SEC. I.]

POSSESSIVES.

xliii

morning." The Telegram should explain what a "hundred sermon" is, and why Mr. Beecher has preached seventeen of them.

Obs. 22.-USAGE DIFFERS as to whether a numeral following a noun is to be considered a cardinal or an ordinal.

Thus we may write either Sept. 3, or Sept. 3d; Part Two, or Part Second.

(2) Possessives denote possession, or some kindred connection.

For punctuation, see page 259.

The truth is that the English case in s has not only the possessive use of the AngloSaxon genitive, but the other cases which stand nearest to this. Thus it is constantly employed to denote connection in family, or state, or society: as in John's brother, Henry's neighbor, England's queen, the king's enemies-in old English we find even the king's traitors. Mr. Manning might perhaps argue that to say the king's enemies implies that "the king has enemies," and expresses therefore a possessive relation. But the verb have is a word of very general meaning, which can be used in a multitude of cases where there is no possession, properly so called, and sometimes even where our posressive case would be inadmissible. Thus, every apple has a half, but we cannot say every apple's half. Still farther our case in s is used to express the subject of an action or attribute: as in coward's fear, God's love, the prisoner's be'ng absent. But relations which stand at a wider distance from the possessive cannot be expressed in this way. Thus, the objective relation: we do not say God's fear, but the fear of God; not the child's guardianship, but the guardianship of the child. We do indeed say England's ruler, the child's guardian; but here it is political or social connection that is thought of, and not the object of the action. In like manner our case in s cannot be used as a genitive partitive (not women's loveliest, but loveliest of women); nor as a genitive of material (not leather's girdle, but girdle of leather); nor as a genitive of designation (not Italy's kingdom, but kingdom of Italy).—JAMES HADLEY.

Obs. 23. The Objective Genitive, or the relation of the possessive to its noun as the object of the action implied in the noun, not being permitted in English, such expressions as "In our midst," for "In the midst of us," must be carefully avoided.

An attorney not celebrated for his probity was robbed one night on his way from Wicklow to Dublin. His father, meeting Baron O'Grady next day, said: "My lord, have you heard of my son's robbery?" "No, indeed," replied the Baron; "pray whom did he rob?"-HODGSON.

Obs. 24.-A Relation of Persons.-" Another rule is to avoid converting mere abstractions into persons. I believe you will very rarely find in any great writer before the Revolution the possessive case of an inanimate noun used in prose instead of the dependent case, as, 'the watch's hand,' for the hand of a watch.' The possessive or Saxon genitive was confined to persons, or at least to animated subjects."-COLERIDGE.

In modern English the inflected possessive of nouns expresses almost exclusively the notion of property or appurtenance. Hence we say a man's hat, or a man's hand, but the description of a man, not a man's description. And of course we generally limit the application of this form to words which indicate objects capable of possessing or enjoying the right of property: in a word, to persons, or at least animated and conscious creatures, and we accordingly speak of a woman's bonnet, but not of a house's roof.--MARSH.

Obs. 25.-Whose as the possessive of which (neuter) is therefore subject to criticism.

The author asks credit for his having here and elsewhere resisted the temptation of substituting "whose" for "of which "– the misuse of the said pronoun relative "whose," where the antecedent neither is nor is meant to be represented as either personal or even animal, he would brand as one among the worst of the mimicries of poetic diction, by which imbecile writers fancy they elevate their prose-would but that to his vexation he meets with it of late in the compositions of men that least of all need such artifices, and who ought to watch over the purity and privileges of their mother tongue with all the jealousy of high priests set apart by nature for the pontificate. Poor as our language is in terminations and inflections significant of the genders, to destroy the few it possesses is most wrongful.-COLERIDGE.

At present the use of whose, the possessive of who, is pretty generally confined to persons or things personified, and we should scruple to say, "I passed a house whose windows were open.”— MARSH.

Yet in "Man and Nature" Mr. Marsh writes, "a quadrangular pyramid, the perpendicular of whose sides" (p. 145).

Campbell says:

The possessive of who is properly whose; the pronoun which, originally indeclinable, had no possessive. This want was supplied in the common periphrastic manner, by the help of the preposition and the article. But as this could not fail to enfeeble the expression, when so much time was given to mere conjunctives, all our best authors, both in prose and in verse, have come now regularly to adopt in such cases the possessive of who; and thus have substituted one syllable in the place of three, as in the example following: "Philosophy, whose end is to instruct us in the knowledge of nature," for, "Philosophy, the end of which is to instruct us."-Rhetoric, ii. 375.

Its has a curious history, showing the prejudice that had to be overcome in establishing a neuter possessive.

In Anglo-Saxon the personal pronoun represented in English by he, she, it, made the genitive or possessive his for the masculine and neuter gender, her (hire) for the feminine, and so long as grammatical gender had not an invariable relation to sex, the employment of a common form for the masculine and neuter excited no feeling of incongruity. The change in the grammatical significance of gender suggested the same embarrassment with relation to the universal application of his as of whose, and when this was brought into distinct consciousness a remedy was provided. At first, it was used as a possessive, without inflection or a preposition, and several instances of this occur in Shakspere, as also in Leviticus xxv. 5, of the Bible of 1611: That which groweth of it own accord." Its, although to be found in printed books of a somewhat earlier date, is not once used in that edition, his being in all cases but that just cited employed instead. The precise date and occasion of the first introduction of its is not ascertained, but it could not have been far from the year 1600.

For a considerable period about the beginning of the seventeenth century, there was evidently a sense of incongruity in the application of his to objects incapable of the distinction of sex, and at the same time a reluctance to sanction the introduction of the new form its as a substitute. Accordingly, for the first half of that century many of the best writers rejected them both, and I think English folios can be found which do not contain an example of either. Of it, thereof, and longer circumlocutions were preferred, or the very idea of the possessive relation was avoided altogether.

Fuller has its in some of his works, in others he rejects it, and in the Pisgah Sight of Palestine, printed in 1650, both forms are sometimes applied to a neuter noun in the course of a single sentence: as, "Whether from the violence of winds, then blowing on its stream, and angering it beyond his banks.”—MARSH.

Obs. 26. Wherever ambiguity, or awkwardness, would result from the use of the apostrophe (see p. 259), it is best to avoid the use of the possessive altogether. Thus, instead of "The bracelet was Carlotta's, the empress," we may say: "The bracelet was that of Carlotta, the empress.'

This principle of avoidance is of wide application and very great usefulness. The trained writer will often find that he cannot well handle the form of expression which first occurred to him; and, being fertile in rhetorical expedients, will substitute for it an entirely different form, while the novice will waste time in vain attempts to make the original form graceful and appropriate.

Much of the value of sound rhetorical instruction consists in the suggestion and exemplification of alternative forms of expression of which we may avail ourselves in an emergency.-GILMORE.

Obs. 27. Care must be taken not to put before a possessive an adjective belonging to the thing possessed.

Thus, not, Red children's stockings, but, Children's red stockings; not, The familiar postman's knock, but, The postman's familiar knock.

6.

Compare: Even the philosophers sometimes have the laugh turned on them. Not long since, in the presence of Herbert Spencer, a little boy said: What an awful lot of crows!" The philosopher corrected the youth by saying, "I have yet to learn, little master, that there is anything to inspire awe in such a bird as the crow." For once the author of "First Principles" had met his match. The boy replied, "But I didn't say there was; I didn't say what a lot of awful crows, but what an awful lot of crows!" Sound, for the boy.-Harper's Weekly.

EXERCISE XIV.-In the following sentences change the possessives to prepositional phrases, and the prepositional phrases to possessives.

Example.-If we cannot perceive the manner of the poison of sin, no wonder if we cannot perceive the method of the antidote of grace.

If we cannot perceive the manner of sin's poison, no wonder if we cannot perceive the method of grace's antidote.-T. FULLER. A Connecticut newspaper announces that "the barn and contents of Mr. Giles Potter of Essex was burned Thursday night."

The young man did not want natural talents; but the father of him was a coxcomb, who affected being a fine gentleman so unmercifully that he could not endure in his sight, or the frequent mention of one who was his son growing into manhood and thrusting him out of the gay world.-CAMPBELL.

(3) Appositives result by condensation from descriptive clauses. Thus:

John Adams, the President, is a shorter form for, John Adams, who was the President.

Obs. 28.-Apposition may be so used as to convert two sentences into one. Thus:

We called at the house of a person to whom we had letters of introduction, a musician, and, what is more, a good friend to all young students of music.-ABBOTT.

This is as clear as, He was a musician, etc., and is briefer.

It would, however, be better to put a dash before "a musician." See page 271.

Obs. 29.-Appositives should be placed near the nouns that they define.

EXERCISE XV.-Correct the arrangement of the following sentences.

Example.-Charles I., the king of England, was beheaded by

Cromwell.

Charles I. was beheaded by Cromwell, the king of England. Tom Thumb was exhibited by Barnum, the smallest man living. Dr. Kane deserves to rank with Livingston, the arctic explorer. The horse was scared by a snail, a nervous creature.

The shawl was worn by the governor's wife, made of camel's hair.