FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   622   623   624   625   626   627   628   629   630   631   632   633   634   635   636   637   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646  
647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   >>   >|  
governed by those which he here both admits and denies to be "understood." OBS. 13.--The other arguments of Dr. Webster against the possessive case of pronouns, may perhaps be more easily answered than some readers imagine. The first is drawn from the fact that conjunctions connect like cases. "Besides, in three passages just quoted, the word _yours_ is joined by a connective _to a name_ in the same case; 'To ensure _yours_ and _their immortality_.' 'The easiest part of _yours_ and _my design_.' '_My sword_ and _yours_ are kin.' Will any person pretend that the connective here joins different cases?"--_Improved Gram._, p. 28; _Philosophical Gram._, p. 36. I answer, No. But it is falsely assumed that _yours_ is here connected by _and_ to _immortality_, to _design_, or to _sword_; because these words are again severally understood after _yours_: or, if otherwise, the two pronouns alone are connected by _and_, so that the proof is rather, that _their_ and _my_ are in the possessive case. The second argument is drawn from the use of the preposition _of_ before the possessive. "For we say correctly, 'an acquaintance _of yours, ours_, or _theirs_'--_of_ being the sign of the possessive; but if the words in themselves are possessives, then there must be two signs of the same case, which is absurd."--_Improved Gram._, p. 28; _Phil. Gr._, 36. I deny that _of_ is here the sign of the possessive, and affirm that it is taken partitively, in all examples of this sort. "I know my sheep, and am known _of mine_," is not of this kind; because _of_ here means _by_--a sense in which the word is antiquated. In recurring afterwards to this argument, the Doctor misquotes the following texts, and avers that they "are evidently meant to include the _whole number_: 'Sing _to_ the Lord, _all_ ye saints of _his_.'--_Ps._ 30, 4. '_He_ that heareth these sayings _of mine_.'--_Matt._ 7."--_Improved Gram._, p. 29; _Phil. Gr._, 38. If he is right about the meaning, however, the passages are mistranslated, as well as misquoted: they ought to be, "Sing _unto_ the Lord, _O ye his Saints_."--"_Every one_ that heareth _these my sayings_." But when a definitive particle precedes the noun, it is very common with us, to introduce the possessive elliptically after it; and what Dr. Wilson means by suggesting that it is erroneous, I know not: "When the preposition _of_ precedes _mine, ours, yours_, &c. the _errour_ lies, not in this, that there are double posses
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   622   623   624   625   626   627   628   629   630   631   632   633   634   635   636   637   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646  
647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

possessive

 

Improved

 
sayings
 

immortality

 

heareth

 

preposition

 

argument

 

connected

 

design

 

passages


understood
 

precedes

 
pronouns
 

connective

 

misquotes

 

Doctor

 

double

 

include

 

posses

 

evidently


elliptically
 

recurring

 

errour

 

erroneous

 

Wilson

 

antiquated

 

suggesting

 

common

 
misquoted
 
mistranslated

meaning

 
examples
 

particle

 

introduce

 

definitive

 
Saints
 
saints
 

number

 
Besides
 
connect

conjunctions

 
imagine
 
quoted
 

easiest

 
ensure
 
joined
 

readers

 

denies

 
admits
 

governed