The Grammar of English Grammars Part 42

The nominative and the objective of nouns, are always alike in form, being distinguishable from each other only by their place in a sentence, or by their simple dependence according to the sense.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The cases, in grammar, are founded on the different relations under which things 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 p.r.o.nouns of those languages, and also their adjectives and participles, (which last are still farther inflected by the three genders,) are varied by many different terminations unknown to our tongue. In English, those modifications or relations which we call cases, belong only to nouns and p.r.o.nouns; nor are there ever more than three. p.r.o.nouns 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 nominative case is most commonly found; very many of our grammarians have deliberately represented all terms used in this manner, as being "_in the nominative case_:" as if, to sustain any one of the relations which are usually distinguished by a particular case, must necessarily const.i.tute 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 p.r.o.nouns, they a.s.sume 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 become nouns or p.r.o.nouns. Yet Nixon, by a.s.suming that _of_, with the word governed by it, const.i.tutes 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 examination of the first and second methods of parsing 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 fourth method proves its [capacity of] being in 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 method, it is in the objective case. Method sixth is a.n.a.logous to the Case Absolute of a substantive."--_Nixon's Pa.r.s.er_, p. 83. If the infinitive mood is really a _declinable substantive_, none of our grammarians have placed it in the right chapter; except that bold contemner of all grammatical and literary authority, Oliver B. Peirce. When will the cause of learning cease to have a.s.sailants and underminers among those who profess to serve it? Thus every new grammatist, has some grand absurdity or other, peculiar to himself; and what can be more gross, than to talk of English infinitives and participles as being in the _possessive case_?

OBS. 3.--It was long a subject of dispute among the grammarians, what number of cases an English noun should be supposed to have. Some, taking the Latin language for their model, and turning certain phrases into cases to fill up the deficits, were for having _six_ in each number; namely, the nominative, the genitive, the dative, the accusative, the vocative, and the ablative. Others, contending that a case in grammar could be nothing else than a terminational inflection, and observing that English 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 important question, touching a fundamental principle of our grammar; and any erroneous opinion concerning it, might well go far to condemn the book that avouched it. Every intelligent teacher must see this. For what sense could be made of parsing, without supposing an objective case to nouns? or what propriety could there be in making the words, _of_, and _to_, and _from_, govern or compose three different cases? Again, with what truth can it be said, that nouns have _no cases_ in English? or what reason can be a.s.signed for making more than three?

OBS. 4.--Public opinion is now clear in the decision, that it is _expedient_ to a.s.sign 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, from the works of our grammarians, may be quoted every conceivable notion, right 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 Grammar, a.s.signed to them _one_ case only, the possessive, or genitive. Dr. Adam also says, "In English, nouns have _only one case_, namely, the genitive, or possessive case."--_Latin and Eng. Gram._, p. 7. W. B. Fowle has two cases, but rejects the word _case_: "We use the simple term _agent_ 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 "_form_," that he may merge in one the nominative and the objective, giving to nouns _two_ cases, but neither of these. "Nouns have _two Forms_, called the _Simple_ and [the] _Possessive_."--_Spencer's E. Gram._, p. 30. Webber's Grammar, published at Cambridge 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 a.s.sumption has also had the support of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, Ash, Bicknell, Fisher, Dalton, and our celebrated Lindley Murray.[163] In Child's or Latham's English Grammar, 1852, it is said, "The cases in the present English are three:--1. Nominative; 2. Objective; 3. Possessive." But this seems to be meant of p.r.o.nouns only; for the next section affirms, "The _substantives_ in English _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 nominative; yet, finding 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 Comp. Grammar, grounded on _True Principles_," 1790; also in his "Rudiments of English Grammar," 1811; together with the united authority of Adams, Ainsworth, Alden, Alger, Bacon, Barnard, Bingham, Burr, Bullions, Butler, Churchill, Chandler, Cobbett, Cobbin, Comly, Cooper, Crombie, Davenport, Davis, Fisk, A. Flint, Frost, Guy, Hart, Hiley, Hull, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Kirkham, Lennie, Mack, M'Culloch, Maunder, Merchant, Nixon, Nutting, John Peirce, Perley, Picket, Russell, Smart, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith, Wilc.o.x, and I know not how many others.

OBS. 6.--Dearborn, in 1795, recognized _four_ cases: "the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the absolute."--_Columbian Gram._, pp. 16 and 20. Charles Bucke, in his work misnamed "A Cla.s.sical Grammar of the English Language," published in London in 1829, a.s.serts, that, "Substantives in English do not vary their terminations;" yet he gives them _four_ cases; "the nominative, the genitive, the accusative, and the vocative." So did Allen, in a grammar much more cla.s.sical, dated, London, 1813. Hazen, in 1842, adopted "four cases; namely, the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the independent."--_Hazen's Practical Gram._, p. 35. Mulligan, 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 Cambridge, has also four: "the Nominative, the Possessive, the Objective, and the Vocative."--_Com.

S. Gram._, p. 13. Three other recent grammarians,--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 Gram._, p. 57; _Weld's_, 60; _Clark's_, 49. The first of these gentlemen argues, that, "Since a noun or p.r.o.noun, used _independently_, cannot at the same time be employed as 'the subject of a verb,' there is a manifest impropriety in regarding it as a _nominative_."

It might as well be urged, that a nominative after a verb, or in apposition with an other, is, for this reason, not a _nominative_. He also cites this argument: "'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 cla.s.s them together as _one_ case?'--_S. R.

Hall_."--_Wells's School Gram._, p. 51. To this I answer, No. "The nominative is that case which _primely denotes the name_ of any person or thing;" (_Burn's Gram._, p. 36;) and _this only_ it is, that can be absolute, or independent, in English. This scheme of four cases is, in fact, a grave 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. Smith."--Page 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 them, and probably more, give little or no countenance to _such_ an independent case as he has adopted. Parkhurst admitted but three cases; though he thought _two others_ "might 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 p.r.o.noun 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 princ.i.p.al of the Seminary for Teachers at Andover, (but no great grammarian,) in 1832, published a manual, called "The Grammatical a.s.sistant;" 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 p.r.o.nouns to be used in _five cases_, which he thus enumerates: "Four simple cases; the Subjective, Possessive, Objective, and the Independent; and the Twofold case."--_Gram._, p. 42. But, on page 56th, he speaks of a "twofold _subjective_ case," "the twofold _objective_ case,"

and shows how the _possessive_ may be twofold also; so that, without taking any of the Latin cases, or even all of Hall's, he really recognizes as many as seven, if not eight. Among the English grammars which a.s.sume all the _six cases_ of the Latin Language, 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 somebody in England.

OBS. 8.--Of the English grammars which can properly be said to be _now in use_, a very great majority agree in ascribing to 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 argument. The disputes of grammarians make no small part of the _history of grammar_; and in submitting to be guided 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 among them: for, the teaching of any other than the best opinions, is not the teaching of science, come from what quarter it may. On the question respecting 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 themselves and to each other. "What cases are there in English? 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 Rudiments of Gram._, 1811, p. 12. "In English 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 duodecimo Grammar. His instructions stand thus: "In English, substantives have but two cases, the nominative, and [the] possessive or genitive."--_Murray's Gram. 12mo, Second Edition_, 1796, p. 35. "For the a.s.sertion, that there are in English but two cases of nouns, and three of p.r.o.nouns, 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 a.s.signing to English substantives an _objective case_: but a renewed critical examination of the subject; an examination to which he was prompted by the extensive and increasing demand for the grammar, has produced in his mind _a full persuasion_, that the nouns of our language are ent.i.tled to this comprehensive objective case."--_Ib._, p. 46. If there is any credit in changing one's opinions, it is, doubtless, in changing them for the better; but, of all authors, a grammarian has the most need critically to examine his subject before he goes 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, custom has now become much more uniform than it was a century ago; and public opinion may be said to have settled most of the questions which have been agitated 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 p.r.o.nouns. Many a common reader will wonder, who can have been ignorant enough to deny it.

"The learned and sagacious Wallis, to whom every English grammarian owes a tribute of reverence, calls this modification of the noun an _adjective possessive_; I think, with no more propriety than he might have applied the same to the Latin genitive."--_Dr. Johnson's Gram._, p. 5. Brightland also, who gave to _adjectives_ the name of _qualities_, included all possessives among them, calling them "_Possessive Qualities_, or _Qualities of Possession_."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. 90.

OBS. 11.--This exploded error, William S. Cardell, a few years ago, republished as a novelty; for which, among other pretended improvements of a like sort, he received the ephemeral praise of some of our modern literati. William B. Fowle also teaches the same thing. See 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-named authorities, being probably ignorant of them all. His _reasoning_ 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 it may have adjectives of various kinds, relating to it: as, "_This old man's_ daughter."--_Shak._ It may also govern an other possessive; as, "_Peter's wife's_ mother."--_Bible_. Here the former possessive is governed by the latter; but, if both were adjectives, they would both relate to the noun _mother_, and so produce a confusion of ideas. Again, nouns of the possessive case have a distinction of number, which adjectives have not. In gender also, there lies a difference. Adjectives, whenever they are varied by gender or number, _agree 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 _men's_ sins."--_Ib._, ver. 22.

OBS. 12.--Secondly, general 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,"--"_Beaumont_ and _Fletcher's Plays._" This custom of using the apostrophe, however, has been opposed by many. Brightland, and Buchanan, and the author of the British Grammar, and some late writers in the Philological Museum, are among those who have successively taught, that the possessive case should be formed _like the nominative plural_, by adding _s_ when the p.r.o.nunciation 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 some examples, which are contrary to his rule, adopting that strange custom of putting the _s_ in Roman, and the name in Italic; "as, King _Charles_'s _Court_, and St. _James_'s _Park._"--_Gram. of the English Tongue_, p. 91.

OBS. 13.--"The genitive case, in my opinion," says Dr. Ash, "might be much more properly formed by adding _s_, or when the p.r.o.nunciation requires it, _es_, without an Apostrophe: as, _men, mens; Ox, Oxes; Horse, Horses; a.s.s, a.s.ses._"--_Ash's Gram._, p. 23. "To write _Ox's, a.s.s's, Fox's_, and at the same time p.r.o.nounce it _Oxes, a.s.ses, Foxes_, is such a departure from the original formation, at least in writing, and such an inconsistent use of the Apostrophe, as cannot be equalled perhaps in any other language."--_Ib._ Lowth, too, gives some countenance to this objection: "It [i.e., _'G.o.d's grace'_] was formerly written _'G.o.dis grace;'_ we now always shorten it with an apostrophe; often _very improperly_, when we are obliged to p.r.o.nounce it fully; as, _'Thomas's_ book,' that is, '_Thomasis_ book,'

not '_Thomas his_ book,' as it is commonly supposed."--_Lowth's Gram._, p.

17. Whatever weight there may be in this argument, the objection has been overruled by general custom. The convenience of distinguishing, even to the eye alone, the numbers and cases of the noun, is found too great 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_, p.r.o.nounced _torchiz_.

"Yet time enn.o.bles or degrades each line; It brightened _Craggs's_, and may darken thine."--_Pope._

OBS. 14.--The English possessive case unquestionably originated in that form of the Saxon genitive which terminates in _es_, examples of which may be found in almost any specimen of the Saxon tongue: as, "On _Herodes_ dagum,"--"In _Herod's_ days;"--"Of _Aarones_ dohtrum,"--"Of _Aaron's_ daughters."--_Luke_, i, 5. This ending was sometimes the same as that of the plural; and both were changed to _is_ or _ys_, before they became what we now find them. This termination added a syllable to the word; and Lowth suggests, in the quotation above, that the apostrophe was introduced to shorten it. But some contend, that the use of this mark originated in a mistake. It appears from the testimony of Brightland, 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 number of the Spectator. Accordingly 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 Telemachus his_ blooming 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 Gram._, p. 32. This is undoubtedly bad English; and always was so, however common may have been the erroneous notion which gave rise to it. But the apostrophe, whatever may have been its origin, is now the acknowledged distinctive mark of the possessive case of English nouns. The application of the _'s_, frequently to feminines, and sometimes to plurals, is proof positive that it is _not a contraction_ of the p.r.o.noun _his_; as,

"Now Jove suspends his golden scales in air, Weighs the _men's_ wits against the _Lady's_ hair."

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

OBS. 15.--Many of the old grammarians, and Guy, Pinneo, and Spencer, among the moderns, represent the regular formation of the possessive case as being the same in both numbers, supposing generally in the plural an abbreviation of the word by the omission of the second or syllabic _s_.

That is, they suppose that such terms as _eagles' wings, angels' visits_, were written for _eagles's wings, angels's visits_, &c. This odd view of the matter accounts well enough for the fashion of such plurals as _men's, women's, children's_, and makes them regular. But I find no evidence at all of the fact on which these authors presume; nor do I believe that the regular 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 from ancient books. The general principle then is, that _the apostrophe forms the possessive case, with an s in the singular, and without it in the plural_; but there are some exceptions to this rule, on either hand; and these must be duly noticed.

OBS. 16.--The chief exceptions, or irregularities, in the formation of the possessive _singular_, are, I think, to be accounted mere poetic licenses; and seldom, if ever, to be allowed in prose. Churchill, (closely copying Lowth,) speaks of them thus: "In poetry the _s_ is frequently omitted after proper names ending in _s_ or _x_ as, 'The wrath of _Peleus'_ son.' _Pope._ This is scarcely allowable in prose, though instances of it occur: as, '_Moses'_ minister.' _Josh._, i, 1. _'Phinehas'_ wife.' _1 Sam._, iv, 19.

'Festus came into _Felix'_ room.' _Acts_, xxiv, 27. It was done in prose evidently to avoid the recurrence of a sibilant sound at the end of two following syllables; but this may as readily be obviated by using the preposition _of_, which is now commonly subst.i.tuted for the possessive case in most instances."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 215. In Scott's Bible, Philadelphia, 1814, the texts here quoted are all of them corrected, thus: "_Moses's_ minister,"--"_Phinehas's_ wife,"--"_Felix's_ room." But the phrase, "for _conscience_ sake," (_Rom._, xiii, 5,) is there given without the apostrophe. Alger prints it, "for _conscience'_ sake," which is better; and though not regular, it is a common form for this particular expression.

Our common Bibles have this text: "And the weaned child shall put his hand on the _c.o.c.katrice'_ den."--_Isaiah_, xi, 8. Alger, seeing this to be wrong, wrote it, "on the _c.o.c.katrice-den_."--_p.r.o.nouncing Bible._ Dr.

Scott, in his Reference Bible, makes this possessive regular, "on the _c.o.c.katrice's_ den." This is right. The Vulgate has it, "_in caverna reguli_;" which, however, is not cla.s.sic Latin. After _z_ also, the poets sometimes drop the _s_: as,

"Sad was the hour, and luckless was the day, When first from _Shiraz'_ walls I bent my way."--_Collins._

OBS. 17.--A recent critic, who, I think, has not yet learned to speak or write the possessive case of _his own name_ properly, a.s.sumes that the foregoing occasional or poetical forms are the only true ones for the possessive singular of such words. He says, "When the name _does end_ with the sound of _s_ or _z_, (no matter what letter represents the sound,) the possessive form _is made_ by annexing only an apostrophe."--_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p. 44. Agreeably to this rule, he letters his work, "_Peirce'

Grammar_," and condemns, as bad English, the following examples and all others like them: "James _Otis's_ letters, General _Gates's_ command, General _Knox's_ appointment, Gov. _Meigs's_ promptness, Mr. _Williams's_ oration, The _witness's_ deposition."--_Ib._, p. 60. It is obvious that this gentleman's doctrine and criticism are as contrary to the common practice of all good authors, as they are to the common grammars, which he ridicules. Surely, such expressions as, "_Harris's_ Hermes, _Philips's_ Poems, _Prince's_ Bay, _Prince's_ Island, _Fox's_ Journal, King _James's_ edict, a _justice's_ warrant, _Sphinx's_ riddle, the _lynx's_ beam, the _la.s.s's_ beauty," have authority enough to refute the cavil of this writer; who, being himself wrong, falsely charges the older grammarians, that,"

their theories vary from the principles of the language correctly spoken or written."--_Ib._, p. 60. A much more judicious author treats this point of grammar as follows: "When the possessive noun is singular, and terminates with an _s_, another _s_ is requisite after it, and the apostrophe must be placed between the two; as, '_d.i.c.kens's_ works,'--'_Harris's_ wit.'"--_Day's Punctuation, Third London Edition_, p. 136. The following example, too, is right: "I would not yield to be your _house's_ guest."--_Shakespeare_.

OBS. 18.--All _plural_ nouns that differ from the singular without ending in _s_, form the possessive case in the same manner as the singular: as, _man's, men's; woman's, women's j child's, children's; brother's, brothers'

or brethren's; ox's, oxen's; goose, geese's_. In two or three words which are otherwise alike in both numbers, the apostrophe ought to follow the _s_ in the plural, to distinguish it from the singular: as, the _sheep's_ fleece, the _sheeps'_ fleeces; a _neat's_ tongue, _neats'_ tongues; a _deer's_ horns, a load of _deers'_ horns.

OBS. 19.--Dr. Ash says, "Nouns of the plural number that end in _s_, will not very properly admit of the genitive case."--_Ash's Gram._, p. 54. And Dr. Priestley appears to have been of the same opinion. See his _Gram._, p.

69. Lowth too avers, that the sign of the possessive case is "never added to the plural number ending in _s_."--_Gram._, p. 18. Perhaps he thought the plural sign must involve an other _s_, like the singular. This however is not true, neither is Dr. Ash's a.s.sertion true; for the New Testament speaks as properly of "the _soldiers'_ counsel," as of the "_centurion's_ servant;" of "the scribes that were of the _Pharisees'_ part," as of "_Paul's sister's_ son." It would appear, however, that the possessive plural is less frequently used than the possessive singular; its place being much oftener supplied by the preposition _of_ and the objective. We cannot say that either of them is absolutely necessary to the language; but they are both worthy to be commended, as furnishing an agreeable variety of expression.

"Then shall _man's_ pride and dulness comprehend His _actions', pa.s.sions', being's_ use and end."--_Pope_.

OBS. 20.--The apostrophe was introduced into the possessive case, at least for the singular number, in some part of the seventeenth century. Its adoption for the plural, appears to have been later: it is not much used in books a hundred years old. In Buchanan's "Regular English Syntax," which was written, I know not exactly when, but near the middle of the eighteenth century, I find the following paragraph: "We have certainly a Genitive Plural, though there has been no Mark to distinguish it. The Warriors Arms, i. e. the Arms of the Warriors, is as much a Genitive Plural, as the Warrior's Arms, for the Arms of the Warrior is a Genitive Singular. To distinguish this Genitive Plural, especially to Foreigners, we might use the Apostrophe reversed, thus, the Warrior`s Arms, the Stone`s End, for the End of the Stones, the Grocer`s, Taylor`s, Haberdasher`s, &c. Company; for the Company of Grocers, Taylors, &c. The Surgeon`s Hall, for the Hall of the Surgeons; the Rider`s Names, for the Names of the Riders; and so of all Plural Possessives."--See _Buchan. Synt._, p. 111. Our present form of the possessive plural, being unknown to this grammarian, must have had a later origin; nor can it have been, as some imagine it was, an abbreviation of a longer and more ancient form.

OBS. 21.--The apostrophic _s_ has often been added to nouns _improperly_; the words formed by it not being intended for the possessive singular, but for the nominative or objective plural. Thus we find such authors as Addison and Swift, writing _Jacobus's_ and _genius's_, for _Jacobuses_ and _geniuses_; _idea's, toga's_, and _tunica's_, for _ideas, togas_, and _tunicas_; _enamorato's_ and _virtuoso's_, for _enamoratoes_ and _virtuosoes_. Errors of this kind, should be carefully avoided.

OBS. 22.--The apostrophe and _s_ are sometimes added to mere characters, to denote plurality, and not the possessive case; as, two _a_'s, three _b_'s, four 9's. These we cannot avoid, except by using the _names_ of the things: as, two _Aes_, three _Bees_, four _Nines_. "Laced down the sides with little _c_'s."--_Steele_. "Whenever two _gg_'s come together, they are both hard."--_Buchanan_. The names of _c_ and _g_, plural, are _Cees_ and _Gees_. Did these authors _know_ the words, or did they not? To have learned the _names_ of the letters, will be found on many occasions a great convenience, especially to critics. For example: "The p.r.o.nunciation of these two consecutive _s's_ is hard."--_Webber's Gram._, p. 21. Better: "_Esses_." "_S_ and _x_, however, are exceptions. They are pluralyzed by adding _es_ preceded by a hyphen [-], as the _s-es_; the _x-es_."--_O. B.

Peirce's Gram._, p. 40. Better, use the _names, Ess_ and _Ex_, and pluralize thus: "the _Esses_; the _Exes_."

"Make Q's of answers, to waylay What th' other party's like to say."

--_Hudibras_, P. III, C. ii, l. 951.

Here the cipher is to be read _Kues_, but it has not the meaning of this name merely. It is put either for the plural of _Q._, a _Question_, like D.

D.'s, (read _Dee-Dees_,) for _Doctors of Divinity_; or else, more erroneously, for _cues_, the plural of _cue_, a turn which the next speaker catches.

OBS. 23.--In the following example, the apostrophe and _s_ are used to give the sound of a _verb's_ termination, to words which the writer supposed were not properly verbs: "When a man in a soliloquy reasons with himself, and _pro's_ and _con's_, and weighs all his designs."--_Congreve_. But here, "_proes_ and _cons_," would have been more accurate. "We put the ordered number of _m's_ into our composing-stick."--_Printer's Gram._ Here "_Ems_" would have done as well. "All measures for _folio's_ and _quarto's_, should be made to _m's_ of the English body; all measures for _octavo's_, to Pica _m's_."--_Ibid._ Here regularity requires, "_folios, quartoes, octavoes_," and "_pica Ems_." The verb _is_, when contracted, sometimes gives to its nominative the same form as that of the possessive case, it not being always s.p.a.ced off for distinction, as it may be; as,

"A _wit's_ a feather, and a chief a rod; An honest _man's_ the n.o.blest work of G.o.d."

--_Pope, on Man_, Ep. iv, l. 247.

OBS. 24.--As the _objective case of nouns_ is to be distinguished from the nominative, only by the sense, relation, and position, of words in a sentence, the learner must acquire a habit of attending to these several things. Nor ought it to be a hardship to any reader to understand that which he thinks worth reading. It is seldom possible to mistake one of these cases for the other, without a total misconception of the author's meaning. The nominative denotes the agent, actor, or doer; the person or thing that is made the subject of an affirmation, negation, question, or supposition: its place, except in a question, is commonly _before_ the verb. The objective, when governed by a verb or a participle, denotes the person on whom, or the thing on which, the action falls and terminates: it is commonly placed _after_ the verb, participle, or preposition, which governs it. Nouns, then, by changing places, may change cases: as, "_Jonathan_ loved _David_;" "_David_ loved _Jonathan_." Yet the case depends not entirely upon position; for any order in which the words cannot be misunderstood, is allowable: as, "Such tricks hath strong imagination."--_Shak._ Here the cases are known, because the meaning is plainly this: "Strong imagination hath such tricks." "To him give all the prophets witness."--_Acts_, x, 43. This is intelligible enough, and more forcible than the same meaning expressed thus: "All the prophets give witness to him." The _order_ of the words never can affect the explanation to be given of them in parsing, unless it change the sense, and form them into a different sentence.

THE DECLENSION OF NOUNS.

The declension of a noun is a regular arrangement of its numbers and cases.