lord Lyttleton's, the ornament of his country, and the friend of every virtue." The sign of the genitive case may very properly be understood at the end of these members, an ellipsis at the latter part of sentences being a common construction in our language; as the learner will see by one or two examples: "They wished to submit, but he did not ;" that is, "he did not wish to submit ;" "He said it was their concern, but not his;" that is "not his concern."

If we annex the sign of the genitive to the end of the last clause only, we shall perceive that a resting place is wanted, and that the connecting circumstance is placed too remotely, to be either perspicuous or agreeable: as, "Whose glory did be emulate ?" "He emulated Cæsar, the greatest general of antiquity's.' "These psalms are David, the king, priest, and prophet of the Jewish people's." It is much better to say, "This is Paul's advice, the Christian hero, and great apostle of the Gentiles," than, "This is Paul the Christian hero, and great apostle of the Gentiles' advice." On the other hand, the application of the genitive sign to both or all of the nouns in apposition, would be generally harsh and displeasing, and perhaps in some cases incorrect: as, "The emperor's Leopold's;" "King's George's;" "Charles's the second's ;" "The parcel was left at Smith's, the bookseller's and stationer's." The rules which we have endeavoured to elucidate, will prevent the inconveniences of both these modes of expression; and they appear to be simple, perspicuous, and consistent with the idiom of the language.

5. The English genitive has often an unpleasant sound; so that we daily make more use of the particle of to express the same relation. There is something awkward in the following sentences, in which this method has not been taken. "The general, in the army's name, published a declaration." "The commons' vote.' "The Lord's house." "Unless he

is very ignorant of the kingdom's condition." It were certainly better to say, "In the name of the army;" "The votes of the commons;" "The house of lords" "The condition of the kingdom." It is also rather harsh to use two English genitives with the same substantive: as, "Whom he acquainted with the pope's and the king's pleasure." "The pleasure of the pope and the king," would have been better.

We sometimes meet with three substantives dependent on one another, and connected by the preposition of applied to each of them: as, "The severity of the distress of the son of the king, touched the nation;" but this mode of expression is not to be recommended. It would be better to say, "The Von

severe distress of the king's son, touched the nation." We have a striking instance of this laborious mode of expression, in the following sentence: "Of some of the books of each of these classes of literature, a catalogue will be given at the end of the work."

6. In some cases, we use both the genitive termination and the preposition of: as, "It is a discovery of Sir Isaac Newton's." Sometimes indeed, unless we throw the sentence into another form, this method is absolutely necessary, in order to distinguish the sense, and to give the idea of property, strictly so called, which is the most important of the relations expressed by the genitive case for the expressions, "This picture of my friend." and "This picture of my friend's," suggest very different ideas. The latter only is that of property in the strictest sense. The idea would, doubtless, be conveyed in a better manner, by saying, "This picture belongs to my friend "

When this double genitive, as some grammarians term it, is not necessary to distinguish the sense, and especially in a grave style, it is generally omitted. Except to prevent ambiguity, it seems to be allowable only in cases which suppose the existence of a plurality of subjects of the same kind. In the expressions, "A subject of the emperor's;" "A sentiment of my brother's;" more than one subject and one sentiment, are supposed to belong to the possessor. But when this plurality is neither intimated, nor necessarily supposed, the double genitive, except as before mentioned, should not be used: as, "This house of the governor is very commodious;" "The crown of the king was stolen;" "That privilege of the scholar was never abused." (See pages 45, 46.) But after all that can be said for this double genitive, as it is termed, some grammarians think, that it would be better to avoid the use of it altogether, and to give the sentiment another form of expres

sion.

7. When an entire clause of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea or circumstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case; thus, instead of saying, "What is the reason of this person dismissing his servant so hastily ?" that is, "What is the reason of this person, in dismissing his servant so hastily?" we may say, and perhaps ought to say, "What is the reason of this person's dismissing of his servant so bastily?" Just as we say, "What is the reason of this person's hasty dismission of his servant ?" So also, we say, "I remember it being reckoned a great exploit ;" or more properly, "I remember it's being reckoned," &c.

The following sentence is correct and proper: "Much will depend on the pupil's composing, but more on his reading frequently." It would not be accurate to say, "Much will depend on the pupil composing," &c. We also properly say; "This will be the effect of the pupil's composing frequently; instead of, "Of the pupil composing frequently." The participle, in such constructions, does the office of a substantive; and it should therefore have a correspondent regimen.

RULE XI.

as

ACTIVE verbs govern the objective case: "Truth ennobles her;" "She comforts me;" "They support us;" "Virtue rewards her fol

lowers."

Sec Vol. ii. Part 3. Exercises. Chap. 1. Rule 11.

IN English, the nominative case denoting the subject, usually goes before the verb; and the objective case, denoting the object, follows the verb active; and it is the order that determines the case in nouns : as, "Alexander conquered the Persians." But the pronoun having a proper form for each of those cases, is sometimes, when it is in the objective case, placed before the verb; and, when it is in the nominative case, follows the object and verb: as, "Whom ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

This position of the pronoun sometimes occasions its proper case and government to be neglected; as in the following instances: "Who should I esteem more than the wise and good?" "By the character of those who you choose for your friends, your own is likely to be formed." "I hose are the persons who he thought true to his interest." "Who should I see the other day but my old friend?" "Whosoever the court favours." In all these places it ought to be whom, the relative being governed in the objective case by the verbs "esteem, choose, thought," "He, who under all proper circumstances, has the boldness to speak truth, choose for thy friend;" It should be "him who," &c.

Verbs neuter do not act upon, or govern, nouns and pronouns. "He sleeps; they muse," &c. are not transitive. They are therefore, not followed by an objective case, specifying the object of an action. But when this case or an object of action, comes after such verbs, though it may carry the appearance of being governed by them, it is generally affected by a preposition or some other word understood: as, resided many years [that is, for or during many years] in that

"He

street;" "He rode several miles [that is, for or through the space of several miles] on that day;" "He lay an hour [that is during an hour] in great torture." In the phrases, "To dream a dream," "To live a virtuous life," "To run a race," "To walk the horse," "To dance the child," the verbs certainly assume a transitive form, and may not, in these cases, be improperly denominated transitive verbs.

Part of a sentence, as well as a noun or pronoun, may be said to be in the objective case, or to be put objectively, governed by the active verb: as, We sometimes see virtue in distress. but we should consider how great will be her ultimate reward." Sentences or phrases under this circumstance, may be termed objective sentences or phrases.

66

1. Some writers, however, use certain neuter verbs as if they were transitive, putting after them the objective case, agreeably to the French construction of reciprocal verbs; but this custom is so foreign to the idiom of the English tongue, that it ought not to be adopted or imitated. The following are some instances of this practice. Repenting him of his design." "The king soon found reason to repent him of his provoking such dangerous enemies." "The popular lords did not fail to enlarge themselves on the subject." "The nearer his successes approached him to the throne." "Go flee thee away into the land of Judah " "I think it by no means a fit and decent thing to vie charities," &c. "They have spent their whole time and pains, to agree the sacred with the profane chronology."

2. Active verbs are sometimes as improperly made neuter: as, "I must premise with three circumstances." "Those that think to ingratiate with him by calumniating me." They should be, premise three circumstances;" "ingratiate themselves with him."

66

3. The neuter verb is varied like the active; but having in some degree the nature of the passive, it admits, in many instances, of the passive form, retaining still the neuter signification, chiefly in such verbs as signify some sort of motion, or change of place or condition: as, "I am come; I was gone; I am grown; I was fallen." The following examples, however, appear to be erroneous, in giving the neuter verbs a passive form, instead of an active one. "The rule of our holy religion, from which we are infinitely swerved." whole obligation of that law and covenant was also ceased." "Whose number was now amounted to three hundred." This mareschal, upon some discontent, was entered into a

"The

conspiracy against his master." "At the end of a campaign, when half the men are deserted or killed." They should be, "have swerved, had ceased," &c.

4. The verb to be, through all its variations, has the same case after it, expressed or understood, as that which next precedes it: "I am he whom they invited;" "It may be (or might have been) he, but it cannot be (or could not have been) I;" "It is impossible to be they," "It seems to have been he, who conducted himself so wisely," "It appears to be she that transacted the business;" "I understood it to be him ;" "I believe it to have been them;""We at first took it to be her; but were afterwards convinced that it was not she." "He is not the person who it seemed he was." "He is really the person who he appeared to be." "She is not now the woman whom they represented her to have been." “ Whom do you fancy him to be?" "He desired to be their king;" "They desired him to be their king." By these examples it appears that this substantive verb has no government of case, but serves, in all its forms, as a conductor to the cases; so that the two cases which, in the construction of the sentence, or member of the sentence, are the next before and after it, must always be alike. Perhaps this subject will be more intelligible to the learner, by observing, that the words in the cases preceding and following the verb to be, may be said to be in apposition to each other. Thus, in the sentence, “I understood it to be him," the words it and him are in apposition; that is," they refer to the same thing, and are in the same case."-If this rule be considered as applying to simple sentences, or to the simple members of compound sentences, the difficulties respecting it will be still farther diminished.

The following sentences contain deviations from the rule, and exbibit the pronoun in a wrong case: "It might have been him, but there is no proof of it;""Though I was blamed it could not have been me;" "I saw one whom I took to be she;""She is the person who I understood it to have been;""Who do you think me to be?" "Whom do men say that I am?" "And whom think ye that I am?"

In the last example, the natural arrangement is, "Ye think that I am whom," where, contrary to the rule, the nominative I precedes, and the objective case whom follows the verb. The best method of discovering the proper case of the pronoun, in such phrases as the preceding, is, to turn them into declarative expressions, and to substitute the antecedent for the pronoun, as the pronoun must be in the same case as the antecedent would be in, if substituted for it. Thus, the question, "Whom do men say that I am?" if turned into a de