which may be given to infinitive verbs; the Greek idiom which allows to such verbs an article before them and an objective after them; the mixed character of the Latin gerund, part noun, part verb; the use or substitution of the participle in English for the gerund in Latin;—all these afford so many reasons by analogy, for allowing that our participle—except it be the perfect—since it participates the properties of a verb and a noun, as well as those of a verb and an adjective, may unite in itself a double construction, and be taken substantively in one relation, and participially in an other. Accordingly some grammarians so define it; and many writers so use it; both parties disregarding the distinction between the participle and the participial noun, and justifying the construction of the former, not only as a proper participle after its noun, and as a gerundive after its preposition; not only as a participial adjective before its noun, and as a participial noun, in the regular syntax of a noun; but also as a mixed term, in the double character of noun and participle at once. Nor are these its only uses; for, after an auxiliary, it is the main verb; and in a few instances, it passes into a preposition, an adverb, or something else. Thus have we from the verb a single derivative, which fairly ranks with about half the different parts of speech, and takes distinct constructions even more numerous; and yet these authors scruple not to make of it a hybridous thing, neither participle nor noun, but constructively both. "But this," says Lowth, "is inconsistent; let it be either the one or the other, and abide by its proper construction."—Gram., p. 82. And so say I—as asserting the general principle, and leaving the reader to judge of its exceptions. Because, without this mongrel character, the participle in our language has a multiplicity of uses unparalleled in any other; and because it seldom happens that the idea intended by this double construction may not be otherwise expressed more elegantly. But if it sometimes seem proper that the gerundive participle should be allowed to govern the possessive case, no exception to my rule is needed for the parsing of such possessive; because whatever is invested with such government, whether rightly or wrongly, is assumed as "the name of something possessed."

OBS. 18.—The reader may have observed, that in the use of participial nouns, the distinction of voice in the participle is sometimes disregarded. Thus, "Against the day of my burying," means, "Against the day of my being buried." But in this instance the usual noun burial or funeral would have been better than either: "Against the day of my burial." I. e., "In diem funerationis meae."—Beza. "In diem sepulturae meae."—Leusden. "[Greek: 'Eis t'aen haemeran tou entaphiasmou mou.]"—John, xii, 7. In an other text, this noun is very properly used for the Greek infinitive, and the Latin gerund; as, "For my burial."—Matt., xxvi, 12. "Ad funerandum me."—Beza. "Ad sepeliendum me."—Leusden. Literally: "For burying me." "[Greek: Pros to entaphiasai me.]" Nearly: "For to have me buried." Not all that is allowable, is commendable; and if either of the uncompounded terms be found a fit substitute for the compound participial noun, it is better to dispense with the latter, on account of its dissimilarity to other nouns: as, "Which only proceed upon the question's being begged."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 361. Better, "Which only proceed upon a begging of the question." "The king's having conquered in the battle, established his throne."—Nixon's Parser, p. 128. Better, "The king's conquering in the battle;" for, in the participial noun, the distinction of tense, or of previous completion, is as needless as that of voice. "The fleet's having sailed prevented mutiny."—Ib., p. 78. Better, "The sailing of the fleet,"—or, "The fleet's sailing" &c. "The prince's being murdered excited their pity."—Ibid. Better, "The prince's murder excited their indignation."

OBS. 19.—In some instances, as it appears, not a little difficulty is experienced by our grammarians, respecting the addition or the omission of the possessive sign, the terminational apostrophic s, which in nouns is the ordinary index of the possessive case. Let it be remembered that every possessive is governed, or ought to be governed, by some noun expressed or understood, except such as (without the possessive sign) are put in apposition with others so governed; and for every possessive termination there must be a separate governing word, which, if it is not expressed, is shown by the possessive sign to be understood. The possessive sign itself may and must be omitted in certain cases; but, because it can never be inserted or discarded without suggesting or discarding a governing noun, it is never omitted by ellipsis, as Buchanan, Murray, Nixon, and many others, erroneously teach. The four lines of Note 2d below, are sufficient to show, in every instance, when it must be used, and when omitted; but Murray, after as many octavo pages on the point, still leaves it perplexed and undetermined. If a person knows what he means to say, let him express it according to the Note, and he will not fail to use just as many apostrophes and Esses as he ought. How absurd then is that common doctrine of ignorance, which Nixon has gathered from Allen and Murray, his chief oracles! "If several nouns in the genitive case, are immediately connected by a conjunction, the apostrophic s is annexed to the last, but understood to the rest; as, Neither John (i. e. John's) nor Eliza's books."—English Parser, p. 115. The author gives fifteen other examples like this, all of them bad English, or at any rate, not adapted to the sense which he intends!

OBS. 20.—The possessive case generally comes immediately before the governing noun, expressed or understood; as, "All nature's difference keeps all nature's peace."—Pope. "Lady! be thine (i. e., thy walk) the Christian's walk."—Chr. Observer. "Some of AEschylus's [plays] and Euripides's plays are opened in this manner."—Blair's Rhet., p. 459. And in this order one possessive sometimes governs an other: as, "Peter's wife's mother;"—"Paul's sister's son."—Bible. But, to this general principle of arrangement, there are some exceptions: as,

1. When the governing noun has an adjective, this may intervene; as, "Flora's earliest smells."—Milton. "Of man's first disobedience."—Id. In the following phrase from the Spectator, "Of Will's last night's lecture," it is not very clear, whether Will's is governed by night's or by lecture; yet it violates a general principle of our grammar, to suppose the latter; because, on this supposition, two possessives, each having the sign, will be governed by one noun.

2. When the possessive is affirmed or denied; as, "The book is mine, and not John's." But here the governing noun may be supplied in its proper place; and, in some such instances, it must be, else a pronoun or the verb will be the only governing word: as, "Ye are Christ's [disciples, or people]; and Christ is God's" [son].—St. Paul. Whether this phraseology is thus elliptical or not, is questionable. See Obs. 4th, in this series.

3. When the case occurs without the sign, either by apposition or by connexion; as, "In her brother Absalom's house."—Bible. "David and Jonathan's friendship."—Allen. "Adam and Eve's morning hymn."—Dr. Ash. "Behold the heaven, and the heaven of heavens, is the Lord's thy God."—Deut.,, x, 14. "For peace and quiet's sake."—Cowper. "To the beginning of King James the First's reign."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 32.

OBS. 21—The possessive case is in general (though not always) equivalent to the preposition of and the objective; as, "Of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son."—John, xiii, 2. "To Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon."—Ib., xiii, 26. On account of this one-sided equivalence, many grammarians erroneously reckon the latter to be a "genitive case" as well as the former. But they ought to remember, that the preposition is used more frequently than the possessive, and in a variety of senses that cannot be interpreted by this case; as, "Of some of the books of each of these classes of literature, a catalogue will be given at the end of the work."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 178. Murray calls this a "laborious mode of expression," and doubtless it might be a little improved by substituting in for the third of; but my argument is, that the meaning conveyed cannot be expressed by possessives. The notion that of forms a genitive case, led Priestley to suggest, that our language admits a "double genitive;" as, "This book of my friend's."—Priestley's Gram., p. 71. "It is a discovery of Sir Isaac Newton's."—Ib., p. 72. "This exactness of his."—STERNE: ib. The doctrine has since passed into nearly all our grammars; yet is there no double case here, as I shall presently show.

OBS. 22.—Where the governing noun cannot be easily mistaken, it is often omitted by ellipsis: as, "At the alderman's" [house];—"St. Paul's" [church];—"A book of my brother's" [books];—"A subject of the emperor's" [subjects];—"A friend of mine;" i. e., one of my friends. "Shall we say that Sacrificing was a pure invention of Adam's, or of Cain or Abel's?"—Leslie, on Tythes, p. 93. That is—of Adam's inventions, or of Cain or Abel's inventions. The Rev. David Blair, unable to resolve this phraseology to his own satisfaction, absurdly sets it down among what he calls "ERRONEOUS OR VULGAR PHRASES." His examples are these: "A poem of Pope's;"—"A soldier of the king's;"—"That is a horse of my father's."—Blair's Practical Gram., p. 110, 111. He ought to have supplied the plural nouns, poems, soldiers, horses. This is the true explanation of all the "double genitives" which our grammarians discover; for when the first noun is partitive, it naturally suggests more or other things of the same kind, belonging to this possessor; and when such is not the meaning, this construction is improper. In the following example, the noun eyes is understood after his:

"Ev'n his, the warrior's eyes, were forced to yield, That saw, without a tear, Pharsalia's field." —Rowe's Lucan, B. viii, l. 144.

OBS. 23.—When two or more nouns of the possessive form are in any way connected, they usually refer to things individually different but of the same name; and when such is the meaning, the governing noun, which we always suppress somewhere to avoid tautology, is understood wherever the sign is added without it; as, "A father's or mother's sister is an aunt."—Dr. Webster. That is, "A father's sister or a mother's sister is an aunt." "In the same commemorative acts of the senate, were thy name, thy father's, thy brother's, and the emperor's."—Zenobia, Vol. i, p. 231.

"From Stiles's pocket into Nokes's" [pocket]. —Hudibras, B. iii, C. iii, l. 715.

"Add Nature's, Custom's, Reason's, Passion's strife." —Pope, Brit. Poets, Vol. vi, p. 383.

It will be observed that in all these examples the governing noun is singular; and, certainly, it must be so, if, with more than one possessive sign, we mean to represent each possessor as having or possessing but one object. If the noun be made plural where it is expressed, it will also be plural where it is implied. It is good English to say, "A father's or mother's sisters are aunts;" but the meaning is, "A father's sisters or a mother's sisters are aunts." But a recent school critic teaches differently, thus: "When different things of the same name belong to different possessors, the sign should be annexed to each; as, Adams's, Davies's, and Perkins' Arithmetics; i. e., three different books."—Spencer's Gram., p. 47. Here the example is fictitious, and has almost as many errors as words. It would be much better English to say, "Adams's, Davies's, and Perkins's Arithmetic;" though the objective form with of would, perhaps, be still more agreeable for these peculiar names. Spencer, whose Grammar abounds with useless repetitions, repeats his note elsewhere, with the following illustrations: "E. g. Olmstead's and Comstock's Philosophies. Gould's Adam's Latin Grammar."—Ib., p. 106. The latter example is no better suited to his text, than "Peter's wife's mother;" and the former is fit only to mean, "Olmstead's Philosophies and Comstock's Philosophies." To speak of the two books only, say," Olmstead's Philosophy and Comstock's."

OBS. 24.—The possessive sign is sometimes annexed to that part of a compound name, which is, of itself, in the objective case; as, "At his father-in-law's residence." Here, "At the residence of his father-in-law," would be quite as agreeable; and, as for the plural, one would hardly think of saying, "Men's wedding parties are usually held at their fathers-in-law's houses." When the compound is formed with of, to prevent a repetition of this particle, the possessive sign is sometimes added as above; and yet the hyphen is not commonly inserted in the phrase, as I think it ought to be. Examples: "The duke of Bridgewater's canal;"—"The bishop of Landaff's excellent book;"—"The Lord mayor of London's authority;"—"The captain of the guard's house."—Murray's Gram., p. 176. "The Bishop of Cambray's writings on eloquence."—Blair's Rhet., p. 345. "The bard of Lomond's lay is done."—Queen's Wake, p. 99. "For the kingdom of God's sake."—Luke, xviii, 29. "Of the children of Israel's half."—Numbers, xxxi, 30. From these examples it would seem, that the possessive sign has a less intimate alliance with the possessive case, than with the governing noun; or, at any rate, a dependence less close than that of the objective noun which here assumes it. And since the two nouns here so intimately joined by of, cannot be explained separately as forming two cases, but must be parsed together as one name governed in the usual way, I should either adopt some other phraseology, or write the compound terms with hyphens, thus: "The Duke-of-Bridgewater's canal;"—"The Bishop-of-Landaff's excellent book;"—"The Bard-of- Lomond's lay is done." But there is commonly some better mode of correcting such phrases. With deference to Murray and others, "The King of Great Britain's prerogative," [349] is but an untoward way of saying, "The prerogative of the British King;" and, "The Lord mayor of London's authority," may quite as well be written, "The authority of London's Lord Mayor." Blair, who for brevity robs the Archbishop of half his title, might as well have said, "Fenelon's writings on eloquence." "Propter regnum Dei," might have been rendered, "For the kingdom of God;"—"For the sake of the kingdom of God;"—or, "For the sake of God's kingdom." And in lieu of the other text, we might say, "Of the Israelites' half."

OBS. 25.—"Little explanatory circumstances," says Priestley, "are particularly awkward between the genitive case, and the word which usually follows it; as, 'She began to extol the farmer's, as she called him, excellent understanding.' Harriet Watson, Vol. i, p. 27."—Priestley's Gram., p 174. Murray assumes this remark, and adds respecting the example, "It ought to be, 'the excellent understanding of the farmer, as she called him.' "—Murray's Gram., p. 175. Intersertions of this kind are as uncommon as they are uncouth. Murray, it seems, found none for his Exercises, but made up a couple to suit his purpose. The following might have answered as well for an other: "Monsieur D'acier observes, that Zeno's (the Founder of the Sect,) opinion was Fair and Defensible in these Points."—Colliers Antoninus, p. ii.

OBS. 26.—It is so usual a practice in our language, to put the possessive sign always and only where the two terms of the possessive relation meet, that this ending is liable to be added to any adjunct which can be taken as a part of the former noun or name; as, (1.) "The court-martial's violent proceedings." Here the plural would be courts-martial; but the possessive sign must be at the end. (2.) "In Henry the Eighth's time."—Walker's Key, Introd., p. 11. This phrase can be justified only by supposing the adjective a part of the name. Better, "In the time of Henry the Eighth." (3.) "And strengthened with a year or two's age."—Locke, on Education, p. 6. Here two's is put for two years; and, I think, improperly; because the sign is such as suits the former noun, and not the plural. Better, "And strengthened with a year's age or more." The word two however is declinable as a noun, and possibly it may be so taken in Locke's phrase. (4.) "This rule is often infringed, by the case absolute's not being properly distinguished from certain forms of expression apparently similar to it."—Murray's Gram., p. 155; Fisk's, 113; Ingersoll's, 210. Here the possessive sign, being appended to a distinct adjective, and followed by nothing that can be called a noun, is employed as absurdly as it well can be. Say, "This rule is often infringed by an improper use of the nominative absolute;" for this is precisely what these authors mean. (5.) "The participle is distinguished from the adjective by the former's expressing the idea of time, and the latter's denoting only a quality"—Murray's Gram., p. 65; Fisk's, 82; Ingersoll's, 45; Emmons's, 64; Alger's, 28. This is liable to nearly the same objections. Say, "The participle differs from an adjective by expressing the idea of time, whereas the adjective denotes only a quality." (6.) "The relatives that and as differ from who and which in the former's not being immediately joined to the governing word."—Nixon's Parser, p. 140. This is still worse, because former's, which is like a singular noun, has here a plural meaning; namely, "in the former terms' not being," &c. Say—"in that the former never follow the governing word."

OBS. 27.—The possessive termination is so far from being liable to suppression by ellipsis, agreeably to the nonsense of those interpreters who will have it to be "understood" wherever the case occurs without it, that on the contrary it is sometimes retained where there is an actual suppression of the noun to which it belongs. This appears to be the case whenever the pronominal adjectives former and latter are inflected, as above. The inflection of these, however, seems to be needless, and may well be reckoned improper. But, in the following line, the adjective elegantly takes the sign; because there is an ellipsis of both nouns; poor's being put for poor man's, and the governing noun joys being understood after it: "The rich man's joys increase, the poor's decay."—Goldsmith. So, in the following example, guilty's is put for guilty person's:

"Yet, wise and righteous ever, scorns to hear The fool's fond wishes, or the guilty's prayer." —Rowe's Lucan, B. v, l. 155.

This is a poetical license; and others of a like nature are sometimes met with. Our poets use the possessive case much more frequently than prose writers, and occasionally inflect words that are altogether invariable in prose; as,

"Eager that last great chance of war he waits, Where either's fall determines both their fates." —Ibid., B. vi, l. 13.

OBS. 28.—To avoid a concurrence of hissing sounds, the s of the possessive singular is sometimes omitted, and the apostrophe alone retained to mark the case: as, "For conscience' sake."—Bible. "Moses' minister."—Ib. "Felix' room."—Ib. "Achilles' wrath."—Pope. "Shiraz' walls."—Collins. "Epicurus' sty."—Beattie. "Douglas' daughter."—Scott. "For Douglas' sake."—Ib. "To his mistress' eyebrow."—Shak. This is a sort of poetic license, as is suggested in the 16th Observation upon the Cases of Nouns, in the Etymology. But in prose the elision should be very sparingly indulged; it is in general less agreeable, as well as less proper, than the regular form. Where is the propriety of saying, Hicks' Sermons, Barnes' Notes, Kames' Elements, Adams' Lectures, Josephus' Works, while we so uniformly say, in Charles's reign, St. James's Palace, and the like? The following examples are right: "At Westminster and Hicks's Hall."—Hudibras. "Lord Kames's Elements of Criticism."—Murray's Sequel, p. 331. "Of Rubens's allegorical pictures."—Hazlitt. "With respect to Burns's early education."—Dugald Stewart. "Isocrates's pomp;"—"Demosthenes's life."—Blair's Rhet., p. 242. "The repose of Epicurus's gods."—Wilson's Heb. Gram., p. 93.

"To Douglas's obscure abode."—Scott, L. L., C. iii, st. 28.

"Such was the Douglas's command."—Id., ib., C. ii, st. 36.

OBS. 29.—Some of our grammarians, drawing broad conclusions from a few particular examples, falsely teach as follows: "When a singular noun ends in ss, the apostrophe only is added; as, 'For goodness' sake:' except the word witness; as, 'The witness's testimony.' When a noun in the possessive case ends in ence, the s is omitted, but the apostrophe is retained; as, 'For conscience' sake.'"—Kirkham's Gram., p. 49; Hamlin's, 16; Smith's New Gram., 47.[350] Of principles or inferences very much like these, is the whole system of "Inductive Grammar" essentially made up. But is it not plain that heiress's, abbess's, peeress's, countess's, and many other words of the same form, are as good English as witness's? Did not Jane West write justly, "She made an attempt to look in at the dear dutchess's?"—Letters to a Lady, p. 95. Does not the Bible speak correctly of "an ass's head," sold at a great price?—2 Kings, vi, 25. Is Burns also wrong, about "miss's fine lunardi," and "miss's bonnet?"—Poems, p. 44. Or did Scott write inaccurately, whose guide "Led slowly through the pass's jaws?"—Lady of the Lake, p. 121. So much for the ss; nor is the rule for the termination ence, or (as Smith has it) nce, more true. Prince's and dunce's are as good possessives as any; and so are the following:

"That vice should triumph, virtue vice obey; This sprung some doubt of Providence's sway."—Parnell.

"And sweet Benevolence's mild command."—Lord Lyttleton.

"I heard the lance's shivering crash, As when the whirlwind rends the ash."—Sir Walter Scott.

OBS. 30.—The most common rule now in use for the construction of the possessive case, is a shred from the old code of Latin grammar: "One substantive governs another, signifying a different thing, in the possessive or genitive case."—L. Murray's Rule X. This canon not only leaves occasion for an additional one respecting pronouns of the possessive case, but it is also obscure in its phraseology, and too negligent of the various modes in which nouns may come together in English. All nouns used adjectively, and many that are compounded together, seem to form exceptions to it. But who can limit or enumerate these exceptions? Different combinations of nouns have so often little or no difference of meaning, or of relation to each other, and so frequently is the very same vocal expression written variously by our best scholars, and ablest lexicographers, that in many ordinary instances it seems scarcely possible to determine who or what is right. Thus, on the authority of Johnson, one might write, a stone's cast, or stone's throw; but Webster has it, stones-cast, or stones-throw; Maunder, stonecast, stonethrow; Chalmers, stonescast; Worcester, stone's-cast. So Johnson and Chalmers write stonesmickle, a bird; Webster has it, stone's-mickle; yet, all three refer to Ainsworth as their authority, and his word is stone-smickle: Littleton has it stone-smich. Johnson and Chalmers write, popeseye and sheep's eye; Walker, Maunder, and Worcester, popeseye and sheep's-eye; Scott has pope's-eye and sheepseye; Webster, pope's-eye and sheep's-eye, bird-eye, and birds-eye. Ainsworth has goats beard, for the name of a plant; Johnson, goatbeard; Webster, goat-beard and goats-beard. Ainsworth has prince's feather, for the amaranth; Johnson, Chalmers, Walker, and Maunder, write it princes-feather; Webster and Worcester, princes'-feather; Bolles has it princesfeather: and here they are all wrong, for the word should be prince's-feather. There are hundreds more of such terms; all as uncertain in their orthography as these.