MINE in the second, and FRIEND's in the third proposition, represent or stand in the place of the subject noun. This house is MINE, and yonder house is your FRIEND's. Here MINE and FRIEND's stand in the place of nouns complementary of the verb is. (a)

(16) In the same way the genitive case represents the noun which it is designed primarily to limit in other forms of modification. (b) (17) But in all such cases (indeed in all cases of ELLIPSIS-that is SUPPRESSION of words), the proper mode of analysis is to supply the suppressed (or omitted) word, and then analyze the proposition as filled up. At least this plan should be adopted in the commencement. (18) Thus we fill up the proposition, This house is MINE, by substituting the words MY HOUSE instead of mine. Then house is the predicate noun, or noun complementary of the verb is, and мY modifies or limits house, and belongs to a class of modifying words to be described hereafter. Again, in such examples as, This horse is my FRIEND's, we supply horse after FRIEND's, and proceed as before. (19) When familiar with this elliptical construction, the learner can say in analyzing the above example, that the verb is is modified or completed by the complementary noun horse implied in the genitive FRIEND'S, which at the same time limits and represents horse.

(20) Of this elliptical use of the genitive, both of nouns and pronouns, there are examples in which the suppressed noun is not so obvious, nor so readily supplied as in those already presented. (21) Such, for instance, as "Gay hope is THEIRS." We cannot here supply the ellipsis in a satisfactory manner by repeating hope. Gay hope is their hope. This does not express the poet's meaning. His meaning is, that gay hope belongs to them-is their possession. (22) Here possession, or some similar word, is to be supplied in order to complete the construction. (23) So, in the following example, "All things are yours;—and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's." This is equivalent to the assertion, All things belong to you, &c. Some

(a) See the author's larger work, pp. 188-9, 191–4 & § 155. (b) For instance, in the noun and preposition modification, as That horse is one of my FATHER'S one of my father's horses, or one of the horses of my father.

(16) Does the genitive represent its principal noun in other forms of modification? (17) What is recommended as the proper mode of analysis in such cases? (18) Illustrate by an example of a genitive case of a pronoun and of a noun thus employed? (19) What shorter mode of analysis may be adopted, when this construction is familiar to the learner? (20) Repeat the remark about this elliptical use of the genitive. (21) Give the example. (22) What word must be supplied in this example? (28) Repeat the examples, and tell what nouns are to be supplied.

such word as property, inheritance, possession, is implied in these several genitives.

We subjoin some examples of this elliptical construction, to 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.

The mild lustre

St. Peter's is the
That shop is the

EXAMPLES FOR ANALYSIS.-That palace is the Queen's. of the morn is hers, the lustre of the risen day is his. largest church in the world. This house is our friend's. 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.

(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 bookseller'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,

(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 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 ?]

=

"This is a friend of the king's," elliptically, for "This is a friend of the kings'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. (c)

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.

$57. OBJECTIVE MODIFICATION. (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 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 § 28:5); (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 object, 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 assertions 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.

(c) 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. Better, perhaps, not to imitate or give currency to such forms of expression.

§ 57. (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 definition in the form which is preferred. (4) Repeat the examples accompanied by the illustration. What do the French grammarians call this 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, 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 subject. (10) These objective or accusative nouns are employed simply to limit hearing and suffering in the respective assertions to the bell and to pain.(a)

(11) When a pronoun has a distinct form for the accusative case, this accusative form is subjoined to the verb as objective modification. (12) When any other kind of noun is employed as objective modification, it is only by the order of arrangement, that it is grammatically distinguished from the noun employed as subject of the proposition. For example, let us form a proposi tion of the two nouns, William, James, and the verb excels. If we arrange them thus, William excels James, the arrangement indicates that William is the subject, and James the objective

(a) See Gram. Struct. Eng. Lang., pp. 196-8, note.

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

(6) Repeat the remark under No. 6. (7) Continue the remark. (8) In what direction does the influence in certain cases pass between the subject of the proposition and the object of the verb? Give examples. (9) Repeat the illustration. (10) For what simple purpose are these objective nouns employed?]

(11) Repeat the remark in reference to pronouns. (12) How do we distinguish the objective modification when it consists of any other kind of noun? Repeat example and illus

tration.

modification. If we invert the order, we entirely change the sense. James becomes the subject, and William the objective modification; thus, James excels William.

(13) As a general rule, the objective noun with its modifica tions, when it has any, should follow next after the verb. It is, for the most part, awkward in prose to allow any other modification, except what we shall call the dative modification (that is, the noun or pronoun expressive of the personal object when not preceded by a preposition), to come between the verb and its objective modification. (See § 60.) The noun and preposition modification is sometimes placed between them.

(14) In our language, since the Anglo-Saxon period, there exists no distinct form (except in the pronouns) for this species of modification.

(15) Our usual order of arrangement is to place the subject noun in the proposition before the verb, and the objective modification after it. We fol low this order generally even in the case of the personal pronouns, though in regard of these, possessing, as they do, an objective form, this arrangement is not required, as in regard of other nouns, for the purpose of securing complete perspicuity.

(16) The pronoun, objectively employed, is sometimes for the sake of emphasis placed before the verb and subject noun, especially by our older writers. We have innumerable examples of this order of arrangement in the Bible. For example, "Me he restored, and him he hanged." "Thee have I seen righteous." "Him shall ye worship." "Him will I confess." "Him declare I unto you," &c. (17) We may also find examples of other nouns placed before the subject noun, and the verb to which they serve as objective modification, though these are not so numerous as the examples of pronouns thus transposed. "The darkness he called night." "This peo

ple have I formed for myself."

(18) Transpositions of this kind occur much more frequently in poetry,

(13) What is the usual place of the objective modification in the arrangement of the proposition?

[(14) Repeat the remark in reference to a distinct form for this modification in English since the Anglo-Saxon period.

(15) Repeat the order of arrangement of subject, verb and objective modification. Do we follow this order when a personal pronoun serves as objective? Is the same order absolutely necessary in this latter case?

(16) What is remarked of the pronoun objectively employed, especially in older writers and in the Bible? Illustrate by examples. (17) Are there examples to be found of common nouns so transposed? Mention those given.

(18) What is said of transpositions of this kind in poetry? Repeat the examples.