ls, as a rule and model for elegant composition. Dr. Priestley
pretends to appreciate the difference between participles and participial
nouns, but he rather contrives a fanciful distinction in the sense, than a
real one in the construction. His only note on this point,--a note about
the "_horse running to-day_," and the "_horse's running_ to-day,"--I shall
leave till we come to the syntax of participles.

OBS. 11.--Having prepared the reader to understand the origin of what is to
follow, I now cite from L. Murray's code a paragraph which appears to be
contradictory to his own doctrine, as suggested in the fifth observation
above; and not only so, it is irreconcilable with any proper distinction
between the participle and the participial noun. "When an _entire clause_
of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as
_one name_, or to express one idea or circumstance, the _noun on which it
depends_ may be put in the _genitive_ case; thus, _instead_ of saying,
'What is the reason of this _person dismissing_ his servant so hastily?'
_that is_, 'What is the reason of this person, _in_ dismissing his servant
so hastily?' we _may_ say, and _perhaps_ ought to say, 'What is the reason
of this _person's_ dismissing of his servant _so hastily?_' Just as we say,
'What is the reason of this person's _hasty dismission_ of his servant?' So
also, we say, 'I remember it being reckoned a great exploit;' or more
properly, 'I remember _its_ being reckoned,' &c. The following sentence is
_correct and proper_: 'Much will depend on _the pupil's composing_, but
more on _his reading_ frequently.' It would not be accurate to say, 'Much
will depend on the _pupil composing_.' &c. We also properly say; 'This will
be the effect _of the pupil's composing_ frequently;' instead of, '_Of the
pupil composing_ frequently.' The _participle_, in such constructions,
_does the office_ of a substantive; and it should therefore have a
CORRESPONDENT REGIMEN."--_Murray's Gram._, Rule 10th, Note 7;
_Ingersoll's_, p. 180; _Fisk's_, 108; _R. C. Smith's_, 152; _Alger's_, 61;
_Merchant's_, 84. See also _Weld's Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 150; "Abridged Ed.,"
117.[348]

OBS. 12.--Now, if it were as easy to prove that a participle, as such, or
(what amounts to the same thing) a phrase beginning with a participle,
ought never to govern the possessive case, as it is to show that every part
and parcel of the foregoing citations from Priestley, Murray, and