The Grammar of English Grammars · Chapter 159Chapter III.—Cases, or Nouns. (2)
This chapter is not translated yet. You are reading the original.
"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 ours; and if the addition consist [consists, says Murray,] of two or more words, the case seems to be very clear; as, 'I left the parcel at Mr. Smith's the bookseller and stationer;' i. e. at Mr. Smith's, who is a bookseller and stationer."—Priestley's Gram., p. 70. Here the examples, if rightly pointed, would all be right; but the ellipsis supposed, not only destroys the apposition, but converts the explanatory noun into a nominative. And in the phrase, "at Mr. Smiths, the bookseller's," there is no apposition, except that of Mr. with Smith's; for the governing noun house or store is understood as clearly after the one possessive sign as after the other. Churchill imagines that in Murray's example, "I reside at Lord Stormont's, my old patron and benefactor," the last two nouns are in the nominative after "who was" understood; and also erroneously suggests, that their joint apposition with Stormont's might be secured, by saying, less elegantly, "I reside at Lord Stormont's, my old patron and benefactor's."— Churchill's New Gram., p. 285. Lindley Murray, who tacitly takes from Priestley all that is quoted above, except the term "Mr.," and the notion of an ellipsis of "who is," assumes each of the three forms as an instance of apposition, but pronounces the first only to be "correct and proper." If, then, the first is elliptical, as Priestley suggests, and the others are ungrammatical, as Murray pretends to prove, we cannot have in reality any such construction as the apposition of two possessives; for the sign of the case cannot possibly be added in more than these three ways. But Murray does not adhere at all to his own decision, as may be seen by his subsequent remarks and examples, on the same page; as, "The emperor Leopold's;"—"Dionysius the tyrant's;"—"For David my servant's sake;"—"Give me here John the Baptist's head;"—"Paul the apostle's advice." See Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 176; Smith's New Gram., p. 150; and others.
OBS. 10.—An explanatory noun without the possessive sign, seems sometimes to be put in apposition with a pronoun of the possessive case; and, if introduced by the conjunction as, it may either precede or follow the pronoun: thus, "I rejoice in your success as an instructer."— Sanborn's Gram., p. 244. "As an author, his 'Adventurer' is his capital work."—Murray's Sequel, p. 329.
"Thus shall mankind his guardian care engage, The promised father of a future age."—Pope.
But possibly such examples may be otherwise explained on the principle of ellipsis; as, [He being] "the promised father," &c. "As [he was] an author," &c. "As [you are] an instructer."
OBS. 11.—When a noun or pronoun is repeated for the sake of emphasis, or for the adding of an epithet, the word which is repeated may properly be said to be in apposition with that which is first introduced; or, if not, the repetition itself implies sameness of case: as, "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water."—Jer., ii, 13.
"I find the total of their hopes and fears Dreams, empty dreams."—Cowper's Task, p. 71.
OBS. 12.—A noun is sometimes put, as it were, in apposition to a sentence; being used (perhaps elliptically) to sum up the whole idea in one emphatic word, or short phrase. But, in such instances, the noun can seldom be said to have any positive relation that may determine its case; and, if alone, it will of course be in the nominative, by reason of its independence. Examples: "He permitted me to consult his library—a kindness which I shall not forget."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 148. "I have offended reputation—a most unnoble swerving."—Shakspeare. "I want a hero,—an uncommon want."—Byron. "Lopez took up the sonnet, and after reading it several times, frankly acknowledged that he did not understand it himself; a discovery which the poet probably never made before."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 280.
"In Christian hearts O for a pagan zeal! A needful, but opprobrious prayer!"—Young, N. ix, l. 995.
"Great standing miracle, that Heav'n assign'd Its only thinking thing this turn of mind."—Pope.
OBS. 13.—A distributive term in the singular number, is frequently construed in apposition with a comprehensive plural; as, "They reap vanity, every one with his neighbour."—Bible. "Go ye every man unto his city."—Ibid. So likewise with two or more singular nouns which are taken conjointly; as, "The Son and Spirit have each his proper office."—Butler's Analogy, p. 163. And sometimes a plural word is emphatically put after a series of particulars comprehended under it; as, "Ambition, interest, glory, all concurred."—Letters on Chivalry, p. 11. "Royalists, republicans, churchmen, sectaries, courtiers, patriots, all parties concurred in the illusion."—Hume's History, Vol. viii, p. 73. The foregoing examples are plain, but similar expressions sometimes require care, lest the distributive or collective term be so placed that its construction and meaning may be misapprehended. Examples: "We have turned every one to his own way."—Isaiah, liii, 6. Better: "We have every one turned to his own way." "For in many things we offend all."—James, iii, 2. Better: "For in many things we all offend." The latter readings doubtless convey the true sense of these texts. To the relation of apposition, it may be proper also to refer the construction of a singular noun taken in a distributive sense and repeated after by to denote order; as, "They went out one by one."—Bible. "Our whole company, man by man, ventured in."—Goldsmith. "To examine a book, page by page; to search a place, house by house."—Ward's Gram., p. 106. So too, perhaps, when the parts of a thing explain the whole; as,
"But those that sleep, and think not on their sins, Pinch them, arms, legs, backs, shoulders, sides, and shins." —Shak.
OBS. 14.—To express a reciprocal action or relation, the pronominal adjectives each other and one an other are employed: as, "They love each other;"—"They love one an other." The words, separately considered, are singular; but, taken together, they imply plurality; and they can be properly construed only after plurals, or singulars taken conjointly. Each other is usually applied to two persons or things; and one an other, to more than two. The impropriety of applying them otherwise, is noticed elsewhere; (see, in Part II, Obs. 15th, on the Classes of Adjectives;) so that we have here to examine only their relations of case. The terms, though reciprocal and closely united, are seldom or never in the same construction. If such expressions be analyzed, each and one will generally appear to be in the nominative case, and other in the objective; as, "They love each other;" i. e. each loves the other. "They love one an other;" i. e. any or every one loves any or every other. Each and one (—if the words be taken as cases, and not adjectively—) are properly in agreement or apposition with they, and other is governed by the verb. The terms, however, admit of other constructions; as, "Be ye helpers one of an other."—Bible. Here one is in apposition with ye, and other is governed by of. "Ye are one an other's joy."—Ib. Here one is in apposition with ye, and other's is in the possessive case, being governed by joy. "Love will make you one an other's joy." Here one is in the objective case, being in apposition with you, and other's is governed as before. "Men's confidence in one an other;"—"Their dependence one upon an other." Here the word one appears to be in apposition with the possessive going before; for it has already been shown, that words standing in that relation never take the possessive sign. But if its location after the preposition must make it objective, the whole object is the complex term, "one an other." "Grudge not one against an other."—James, v, 9. "Ne vous plaignez point les uns des autres."—French Bible. "Ne suspirate alius adversus alium."—Beza. "Ne ingemiscite adversus alii alios."—Leusden. "[Greek: Mæ stenazete kat hallælon]."—Greek New Testament.
OBS. 15.—The construction of the Latin terms alius alium, alii alios, &c., with that of the French l'un l'autre, l'un de l'autre, &c., appears, at first view, sufficiently to confirm the doctrine of the preceding observation; but, besides the frequent use, in Latin and Greek, of a reciprocal adverb to express the meaning of one an other or each other, there are, from each of these languages, some analogical arguments for taking the English terms together as compounds. The most common term in Greek for one an other, ([Greek: Hallælon], dat. [Greek: hallælois, ais, ois], acc. [Greek: hallælous]: ab [Greek: hallos], alius,) is a single derivative word, the case of which is known by its termination; and each other is sometimes expressed in Latin by a compound: as, "Et osculantes se alterutrum, fleverunt pariter."—Vulgate. That is: "And kissing each other, they wept together." As this text speaks of but two persons, our translators have not expressed it well in the common version: "And they kissed one an other, and wept one with an other"—1 Sam., xx, 41. Alter-utrum is composed of a nominative and an accusative, like each-other; and, in the nature of things, there is no reason why the former should be compounded, and the latter not. Ordinarily, there seems to be no need of compounding either of them. But some examples occur, in which it is not easy to parse each other and one an other otherwise than as compounds: as, "He only recommended this, and not the washing of one another's feet."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 143.
"The Temple late two brother sergeants saw, Who deem'd each other oracles of law."—Pope, B. ii, Ep. 2.[345]
OBS. 16.—The common and the proper name of an object are very often associated, and put in apposition; as, "The river Thames,"—"The ship Albion,"—"The poet Cowper"—"Lake Erie,"—"Cape May"—"Mount Atlas." But, in English, the proper name of a place, when accompanied by the common name, is generally put in the objective case, and preceded by of; as, "The city of New York,"—"The land of Canaan,"—"The island of Cuba,"—"The peninsula of Yucatan." Yet in some instances, even of this kind, the immediate apposition is preferred; as, "That the city Sepphoris should be subordinate to the city Tiberias."—Life of Josephus, p. 142. In the following sentence, the preposition of is at least needless: "The law delighteth herself in the number of twelve; and the number of twelve is much respected in holy writ."—Coke, on Juries. Two or three late grammarians, supposing of always to indicate a possessive relation between one thing and an other, contend that it is no less improper, to say, "The city of London, the city of New Haven, the month of March, the islands of Cuba and Hispaniola, the towns of Exeter and Dover," than to say, "King of Solomon, Titus of the Roman Emperor, Paul of the apostle, or, Cicero of the orator."—See Barrett's Gram., p. 101; Emmons's, 16. I cannot but think there is some mistake in their mode of finding out what is proper or improper in grammar. Emmons scarcely achieved two pages more, before he forgot his criticism, and adopted the phrase, "in the city of New Haven."—Gram., p. 19.
OBS. 17.—When an object acquires a new name or character from the action of a verb, the new appellation is put in apposition with the object of the active verb, and in the nominative after the passive: as, "They named the child John;"—"The child was named John."—"They elected him president;"—"He was elected president." After the active verb, the acquired name must be parsed by Rule 3d; after the passive, by Rule 6th. In the following example, the pronominal adjective some, or the noun men understood after it, is the direct object of the verb gave, and the nouns expressed are in apposition with it: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers"—Ephesians, iv, 11. That is, "He bestowed some [men] as apostles; and some as prophets; and some as evangelists; and some as pastors and teachers." The common reader might easily mistake the meaning and construction of this text in two different ways; for he might take some to be either a dative case, meaning to some persons, or an adjective to the nouns which are here expressed. The punctuation, however, is calculated to show that the nouns are in apposition with some, or some men, in what the Latins call the accusative, case. But the version ought to be amended by the insertion of as, which would here be an express sign of the apposition intended.
OBS. 18.—Some authors teach that words in apposition must agree in person, number, and gender, as well as in case; but such agreement the following examples show not to be always necessary: "The Franks, a people of Germany."—W. Allen's Gram. "The Kenite tribe, the descendants of Hobab."—Milman's Hist. of the Jews. "But how can you a soul, still either hunger or thirst?"—Lucian's Dialogues, p. 14. "Who seized the wife of me his host, and fled."—Ib., p. 16.
"Thy gloomy grandeurs (Nature's most august. Inspiring aspect!) claim a grateful verse."—Young, N. ix, l. 566.
"Now, therefore, come thou, let us make a covenant, I and thou."—Gen., xxxi, 44.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the pronouns I and thou, of the nominative case, are here put in apposition with the preceding pronoun us, which is objective. But, according to Rule 3d, "A noun or a personal pronoun, used to explain a preceding noun or pronoun, is put, by apposition, in the same case." Therefore, I and thou should be thee and me; (the first person, in our idiom, being usually put last;) thus, "Now, therefore, come thou, let us make a covenant, thee and me."]
"Now, therefore, come thou, we will make a covenant, thee and me."—Variation of Gen. "The word came not to Esau, the hunter, that stayed not at home; but to Jacob, the plain man, he that dwelt in tents."—Wm. Penn. "Not to every man, but to the man of God, (i. e.) he that is led by the spirit of God."—Barclays Works, i, 266. "For, admitting God to be a creditor, or he to whom the debt should be paid, and Christ he that satisfies or pays it on behalf of man the debtor, this question will arise, whether he paid that debt as God, or man, or both?"—Wm. Penn. "This Lord Jesus Christ, the heavenly Man, the Emmanuel, God with us, we own and believe in: he whom the high priests raged against," &c.—George Fox. "Christ, and Him crucified, was the Alpha and Omega of all his addresses, the fountain and foundation of his hope and trust."—Experience of Paul, p. 399. "'Christ and Him crucified' is the head, and only head, of the church."—Denison's Sermon. "But if 'Christ and Him crucified' are the burden of the ministry, such disastrous results are all avoided."—Ib. "He never let fall the least intimation, that himself, or any other person, whomsoever, was the object of worship."—Hannah Adams's View, p. 250. "Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."—1 Tim., v, 17. "Our Shepherd, him who is styled King of saints, will assuredly give his saints the victory."—Sermon. "It may seem odd to talk of we subscribers"—Fowlers True Eng. Gram., p. 20. "And they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters; for I will pour their wickedness upon them."—Jeremiah, xiv, 16. "Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants."—Philippians, ii, 25.
"Amidst the tumult of the routed train, The sons of false Antimachus were slain; He, who for bribes his faithless counsels sold, And voted Helen's stay for Paris' gold." —Pope, Iliad, B. xi. l. 161.
"See the vile King his iron sceptre bear— His only praise attends the pious Heir; He, in whose soul the virtues all conspire, The best good son, from the worst wicked sire." —DR. LOWTH: Union Poems, p. 19.
"Then from thy lips poured forth a joyful song To thy Redeemer!—yea, it poured along In most melodious energy of praise, To God, the Saviour, he of ancient days." —Arm Chair, p. 15.
A Noun or a Pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the name of the thing possessed: as, "God's mercy prolongs man's life."—Allen.
"Theirs is the vanity, the learning thine; Touched by thy hand, again Rome's glories shine."—Pope.
OBS. 1.—Though the ordinary syntax of the possessive case is sufficiently plain and easy, there is perhaps, among all the puzzling and disputable points of grammar, nothing more difficult of decision, than are some questions that occur respecting the right management of this case. That its usual construction is both clearly and properly stated in the foregoing rule, is what none will doubt or deny. But how many and what exceptions to this rule ought to be allowed, or whether any are justly demanded or not, are matters about which there may be much diversity of opinion. Having heretofore published the rule without any express exceptions, I am not now convinced that it is best to add any; yet are there three different modes of expression which might be plausibly exhibited in that character. Two of these would concern only the parser; and, for that reason, they seem not to be very important. The other involves the approval or reprehension of a great multitude of very common expressions, concerning which our ablest grammarians differ in opinion, and our most popular digest plainly contradicts itself. These points are; first, the apposition of possessives, and the supposed ellipses which may affect that construction; secondly, the government of the possessive case after is, was, &c., when the ownership of a thing is simply affirmed or denied; thirdly, the government of the possessive by a participle, as such—that is, while it retains the government and adjuncts of a participle.
OBS. 2.—The apposition of one possessive with an other, (as, "For David my servant's sake,") might doubtless be consistently made a formal exception to the direct government of the possessive by its controlling noun. But this apposition is only a sameness of construction, so that what governs the one, virtually governs the other. And if the case of any noun or pronoun is known and determined by the rule or relation of apposition, there can be no need of an exception to the foregoing rule for the purpose of parsing it, since that purpose is already answered by rule third. If the reader, by supposing an ellipsis which I should not, will resolve any given instance of this kind into something else than apposition, I have already shown him that some great grammarians have differed in the same way before. Useless ellipses, however, should never be supposed; and such perhaps is the following: "At Mr. Smith's [who is] the bookseller."—See Dr. Priestley's Gram., p. 71.
OBS. 3.—In all our Latin grammars, the verb sum, fui, esse, to be, is said (though not with strict propriety) sometimes to signify possession, property, or duty, and in that sense to govern the genitive case: as, "Est regis;"—"It is the king's."—"Hominis est errare;"—"It is man's to err."—"Pecus est Melibœi;"—"The flock is Meliboeus's." And sometimes, with like import, this verb, expressed or understood, may govern the dative; as, "Ego [sum] dilecto meo, et dilectus meus [est] mihi."—Vulgate. "I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine."—Solomon's Song, vi, 3. Here, as both the genitive and the dative are expressed in English by the possessive, if the former are governed by the verb, there seems to be precisely the same reason from the nature of the expression, and an additional one from analogy, for considering the latter to be so too. But all the annotators upon the Latin syntax suggest, that the genitive thus put after sum or est, is really governed, not by the verb, but by some noun understood; and with this idea, of an ellipsis in the construction, all our English grammarians appear to unite. They might not, however, find it very easy to tell by what noun the word beloved's or mine is governed, in the last example above; and so of many others, which are used in the same way: as, "There shall nothing die of all that is the children's of Israel."—Exod., ix, 4. The Latin here is, "Ut nihil omnino pereat ex his quæ pertinent ad filios Israel."—Vulgate. That is,—"of all those which belong to the children of Israel."
"For thou art Freedom's now—and Fame's, One of the few, the immortal names, That were not born to die."—HALLECK: Marco Bozzaris.
OBS. 4.—Although the possessive case is always intrinsically an adjunct and therefore incapable of being used or comprehended in any sense that is positively abstract; yet we see that there are instances in which it is used with a certain degree of abstraction,—that is, with an actual separation from the name of the thing possessed; and that accordingly there are, in the simple personal pronouns, (where such a distinction is most needed,) two different forms of the case; the one adapted to the concrete, and the other to the abstract construction. That form of the pronoun, however, which is equivalent in sense to the concrete and the noun, is still the possessive case, and nothing more; as, "All mine are thine, and thine are mine."—John, xvii, 10. For if we suppose this equivalence to prove such a pronoun to be something more than the possessive case, as do some grammarians, we must suppose the same thing respecting the possessive case of a noun, whenever the relation of ownership or possession is simply affirmed or denied with such a noun put last: as, "For all things are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's."—1 Cor., iii, 21. By the second example placed under the rule, I meant to suggest, that the possessive case, when placed before or after this verb, (be,) might be parsed as being governed by the nominative; as we may suppose "theirs" to be governed by "vanity," and "thine" by "learning," these nouns being the names of the things possessed. But then we encounter a difficulty, whenever a pronoun happens to be the nominative; as, "Therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's"—1 Cor., vi, 20. Here the common resort would be to some ellipsis; and yet it must be confessed, that this mode of interpretation cannot but make some difference in the sense: as, "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed."—Gal., iii, 29. Here some may think the meaning to be, "If ye be Christ's seed, or children." But a truer version of the text would be, "If ye are of Christ, then are ye Abraham's seed."—"Que si vous êtes à Christ, vous êtes done la posterité d'Abraham."—French Bible.
OBS. 5.—Possession is the having of something, and if the possessive case is always an adjunct, referring either directly or indirectly to that which constitutes it a possessive, it would seem but reasonable, to limit the government of this case to that part of speech which is understood substantively—that is, to "the name of the thing possessed." Yet, in violation of this restriction, many grammarians admit, that a participle, with the regimen and adjuncts of a participle, may govern the possessive case; and some of them, at the same time, with astonishing inconsistency, aver, that the possessive case before a participle converts the latter into a noun, and necessarily deprives it of its regimen. Whether participles are worthy to form an exception to my rule or not, this palpable contradiction is one of the gravest faults of L. Murray's code of syntax. After copying from Lowth the doctrine that a participle with an article before it becomes a noun, and must drop the government and adjuncts of a participle, this author informs us, that the same principles are applicable to the pronoun and participle: as, "Much depends on their observing of the rule, and error will be the consequence of their neglecting of it;" in stead of, "their observing the rule," and "their neglecting it." And this doctrine he applies, with yet more positiveness, to the noun and participle; as if the error were still more glaring, to make an active participle govern a possessive noun; saying, "We shall perceive this more clearly, if we substitute a noun for the pronoun: as, 'Much depends upon Tyro's observing of the rule,' &c.; which is the same as, 'Much depends on Tyro's observance of the rule.' But, as this construction sounds rather harshly, it would, in general, be better to express the sentiment in the following, or some other form: 'Much depends on the rule's being observed; and error will be the consequence of its being neglected? or—'on observing the rule; and—of neglecting it.'"—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 193; Ingersoll's, 199; and others.
OBS. 6.—Here it is assumed, that "their observing the rule," or "Tyro's observing the rule," is an ungrammatical phrase; and, several different methods being suggested for its correction, a preference is at length given to what is perhaps not less objectionable than the original phrase itself. The last form offered, "on observing the rule," &c., is indeed correct enough in itself; but, as a substitute for the other, it is both inaccurate and insufficient. It merely omits the possessive case, and leaves the action of the participle undetermined in respect to the agent. For the possessive case before a real participle, denotes not the possessor of something, as in other instances, but the agent of the action, or the subject of the being or passion; and the simple question here is, whether this extraordinary use of the possessive case is, or is not, such an idiom of our language as ought to be justified. Participles may become nouns, if we choose to use them substantively; but can they govern the possessive case before them, while they govern also the objective after them, or while they have a participial meaning which is qualified by adverbs? If they can, Lowth, Murray, and others, are wrong in supposing the foregoing phrases to be ungrammatical, and in teaching that the possessive case before a participle converts it into a noun; and if they cannot, Priestley, Murray, Hiley, Wells, Weld, and others, are wrong in supposing that a participle, or a phrase beginning with a participle, may properly govern the possessive case. Compare Murray's seventh note under his Rule 10th, with the second under his Rule 14th. The same contradiction is taught by many other compilers. See Smith's New Grammar, pp. 152 and 162; Comly's Gram., 91 and 108; Ingersoll's, 180 and 199.