Chapter III: Cases, or Nouns (2)

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 _êtes à Christ_, vous êtes done la posterité 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: 'Epeì dokim`æn zæteîte toû 'en 'emoì laloûntos Christoû.]"--"Quandoquidem experimentum quæritis 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, §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 meæ._"--_Beza_. "In diem _sepulturæ meæ_."--_Leusden_. "[Greek: 'Eis t`æn hæméran toû entaphiasmoû 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: Pròs tò entaphiásai 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 _Æschylus'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 _Arch_bishop 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.