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

more than the possessive case, as do some grammarians, we must suppose the same thing respecting the possessive case of a noun, whenever the relation of ownership or possession is simply affirmed or denied with such a noun put last: as, "For all things are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's."—1 Cor., iii, 21. By the second example placed under the rule, I meant to suggest, that the possessive case, when placed before or after this verb, (be,) might be parsed as being governed by the nominative; as we may suppose "theirs" to be governed by "vanity," and "thine" by "learning," these nouns being the names of the things possessed. But then we encounter a difficulty, whenever a pronoun happens to be the nominative; as, "Therefore glorify 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 Abraham's seed."—Gal., iii, 29. Here some may think the meaning 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 êtes à Christ, vous êtes done la posterité d'Abraham."—French Bible.

OBS. 5.—Possession is the having of something, and if the possessive case is always an adjunct, referring either directly or indirectly to that which constitutes it a possessive, it would seem but reasonable, to limit the government of this case to that part of speech which is understood substantively—that is, to "the name of the thing possessed." Yet, in violation of this restriction, many grammarians admit, that a participle, with the regimen and adjuncts of a participle, may govern the possessive case; and some of them, at the same time, with astonishing 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 my rule or not, this palpable contradiction is one of the gravest faults of L. Murray's code of syntax. After copying from Lowth the doctrine that a participle with an article before it becomes a noun, and must drop the government 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 more glaring, to make an active participle govern 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 sentiment in the following, or some other form: 'Much depends on the rule's being observed; and error will be the consequence of its being neglected? or—'on observing the rule; and—of neglecting it.'"—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 193; Ingersoll's, 199; and others.

OBS. 6.—Here it is assumed, that "their observing the rule," or "Tyro's observing the rule," is an ungrammatical phrase; and, several different methods being suggested for its correction, a preference is at length given to what is perhaps not less objectionable than the original phrase itself. The last form offered, "on observing 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 undetermined in respect to the agent. For the possessive case before a real participle, denotes not the possessor of something, as in other instances, but the agent 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 idiom of our language as ought to be justified. Participles may become nouns, if we choose to use them substantively; but can they govern the possessive case before them, while they govern also the objective after them, or while they have a participial meaning which is qualified by adverbs? If they can, Lowth, Murray, and others, are wrong in supposing the foregoing phrases to be ungrammatical, and in teaching 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, may properly govern the possessive case. Compare Murray's seventh note under his Rule 10th, with the second under his Rule 14th. The same contradiction is taught by many other compilers. See Smith's New Grammar, pp. 152 and 162; Comly's Gram., 91 and 108; Ingersoll's, 180 and 199.

OBS. 7.—Concerning one of the forms of expression which Murray approves and prefers, among 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, I must beg leave to offer some remarks. 'Phrases like the following, though very common, are improper: Much depends upon the rule's being 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 government of another noun, but without other noun to govern 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] For my part," continues Campbell, "notwithstanding what is here very speciously urged, I am not satisfied that there is any fault in the phrases censured. They appear to me to be perfectly in the idiom of our tongue, and such as on some occasions could not easily be avoided, unless by recurring to circumlocution, an expedient which invariably tends to enervate the expression."—Philosophy of Rhetoric, B. ii, Ch. iv, p. 234.

OBS. 8.—Dr. Campbell, if I understand his argument, defends the foregoing expressions against the objections of Dr. Lowth, not on the ground that participles as such may govern the possessive case, but on the supposition that as the simple active participle may become a noun, and in that character govern the possessive case, so may the passive participle, and with equal propriety, notwithstanding it consists of two or more words, which must in this construction be considered as forming "one compound noun." I am not sure that he means to confine himself strictly to this latter ground, but if he does, his position cannot be said in any respect to contravene my rule for the possessive case. I do not, however, agree with him, either in the opinion which he offers, or in the negative which he attempts to prove. In view of the two examples, "Much depends upon the rule's being observed," and, "Much depends upon their observing of the rule," he says: "Now, although I allow both the modes of expression to be good, I think the first simpler and better than the second." Then, denying 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 Lowth, which 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 meaning; hence the preference suggested 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 anomaly, as we ought rather to avoid than to prefer. If these considerations do not positively condemn the former construction, they ought at least to prevent it from displacing the latter; and seldom is either to be preferred to the regular 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.—From Dr. Campbell's commendation of Lowth, as having "given some excellent directions for preserving 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 meant to preserve it himself; and yet, in the argument above mentioned, he appears to have carelessly framed one ambiguous or very erroneous sentence, from which, as I imagine, his views of this matter have been misconceived, and by which Murray and all his modifiers have been furnished with an example wherewith to confound this distinction, and also to contradict themselves. The sentence is this: "Much will depend on your pupil's composing, but more on his reading frequently."—Philos. of Rhet., p. 235. Volumes innumerable have gone 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 "composing?" or both? or neither? But composing and reading, 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, composing, as a participle, is commonly transitive; nor is it very fit for a noun, without some adjunct. And, when participles become nouns, their government (it is said) falls upon of, and their adverbs are usually converted into adjectives; as, "Much will depend on your pupil's composing of themes; but more, on his frequent reading." This may not be the author's meaning, for the example was originally composed as a mere mock sentence, or by way of "experiment;" and one may doubt whether its meaning 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 communicate, which he cannot better express, than by imitating this loose phraseology. It is scarcely more correct, than to say, "Much will depend on an author's using, but more on his learning frequently." Yet is it commended as a model, either entire or in part, by Murray, Ingersoll, Fisk, R. C. Smith, Cooper, Lennie, Hiley, Bullions, C. Adams, A. H. Weld, and I know not how many other school critics.

OBS. 10.—That singular notion, so common in our grammars, that a participle and its adjuncts may form "one name" or "substantive phrase," and so govern 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 grammarians are indebted to Dr. Priestley. In his grammar 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 circumstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case. Thus, instead of saying, What is the meaning of this lady holding up her train, i. e. what is the meaning of the lady in holding up her train, we may say, What is the meaning of this lady's holding up her train; just as we say, What is the meaning of this lady's dress, &c. So we may either say, I remember it being reckoned a great exploit; or, perhaps more elegantly, I remember its being reckoned, &c."—Priestley's Gram., p. 69. Now, to say nothing 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 model for elegant 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