Page images
PDF
EPUB

bill, a circumstance which redounds much to their credit:" here circumstance is in apposition with the idea conveyed in the preceding clause; that is, the act of rejection. In such instances as this, the question of ease evidently is of no importance.

The construction of apposition evidently depends on, and is explainable by, the principle of ellipsis. The love of brevity more or less operates in moulding the form of all our sentences; and is at work here too-" Miltiades, the Athenian general," being equivalent to "Miltiades, who was an Athenian general;" from which it would appear that the word in apposition is, grammatically speaking, a part of the predicate of a relative clause.

It should further be remarked, under this head, that, in order to use the construction of apposition, there must be no connecting link between the noun or pronoun in apposition and that which it explains. In the expression, "Miltiades was an Athenian general;" Miltiades and general are names for the same individual; further, they are in the same case, the nominative, but not because they represent the same person, but because one is the subject of a verb which, it will be seen hereafter, requires after it the same case which precedes it.

This latter remark is practically useless, except when the words are to be parsed; that is, we say general is in the nominative case, not because it is in apposition with Miltiades, but because it follows the verb was. As a matter of principle, however, it will be shown hereafter, that the construction by apposition gives birth to the rule regarding the government of the verb To be.

The word or words in apposition do not convey an additional idea to that conveyed by the word with which they are in apposition, but rather explain some circumstance concerning it; hence, no matter how many nouns may be placed in apposition with another, should that other be a subject, the question of the number of its verb is decided by its own number, and not by that of the noun or nouns in apposition. Thus, in the expression, "Ambition, the animating principle and ruin of some men, serves many a useful purpose," ambition is the subject; and though there are two nouns succeeding in apposition therewith,

the verb is yet expressed in the singular, because ambition is singular. The same observation holds good even in the case of nouns in the plural, placed in apposition with a singular subject. Thus-"The fruit of his labour-wealth which he amassed, and possessions which he acquired—was now unjustly confiscated:" in which expression the verb is properly singular, because its subject, fruit, is singular; the succeeding nouns, wealth and possessions, the latter in the plural number, having no influence in determining the number of the verb.

ON THE POSSESSIVE CASE.

It has been seen in the foregoing Rules, that verbs and prepositions govern nouns in the objective case. By government, of course, will be understood that influence which one word of a particular sort exercises on another in causing it to assume a particular form, that is, to be expressed in a particular case. "As the particular case," says Latham, "in which a word stands, depends upon the words that are taken along with it, the word government is not ill chosen as the name for the dependence of one word upon another." From the remarks on Apposition, it will be seen that one noun exercises a quasi government on another, causing it to be put in the same case with itself; and that this construction occurs when the two nouns, the governing and governed words, are different names for the same person or thing. It remains, now, to enunciate further the grammatical principle, which we shall call our fourth general rule, viz.,

RULE IV.

One noun governs another, when that other signifies a different thing, in the possessive case: as-"The queen's throne;" in which expression, the word queen's is in the possessive case, and is said to be governed by the word throne, which it explains, and with which it stands immediately connected. It is further to be remarked, that this

possessive case is so called, because it implies possession or ownership on the part of the individual for which it is a name of that thing represented by the noun by which it is governed.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE POSSESSIVE CASE.

1. Many sorts of words in the Classical languages govern the possessive case. In the English, this species of government belongs exclusively to nouns; that is, no word but a noun can cause another noun to be used in the possessive case. A noun can cause a pronoun to be used in the possessive- as, his throne; but the principle at work here is the same as that already enunciated; as his, in the above example, is only a substitute for some noun, and, as such, necessarily governed in the same manner as the noun would be, if expressed, for which it stands.

=

2. The possessive case is the complement of the noun with which it is connected. This complement may be changed into a prepositional phrase, consisting of the preposition of, and the complement changed from the possessive to the objective case: thus-" The Queen's throne": "The throne of the Queen;" from which it appears, that, when the possessive complement is used, it comes before the governing word; when the prepositional complement is used, it follows; and that this prepositional complement is the grammatical equivalent for the possessive case.

3. The observation in No. 1. appears contradicted by such expression as, "The report of the Queen's being in danger," where Queen's is in the possessive case, and apparently governed by the participle, being. The principle of such construction, however, is no contradiction, but rather a confirmation, of the assertion in Observation 1; as, in the foregoing example (and the case is the same wherever such construction occurs), being is not to be considered in any other light than that of a noun expressing a state or existence. It may be remarked, moreover, that such expression is seldom used, and that "The report of the Queen being in danger," is the more ordinary one. "Of the Queen," is the natural prepositional complement of "being," and being itself is the complement of report; the whole expression

being resolved thus-"The report of the peing (existence of the Queen in danger."

4. The possessive case and its governing word must stand immediately connected-as, "The Queen's throne." Hence, if the possessive case have a relative pronoun standing for it in the sentence, perspicuity of style, if not euphony, would require that such possessive be converted into the prepositional complement: thus, instead of "The Queen's throne, who was called Victoria," it would be preferable to say, "The throne of the Queen, who was called Victoria." Euphony, not perspicuity, requires such substitution in the case of the example in question; for who is at once understood to refer to Queen's, not throne. In other cases, however, perspicuity would require a similar substitution; as in the expression, "The Queen's husband, who was regarded a public benefactor," wherein it is doubtful who was the benefactor, who being, by its gender, which is common, capable of standing for Queen's or husband. In the form, on the contrary, “The husband of the Queen, who was regarded a public benefactor," no such doubt can exist; it being an acknowledged principle that the relative must be placed as nearly as possible in contact with its antecedent, which, in the present instance, is Queen.

5. The prepositional complement equivalent to the possessive case should immediately succeed the noun which it explains; thus, we do not say, "The authority was now disregarded of the Council," but, "The authority of the Council was now disregarded." Further, an adjective, may intervene between the noun and its possessive complement, and such adjective must qualify the noun explained, and not the complement; thus, "Josiah's good reign," wherein good qualifies reign: if it were intended to qualify Josiah's, the expression would become, "The reign of good Josiah," or "good Josiah's reign."

6. In the treatment of the adjective, the principle was exhibited whereby nouns are used as adjectives to qualify other nouns; as in the word book-maker. This may be accounted for by supposing the former noun to be the possessive case, with its apostrophic mark and s suppressed: thus father-land, would signify, father's land, or the land of our father.

7. When two or more nouns in the possessive case follow each other, and are joined by a copulative conjunction, the sign of the possessive case, when the thing possessed is the same, is prefixed to the last noun only; as, "Peter, Richard, and Joseph's estate." In this example, the thing possessed being one and the same, the sign of the possessive case applies equally to each of the three possessive nouns; but "Peter's, Joseph's, and Richard's estate," implies that each has a different estate; or at least it will admit of that meaning being given to it, while the former phrase will not.-[The substance of this observation is quoted from Cobbett.]

8. Sometimes, in common conversation, the governing word is not expressed, and the possessive complement alone is employed; but only when, from the nature of the case, the word understood is known, as it were, intuitively: thus, "I bought it at the baker's ;" wherein shop is understood, which, on the mere utterance of the expression, is at once suggested to the hearer.

9. Occasionally several nouns, themselves differently governed, are so strung together as to serve in the place of a single possessive complement of another noun; as in the expression, "The Queen of England's throne;" with regard to which, it is to be observed, that the possessive mark is attached to the last noun only, although the idea, as intended to be conveyed, is that of the throne belonging to Queen, not England; from which consideration it immediately follows, that the expression, "Queen of England," is regarded as one noun, and that it is the complement, in the possessive case, of throne.

10. The expression, "Queen Victoria's throne," is explained as all such expressions are, on a similar principle; otherwise the law of apposition, as enunciated in Rule 3, would be contradicted, Victoria and Queen being names for the same individual, and in different cases, if they be considered as separate names.

11. Such expressions as, "Draco, of all philosophers, enacted the severest laws," prove that of, with its following noun, are not in every instance to be regarded as the strict grammatical equivalent of the possessive case. With regard to the example under consideration, it may be said

« PreviousContinue »