methed is absolutely necessary, in order to distinguish the sense, and to give the idea of property, strictly so called, which is the most important of the relations expressed by the genitive case for the expressions, This picture of my friend, and this picture of my friend's, suggest very different ideas: the latter, only, is that of property in the strictest sense. The idea would, doubtless, be conveyed in the better manner, by saying, This picture belonging to my friend.

When this double genitive, as some grammarians term it, is not necessary to distinguish the sense, and especially in a grave style, it is generally omitted. Except to prevent ambiguity, it seems to be allowable only in cases which suppose the existence of a plurality of subjects of the same kind. In the expressions, A subject of the emperor's; A sentiment of my brother's; more than one subject, and one sentiment are supposed to belong to the possessor. But when this plurality is neither intimated, nor necessarily supposed, the double genitive, except as before mentioned, should not be used.

as,

Of the Objective Case.

RULE VII.

Transitive verbs govern the objective case;

Truth ennobles her: She comforts me: They support us: Virtue rewards her followers.

In English, the nominative case denoting the subject, usually goes before the verb; and the objective case denoting the object, follows the verb transitive; and it is the relation that the noun has to the verb which determines its case.

But

the pronoun having a proper form for each of the cases, is sometimes placed after the verb, when in the nominative, and sometimes when in the objective it is placed before it; as, Whom ye ignorantly worship, him declarc I unto you.

This position of the pronoun sometimes occasions its proper case and government to be neglected; as in the following instances: Who should I esteem more than the wise and good? By the character of those who you choose for your friends, your own is likely to be formed: Those are the persons who he thought true to his interest: Who should I see the other day but my old friend? Whosoever the court favors. In all these places it ought to be whom, the relative being governed in the objective case by the verbs, esteem, choose, thought, &c. He who, under all proper circumstances, has the boldness to speak truth. choose for thy friend. It should be, kim who, &c.

Some verbs of a neuter signification, and others whose action is generally confined to the agent, become transitive in certain situations, and govern an objective case; as in the phrases, To dream a dream; to run a race; to walk a horse: to dance a child; to live a virtuous life. In instances like these, the verb governs the noun which follows it, and is therefore transitive. Intransitive verbs sometimes assume the form of the passive; as, I am come; I was gone; he has grown; I was fallen; &c. These verbs are not passive, although they have the passive form, because they do not imply the receiving of an action or impression from another. The action originates with the agent, or nominative, and to this its ef

L*

fect is limited; consequently the verb is intransi tive.

Let governs the objective case; as, Let him beware: Let us judge candidly: Let them not pre

sume.

RULE VIII.

Participles of transitive verbs govern the objective case; as,

They found him transgressing the laws: And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: Transgressing, seeing, and finding, are participles, and govern the nouns which follow them.

A participle joined to an adverb is sometimes used independently of the rest of the sentence; as, Generally speaking, his conduct was very honorable Two objects may sometimes be very happily compared together, though they resemble each other, strictly speaking, in nothing. A participle in this situation may be called independent, as it has no government of case or agreement with any noun.

RULE IX.

Verbs of teaching, giving, and some others of a similar nature, govern two objectives, the one of a person and the other of a thing;

as,

He taught me grammar: His tutor gave him a lesson: He promised us a reward. In these examples, the verbs, taught, gave, and promised, each of them governs the two nouns immediately following.

Grammarians have generally considered the personal pronoun, in such cases, to be governed by a preposition understood; as, He taught grammar to me. But the verb certainly has as much influence upon the pronoun me, as it has upon the substantive grammar; and why should it be said to govern one and not the other? There appears to be no propriety in understanding a word, or supposing a word to be implied, which, if expressed, would neither add any thing to the sense, nor render the meaning any more intelligible. Hence there appears to be no propriety in understanding the preposition to in the sentence under consideration; since the meaning is better expressed when it is omitted. Let the sentence be subjected to rigorous examination, and it will be found that the insertion of the word to, instead of being an illustration, is rather a perversion of the meaning; for strictly speaking, it is not the grammar which is taught, but the pupil is taught in the science of grammar. To say, He taught me, is literally true; but to say, He taught grammar, is true only in a figurative sense. Sometimes, however, the preposition may be inserted before the pronoun, and the literal meaning be preserved; as, He gave me a book. Here the true meaning is, he gave book to me. But although a pronoun thus situated admits of a preposition before it, still the verb may be considered as the governing word, when the preposition is not inserted. It is not unfrequent that the omission of a preposition gives the office of government to the verb, when it would belong to the preposition, if it were inserted; as, He visited my father's house; or, he visited at my father's house. He faces the storm; or, he faces to the storm. He begged me to be quiet; or, he

a

begged of me to be quiet. He entered the city; or, he entered into the city. In all these exam. ples, when the preposition is omitted, the verb is transitive; it terminates on an object which it goveros. But when the preposition is inserted, the verb becomes intransitive; its power of government being taken away by the intervention of another governing word.

RULE X.

A passive verb may govern an objective, when the words immediately preceding and following it, do not refer to the same thing; as,

Henry was offered a dollar by his father to induce him to remain. Here the verb was offered, terminates on dollar, and governs it. Change the construction of the verb to the transitive form, and it will read thus; Henry's father offered him a dollar. In this instance, the verb governs two objectives, agreeably to Rule 9th. And in all cases in which a passive verb governs an objective, the same verb, if put in the transitive form, would govern two objectives, as in the examples which follow He was refused admittance by the magistrate. Transitive-the magistrate refused him admittance. They were denied the privilege of a charter by the legislature. Transitive-the legislature denied them the privilege of a charter.

RULE XI.

Prepositions govern the objective case; as, I have heard a good character of her; From him that is needy, turn not away: A word to the wise is sufficient for them: We may be good and happy without riches.