others,
is both weakly conceived and badly written, I should neither have detained
the reader so long on this topic, nor ever have placed it among the most
puzzling points of grammar. Let it be observed, that what these writers
absurdly call "_an entire_ CLAUSE _of a sentence_," is found on examination
to be some _short_ PHRASE, the participle with its adjuncts, or even the
participle alone, or with a single adverb only; as, "holding up her
train,"--"dismissing his servant so hastily,"--"composing,"--"reading
frequently,"--"composing frequently." And each of these, with an opposite
error as great, they will have to be "_one name_," and to convey but "_one
idea_;" supposing that by virtue of this imaginary oneness, it may govern
the possessive case, and signify something which a "lady," or a "person,"
or a "pupil," may consistently _possess_. And then, to be wrong in every
thing, they suggest that any noun on which such a participle, with its
adjuncts, "depends, _may be put_ in the _genitive case_;" whereas, such a
change is seldom, if ever, admissible, and in our language, no participle
_ever can depend_ on any other than the nominative or the objective case.
Every participle so depending is an adjunct to the noun; and every
possessive, in its turn, is an adjunct to the word which governs it. In
respect to construction, no terms differ more than a participle which
governs the possessive case, and a participle which does not. These
different constructions the contrivers of the foregoing rule, here take to
be equivalent in meaning; whereas they elsewhere pretend to find in them
quite different significations. The meaning is sometimes very different,
and sometimes very similar; but seldom, if ever, are the terms convertible.
And even if they were so, and the difference were nothing, would it not be
better to adhere, where we can, to the analogy of General Grammar? In Greek
and Latin, a participle may agree with a noun in the genitive case; but, if
we regard analogy, that genitive must be Englished, not by the possessive
case, but by _of_ and the objective; as, "[Greek: 'Epei dokim`aen zaeteite
tou 'en 'emoi lalountos Christou.]"--"Quandoquidem experimentum quaeritis in
me loquentis Christi."--_Beza_. "Since ye seek a proof of _Christ speaking_
in me."--_2 Cor._, xiii, 3. We might here, perhaps, say, "of _Christ's
speaking_ in me," but is not the other form better? The French version is,
"Puisque vous cherchez une preuve _que