The Grammar of English Grammars · Part 33

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 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.

OBS. 31.--While discrepances like the foregoing abound in our best dictionaries, none of our grammars supply any hints tending to show which of these various forms we ought to prefer. Perhaps the following suggestions, together with the six Rules for the Figure of Words, in Part First, may enable the reader to decide these questions with sufficient accuracy. (1.) Two short radical nouns are apt to unite in a permanent compound, when the former, taking the sole accent, expresses the main purpose or chief characteristic of the thing named by the latter; as, teacup, sunbeam, daystar, horseman, sheepfold, houndfish, hourglass. (2.) Temporary compounds of a like nature may be formed with the hyphen, when there remain two accented syllables; as, castle-wall, bosom-friend, fellow-servant, horse-chestnut, goat-marjoram, marsh-marigold. (3.) The former of two nouns, if it be not plural, may be taken adjectively, in any relation that differs from apposition and from possession; as, "The silver cup,"--"The parent birds,"--"My pilgrim feet,"--"Thy hermit cell,"--"Two brother sergeants." (4.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form a literal name, may be joined together without either hyphen or apostrophe: as, tradesman, ratsbane, doomsday, kinswoman, craftsmaster. (5.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form a metaphorical name, should be written with both apostrophe and hyphen; as, Job's-tears, Jew's-ear, bear's-foot, colts-tooth, sheep's-head, crane's-bill, crab's-eyes, hound's-tongue, king's-spear, lady's-slipper, lady's-bedstraw, &c. (6.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form an adjective, whether literal or metaphorical, should generally be written with both apostrophe and hyphen; as, "Neats-foot oil,"--"Calfs-foot jelly,"--"A carp's-tongue drill,"--"A bird's-eye view,"--"The states'-rights' party,"--"A camel's-hair shawl." But a triple compound noun may be formed with one hyphen only: as, "In doomsday-book;" (--Joh. Dict.;) "An armsend-lift." Cardell, who will have all possessives to be adjectives, writes an example thus: "John's camel's hair girdle."--Elements of Eng. Gram., p. 39. That is as if John's camel had a hair girdle! (7.) When the possessive case and its governing noun merely help to form a regular phrase, the compounding of them in any fashion may be reckoned improper; thus the phrases, a day's work, at death's door, on New Year's Day, a new year's gift, All Souls' Day, All Saints' Day, All Fools' Day, the saints' bell, the heart's blood, for dog's meat, though often written otherwise, may best stand as they do here.

OBS. 32.--The existence of a permanent compound of any two words, does not necessarily preclude the use of the possessive relation between the same words. Thus, we may speak of a horse's shoe or a goat's skin, notwithstanding there are such words as horseshoe and goatskin. E.g., "That preach ye upon the housetops."--ALGER'S BIBLE: Matt., x, 27. "Unpeg the basket on the house's top."--Beauties of Shak., p. 238. Webster defines frostnail, (which, under the word cork, he erroneously writes frost nail,) "A nail driven into a horse-shoe, to prevent the horse from slipping on ice." Worcester has it, "A nail driven into a horse's shoe, to prevent his slipping on the ice." Johnson, "A nail with a prominent head driven into the horse's shoes, that it may pierce the ice." Maunder, "A nail with a sharp head driven into the horses' shoes in frosty weather." None of these descriptions is very well written. Say rather, "A spur-headed nail driven into a horse's shoe to prevent him from slipping." There is commonly some difference, and sometimes a very great one, between the compound noun and the possessive relation, and also between the radical compound and that of the possessive. Thus a harelip is not a hare's lip, nor is a headman a headsman, or heart-ease heart's-ease. So, according to the books, a cat-head, a cat's-head, and a cat's head, are three very different things; yet what Webster writes, cat-tail, Johnson, cats-tail, Walker and others, cats-tail, means but the same thing, though not a cat's tail. Johnson's "kingspear, Jews-ear, lady-mantle, and lady-bedstraw," are no more proper, than Webster's "bear's-wort, lion's foot, lady's mantle, and lady's bed-straw." All these are wrong.

OBS. 33.--Particular examples, both of proper distinction, and of blind irregularity, under all the heads above suggested, may be quoted and multiplied indefinitely, even from our highest literary authorities; but, since nothing can be settled but by the force of principles, he who would be accurate, must resort to rules,--must consider what is analogical, and, in all doubtful cases, give this the preference. But, in grammar, particular analogies are to be respected, as well as those which are more general. For example, the noun side, in that relation which should seem to require the preceding noun to be in the possessive case, is usually compounded with it, the hyphen being used where the compound has more than two syllables, but not with two only; as, bedside, hillside, roadside, wayside, seaside, river-side, water-side, mountain-side. Some instances of the separate construction occur, but they are rare: as, "And her maidens walked along by the river's side."--Exodus, ii, 5. After this noun also, the possessive preposition of is sometimes omitted; as, "On this side the river;"(--Bible;) "On this side Trent."--Cowell. Better, "On this side of the river," &c. "Blind Bartimeus sat by the highway side, begging."--Mark, x, 46. Here Alger more properly writes "highway-side." In Rev., xiv, 20th, we have the unusual compound, "horse-bridles." The text ought to have been rendered, "even unto the horses' bridles." Latin, "usque ad frænos equorum." Greek, "[Greek: achri ton chalinon ton hippon]."

OBS. 34.--Correlatives, as father and son, husband and wife, naturally possess each other; hence such combinations as father's son, and son's father, though correct enough in thought, are redundant in expression. The whole and a part are a sort of correlatives, but the whole seems to possess its parts, more properly than any of the parts, the whole. Yet we seldom put the whole in the possessive case before its part, or parts, but rather express the relation by of; as, "a quarter of a dollar," rather than, "a dollar's quarter." After the noun half, we usually suppress this preposition, if an article intervene; as, "half a dollar," rather than, "half of a dollar," or "a dollar's half." So we may say, "half the way," for "half of the way;" but we cannot say, "half us" for "half of us." In the phrase, "a half dollar," the word half is an adjective, and a very different meaning is conveyed. Yet the compounds half-pint and half-penny are sometimes used to signify, the quantity of half a pint, the value of half a penny. In weight, measure, or time, the part is sometimes made possessive of the whole; as, "a pound's weight, a yard's length, an hour's time." On the contrary, we do not say, "weight's pound, length's yard, or time's hour;" nor yet, "a pound of weight, a yard of length;" and rarely do we say, "an hour of time." Pound and yard having other uses, we sometimes say, "a pound in weight, a yard in length;" though scarcely, "an hour in time."

OBS. 35.--Between a portion of time and its correlative action, passion, or being, the possessive relation is interchangeable; so that either term may be the principal, and either, the adjunct: as, "Three years' hard work," or, "Three years of hard work." Sometimes we may even put either term in either form; as, "During the ten years' war,"--"During the ten years of war,"--"During the war of ten years,"--"During the war's ten years." Hence some writers, not perceiving why either word should make the other its governed adjunct, place both upon a par, as if they were in apposition; as, "Three days time."--Brown's Estimate, Vol. ii, p. 156. "By a few years preparation."--Blair's Rhet., p. 341. "Of forty years planting."--Wm. Penn. "An account, of five years standing." If these phrases were correct, it would also be correct to say, "one day time,"--"one year preparation,"--"one year planting,"--"of one year standing;" but all these are manifestly bad English; and, by analogy, so are the others.

OBS. 36.--Any noun of weight, measure, or time, put immediately before an other, if it be not in the possessive case, will naturally be understood adjectively; as, "No person can, by words only, give to an other an adequate idea of a pound weight, or [a] foot rule."--Gregory's Dict. This phraseology can, with propriety, refer only to the weight or the rule with which we weigh or measure; it cannot signify a pound in weight, or a foot in length, though it is very probable that the author intended the latter. When the noun times is used before an other noun by way of multiplication, there may be supposed an ellipsis of the preposition of between the two, just as when we divide by the word half; as, "An hour is sixty times the length of a minute."--Murray's Gram., p. 48. "Thirty seconds are half the length of a minute." That is,--"half of the length,"--"sixty times of the length."

NOTES TO RULE IV.

NOTE I.--In the syntax of the possessive case, its appropriate form, singular or plural, should be observed, agreeably to the sense and declension of the word. Thus, write John's, men's, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs; and not, Johns, mens', her's, it's, our's, your's, their's.

NOTE II.--When nouns of the possessive case are connected by conjunctions or put in apposition, the sign of possession must always be annexed to such, and such only, as immediately precede the governing noun, expressed or understood; as, "John and Eliza's teacher is a man of more learning than James's or Andrew's"--"For David my servant's sake."--Bible. "For my sake and the gospel's."--Ib. "Lost in love's and friendship's smile."--Scott.

NOTE III.--The relation of property may also be expressed by the preposition of and the objective; as, "The will of man," for "man's will." Of these forms, we should adopt that which will render the sentence the most perspicuous and agreeable; and, by the use of both, avoid an unpleasant repetition of either.

NOTE IV.--A noun governing the possessive plural, should not, by a forced agreement, be made plural, when its own sense does not require it; as, "For our parts,"--"Were I in your places:" for we may with propriety say, "Our part, your place, or your condition;" as well as, "Our desire, your intention, their resignation."--L. Murray's Gram., p. 169. A noun taken figuratively may also be singular, when the literal meaning would require the plural: such expressions as, "their face,"--"their neck,"--"their hand,"--"their head,"--"their heart,"--"our mouth,"--"our life,"--are frequent in the Scriptures, and not improper.

NOTE V.--The possessive case should not be needlessly used before a participle that is not taken in other respects as a noun. The following phrase is therefore wrong: "Adopted by the Goths in their pronouncing the Greek."--Walker's Key, p. 17. Expunge their. Again: "Here we speak of their becoming both in form and signification passive."--Campbell's Rhet., p. 226. Say rather, "Here we speak of them as becoming passive, both in form and signification."

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION. FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE IV.

EXAMPLES UNDER NOTE I.--THE POSSESSIVE FORM.

"Mans chief good is an upright mind." See Brown's Institutes of E. Gram., p. 179.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the noun mans, which is intended for the possessive singular of man, has not the appropriate form of that case and number. But, according to Note 1st under Rule 4th, "In the syntax ef the possessive case, its appropriate form, singular or plural, should be observed, agreeably to the sense and declension of the word." Therefore, mans should be maris, with the apostrophe before the s; thus, "Man's chief good is an upright mind."]

"The translator of Mallets History has the following note,"--Webster's Essays, p. 263. "The act, while it gave five years full pay to the officers, allowed but one year's pay to the privates."--Ib., p. 184. "For the study of English is preceded by several years attention to Latin and Greek."--Ib., p. 7. "The first, the Court Baron, is the freeholders or freemens court."--Coke, Litt., p. 74. "I affirm, that Vaugelas' definition labours under an essential defect."--Campbell's Rhet., p. 163. "I affirm, that Vangelas's definition labours under an essential defect."--Murray's Octavo Gram., Fourth Amer. Ed., Vol. ii, p. 360.[351] "There is a chorus in Aristophane's plays."--Blair's Rhet., p. 480. "It denotes the same perception in my mind as in their's."--Duncan's Logic, p. 65. "This afterwards enabled him to read Hicke's Saxon Grammar."--Life of Dr. Murray, p. 76. "I will not do it for tens sake."--Dr. Ash's Gram., p. 56. "I arose, and asked if those charming infants were her's."--Werter, p. 21. "They divide their time between milliners shops and taverns."--Brown's Estimate, Vol. i, p. 65. "The angels adoring of Adam is also mentioned in the Talmud."--Sale's Koran, p. 6. "Quarrels arose from the winners insulting of those who lost."--Ib., p. 171. "The vacancy, occasioned by Mr. Adams' resignation."--Adams's Rhet., Vol. i, p. vii. "Read for instance Junius' address, commonly called his letter to the king."--Ib., i, 225. "A perpetual struggle against the tide of Hortensius' influence."--Ib., ii, 23. "Which, for distinction sake, I shall put down severally."--Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 302. "The fifth case is in a clause signifying the matter of ones fear."--Ib., p. 312. "And they took counsel, and bought with them the potters' field."--ALGER'S BIBLE: Matt., xxvii, 7. "Arise for thy servant's help, and redeem them for thy mercy's sake."--Jenks's Prayers, p. 265. "Shall not their cattle, and their substance, and every beast of their's be ours?"--SCOTT'S BIBLE: Gen., xxxiv, 23. "And every beast of their's, be our's?"--FRIENDS' BIBLE: ib. "It's regular plural, bullaces, is used by Bacon."--Churchill's Gram., p. 213. "Mordecai walked every day before the court of the womens house."--SCOTT'S BIBLE: Esther, ii, 11. "Behold, they that wear soft clothing are in king's houses."--IB. and FRIENDS' BIBLE: Matt., xi, 8: also Webster's Imp. Gram., p. 173. "Then Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, and her two sons; and Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came, with his sons and his wife, unto Moses."--ALGER'S BIBLE, and THE FRIENDS': Exod., xviii, 2--6. "King James' translators merely revised former translations."--Rev. B. Frazee's Gram., p. 137. "May they be like corn on houses tops."--White, on the English Verb., p. 160.

"And for his Maker's image sake exempt." --Par. Lost, B. xi, l. 514.

"By all the fame acquir'd in ten years war." --Rowe's Lucan, B. i, l. 674.

"Nor glad vile poets with true critics gore." --Pope's Dunicad, [sic--KTH] p. 175.

"Man only of a softer mold is made, Not for his fellow's ruin, but their aid." --Dryden's Poems, p. 92.

UNDER NOTE II.--POSSESSIVES CONNECTED.

"It was necessary to have both the physician, and the surgeon's advice."--Cooper's Pl. and Pr. Gram., p. 140. "This out-side fashionableness of the Taylor on Tire-woman's making."--Locke, on Education, p. 49. "Some pretending to be of Paul's party, others of Apollos, others of Cephas, and others, pretending yet higher, to be of Christ's."--Woods Dict., w. Apollos. "Nor is it less certain that Spenser's and Milton's spelling agrees better with our pronunciation."-- Philol. Museum, i, 661. "Law's, Edwards', and Watts' surveys of the Divine Dispensations."--Burgh's Dignity, Vol. i, p. 193. "And who was Enoch's Saviour, and the Prophets?"--Bayly's Works, p. 600. "Without any impediment but his own, or his parents or guardians will."--Literary Convention, p. 145. "James relieves neither the boy[352] nor the girl's distress."--Nixon's Parser, p. 116. "John regards neither the master nor the pupil's advantage."--Ib., p. 117. "You reward neither the man nor the woman's labours."--Ib. "She examines neither James nor John's conduct."-- Ib. "Thou pitiest neither the servant nor the master's injuries."--Ib. "We promote England or Ireland's happiness."--Ib. "Were Cain and Abel's occupation the same?"--Brown's Inst., p. 179. "Were Cain's and Abel's occupations the same?"--Ib. "What was Simon's and Andrew's employment?"-- Author. "Till he can read himself Sanctii Minerva with Scioppius and Perizonius's Notes."--Locke, on Education, p. 295.

"And love's and friendship's finely--pointed dart Falls blunted from each indurated heart."--Goldsmith.

UNDER NOTE III.--CHOICE OF FORMS.

"But some degree of trouble is all men's portion."--Murray's Key, p. 218; Merchant's, 197. "With his father's and mother's names upon the blank leaf."--Corner-Stone, p. 144. "The general, in the army's name, published a declaration."--HUME: in Priestley's Gram., p. 69. "The Commons' vote."--Id, ib. "The Lords' house."--Id., ib. "A collection of writers faults."--SWIFT: ib., p. 68. "After ten years wars."--Id., ib. "Professing his detestation of such practices as his predecessors."--Notes to the Dunciad. "By that time I shall have ended my years office."--Walker's Particles, p. 104. "For Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife."--Mark, vi, 17. "For Herodias's sake, his brother Philip's wife."--Murray's Key, p. 194. "I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain salvation."--FRIENDS' BIBLE: 2 Tim., ii, 10. "For the elects' sakes."--SCOTT'S BIBLE. "For the elect's sake."--ALGER'S BIBLE, and BRUCE'S. "He was Louis the Sixteenth's son's heir."--W. Allen's Exercises, Gram., p. 329. "The throne we honour is the choice of the people."--"An account of the proceedings of the court of Alexander."--"An excellent tutor of a person of fashion's child!"--Gil Bias, Vol. 1, p. 20. "It is curious enough, that this sentence of the Bishop is, itself, ungrammatical!"--Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 201. "The troops broke into Leopold the emperor's palace."--Nixon's Parser, p. 59. "The meeting was called by Eldon the judge's desire."--Ibid. "Peter's, John's, and Andrew's occupation was that of fishermen."--Brace's Gram., p. 79. "The venerable president of the Royal Academy's debility has lately increased."--Maunder's Gram., p. 12.

UNDER NOTE IV.--NOUNS WITH POSSESSIVES PLURAL.

"God hath not given us our reasons to no purpose."--Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 496. "For our sakes, no doubt, this is written."--1 Cor., ix, 10. "Are not health and strength of body desirable for their own sakes?"--Hermes, p. 296; Murray's Gram., 289. "Some sailors who were boiling their dinners upon the shore."--Day's Sandford and Merton, p. 99. "And they in their turns were subdued by others."--Pinnock's Geography, p. 12. "Industry on our parts is not superseded by God's grace."--Arrowsmith. "Their Healths perhaps may be pretty well secur'd."--Locke, on Education, p. 51. "Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor."--Murray's Gram., p. 211. "It were to be wished, his correctors had been as wise on their parbs."--Harris's Hermes, p. 60. "The Arabs are commended by the ancients for being most exact to their words, and respectful to their kindred."--Sale's Koran. "That is, as a reward of some exertion on our parts."--Gurney's Evidences, p. 86. "So that it went ill with Moses for their sakes."--Psalms, cvi, 32. "All liars shall have their parts in the burning lake."--Watts, p. 33. "For our own sakes as well as for thine."--Pref. to Waller's Poems, p. 3. "By discover- ing their abilities to detect and amend errors."--Murray's Gram., Vol. 11, p. iv.

"This world I do renounce; and, in your sights, Shake patiently my great affliction off."--Beauties of Shak., p. 286 "If your relenting angers yield to treat, Pompey and thou, in safety, here may meet."--Rowe's Lucan, B. iii, l. 500.

UNDER NOTE Y.--POSSESSIVES WITH PARTICIPLES.

"This will encourage him to proceed without his acquiring the prejudice."--Smith's Gram., p. 5. "And the notice which they give of an action's being completed or not completed."--L. Murray's Gram., p. 72; Alger's, 30. "Some obstacle or impediment that prevents its taking place."--Priestley's Gram., p. 38; Alex. Murray's, 37. "They have apostolical authority for their so frequently urging the seeking of the Spirit."--The Friend, Vol. xii, p. 54. "Here then is a wide field for reason's exerting its powers in relation to the objects of taste."-- Blair's Rhet., p. 18. "Now this they derive altogether from their having a greater capacity of imitation and description."--Ib., p. 51. "This is one clear reason of their paying a greater attention to that construction." --Ib., p. 123. "The dialogue part had also a modulation of its own, which was capable of its being set to notes."--Ib., p. 471. "What is the reason of our being often so frigid and unpersuasive in public discourse?"--Ib., p. 334. "Which is only a preparation for his leading his forces directly upon us."--Ib., p. 264. "The nonsense about which's relating to things only, and having no declension, needs no refutation."--Fowle's True E. Gram., p. 18. "Who, upon his breaking it open, found nothing but the following inscription."--Rollin, Vol. ii, p. 33. "A prince will quickly have reason to repent his having exalted one person so high."--Id., ii, 116. "Notwithstanding it's being the immediate subject of his discourse."-- Churchill's Gram., p. 294. "With our definition of its being synonymous with time."--Booth's Introd., p. 29. "It will considerably increase the danger of our being deceived."--Campbell's Rhet., p. 293. "His beauties can never be mentioned without their suggesting his blemishes also."-- Blair's Rhet., p. 442. "No example has ever been adduced of a man's conscientiously approving of an action, because of its badness."--Gurney's Evidences, p. 90. "The last episode of the angel's shewing Adam the fate of his posterity, is happily imagined."--Blair's Rhet., p. 452. "And the news came to my son, of his and the bride being in Dublin."--Castle Rackrent, p. 44. "There is no room for the mind's exerting any great effort."--Blair's Rhet., p. 32. "One would imagine, that these criticks never so much as heard of Homer's having written first."--Pope's Preface to Homer. "Condemn the book, for its not being a geography."--O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 317. "There will be in many words a transition from their being the figurative to their being the proper signs of certain ideas."--Campbell's Rhet., p. 322. "The doctrine of the Pope's being the only source of ecclesiastical power."--Religious World, ii, 290. "This has been the more expedient from the work's being designed for the benefit of private learners."--Murray's Exercises, Introd., p. v. "This was occasioned by the Grammar's having been set up, and not admitting of enlargement."--Ib., Advertisement, p. ix.

RULE V.--OBJECTIVES.

A Noun or a Pronoun made the object of an active-transitive verb or participle, is governed by it in the objective case: as, "I found her assisting him"--"Having finished the work, I submit it."

"Preventing fame, misfortune lends him wings, And Pompey's self his own sad story brings." --Rowe's Lucan, B. viii, l. 66.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE V.

OBS. 1.--To this rule there are no exceptions; but to the old one adopted by Murray and others, "Active verbs govern the objective case," there are more than any writer will ever think it worth his while to enumerate. In point of brevity, the latter has the advantage, but in nothing else; for, as a general rule for NOUNS AND PRONOUNS, this old brief assertion is very defective; and, as a rule for "THE SYNTAX OF VERBS," under which head it has been oftener ranked, it is entirely useless and inapplicable. As there are four different constructions to which the nominative case is liable, so there are four in which the objective may be found; and two of these are common to both; namely, apposition, and sameness of case. Every objective is governed by some verb or participle, according to Rule 5th, or by some preposition, according to Rule 7th; except such as are put in apposition with others, according to Rule 3d, or after an infinitive or a participle not transitive, according to Rule 6th: as, "Mistaking one for the other, they took him, a sturdy fellow, called Red Billy, to be me." Here is every construction which the objective case can have; except, perhaps, that in which, as an expression of time, place, measure, or manner, it is taken after the fashion of an adverb, the governing preposition being suppressed, or, as some say, no governing word being needed. Of this exception, the following quotations may serve for examples: "It holds on by a single button round my neck, cloak-fashion"--EDGEWORTH'S Castle Rackrent. p. 17. A man quite at leisure to parse all his words, would have said, "in the fashion of a cloak." Again: "He does not care the rind of a lemon for her all the while."--Ib., p. 108. "We turn our eyes this way or that way."--Webster's Philos. Gram., p. 172; Frazee's Gram., 157. Among his instances of "the objective case restrictive," or of the noun "used in the objective, without a governing word," Dr. Bullions gives this: "Let us go home" But, according to the better opinion of Worcester, home is here an adverb, and not a noun. See Obs. 6th on Rule 7th.

OBS. 2.--The objective case generally follows the governing word: as, "And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him"--Gen., xlii, 8. But when it is emphatic, it often precedes the nominative; as, "Me he restored to mine office, and him he hanged."--Gen., xli, 13. "John have I beheaded."--Luke, ix, 9. "But me ye have not always."--Matt., xxvi, 11. "Him walking on a sunny hill he found."--Milton. In poetry, the objective is sometimes placed between the nominative and the verb; as,

"His daring foe securely him defied."--Milton.

"Much he the place admired, the person more."--Id.

"The broom its yellow leaf shed."--Langhorne.

If the nominative be a pronoun which cannot be mistaken for an objective, the words may possibly change places; as, "Silver and gold have I none."--Acts, iii, 6. "Created thing nought valued he nor shunn'd."--Milton, B. ii, l. 679. But such a transposition of two nouns can scarcely fail to render the meaning doubtful or obscure; as,

"This pow'r has praise, that virtue scarce can warm, Till fame supplies the universal charm."--Dr. Johnson.

A relative or an interrogative pronoun is commonly placed at the head of its clause, and of course it precedes the verb which governs it; as, "I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest."--Acts, ix, 5. "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?"--Ib., vii, 52.

"Before their Clauses plac'd, by settled use, The Relatives these Clauses introduce."--Ward's Gram., p. 86.

OBS. 3.--Every active-transitive verb or participle has some noun or pronoun for its object, or some pronominal adjective which assumes the relation of the objective case. Though verbs are often followed by the infinitive mood, or a dependent clause, forming a part of the logical predicate; yet these terms, being commonly introduced by a connecting particle, do not form such an object as is contemplated in our definition of a transitive verb. Its government of the objective, is the only proper criterion of this sort of verb. If, in the sentence, "Boys love to play," the former verb is transitive, as several respectable grammarians affirm; why not also in a thousand others; as, "Boys like to play;"--"Boys delight to play;"--"Boys long to play;"--"The boys seem to play;"--"The boys cease to play;"--"The boys ought to play;"--"The boys go out to play;"--"The boys are gone out to play;"--"The boys are allowed to play;" and the like? The construction in all is precisely the same, and the infinitive may follow one kind of verb just as well as an other. How then can the mere addition of this mood make any verb transitive? or where, on such a principle, can the line of distinction for transitive verbs be drawn? The infinitive, in fact, is governed by the preposition to; and the preceding verb, if it has no other object, is intransitive. It must, however, be confessed that some verbs which thus take the infinitive after them, cannot otherwise be intransitive; as, "A great mind disdains to hold any thing by courtesy."--Johnson's Life of Swift. "They require to be distinguished by a comma."--Murray's Gram., p. 272.

OBS. 4.--A transitive verb, as I have elsewhere shown, may both govern the objective case, and be followed by an infinitive also; as, "What have I to do with thee?"--John, ii, 4. This question, as one would naturally take it, implies, "I have nothing to do with thee;" and, by analogy, what is governed by have, and not by do; so that the latter verb, though not commonly intransitive, appears to be so here. Indeed the infinitive mood is often used without an objective, when every other part of the same verb would require one. Maunder's rule is, "Transitive verbs and participles govern either the objective case or the infinitive mode."--Comprehensive Gram., p. 14. Murray teaches, not only that, "The infinitive mood does the office of a substantive in the objective case; as, 'Boys love to play;'" but that, "The participle with its adjuncts, may be considered as a substantive phrase in the objective case, governed by the preposition or verb; as, 'He studied to avoid expressing himself too severely.'"--See his Octavo Gram., pp. 184 and 194. And again: "Part of a sentence, as well as a noun or pronoun, may be said to be in the objective case, or to be put objectively, governed by the active verb; as, 'We sometimes see virtue in distress, but we should consider how great will be her ultimate reward.' Sentences or phrases under this circumstance, may be termed objective sentences or phrases."--Ib., p. 180.

OBS. 5.--If we admit that sentences, parts of sentences, infinitives, participles with their adjuncts, and other phrases, as well as nouns and pronouns, may be "in the objective case;" it will be no easy matter, either to define this case, or to determine what words do, or do not, govern it.[353] The construction of infinitives and participles will be noticed hereafter. But on one of Murray's examples, I would here observe, that the direct use of the infinitive for an objective noun is a manifest Grecism; as, "For to will is present with me; but to perform that which is good, I find not."--Octavo Gram., p. 184. That is, "the performance of that which is good, I find not." Or perhaps we may supply a noun after the verb, and take this text to mean, "But to perform that which is good, I find not the ability." Our Bible has it, "But how to perform that which is good. I find not;" as if the manner in which he might do good, was what the apostle found not: but Murray cites it differently, omitting the word how, as we see above. All active verbs to which something is subjoined by when, where, whence, how, or why, must be accounted intransitive, unless we suppose them to govern such nouns of time, place, degree, manner, or cause, as correspond to these connectives; as, "I know why she blushed." Here we might supply the noun reason, as, "I know the reason why she blushed;" but the word is needless, and I should rather parse know as being intransitive. As for "virtue in distress," if this is an "objective phrase," and not to be analyzed, we have millions of the same sort; but, if one should say, "Virtue in distress excites pity," the same phrase would demonstrate the absurdity of Murray's doctrine, because the two nouns here take two different cases.

OBS. 6.--The word that, which is often employed to introduce a dependent clause, is, by some grammarians, considered as a pronoun, representing the clause which follows it; as, "I know that Messias cometh."--John, iv, 25. This text they would explain to mean, "Messias cometh, I know that;" and their opinion seems to be warranted both by the origin and by the usual import of the particle. But, in conformity to general custom, and to his own views of the practical purposes of grammatical analysis, the author has ranked it with the conjunctions. And he thinks it better, to call those verbs intransitive, which are followed by that and a dependent clause, than to supply the very frequent ellipses which the other explanation supposes. To explain it as a conjunction, connecting an active-transitive verb and its object, as several respectable grammarians do, appears to involve some inconsistency. If that is a conjunction, it connects what precedes and what follows; but a transitive verb should exercise a direct government, without the intervention of a conjunction. On the other hand, the word that has not, in any such sentence, the inherent nature of a pronoun. The transposition above, makes it only a pronominal adjective; as, "Messias cometh, I know that fact." And in many instances such a solution is impracticable; as, "The people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them."--Luke, iv, 42. Here, to prove that to be a pronoun, the disciples of Tooke and Webster must resort to more than one imaginary ellipsis, and to such inversion as will scarcely leave the sense in sight.

OBS. 7.--In some instances the action of a transitive verb gives to its direct object an additional name, which is also in the objective case, the two words being in apposition; as, "Thy saints proclaim thee king."--Cowper. "And God called the firmament Heaven."--Bible. "Ordering them to make themselves masters of a certain steep eminence."--Rollin, ii, 67. And, in such a construction, the direct object is sometimes placed before the verb; though the name which results from the action, cannot be so placed: as, "And Simon he surnamed Peter."--Mark, iii, 15. "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God."--Rev., iii, 12. Some grammarians seem not to have considered this phraseology as coming within the rule of apposition. Thus Webster: "We have some verbs which govern two words in the objective case; as,

'Did I request thee, maker, from my clay To mold me man?'--Milton, 10, 744.

'God seems to have made him what he was.'--Life of Cowper."[354]--Philosophical Gram., p. 170. Improved Gram., p. 120. See also Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 154; "Abridged Ed.," p. 119; and Fowler's E. Gram., §450. So Murray: "Some of our verbs appear to govern two words in the objective case; as, 'The Author of my being formed me man.'--'They desired me to call them brethren.'--'He seems to have made him what he was.' "--Octavo Gram., p. 183. Yet this latter writer says, that in the sentence, "They appointed me executor," and others like it," the verb to be is understood."--Ib., p. 182. These then, according to his own showing, are instances of apposition; but I pronounce then such, without either confounding same cases with apposition, or making the latter a species of ellipsis. See Obs. 1st and 2d, under Rule 3d.

OBS. 8.--In general, if not always, when a verb is followed by two objectives which are neither in apposition nor connected by a conjunction, one of them is governed by a preposition understood; as, "I paid [to] him the money"--"They offered [to] me a seat"--"He asked [of] them the question"--"I yielded, and unlock'd [to] her all my heart."--Milton. In expressing such sentences passively, the object of the preposition is sometimes erroneously assumed for the nominative; as, "He was paid the money," in stead of, "The money was paid [to] him."--"I was offered a seat," in stead of, "A seat was offered [to] me." This kind of error is censured by Murray more than once, and yet he himself has, in very many instances, fallen into it. His first criticism on it, is in the following words: "We sometimes meet with such expressions as these: 'They were asked a question;' 'They were offered a pardon;' 'He hath been left a great estate by his father.' In these phrases, verbs passive are made to govern the objective case. This license is not to be approved. The expressions should be: 'A question was put to them;' 'A pardon was offered to them;' 'His father left him a great estate.'"--L. Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 183. See Obs. 12, below.

OBS. 9.--In the Latin syntax, verbs of asking and teaching are said to govern two accusatives; as, "Posce Deum veniam, Beg pardon of God."--Grant's Latin Gram., p. 207. "Docuit me grammaticam, He taught me grammar."--Grant, Adam, and others. And again: "When a verb in the active voice governs two cases, in the passive it retains the latter case; as, Doceor grammaticam, I am taught grammar."--Adam's Gram., p. 177. These writers however suggest, that in reality the latter accusative is governed, not by the verb, but by a preposition understood. "'Poscere deos veniam is 'to ask the gods for pardon.'"--Barnes's Philological Gram., p. 116. In general the English idiom does not coincide with what occurs in Latin under these rules. We commonly insert a preposition to govern one or the other of the terms. But we sometimes leave to the verb the objective of the person, and sometimes that of the thing; and after the two verbs ask and teach, we sometimes seem to leave both: as, "When thou dost ask me blessing, I'll kneel down, and ask of thee forgiveness."-- Shakspeare. "In long journeys, ask your master leave to give ale to the horses."--Swift. "And he asked them of their welfare."--Gen., xliii, 27. "They asked of him the parable."--Mark, iv, 10. ("Interrogârunt eum de parabolâ."--Beza.) "And asking them questions"--Luke, ii, 46. "But teach them thy sons."--Deut., iv, 9. "Teach them diligently unto thy children"--Ib., vi, 7. '"Ye shall teach them your children."--Ib., xi, 19. "Shall any teach God knowledge?"--Job, xxi, 22. "I will teach you the fear of the Lord."--Psal, xxxiv, 11. "He will teach us of his ways."--Isaiah, ii, 3; Micah, iv, 2. "Let him that is taught in the word, communicate."--Gal., vi, 6.

OBS. 10.--After a careful review of the various instances in which more than one noun or pronoun may possibly be supposed to be under the government of a single active verb in English, I incline to the opinion that none of our verbs ought to be parsed as actually governing two cases, except such as are followed by two objectives connected by a conjunction. Consequently I do not admit, that any passive verb can properly govern an objective noun or pronoun. Of the ancient Saxon dative case, and of what was once considered the government of two cases, there yet appear some evident remains in our language; as, "Give him bread to eat."--"Bread shall be given him"--Bible. But here, by almost universal consent, the indirect object is referred to the government of a "preposition understood;" and in many instances this sort of ellipsis is certainly no elegance: as, "Give [to] truth and virtue the same arms which you give [to] vice and falsehood, and the former are likely to prevail."--Blair's Rhet., p. 235. The questionable expression, "Ask me blessing," if interpreted analogically, must mean, "Ask for me a blessing," which is more correct and explicit; or, if me be not supposed a dative, (and it does not appear to be so, above,) the sentence is still wrong, and the correction must be, "Ask of me a blessing," or, "Ask my blessing." So, "Ask your master leave," ought rather to be, "Ask of your master leave," "Ask your master for leave," or, "Ask your master's leave." The example from Mark ought to be, "They asked him about the parable." Again, the elliptical sentence, "Teach them thy sons," is less perspicuous, and therefore less accurate, than the full expression, "Teach them to thy sons." To teach is to tell things to persons, or to instruct persons in things; to ask is to request or demand things of or from persons, or to interrogate or solicit persons about or for things. These verbs cannot be proved to govern two cases in English, because it is more analogical and more reasonable to supply a preposition, (if the author omits it,) to govern one or the other of the objects.

OBS. 11.--Some writers erroneously allow passive verbs to govern the objective in English, not only where they imagine our idiom to coincide with the Latin, but even where they know that it does not. Thus Dr. Crombie: "Whatever is put in the accusative case after the verb, must be the nominative to it in the passive voice, while the other case is retained under the government of the verb, and cannot become its nominative. Thus, 'I persuade you to this or of this, 'Persuadeo hoc tibi. Here, the person persuaded is expressed in the dative case, and cannot, therefore, be the nominative to the passive verb. We must, therefore, say, Hoc tibi persuadetur, 'You are persuaded of this;' not, Tu persuaderis. 'He trusted me with this affair,' or 'He believed me in this,' Hoc mihi credidit.--Passively, Hoc mihi creditum est. 'I told you this,' Hoc tibi dixi. 'YOU WERE TOLD THIS,' Hoc tibi dictum est; not, Tu dictus es." [No, surely: for, 'Tu dictus es,' means, 'You were called,' or, 'Thou art reputed;'--and, if followed by any case, it must be the nominative.'] "It is the more necessary to attend to this rule, and to these distinctions, as the idioms of the two languages do not always concur. Thus, Hoc tibi dictum est, means not only 'This was told to you,' but 'YOU WERE TOLD THIS.' Liber mihi apatre promissus est, means both 'A book was promised (to) me by my father,' and 'I WAS PROMISED A BOOK.' Is primum rogatua est sententiam, 'He was first asked for his opinion,' and 'An opinion was first asked of him;' in which last the accusative of the person becomes, in Latin, the nominative in the passive voice." See Grants Latin Gram., p. 210.

OBS. 12.--Murray's second censure upon passive government, is this: "The following sentences, which give [to] the passive voice the regimen of an active verb, are very irregular, and by no means to be imitated. 'The bishops and abbots were allowed their seats in the house of lords.' 'Thrasea was forbidden the presence of the emperor.' 'He was shown that very story in one of his own books.'[355] These sentences should have been: 'The bishops and abbots were allowed to have (or to take) their seats in the house of lords;' or, 'Seats in the house of lords were allowed to the bishops and abbots:' 'Thrasea was forbidden to approach the presence of the emperor;' or, 'The presence of the emperor was forbidden to Thrasea:' 'That very story was shown to him in one of his own books.'"--Octavo Gram., p. 223. See Obs. 8, above. One late grammarian, whose style is on the whole highly commendable for its purity and accuracy, forbears to condemn the phraseology here spoken of; and, though he does not expressly defend and justify it, he seems disposed to let it pass, with the license of the following canon. "For convenience, it may be well to state it as a rule, that--Passive verbs govern an objective, when the nominative to the passive verb is not the proper object of the active voice."--Barnard's Analytic Gram., p. 134. An other asserts the government of two cases by very many of our active verbs, and the government of one by almost any passive verb, according to the following rules: "Verbs of teaching, giving, and some others of a similar nature, govern two objectives, the one of a person and the other of a thing; as, He taught me grammar: His tutor gave him a lesson: He promised me a reward. A passive verb may govern an objective, when the words immediately preceding and following it, do not refer to the same thing; as, Henry was offered a dollar by his father to induce him to remain."--J. M. Putnam's Gram., pp. 110 and 112.

OBS. 13.--The common dogmas, that an active verb must govern an object, and that a neuter or intransitive verb must not, amount to nothing as directions to the composer; because the classification of verbs depends upon this very matter, whether they have, or have not, an object after them; and no general principle has been, or can be, furnished beforehand, by which their fitness or unfitness for taking such government can be determined. This must depend upon usage, and usage must conform to the sense intended. Very many verbs--probably a vast majority--govern an object sometimes, but not always: many that are commonly intransitive or neuter, are not in all their uses so; and many that are commonly transitive, have sometimes no apparent regimen. The distinction, then, in our dictionaries, of verbs active and neuter, or transitive and intransitive, serves scarcely any other purpose, than to show how the presence or absence of the objective case, affects the meaning of the word. In some instances the signification of the verb seems almost merged in that of its object; as, to lay hold, to make use, to take care. In others, the transitive character of the word is partial; as, "He paid my board; I told you so." Some verbs will govern any objective whatever; as, to name, to mention. What is there that cannot be named or mentioned? Others again are restricted to one noun, or to a few; as, to transgress a law, or rule. What can be transgressed, but a law, a limit, or something equivalent? Some verbs will govern a kindred noun, or its pronoun, but scarcely any other; as, "He lived a virtuous life."--"Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed"--Gen., xxxvii, 6. "I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it."--Isaiah, v, 6.

OBS. 14.--Our grammarians, when they come to determine what verbs are properly transitive, and what are not so, do not in all instances agree in opinion. In short, plain as they think the matter, they are much at odds. Many of them say, that, "In the phrases, 'To dream a dream,' 'To live a virtuous life,' 'To run a race,' 'To walk a horse,' 'To dance a child,' the verbs assume a transitive character, and in these cases may be denominated active."--See Guy's Gram., p. 21; Murray's, 180; Ingersoll's, 183; Fisk's, 123; Smith's, 153. This decision is undoubtedly just; yet a late writer has taken a deal of pains to find fault with it, and to persuade his readers, that, "No verb is active in any sense, or under any construction, that will not, in every sense, permit the objective case of a personal pronoun after it."--Wright's Gram., p. 174. Wells absurdly supposes, "An intransitive verb may be used to govern an objective."--Gram., p. 145. Some imagine that verbs of mental action, such as conceive, think, believe, &c., are not properly transitive; and, if they find an object after such a verb, they choose to supply a preposition to govern it: as, "I conceived it (of it) in that light."--Guy's Gram., p. 21. "Did you conceive (of) him to be me?"--Ib., p. 28. With this idea, few will probably concur.

OBS. 15.--We sometimes find the pronoun me needlessly thrown in after a verb that either governs some other object or is not properly transitive, at least, in respect to this word; as, "It ascends me into the brain; dries me there all the foolish, dull, and crudy vapours."--Shakspeare's Falstaff. "Then the vital commoners and inland petty spirits muster me all to their captain, the heart."--Id. This is a faulty relic of our old Saxon dative case. So of the second person; "Fare you well, Falstaff."--Shak. Here you was written for the objective case, but it seems now to have become the nominative to the verb fare. "Fare thee well."--W. Scott. "Farewell to thee."--Id. These expressions were once equivalent in syntax; but they are hardly so now; and, in lieu of the former, it would seem better English to say, "Fare thou well." Again: "Turn thee aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay thee hold on one of the young men, and take thee his armour."--2 Sam., ii, 21. If any modern author had written this, our critics would have guessed he had learned from some of the Quakers to misemploy thee for thou. The construction is an imitation of the French reciprocal or reflected verbs. It ought to be thus: "Turn thou aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay hold on one of the young men, and take to thyself his armour." So of the third person: "The king soon found reason to repent him of his provoking such dangerous enemies."--HUME: Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 180. Here both of the pronouns are worse than useless, though Murray discerned but one error.

"Good Margaret, run thee into the parlour; There thou shalt find my cousin Beatrice."--SHAK.: Much Ado.

NOTES TO RULE V.

NOTE I.--Those verbs or participles which require a regimen, or which signify action that must terminate transitively, should not be used without an object; as, "She affects [kindness,] in order to ingratiate [herself] with you."--"I must caution [you], at the same time, against a servile imitation of any author whatever."--Blair's Rhet., p. 192.

NOTE II.--Those verbs and participles which do not admit an object, or which express action that terminates in themselves, or with the doer, should not be used transitively; as, "The planters grow cotton." Say raise, produce, or cultivate. "Dare you speak lightly of the law, or move that, in a criminal trial, judges should advance one step beyond what it permits them to go?"--Blair's Rhet., p. 278. Say,--"beyond the point to which it permits them to go."

NOTE III.--No transitive verb or participle should assume a government to which its own meaning is not adapted; as, "Thou is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun--personal, it personates 'man.'"--Kirkham's Gram., p. 131. Say, "It represents man." "Where a string of such sentences succeed each other."--Blair's Rhet., p. 168. Say, "Where many such sentences come in succession."

NOTE IV.--The passive verb should always take for its subject or nominative the direct object of the active-transitive verb from which it is derived; as, (Active,) "They denied me this privilege." (Passive,) "This privilege was denied me;" not, "I was denied this privilege:" for me may be governed by to understood, but privilege cannot, nor can any other regimen be found for it.

NOTE V.--Passive verbs should never be made to govern the objective case, because the receiving of an action supposes it to terminate on the subject or nominative.[356] Errors: "Sometimes it is made use of to give a small degree of emphasis."--L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 197. Say, "Sometimes it is used," &c. "His female characters have been found fault with as insipid."--Hazlitt's Lect., p. 111. Say,--"have been censured;" or,--"have been blamed, decried, dispraised, or condemned."