Читать книгу The Grammar of English Grammars - Goold Brown - Страница 241

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 pronouns 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 pronouns; nor are there ever more than three. Pronouns 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 constitute 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 pronouns, they assume 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 pronouns. Yet Nixon, by assuming that of, with the word governed by it, constitutes 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 analogous to the Case Absolute of a substantive."—Nixon's Parser, 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 assailants 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 assigned for making more than three?

OBS. 4.—Public opinion is now clear in the decision, that it is expedient to assign 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, assigned 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 assumption 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 pronouns 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, Wilcox, 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 Classical Grammar of the English Language," published in London in 1829, asserts, 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 classical, 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 pronoun, 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 class 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 pronoun 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 principal of the Seminary for Teachers at Andover, (but no great grammarian,) in 1832, published a manual, called "The Grammatical Assistant;" 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 pronouns 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 assume 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 assertion, that there are in English but two cases of nouns, and three of pronouns, 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 assigning 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 entitled 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 pronouns. 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 pronunciation 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 pronunciation requires it, es, without an Apostrophe: as, men, mens; Ox, Oxes; Horse, Horses; Ass, Asses."—Ash's Gram., p. 23. "To write Ox's, Ass's, Fox's, and at the same time pronounce it Oxes, Asses, 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., 'God's grace'] was formerly written 'Godis grace;' we now always shorten it with an apostrophe; often very improperly, when we are obliged to pronounce 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, pronounced torchiz.

"Yet time ennobles 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 pronoun 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 substituted 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 cockatrice' den."—Isaiah, xi, 8. Alger, seeing this to be wrong, wrote it, "on the cockatrice-den."—Pronouncing Bible. Dr. Scott, in his Reference Bible, makes this possessive regular, "on the cockatrice's den." This is right. The Vulgate has it, "in caverna reguli;" which, however, is not classic 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, assumes 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 lass'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, 'Dickens'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 assertion 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', passions', 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 pronunciation 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 spaced off for distinction, as it may be; as,

"A wit's a feather, and a chief a rod; An honest man's the noblest work of God." —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.