The Grammar of English Grammars, Goold Brown [ebook reader for manga txt] 📗

stonethrow; Chalmers, stonescast; Worcester, stone's-cast. So Johnson and Chalmers write stonesmickle, a bird; Webster has it, stone's-mickle; yet, all three refer to Ainsworth as their authority, and his word is stone-smickle: Littleton has it stone-smich. Johnson and Chalmers write, popeseye and sheep's eye; Walker, Maunder, and Worcester, popeseye and sheep's-eye; Scott has pope's-eye and sheepseye; Webster, pope's-eye and sheep's-eye, bird-eye, and birds-eye. Ainsworth has goats beard, for the name of a plant; Johnson, goatbeard; Webster, goat-beard and goats-beard. Ainsworth has prince's feather, for the amaranth; Johnson, Chalmers, Walker, and Maunder, write it princes-feather; Webster and Worcester, princes'-feather; Bolles has it princesfeather: and here they are all wrong, for the word should be prince's-feather. There are hundreds more of such terms; all as uncertain in their orthography as these.

OBS. 31.—While discrepances like the foregoing abound in our best dictionaries, none of our grammars supply any hints tending to show which of these various forms we ought to prefer. Perhaps the following suggestions, together with the six Rules for the Figure of Words, in Part First, may enable the reader to decide these questions with sufficient accuracy. (1.) Two short radical nouns are apt to unite in a permanent compound, when the former, taking the sole accent, expresses the main purpose or chief characteristic of the thing named by the latter; as, teacup, sunbeam, daystar, horseman, sheepfold, houndfish, hourglass. (2.) Temporary compounds of a like nature may be formed with the hyphen, when there remain two accented syllables; as, castle-wall, bosom-friend, fellow-servant, horse-chestnut, goat-marjoram, marsh-marigold. (3.) The former of two nouns, if it be not plural, may be taken adjectively, in any relation that differs from apposition and from possession; as, "The silver cup,"—"The parent birds,"—"My pilgrim feet,"—"Thy hermit cell,"—"Two brother sergeants." (4.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form a literal name, may be joined together without either hyphen or apostrophe: as, tradesman, ratsbane, doomsday, kinswoman, craftsmaster. (5.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form a metaphorical name, should be written with both apostrophe and hyphen; as, Job's-tears, Jew's-ear, bear's-foot, colts-tooth, sheep's-head, crane's-bill, crab's-eyes, hound's-tongue, king's-spear, lady's-slipper, lady's-bedstraw, &c. (6.) The possessive case and its governing noun, combining to form an adjective, whether literal or metaphorical, should generally be written with both apostrophe and hyphen; as, "Neats-foot oil,"—"Calfs-foot jelly,"—"A carp's-tongue drill,"—"A bird's-eye view,"—"The states'-rights' party,"—"A camel's-hair shawl." But a triple compound noun may be formed with one hyphen only: as, "In doomsday-book;" (—Joh. Dict.;) "An armsend-lift." Cardell, who will have all possessives to be adjectives, writes an example thus: "John's camel's hair girdle."—Elements of Eng. Gram., p. 39. That is as if John's camel had a hair girdle! (7.) When the possessive case and its governing noun merely help to form a regular phrase, the compounding of them in any fashion may be reckoned improper; thus the phrases, a day's work, at death's door, on New Year's Day, a new year's gift, All Souls' Day, All Saints' Day, All Fools' Day, the saints' bell, the heart's blood, for dog's meat, though often written otherwise, may best stand as they do here.

OBS. 32.—The existence of a permanent compound of any two words, does not necessarily preclude the use of the possessive relation between the same words. Thus, we may speak of a horse's shoe or a goat's skin, notwithstanding there are such words as horseshoe and goatskin. E.g., "That preach ye upon the housetops."—ALGER'S BIBLE: Matt., x, 27. "Unpeg the basket on the house's top."—Beauties of Shak., p. 238. Webster defines frostnail, (which, under the word cork, he erroneously writes frost nail,) "A nail driven into a horse-shoe, to prevent the horse from slipping on ice." Worcester has it, "A nail driven into a horse's shoe, to prevent his slipping on the ice." Johnson, "A nail with a prominent head driven into the horse's shoes, that it may pierce the ice." Maunder, "A nail with a sharp head driven into the horses' shoes in frosty weather." None of these descriptions is very well written. Say rather, "A spur-headed nail driven into a horse's shoe to prevent him from slipping." There is commonly some difference, and sometimes a very great one, between the compound noun and the possessive relation, and also between the radical compound and that of the possessive. Thus a harelip is not a hare's lip, nor is a headman a headsman, or heart-ease heart's-ease. So, according to the books, a cat-head, a cat's-head, and a cat's head, are three very different things; yet what Webster writes, cat-tail, Johnson, cats-tail, Walker and others, cats-tail, means but the same thing, though not a cat's tail. Johnson's "kingspear, Jews-ear, lady-mantle, and lady-bedstraw," are no more proper, than Webster's "bear's-wort, lion's foot, lady's mantle, and lady's bed-straw." All these are wrong.

OBS. 33.—Particular examples, both of proper distinction, and of blind irregularity, under all the heads above suggested, may be quoted and multiplied indefinitely, even from our highest literary authorities; but, since nothing can be settled but by the force of principles, he who would be accurate, must resort to rules,—must consider what is analogical, and, in all doubtful cases, give this the preference. But, in grammar, particular analogies are to be respected, as well as those which are more general. For example, the noun side, in that relation which should seem to require the preceding noun to be in the possessive case, is usually compounded with it, the hyphen being used where the compound has more than two syllables, but not with two only; as, bedside, hillside, roadside, wayside, seaside, river-side, water-side, mountain-side. Some instances of the separate construction occur, but they are rare: as, "And her maidens walked along by the river's side."—Exodus, ii, 5. After this noun also, the possessive preposition of is sometimes omitted; as, "On this side the river;"(—Bible;) "On this side Trent."—Cowell. Better, "On this side of the river," &c. "Blind Bartimeus sat by the highway side, begging."—Mark, x, 46. Here Alger more properly writes "highway-side." In Rev., xiv, 20th, we have the unusual compound, "horse-bridles." The text ought to have been rendered, "even unto the horses' bridles." Latin, "usque ad frænos equorum." Greek, "[Greek: achri ton chalinon ton hippon]."

OBS. 34.—Correlatives, as father and son, husband and wife, naturally possess each other; hence such combinations as father's son, and son's father, though correct enough in thought, are redundant in expression. The whole and a part are a sort of correlatives, but the whole seems to possess its parts, more properly than any of the parts, the whole. Yet we seldom put the whole in the possessive case before its part, or parts, but rather express the relation by of; as, "a quarter of a dollar," rather than, "a dollar's quarter." After the noun half, we usually suppress this preposition, if an article intervene; as, "half a dollar," rather than, "half of a dollar," or "a dollar's half." So we may say, "half the way," for "half of the way;" but we cannot say, "half us" for "half of us." In the phrase, "a half dollar," the word half is an adjective, and a very different meaning is conveyed. Yet the compounds half-pint and half-penny are sometimes used to signify, the quantity of half a pint, the value of half a penny. In weight, measure, or time, the part is sometimes made possessive of the whole; as, "a pound's weight, a yard's length, an hour's time." On the contrary, we do not say, "weight's pound, length's yard, or time's hour;" nor yet, "a pound of weight, a yard of length;" and rarely do we say, "an hour of time." Pound and yard having other uses, we sometimes say, "a pound in weight, a yard in length;" though scarcely, "an hour in time."

OBS. 35.—Between a portion of time and its correlative action, passion, or being, the possessive relation is interchangeable; so that either term may be the principal, and either, the adjunct: as, "Three years' hard work," or, "Three years of hard work." Sometimes we may even put either term in either form; as, "During the ten years' war,"—"During the ten years of war,"—"During the war of ten years,"—"During the war's ten years." Hence some writers, not perceiving why either word should make the other its governed adjunct, place both upon a par, as if they were in apposition; as, "Three days time."—Brown's Estimate, Vol. ii, p. 156. "By a few years preparation."—Blair's Rhet., p. 341. "Of forty years planting."—Wm. Penn. "An account, of five years standing." If these phrases were correct, it would also be correct to say, "one day time,"—"one year preparation,"—"one year planting,"—"of one year standing;" but all these are manifestly bad English; and, by analogy, so are the others.

OBS. 36.—Any noun of weight, measure, or time, put immediately before an other, if it be not in the possessive case, will naturally be understood adjectively; as, "No person can, by words only, give to an other an adequate idea of a pound weight, or [a] foot rule."—Gregory's Dict. This phraseology can, with propriety, refer only to the weight or the rule with which we weigh or measure; it cannot signify a pound in weight, or a foot in length, though it is very probable that the author intended the latter. When the noun times is used before an other noun by way of multiplication, there may be supposed an ellipsis of the preposition of between the two, just as when we divide by the word half; as, "An hour is sixty times the length of a minute."—Murray's Gram., p. 48. "Thirty seconds are half the length of a minute." That is,—"half of the length,"—"sixty times of the length."

NOTES TO RULE IV.

NOTE I.—In the syntax of the possessive case, its appropriate form, singular or plural, should be observed, agreeably to the sense and declension of the word. Thus, write John's, men's, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs; and not, Johns, mens', her's, it's, our's, your's, their's.

NOTE II.—When nouns of the possessive case are connected by conjunctions or put in apposition, the sign of possession must always be annexed to such, and such only, as immediately precede the governing noun, expressed or understood; as, "John and Eliza's teacher is a man of more learning than James's or Andrew's"—"For David my servant's sake."—Bible. "For my sake and the gospel's."—Ib. "Lost in love's and friendship's smile."—Scott.

NOTE III.—The relation of property may also be expressed by the preposition of and the objective; as, "The will of man," for "man's will." Of these forms, we should adopt that which will render the sentence the most perspicuous and agreeable; and, by the use of both, avoid an unpleasant repetition of either.

NOTE IV.—A noun governing the possessive plural, should not, by a forced agreement, be made plural, when its own sense does not require it; as, "For our parts,"—"Were I in your places:" for we may with propriety say, "Our part, your place, or your condition;" as well as, "Our desire, your intention, their resignation."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 169. A noun taken figuratively may also be singular, when the literal meaning would require the plural: such expressions as, "their face,"—"their neck,"—"their hand,"—"their head,"—"their heart,"—"our mouth,"—"our life,"—are frequent in the Scriptures, and not improper.

NOTE V.—The possessive case should not be needlessly used before a participle that is not taken in other respects as a noun. The following phrase is therefore wrong: "Adopted by the Goths in their pronouncing the Greek."—Walker's Key, p. 17. Expunge their. Again: "Here we speak of their becoming both in form and signification passive."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 226. Say rather, "Here we speak of them as becoming passive, both in form and signification."

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION. FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE IV. EXAMPLES UNDER NOTE I.—THE POSSESSIVE FORM.

"Mans chief good is an upright mind." See Brown's Institutes of E. Gram., p. 179.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the noun mans, which is intended for the possessive singular of man, has not the appropriate form of that case and number. But, according to Note 1st under Rule 4th, "In the syntax ef the possessive case, its appropriate form, singular or plural, should be observed, agreeably to the sense and declension of the word." Therefore, mans should be maris, with the apostrophe before the s; thus, "Man's chief good is an upright mind."]

"The translator of Mallets History has the following note,"—Webster's Essays, p. 263. "The act, while it gave five years full pay to the officers, allowed but one year's pay to the privates."—Ib., p. 184. "For the study of English is preceded by several years attention to Latin and Greek."—Ib., p. 7. "The first, the Court Baron, is the freeholders or freemens court."—Coke, Litt., p. 74. "I affirm, that Vaugelas' definition labours under an essential defect."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 163. "I affirm, that Vangelas's definition labours under an essential defect."—Murray's Octavo Gram., Fourth Amer. Ed., Vol. ii, p. 360.[351] "There is a chorus in Aristophane's plays."—Blair's Rhet., p. 480. "It denotes the same perception in my mind as in their's."—Duncan's Logic, p. 65. "This afterwards enabled him to read Hicke's Saxon Grammar."—Life of Dr.