Page images

ecclesiastical powers, and the secular;" or, “ The ecclesiastical, and the secular powers." The repetition of the article shows, that the second adjective is not an additional epithet to the same subject, but belongs to a subject totally different, though expressed by the same generic name. 6. The lords spiritual and temporal,” is a phraseology objectionable on the same principle, though now so long sanctioned by usage, that we scarcely dare question its propriety. The subjects are different, though they have but one generic name. The phrase should, therefore, have been, “ The spiritual and the temporal lords." On the contrary, when two or more adjectives belong as epithets, to one and the same thing, the other arrangement is to be preferred: as, “ The high and mighty states.” Here both epithets belong to one subject. “ The states high and mighty," would convey the same idea.

The indefinite article has, frequently, the meaning of every or each : as, " They cost five shillings a dozen;" that is, “every dozen," or "each dozen." ”

“ A man he was to all the country dear,

And passing rich with forty pounds a year;"--Goldsmith. that is, “ every year.”

There is a particular use of the indefinite article, which deserves attention, as ambiguity may, by this means, be in some cases, avoided. Thus, if “ He is a better soldier than scholar,” the article is suppressed before the second term, and the expression is equivalent to, “ He is more warlike than learned;" or, “He possesses the qualities, which form the soldier, in greater degree than those, which constitute the scholar." If we say, “ He would make a better soldier than a scholar," the article is prefixed to the second term, and the meaning is, "He would make a better soldier than a scholar would make ;" that is, “ He has more of the constituent qualities of a soldier, than are to be found in any literary man."

a These two phraseologies are frequently confounded, which seldom fails to produce uncertainty of meaning. In the former case, the subject, as possessing different qualities in various degrees, is compared with itself; in the latter it is compared with something else.

Rule X. One substantive governs another, signifying a different thing, in the possessive or genitive case : as,

My father's house;" “ Man's happiness ;” “ Virtue's reward."

See Vol. ii. Part 3. Exercises. Chap. 1. Rule 10.

we say,

When the annexed substantive signifies the same thing as the first, and serves merely to explain or describe it, there is no variation of case: as, “George, king of Great Britain, elector of Hanover,” &c.; “ Pompey contended with Cæsar, the greatest general of his time ;" “ Religion, the support of adversity, adorns prosperity.” Nouns thus circumstanced are said to be in apposition to each other. The interposition of a relative and verb will sometimes break the construction : as, “ Pompey contended with Cæsar, who was the greatest general of his time.” Here the word general is in the nominative case, governed by note 4, under RULE XI. Both the parts of this rule are exemplified in the following sentences : * Maria rejected Valerius, the man whom she had rejected before ;"> “ Maria rejected Valerius, who was he that she had rejected before."

Nouns are not unfrequently set in apposition to sentences, or clauses of sentences : as, “ If a man had a positive idea of infinite, either duration or space, he could add two infinites together; nay, make one infinite infinitely bigger than another : absurdities too gross to be confuted.” Here the absurdities are the whole preceding propositions. “You are too humane and considerate; things which few people can be charged with.” Here things are in apposition to humane and considerate. This construction is not to be recommended, when the parts of the sentence are long, or numerous.

The first of the preceding examples, is, therefore, improvable. It would have been better if a fresh sentence had been introduced, thus : “ These are absurdities," &c.

The preposition of joined to a substantive, is frequently equivalent to the possessive case : as, “ A Christian's hope, " The hope of a Christian.” But it is only so, when the expression can be converted into the regular form of the possessive case. We can say, “ The reward of virtue,” and “Virtue's reward;" but though it is proper to say, "A crown of gold,” we cannot convert the expression into the possessive case, and say, “Gold's crown.”

Substantives govern pronouns as well as nouns, in the possessive case: as, Every tree is known by its fruit;"! “Good

; ness brings its reward;"9 “ That desk is mine."

The genitive its is often improperly used for 'lis or it is : as, "Its my book ;" instead of, "It is my book.”

The pronoun his, when detached from the noun to which it relates, is to be considered, not as a possessive pronoun, but as the genitive case of the personal pronoun: as, “ This composition is his." “ Whose book is that?! " His." If we use the noun itself, we should say, “This composition is John's.” ' - Whose book is that?" “ Eliza's.” The position will be still

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]


more evident, when we consider that both the pronouns, in the following sentence, must have a similar construction : “Is it her or his honour that is tarnished ?” “ It is not hers, but his."

Sometimes a substantive in the genitive or possessive case stands alone, the latter one by which it is governed being understood : as, “I called at the bookseller's,” that is, " at the bookseller's shop."

1. If several nouns come together in the genitive case, the apostrophe with s is annexed to the last, and understood to the rest : as, “ John and Eliza's books :" “ This was my father, mother, and uncle's advice.” But when any words intervene, perhaps on account of the increased pause, the sign of the possessive should be annexed to each: as, “ They are John's as well as Eliza's books ;” "I had the physician's, the surgeon's, and the apothecary's assistance." The following distinction, on this point, appears to be worthy of attention. When any subject or subjects are considered as the common property of two or more persons, the sign of the possessive case, is affixed only to the name of the last person : as, “ This is Henry, William, and Joseph's estate." " But when several subjects are considered, belonging separately to distinct individuals, the names of the individuals have the sign of the possessive case annexed to each of them : as, “ These are Henry's, William's, and Jo

, seph's estates." It is, however, better to say, 6. It was the advice of my father, mother, and uncle;" “ I had the assistance of the physician, the surgeon, and the apothecary;" “ This estate belongs in common to Henry, William, and Joseph.”

2. In poetry, the additional s is frequently omitted, but the apostrophe retained, in the same manner as in substantives of the plural number ending in s: as, “The wrath of Peleus'

This seems not so allowable in prose; which the following erroneous examples will demonstrate : “ Moses' minister;" “ Phinehas' wife;" “ Festus' came into Felix' room."

> “ These answers were made to the witness' questions." But in cases which would give too much of the hissing sound, or increase the difficulty of pronunciation, the omission takes place even in prose: as, “ For righteousness' sake;" “ For conscience sake."


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


3. Little explanatory circumstances are particularly awkward between a genitive case, and the word which usually follows it: as, “ She began to extol the farmer's, as she called him, excellent understanding.” It ought to be," the excel

“ lent understanding of the farmer, as she called him.” The word in the genitive case is frequently placed improperly :

as, “ This fact appears from Dr. Pearson of Birmingham's experiments.” It should be," from the experiments of Dr.

“ Pearson of Birmingham.”

4. When a sentence consists of terms signifying a name and an office, or of any expressions by which one part is de. scriptive or explanatory of the other, it may occasion some doubt to which of them the sign of the genitive case should be annexed : or whether it should be subjoined to them both. Thus, some would say ; " I left the parcel at Smith's the bookseller;" others, “ at Smith the bookseller's ;” and perhaps others, “at Smith's the bookseller's." The first of these forms is most agreeable to the English idiom; and if the addition consists of two or more words, the case seems to be less dubious: as, “I left the parcel at Smith's, the bookseller and stationer." The point will be still clearer, if we supply the ellipsis in these sentences, and give the equivalent phrases, at large : thus; “I left the parcel at the house of Smith the bookseller;" “ I left it at Smith the house of the bookseller." “I left it at the house of Smith the house of the bookseller." By this process, it is evident, that only the first mode of expression is correct and proper. But as this subject requires a Jittle further explanation, to make it intelligible to the learners, we shall add a few observations calculated to unfold its principles.

A phrase in which the words are so connected and dependent, as to admit of no pause before the conclusion, necessarily requires the genitive sign at or near the end of the phrase: as, “Whose prerogative is it? It is the king of Great Britain's;" “ That is the duke of Bridgewater's canal;" “ The bishop of Landaff's excellent book ;" “ The lord mayor of London's authority;" “ The captain of the guard's house."

When words in apposition follow each other in quick succession, it seems also most agreeable to our idiom, to give the sign of the genitive a similar situation ; especially if the noun which governs the genitive be expressed: as, “ The emp

emperor Leopold's ;” “ Dionysius the tyrant's ;” “ For David my servant's sake ;'! “Give me John the Baptist's head;" " Paul the apostle's advice.” But when a pause is proper, and the

, governing noun not expressed ; and when the latter part of the sentence is extended; it appears to be requisite that the sign should be applied to the first genitive, and understood to the other: as, “I reside at lord Stormont's, my old patron and benefactor;" “ Whose glory did he emulate ? He emulated Cæsar's the greatest general of antiquity.” In the following sentences, it would be very awkward to place the sign, either at the end of each of the clauses, or at the end of the latter one alone: “ These psalms are David's, the king, priest, and prophet of the Jewish people ;"” “We staid a month at


lord Lyttelton's, the ornament of his country, and the friend of every virtue, 's

The sign of the genitive case may very properly be understood at the end of these members, an ellipsis at the latter part of sentences being a common construction in our language; as the learner will see by one or two exam, ples : “ They wished to submit, but he did not ;' that is, “ he did not wish to submit ;" “ He said it was their concern, but not his ;" that is, “not his concern."

If we annex the sign of the genitive to the end of the last clause only, we shall perceive that a resting place is wanted, and that the connecting circumstance is placed too remotely, to be either perspicuous or agreeable : as, “Whose glory did he emulate ?" "He emulated Cæsar, the greatest general of antiquity's.“ These psalms are David, the king, priest, and prophet of the Jewish people's." It is much better to say, * This is Paul's advice, the Christian hero, and great apostle of the Gentiles," than, “ This is Paul the Christian hero, and great apostle of the Gentiles' advice.” On the other hand, the application of the genitive sign to both or all of the nouns in apposition, would be generally harsh and displeasing, and perhaps in some cases incorrect : as, “ The emperor's Leopold's ;" “ King's George's;" “ Charles's the second's ;"

;> “ The parcel was left at Smith's, the bookseller's and stationer's." The rules which we have endeavoured to elucidate, will prevent the inconveniences of both these modes of expression ; and they appear to be simple, perspicuous, and consistent with the idiom of the language.

5. The English genitive has often an unpleasant sound; so that we daily make more use of the particle of to express the same relation. There is something awkward in the following sentences, in which this method has not been taken.

6 The general in the army's name, published a declaration." “ The commons' vote.". 6. The Lords' house." 66 Unless he is very ignorant of the kingdom's condition.” It were certainly better to say, “ In the name of the army ;' “ The votes of the commons ;" * The house of lords;" “ The condition of the kingdom.” It is also fither harsh to use two English genitives with the same substantive : as, “ Whom he acquainted with the pope's and the king's pleasure.”

6. The pleasure of the pope and the king,” would have been better.

We sometimes meet with three substantives dependent on one another, and connected by the preposition of applied to each of them : as, “ The severity of the distress of the son of the king, touched the nation ;" but this mode of expression is not to be recommended. It would be better to say,

6 The Vol. I.


« PreviousContinue »