&c., and such passive forms as, I was refused admittance; in French Пl-y-a, and the like. By the influence of the same principle, prevent, and several other words, have assumed new meanings. We need a name for what we have been describing. For want of a better, we may call it the insensible extension of a construction, or more briefly, insensible extension. We think that the fact described above has not been noticed as much as it deserves, in accounting for puzzling idiomatic expressions.

We subjoin some examples of this elliptical construction, which may be analyzed by the learner. We indicate, as before, by italics the parts of the construction which may be explained by reference to the instruction already given.

EXAMPLES FOR ANALYSIS.-That palace is the Queen's. The mild lustre of the morn is hers, the lustre of the risen day is his. St. Peter's is the largest church in the world. This house is our friend's. That shop is the carpenter's. These books are mine, those are yours. The present moment alone is ours.

["Be thine despair and sceptred care;

To triumph and to die are mine."

Arrange thus: Despair be thine, and sceptred care be thine. For BE see § 55, Note.]

[(24) The following observations we abridge from Crombie: When we wish to express that a single object, or set of objects, is the common property of two or more persons, only the last name takes the sign of the genitive, though in analysis all the names are to be considered as in the genitive case. Thus we say, William and Robert's house, William and Robert's books, implying that the house and the books belong to them in common. (25) But when we refer to distinct' objects severally possessed by two or more persons, we must give the genitive sign to each name; as, These are William's and Robert's houses.

(26) When a name consists of more than one term, we attach the sign of the genitive only to the last term; as, John the Baptist's head. (27) When a short explanatory term (a noun in apposition, for example) is joined to a name, we may attach the sign of the genitive either to the name or to the explanatory term; as, "I left the parcel at Mr. Johnson's, the bookseller," or "At Mr. Johnson, the booksel

[(24) What peculiarity is noticed in the use of the genitive sign, when we have occasion to speak of two or more persons as the possessors of the same object? Repeat examples. (25) What is the usage when two or more persons are spoken of as possessing distinct objects?

(26) What is the usage when a name consists of more than one term? (27) What when

A

ler's. (28) But, if the explanatory term is complex, or if there are more explanatory terms than one, the sign of the genitive must be affixed to the principal noun; thus, "I left the book at Johnson's, my old friend." "This psalm is David's, the king, priest," &c.

(29) In some cases, we employ both the genitive and a preposition; as, "This is a friend of the king's," elliptically, for "This is a friend of the king's friends," to "This is one of the king's friends." The latter form of expression, we think, is to be preferred; the other is awkward and less perspicuous.*]

EXERCISES I., II., III., &c.—Form a given number of propositions, containing examples of the genitive modification, and of any of the preceding modifications of subject and predicate, varying the tenses used as much as possible.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THE FORMATION AND USE OF THE GENITIVE.-The English genitive is derived from the Anglo-Saxon. In that language, the genitive was frequently, though not exclusively formed, by adding to the nour the syllable es or s, only when the noun ends in e; as, Smith, genitive Smithes; word, wordes; ende, endes, &c. This form of the genitive is found in old English, down till the time of Wielif and Chaucer. Is was sometimes substituted for es. This may be regarded as a mere variation of the manner of writing these endings. The orthography of our language was very unfixed at that early period, and indeed till a much later time. In the absence of every thing like a standard, each author took the liberty of representing sounds as his ear directed him, regardless of the authority of others, and even, sometimes, of preserving consistency in his own orthography.

Following that propensity to curtailment so strikingly exhibited in the progress of most languages, and of ours especially, we have cut off a syllable from each of these possessive cases in pronunciation, and latterly (so late, we believe, as the end of the seventeenth century) the apostrophe

* Dr. Bullions remarks, "It is worthy of notice, that though this use of the possessive after of, originally and strictly implies selection, or a part only, it has insensibly come to be used when no such selection is, or ever can be, intended. Thus we may say, "That house of yours," "That farm of yours," without intending to imply that any other houses or farms belong to you; and when we say, "That head of yours," selection is obviously excluded by the sense."-Page 47, § 242. Another instance of that insensible extension described in a preceding note. Better, perhaps, not to imitate or give currency to such forms of expression.

a short explanatory term is joined to a noun? (28) What when a complex term consisting of more than one word, or several explanatory terms are attached to a name?

(29) What is said of cases in which we employ both the genitive and a preposition?]

13

1

has been introduced in the written language, to mark the place left vacant by the suppression of the e, and to distinguish the possessive case from the plural form of the noun.

The notion once prevalent (sanctioned by the authority of Addison, in some of his papers in the "Guardian" and in the "Spectator"), that the s of the possessive case stands for the pronoun his-John's book, for example, instead of John, his book-is now universally exploded.

We often use the preposition of with a noun, instead of the genitive form. This mode of expression is derived from the French, in which there is no possessive form. Here, as in many other cases, our language, being formed from two distinct sources, possesses two distinct methods of expressing one and the same thing. It would be well if we had taken full advantage of this circumstance to free ourselves from an ambiguity which sometimes occurs in those languages, which are confined by usage to the single genitive form. For example, Amor Dei, in the Latin language, and ǹ àyárŋ TOû coû, in Greek, may mean either God's love towards us, or our love towards God; in other words, the love of which God is the subject or agent, and the love of which God is the object. To express this fact, the grammarians say, that the genitive is used in an active and passive sense, or subjectively and objectively. It is only from the sense, that we can determine in which way an author, in any particular instance, intends the genitive to be understood. Though we can in most cases, we cannot always determine this point with the certainty and promptitude that is desirable. Now, if in all cases where ambiguity could occur, it were established as the invariable usage of our language to employ the possessive case to express the sense of the subjective genitive, and the noun and preposition complement, when an objective meaning is intended, it would contribute much to perspicuity. Some of our best writers avail themselves of this means of discrimination, but the majority are, apparently, guided by sound rather than by sense, in their choice between the Anglo-Saxon and Norman form of expression, even in cases where a manifest ambiguity is involved; that is to say, where the complement might make sense, but a very different sense, whether understood subjectively or objectively. Amongst those who have failed to avail themselves of the advantage presented by the double form of complement, the translators of the New Testament must be included. They use the Norman form to express both the subjective and objective genitive of the Greek. Compare Romans 8: 33; Cor. 13: 14; Tit. 3: 4; 1 John 4: 9, with Luke 11: 42; John 5: 42, &c.

We may remark here, that there is an awkwardness in modifying a genitive modification, or the Norman equivalent for a genitive modification, by another similar modification. For example, The farmer's son's house, and The house of the son of the farmer, are forms of expression avoided by writers of good taste. Say, rather, The house of the farmer's son.

876. (1) We now proceed to consider those modifications of the verb or complements of the predicate which are formed with the accusative or objective case. (2) The most prominent of these modifications is what we may call THE OBJECTIVE MODIFICATION Or OBJECTIVE COMPLEMENT, which consists of the accusative joined to active verbs to express the passive object of the action (see § 45: 5); (3) that is to say, the object which is affected directly by the action expressed by the verb. We prefer to say, The object to which the action is limited in the particular assertion. (4) For example, The smith struck the iron; The dog bit the child; The boy killed the dog. Here the nouns iron, child, dog, in the several propositions, express the passive objects, and modify or complete the verbs to which they are joined; they express the direction which the action of the verb is declared in these several assertion to take, and thus limit it. Modern French grammarians call this modification the Complement Direct, to distinguish it from the Complement Indirect, or dative modification.

(5) This modification may be readily distinguished by the fact, that it answers, if the object is a person, to the question, Whom? if the object is an animal or a thing, to the question What? as, James loves his father. If we put the question, Whom does James love? the answer gives the objective complement; viz., his father. What did the smith strike? Answer, the iron; the word iron thus proves to be the objective complement to the verb struck.

[(6) It is not to be concluded that the object expressed by the noun thus joined to the verb always suffers, or receives some influence from the action of the verb, because it is called the passive object. (7) In many cases of this kind of construction, no influence whatever is asserted to pass from the subject to the object which is expressed after the verb. It is merely indicated by the grammatical structure of the proposition, that the action expressed by the verb is in the assertion limited or restricted to the object expressed by the subjoined noun. (8) In some cases, if any influence passes, it is in the opposite direction,

876. (1) To what subject is it now proposed to proceed? (2) Which is the most prominent modification of the kind mentioned? (3) Repeat the explanation. Repeat the defirition in the form which is preferred. (4) Repeat the examples accompanied by the illustra tion. What do the French grammarians call this modification?

(5) How may this form of modification be readily distinguished?

[(6) Repeat the remark under No. 6. (7) Continue the remark. (9) In what direction

viz., from the object of the verb to the subject; as, for example, I hear the bell of St. John's; William suffers pain. (9) Here it is surely not asserted that the bell and pain receive influence from the hearing or the suffering of the subjects. (10) These objective or accusative nouns are employed simply to limit hearing and suffering in the respective assertions to the bell and to pain.]

NOTE-Gramatically considered, as contributing to the expression of assertion (or to the expression of thought), it is always the objective noun which influences the verb, and not the verb which influences the noun. The noun comes, as it were, to the aid of the verb, to assist in the full development of the thought. Physically considered, the action expressed by the active verb very frequently affects the party denoted by the objective modification, but this does not by any means always happen. See, view, contemplate, hear, and multitudes of other verbs, requiring an objective noun to complete them, express actions which produce no effect whatever on the so called passive object. I see the sun, for instance; what effect is here produced on the sun? Great perplexity arises in grammatical inquiries from confounding language which clothes thought, with the subject matter of thought-words with that which words signify. In the example, The smith struck the iron, physically considered-in relation to the fact expressed-the act of striking passes over (as the grammarians say) upon the iron--influences the iron. But when we consider the words-the means of drawing out or expressing the thought-it. is the word iron which limits, restricts, exercises that species of influence which one word can exercise upon another, or, to use the terms which we have adopted, modifies or completes (not the action, be it observed, but) the verb struck.

The terms govern and government, employed time out of mind in writing on grammar, have a tendency to mislead the learner, and, we suspect, have sometimes misled authors and teachers, in reference to this matter. Certainly, if we may judge from the effect of these terms on our own mind, they have puzzled and perplexed both the teacher and the scholar. These terms have served for ages as a mysterious veil to cover much ignorance. The scholar is taught to say, that the active verb GOVERNS the accusative case. Now, to govern, surely, he thinks, means to exercise some kind of influence, what influence he cannot well imagine, but some mysterious influence; and so he rests satisfied that he has explained the construction. When these terms were first adopted, they were, no doubt, intended simply to import that an active verb takes after it an accusative case. The rule served (and may still serve) to direct the learner (in writing Latin, for example) that, when he has ascer

does the influence in certain cases pass between the subject of the proposition and the ob ject of the verb ? Give examples. (9) Repeat the illustration. (10) For what purpose are these objective nouns simply employed?]