the assertion reads is made. It generally precedes the verb, and always may do it. The principal idea attached to the nominative is that of agency or state of being in general, the particular action or state being pointed out by the verb with which it is connected.

105. The Possessive represents a vast variety of relations, but the principal one is that of ownership or possession. Thus, "John's book is lost," where John's is in the possessive, because it names the owner of the book. In the lines from Campbell's "Pleasures of Hope,”

While Elijah's burning wheels prepare

From Carmel's heights to sweep the fields of air,
The prophet's mantle, ere his flight began,
Dropt on the world—a sacred gift to man,—

there are three possessive cases, each expressing the general idea of ownership, but with a distinct shade of meaning. The true idea of possession is expressed only in the last, "prophet's mantle."

106. The Possessive singular is formed from the nominative by adding 's (apostrophe s); the plural, by adding an apostrophe alone to the nominative. When the plural does not end in s, the possessive is formed like the singular. An apostrophe usually indicates the omission of some letter or syllable, but English critics and grammarians are not agreed as to what this apostrophe represents. Some, as Addison, think that it is a contraction for his, and they maintain that had the possessive case been native to our tongue, we should not have met with such expressions as "Asa his heart was perfect;""For Jesus Christ his sake."* The greater number of grammarians, however, and perhaps also the more learned, hold that the possessive is what we may call indigenous to our tongue; the old form of the possessive being, for instance in the word king, kingis. Not content with showing that at one period of our language this form prevailed, though not by any means universally, they go on to refute Addison's theory by remarking, that while it is easy to see how "the king his crown" might be contracted

* Grave in advice, well skilled in Mars his game,

Four hundred brought he.-Fairfax's Translation of Tasso.

66

into "the king's crown," no possible contraction would account for the form "queen's crown" from the queen her crown." This argument, however, could be turned against themselves, for the apostrophe s is now used not only to plurals but to all nouns, whether their Saxon originals ended ins in the possessive or not. Whichever theory be adopted, we are obliged to confess that there has been an arbitrary transference of a contraction from a place where it was appropriate to one where it was not. The convenience of the contraction, from whatever it came, being seen in the case of nouns singular masculine, it could not fail in time to be transferred to nouns feminine and plural. This is not the only instance in language in which certain terminations have been as it were forced on words to which they do not naturally apply. The two theories, however, are not contradictory or mutually destructive, but only dif ferent from each other. Both may be true, and notwithstanding the very confident assertion of Latham and other eminent grammarians, we incline to think that this is the fact.

107. Before leaving the Possessive Case, we may remark that its inflection corresponds exactly in import to the preposition of. The expressions "in a father's house" and "in the house of a father," are as near as possible identical. In the one, the relation existing between house and father is expressed by a change in the word father; in the other, the same idea is expressed by the preposition of. Sometimes there is a difference between these two modes of expression, as in the phrases, "Lord's day," and "day of the Lord," but this arises from the circumstance that both have lost their common meaning, and become in fact compound proper nouns.

108. Adam Smith asserts that inflections would probably be made before prepositions were invented; observing very justly, that it requires much less abstraction to express the nature of the relation that subsists between two objects by a change on the name denoting one of them, than to call into use a class of words expressing relation and nothing else. "To express relation by a variation in the name of the correlative object, requiring neither abstraction nor generaliza

tion, nor comparison of any kind, would at first be much more natural and easy than to express it by those general words called prepositions, of which the first invention must have demanded some degree of all these operations."

109. This corresponds with the fact, that while many languages, such as French, Italian, &c., have thrown off inflected forms, there is no instance of a language ever having reverted to the inflected form after having used prepositions and auxiliary verbs. The inflected and uninflected forms have each its advantages and disadvantages, and as far as the possessive case is concerned, the English language is fortunate in having both forms in use. We are thus enabled, when two possessors are to be pointed out, to keep clear of repetition, which is always objectionable. Few would prefer either of these expressions,-" In Hannibal's march's expected line," or "In the expected line of the march of Hannibal," to the way in which it is put by Dr Arnold, "In the expected line of Hannibal's march."

110. The noun is in the Objective Case-1st, when it names the object on which the action expressed by a transitive verb operates; and, 2d, when it names the thing shown to be related to something else by a preposition. In the sentence," John destroyed his book," book is expressing the object on which the verbal action operates; it is therefore said to be in the objective case. Again, in the sentence, "The cloud rises over the hill," hill is in the objective, because it is the word shown to be related to cloud by the preposition over.

111. Were we, as already said, to insist on a change of form as necessary to a case, the objective could not be admitted in nouns, though it would still remain in pronouns ; but the distinction is so necessary in point of syntax, that no grammarian, so far as we know, has overlooked it.

112. The nominative and objective in nouns being alike in form, it is only from the position that the noun holds with respect to the verb that we can ascertain its case. Even this will not always serve us, for though it may be said to be the genius of the English language to put the nominative before the verb and the objective after it, yet a transposition often takes place, and the full meaning of the clause

or passage is the only thing that will enable us infallibly to ascertain the case.

113. In the sentence, "Alexander conquered Darius," "Alexander" is in the nominative, because (104) it represents the actor or agent, while "Darius" is the objective, because (110) it names the person affected by the transitive verb "conquered." In the line of Milton's, "When thus the Son the fervent Sire addressed," it would be quite impossible, without examining the context, to say whether it was the Son that addressed the Sire or the Sire that addressed the Son; but in this from Shakspeare, "Life every man holds dear," while the mere arrangement of the words is similar, yet we see at once that life is in the objective case, affected by the transitive verb holds, though coming before it. 114. We subjoin two examples of the declension of the It is very simple.

noun.

When the plural does not end in s, the Possessive is formed in the same way as the singular; thus,

1. Define the word case. In what two senses may it be used? How many cases is the noun in English said to have? What is the main idea attached to the nominative? What is its general place in a sentence? What is the principal idea attached to the Possessive? What are any of the subordinate ideas? How is the possessive singular formed? How the plural? What two theories have been held with respect to the formation of the possessive? Are they mutually destructive? If not, reconcile them. May the idea of ownership be expressed in any other way than by the use of the possessive case? Are the two modes in all cases equivalent ? Which mode does Adam Smith consider the older? Do we derive any advantage from this double form of expressing the idea of possession? Illustrate this. In what two relations is the Objective

case used? What two cases are like each other in form? How are they discriminated from each other? May the possessive be always known by its form?

2. Point out the cases of the following nouns, and assign the reason: Alexander wept. Cæsar conquered Pompey. Hannibal wintered at Capua. Great princes have great playthings. There is in souls a sympathy with sounds. Greatness confers no exemption from

the cares and sorrows of life. Othello's occupation's gone.

Love's a boundless burning waste,

Where bliss's stream we seldom taste.-Campbell. Hannibal's great experiment had hitherto failed.—Arnold. The chief glory of every people arises from its authors.-Johnson. The boy stood on the burning deck.-Hemans.

Age, that lessens the enjoyment of life, increases our desire of living.-Goldsmith.

3. Resolve the following possessives into the objective of the noun and the appropriate preposition :

name.

She sought counsel of her country's gods. Heedless of a soldier's Such the bard's prophetic words. With all a monarch's pride. So ended Hannibal's first campaign in Italy. There is a history in all men's lives. I here entreat the reader's permission to step a little out of my way. A moment's thought will suffice to convince us. Heed not the corse, though a king's. Age shakes Athena's tower. The sun is the poet's, the invalid's, and the hypochondriac's friend. This is a boy's task. Pope's Homer's Iliad. The chief of Ulva's isle. Solomon's temple.

4. Give equivalent possessive cases for the following adjectives, or, if necessary, use the periphrasis of:

Arnold's Roman history. The royal prerogative. He was invested with consular authority. We find no example of this in historical records. Naval architecture. Military fame. The Cœsarian party. An honourable man.

INFLECTION OF ADJECTIVES.

115. In many languages the Adjective is changed in termination to correspond with the noun which it qualifies; but in the English tongue there is no such modification; and in this respect our language seems superior in metaphysical propriety to most others, because the accident of gender cannot properly belong to a quality which is itself but an accident and no self-existing thing. "Gender, it is to be observed, cannot properly belong to a noun adjective,