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

   "Now Jove suspends his golden scales in air,
    Weighs the men's wits against the Lady's hair."
        —Pope, R. of L., C. v, l. 72.

OBS. 15.—Many of the old grammarians, and Guy, Pinneo, and Spencer, among the moderns, represent the regular formation of the possessive case as being the same in both numbers, supposing generally in the plural an abbreviation of the word by the omission of the second or syllabic s. That is, they suppose that such terms as eagles' wings, angels' visits, were written for eagles's wings, angels's visits, &c. This odd view of the matter accounts well enough for the fashion of such plurals as men's, women's, children's, and makes them regular. But I find no evidence at all of the fact on which these authors presume; nor do I believe that the regular possessive plural was ever, in general, a syllable longer than the nominative. If it ever had been so, it would still be easy to prove the point, by citations from ancient books. The general principle then is, that the apostrophe forms the possessive case, with an s in the singular, and without it in the plural; but there are some exceptions to this rule, on either hand; and these must be duly noticed.

OBS. 16.—The chief exceptions, or irregularities, in the formation of the possessive singular, are, I think, to be accounted mere poetic licenses; and seldom, if ever, to be allowed in prose. Churchill, (closely copying Lowth,) speaks of them thus: "In poetry the s is frequently omitted after proper names ending in s or x as, 'The wrath of Peleus' son.' Pope. This is scarcely allowable in prose, though instances of it occur: as, 'Moses' minister.' Josh., i, 1. 'Phinehas' wife.' 1 Sam., iv, 19. 'Festus came into Felix' room.' Acts, xxiv, 27. It was done in prose evidently to avoid the recurrence of a sibilant sound at the end of two following syllables; but this may as readily be obviated by using the preposition of, which is now commonly substituted for the possessive case in most instances."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 215. In Scott's Bible, Philadelphia, 1814, the texts here quoted are all of them corrected, thus: "Moses's minister,"—"Phinehas's wife,"—"Felix's room." But the phrase, "for conscience sake," (Rom., xiii, 5,) is there given without the apostrophe. Alger prints it, "for conscience' sake," which is better; and though not regular, it is a common form for this particular expression. Our common Bibles have this text: "And the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den."—Isaiah, xi, 8. Alger, seeing this to be wrong, wrote it, "on the cockatrice-den."—Pronouncing Bible. Dr. Scott, in his Reference Bible, makes this possessive regular, "on the cockatrice's den." This is right. The Vulgate has it, "in caverna reguli;" which, however, is not classic Latin. After z also, the poets sometimes drop the s: as,

   "Sad was the hour, and luckless was the day,
    When first from Shiraz' walls I bent my way."—Collins.

OBS. 17.—A recent critic, who, I think, has not yet learned to speak or write the possessive case of his own name properly, assumes that the foregoing occasional or poetical forms are the only true ones for the possessive singular of such words. He says, "When the name does end with the sound of s or z, (no matter what letter represents the sound,) the possessive form is made by annexing only an apostrophe."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 44. Agreeably to this rule, he letters his work, "Peirce' Grammar," and condemns, as bad English, the following examples and all others like them: "James Otis's letters, General Gates's command, General Knox's appointment, Gov. Meigs's promptness, Mr. Williams's oration, The witness's deposition."—Ib., p. 60. It is obvious that this gentleman's doctrine and criticism are as contrary to the common practice of all good authors, as they are to the common grammars, which he ridicules. Surely, such expressions as, "Harris's Hermes, Philips's Poems, Prince's Bay, Prince's Island, Fox's Journal, King James's edict, a justice's warrant, Sphinx's riddle, the lynx's beam, the lass's beauty," have authority enough to refute the cavil of this writer; who, being himself wrong, falsely charges the older grammarians, that," their theories vary from the principles of the language correctly spoken or written."—Ib., p. 60. A much more judicious author treats this point of grammar as follows: "When the possessive noun is singular, and terminates with an s, another s is requisite after it, and the apostrophe must be placed between the two; as, 'Dickens's works,'—'Harris's wit.'"—Day's Punctuation, Third London Edition, p. 136. The following example, too, is right: "I would not yield to be your house's guest."—Shakespeare.

OBS. 18.—All plural nouns that differ from the singular without ending in s, form the possessive case in the same manner as the singular: as, man's, men's; woman's, women's j child's, children's; brother's, brothers' or brethren's; ox's, oxen's; goose, geese's. In two or three words which are otherwise alike in both numbers, the apostrophe ought to follow the s in the plural, to distinguish it from the singular: as, the sheep's fleece, the sheeps' fleeces; a neat's tongue, neats' tongues; a deer's horns, a load of deers' horns.

OBS. 19.—Dr. Ash says, "Nouns of the plural number that end in s, will not very properly admit of the genitive case."—Ash's Gram., p. 54. And Dr. Priestley appears to have been of the same opinion. See his Gram., p. 69. Lowth too avers, that the sign of the possessive case is "never added to the plural number ending in s."—Gram., p. 18. Perhaps he thought the plural sign must involve an other s, like the singular. This however is not true, neither is Dr. Ash's assertion true; for the New Testament speaks as properly of "the soldiers' counsel," as of the "centurion's servant;" of "the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part," as of "Paul's sister's son." It would appear, however, that the possessive plural is less frequently used than the possessive singular; its place being much oftener supplied by the preposition of and the objective. We cannot say that either of them is absolutely necessary to the language; but they are both worthy to be commended, as furnishing an agreeable variety of expression.

   "Then shall man's pride and dulness comprehend
    His actions', passions', being's use and end."—Pope.

OBS. 20.—The apostrophe was introduced into the possessive case, at least for the singular number, in some part of the seventeenth century. Its adoption for the plural, appears to have been later: it is not much used in books a hundred years old. In Buchanan's "Regular English Syntax," which was written, I know not exactly when, but near the middle of the eighteenth century, I find the following paragraph: "We have certainly a Genitive Plural, though there has been no Mark to distinguish it. The Warriors Arms, i. e. the Arms of the Warriors, is as much a Genitive Plural, as the Warrior's Arms, for the Arms of the Warrior is a Genitive Singular. To distinguish this Genitive Plural, especially to Foreigners, we might use the Apostrophe reversed, thus, the Warrior`s Arms, the Stone`s End, for the End of the Stones, the Grocer`s, Taylor`s, Haberdasher`s, &c. Company; for the Company of Grocers, Taylors, &c. The Surgeon`s Hall, for the Hall of the Surgeons; the Rider`s Names, for the Names of the Riders; and so of all Plural Possessives."—See Buchan. Synt., p. 111. Our present form of the possessive plural, being unknown to this grammarian, must have had a later origin; nor can it have been, as some imagine it was, an abbreviation of a longer and more ancient form.

OBS. 21.—The apostrophic s has often been added to nouns improperly; the words formed by it not being intended for the possessive singular, but for the nominative or objective plural. Thus we find such authors as Addison and Swift, writing Jacobus's and genius's, for Jacobuses and geniuses; idea's, toga's, and tunica's, for ideas, togas, and tunicas; enamorato's and virtuoso's, for enamoratoes and virtuosoes. Errors of this kind, should be carefully avoided.

OBS. 22.—The apostrophe and s are sometimes added to mere characters, to denote plurality, and not the possessive case; as, two a's, three b's, four 9's. These we cannot avoid, except by using the names of the things: as, two Aes, three Bees, four Nines. "Laced down the sides with little c's."—Steele. "Whenever two gg's come together, they are both hard."—Buchanan. The names of c and g, plural, are Cees and Gees. Did these authors know the words, or did they not? To have learned the names of the letters, will be found on many occasions a great convenience, especially to critics. For example: "The pronunciation of these two consecutive s's is hard."—Webber's Gram., p. 21. Better: "Esses." "S and x, however, are exceptions. They are pluralyzed by adding es preceded by a hyphen [-], as the s-es; the x-es."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 40. Better, use the names, Ess and Ex, and pluralize thus: "the Esses; the Exes."

   "Make Q's of answers, to waylay
    What th' other party's like to say."
        —Hudibras, P. III, C. ii, l. 951.

Here the cipher is to be read Kues, but it has not the meaning of this name merely. It is put either for the plural of Q., a Question, like D. D.'s, (read Dee-Dees,) for Doctors of Divinity; or else, more erroneously, for cues, the plural of cue, a turn which the next speaker catches.

OBS. 23.—In the following example, the apostrophe and s are used to give the sound of a verb's termination, to words which the writer supposed were not properly verbs: "When a man in a soliloquy reasons with himself, and pro's and con's, and weighs all his designs."—Congreve. But here, "proes and cons," would have been more accurate. "We put the ordered number of m's into our composing-stick."—Printer's Gram. Here "Ems" would have done as well. "All measures for folio's and quarto's, should be made to m's of the English body; all measures for octavo's, to Pica m's."—Ibid. Here regularity requires, "folios, quartoes, octavoes," and "pica Ems." The verb is, when contracted, sometimes gives to its nominative the same form as that of the possessive case, it not being always spaced off for distinction, as it may be; as,

   "A wit's a feather, and a chief a rod;
    An honest man's the noblest work of God."
        —Pope, on Man, Ep. iv, l. 247.

OBS. 24.—As the objective case of nouns is to be distinguished from the nominative, only by the sense, relation, and position, of words in a sentence, the learner must acquire a habit of attending to these several things. Nor ought it to be a hardship to any reader to understand that which he thinks worth reading. It is seldom possible to mistake one of these cases for the other, without a total misconception of the author's meaning. The nominative denotes the agent, actor, or doer; the person or thing that is made the subject of an affirmation, negation, question, or supposition: its place, except in a question, is commonly before the verb. The objective, when governed by a verb or a participle, denotes the person on whom, or the thing on which, the action falls and terminates: it is commonly placed after the verb, participle, or preposition, which governs it. Nouns, then, by changing places, may change cases: as, "Jonathan loved David;" "David loved Jonathan." Yet the case depends not entirely upon position; for any order in which the words cannot be misunderstood, is allowable: as, "Such tricks hath strong imagination."—Shak. Here the cases are known, because the meaning is plainly this: "Strong imagination hath such tricks." "To him give all the prophets witness."—Acts, x, 43. This is intelligible enough, and more forcible than the same meaning expressed thus: "All the prophets give witness to him." The order of the words never can affect the explanation to be given of them in parsing, unless it change the sense, and form them into a different sentence.

The declension of a noun is a regular arrangement of its numbers and cases.
Thus:—

 Sing. Nom. friend, Plur. Nom. friends,
       Poss. friend's, Poss. friends',
       Obj. friend; Obj. friends.