ciples_, and even to hold all phraseology of
this kind "unobjectionable." If such is not their design, they write as
badly as they reason; and if it is, their doctrine is both false and
inconsistent. That a verbal noun may govern the possessive case, is
certainly no proof that a participle may do so too; and, if these parts of
speech are to be kept distinct the latter position must be disallowed: each
must "abide by its own construction," as says Lowth. But the practice which
these authors speak of, as an innovation of "some late writers," and "an
idle affectation of the Latin idiom," is in fact a practice as different
from the blunder which they quote, or feign, as their just correction of
that blunder is different from the thousand errors or irregularities which
they intend to shelter under it. To call a lady an "incident," is just as
far from any Latin idiom, as it is from good English; whereas the very
thing which they thus object to at first, they afterwards approve in this
text: "What think you of my _horse running_ to-day?" This phraseology
corresponds with "_the Latin idiom_;" and it is this, that, in fact, they
begin with pronouncing to be "less correct" than, "What think you of my
_horse's running_ to-day?"

OBS. 35.--Between these expressions, too, they pretend to fix a distinction
of signification; as, if "the _horse's running_ to-day," must needs imply a
past action, though, (they suppose,) "the _pupil's composing_ frequently,"
or, "the _horse running_ to-day," signifies a _future_ one. This
distinction of time is altogether _imaginary_; and the notion, that to
prefer the possessive case before participles, is merely to withstand an
error of "_some late writers_," is altogether false. The instructions above
cited, therefore, determine nothing rightly, except the inaccuracy of one
very uncommon form of expression. For, according to our best grammarians,
the simple mode of correction there adopted will scarcely be found
applicable to any other text. It will not be right where the participle
happens to be transitive, or even where it is qualified by an adverb. From
their subsequent examples, it is plain that these gentlemen think
otherwise; but still, who can understand what they mean by "_the common
mode of expression_?" What, for instance, would they substitute for the
following very inaccurate expression from the critical belles-lettres of
Dr. Blair? "A _mother accusing_ her son, and _accusing_ him of such
a