which is inserted after the participle to mark the genitive case which is
added, forms rather an error than an elegance, though some English writers
do now and then adopt this idiom. The gerund thus governing the genitive,
is not analogous to our participle governing the possessive; because this
genitive stands, not for _the subject_ of the being or action, but for what
would otherwise be _the object_ of the gerund, or of the participle, as may
be seen above. The objection to the participle as governing the possessive,
is, that it retains its object or its adverb; for when it does not, it
becomes fairly a noun, and the objection is removed. R. Johnson, like many
others, erroneously thinks it a noun, even when it governs an objective,
and has merely a preposition before it; as, "For the sake _of seeing them_.
Where _seeing_ (says he) is a Substantive."--_Gram. Com._, p. 353.

OBS. 43.--If the Latin gerund were made to govern the genitive of the
_agent_, and allowed at the same time to retain its government as a gerund,
it would then correspond in every thing but declension, to the English
participle when made to govern both the possessive case and the objective.
But I have before observed that no such analogy appears. The following
example has been quoted by Seyer, as a proof that the gerund may govern the
genitive of the agent: "_Cujus autem in dicendo aliquid reprehensum
est_--Cic."--_Grant's Lat. Gram._, p. 236. That is, (as I understand it,)
"But in _whose speaking_ something is reprehended." This seems to me a case
in point; though Crombie and Grant will not allow it to be so. But a single
example is not sufficient. If the doctrine is true, there must be others.
In this solitary instance, it would be easier to doubt the accuracy even of
Cicero, than to approve the notion of these two critics, that _cujus_ is
here governed by _aliquid_, and not by the gerund. "Here," says Grant, "I
am inclined to concur in opinion with Dr. Crombie, whose words I take the
liberty to use, 'That, _for the sake of euphony_, the gerund is sometimes
found governing the genitive of the patient, or _subject_ [say _object_] of
the action, is unquestionable: thus, _studio videndi patrum vestrorum_.
[That is, literally, _By a desire of seeing of your fathers_.] But I
recollect no example, where the gerund is joined with a possessive
adjective, or genitive of a noun substantive, where the person is not the
patient, but the agent; as, _dicendum me