literality of the version prove, at all
points, either the accuracy or the sameness of the construction.

OBS. 17.--Surely, without some imperative reason, we ought not, in English,
to resort to such an assumption as is contained in the following Rule:
"Sometimes the relative agrees in person with that pronoun substantive,
from which the possessive pronoun adjective is derived; as, Pity _my_
condition, _who am_ so destitute. I rejoice at _thy_ lot, _who art_ so
fortunate. We lament _his_ fate, _who is_ so unwary. Beware of _her_
cunning, _who is_ so deceitful. Commiserate _our_ condition, _who are_ so
poor. Tremble at _your_ negligence, _who are_ so careless. It shall be
_their_ property, _who are_ so diligent. We are rejoicing at _thy_ lot,
_who hast_ been so fortunate."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 142. In his
explanation of the last of these sentences, the author says, "_Who_ is a
relative pronoun; in the masculine gender, singular number, second person,
and agrees with _thee_, implied in the adjective _thy_. RULE.--Sometimes
the relative agrees in person, &c. And it is the nominative to the verb
_hast been_. RULE.--When no nominative comes between the relative and the
verb, the relative is the nominative to the verb."--_Ib._, p. 143. A pupil
of G. Brown's would have said, "_Who_ is a relative pronoun, representing
'_thy_,' or the person addressed, in the second person, singular number,
and masculine gender; according to the rule which says, 'A pronoun must
agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in
person, number, and gender:' and is in the nominative case, being the
subject of _hast been_; according to the rule which says, 'A noun or a
pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative
case.' Because the meaning is--_who hast been_; that is, _thy lot_, or the
lot _of thee, who hast been_."

OBS. 18.--Because the possessive case of a noun or pronoun is usually
equivalent in meaning to the preposition _of_ and the objective case, some
grammarians, mistaking this equivalence of meaning for sameness of case,
have asserted that all our possessives have a double form. Thus Nixon:
"When the particle _of_ comes between two substantives signifying different
things, it is not to be considered a preposition, but _the sign of the
substantive's being in the possessive case_, equally as if the apostrophic
_s_ had been affixed to it; as, 'The skill _of Caesar_,' or _Caesar's_
skill.'"