Page:The grammar of English grammars.djvu/652

 8vo, p. 242. Some would here prefer syllable to syllable's, but none would be apt to put it for its, without some other change. The sentence may be amended thus: "There can be no objection to a syllable as being long, on the ground that it is not so long as some other syllables."

OBS. 32.--It should be observed, that the use of as between the participle and the noun is very often better than either the adoption of the possessive sign, or the immediate connexion of the two words; as, "Another point constantly brought into the investigation now, is that of military success as forming a claim to civil position."--''Boston Daily Advertiser''. Concerning examples like the following, it may be questioned, whether the objective is proper or not; whether the possessive would be preferable or not; or whether a better construction than either may not be found: "There is scarce an instance of any one being chosen for a pattern."--''Kames, El. of Crit.'', Vol. ii, p. 338. "Instead of its authenticity being shaken, it has been rendered more sure than ever."-- West's Letters, p. 197. "When there is no longer a possibility of a proper candidate being nominated by either party."--Liberator, Vol. x. p. 9. "On the first stone being thrown, it was returned by a fire of musketry."--Ib., p. 16. "To raise a cry about an innocent person being circumvented by bribery."--Blair's Rhet., p. 276. "Whose principles forbid them taking part in the administration of the government."-- Liberator, Vol. x, p. 15. "It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that of our gross bodies being ourselves."--Butler's Analogy, p. 150. "In consequence of this revelation being made."--Ib., p. 162. If such relations between the participle and the objective be disapproved, the substitution of the possessive case is liable to still stronger objections; but both may be avoided, by the use of the nominative or otherwise: thus, "Scarcely is any one ever chosen for a pattern."-- "Its authenticity, in stead of being shaken, has been rendered more sure than ever."--"When there is no longer a possibility that a proper candidate will be nominated by either party."--"As soon as the first stone was thrown, there was returned a fire of musketry."--"To raise a cry, as if an innocent person had been circumvented by bribery."-- "Whose principles forbid them to take part in the administration of the government."--"It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that our gross bodies are ourselves."--"In consequence of this revelation which is made."

OBS. 33.--A recent grammarian quotes Dr. Crombie thus: "Some late writers have discarded a phraseology which appears unobjectionable, and substituted one that seems less correct; and instead of saying, 'Lady Macbeth's walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror,' would say, 'Lady Macbeth walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror.' This seems to me an idle affectation of the Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode of expression, and less consonant with the genius of our language; for, ask what was an incident full of tragic horror, and, according to this phraseology, the answer must be, Lady Macbeth; whereas the meaning is, not that Lady Macbeth, but her walking in her sleep, is an incident full of tragic horror. This phraseology also, in many instances, conveys not the intended idea; for, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, 'What think you of my horse's running to-day?' it is implied that the horse did actually run. If it is said, 'What think you of my horse running to-day?' it is intended to ask whether it be proper for my horse to run to-day. This distinction, though frequently neglected, deserves attention; for it is obvious that ambiguity may arise from using the latter only of these phraseologies to express both meanings."-- Maunder's Compendious Eng. Gram., p. 15. (See Crombie's Treatise, p. 288-290.) To this, before any comment is offered, let me add an other quotation: "RULE. ''A noun before the present participle is put in the possessive case; as, Much will depend on the pupil's composing'' frequently. Sometimes, however, the sense forbids it to be put in the possessive case; thus, What do you think of my horse running to-day? means, Do you think I should let him run? but, What do you think of my horse's running? means, he has run, do you think he ran well?"-- Lennie's Gram., p. 91; Brace's Gram., 94. See Bullions's Gram., p. 107; Hiley's, 94; Murray's, 8vo. 195: Ingersoll's, 201: and many others.

OBS. 34.--Any phraseology that conveys not the intended idea, or that involves such an absurdity as that of calling a lady an "incident" is doubtless sufficiently reprehensible; but, compared with a rule of grammar so ill-devised as to mislead the learner nine times in ten, an occasional ambiguity or solecism is a mere trifle. The word walking, preceded by a possessive and followed by a preposition, as above, is clearly a noun, and not a participle; but these authors probably intend to justify the use of possessives before participles, and even to hold all phraseology of this kind "unobjectionable." If such is not their design, they write as badly as they reason; and if it is, their doctrine is both false and inconsistent. That a verbal noun may govern the possessive case, is certainly no proof that a participle may do so too; and, if these parts of speech are to be kept distinct the latter position must be disallowed: each must "abide by its own construction," as says Lowth. But the practice which these authors speak of, as an innovation of "some late writers," and "an idle affectation of the Latin idiom," is in fact a practice as different from the blunder which they quote, or feign, as their just correction of that blunder is different from the thousand errors or irregularities which they intend to shelter under it. To call a lady an "incident," is just as far from any Latin idiom, as it is from good English; whereas the very thing which they thus object to at first, they afterwards approve in this text: "What think you of my horse running to-day?" This phraseology corresponds with "the Latin idiom;" and it is this, that, in fact, they begin with pronouncing to be "less correct" than, "What think you of my horse's running to-day?"

OBS. 35.--Between these expressions, too, they pretend to fix a distinction of signification; as, if "the horse's running to-day," must needs imply a past action, though, (they suppose,) "the pupil's composing frequently," or, "the horse running to-day," signifies a future one. This