The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

as, "Et osculantes se alterutrum, fleverunt pariter."—Vulgate. That is: "And kissing each other, they wept together." As this text speaks of but two persons, our translators have not expressed it well in the common version: "And they kissed one an other, and wept one with an other"—1 Sam., xx, 41. Alter-utrum is composed of a nominative and an accusative, like each-other; and, in the nature of things, there is no reason why the former should be compounded, and the latter not. Ordinarily, there seems to be no need of compounding either of them. But some examples occur, in which it is not easy to parse each other and one an other otherwise than as compounds: as, "He only recommended this, and not the washing of one another's feet."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 143.

   "The Temple late two brother sergeants saw,
    Who deem'd each other oracles of law."—Pope, B. ii, Ep. 2.[345]

OBS. 16.—The common and the proper name of an object are very often associated, and put in apposition; as, "The river Thames,"—"The ship Albion,"—"The poet Cowper"—"Lake Erie,"—"Cape May"—"Mount Atlas." But, in English, the proper name of a place, when accompanied by the common name, is generally put in the objective case, and preceded by of; as, "The city of New York,"—"The land of Canaan,"—"The island of Cuba,"—"The peninsula of Yucatan." Yet in some instances, even of this kind, the immediate apposition is preferred; as, "That the city Sepphoris should be subordinate to the city Tiberias."—Life of Josephus, p. 142. In the following sentence, the preposition of is at least needless: "The law delighteth herself in the number of twelve; and the number of twelve is much respected in holy writ."—Coke, on Juries. Two or three late grammarians, supposing of always to indicate a possessive relation between one thing and an other, contend that it is no less improper, to say, "The city of London, the city of New Haven, the month of March, the islands of Cuba and Hispaniola, the towns of Exeter and Dover," than to say, "King of Solomon, Titus of the Roman Emperor, Paul of the apostle, or, Cicero of the orator."—See Barrett's Gram., p. 101; Emmons's, 16. I cannot but think there is some mistake in their mode of finding out what is proper or improper in grammar. Emmons scarcely achieved two pages more, before he forgot his criticism, and adopted the phrase, "in the city of New Haven."—Gram., p. 19.

OBS. 17.—When an object acquires a new name or character from the action of a verb, the new appellation is put in apposition with the object of the active verb, and in the nominative after the passive: as, "They named the child John;"—"The child was named John."—"They elected him president;"—"He was elected president." After the active verb, the acquired name must be parsed by Rule 3d; after the passive, by Rule 6th. In the following example, the pronominal adjective some, or the noun men understood after it, is the direct object of the verb gave, and the nouns expressed are in apposition with it: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers"—Ephesians, iv, 11. That is, "He bestowed some [men] as apostles; and some as prophets; and some as evangelists; and some as pastors and teachers." The common reader might easily mistake the meaning and construction of this text in two different ways; for he might take some to be either a dative case, meaning to some persons, or an adjective to the nouns which are here expressed. The punctuation, however, is calculated to show that the nouns are in apposition with some, or some men, in what the Latins call the accusative, case. But the version ought to be amended by the insertion of as, which would here be an express sign of the apposition intended.

OBS. 18.—Some authors teach that words in apposition must agree in person, number, and gender, as well as in case; but such agreement the following examples show not to be always necessary: "The Franks, a people of Germany."—W. Allen's Gram. "The Kenite tribe, the descendants of Hobab."—Milman's Hist. of the Jews. "But how can you a soul, still either hunger or thirst?"—Lucian's Dialogues, p. 14. "Who seized the wife of me his host, and fled."—Ib., p. 16.

   "Thy gloomy grandeurs (Nature's most august.
    Inspiring aspect!) claim a grateful verse."—Young, N. ix, l. 566.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION. FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE III. ERRORS OF WORDS IN APPOSITION.

"Now, therefore, come thou, let us make a covenant, I and thou."—Gen., xxxi, 44.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the pronouns I and thou, of the nominative case, are here put in apposition with the preceding pronoun us, which is objective. But, according to Rule 3d, "A noun or a personal pronoun, used to explain a preceding noun or pronoun, is put, by apposition, in the same case." Therefore, I and thou should be thee and me; (the first person, in our idiom, being usually put last;) thus, "Now, therefore, come thou, let us make a covenant, thee and me."]

"Now, therefore, come thou, we will make a covenant, thee and me."—Variation of Gen. "The word came not to Esau, the hunter, that stayed not at home; but to Jacob, the plain man, he that dwelt in tents."—Wm. Penn. "Not to every man, but to the man of God, (i. e.) he that is led by the spirit of God."—Barclays Works, i, 266. "For, admitting God to be a creditor, or he to whom the debt should be paid, and Christ he that satisfies or pays it on behalf of man the debtor, this question will arise, whether he paid that debt as God, or man, or both?"—Wm. Penn. "This Lord Jesus Christ, the heavenly Man, the Emmanuel, God with us, we own and believe in: he whom the high priests raged against," &c.—George Fox. "Christ, and Him crucified, was the Alpha and Omega of all his addresses, the fountain and foundation of his hope and trust."—Experience of Paul, p. 399. "'Christ and Him crucified' is the head, and only head, of the church."—Denison's Sermon. "But if 'Christ and Him crucified' are the burden of the ministry, such disastrous results are all avoided."—Ib. "He never let fall the least intimation, that himself, or any other person, whomsoever, was the object of worship."—Hannah Adams's View, p. 250. "Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."—1 Tim., v, 17. "Our Shepherd, him who is styled King of saints, will assuredly give his saints the victory."—Sermon. "It may seem odd to talk of we subscribers"—Fowlers True Eng. Gram., p. 20. "And they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters; for I will pour their wickedness upon them."—Jeremiah, xiv, 16. "Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants."—Philippians, ii, 25.

   "Amidst the tumult of the routed train,
    The sons of false Antimachus were slain;
    He, who for bribes his faithless counsels sold,
    And voted Helen's stay for Paris' gold."
        —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 from thy lips poured forth a joyful song
    To thy Redeemer!—yea, it poured along
    In most melodious energy 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 name of the thing possessed: as, "God's mercy prolongs man's life."—Allen.

"Theirs is the vanity, the learning thine; Touched by thy hand, again Rome's glories shine."—Pope.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE IV.

OBS. 1.—Though the ordinary syntax of the possessive case is sufficiently plain and easy, there is perhaps, among all the puzzling and disputable points of grammar, nothing more difficult of decision, than are some questions that occur respecting the right management 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 many and what exceptions to this rule ought to be allowed, or whether any are justly demanded or not, are matters about which there may be much diversity of opinion. Having heretofore published the rule without any express exceptions, I am not now convinced that it is best to add any; yet are there three different modes of expression which might 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 great multitude of very common expressions, concerning which our ablest grammarians differ in opinion, and our most popular digest plainly contradicts itself. These points are; first, the apposition of possessives, and the supposed ellipses which may affect that construction; secondly, the government of the possessive case after is, was, &c., when the ownership of a thing is simply affirmed or denied; thirdly, the government 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 my servant's sake,") might doubtless be consistently made a formal exception to the direct government of the possessive by its controlling noun. But this apposition is only a sameness of construction, so that what governs 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 something else than apposition, I have already shown him that some great grammarians 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 Gram., p. 71.

OBS. 3.—In all our Latin grammars, the verb sum, fui, esse, to be, is said (though not with strict propriety) sometimes to signify 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 import, this verb, expressed or understood, may govern the dative; as, "Ego [sum] dilecto meo, et dilectus meus [est] mihi."—Vulgate. "I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine."—Solomon's Song, vi, 3. Here, as both the genitive and the dative are expressed in English by the possessive, if the former are governed by the verb, there seems to be precisely the same reason from the nature of the expression, and an additional one from analogy, for considering the latter to be so too. But all the annotators upon the Latin syntax suggest, that the genitive thus put after sum or est, is really governed, not by the verb, but by some noun understood; and with this idea, of an ellipsis in the construction, all our English grammarians appear to unite. They might not, however, find it very easy to tell by what noun the word beloved's or mine is governed, in the last example above; and so of many others, which are used in the same way: as, "There shall nothing die of all that is the children's of Israel."—Exod., ix, 4. The Latin here is, "Ut nihil omnino pereat ex his quæ pertinent ad filios Israel."—Vulgate. 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 from the name of the thing possessed; and that accordingly there are, in the simple personal pronouns, (where such a distinction is most needed,) two different forms of the case; the one adapted to the concrete, and the other to the abstract construction. That form of the pronoun, however, which is equivalent in sense to the concrete and the noun, is still the possessive case, and nothing more; as, "All mine are thine, and thine are mine."—John, xvii, 10. For if we suppose this equivalence to prove such a pronoun to be something