The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

   "Ev'n his, the warrior's eyes, were forced to yield,
    That saw, without a tear, Pharsalia's field."
        —Rowe's Lucan, B. viii, l. 144.

OBS. 23.—When two or more nouns of the possessive form are in any way connected, they usually refer to things individually different but of the same name; and when such is the meaning, the governing noun, which we always suppress somewhere to avoid tautology, is understood wherever the sign is added without it; as, "A father's or mother's sister is an aunt."—Dr. Webster. That is, "A father's sister or a mother's sister is an aunt." "In the same commemorative acts of the senate, were thy name, thy father's, thy brother's, and the emperor's."—Zenobia, Vol. i, p. 231.

   "From Stiles's pocket into Nokes's" [pocket].
        —Hudibras, B. iii, C. iii, l. 715.

    "Add Nature's, Custom's, Reason's, Passion's strife."
        —Pope, Brit. Poets, Vol. vi, p. 383.

It will be observed that in all these examples the governing noun is singular; and, certainly, it must be so, if, with more than one possessive sign, we mean to represent each possessor as having or possessing but one object. If the noun be made plural where it is expressed, it will also be plural where it is implied. It is good English to say, "A father's or mother's sisters are aunts;" but the meaning is, "A father's sisters or a mother's sisters are aunts." But a recent school critic teaches differently, thus: "When different things of the same name belong to different possessors, the sign should be annexed to each; as, Adams's, Davies's, and Perkins' Arithmetics; i. e., three different books."—Spencer's Gram., p. 47. Here the example is fictitious, and has almost as many errors as words. It would be much better English to say, "Adams's, Davies's, and Perkins's Arithmetic;" though the objective form with of would, perhaps, be still more agreeable for these peculiar names. Spencer, whose Grammar abounds with useless repetitions, repeats his note elsewhere, with the following illustrations: "E. g. Olmstead's and Comstock's Philosophies. Gould's Adam's Latin Grammar."—Ib., p. 106. The latter example is no better suited to his text, than "Peter's wife's mother;" and the former is fit only to mean, "Olmstead's Philosophies and Comstock's Philosophies." To speak of the two books only, say," Olmstead's Philosophy and Comstock's."

OBS. 24.—The possessive sign is sometimes annexed to that part of a compound name, which is, of itself, in the objective case; as, "At his father-in-law's residence." Here, "At the residence of his father-in-law," would be quite as agreeable; and, as for the plural, one would hardly think of saying, "Men's wedding parties are usually held at their fathers-in-law's houses." When the compound is formed with of, to prevent a repetition of this particle, the possessive sign is sometimes added as above; and yet the hyphen is not commonly inserted in the phrase, as I think it ought to be. Examples: "The duke of Bridgewater's canal;"—"The bishop of Landaff's excellent book;"—"The Lord mayor of London's authority;"—"The captain of the guard's house."—Murray's Gram., p. 176. "The Bishop of Cambray's writings on eloquence."—Blair's Rhet., p. 345. "The bard of Lomond's lay is done."—Queen's Wake, p. 99. "For the kingdom of God's sake."—Luke, xviii, 29. "Of the children of Israel's half."—Numbers, xxxi, 30. From these examples it would seem, that the possessive sign has a less intimate alliance with the possessive case, than with the governing noun; or, at any rate, a dependence less close than that of the objective noun which here assumes it. And since the two nouns here so intimately joined by of, cannot be explained separately as forming two cases, but must be parsed together as one name governed in the usual way, I should either adopt some other phraseology, or write the compound terms with hyphens, thus: "The Duke-of-Bridgewater's canal;"—"The Bishop-of-Landaff's excellent book;"—"The Bard-of- Lomond's lay is done." But there is commonly some better mode of correcting such phrases. With deference to Murray and others, "The King of Great Britain's prerogative," [349] is but an untoward way of saying, "The prerogative of the British King;" and, "The Lord mayor of London's authority," may quite as well be written, "The authority of London's Lord Mayor." Blair, who for brevity robs the _Arch_bishop of half his title, might as well have said, "Fenelon's writings on eloquence." "Propter regnum Dei," might have been rendered, "For the kingdom of God;"—"For the sake of the kingdom of God;"—or, "For the sake of God's kingdom." And in lieu of the other text, we might say, "Of the Israelites' half."

OBS. 25.—"Little explanatory circumstances," says Priestley, "are particularly awkward between the genitive case, and the word which usually follows it; as, 'She began to extol the farmer's, as she called him, excellent understanding.' Harriet Watson, Vol. i, p. 27."—Priestley's Gram., p 174. Murray assumes this remark, and adds respecting the example, "It ought to be, 'the excellent understanding of the farmer, as she called him.' "—Murray's Gram., p. 175. Intersertions of this kind are as uncommon as they are uncouth. Murray, it seems, found none for his Exercises, but made up a couple to suit his purpose. The following might have answered as well for an other: "Monsieur D'acier observes, that Zeno's (the Founder of the Sect,) opinion was Fair and Defensible in these Points."—Colliers Antoninus, p. ii.

OBS. 26.—It is so usual a practice in our language, to put the possessive sign always and only where the two terms of the possessive relation meet, that this ending is liable to be added to any adjunct which can be taken as a part of the former noun or name; as, (1.) "The court-martial's violent proceedings." Here the plural would be courts-martial; but the possessive sign must be at the end. (2.) "In Henry the Eighth's time."—Walker's Key, Introd., p. 11. This phrase can be justified only by supposing the adjective a part of the name. Better, "In the time of Henry the Eighth." (3.) "And strengthened with a year or two's age."—Locke, on Education, p. 6. Here two's is put for two years; and, I think, improperly; because the sign is such as suits the former noun, and not the plural. Better, "And strengthened with a year's age or more." The word two however is declinable as a noun, and possibly it may be so taken in Locke's phrase. (4.) "This rule is often infringed, by the case absolute's not being properly distinguished from certain forms of expression apparently similar to it."—Murray's Gram., p. 155; Fisk's, 113; Ingersoll's, 210. Here the possessive sign, being appended to a distinct adjective, and followed by nothing that can be called a noun, is employed as absurdly as it well can be. Say, "This rule is often infringed by an improper use of the nominative absolute;" for this is precisely what these authors mean. (5.) "The participle is distinguished from the adjective by the former's expressing the idea of time, and the latter's denoting only a quality"—Murray's Gram., p. 65; Fisk's, 82; Ingersoll's, 45; Emmons's, 64; Alger's, 28. This is liable to nearly the same objections. Say, "The participle differs from an adjective by expressing the idea of time, whereas the adjective denotes only a quality." (6.) "The relatives that and as differ from who and which in the former's not being immediately joined to the governing word."—Nixon's Parser, p. 140. This is still worse, because former's, which is like a singular noun, has here a plural meaning; namely, "in the former terms' not being," &c. Say—"in that the former never follow the governing word."

OBS. 27.—The possessive termination is so far from being liable to suppression by ellipsis, agreeably to the nonsense of those interpreters who will have it to be "understood" wherever the case occurs without it, that on the contrary it is sometimes retained where there is an actual suppression of the noun to which it belongs. This appears to be the case whenever the pronominal adjectives former and latter are inflected, as above. The inflection of these, however, seems to be needless, and may well be reckoned improper. But, in the following line, the adjective elegantly takes the sign; because there is an ellipsis of both nouns; poor's being put for poor man's, and the governing noun joys being understood after it: "The rich man's joys increase, the poor's decay."—Goldsmith. So, in the following example, guilty's is put for guilty person's:

   "Yet, wise and righteous ever, scorns to hear
    The fool's fond wishes, or the guilty's prayer."
        —Rowe's Lucan, B. v, l. 155.

This is a poetical license; and others of a like nature are sometimes met with. Our poets use the possessive case much more frequently than prose writers, and occasionally inflect words that are altogether invariable in prose; as,

   "Eager that last great chance of war he waits,
    Where either's fall determines both their fates."
        —Ibid., B. vi, l. 13.

OBS. 28.—To avoid a concurrence of hissing sounds, the s of the possessive singular is sometimes omitted, and the apostrophe alone retained to mark the case: as, "For conscience' sake."—Bible. "Moses' minister."—Ib. "Felix' room."—Ib. "Achilles' wrath."—Pope. "Shiraz' walls."—Collins. "Epicurus' sty."—Beattie. "Douglas' daughter."—Scott. "For Douglas' sake."—Ib. "To his mistress' eyebrow."—Shak. This is a sort of poetic license, as is suggested in the 16th Observation upon the Cases of Nouns, in the Etymology. But in prose the elision should be very sparingly indulged; it is in general less agreeable, as well as less proper, than the regular form. Where is the propriety of saying, Hicks' Sermons, Barnes' Notes, Kames' Elements, Adams' Lectures, Josephus' Works, while we so uniformly say, in Charles's reign, St. James's Palace, and the like? The following examples are right: "At Westminster and Hicks's Hall."—Hudibras. "Lord Kames's Elements of Criticism."—Murray's Sequel, p. 331. "Of Rubens's allegorical pictures."—Hazlitt. "With respect to Burns's early education."—Dugald Stewart. "Isocrates's pomp;"—"Demosthenes's life."—Blair's Rhet., p. 242. "The repose of Epicurus's gods."—Wilson's Heb. Gram., p. 93.

"To Douglas's obscure abode."—Scott, L. L., C. iii, st. 28.

"Such was the Douglas's command."—Id., ib., C. ii, st. 36.

OBS. 29.—Some of our grammarians, drawing broad conclusions from a few particular examples, falsely teach as follows: "When a singular noun ends in ss, the apostrophe only is added; as, 'For goodness' sake:' except the word witness; as, 'The witness's testimony.' When a noun in the possessive case ends in ence, the s is omitted, but the apostrophe is retained; as, 'For conscience' sake.'"—Kirkham's Gram., p. 49; Hamlin's, 16; Smith's New Gram., 47.[350] Of principles or inferences very much like these, is the whole system of "Inductive Grammar" essentially made up. But is it not plain that heiress's, abbess's, peeress's, countess's, and many other words of the same form, are as good English as witness's? Did not Jane West write justly, "She made an attempt to look in at the dear dutchess's?"—Letters to a Lady, p. 95. Does not the Bible speak correctly of "an ass's head," sold at a great price?—2 Kings, vi, 25. Is Burns also wrong, about "miss's fine lunardi," and "miss's bonnet?"—Poems, p. 44. Or did Scott write inaccurately, whose guide "Led slowly through the pass's jaws?"—Lady of the Lake, p. 121. So much for the ss; nor is the rule for the termination ence, or (as Smith has it) nce, more true. Prince's and dunce's are as good possessives as any; and so are the following:

   "That vice should triumph, virtue vice obey;
    This sprung some doubt of Providence's sway."—Parnell.

"And sweet Benevolence's mild command."—Lord Lyttleton.

    "I heard the lance's shivering crash,
    As when the whirlwind rends the ash."—Sir Walter Scott.

OBS. 30.—The most common rule now in use for the construction of the possessive case, is a shred from the old code of Latin grammar: "One substantive governs another, signifying a different thing, in the possessive or genitive case."—L. Murray's Rule X. This canon not only leaves occasion for an additional one respecting pronouns of the possessive case, but it is also obscure in its phraseology, and too negligent of the various modes in which nouns may come together in English. All nouns used adjectively, and many that are compounded together, seem to form exceptions to it. But who can limit or enumerate these exceptions? Different combinations of nouns have so often little or no difference of meaning, or of relation to each other, and so frequently is the very same vocal expression written variously by our best scholars, and ablest lexicographers, that in many ordinary instances it seems scarcely possible to determine who or what is right. Thus, on the authority of Johnson, one might write, a stone's cast, or stone's throw; but Webster has it, stones-cast, or stones-throw; Maunder, stonecast,