Page:The grammar of English grammars.djvu/507

 the apposition may be of two nouns immediately connected by and, provided the two words denote but one person or thing; as, "This great philosopher and statesman was bred a printer." Fourthly, it may be of two words connected by as, expressing the idea of a partial or assumed identity; as, "Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."--2 Thess., iii, 15. "So that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God."--Ib., ii, 4. Fifthly, it may perhaps be of two words connected by than; as, "He left them no more than dead men."--Law and Grace, p. 28. Lastly, there is a near resemblance to apposition, when two equivalent nouns are connected by or; as, "The back of the hedgehog is covered with prickles, or spines."--Webster's Dict.

OBS. 5.--To the rule for apposition, as I have expressed it, there are properly no exceptions. But there are many puzzling examples of construction under it, some of which are but little short of exceptions; and upon such of these as are most likely to embarrass the learner, some further observations shall be made. The rule supposes the first word to be the principal term, with which the other word, or subsequent noun or pronoun, is in apposition; and it generally is so: but the explanatory word is sometimes placed first, especially among the poets; as,

"From bright'ning fields of ether fair disclos'd,   Child of the sun, refulgent Summer comes."--Thomson.

OBS. 6.--The pronouns of the first and second persons are often placed before nouns merely to distinguish their person; as, "I John saw these things."--Bible. "But what is this to you receivers?"--Clarkson's Essay on Slavery, p. 108. "His praise, ye brooks, attune."--Thomson. In this case of apposition, the words are in general closely united, and either of them may be taken as the explanatory term. The learner will find it easier to parse the noun by rule third; or both nouns, if there be two: as, "I thy father-in-law Jethro am come unto thee."--Exod., xviii, 6. There are many other examples, in which it is of no moment, which of the terms we take for the principal; and to all such the rule may be applied literally: as, "Thy son Benhadad king of Syria hath sent me to thee."--2 Kings, viii, 9.

OBS. 7.--When two or more nouns of the possessive case are put in apposition, the possessive termination added to one, denotes the case of both or all; as, "For Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife"--Matt., xiv, 3; Mark, vi, 17. Here wife is in apposition with Herodias', and brother with Philip's; consequently all these words are reckoned to be in the possessive case. The Greek text, which is better, stands essentially thus: "For the sake of Herodias, the wife of Philip his brother." "For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect."--Isaiah, xlv, 4. Here, as Jacob and Israel are only different names for the same person or nation, the four nouns in Italics are, according to the rule, all made possessives by the one sign used; but the construction is not to be commended: it would be better to say, "For the sake of Jacob my servant, and Israel mine elect." "With Hyrcanus the high priest's consent."--Wood's Dict., w. Herod. "I called at Smith's, the bookseller; or, at Smith the bookseller's."-- Bullions's E. Gram., p. 105. Two words, each having the possessive sign, can never be in apposition one with the other; because that sign has immediate reference to the governing noun expressed or understood after it; and if it be repeated, separate governing nouns will be implied, and the apposition will be destroyed.[344]

OBS. 8.--If the foregoing remark is just, the apposition of two nouns in the possessive case, requires the possessive sign to be added to that noun which immediately precedes the governing word, whether expressed or understood, and positively excludes it from the other. The sign of the case is added, sometimes to the former, and sometimes to the latter noun, but never to both: or, if added to both, the two words are no longer in apposition. Example: "And for that reason they ascribe to him a great part of his father Nimrod's, or Belus's actions."--''Rollin's An. Hist.'', Vol. ii, p. 6. Here father and Nimrod's are in strict apposition; but if actions governs Belus's, the same word is implied to govern Nimrod's, and the two names are not in apposition, though they are in the same case and mean the same person.

OBS. 9.--Dr. Priestley says, "Some would say, 'I left the parcel at Mr. Smith's, the bookseller;' others, 'at Mr. Smith the bookseller's;' and perhaps others, at 'Mr. Smith's the bookseller's.' The last of these forms is most agreeable to the Latin idiom, but the first seems to be more natural in