OBS. 24.—A participle construed after the nominative or the objective case, is not in general equivalent to a verbal noun governing the possessive. There is sometimes a nice distinction to be observed in the application of these two constructions. For the leading word in sense, should not be made the adjunct in construction. The following sentences exhibit a disregard to this principle, and are both inaccurate: "He felt his strength's declining."—"He was sensible of his strength declining." In the former sentence, the noun strength should be in the objective case, governed by felt; and in the latter, it should rather be in the possessive, governed by declining. Thus: "He felt his strength declining;" i.e., "felt it decline."—"He was sensible of his strength's declining;" i.e., "of its decline." These two sentences state the same fact, but, in construction, they are very different; nor does it appear, that where there is no difference of meaning, the two constructions are properly interchangeable. This point has already been briefly noticed in Obs. 12th and 13th on Rule 4th. But the false and discordant instructions which our grammarians deliver respecting possessives before participles; their strange neglect of this plain principle of reason, that the leading word in sense ought to be made the leading or governing word in the construction; and the difficulties which they and other writers are continually falling into, by talking their choice between two errors, in stead of avoiding both: these, as well as their suggestions of sameness or difference of import between the participle and the participial noun, require some farther extension of my observations in this place.
OBS. 25.—Upon the classification of words, as parts of speech, distinguished according to their natures and uses, depends the whole scheme of grammatical science. And it is plain, that a bad distribution, or a confounding of such things as ought to be separated, must necessarily be attended with inconveniences to the student, for which no skill or learning in the expounder of such a system can ever compensate. The absurdity of supposing with Horne Tooke, that the same word can never be used so differently as to belong to different parts of speech, I have already alluded to more than once. The absolute necessity of classing words, not according to their derivation merely, but rather according to their sense and construction, is too evident to require any proof. Yet, different as are the natures and the uses of verbs, participles, and nouns, it is no uncommon thing to find these three parts of speech confounded together; and that too to a very great extent, and by some of our very best grammarians, without even an attempt on their part to distinguish them. For instances of this glaring fault and perplexing inconsistency, the reader may turn to the books of W. Allen and T. O. Churchill, two of the best authors that have ever written on English grammar. Of the participle the latter gives no formal definition, but he represents it as "a form, in which the action denoted by the verb is capable of being joined to a noun as its quality, or accident."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 85. Again he says, "That the participle is a mere mode of the verb is manifest, if our definition of a verb be admitted."—Ib., p. 242. While he thus identifies the participle with the verb, this author scruples not to make what he calls the imperfect participle perform all the offices of a noun: saying, "Frequently too it is used as a noun, admits a preposition or an article before it, becomes a plural by taking s at the end, and governs a possessive case: as, 'He who has the comings in of a prince, may be ruined by his own gaming, or his wife's squandering.'"—Ib., p. 144. The plural here exhibited, if rightly written, would have the s, not at the end, but in the middle; for comings-in, (an obsolete expression for revenues,) is not two words, but one. Nor are gaming and squandering, to be here called participles, but nouns. Yet, among all his rules and annotations, I do not find that Churchill any where teaches that participles become nouns when they are used substantively. The following example he exhibits for the express purpose of showing that the nominatives to "is" and "may be" are not nouns, but participles: "Walking is the best exercise, though riding may be more pleasant."—Ib., p. 141. And, what is far worse, though his book is professedly an amplification of Lowth's brief grammar, he so completely annuls the advice of Lowth concerning the distinguishing of participles from participial nouns, that he not only misnames the latter when they are used correctly, but approves and adopts well-nigh all the various forms of error, with which the mixed and irregular construction of participles has filled our language: of these forms, there are, I think, not fewer than a dozen.
OBS. 26.—Allen's account of the participle is no better than Churchill's—and no worse than what the reader may find in many an English Grammar now in use. This author's fault is not so much a lack of learning or of comprehension, as of order and discrimination. We see in him, that it is possible for a man to be well acquainted with English authors, ancient as well as modern, and to read Greek and Latin, French and Saxon, and yet to falter miserably in describing the nature and uses of the English participle. Like many others, he does not acknowledge this sort of words to be one of the parts of speech; but commences his account of it by the following absurdity: "The participles are adjectives derived from the verb; as, pursuing, pursued, having pursued."—Elements of E. Gram., p. 62. This definition not only confounds the participle with the participial adjective, but merges the whole of the former species in a part of speech of which he had not even recognized the latter as a subdivision: "An adjective shows the quality of a thing. Adjectives may be reduced to five classes: 1. Common—2. Proper—3. Numeral—4. Pronominal—5. Compound."—Ib., p. 47. Now, if "participles are adjectives," to which of these five classes do they belong? But there are participial or verbal adjectives, very many; a sixth class, without which this distribution is false and incomplete: as, "a loving father; an approved copy." The participle differs from these, as much as it does from a noun. But says our author, "Participles, as simple adjectives, belong to a noun; as, a loving father; an approved copy;—as parts of the verb, they have the same government as their verbs have; as, his father, recalling the pleasures of past years, joined their party."—Ib., p. 170. What confusion is this! a complete jumble of adjectives, participles, and "parts of verbs!" Again: "Present participles are often construed as substantives; as, early rising is conducive to health; I like writing; we depend on seeing you."—Ib., p. 171. Here rising and writing are nouns; but seeing is a participle, because it is active and governs you, Compare this second jumble with the definition above. Again he proceeds: "To participles thus used, many of our best authors prefix the article; as, 'The being chosen did not prevent disorderly behaviour.' Bp. Tomline. 'The not knowing how to pass our vacant hours.' Seed."—Ib., p. 171. These examples I take to be bad English. Say rather, "The state of election did not prevent disorderly behaviour."—"The want of some entertainment for our vacant hours." The author again proceeds: "If a noun limits the meaning of a participle thus used, that noun is put in the genitive; as, your father's coming was unexected."—Ib., p. 171. Here coming is a noun, and no participle at all. But the author has a marginal note, "A possessive pronoun is equivalent to a genitive;" (ibid.;) and he means to approve of possessives before active participles: as, "Some of these irregularities arise from our having received the words through a French medium."—Ib., p. 116. This brings us again to that difficult and apparently unresolvable problem, whether participles as such, by virtue of their mixed gerundive character, can, or cannot, govern the possessive case; a question, about which, the more a man examines it, the more he may doubt.
OBS. 27.—But, before we say any thing more about the government of this case, let us look at our author's next paragraph on participles: "An active participle, preceded by an article or by a genitive, is elegantly followed by the preposition of, before the substantive which follows it; as, the compiling of that book occupied several years; his quitting of the army was unexpected."—Allen's Gram., p. 171. Here the participial nouns compiling and quitting are improperly called active participles, from which they are certainly as fairly distinguished by the construction, as they can be by any means whatever. And this complete distinction the author considers at least an elegance, if not an absolute requisite, in English composition. And he immediately adds: "When this construction produces ambiguity, the expression must be varied."—Ib., p. 171. This suggestion is left without illustration; but it doubtless refers to one of Murray's remarks, in which it is said: "A phrase in which the article precedes the present participle and the possessive preposition follows it, will not, in every instance, convey the same meaning as would be conveyed by the participle without the article and preposition. 'He expressed the pleasure he had in the hearing of the philosopher,' is capable of a different sense from, 'He expressed the pleasure he had in hearing the philosopher.'"—Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 193; R. C. Smith's Gram., 161; Ingersoll's, 199; and others. Here may be seen a manifest difference between the verbal or participial noun, and the participle or gerund; but Murray, in both instances, absurdly calls the word hearing a "present participle;" and, having robbed the former sentence of a needful comma, still more absurdly supposes it ambiguous: whereas the phrase, "in the hearing of the philosopher," means only, "in the philosopher's hearing;" and not, "in hearing the philosopher," or, "in hearing of the philosopher." But the true question is, would it be right to say, "He expressed the pleasure he had in the philosopher's hearing him?" For here it would be equivocal to say, "in the philosopher's hearing of him;" and some aver, that of would be wrong, in any such instance, even if the sense were clear. But let us recur to the mixed example from Allen, and compare it with his own doctrines. To say, "from our having received of the words through a French medium," would certainly be no elegance; and if it be not an ambiguity, it is something worse. The expression, then, "must be varied." But varied how? Is it right without the of, though contrary to the author's rule for elegance?
OBS. 28.—The observations which have been made on this point, under the rule for the possessive case, while they show, to some extent, the inconsistencies in doctrine, and the improprieties of practice, into which the difficulties of the mixed participle have betrayed some of our principal grammarians, bring likewise the weight of much authority and reason against the custom of blending without distinction the characteristics of nouns and participles in the same word or words; but still they may not be thought sufficient to prove this custom to be altogether wrong; nor do they pretend to have fully established the dogma, that such a construction is in no instance admissible. They show, however, that possessives before participles are seldom to be approved; and perhaps, in the present instance, the meaning might be quite as well expressed by a common substantive, or the regular participial noun: as, "Some of these irregularities arise from our reception of the words—or our receiving of the words—through a French medium." But there are some examples which it is not easy to amend, either in this way, or in any other; as, "The miscarriages of youth have very much proceeded from their being imprudently indulged, or left to themselves."—Friends' N. E. Discipline, p. 13. And there are instances too, of a similar character, in which the possessive case cannot be used. For example: "Nobody will doubt of this being a sufficient proof."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 66. "But instead of this being the fact of the case, &c."—Butlers Analogy, p. 137. "There is express historical or traditional evidence, as ancient as history, of the system of religion being taught mankind by revelation."—Ibid. "From things in it appearing to men foolishness."—Ib., p. 175. "As to the consistency of the members of our society joining themselves to those called free-masons."—N. E. Discip., p. 51. "In either of these cases happening, the person charging is at liberty to bring the matter before the church, who are the only judges now remaining."—Ib., p. 36; Extracts, p. 57. "Deriving its efficacy from the power of God fulfilling his purpose."—Religious World, Vol. ii, p. 235. "We have no idea of any certain portion of time intervening between the time of the action and the time of speaking of it."—Priestley's Gram., p. 33: Murray's, i, 70; Emmons's, 41; and others. The following example therefore, however the participle may seem to be the leading word in sense, is unquestionably wrong; and that in more respects than one: "The reason and time of the Son of God's becoming man."—Brown's Divinity, p. xxii. Many writers would here be satisfied with merely omitting the possessive sign; as does Churchill, in the following example: "The chief cause of this appears to me to lie in grammarians having considered them solely as the signs of tense."—New Gram., p. 243. But this sort of construction, too, whenever the noun before the participle is not the leading word in sense, is ungrammatical. In stead, therefore, of stickling for choice between two such errors, we ought to adopt some better expression; as, "The reason and time of the Saviour's incarnation."—"The chief cause of this appears to me to be, that grammarians have considered them solely as signs of tense."
OBS. 29.—It is certain that the noun or pronoun which "limits the meaning of a participle," cannot always be "put in the genitive" or possessive case; for the sense intended sometimes positively forbids such a construction, and requires the objective: as, "A syllable consists of one or more letters forming one sound."—Allen's Gram., p. 29. The word representing or denoting would here be better than forming, because the letters do not, strictly speaking, form the sound. But chiefly let it be noticed, that the word letters could not with any propriety have been put in the possessive case. Nor is it always necessary or proper, to prefer that case, where the sense may be supposed to admit it; as, "'The example which Mr. Seyer has adduced, of the gerund governing the genitive of the agent.' Dr. Crombie."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 237. "Which possibly might have been prevented by parents doing their duty."—N. E. Discipline, p. 187. "As to the seeming contradiction of One being Three, and Three One."—Religious World, Vol. ii, p. 113. "You have watched them climbing from chair to chair."—PIERPONT: Liberator, Vol. x, p. 22. "Whether the world came into being as it is, by an intelligent Agent forming it thus, or not."—Butler's Analogy, p. 129. "In the farther supposition of necessary agents being thus rewarded and punished."—Ib., p. 140. "He grievously punished the Israelites murmuring for want of water."—Leslie, on Tythes, p. 21. Here too the words, gerund, parents, One, Three, them, Agent, agents, and Israelites, are rightly put in the objective case; yet doubtless some will think, though I do not, that they might as well have been put in the possessive. Respectable writers sometimes use the latter case, where the former would convey the same meaning, and be more regular; as, "Which is used, as active verbs often are, without its regimen's being expressed."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 302. Omit the apostrophe and s; and, if you please, the word being also. "The daily instances of men's dying around us."—Butler's Analogy, p. 113. Say rather,—"of men dying around us." "To prevent our rashly engaging in arduous or dangerous enterprises."—Brown's Divinity, p. 17. Say, "To prevent us from," &c. The following example is manifestly inconsistent with itself; and, in my opinion, the three possessives are all wrong: "The kitchen too now begins to give 'dreadful note of preparation;' not from armourers accomplishing the knights, but from the shop maid's chopping force meat, the apprentice's cleaning knives, and the journeyman's receiving a practical lesson in the art of waiting at table."—West's Letters to a Lady, p. 66. It should be—"not from armorers accomplishing the knights, but from the shopmaid chopping forcemeat, the apprentice cleaning knives, and the journeyman receiving," &c. The nouns are the principal words, and the participles are adjuncts. They might be separated by commas, if semicolons were put where the commas now are.
OBS. 30.—Our authors, good and bad, critics and no critics, with few exceptions, write sometimes the objective case before the participle, and sometimes the possessive, under precisely the same circumstances; as, "We should, presently, be sensible of the melody suffering."—Blair's Rhet., p. 122. "We should, presently, be sensible of the melody's suffering."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 327. "We shall presently be sensible of the melody suffering."—Murray's Exercises, 8vo, p. 60. "We shall presently be sensible of the melody's suffering."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 195. "And I explain what is meant by the nominative case governing the verb, and by the verb agreeing with its nominative case."—Rand's Gram., p. 31. "Take the verb study, and speak of John's studying his lesson, at different times."—Ib., p. 53. "The following are examples of the nominative case being used instead of the objective."—J. M. Putnam's Gram., p. 112. "The following are examples of an adverb's qualifying a whole sentence."—Ib., p. 128. "Where the noun is the name of a person, the cases may also be distinguished by the nominative's answering to WHO, and the objective to WHOM."—Hart's Gram., p. 46. "This depends chiefly on their being more or less emphatic; and on the vowel sound being long or short."—Churchill's Gram., p. 182. "When they speak of a monosyllable having the grave or the acute accent."—Walker's Key, p. 328. Here some would erroneously prefer the possessive case before "having;" but, if any amendment can be effected it is only by inserting as there. "The event of Maria's loving her brother."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 55. "Between that and the man being on it."—Ib., p. 59. "The fact of James placing himself."—Ib., p. 166. "The event of the persons' going."—Ib., p. 165. Here persons' is carelessly put for person's, i.e., James's: the author was parsing the puerile text, "James went into a store and placed himself beside Horatio."—Ib., p. 164. And I may observe, in passing, that Murray and Blair are both wrong in using commas with the adverb presently above.
OBS. 31.—It would be easy to fill a page with instances of these two cases, the objective and the possessive, used, as I may say, indiscriminately; nor is there any other principle by which we can determine which of them is right, or which preferable, than that the leading word in sense ought not to be made the adjunct in the construction, and that the participle, if it remain such, ought rather to relate to its noun, as being the adjunct, than to govern it in the possessive, as being the principal term. To what extent either of these cases may properly be used before the participle, or in what instances either of them may be preferable to the other, it is not very easy to determine. Both are used a great deal too often, filling with blemishes the style of many authors: the possessive, because the participle is not the name of any thing that can be possessed; the objective, because no construction can be right in which the relation of the terms is not formed according to the sense. The former usage I have already criticised to a great extent. Let one example suffice here: "There can be no objection to a syllable's being long, on the ground of its not being so long, or so much protracted, as some other long syllables are."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 242. Some would here prefer syllable to syllable's, but none would be apt to put it for its, without some other change. The sentence may be amended thus: "There can be no objection to a syllable as being long, on the ground that it is not so long as some other syllables."
OBS. 32.—It should be observed, that the use of as between the participle and the noun is very often better than either the adoption of the possessive sign, or the immediate connexion of the two words; as, "Another point constantly brought into the investigation now, is that of military success as forming a claim to civil position."—Boston Daily Advertiser. Concerning examples like the following, it may be questioned, whether the objective is proper or not; whether the possessive would be preferable or not; or whether a better construction than either may not be found: "There is scarce an instance of any one being chosen for a pattern."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. ii, p. 338. "Instead of its authenticity being shaken, it has been rendered more sure than ever."— West's Letters, p. 197. "When there is no longer a possibility of a proper candidate being nominated by either party."—Liberator, Vol. x. p. 9. "On the first stone being thrown, it was returned by a fire of musketry."—Ib., p. 16. "To raise a cry about an innocent person being circumvented by bribery."—Blair's Rhet., p. 276. "Whose principles forbid them taking part in the administration of the government."— Liberator, Vol. x, p. 15. "It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that of our gross bodies being ourselves."—Butler's Analogy, p. 150. "In consequence of this revelation being made."—Ib., p. 162. If such relations between the participle and the objective be disapproved, the substitution of the possessive case is liable to still stronger objections; but both may be avoided, by the use of the nominative or otherwise: thus, "Scarcely is any one ever chosen for a pattern."— "Its authenticity, in stead of being shaken, has been rendered more sure than ever."—"When there is no longer a possibility that a proper candidate will be nominated by either party."—"As soon as the first stone was thrown, there was returned a fire of musketry."—"To raise a cry, as if an innocent person had been circumvented by bribery."— "Whose principles forbid them to take part in the administration of the government."—"It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that our gross bodies are ourselves."—"In consequence of this revelation which is made."
OBS. 33.—A recent grammarian quotes Dr. Crombie thus: "Some late writers have discarded a phraseology which appears unobjectionable, and substituted one that seems less correct; and instead of saying, 'Lady Macbeth's walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror,' would say, 'Lady Macbeth walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror.' This seems to me an idle affectation of the Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode of expression, and less consonant with the genius of our language; for, ask what was an incident full of tragic horror, and, according to this phraseology, the answer must be, Lady Macbeth; whereas the meaning is, not that Lady Macbeth, but her walking in her sleep, is an incident full of tragic horror. This phraseology also, in many instances, conveys not the intended idea; for, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, 'What think you of my horse's running to-day?' it is implied that the horse did actually run. If it is said, 'What think you of my horse running to-day?' it is intended to ask whether it be proper for my horse to run to-day. This distinction, though frequently neglected, deserves attention; for it is obvious that ambiguity may arise from using the latter only of these phraseologies to express both meanings."— Maunder's Compendious Eng. Gram., p. 15. (See Crombie's Treatise, p. 288-290.) To this, before any comment is offered, let me add an other quotation: "RULE. A noun before the present participle is put in the possessive case; as, Much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Sometimes, however, the sense forbids it to be put in the possessive case; thus, What do you think of my horse running to-day? means, Do you think I should let him run? but, What do you think of my horse's running? means, he has run, do you think he ran well?"— Lennie's Gram., p. 91; Brace's Gram., 94. See Bullions's Gram., p. 107; Hiley's, 94; Murray's, 8vo. 195: Ingersoll's, 201: and many others.