Part 106 (2/2)

--_Pope, Iliad_, B xi l 161

”See the vile King his iron sceptre bear-- His only praise attends the pious Heir; He, in whose soul the virtues all conspire, The best good son, from the worst wicked sire”

--DR LOWTH: _Union Poems_, p 19

”Then fro To thy Redeey of praise, To God, the Saviour, he of ancient days”

--_Arm Chair_, p 15

RULE IV--POSSESSIVES

A Noun or a pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the nas _man's_ life”--_Allen_

”_Theirs_ is the vanity, the learning _thine_; Touched by _thy_ hand, again _Rolories shi+ne”--_Pope_

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE IV

OBS 1--Though the _ordinary_ syntax of the possessive case is sufficiently plain and easy, there is perhaps, ara more difficult of decision, than are soement of this case

That its usual construction is both clearly and properly stated in the foregoing rule, is what none will doubt or deny But how ht to be allowed, or whether any are justly demanded or not, are matters about which thereheretofore published the rule without any express exceptions, I am not now convinced that it is best to add any; yet are there three different ht be plausibly exhibited in that character Two of these would concern only the parser; and, for that reason, they seem not to be very important The other involves the approval or reprehension of a greatwhich our ablest graest plainly contradicts itself These points are; _first_, the apposition of possessives, and the supposed ellipses which overnment of the possessive case after _is, was_, &c, when the ownershi+p of a thing is siovernment of the possessive by a participle, as such--that is, while it retains the government and adjuncts of a participle

OBS 2--The apposition of one possessive with an other, (as, ”For _David_ ht doubtless be consistently overn noun But this apposition is only a saoverns the one, virtually governs the other And if the case of any noun or pronoun is known and determined by the rule or relation of apposition, there can be no need of an exception to the foregoing rule for the purpose of parsing it, since that purpose is already answered by rule third If the reader, by supposing an ellipsis which I should not, will resolve any given instance of this kind into so else than apposition, I have already shown hirammarians have differed in the same way before

Useless ellipses, however, should never be supposed; and such _perhaps_ is the following: ”At Mr Smith's [_who is_] the bookseller”--See _Dr

Priestley's Grarah not with strict propriety) sonify_ possession, property, or duty, and in that sense to govern the genitive case: as, ”_Est regis_;”--”It is the king's”--”_Hominis est errare_;”--”It is man's to err”--”_Pecus est Melibœi_;”--”The flock is Meliboeus's” And sometimes, with like iovern the dative; as, ”_Ego_ [suate_ ”I a_, vi, 3 Here, as both the genitive and the dative are expressed in English by the possessive, if the foroverned by the verb, there seems to be precisely the same reason from the nature of the expression, and an additional one fro the latter to be so too But all the annotators upon the Latin syntax suggest, that the genitive thus put after _suoverned, not by the verb, but by some _noun understood_; and with this idea, of an ellipsis in the construction, all our English graht not, however, find it very easy to tell by what noun the word _beloved's_ or _overned, in the last example above; and so of many others, which are used in the sa die of all that is the _children's_ of Israel”--_Exod_, ix, 4 The Latin here is, ”Ut nihil oate_ That is,--”of all those _which belong to_ the children of Israel”

”For thou art _Freedom's_ now--and _Fame's_, One of the few, the immortal names, That were not born to die”--HALLECK: _Marco Bozzaris_

OBS 4--Although the possessive case is always intrinsically an _adjunct_ and therefore incapable of being used or comprehended in any sense that is positively abstract; yet we see that there are instances in which it is used with a certain degree of abstraction,--that is, with an actual separation froly there are, in the simple personal pronouns, (where such a distinction is most needed,) two different forms of the case; the one adapted to the concrete, and the other to the abstract construction That form of the pronoun, however, which is equivalent in sense to the concrete and the noun, is still the possessive case, and nothing more; as, ”All _mine_ are _thine_, and _thine_ are _mine_”--_John_, xvii, 10 For if we suppose this equivalence to prove such a pronoun to be sora the possessive case of a noun, whenever the relation of ownershi+p or possession is simply affirs are _yours_; and ye are _Christ's_; and Christ is _God's_”--_1 Cor_, iii, 21 By the second exaest, that the possessive case, when placed before or after this verb, (_be_,) _overned by the nooverned by ”_vanity_,” and ”_thine_” by ”_learning_,” these nouns being the nas possessed But then we encounter a difficulty, whenever a _pronoun_ happens to be the nolorify God in your body, and in your spirit, _which are God's_”--_1 Cor_, vi, 20 Here the common resort would be to some ellipsis; and yet it must be confessed, that this mode of interpretation cannot but make some difference in the sense: as, ”_If ye be Christ's_, then are ye Abraha to be, ”_If ye be Christ's seed_, or _children_” But a truer version of the text would be, ”If ye _are of Christ_, then are ye Abraham's seed”--”Que si vous _etes a Christ_, vous etes done la posterite d'Abraha of so, and if the possessive case is always an adjunct, referring either directly or indirectly to that which constitutes it a possessive, it would seeovernment of this case to that part of speech which is understood _substantively_--that is, to ”the _na possessed” Yet, in violation of this restriction, iovern the possessive case; and so inconsistency, aver, that the possessive case before a participle converts the latter into a noun, and necessarily deprives it of its regimen Whether participles are worthy to form an exception to ravest faults of L Murray's code of syntax After copying from Lowth the doctrine that a participle with an _article_ before it becoovernment and adjuncts of a participle, this author informs us, that the same principles are applicable to the _pronoun_ and participle: as, ”Much depends on _their observing of_ the rule, and error will be the consequence of _their neglecting of_ it;” in stead of, ”_their observing the rule_,” and ”_their neglecting it_” And this doctrine he applies, with yet more positiveness, to the _noun_ and participle; as if the error were still overn a possessive _noun_; saying, ”We shall perceive this _more clearly_, if we substitute a noun for the pronoun: as, 'Much depends upon _Tyro's observing of_ the rule,' &c; which is the same as, 'Much depends on Tyro's _observance_ of the rule' But, as this construction sounds rather _harshly_, it would, in general, be better to express the senti, or so observed_; and error will be the consequence of _its being neglected_? or--'_on observing the rule_; and--_of neglecting it_'”--_Murray's Graersoll's_, 199; and others

OBS 6--Here it is assu the rule_,” is an ungraested for its correction, a preference is at length given to what is perhaps not less objectionable than the original phrase itself

The last for the rule_,” &c, is indeed correct enough in itself; but, as a substitute for the other, it is both inaccurate and insufficient It merely omits the possessive case, and leaves the action of the participle undeterent For the possessive case before a real participle, denotes not the possessor of soent of the action, or the subject of the being or passion; and the simple question here is, whether this extraordinary use of the possessive case is, or is not, such an idioht to be justified Participles may become nouns, if we choose to use theovern the possessive case before theovern also the objective after the which is qualified by adverbs? If they can, Lowth, Murray, and others, are wrong in supposing the foregoing phrases to be ungra that the possessive case before a participle converts it into a noun; and if they cannot, Priestley, Murray, Hiley, Wells, Weld, and others, are wrong in supposing that a participle, or a phrase beginning with a participle, overn the possessive case Compare Murray's seventh note under his Rule 10th, with the second under his Rule 14th The saht by many other compilers See _Smith's New Graersoll's_, 180 and 199

OBS 7--Concerning one of the for his corrections above, the learned doctors Lowth and Campbell appear to have formed very different opinions The latter, in the chapter which, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, he devotes to disputed points in syntax, says: ”There is only one other observation of Dr Lowth, on which, before I conclude this article, Ileave to offer soh very co observed_; and error will be the consequence of _its being neglected_ For here _is_ a noun _and_ a pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that is, under the governovern it: for _being observed_, and _being neglected_, are not nouns: nor can you supply the place of the possessive case by the preposition _of_ before the noun or pronoun'[346]

Forwhat is here very speciously urged, I am not satisfied that there is any fault in the phrases censured They appear to ue, and such as on so to circumlocution, an expedient which invariably tends to enervate the expression”--_Philosophy of Rhetoric_, B ii, Ch iv, p 234

OBS 8--Dr Ca expressions against the objections of Dr Lowth, not on the ground that participles as such overn the possessive case, but on the supposition that as the simple active participle overn the possessive case, so may the passive participle, and with equal propriety, notwithstanding it consists of two or more words, which”one compound noun” I am not sure that he round, but if he does, his position cannot be said in any respect to contravene ree with hiative which he attempts to prove In view of the two exa observed_,” and, ”Much depends upon _their observing of the rule_,” he says: ”Now, although I allow both _the_ ood, I think the first _si all faults, he proceeds: ”Let us consider whether the former be liable to _any objections_, which do not equally affect the latter” But in his argument, he considers only the objections offered by Lohich indeed he sufficiently refutes Now to me there appear to be other objections, which are better founded In the first place, the two sentences are not equivalent in ested by this critic and others, is absurd Secondly, a compound noun formed of two or three words without any hyphen, is at best such an anoht rather to avoid than to prefer If these considerations do not positively condeht at least to prevent it fro the latter; and seldoular noun, which we can limit by the article or the possessive at pleasure: as, ”Much depends on _an observance_ of the rule”--”Much depends on _their observance_ of the rule” Now these two sentences are equivalent to the two former, but not to each other; and, _vice versa_: that is, the two former are equivalent to these, but not to each other[347]

OBS 9--Froiven so a proper distinction between the noun and the gerund,”--that is, between the participial noun and the participle,--it is fair to infer that he ument above uous or very erroneous sentence, froine, his views of this matter have been misconceived, and by which Murray and all his modifiers have been furnished with an example ith to confound this distinction, and also to contradict themselves The sentence is this: ”Much will depend on _your pupil's co_ frequently”--_Philos of Rhet_, p 235 Voluone abroad, into our schools and elsewhere, which pronounce this sentence to be ”correct and proper” But after all, what does it mean? Does the adverb ”_frequently_” qualify the verb ”_will depend_” expressed in the sentence?

or ”_will depend_” understood after _more_? or both? or neither? Or does this adverb qualify the action of ”_reading_?” or the action of ”_co_, if they are mere _nouns_, cannot properly be qualified by any adverb; and, if they are called participles, the question recurs respecting the possessives

Besides, _co_, as a participle, is commonly _transitive_; nor is it very fit for a noun, without soovernment (it is said) falls upon _of_, and their adverbs are usually converted into adjectives; as, ”Much will depend on your _pupil's co_” This inally composed as a mere mock sentence, or by way of ”_experi was ever at all thought of by the philosopher But, to make it a respectable example, some correction there must be; for, surely, no man can have any clear idea to co this loose phraseology It is scarcely more correct, than to say, ”Much will depend on _an author's using_, but _ frequently” Yet is it coersoll, Fisk, R C Smith, Cooper, Lennie, Hiley, Bullions, C

Adams, A H Weld, and I know not how ular notion, so corammars, that a participle and its adjuncts overn the possessive case, where it is presumed the participle itself could not, is an invention worthy to have been always ascribed to its true author For this doctrine, as I suppose, our grarammar it stands thus: ”When an _entire clause_ of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea, or circuenitive case

Thus, instead of saying, _What is theup her train_, i e _what is theup her train_, weup her train_; just as we say, _What is theof this lady's dress_, &c So we reat exploit_; or, perhaps_reckoned_, &c”--_Priestley's Gra of errors in punctuation, capitals, &c, there is scarcely any thing in all this passage, that is either conceived or worded properly Yet, coining from a Doctor of Laws, and Fellow of the Royal Society, it is readily adopted by Murray, and for his sake by others; and so, with all its blunders, the vain gloss passes uncensured into the schools, as a rule and ant composition Dr Priestley pretends to appreciate the difference between participles and participial nouns, but he rather contrives a fanciful distinction in the sense, than a real one in the construction His only note on this point,--a note about the ”_horse running to-day_,” and the ”_horse's running_ to-day,”--I shall leave till we come to the syntax of participles