OBS. 2.—Because the infinitive mood, a phrase, or a sentence, may in some instances be made the subject of a verb, so as to stand in that relation in which the nominative case is most commonly found; very many of our grammarians have deliberately represented all terms used in this manner, as being "in the nominative case:" as if, to sustain any one of the relations which are usually distinguished by a particular case, must necessarily constitute that modification itself. Many also will have participles, infinitives, phrases, and sentences, to be occasionally "in the objective case:" whereas it must be plain to every reader, that they are, all of them, indeclinable terms; and that, if used in any relation common to nouns or pronouns, they assume that office, as participles, as infinitives, as phrases, or as sentences, and not as cases. They no more take the nature of cases, than they become nouns or pronouns. Yet Nixon, by assuming that of, with the word governed by it, constitutes a possessive case, contrives to give to participles, and even to the infinitive mood, all three of the cases. Of the infinitive, he says, "An examination of the first and second methods of parsing this mood, must naturally lead to the inference that it is a substantive; and that, if it has the nominative case, it must also have the possessive and objective cases of a substantive. The fourth method proves its [capacity of] being in the possessive case: thus, 'A desire to learn;' that is, 'of learning.' When it follows a participle, or a verb, as by the fifth or [the] seventh method, it is in the objective case. Method sixth is analogous to the Case Absolute of a substantive."—Nixon's Parser, p. 83. If the infinitive mood is really a declinable substantive, none of our grammarians have placed it in the right chapter; except that bold contemner of all grammatical and literary authority, Oliver B. Peirce. When will the cause of learning cease to have assailants and underminers among those who profess to serve it? Thus every new grammatist, has some grand absurdity or other, peculiar to himself; and what can be more gross, than to talk of English infinitives and participles as being in the possessive case?
OBS. 3.—It was long a subject of dispute among the grammarians, what number of cases an English noun should be supposed to have. Some, taking the Latin language for their model, and turning certain phrases into cases to fill up the deficits, were for having six in each number; namely, the nominative, the genitive, the dative, the accusative, the vocative, and the ablative. Others, contending that a case in grammar could be nothing else than a terminational inflection, and observing that English nouns have but one case that differs from the nominative in form, denied that there were more than two, the nominative and the possessive. This was certainly an important question, touching a fundamental principle of our grammar; and any erroneous opinion concerning it, might well go far to condemn the book that avouched it. Every intelligent teacher must see this. For what sense could be made of parsing, without supposing an objective case to nouns? or what propriety could there be in making the words, of, and to, and from, govern or compose three different cases? Again, with what truth can it be said, that nouns have no cases in English? or what reason can be assigned for making more than three?
OBS. 4.—Public opinion is now clear in the decision, that it is expedient to assign to English nouns three cases, and no more; and, in a matter of this kind, what is expedient for the purpose of instruction, is right. Yet, from the works of our grammarians, may be quoted every conceivable notion, right or wrong, upon this point. Cardell, with Tooke and Gilchrist on his side, contends that English nouns have no cases. Brightland averred that they have neither cases nor genders.[162] Buchanan, and the author of the old British Grammar, assigned to them one case only, the possessive, or genitive. Dr. Adam also says, "In English, nouns have only one case, namely, the genitive, or possessive case."—Latin and Eng. Gram., p. 7. W. B. Fowle has two cases, but rejects the word case: "We use the simple term agent for a noun that acts, and object for the object of an action."—Fowle's True Eng. Gram., Part II, p. 68. Spencer too discards the word case, preferring "form," that he may merge in one the nominative and the objective, giving to nouns two cases, but neither of these. "Nouns have two Forms, called the Simple and [the] Possessive."—Spencer's E. Gram., p. 30. Webber's Grammar, published at Cambridge in 1832, recognizes but two cases of nouns, declaring the objective to be "altogether superfluous."—P. 22. "Our substantives have no more cases than two."—Jamieson's Rhet., p. 14. "A Substantive doth not properly admit of more than two cases: the Nominative, and the Genitive."—Ellen Devis's Gram., p. 19. Dr. Webster, in his Philosophical Grammar, of 1807, and in his Improved Grammar, of 1831, teaches the same doctrine, but less positively. This assumption has also had the support of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, Ash, Bicknell, Fisher, Dalton, and our celebrated Lindley Murray.[163] In Child's or Latham's English Grammar, 1852, it is said, "The cases in the present English are three:—1. Nominative; 2. Objective; 3. Possessive." But this seems to be meant of pronouns only; for the next section affirms, "The substantives in English have only two out of the three cases."—See pp. 79 and 80. Reckless of the current usage of grammarians, and even of self-consistency, both author and reviser will have no objective case of nouns, because this is like the nominative; yet, finding an objective set after "the adjective like," they will recognize it as "a dative still existing in English!"—See p. 156. Thus do they forsake their own enumeration of cases, as they had before, in all their declensions, forsaken the new order in which they had at first so carefully set them!
OBS. 5.—For the true doctrine of three cases, we have the authority of
Murray, in his later editions; of Webster, in his "Plain and Comp. Grammar,
grounded on True Principles," 1790; also in his "Rudiments of English
Grammar," 1811; together with the united authority of Adams, Ainsworth,
Alden, Alger, Bacon, Barnard, Bingham, Burr, Bullions, Butler, Churchill,
Chandler, Cobbett, Cobbin, Comly, Cooper, Crombie, Davenport, Davis, Fisk,
A. Flint, Frost, Guy, Hart, Hiley, Hull, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Kirkham,
Lennie, Mack, M'Culloch, Maunder, Merchant, Nixon, Nutting, John Peirce,
Perley, Picket, Russell, Smart, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith, Wilcox, and I
know not how many others.
OBS. 6.—Dearborn, in 1795, recognized four cases: "the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the absolute."—Columbian Gram., pp. 16 and 20. Charles Bucke, in his work misnamed "A Classical Grammar of the English Language," published in London in 1829, asserts, that, "Substantives in English do not vary their terminations;" yet he gives them four cases; "the nominative, the genitive, the accusative, and the vocative." So did Allen, in a grammar much more classical, dated, London, 1813. Hazen, in 1842, adopted "four cases; namely, the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the independent."—Hazen's Practical Gram., p. 35. Mulligan, since, has chosen these four: "Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative."—Structure of E. Lang., p. 185. And yet his case after to or for is not "dative," but "accusative!"— Ib., p. 239. So too, Goodenow, of Maine, makes the cases four: "the subjective,[164] the possessive, the objective, and the absolute."—Text-Book, p. 31. Goldsbury, of Cambridge, has also four: "the Nominative, the Possessive, the Objective, and the Vocative."—Com. S. Gram., p. 13. Three other recent grammarians,—Wells, of Andover,— Weld, of Portland,—and Clark, of Bloomfield, N. Y.,—also adopt "four cases;—the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the independent."—Wells's Gram., p. 57; Weld's, 60; Clark's, 49. The first of these gentlemen argues, that, "Since a noun or pronoun, used independently, cannot at the same time be employed as 'the subject of a verb,' there is a manifest impropriety in regarding it as a nominative." It might as well be urged, that a nominative after a verb, or in apposition with an other, is, for this reason, not a nominative. He also cites this argument: "'Is there not as much difference between the nominative and [the] independent case, as there is between the nominative and [the] objective? If so, why class them together as one case?'—S. R. Hall."—Wells's School Gram., p. 51. To this I answer, No. "The nominative is that case which primely denotes the name of any person or thing;" (Burn's Gram., p. 36;) and this only it is, that can be absolute, or independent, in English. This scheme of four cases is, in fact, a grave innovation. As authority for it, Wells cites Felton; and bids his readers, "See also Kennion, Parkhurst, Fowle, Flint, Goodenow, Buck, Hazen, Goldsbury, Chapin, S. Alexander, and P. Smith."—Page 57. But is the fourth case of these authors the same as his? Is it a case which "has usually the nominative form," but admits occasionally of "me" and "him," and embraces objective nouns of "time, measure, distance, direction, or place?" No. Certainly one half of them, and probably more, give little or no countenance to such an independent case as he has adopted. Parkhurst admitted but three cases; though he thought two others "might be an improvement." What Fowle has said in support of Wells's four cases, I have sought with diligence, and not found. Felton's "independent case" is only what he absurdly calls, "The noun or pronoun addressed."— Page 91. Bucke and Goldsbury acknowledge "the nominative case absolute;" and none of the twelve, so far as I know, admit any objective word, or what others call objective, to be independent or absolute, except perhaps Goldsbury.
OBS. 7.—S. R. Hall, formerly principal of the Seminary for Teachers at Andover, (but no great grammarian,) in 1832, published a manual, called "The Grammatical Assistant;" in which he says, "There are at least five cases, belonging to English nouns, differing as much from each other, as the cases of Latin and Greek nouns. They may be called Nominative, Possessive, Objective, Independent and Absolute."—P. 7. O. B. Peirce will have both nouns and pronouns to be used in five cases, which he thus enumerates: "Four simple cases; the Subjective, Possessive, Objective, and the Independent; and the Twofold case."—Gram., p. 42. But, on page 56th, he speaks of a "twofold subjective case," "the twofold objective case," and shows how the possessive may be twofold also; so that, without taking any of the Latin cases, or even all of Hall's, he really recognizes as many as seven, if not eight. Among the English grammars which assume all the six cases of the Latin Language, are Burn's, Coar's, Dilworth's, Mackintosh's, Mennye's, Wm. Ward's, and the "Comprehensive Grammar," a respectable little book, published by Dobson of Philadelphia, in 1789, but written by somebody in England.
OBS. 8.—Of the English grammars which can properly be said to be now in use, a very great majority agree in ascribing to nouns three cases, and three only. This, I am persuaded, is the best number, and susceptible of the best defence, whether we appeal to authority, or to other argument. The disputes of grammarians make no small part of the history of grammar; and in submitting to be guided by their decisions, it is proper for us to consider what degree of certainty there is in the rule, and what difference or concurrence there is among them: for, the teaching of any other than the best opinions, is not the teaching of science, come from what quarter it may. On the question respecting the objective case of nouns, Murray and Webster changed sides with each other; and that, long after they first appeared as grammarians. Nor was this the only, or the most important instance, in which the different editions of the works of these two gentlemen, present them in opposition, both to themselves and to each other. "What cases are there in English? The nominative, which usually stands before a verb; as, the boy writes: The possessive, which takes an s with a comma, and denotes property; as, John's hat: The objective, which follows a verb or preposition; as, he honors virtue, or it is an honor to him."—Webster's Plain and Comp. Gram., Sixth Edition, 1800, p. 9. "But for convenience, the two positions of nouns, one before, the other after the verb, are called cases. There are then three cases, the nominative, possessive, and objective."—Webster's Rudiments of Gram., 1811, p. 12. "In English therefore names have two cases only, the nominative or simple name, and the possessive."— Webster's Philosoph. Gram., 1807, p. 32: also his Improved Gram., 1831, p. 24.
OBS. 9.—Murray altered his opinion after the tenth or eleventh edition of his duodecimo Grammar. His instructions stand thus: "In English, substantives have but two cases, the nominative, and [the] possessive or genitive."—Murray's Gram. 12mo, Second Edition, 1796, p. 35. "For the assertion, that there are in English but two cases of nouns, and three of pronouns, we have the authority of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, &c. names which are sufficient to decide this point."—Ib., p. 36. "In English, substantives have three cases, the nominative, the possessive, and the objective."—Murray's Gram., 12mo, Twenty-third Edition, 1816, p. 44. "The author of this work long doubted the propriety of assigning to English substantives an objective case: but a renewed critical examination of the subject; an examination to which he was prompted by the extensive and increasing demand for the grammar, has produced in his mind a full persuasion, that the nouns of our language are entitled to this comprehensive objective case."—Ib., p. 46. If there is any credit in changing one's opinions, it is, doubtless, in changing them for the better; but, of all authors, a grammarian has the most need critically to examine his subject before he goes to the printer. "This case was adopted in the twelfth edition of the Grammar."—Murray's Exercises, 12mo, N. Y., 1818, p. viii.
OBS. 10.—The possessive case has occasioned no less dispute than the objective. On this vexed article of our grammar, custom has now become much more uniform than it was a century ago; and public opinion may be said to have settled most of the questions which have been agitated about it. Some individuals, however, are still dissatisfied. In the first place, against those who have thought otherwise, it is determined, by infinite odds of authority, that there is such a case, both of nouns and of pronouns. Many a common reader will wonder, who can have been ignorant enough to deny it. "The learned and sagacious Wallis, to whom every English grammarian owes a tribute of reverence, calls this modification of the noun an adjective possessive; I think, with no more propriety than he might have applied the same to the Latin genitive."—Dr. Johnson's Gram., p. 5. Brightland also, who gave to adjectives the name of qualities, included all possessives among them, calling them "Possessive Qualities, or Qualities of Possession."—Brightland's Gram., p. 90.
OBS. 11.—This exploded error, William S. Cardell, a few years ago, republished as a novelty; for which, among other pretended improvements of a like sort, he received the ephemeral praise of some of our modern literati. William B. Fowle also teaches the same thing. See his Common School Gram., Part II, p. 104. In Felch's Grammar, too, published in Boston in 1837, an attempt is made, to revive this old doctrine; but the author takes no notice of any of the above-named authorities, being probably ignorant of them all. His reasoning upon the point, does not appear to me to be worthy of a detailed answer.[165] That the possessive case of nouns is not an adjective, is demonstrable; because it may have adjectives of various kinds, relating to it: as, "This old man's daughter."—Shak. It may also govern an other possessive; as, "Peter's wife's mother."—Bible. Here the former possessive is governed by the latter; but, if both were adjectives, they would both relate to the noun mother, and so produce a confusion of ideas. Again, nouns of the possessive case have a distinction of number, which adjectives have not. In gender also, there lies a difference. Adjectives, whenever they are varied by gender or number, agree with their nouns in these respects. Not so with possessives; as, "In the Jews' religion."—Gal., i. 13. "The children's bread."—Mark, vii, 27. "Some men's sins."—1 Tim., v, 24. "Other men's sins."—Ib., ver. 22.