Chapter III: Cases, or Nouns (1)

The rules for the construction of Nouns, or Cases, are seven; hence this chapter, according to the order adopted above, reviews the series of rules from the second rule to the eighth, inclusively. Though _Nouns_ are here the topic, all these seven rules apply alike to _Nouns and to Pronouns_; that is, to all the words of our language which are susceptible of _Cases_.

RULE II.--NOMINATIVES.

A Noun or a Pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case: as, "The _Pharisees_ also, _who_ were covetous, heard all these things; and _they_ derided him."--_Luke_, xvi, 14. "But where the _meekness_ of self-knowledge veileth the front of self-respect, there look _thou_ for the man whom _none_ can know but _they_ will honour."--_Book of Thoughts_, p. 66.

"Dost _thou_ mourn Philander's fate?
_I_ know _thou_ sayst it: says thy _life_ the same?"
--_Young_, N. ii, l. 22.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE II.

OBS. 1.--To this rule, there are _no exceptions_; and nearly all nominatives, or far the greater part, are to be parsed by it. There are however _four_ different ways of disposing of the nominative case. _First_, it is generally _the subject of a verb_, according to Rule 2d. _Secondly_, it may be put _in apposition_ with an other nominative, according to Rule 3d. _Thirdly_, it may be put after a verb or a participle _not transitive_, according to Rule 6th. _Fourthly_, it may be put _absolute_, or may help to form a _phrase that_ is _independent_ of the rest of the sentence, according to Rule 8th.

OBS. 2.--The subject, or nominative, is generally placed _before_ the verb; as, "_Peace dawned_ upon his mind."--_Johnson_. "_What is written_ in the law?"--_Bible_. But, in the following nine cases, the subject of the verb is usually placed _after_ it, or after the first auxiliary: 1. When a question is asked without an interrogative pronoun in the nominative case; as, "_Shall mortals be_ implacable?"--_Hooke_. "What _art thou doing_?"--_Id._ "How many loaves _have ye_?"--_Bible_. "_Are they_ Israelites? so _am I_."--_Ib._

2. When the verb is in the imperative mood; as, "_Go thou_"--"_Come ye_" But, with this mood, the pronoun is very often omitted and understood; as, "Philip saith unto him, _Come_ and _see_"--_John_, i, 46. "And he saith unto them, _Be_ not _affrighted_."--_Mark_, xvi, 5.

3. When an earnest wish, or other strong feeling, is expressed; as, "_May she be_ happy!"--"How _were we struck_!"--_Young_. "Not as the world giveth, _give I_ unto you."--_Bible_.

4. When a supposition is made without the conjunction _if_; as, "_Had they known_ it;" for, "_If_ they had known it."--"_Were it_ true;" for, "_If_ it were true."--"_Could we draw_ by the covering of the grave;" for, "_If_ we could draw," &c.

5. When _neither_ or _nor_, signifying _and not_, precedes the verb; as, "This was his fear; _nor was his apprehension_ groundless."--"Ye shall not eat of it, _neither shall ye touch_ it."--_Gen._, iii, 3.

6. When, for the sake of emphasis, some word or words are placed before the verb, which more naturally come after it; as, "Here _am I_."--"Narrow _is_ the _way_."--"Silver and gold _have I_ none; but such as I have, _give I_ thee."--_Bible_.

7. When the verb has no regimen, and is itself emphatical; as, "_Echo_ the _mountains_ round."--_Thomson_. "After the Light Infantry _marched_ the _Grenadiers_, then _followed_ the _Horse_."--_Buchanan's Syntax_, p. 71.

8. When the verbs, _say, answer, reply_, and the like, introduce the parts of a dialogue; as, "'Son of affliction,' _said Omar_, 'who art thou?' 'My name,' _replied_ the _stranger_, 'is Hassan.'"--_Dr. Johnson_.

9. When the adverb _there_ precedes the verb; as, "There _lived_ a _man_."--_Montgomery_. "In all worldly joys, there _is_ a secret _wound_."--_Owen_. This use of _there_, the general introductory adverb of place, is idiomatic, and somewhat different from the use of the same word in reference to a particular locality; as, "Because _there_ was not much water _there_."--_John_, iii, 23.

OBS. 3.--In exclamations, and some other forms of expression, a few verbs are liable to be suppressed, the ellipsis being obvious; as, "How different [is] this from the philosophy of Greece and Rome!"--DR. BEATTIE: _Murray's Sequel_, p. 127. "What a lively picture [is here] of the most disinterested and active benevolence!"--HERVEY: _ib._, p. 94. "When Adam [spake] thus to Eve."--MILTON: _Paradise Lost_, B. iv, l. 610.

OBS. 4.--Though we often use nouns in the nominative case to show whom we address, yet the imperative verb takes no other nominative of the second person, than the simple personal pronoun, _thou, ye_, or _you_, expressed or understood. It would seem that some, who ought to know better, are liable to mistake for the subject of such a verb, the noun which we put absolute in the nominative by direct address. Of this gross error, the following is an example: "_Study boys_. In this sentence," (says its author,) "_study_ is a verb of the second person, plural number, and agrees with its nominative case, _boys_--according to the rule: A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person. _Boys_ is a noun _of_ the second person, plural number, masculine gender, in the nominative case to the verb study."--_Ingersoll's Gram._, p. 17.[339] Now the fact is, that this laconic address, of three syllables, is written wrong; being made bad English for want of a comma between the two words. Without this mark, _boys_ must be an objective, governed by _study_; and with it, a nominative, put absolute by direct address. But, in either case, _study_ agrees with _ye_ or _you_ understood, and has not the noun for its subject, or nominative.

OBS. 5.--Some authors say, and if the first person be no exception, say truly: "The nominative case to a verb, unless it be a pronoun, is always of the _third_ person."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 141. But W. B. Fowle will have all pronouns to be _adjectives_. Consequently all his verbs, of every sort, agree with nouns "expressed or understood." This, and every other absurd theory of language, can easily be made out, by means of a few perversions, which may be called corrections, and a sufficient number of interpolations, made under pretence of filling up ellipses. Thus, according to this author, "They fear," means, "They _things spoken of_ fear."--_True Eng. Gram._, p, 33. And, "_John, open_ the door," or, "_Boys, stop_ your noise," admits no comma. And, "Be grateful, ye children," and, "Be ye grateful children," are, in his view, every way equivalent: the comma in the former being, in his opinion, needless. See _ib._, p. 39.

OBS. 6.--Though the nominative and objective cases of nouns do not differ in form, it is nevertheless, in the opinion of many of our grammarians, improper to place any noun in both relations at once, because this produces a confusion in the syntax of the word. Examples: "He then goes on to declare that there _are_, and distinguish _of_, four _manners_ of saying _Per se_."--_Walker's Treatise of Particles_, p. xii. Better: "He then proceeds to show, that _per se_ is susceptible of four different senses." "In just allegory _and_ similitude there is always a propriety, or, if you choose to call it, _congruity_, in the literal sense, as well as a distinct meaning or sentiment suggested, which is called the figurative sense."--_Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 291. Better: "In just allegory _or_ similitude, there is always a propriety--or, if you choose to call it _so, a congruity_--in the literal sense," &c. "It must then be meant of his sins who _makes_, not of his who _becomes_, the convert."--_Atterbury's Sermons_, i, 2. Better: "It must then be meant of his sins who _makes the convert_, not of his who _becomes converted_." "Eye _hath_ not _seen_, nor ear _heard_, neither _have entered_ into the heart of man, _the things_ which God hath prepared for them that love him."--_1 Cor._, ii, 9. A more regular construction would be: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither _hath it_ entered into the heart of man to _conceive_, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." The following example, from Pope, may perhaps be conceded to the poet, as an allowable ellipsis of the words "_a friend_," after _is_:

"In who obtain defence, or who defend;
In him who _is_, or him who _finds, a friend_."
--_Essay on Man_, Ep. iv, l. 60.

Dr. Lowth cites the last three examples, without suggesting any forms of correction; and says of them, "There seems to be an impropriety in these sentences, in which the same noun stands in a double capacity, performing at the same time the offices _both of the_ nominative and objective case."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 73. He should have said--"_of both the_ nominative and _the_ objective case." Dr. Webster, citing the line, "In him who is, and him who finds, a friend," adds, "Lowth condemns this use of the noun in the nominative and objective at the same time; but _without reason_, as the cases are not distinguished in English."--_Improved Gram._, p. 175.

OBS. 7.--In Latin and Greek, the accusative before the infinitive, is often reckoned _the subject_ of the latter verb; and is accordingly parsed by a sort of exception to the foregoing rule--or rather, to that general rule of concord which the grammarians apply to the verb and its nominative. This construction is translated into English, and other modern tongues, sometimes literally, or nearly so, but much oftener, by a nominative and a finite verb. Example: "_[Greek: Eipen auton phonæthænai]_."--_Mark_, x, 49. "Ait illum vocari."--_Leusden_. "Jussit eum vocari."--_Beza_. "Præcepit illum vocari."--_Vulgate_. "He commanded him to be called."--_English Bible_. "He commanded that he should be called."--_Milnes's Gr. Gram._, p. 143. "Il dit qu'on l'appelât."--_French Bible_. "He bid that somebody should call him." "Il commanda qu'on le fît venir."--_Nouveau Test._, Paris, 1812. "He commanded that they should _make him come_;" that is, "_lead him_, or _bring him_." "Il commanda qu'on l'appelât."--_De Sacy's N. Test_.

OBS. 8.--In English, the objective case before the infinitive mood, although it may truly denote the agent of the infinitive action, or the subject of the infinitive passion, is nevertheless taken as the object of the preceding verb, participle, or preposition. Accordingly our language does not admit a literal translation of the above-mentioned construction, except the preceding verb be such as can be interpreted transitively. "_Gaudeo te val=ere_," "I am glad that thou art well," cannot be translated more literally; because, "I am glad thee to be well," would not be good English. "_Aiunt regem advent=are_," "They say the king is coming," may be otherwise rendered "They _declare_ the king to be coming;" but neither version is entirely literal; the objective being retained only by a change of _aiunt, say_, into such a verb as will govern the noun.

OBS. 9.--The following sentence is a literal imitation of the Latin accusative before the infinitive, and for that reason it is not good English: "But experience teacheth us, _both these opinions to be_ alike ridiculous."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 262. It should be, "But experience _teaches us, that both these opinions are_ alike ridiculous." The verbs _believe, think, imagine_, and others expressing _mental action_, I suppose to be capable of governing nouns or pronouns in the objective case, and consequently of being interpreted transitively. Hence I deny the correctness of the following explanation: "RULE XXIV. The objective case precedes the infinitive mode; [as,] 'I _believe_ your _brother to be_ a good man.' Here _believe_ does not govern brother, in the objective case, because it is not the object after it. _Brother_, in the objective case, third person singular, precedes the neuter verb _to be_, in the infinitive mode, present time, third person singular."--_S. Barrett's Gram._, p. 135. This author teaches that, "The _infinitive mode agrees_ with the objective case in number and person."--_Ibid._ Which doctrine is denied; because the infinitive has no number or person, in any language. Nor do I see why the noun _brother_, in the foregoing example, may not be both the object of the active verb _believe_, and the subject of the neuter infinitive _to be_, at the same time; for the subject of the infinitive, if the infinitive can be said to have a subject, is not necessarily in the nominative case, or necessarily independent of what precedes.

OBS. 10.--There are many teachers of English grammar, who still adhere to the principle of the Latin and Greek grammarians, which refers the accusative or objective to the latter verb, and supposes the former to be intransitive, or to govern only the infinitive. Thus Nixon: "The objective case is frequently put before the infinitive mood, as its subject; as, 'Suffer _me_ to depart.'" [340]--_English Parser_, p. 34. "When an objective case stands before an infinitive mood, as 'I understood _it_ to be him,' 'Suffer _me_ to depart,' such objective should be parsed, not as governed by the preceding verb, but as the objective case before the infinitive; that is, _the subject_ of it. The reason of this is--the former verb can govern one object only, and that is (in such sentences) the infinitive mood; the intervening objective being the subject of the infinitive following, and not governed by the former verb; as, in that instance, it _would be governing_ two objects."--_Ib., Note._[341]

OBS. 11.--The notion that one verb governs an other in the infinitive, just as a transitive verb governs a noun, and so that it cannot also govern an objective case, is not only contradictory to my scheme of parsing the infinitive mood, but is also false in itself, and repugnant to the principles of General Grammar. In Greek and Latin, it is certainly no uncommon thing for a verb to govern two cases at once; and even the accusative before the infinitive is sometimes governed by the preceding verb, as the objective before the infinitive naturally is in English. But, in regard to construction, every language differs more or less from every other; hence each must have its own syntax, and abide by its own rules. In regard to the point here in question, the reader may compare the following examples: "[Greek: Echo anagkæn exelthein]."--_Luke_, xiv, 18. "Habeo necesse exire."--_Leusden_. English: "I have _occasion to go_ away." Again: "[Greek: O echon hota akouein, akoueto]."--_Luke_, xiv, 35. "Habens aures audiendi, audiat."--_Leusden_. "Qui habet aures ad audiendum, audiat."--_Beza_. English: "He that hath _ears to hear_, let _him hear_." But our most frequent use of the infinitive after the objective, is in sentences that must not be similarly constructed in Latin or Greek;[342] as, "And he commanded the _porter to watch_."--_Mark_, xiii, 34. "And he delivered _Jesus to be crucified_."--_Mark_, xv, 15. "And they led _him_ out _to crucify him_."--_Mark_, xv, 20. "We heard _him say_."--_Mark_, xiv, 58. "That I might make _thee know_."--_Prov._, xxii, 21.

OBS. 12.--If our language does really admit any thing like the accusative before the infinitive, in the sense of a positive subject at the head of a clause, it is only in some prospective descriptions like the following: "Let certain studies be prescribed to be pursued during the freshman year; _some_ of these to be attended to by the whole class; with regard to others, a _choice_ to be allowed; _which_, when made by the student, (the parent or guardian sanctioning it,) to be binding during the freshman year: the same _plan_ to be adopted with regard to the studies of the succeeding years."--GALLAUDET: _Journal of the N. Y. Literary Convention_, p. 118. Here the four words, _some, choice, which_, and _plan_, may appear to a Latinist to be so many objectives, or accusatives, placed before infinitives, and used to describe that state of things which the author would promote. If objectives they are, we may still suppose them to be governed by _let, would have_, or something of the kind, understood: as, "_Let_ some of these be attended to;" or, "Some of these _I would have_ to be attended to," &c. The relative _which_ might with more propriety be made nominative, by changing "_to_ be binding" to "_shall_ be binding;" and as to the rest, it is very doubtful whether they are not now nominatives, rather than objectives. The infinitive, as used above, is a mere substitute for the Latin future participle; and any English noun or pronoun put absolute with a participle, is in the nominative case. English relatives are rarely, if ever, put absolute in this manner: and this may be the reason why the construction of _which_, in the sentence above, seems awkward. Besides, it is certain that the other pronouns are sometimes put absolute with the infinitive; and that, in the nominative case, not the objective: as,

"And _I to be_ a corporal in his field,
And wear his colours like a tumbler's hoop!
What? _I! I love! I sue! I seek_ a wife!"--_Shak., Love's Labour Lost_.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE II.

THE SUBJECT OF A FINITE VERB.

"The whole need not a physician, but them that are sick."--_Bunyan's Law and Gr._, p. iv.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the objective pronoun _them_ is here made the subject of the verb _need_, understood. But, according to Rule 2d, "A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case." Therefore, _them_ should be _they_; thus, "The whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."]

"He will in no wise cast out whomsoever cometh unto him."--_Robert Hall_ "He feared the enemy might fall upon his men, whom he saw were off their guard."--_Hutchinson's Massachusetts_, ii, 133. "Whomsoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain."--_Dymond's Essays_, p. 48. "The idea's of the author have been conversant with the faults of other writers."--_Swift's T. T._, p. 55. "You are a much greater loser than me by his death."--_Swift to Pope_, l. 63. "Such peccadillo's pass with him for pious frauds."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. iii, p. 279. "In whom I am nearly concerned, and whom I know would be very apt to justify my whole procedure."--_Ib._, i, 560. "Do not think such a man as me contemptible for my garb."--_Addison._ "His wealth and him bid adieu to each other."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 107. "So that, 'He is greater than _me_,' will be more grammatical than, 'He is greater than _I_.'"--_Ib._, p. 106. "The Jesuits had more interests at court than him."--SMOLLETT: in _Pr. Gram._, p. 106.[343] "Tell the Cardinal that I understand poetry better than him."--_Id., ib._ "An inhabitant of Crim Tartary was far more happy than him."--_Id., ib._ "My father and him have been very intimate since."--_Fair American_, ii, 53. "Who was the agent, and whom the object struck or kissed?"--_Infant School Gram._, p. 32. "To find the person whom he imagined was concealed there."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 225. "He offered a great recompense to whomsoever would help him."--HUME: in _Pr. Gram._, p. 104. "They would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whomsoever might exercise the right of judgement."--_Gov. Haynes's Speech_, in 1832. "They had promised to accept whomsoever should be born in Wales."--_Stories by Croker_. "We sorrow not as them that have no hope."--_Maturin's Sermons_, p. 27. "If he suffers, he suffers as them that have no hope."--_Ib._, p. 32. "We acknowledge that he, and him only, hath been our peacemaker."--_Gratton_. "And what can be better than him that made it?"--_Jenks's Prayers_, p. 329. "None of his school-fellows is more beloved than him."--_Cooper's Gram._, p. 42. "Solomon, who was wiser than them all."--_Watson's Apology_, p. 76. "Those whom the Jews thought were the last to be saved, first entered the kingdom of God."--_Eleventh Hour, Tract_, No. 4. "A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty; but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both."--_Prov._, xxvii, 3. "A man of business, in good company, is hardly more insupportable than her they call a notable woman."--_Steele, Sped_. "The king of the Sarmatians, whom we may imagine was no small prince, restored him a hundred thousand Roman prisoners."--_Life of Antoninus_, p. 83. "Such notions would be avowed at this time by none but rosicrucians, and fanatics as mad as them."--_Bolingbroke's Ph. Tr._, p. 24. "Unless, as I said, Messieurs, you are the masters, and not me."--BASIL HALL: _Harrison's E. Lang._, p. 173. "We had drawn up against peaceable travellers, who must have been as glad as us to escape."--BURNES'S TRAVELS: _ibid._ "Stimulated, in turn, by their approbation, and that of better judges than them, she turned to their literature with redoubled energy."--QUARTERLY REVIEW: _Life of H. More: ibid._ "I know not whom else are expected."--SCOTT'S PIRATE: _ibid._ "He is great, but truth is greater than us all."--_Horace Mann, in Congress_, 1850. "Him I accuse has entered."--_Fowler's E. Gram._, §482: see _Shakspeare's Coriolanus_, Act V, sc. 5.

"Scotland and thee did each in other live."
--_Dryden's Po._, Vol. ii, p. 220.

"We are alone; here's none but thee and I."
--_Shak._, 2 Hen. VI.

"Me rather had, my heart might feel your love,
Than my unpleas'd eye see your courtesy."
--_Idem: Joh. Dict._

"Tell me, in sadness, whom is she you love?"
--_Id., Romeo and Juliet_, A. I, sc. 1.

"Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire
Too high a fame, when him we serve's away."
--_Shak., Ant. and Cleop._

RULE III.--APPOSITION.

A Noun or a personal Pronoun used to explain a preceding noun or pronoun, is put, by apposition, in the same case: as, "But it is really _I_, your old _friend and neighbour., Piso_, late a _dweller_ upon the Coelian hill, who am now basking in the warm skies of Palmyra."--_Zenobia._

"But _he_, our gracious _Master_, kind as just,
Knowing our frame, remembers we are dust."--_Barbauld_.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE III.

OBS. 1--_Apposition_ is that peculiar relation which one noun or pronoun bears to an other, when two or more are placed together in the same case, and used to designate the same person or thing: as, "_Cicero_ the _orator_;"--"The _prophet Joel_;"--"_He_ of Gath, _Goliah_;"--"Which _ye yourselves_ do know;"--"To make _him king_;"--"To give his _life_ a _ransom_ for many;"--"I made the _ground_ my _bed_;"--"_I_, thy _schoolmaster_;"--"_We_ the _People_ of the United States." This placing-together of nouns and pronouns in the same case, was reckoned by the old grammarians a _figure of syntax_; and from them it received, in their elaborate detail of the grammatical and rhetorical figures, its present name of _apposition_. They reckoned it a species of _ellipsis_, and supplied between the words, the participle _being_, the infinitive _to be_, or some other part of their "_substantive verb_:" as, "Cicero _being_ the orator;"--"To make him _to be_ king;"--"I _who am_ thy schoolmaster." But the later Latin grammarians have usually placed it among their regular concords; some calling it the first concord, while others make it the last, in the series; and some, with no great regard to consistency, treating it both as a figure and as a regular concord, at the same time.

OBS. 2.--Some English grammarians teach, "that the words in the cases preceding and following the verb _to be_, may be said to be _in apposition_ to each other."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 181; _R. C. Smith's_, 155; _Fisk's_, 126; _Ingersoll's_, 146; _Merchant's_, 91. But this is entirely repugnant to the doctrine, that apposition is a _figure_; nor is it at all consistent with the original meaning of the word _apposition_; because it assumes that the literal reading, when the supposed ellipsis is supplied, is _apposition_ still. The old distinction, however, between apposition and same cases, is _generally_ preserved in our grammars, and is worthy ever to be so. The rule for _same cases_ applies to all nouns or pronouns that are put after verbs or participles not transitive, and that are made to agree in case with other nouns or pronouns going before, and meaning the same thing. But some teachers who observe this distinction with reference to the neuter verb _be_, and to certain passive verbs of _naming, appointing_, and the like, absurdly break it down in relation to other verbs, neuter or active-intransitive. Thus Nixon: "Nouns in apposition are in the same case; as, '_Hortensius_ died a _martyr_;' '_Sydney_ lived the shepherd's _friend_.'"--_English Parser_, p. 55. It is remarkable that _all_ this author's examples of "_nominatives in apposition_," (and he gives eighteen in the exercise,) are precisely of this sort, in which there is really _no apposition at all_.

OBS. 3.--In the exercise of parsing, rule third should be applied only to the _explanatory term_; because the case of the _principal term_ depends on its relation to the rest of the sentence, and comes under some other rule. In certain instances, too, it is better to waive the analysis which _might_ be made under rule third, and to take both or all the terms together, under the rule for the main relation. Thus, the several proper names which distinguish an individual, are always in apposition, and should be taken together in parsing; as, _William Pitt--Marcus Tullius Cicero_. It may, I think, be proper to include with the personal names, some titles also; as, _Lord Bacon--Sir Isaac Newton_. William E. Russell and Jonathan Ware, (two American authors of no great note,) in parsing the name of "_George Washington_," absurdly take the former word as an _adjective_ belonging to the latter. See _Russell's Gram._, p. 100; and _Ware's_, 17. R. C. Smith does the same, both with honorary titles, and with baptismal or Christian names. See his _New Gram._, p. 97. And one English writer, in explaining the phrases, "_John Wickliffe's influence_," "_Robert Bruce's exertions_," and the like, will have the first nouns to be governed by the last, and the intermediate ones to be distinct possessives _in apposition_ with the former. See _Nixon's English Parser_, p. 59. Wm. B. Fowle, in his "True English Grammar," takes all titles, all given names, all possessives, and all pronouns, to be adjectives. According to him, this class embraces more than half the words in the language. A later writer than any of these says, "The proper noun is _philosophically_ an adjective. Nouns common or proper, of similar or dissimilar import, _may be parsed as adjectives_, when they become qualifying or distinguishing words; as, _President_ Madison,--_Doctor_ Johnson,--_Mr_. Webster,--_Esq_. Carleton,--_Miss_ Gould,--_Professor_ Ware,--_lake_ Erie,--the _Pacific_ ocean,--_Franklin_ House,--_Union_ street."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 134. I dissent from all these views, at least so far as not to divide a _man's name_ in parsing it. A person will sometimes have such a multitude of names, that it would be a flagrant waste of time, to parse them all separately: for example, that wonderful doctor, _Paracelsus_, who called himself, "_Aureolus Philippus Theophrastus Bombastus Paracelsus de Hoenheim_."--_Univ. Biog. Dict._

OBS. 4.--A very common rule for apposition in Latin, is this: "Substantives signifying the same thing, agree in case."--_Adam's Latin Gram._, p. 156. The same has also been applied to our language: "Substantives denoting the same person or thing, agree in case."--_Bullions's E. Gram._, p. 102. This rule is, for two reasons, very faulty: first, because the apposition of _pronouns_ seems not to be included it; secondly, because two nouns that are not in the same case, do sometimes "signify" or "denote" the same thing. Thus, "_the city of London_," means only _the city London_; "_the land of Egypt_," is only Egypt; and "_the person of Richard_" is _Richard himself_. Dr. Webster defines _apposition_ to be, "The placing of two nouns in the same case, without a connecting word between them."--_Octavo Dict._ This, too, excludes the pronouns, and has exceptions, both various and numerous. In the first place, the apposition may be of more than two nouns, without any connective; as, "_Ezra_ the _priest_, the _scribe_ of the law."--_Ezra_, vii, 21. Secondly, two nouns connected by a conjunction, may both be put in apposition with a preceding noun or pronoun; as, "God hath made that same _Jesus_, whom ye have crucified, both _Lord_ and _Christ_."--_Acts_, ii, 36. "Who made _me_ a _judge_ or a _divider_ over you."--_Luke_, xii, 14. Thirdly, 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 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.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE III.

ERRORS OF WORDS IN APPOSITION.

"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.

RULE IV.--POSSESSIVES.

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_.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE IV.

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_.