The Grammar of English Grammars · Chapter 161Chapter III.—Cases, or Nouns. (4)
This chapter is not translated yet. You are reading the original.
OBS. 20.—The possessive case generally comes immediately before the governing noun, expressed or understood; as, "All nature's difference keeps all nature's peace."—Pope. "Lady! be thine (i. e., thy walk) the Christian's walk."—Chr. Observer. "Some of Æschylus's [plays] and Euripides's plays are opened in this manner."—Blair's Rhet., p. 459. And in this order one possessive sometimes governs an other: as, "Peter's wife's mother;"—"Paul's sister's son."—Bible. But, to this general principle of arrangement, there are some exceptions: as,
1. When the governing noun has an adjective, this may intervene; as, "Flora's earliest smells."—Milton. "Of man's first disobedience."—Id. In the following phrase from the Spectator, "Of Will's last night's lecture," it is not very clear, whether Will's is governed by night's or by lecture; yet it violates a general principle of our grammar, to suppose the latter; because, on this supposition, two possessives, each having the sign, will be governed by one noun.
2. When the possessive is affirmed or denied; as, "The book is mine, and not John's." But here the governing noun may be supplied in its proper place; and, in some such instances, it must be, else a pronoun or the verb will be the only governing word: as, "Ye are Christ's [disciples, or people]; and Christ is God's" [son].—St. Paul. Whether this phraseology is thus elliptical or not, is questionable. See Obs. 4th, in this series.
3. When the case occurs without the sign, either by apposition or by connexion; as, "In her brother Absalom's house."—Bible. "David and Jonathan's friendship."—Allen. "Adam and Eve's morning hymn."—Dr. Ash. "Behold the heaven, and the heaven of heavens, is the Lord's thy God."—Deut.,, x, 14. "For peace and quiet's sake."—Cowper. "To the beginning of King James the First's reign."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 32.
OBS. 21—The possessive case is in general (though not always) equivalent to the preposition of and the objective; as, "Of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son."—John, xiii, 2. "To Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon."—Ib., xiii, 26. On account of this one-sided equivalence, many grammarians erroneously reckon the latter to be a "genitive case" as well as the former. But they ought to remember, that the preposition is used more frequently than the possessive, and in a variety of senses that cannot be interpreted by this case; as, "Of some of the books of each of these classes of literature, a catalogue will be given at the end of the work."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 178. Murray calls this a "laborious mode of expression," and doubtless it might be a little improved by substituting in for the third of; but my argument is, that the meaning conveyed cannot be expressed by possessives. The notion that of forms a genitive case, led Priestley to suggest, that our language admits a "double genitive;" as, "This book of my friend's."—Priestley's Gram., p. 71. "It is a discovery of Sir Isaac Newton's."—Ib., p. 72. "This exactness of his."—STERNE: ib. The doctrine has since passed into nearly all our grammars; yet is there no double case here, as I shall presently show.
OBS. 22.—Where the governing noun cannot be easily mistaken, it is often omitted by ellipsis: as, "At the alderman's" [house];—"St. Paul's" [church];—"A book of my brother's" [books];—"A subject of the emperor's" [subjects];—"A friend of mine;" i. e., one of my friends. "Shall we say that Sacrificing was a pure invention of Adam's, or of Cain or Abel's?"—Leslie, on Tythes, p. 93. That is—of Adam's inventions, or of Cain or Abel's inventions. The Rev. David Blair, unable to resolve this phraseology to his own satisfaction, absurdly sets it down among what he calls "ERRONEOUS OR VULGAR PHRASES." His examples are these: "A poem of Pope's;"—"A soldier of the king's;"—"That is a horse of my father's."—Blair's Practical Gram., p. 110, 111. He ought to have supplied the plural nouns, poems, soldiers, horses. This is the true explanation of all the "double genitives" which our grammarians discover; for when the first noun is partitive, it naturally suggests more or other things of the same kind, belonging to this possessor; and when such is not the meaning, this construction is improper. In the following example, the noun eyes is understood after his:
"Ev'n his, the warrior's eyes, were forced to yield, That saw, without a tear, Pharsalia's field." —Rowe's Lucan, B. viii, l. 144.
OBS. 23.—When two or more nouns of the possessive form are in any way connected, they usually refer to things individually different but of the same name; and when such is the meaning, the governing noun, which we always suppress somewhere to avoid tautology, is understood wherever the sign is added without it; as, "A father's or mother's sister is an aunt."—Dr. Webster. That is, "A father's sister or a mother's sister is an aunt." "In the same commemorative acts of the senate, were thy name, thy father's, thy brother's, and the emperor's."—Zenobia, Vol. i, p. 231.
"From Stiles's pocket into Nokes's" [pocket]. —Hudibras, B. iii, C. iii, l. 715.
"Add Nature's, Custom's, Reason's, Passion's strife." —Pope, Brit. Poets, Vol. vi, p. 383.
It will be observed that in all these examples the governing noun is singular; and, certainly, it must be so, if, with more than one possessive sign, we mean to represent each possessor as having or possessing but one object. If the noun be made plural where it is expressed, it will also be plural where it is implied. It is good English to say, "A father's or mother's sisters are aunts;" but the meaning is, "A father's sisters or a mother's sisters are aunts." But a recent school critic teaches differently, thus: "When different things of the same name belong to different possessors, the sign should be annexed to each; as, Adams's, Davies's, and Perkins' Arithmetics; i. e., three different books."—Spencer's Gram., p. 47. Here the example is fictitious, and has almost as many errors as words. It would be much better English to say, "Adams's, Davies's, and Perkins's Arithmetic;" though the objective form with of would, perhaps, be still more agreeable for these peculiar names. Spencer, whose Grammar abounds with useless repetitions, repeats his note elsewhere, with the following illustrations: "E. g. Olmstead's and Comstock's Philosophies. Gould's Adam's Latin Grammar."—Ib., p. 106. The latter example is no better suited to his text, than "Peter's wife's mother;" and the former is fit only to mean, "Olmstead's Philosophies and Comstock's Philosophies." To speak of the two books only, say," Olmstead's Philosophy and Comstock's."
OBS. 24.—The possessive sign is sometimes annexed to that part of a compound name, which is, of itself, in the objective case; as, "At his father-in-law's residence." Here, "At the residence of his father-in-law," would be quite as agreeable; and, as for the plural, one would hardly think of saying, "Men's wedding parties are usually held at their fathers-in-law's houses." When the compound is formed with of, to prevent a repetition of this particle, the possessive sign is sometimes added as above; and yet the hyphen is not commonly inserted in the phrase, as I think it ought to be. Examples: "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."—Murray's Gram., p. 176. "The Bishop of Cambray's writings on eloquence."—Blair's Rhet., p. 345. "The bard of Lomond's lay is done."—Queen's Wake, p. 99. "For the kingdom of God's sake."—Luke, xviii, 29. "Of the children of Israel's half."—Numbers, xxxi, 30. From these examples it would seem, that the possessive sign has a less intimate alliance with the possessive case, than with the governing noun; or, at any rate, a dependence less close than that of the objective noun which here assumes it. And since the two nouns here so intimately joined by of, cannot be explained separately as forming two cases, but must be parsed together as one name governed in the usual way, I should either adopt some other phraseology, or write the compound terms with hyphens, thus: "The Duke-of-Bridgewater's canal;"—"The Bishop-of-Landaff's excellent book;"—"The Bard-of- Lomond's lay is done." But there is commonly some better mode of correcting such phrases. With deference to Murray and others, "The King of Great Britain's prerogative," [349] is but an untoward way of saying, "The prerogative of the British King;" and, "The Lord mayor of London's authority," may quite as well be written, "The authority of London's Lord Mayor." Blair, who for brevity robs the _Arch_bishop of half his title, might as well have said, "Fenelon's writings on eloquence." "Propter regnum Dei," might have been rendered, "For the kingdom of God;"—"For the sake of the kingdom of God;"—or, "For the sake of God's kingdom." And in lieu of the other text, we might say, "Of the Israelites' half."
OBS. 25.—"Little explanatory circumstances," says Priestley, "are particularly awkward between the genitive case, and the word which usually follows it; as, 'She began to extol the farmer's, as she called him, excellent understanding.' Harriet Watson, Vol. i, p. 27."—Priestley's Gram., p 174. Murray assumes this remark, and adds respecting the example, "It ought to be, 'the excellent understanding of the farmer, as she called him.' "—Murray's Gram., p. 175. Intersertions of this kind are as uncommon as they are uncouth. Murray, it seems, found none for his Exercises, but made up a couple to suit his purpose. The following might have answered as well for an other: "Monsieur D'acier observes, that Zeno's (the Founder of the Sect,) opinion was Fair and Defensible in these Points."—Colliers Antoninus, p. ii.
OBS. 26.—It is so usual a practice in our language, to put the possessive sign always and only where the two terms of the possessive relation meet, that this ending is liable to be added to any adjunct which can be taken as a part of the former noun or name; as, (1.) "The court-martial's violent proceedings." Here the plural would be courts-martial; but the possessive sign must be at the end. (2.) "In Henry the Eighth's time."—Walker's Key, Introd., p. 11. This phrase can be justified only by supposing the adjective a part of the name. Better, "In the time of Henry the Eighth." (3.) "And strengthened with a year or two's age."—Locke, on Education, p. 6. Here two's is put for two years; and, I think, improperly; because the sign is such as suits the former noun, and not the plural. Better, "And strengthened with a year's age or more." The word two however is declinable as a noun, and possibly it may be so taken in Locke's phrase. (4.) "This rule is often infringed, by the case absolute's not being properly distinguished from certain forms of expression apparently similar to it."—Murray's Gram., p. 155; Fisk's, 113; Ingersoll's, 210. Here the possessive sign, being appended to a distinct adjective, and followed by nothing that can be called a noun, is employed as absurdly as it well can be. Say, "This rule is often infringed by an improper use of the nominative absolute;" for this is precisely what these authors mean. (5.) "The participle is distinguished from the adjective by the former's expressing the idea of time, and the latter's denoting only a quality"—Murray's Gram., p. 65; Fisk's, 82; Ingersoll's, 45; Emmons's, 64; Alger's, 28. This is liable to nearly the same objections. Say, "The participle differs from an adjective by expressing the idea of time, whereas the adjective denotes only a quality." (6.) "The relatives that and as differ from who and which in the former's not being immediately joined to the governing word."—Nixon's Parser, p. 140. This is still worse, because former's, which is like a singular noun, has here a plural meaning; namely, "in the former terms' not being," &c. Say—"in that the former never follow the governing word."
OBS. 27.—The possessive termination is so far from being liable to suppression by ellipsis, agreeably to the nonsense of those interpreters who will have it to be "understood" wherever the case occurs without it, that on the contrary it is sometimes retained where there is an actual suppression of the noun to which it belongs. This appears to be the case whenever the pronominal adjectives former and latter are inflected, as above. The inflection of these, however, seems to be needless, and may well be reckoned improper. But, in the following line, the adjective elegantly takes the sign; because there is an ellipsis of both nouns; poor's being put for poor man's, and the governing noun joys being understood after it: "The rich man's joys increase, the poor's decay."—Goldsmith. So, in the following example, guilty's is put for guilty person's:
"Yet, wise and righteous ever, scorns to hear The fool's fond wishes, or the guilty's prayer." —Rowe's Lucan, B. v, l. 155.
This is a poetical license; and others of a like nature are sometimes met with. Our poets use the possessive case much more frequently than prose writers, and occasionally inflect words that are altogether invariable in prose; as,
"Eager that last great chance of war he waits, Where either's fall determines both their fates." —Ibid., B. vi, l. 13.
OBS. 28.—To avoid a concurrence of hissing sounds, the s of the possessive singular is sometimes omitted, and the apostrophe alone retained to mark the case: as, "For conscience' sake."—Bible. "Moses' minister."—Ib. "Felix' room."—Ib. "Achilles' wrath."—Pope. "Shiraz' walls."—Collins. "Epicurus' sty."—Beattie. "Douglas' daughter."—Scott. "For Douglas' sake."—Ib. "To his mistress' eyebrow."—Shak. This is a sort of poetic license, as is suggested in the 16th Observation upon the Cases of Nouns, in the Etymology. But in prose the elision should be very sparingly indulged; it is in general less agreeable, as well as less proper, than the regular form. Where is the propriety of saying, Hicks' Sermons, Barnes' Notes, Kames' Elements, Adams' Lectures, Josephus' Works, while we so uniformly say, in Charles's reign, St. James's Palace, and the like? The following examples are right: "At Westminster and Hicks's Hall."—Hudibras. "Lord Kames's Elements of Criticism."—Murray's Sequel, p. 331. "Of Rubens's allegorical pictures."—Hazlitt. "With respect to Burns's early education."—Dugald Stewart. "Isocrates's pomp;"—"Demosthenes's life."—Blair's Rhet., p. 242. "The repose of Epicurus's gods."—Wilson's Heb. Gram., p. 93.
"To Douglas's obscure abode."—Scott, L. L., C. iii, st. 28.
"Such was the Douglas's command."—Id., ib., C. ii, st. 36.
OBS. 29.—Some of our grammarians, drawing broad conclusions from a few particular examples, falsely teach as follows: "When a singular noun ends in ss, the apostrophe only is added; as, 'For goodness' sake:' except the word witness; as, 'The witness's testimony.' When a noun in the possessive case ends in ence, the s is omitted, but the apostrophe is retained; as, 'For conscience' sake.'"—Kirkham's Gram., p. 49; Hamlin's, 16; Smith's New Gram., 47.[350] Of principles or inferences very much like these, is the whole system of "Inductive Grammar" essentially made up. But is it not plain that heiress's, abbess's, peeress's, countess's, and many other words of the same form, are as good English as witness's? Did not Jane West write justly, "She made an attempt to look in at the dear dutchess's?"—Letters to a Lady, p. 95. Does not the Bible speak correctly of "an ass's head," sold at a great price?—2 Kings, vi, 25. Is Burns also wrong, about "miss's fine lunardi," and "miss's bonnet?"—Poems, p. 44. Or did Scott write inaccurately, whose guide "Led slowly through the pass's jaws?"—Lady of the Lake, p. 121. So much for the ss; nor is the rule for the termination ence, or (as Smith has it) nce, more true. Prince's and dunce's are as good possessives as any; and so are the following:
"That vice should triumph, virtue vice obey; This sprung some doubt of Providence's sway."—Parnell.
"And sweet Benevolence's mild command."—Lord Lyttleton.
"I heard the lance's shivering crash, As when the whirlwind rends the ash."—Sir Walter Scott.
OBS. 30.—The most common rule now in use for the construction of the possessive case, is a shred from the old code of Latin grammar: "One substantive governs another, signifying a different thing, in the possessive or genitive case."—L. Murray's Rule X. This canon not only leaves occasion for an additional one respecting pronouns of the possessive case, but it is also obscure in its phraseology, and too negligent of the various modes in which nouns may come together in English. All nouns used adjectively, and many that are compounded together, seem to form exceptions to it. But who can limit or enumerate these exceptions? Different combinations of nouns have so often little or no difference of meaning, or of relation to each other, and so frequently is the very same vocal expression written variously by our best scholars, and ablest lexicographers, that in many ordinary instances it seems scarcely possible to determine who or what is right. Thus, on the authority of Johnson, one might write, a stone's cast, or stone's throw; but Webster has it, stones-cast, or stones-throw; Maunder, stonecast, stonethrow; Chalmers, stonescast; Worcester, stone's-cast. So Johnson and Chalmers write stonesmickle, a bird; Webster has it, stone's-mickle; yet, all three refer to Ainsworth as their authority, and his word is stone-smickle: Littleton has it stone-smich. Johnson and Chalmers write, popeseye and sheep's eye; Walker, Maunder, and Worcester, popeseye and sheep's-eye; Scott has pope's-eye and sheepseye; Webster, pope's-eye and sheep's-eye, bird-eye, and birds-eye. Ainsworth has goats beard, for the name of a plant; Johnson, goatbeard; Webster, goat-beard and goats-beard. Ainsworth has prince's feather, for the amaranth; Johnson, Chalmers, Walker, and Maunder, write it princes-feather; Webster and Worcester, princes'-feather; Bolles has it princesfeather: and here they are all wrong, for the word should be prince's-feather. There are hundreds more of such terms; all as uncertain in their orthography as these.
OBS. 31.—While discrepances like the foregoing abound in our best dictionaries, none of our grammars supply any hints tending to show which of these various forms we ought to prefer. Perhaps the following suggestions, together with the six Rules for the Figure of Words, in Part First, may enable the reader to decide these questions with sufficient accuracy. (1.) Two short radical nouns are apt to unite in a permanent compound, when the former, taking the sole accent, expresses the main purpose or chief characteristic of the thing named by the latter; as, teacup, sunbeam, daystar, horseman, sheepfold, houndfish, hourglass. (2.) Temporary compounds of a like nature may be formed with the hyphen, when there remain two accented syllables; as, castle-wall, bosom-friend, fellow-servant, horse-chestnut, goat-marjoram, marsh-marigold. (3.) The former of two nouns, if it be not plural, may be taken adjectively, in any relation that differs from apposition and from possession; as, "The silver cup,"—"The parent birds,"—"My pilgrim feet,"—"Thy hermit cell,"—"Two brother sergeants." (4.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form a literal name, may be joined together without either hyphen or apostrophe: as, tradesman, ratsbane, doomsday, kinswoman, craftsmaster. (5.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form a metaphorical name, should be written with both apostrophe and hyphen; as, Job's-tears, Jew's-ear, bear's-foot, colts-tooth, sheep's-head, crane's-bill, crab's-eyes, hound's-tongue, king's-spear, lady's-slipper, lady's-bedstraw, &c. (6.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form an adjective, whether literal or metaphorical, should generally be written with both apostrophe and hyphen; as, "Neats-foot oil,"—"Calfs-foot jelly,"—"A carp's-tongue drill,"—"A bird's-eye view,"—"The states'-rights' party,"—"A camel's-hair shawl." But a triple compound noun may be formed with one hyphen only: as, "In doomsday-book;" (—Joh. Dict.;) "An armsend-lift." Cardell, who will have all possessives to be adjectives, writes an example thus: "John's camel's hair girdle."—Elements of Eng. Gram., p. 39. That is as if John's camel had a hair girdle! (7.) When the possessive case and its governing noun merely help to form a regular phrase, the compounding of them in any fashion may be reckoned improper; thus the phrases, a day's work, at death's door, on New Year's Day, a new year's gift, All Souls' Day, All Saints' Day, All Fools' Day, the saints' bell, the heart's blood, for dog's meat, though often written otherwise, may best stand as they do here.
OBS. 32.—The existence of a permanent compound of any two words, does not necessarily preclude the use of the possessive relation between the same words. Thus, we may speak of a horse's shoe or a goat's skin, notwithstanding there are such words as horseshoe and goatskin. E.g., "That preach ye upon the housetops."—ALGER'S BIBLE: Matt., x, 27. "Unpeg the basket on the house's top."—Beauties of Shak., p. 238. Webster defines frostnail, (which, under the word cork, he erroneously writes frost nail,) "A nail driven into a horse-shoe, to prevent the horse from slipping on ice." Worcester has it, "A nail driven into a horse's shoe, to prevent his slipping on the ice." Johnson, "A nail with a prominent head driven into the horse's shoes, that it may pierce the ice." Maunder, "A nail with a sharp head driven into the horses' shoes in frosty weather." None of these descriptions is very well written. Say rather, "A spur-headed nail driven into a horse's shoe to prevent him from slipping." There is commonly some difference, and sometimes a very great one, between the compound noun and the possessive relation, and also between the radical compound and that of the possessive. Thus a harelip is not a hare's lip, nor is a headman a headsman, or heart-ease heart's-ease. So, according to the books, a cat-head, a cat's-head, and a cat's head, are three very different things; yet what Webster writes, cat-tail, Johnson, cats-tail, Walker and others, cats-tail, means but the same thing, though not a cat's tail. Johnson's "kingspear, Jews-ear, lady-mantle, and lady-bedstraw," are no more proper, than Webster's "bear's-wort, lion's foot, lady's mantle, and lady's bed-straw." All these are wrong.
OBS. 33.—Particular examples, both of proper distinction, and of blind irregularity, under all the heads above suggested, may be quoted and multiplied indefinitely, even from our highest literary authorities; but, since nothing can be settled but by the force of principles, he who would be accurate, must resort to rules,—must consider what is analogical, and, in all doubtful cases, give this the preference. But, in grammar, particular analogies are to be respected, as well as those which are more general. For example, the noun side, in that relation which should seem to require the preceding noun to be in the possessive case, is usually compounded with it, the hyphen being used where the compound has more than two syllables, but not with two only; as, bedside, hillside, roadside, wayside, seaside, river-side, water-side, mountain-side. Some instances of the separate construction occur, but they are rare: as, "And her maidens walked along by the river's side."—Exodus, ii, 5. After this noun also, the possessive preposition of is sometimes omitted; as, "On this side the river;"(—Bible;) "On this side Trent."—Cowell. Better, "On this side of the river," &c. "Blind Bartimeus sat by the highway side, begging."—Mark, x, 46. Here Alger more properly writes "highway-side." In Rev., xiv, 20th, we have the unusual compound, "horse-bridles." The text ought to have been rendered, "even unto the horses' bridles." Latin, "usque ad frænos equorum." Greek, "[Greek: achri ton chalinon ton hippon]."
OBS. 34.—Correlatives, as father and son, husband and wife, naturally possess each other; hence such combinations as father's son, and son's father, though correct enough in thought, are redundant in expression. The whole and a part are a sort of correlatives, but the whole seems to possess its parts, more properly than any of the parts, the whole. Yet we seldom put the whole in the possessive case before its part, or parts, but rather express the relation by of; as, "a quarter of a dollar," rather than, "a dollar's quarter." After the noun half, we usually suppress this preposition, if an article intervene; as, "half a dollar," rather than, "half of a dollar," or "a dollar's half." So we may say, "half the way," for "half of the way;" but we cannot say, "half us" for "half of us." In the phrase, "a half dollar," the word half is an adjective, and a very different meaning is conveyed. Yet the compounds half-pint and half-penny are sometimes used to signify, the quantity of half a pint, the value of half a penny. In weight, measure, or time, the part is sometimes made possessive of the whole; as, "a pound's weight, a yard's length, an hour's time." On the contrary, we do not say, "weight's pound, length's yard, or time's hour;" nor yet, "a pound of weight, a yard of length;" and rarely do we say, "an hour of time." Pound and yard having other uses, we sometimes say, "a pound in weight, a yard in length;" though scarcely, "an hour in time."
OBS. 35.—Between a portion of time and its correlative action, passion, or being, the possessive relation is interchangeable; so that either term may be the principal, and either, the adjunct: as, "Three years' hard work," or, "Three years of hard work." Sometimes we may even put either term in either form; as, "During the ten years' war,"—"During the ten years of war,"—"During the war of ten years,"—"During the war's ten years." Hence some writers, not perceiving why either word should make the other its governed adjunct, place both upon a par, as if they were in apposition; as, "Three days time."—Brown's Estimate, Vol. ii, p. 156. "By a few years preparation."—Blair's Rhet., p. 341. "Of forty years planting."—Wm. Penn. "An account, of five years standing." If these phrases were correct, it would also be correct to say, "one day time,"—"one year preparation,"—"one year planting,"—"of one year standing;" but all these are manifestly bad English; and, by analogy, so are the others.
OBS. 36.—Any noun of weight, measure, or time, put immediately before an other, if it be not in the possessive case, will naturally be understood adjectively; as, "No person can, by words only, give to an other an adequate idea of a pound weight, or [a] foot rule."—Gregory's Dict. This phraseology can, with propriety, refer only to the weight or the rule with which we weigh or measure; it cannot signify a pound in weight, or a foot in length, though it is very probable that the author intended the latter. When the noun times is used before an other noun by way of multiplication, there may be supposed an ellipsis of the preposition of between the two, just as when we divide by the word half; as, "An hour is sixty times the length of a minute."—Murray's Gram., p. 48. "Thirty seconds are half the length of a minute." That is,—"half of the length,"—"sixty times of the length."
NOTE I.—In the syntax of the possessive case, its appropriate form, singular or plural, should be observed, agreeably to the sense and declension of the word. Thus, write John's, men's, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs; and not, Johns, mens', her's, it's, our's, your's, their's.
NOTE II.—When nouns of the possessive case are connected by conjunctions or put in apposition, the sign of possession must always be annexed to such, and such only, as immediately precede the governing noun, expressed or understood; as, "John and Eliza's teacher is a man of more learning than James's or Andrew's"—"For David my servant's sake."—Bible. "For my sake and the gospel's."—Ib. "Lost in love's and friendship's smile."—Scott.
NOTE III.—The relation of property may also be expressed by the preposition of and the objective; as, "The will of man," for "man's will." Of these forms, we should adopt that which will render the sentence the most perspicuous and agreeable; and, by the use of both, avoid an unpleasant repetition of either.
NOTE IV.—A noun governing the possessive plural, should not, by a forced agreement, be made plural, when its own sense does not require it; as, "For our parts,"—"Were I in your places:" for we may with propriety say, "Our part, your place, or your condition;" as well as, "Our desire, your intention, their resignation."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 169. A noun taken figuratively may also be singular, when the literal meaning would require the plural: such expressions as, "their face,"—"their neck,"—"their hand,"—"their head,"—"their heart,"—"our mouth,"—"our life,"—are frequent in the Scriptures, and not improper.
NOTE V.—The possessive case should not be needlessly used before a participle that is not taken in other respects as a noun. The following phrase is therefore wrong: "Adopted by the Goths in their pronouncing the Greek."—Walker's Key, p. 17. Expunge their. Again: "Here we speak of their becoming both in form and signification passive."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 226. Say rather, "Here we speak of them as becoming passive, both in form and signification."
"Mans chief good is an upright mind." See Brown's Institutes of E. Gram., p. 179.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the noun mans, which is intended for the possessive singular of man, has not the appropriate form of that case and number. But, according to Note 1st under Rule 4th, "In the syntax ef the possessive case, its appropriate form, singular or plural, should be observed, agreeably to the sense and declension of the word." Therefore, mans should be maris, with the apostrophe before the s; thus, "Man's chief good is an upright mind."]