Part 107 (1/2)
OBS 11--Having prepared the reader to understand the origin of what is to follow, I now cite froraph which appears to be contradictory to his own doctrine, as suggested in the fifth observation above; and not only so, it is irreconcilable with any proper distinction between the participle and the participial noun ”When an _entire clause_ of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as _one name_, or to express one idea or circuenitive_ case; thus, _instead_ of saying, 'What is the reason of this _person dis_ his servant so hastily?'
_that is_, 'What is the reason of this person, _in_ dis his servant so hastily?' we _ht to say, 'What is the reason of this _person's_ dis of his servant _so hastily?_' Just as we say, 'What is the reason of this person's _hasty dismission_ of his servant?' So also, we say, 'I rereat exploit;' orreckoned,' &c The following sentence is _correct and proper_: 'Much will depend on _the pupil's co_ frequently' It would not be accurate to say, 'Much will depend on the _pupil co_' &c We also properly say; 'This will be the effect _of the pupil's co_ frequently' The _participle_, in such constructions, _does the office_ of a substantive; and it should therefore have a CORRESPONDENT REGIMEN”--_Murray's Graersoll's_, p 180; _Fisk's_, 108; _R C Ser's_, 61; _Merchant's_, 84 See also _Weld's Graed Ed,”
117[348]
OBS 12--Now, if it were as easy to prove that a participle, as such, or (what a with a participle, ought never to govern the possessive case, as it is to show that every part and parcel of the foregoing citations from Priestley, Murray, and others, is both weakly conceived and badly written, I should neither have detained the reader so long on this topic, nor ever have placed it arammar Let it be observed, that what these writers absurdly call ”_an entire_ CLAUSE _of a sentence_,” is found on examination to be some _short_ PHRASE, the participle with its adjuncts, or even the participle alone, or with a single adverb only; as, ”holding up her train,”--”dis frequently,”--”co frequently” And each of these, with an opposite error as great, they will have to be ”_one na that by virtue of this inify so which a ”lady,” or a ”person,”
or a ”pupil,”in every thing, they suggest that any noun on which such a participle, with its adjuncts, ”depends, _e is seldoe, no participle _ever can depend_ on any other than the nominative or the objective case
Every participle so depending is an adjunct to the noun; and every possessive, in its turn, is an adjunct to the hich governs it In respect to construction, no teroverns the possessive case, and a participle which does not These different constructions the contrivers of the foregoing rule, here take to be equivalent in ; whereas they elsewhere pretend to find in the is sometimes very different, and sometimes very similar; but seldom, if ever, are the terms convertible
And even if they were so, and the difference were nothing, would it not be better to adhere, where we can, to the analogy of General Graree with a noun in the genitive case; but, if we regard analogy, that genitive lished, not by the possessive case, but by _of_ and the objective; as, ”[Greek: 'Epe dokim`aen zaeteite to 'en 'emo lalontos Christo]”--”Quandoquidem experimentum quaeritis in me loquentis Christi”--_Beza_ ”Since ye seek a proof of _Christ speaking_ in ht here, perhaps, say, ”of _Christ's speaking_ in me,” but is not the other form better? The French version is, ”Puisque vous cherchez une preuve _que Christ parle_ par lish: ”Since ye seek a proof _that Christ speaks_ by overn any of our participles except the sireeable to our idioovern, action, or passion, between the preposition and the participle
Hence we find that the doer or the sufferer of the action is usually made its possessor, whenever the sense does not positively deainst this construction there is seldom any objection, if the participle be taken entirely as a noun, so that it may be called a participial noun; as, ”Much depends _on their observing of_ the rule”--_Lowth, Campbell_, and _L Murray_ On the other hand, the participle after the objective is unobjectionable, if the noun or pronoun be the leading word in sense; as, ”It would be idle to profess an apprehension of serious _evil resulting_ in any respect froiven_ to its contents”--_London Eclectic Review_, 1816
”The following is a beautiful instance of the _sound_ of words _corresponding_ to motion”--_Murray's Gra_ of both those characters”--_West's Letters_, p 182 ”To a _person following_ the vulgarthe co the different constructions above noticed, writers are frequently puzzled to deter, which word shall beterm Noherever there is ht to be preferred, I think we ; especially, if there can easily be found for the idea an other expression that is undoubtedly clear and correct Examples: ”These appear to be instances of the present _participle being used_ passively”--_Murray's Gra applied_ in an active sense”--_Ib_, 64 ”We have so used_ for substantives”--_Priestley's Graersoll's_, 206; _Fisk's_, 140; _Smith's_, 165
”By a _noun, pronoun_, or _adjective, being prefixed_ to the substantive”--_Murray's Graer's, Maltby's, Merchant's, Bacon's_, and others Here, if their own rule is good for any thing, these authors ought rather to have preferred the possessive case; but strike out the word _being_, which is not necessary to the sense, and all question about the construction vanishes Or if any body will justify these examples as they stand, let him observe that there are others, without number, to be justified on the sa observed_”--”Much will depend _on the pupil coain: ”Cyrus did not wait for the _Babylonians co_ to attack him”--_Rollin_, ii, 86 ”Cyrus did not wait for the _Babylonians' co,” and not, ”for _the;” but much better than either: ”Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians _to co_ enclosed and he_ enclosed and he Say, ”To prevent his _arn of _God's fulfilling_ the pro_ the pron _that God would fulfill_ the proain: ”There is affir_ the author of these books”--_Bp Watson's Apology_, p 28
”The first argu_ the author of these books”--_Ib_, p 29 Both are bad Say,--”for _Moses as being_ the author,”--”against _Moses as being_ the author,” &c
OBS 14--Now, although thousands of sentences ht easily be quoted, in which the possessive case is _actually_ governed by a participle, and that participle not taken in every respect as a noun; yet I iine, there are, of this kind, few exaht not be _better expressed_ in so all the examples which are presented by Priestley, Murray, and others, under their rule above Nor would a thousand such as are there given, amount to any proof of the rule They are all of thened_ sentences, made up for the occasion, and, like most others that are produced in the saraentle_ in such an act as _the holding-up of her train_, he certainly would use none of Priestley's three questions, which, with such ridiculous and uninstructive pedantry, are repeated and expounded by Latham, in his Hand-Book, --481; but would probably say, ”Mada up your train?” It was folly for the doctor to ask _an other person_, as if an other could _guess_ herbetter than he The text with the possessive is therefore not to be corrected by inserting a hyphen and an _of_, after Murray's doctrine before cited; as, ”What is the -up of_ her train?” Murray did well to reject this exalish, his own is no better The question which he asks, ought to have been, ”_Why did this person dis for his servant_ so hastily?”--_English Grarammars oovern the noun _servant_, and boldly avows at once, what their rule implies, that, ”Participles are sometimes used both as verbs and as nouns at the sa the object_,' &c”--_Ib_, p 134; so _Emmons's Gram_, p 64 But he errs as much as they, and contradicts both hiht rather to say, ”By the __, which ”does the office of a noun,” has not truly ”a correspondent regi_, unless we take away the _adverb_ by which the participle is prevented fro _of_ his servant so _hastily_,” is in itself an ungra but to omit either the preposition, or the two adverbs, can possibly ht Without the latter, it may follow the possessive; but without the forrammars say it cannot Some critics, however, object to the _of_, because _the dis_ is not _the servant's_ act; but this, as I shall hereafter show, is no valid objection: they stickle for a false rule
OBS 15--Thus these authors, differing fro hi in respect to the whole matter at issue For whether the phrase in question be like Priestley's, or like Murray's, or like Fisk's, it is still, according to the best authorities, unfit to govern the possessive case; because, in stead of being a substantive, it is so more than a participle, and yet they take it substantively They form this phrase in many different fashi+ons, and yet each man of them pretends that what he approves, is just like the construction of a regular noun: ”_Just as we say_, 'What is the reason of this person's _hasty dismission of_ his servant'”--_Murray, Fisk, and others ”Just as we say_, 'What is theof this lady's _dress_,' &c”--_Priestley_ Theof a _lady's dress_, forsooth! The illustration is worthy of the doctrine taught ”_An entire clause of a sentence_” substantively possessed, is sufficiently like ”_theof a lady's dress, &c_” Cobbett despised _andsoforths_, for their lack of ; and I find none in this one, unless it be, ”_of tinsel and of fustian_” This gloss therefore I wholly disapprove, judging the position more tenable, to deny, if we consequently must, that either a phrase or a participle, as such, can consistently govern the possessive case For whatever word or terhtly ht in reason to be a _noun_--ought to be the na, or thing When therefore other parts of speech assuainst the day of __ unto Israel”--_Luke_, i, 80 ”By __”--_Cowper, Life_, p 22 ”By a fortune of __”--_Ib_ ”Let _your yea_ be yea, and _your nay_ nay”--_James_, v, 12 ”Prate of _overnment of possessives by ”_entire clauses_” or ”_substantive phrases_,” as they are sometimes called, I am persuaded,the construction with i for it sora, and call thelish: (1) ”So we reat exploit;' or perhaps reat exploit'”--_Priestley, Murray, and others_ Here both ; the latter, especially; because it violates a general rule of syntax, in regard to the case of the noun _exploit_ Say, ”I reain: (2) ”We also properly say, 'This will be the effect of the _pupil's co_ frequently'”--_Murray's Gram_, p 179; _and others_ Better, ”This will be the effect, _if the pupil compose_ frequently” But this sentence is _fictitious_, and one ood authors can be found who use _co intransitive (3) ”What can be the reason of the _co delayed_ this business?”--_Murray's Key_, p 223 Say, ”_Why have the committee_ delayed this business?” (4) ”What can be the cause of the _parlia_ so important a business?”--_Ib_, p 195 Say, ”_Why does the parlialect_ so i_ the experith arrived”--_Ib_, p 195 Say, ”The tith arrived” (6) ”I hope this is the last ti_ so iain act_ so iive a reason for _their looking so well_, it would be, that they rise early”--_Ib_, p 263 Say, ”I should attribute _their healthful appearance_ to their early rising”
(8) ”The tutor said, that diligence and application to study were necessary to _our becoood scholars”--_Cooper's Gram_, p 145 Here is an anomaly in the construction of the noun _scholars_ Say, ”The tutor said, that _diligent application_ to study was necessary to our _success in learning_” (9) ”The reason of _his having acted_ in the manner he did, was not fully explained”--_Murray's Key_, p 263 This author has a very singular”STRENGTH” to weak sentences The faulty text here was ”The reason why he _acted_ in the manner he did, was not fully explained”--_Murray's Exercises_, p 131 This is much better than the other, but I should choose to say ”The reason of _his conduct_ was not fully explained” For, surely, the ”one idea or circu acted in the manner in _which_ he did act,” may be quite as forcibly nae, this ”substantive phrase,” or ”entire clause,” of such cu observations tend to show, that the governeneral a construction little to be commended, if at all allowed I thus narron the application of the principle, but do not hereby deteruainst the doctrine, which must be taken into the account, before we can fully decide the question The double construction which iven to infinitive verbs; the Greek idiom which allows to such verbs an article before them and an objective after theerund, part noun, part verb; the use or substitution of the participle in English for the gerund in Latin;--all these afford sothat 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 sorammarians so define it; andthe 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 sole 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 , 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”--_Graeneral principle, and leaving the reader to judge of its exceptions Because, without this e has a multiplicity of uses unparalleled in any other; and because it seldom happens that the idea intended by this double construction antly But if it soerundive participle should be allowed to govern the possessive case, no exception to _ of such possessive; because whatever is invested with such governly, is assu possessed”
OBS 18--The reader may have observed, that in the use of participial nouns, the distinction of _voice_ in the participle is so_,”buried_” But in this instance the usual noun _burial_ or _funeral_ would have been better than either: ”Against the day of _my burial_” I e, ”In diem _funerationis meae_”--_Beza_ ”In diem _sepulturae meae_”--_Leusden_ ”[Greek: 'Eis t`aen haemeran to entaphiasmo 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 _sepeliendu me_” ”[Greek: Prs t entaphiasai me]” Nearly: ”_For to have me buried_” Not all that is allowable, is commendable; and if either of the uncompounded terms be found a fit substitute for the compound participial noun, it is better to dispense with the latter, on account of its dissimilarity to other nouns: as, ”Which only proceed upon the _question's being begged_”--_Barclay's Works_, Vol iii, p 361 Better, ”Which only proceed upon _a begging of the question_” ”The _king's having conquered_ in the battle, established his throne”--_Nixon's Parser_, p 128 Better, ”The king's _conquering_ in the battle;” for, in the participial noun, the distinction of _tense_, or of previous _completion_, is as needless as that of voice ”The _fleet's having sailed_ preventedof the fleet_,”--or, ”The _fleet's sailing_” &c ”The _prince's being murdered_ excited their pity”--_Ibid_ Better, ”The _prince's nation_”
OBS 19--In some instances, as it appears, not a little difficulty is experienced by our gra the addition or the on, the terminational apostrophic _s_, which in nouns is the ordinary index of the possessive case Let it be reoverned, 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 ter 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 oes on the point, still leaves it perplexed and undetermined If a person knohat heto the Note, and he will not fail to use just as ht How absurd then is that coathered 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 exalish, or at any rate, not adapted to the sense which he intends!
OBS 20--The possessive case generally co noun, expressed or understood; as, ”All _nature's_ difference keeps all _nature's_ peace”--_Pope_ ”Lady! be _thine_ (i e, _thy walk_) the _Christian's_ walk”--_Chr Observer_ ”Some of _aeschylus's_ [plays]
and _Euripides's_ plays are opened in this manner”--_Blair's Rhet_, p
459 And in this order one possessive sooverns an other: as, ”_Peter's wife's eneral principle of arrangeoverning noun has an adjective, this may intervene; as, ”_Flora's_ earliest _smells_”--_Milton_ ”Of _ phrase froht'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 _ noun _may be supplied_ in its proper place; and, in some such instances, it _overning 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_ friendshi+p”--_Allen_ ”_Ada 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 Jabroke, 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, enitive case_” as well as the forht 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 ht be a little iu conveyed cannot be expressed by possessives The notion that _of_ fore adenitive_;” 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 ofwas 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 a what he calls ”ERRONEOUS OR VULGAR PHRASES” His exa's;”--”That is a horse of ht 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 suggeststo this possessor; and when such is not theexample, the noun _eyes_ is understood after _his_:
”Ev'n _his_, the _warrior's eyes_, were forced to yield, That saithout a tear, Pharsalia's field”
--_Rowe's Lucan_, B viii, l 144
OBS 23--When two or more nouns of the possessive fors individually different but of the sa noun, which ays suppress son 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]