phraseology which appears unobjectionable, and substituted
one that seems less correct; and instead of saying, 'Lady _Macbeth's_
walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror,' would say,
'Lady _Macbeth_ walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror.'
This seems to me an idle affectation of the Latin idiom, less precise than
the common mode of expression, and less consonant with the genius of our
language; for, ask what was an incident full of tragic horror, and,
according to this phraseology, the answer must be, _Lady Macbeth_; whereas
the meaning is, not that _Lady Macbeth_, but her _walking in her sleep_, is
an incident full of tragic horror. This phraseology also, in many
instances, conveys not the intended idea; for, as Priestley remarks, if it
is said, 'What think you of my _horse's running_ to-day?' it is implied
that the horse did actually run. If it is said, 'What think you of my
_horse running_ to-day?' it is intended to ask whether it be proper for my
horse to run to-day. This distinction, though frequently neglected,
deserves attention; for it is obvious that ambiguity may arise from using
the latter only of these phraseologies to express both meanings."--
_Maunder's Compendious Eng. Gram._, p. 15. (See _Crombie's Treatise_, p.
288-290.) To this, before any comment is offered, let me add an other
quotation: "RULE. _A noun before the present participle is put in the
possessive case_; as, Much will depend on the _pupil's composing_
frequently. Sometimes, however, the sense forbids it to be put in the
possessive case; thus, What do you think of my _horse running_ to-day?
means, Do you think I should let him run? but, What do you think of my
_horse's running_? means, he _has_ run, do you think he ran well?"--
_Lennie's Gram._, p. 91; _Brace's Gram._, 94. See _Bullions's Gram._, p.
107; _Hiley's_, 94; _Murray's_, 8vo. 195: _Ingersoll's_, 201: and many
others.

OBS. 34.--Any phraseology that conveys not the intended idea, or that
involves such an absurdity as that of calling a lady an "incident" is
doubtless sufficiently reprehensible; but, compared with a rule of grammar
so ill-devised as to mislead the learner nine times in ten, an occasional
ambiguity or solecism is a mere trifle. The word _walking_, preceded by a
possessive and followed by a preposition, as above, is clearly a _noun_,
and not a participle; but these authors probably intend to justify the use
of possessives before _parti