Part 42 (1/2)

The nominative and the objective of nouns, are always alike in foruishable from each other only by their place in a sentence, or by their si to the sense

OBSERVATIONS

OBS 1--The cases, in gras are represented in discourse; and from which the words acquire correspondent relations; or connexions and dependences according to the sense In Latin, there are six cases; and in Greek, five Consequently, the nouns and pronouns of those languages, and also their adjectives and participles, (which last are still farther inflected by the three genders,) are varied by lish, thoseonly to nouns and pronouns; nor are there ever more than three pronouns are not necessarily like their antecedents in case

OBS 2--Because the infinitive mood, a phrase, or a sentence, may in some instances be made the subject of a verb, so as to stand in that relation in which the norammarians have deliberately represented all ter ”_in the nominative case_:” as if, to sustain any one of the relations which are usually distinguished by a particular case, must necessarily constitute that modification itself Many also will have participles, infinitives, phrases, and sentences, to be occasionally ”_in the objective case_:” whereas it must be plain to every reader, that they are, all of them, _indeclinable_ terms; and that, if used in any relation common to nouns or pronouns, they assume that office, as participles, as infinitives, as phrases, or as sentences, and not as _cases_ They no more take the nature of cases, than they beco that _of_, with the word governed by it, constitutes a _possessive case_, contrives to give to participles, and even to the infinitive mood, _all three of the cases_ Of the infinitive, he says, ”An exa this mood, must naturally lead to the inference that _it is a substantive_; and that, if it has the nominative case, it must also have the possessive and objective cases of a substantive The fourthin the possessive case: thus, 'A desire _to learn_;' that is, '_of learning_'

When it follows a participle, or a verb, as by the fifth or [the] seventh ous to the Case Absolute of a substantive”--_Nixon's Parser_, p 83 If the infinitive raht chapter; except that bold conterammatical and literary authority, Oliver B Peirce When will the cause of learning cease to have assailants and underrarand absurdity or other, peculiar to hilish infinitives and participles as being in the _possessive case_?

OBS 3--It was long a subject of dispute alish noun should be supposed to have So certain phrases into cases to fill up the deficits, were for having _six_ in each nuenitive, the dative, the accusative, the vocative, and the ablative Others, contending that a case in gra else than a terlish nouns have but one case that differs from the nominative in form, denied that there were more than two, the nominative and the possessive This was certainly an irao far to condeent teacher , without supposing an objective case to nouns? or what propriety could there be in overn or coain, hat truth can it be said, that nouns have _no cases_ in English? or what reason can be assigned formore than three?

OBS 4--Public opinion is now clear in the decision, that it is _expedient_ to assign to English nouns three cases, and no more; and, in a matter of this kind, what is expedient for the purpose of instruction, is right Yet, froraht or wrong, upon this point Cardell, with Tooke and Gilchrist on his side, contends that English nouns have _no cases_

Brightland averred that they have neither cases nor genders[162] Buchanan, and the author of the old British Graenitive Dr Adalish, nouns have _only one case_, na Gram_, p 7 W B Fowle has two cases, but rejects the word _case_: ”We use the sient_ for a _noun that acts_, and _object_ for the object of an action”--_Fowle's True Eng Gram_, Part II, p 68 Spencer too discards the word _case_, preferring ”_fore in one the no to nouns _two_ cases, but neither of these ”Nouns have _two Forms_, called the _Simple_ and [the] _Possessive_”--_Spencer's E Grae in 1832, recognizes but _two_ cases of nouns, declaring the objective to be ”altogether superfluous”--P 22 ”Our substantives have no more cases than two”--_Jamieson's Rhet_, p 14 ”A Substantive doth not properly admit of more than two cases: the Nominative, and the Genitive”--_Ellen Devis's Gram_, p 19 Dr Webster, in his Philosophical Grammar, of 1807, and in his Improved Grammar, of 1831, teaches the same doctrine, but less positively This assumption has also had the support of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, Ash, Bicknell, Fisher, Dalton, and our celebrated Lindley Murray[163] In Child's or Lathalish Gralish are three:--1 Nominative; 2 Objective; 3 Possessive” But this seems to be meant of pronouns only; for the next section affirlish _have only two_ out of the three cases”--See pp 79 and 80

Reckless of the current usage of grammarians, and even of self-consistency, both author and reviser will have no objective case of nouns, because this is like the no an objective set after ”the adjective _like_,” they will recognize it as ”_a dative_ still existing in English!+”--See p 156 Thus do they forsake their own enumeration of cases, as they had before, in all their declensions, forsaken the new order in which they had at first so carefully set them!

OBS 5--For the _true_ doctrine of _three_ cases, we have the authority of Murray, in his later editions; of Webster, in his ”Plain and Corounded on _True Principles_,” 1790; also in his ”Rudiether with the united authority of Adaham, Burr, Bullions, Butler, Churchill, Chandler, Cobbett, Cobbin, Comly, Cooper, Crombie, Davenport, Davis, Fisk, A Flint, Frost, Guy, Hart, Hiley, Hull, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Kirkha, John Peirce, Perley, Picket, Russell, Smart, R C Smith, Rev T Smith, Wilcox, and I know not how nized _four_ cases: ”the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the absolute”--_Columbian Gram_, pp 16 and 20 Charles Bucke, in his work e,” published in London in 1829, asserts, that, ”Substantives in English do not vary their terives theenitive, the accusative, and the vocative” So did Allen, in a grammar much more classical, dated, London, 1813 Hazen, in 1842, adopted ”four cases; namely, the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the independent”--_Hazen's Practical Graan, since, has chosen these four: ”Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative”--_Structure of E Lang_, p 185 And yet his case after _to_ or _for_ is _not_ ”_dative_,” but ”_accusative!_”-- _Ib_, p 239 So too, Goodenow, of Maine, makes the cases four: ”the _subjective_,[164] the _possessive_, the _objective_, and the _absolute_”--_Text-Book_, p 31 Goldsbury, of Cae, has also four: ”the Nominative, the Possessive, the Objective, and the Vocative”--_Corammarians,--Wells, of Andover,-- Weld, of Portland,--and Clark, of Bloomfield, N Y,--also adopt ”_four_ cases;--the _nominative_, the _possessive_, the _objective_, and the _independent_”--_Wells's Graentleues, that, ”Since a noun or pronoun, used _independently_, cannot at the same time be employed as 'the subject of a verb,' there is ait as a _noed, that a nominative after a verb, or in apposition with an other, is, for this reason, not a _noument: ”'Is there not as much difference between the _nominative_ and [the] _independent_ case, as there is between the _nominative_ and [the]

_objective?_ If so, why class theether as _one_ case?'--_S R

Hall_”--_Wells's School Gram_, p 51 To this I answer, No ”The nominative is that case which _pri;” (_Burn's Gram_, p 36;) and _this only_ it is, that can be absolute, or independent, in English This scherave innovation As authority for it, Wells cites Felton; and bids his readers, ”See also Kennion, Parkhurst, Fowle, Flint, Goodenow, Buck, Hazen, Goldsbury, Chapin, S Alexander, and P Se 57 But is the fourth case of these authors _the same_ as his? Is it a case which ”has usually the nominative form,” but admits occasionally of ”_me_” and ”_him_,” and embraces objective nouns of ”_time, measure, distance, direction_, or _place_?” No Certainly one half of theive little or no countenance to _such_ an independent case as he has adopted Parkhurst adht be an improvement” What Fowle has said in support of Wells's four cases, I have sought with diligence, and not found Felton's ”independent case” is only what he absurdly calls, ”_The noun or pronoun addressed_”-- Page 91 Bucke and Goldsbury acknowledge ”_the nominative case absolute_;”

and none of the twelve, so far as I know, admit any objective word, or what others call objective, to be independent or absolute, except perhaps Goldsbury

OBS 7--S R Hall, formerly principal of the Serammarian,) in 1832, published a manual, called ”The Grammatical assistant;” in which he says, ”There are _at least five cases_, belonging to English nouns, differing as much from _each_ other, as the cases of Latin and Greek nouns They may be called Nominative, Possessive, Objective, Independent and Absolute”--P 7 O B Peirce will have both nouns and pronouns to be used in _five cases_, which he thus enumerates: ”Four simple cases; the Subjective, Possessive, Objective, and the Independent; and the Twofold case”--_Grae 56th, he speaks of a ”twofold _subjective_ case,” ”the twofold _objective_ case,”

and sho the _possessive_any of the Latin cases, or even all of Hall's, he really recognizes as rae, are Burn's, Coar's, Dilworth's, Mackintosh's, Mennye's, Wm Ward's, and the ”Comprehensive Grammar,” a respectable little book, published by Dobson of Philadelphia, in 1789, but written by sorareatto nouns three cases, and three only This, I am persuaded, is the best number, and susceptible of the best defence, whether we appeal to authority, or to other argurarauided by their decisions, it is proper for us to consider what _degree of certainty_ there is in the rule, and what difference or concurrence there is a of any other than the best opinions, is not the teaching of science, co the objective case of nouns, Murray and Webster _changed sides with each other_; and that, long after they first appeared as grammarians Nor was this the only, or the most important instance, in which the different editions of the works of these two gentlemen, present them in opposition, both to thelish? The _nominative_, which usually stands before a verb; as, the _boy_ writes: The _possessive_, which takes an _s_ with a _comma_, and denotes property; as, _John's_ hat: The _objective_, which follows a verb or preposition; as, he honors _virtue_, or it is an honor to _him_”--_Webster's Plain and Comp Gram, Sixth Edition_, 1800, p 9 ”But for convenience, the two positions of nouns, one _before_, the other _after_ the verb, are called _cases_ There are then three cases, the _nominative, possessive_, and _objective_”--_Webster's Rudilish therefore names have two cases only, the _nominative_ or simple name, and the _possessive_”-- _Webster's Philosoph Gram_, 1807, p 32: also his _Improved Gram_, 1831, p 24

OBS 9--Murray altered his opinion after the tenth or eleventh edition of his duodecilish, substantives have but two cases, the noenitive”--_Murray's Gram 12mo, Second Edition_, 1796, p 35 ”For the assertion, that there are in English but two cases of nouns, and three of pronouns, we have the authority of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, &c _names which are sufficient_ to decide this point”--_Ib_, p 36 ”In English, substantives have three cases, the nominative, the possessive, and the objective”--_Murray's Gram, 12mo, Twenty-third Edition_, 1816, p 44

”The author of this work _long doubted_ the propriety of assigning to English substantives an _objective case_: but a renewed critical examination of the subject; an examination to which he was prorammar, has produced in his e are entitled to this comprehensive objective case”--_Ib_, p 46 If there is any credit in changing one's opinions, it is, doubtless, in changing therammarian has the oes to the printer ”This case was adopted in the _twelfth edition_ of the Grammar”--_Murray's Exercises_, 12mo, N Y, 1818, p viii

OBS 10--The _possessive case_ has occasioned no less dispute than the objective On this vexed article of our grammar, custoo; and public opinion may be said to have settled itated about it Some individuals, however, are still dissatisfied In the first place, against those who have thought otherwise, it is determined, by infinite odds of authority, that there _is such a case_, both of nouns and of pronouns Many a coh to deny it

”The learned and sagacious Wallis, to whorammarian owes a tribute of reverence, calls this modification of the noun an _adjective possessive_; I think, with no ht have applied the sahtland also, who gave to _adjectives_ the na the them ”_Possessive Qualities_, or _Qualities of Possession_”--_Brightland's Gram_, p 90

OBS 11--This exploded error, Williao, republished as a novelty; for which, a other pretended improvements of a like sort, he received the ephemeral praise of some of ourSee his _Common School Gram_, Part II, p 104 In Felch's Grammar, too, published in Boston in 1837, an attempt is made, to revive this old doctrine; but the author takes no notice of any of the above-nanorant of the_ upon the point, does not appear to me to be worthy of a detailed answer[165] That the possessive case of nouns is not an adjective, is demonstrable; because itto it: as, ”_This old overn an other possessive; as, ”_Peter's wife's_ overned by the latter; but, if both were adjectives, they would both relate to the noun _ain, nouns of the possessive case have a distinction of nuender also, there lies a difference Adjectives, whenever they are varied by gender or nuree with their nouns_ in these respects Not so with possessives; as, ”In the _Jews'_ religion”--_Gal_, i 13 ”The _children's_ bread”--_Mark_, vii, 27 ”Some _men's_ sins”--_1 Tim_, v, 24 ”Other _eneral custom has clearly determined that the possessive case of _nouns_ is always to be written _with an apostrophe_: except in those few instances in which it is not governed singly by the noun following, but so connected with an other that both are governed jointly; as, ”_Cato the Censor's_ doctrine,”--”_Sir Walter Scott's_ Works,”--”_Beau the apostrophe, however, has been opposed by htland, and Buchanan, and the author of the British Graical Museuht, that the possessive case should be for _s_ when the pronunciation admits the sound, and _es_ when the word acquires an additional syllable Some of these approve of the apostrophe, and others do not Thus Brightland gives so that strange custo the _s_ in Ro _Charles_'s _Court_, and St _Jaue_, p 91

OBS 13--”The genitive case, in ht be_s_, or when the pronunciation requires it, _es_, without an Apostrophe: as, _men, mens; Ox, Oxes; Horse, Horses; ass, asses_”--_Ash's Gram_, p 23 ”To write _Ox's, ass's, Fox's_, and at the same time pronounce it _Oxes, asses, Foxes_, is such a departure fro, and such an inconsistent use of the Apostrophe, as cannot be equalled perhaps in any other language”--_Ib_ Lowth, too, gives sorace'_] was forrace;'_ ays shorten it with an apostrophe; often _very ied to pronounce it fully; as, _'Thomas's_ book,' that is, '_Thomasis_ book,'

not '_Thomas his_ book,' as it is coht there eneral custo, even to the eye alone, the nureat to be relinquished If the declension of English nouns is ever to be amended, it cannot be done in this way It is understood by every reader, that the _apostrophic s_ adds a syllable to the noun, whenever it will not unite with the sound in which the nominative ends; as, _torch's_, pronounced _torchiz_

”Yet tis's_, and lish possessive case unquestionably originated in that forenitive which terminates in _es_, examples of which ue: as, ”On _Herodes_ dagum,”--”In _Herod's_ days;”--”Of _Aarones_ dohtru was soed to _is_ or _ys_, before they becamefind them This terests, in the quotation above, that the apostrophe was introduced to shorten it But soinated in a htland, Johnson, Lowth, Priestley, and others, who have noticed the error in order to correct it, that an opinion was long entertained, that the termination _'s_ was a contraction of the word _his_ It is certain that Addison thought so; for he expressly says it, in the 135th nuly he wrote, in lieu of the regular possessive, ”My paper is _Ulysses his_ bow”--_Guardian_, No 98 ”Of _Socrates his_ rules of prayer”--_Spect_, No 207 So Lowth quotes Pope: ”By _young Tele years”--_Lowth's Gram_, p 17[166] There is also one late author who says, ”The _'s_ is a contraction of _his_, and was formerly written in full; as, William Russell _his_ book”--_Goodenow's Gralish; and alas so, however coave rise to it But the apostrophe, whatever ed distinctive lish nouns The application of the _'s_, frequently to feminines, and sometimes to plurals, is proof positive that it is _not a contraction_ of the pronoun _his_; as,

”Now Jove suspends his golden scales in air, Weighs the _ainst the _Lady's_ hair”

--_Pope_, R of L, C v, l 72

OBS 15--Many of the old gra the ular for the saenerally in the plural an abbreviation of the word by the omission of the second or syllabic _s_

That is, they suppose that such terles's wings, angels's visits_, &c This odd view of the h for the fashi+on of such plurals as _ular But I find no evidence at all of the fact on which these authors presuular possessive plural was ever, in general, a syllable longer than the nominative If it ever had been so, it would still be easy to prove the point, by citations froeneral principle then is, that _the apostrophe forular, and without it in the plural_; but there are some exceptions to this rule, on either hand; and these must be duly noticed