of "On eagles's wings." "For the sake of righteousness," instead of "For righteousness' sake." The "Lord's day" is the "sabbath," but the "day of the Lord" is the "day of judgment." In this, and perhaps a few other instances, the meaning is different, but it is not general. Attend to the sense.

POSSESSIVE CASE OF NAMES.

77. W. Hill, author of "Fifteen Lessons on the Analogy and Syntax of the English Language," speaks thus of the possessive case of names: "The only approximation to any thing like a case in our language is, that the noun sometimes assumes a descriptive form, for the purpose of indicating a relation of property or possession. For instance, if I say the lady's fan,' you perceive that the word lady's is an inflection of the noun lady-and it is used in this form for the purpose of denoting that the fan, spoken of, belongs to, or is possessed by, the lady. On this account, grammarians have usually called this form of the noun the possessive case. I am inclined, however, to agree with DR. WALLIS, MR. SMETHAM, MR. LEWIS, and some other writers on grammar, in supposing that when the word assumes this form, it loses the character of a noun and becomes a descriptive. The distinguishing characteristic of a noun, is, that, being the name of something, it may always be detached from the connexion in which it stands, and will make sense when used totally alone. Thus, we can read the word lady, totally alone, and it conveys to our mind a distinct idea, a complete sense. As Mr.Lewis says, we can think of a lady, or we can speak of

a lady-but we cannot think or speak of a lady's-the sense is evidently incomplete, and the question, a lady's what? suggests itself to the mind. Attach any noun to the end of it-say the lady's hat, the lady's horse, or the lady's husband, and you have a complete sense. Now this is the distinguishing characteristic of descriptives. If I say a tall-you naturally wait in expectation of hearing something more, and, if I do not go on, you naturally reply, a tall what? Subjoin man, and the sense is perfect, " a tall man.' For these reasons I think that CASE cannot be fairly predicated of English nouns, and choose rather to call this, their only approximation to it, a descriptive form of word."

POSSESSIVE CASE OF FORNAMES.

78. W. Hill says, and proves, that names have not a possessive case, and teaches us that fornames have one. That names have no possessive, I am fully convinced, but that fornames have one, I feel it unadvised to admit.

79. Because my, thy, her, our, your, and their, require a name after them, he calls them describing words, or rather the descriptive forms of the fornames I, thou, she, we, you, and they, but mine, thine, his, hers, its, ours, yours, and theirs, he calls the possessive cases, because they may be used without names.

80. My opinon is, that those forms of the fornames which W. Hill calls the possessive cases, are of the same character, and serve precisely the same purpose, in language, as those which he calls the descriptive forms, and, consequently, allowing their functions to be

the same, I hesitate not to affirm, that they ought to be classed under the same head-describing words.

81. For, if this is the reason for Hill's distinction, one half of those which he considers fornames, admit a name to follow them. His and its may always be succeeded by a name, as " its beauty," "its ugliness," "his simplicity," "his oratory." Mine and thine may have a name after them beginning with a vowel, as, "Mine eyes,' ""thine enemies." It is a fact, that every one of them is the representative of the possessive describing form of a name, just in the same manner as those which he calls the describing forms. For instance, "Men's understanding is frail." Now, if I use his describing form of the forname they, instead of men's, I must say, "Their understanding is frail," but if I use his possessive case of the same forname, I must leave out, or rather remove, understanding, and say, "Theirs is frail understanding.". Yet after all, it is evident that theirs, as well as their, represents the describing word men's.

82. You perceive that frail MAY be used without a name, and that the nature of our language is such, that it is quite optional with us whether we give the name understanding after the first word in our example, or after the last. Why is not frail, then, a forname? The stanchest reformer in existence has never dared to call it other than a describing word. My real, and I believe correct, conviction is, that, when we wish to leave out the name immediately after W. Hill's descriptive form, the s, forming his possessive case of the forname, as in the example of their and

The

theirs, is merely added to indicate the omission. My and thy are spelled mine and thine for the same purpose. Many other describing words undergo a similar change when the name is omitted. common describing word has merely an s added in such cases. We often say, "These names are plurals," for "These are plural names," and so on with others. The word others, by the bye, is a striking instances, is annexed to other to avoid a repetition of names, as, "And so on with other names," and yet grammarians agree in calling other and others of the same part of speech. Who and which W. Hill calls describing words, and yet he says, who will never admit a name after it, but which always will. Where's his consistency? As he calls my, thy, her, our, your, and their, the describing forms of the fornames to which they respectively belong, because they require a name immediately after them, and mine, thine, his, hers, its, ours, yours, and theirs, the possessive cases of their respective fornames, because they do not require a name to follow immediately after them, why does he not, for the same reasons, call who a forname, and which a describing word? He says that though who does not admit a name after it, it is clearly understood, and maintains, that it belongs to the same class of words as which. So say I, with respect to his describing forms and his possessive cases-when the name is not inserted, it is clearly understood.

83. You know, a principle is good for nothing that shrinks on application. W. Hill is, in accordance with

his own express doctrines, necessitated either to rob he and it of their possessive cases or their describing forms. Having but this alternative, his own avowal of principles leads him either to choose Scylla or Charybdis. He says, as I have before told you, that his possessive cases may be used without a name. So far we can accompany him with security. But suppose that we prefer saying, "Give me that hat: it is his hat," to leaving off at his, what then? Why W. Hill must allow that his is negatived as a forname and stands in the capacity of a describing word. Thus W. Hill's violation of sense and custom stands upon no other prop, than that we might have used his without the name, and yet, because we choose rather to insert hat than omit it, W. Hill has no chance whatever to free him from calling his a describer.

84. I do not offer this chapter as a mere speculation. I see in it something more auspicious and tangible than in the old doctrines, and I am quite satisfied, that all systems opposed to it must, if tested, be found to be big with inconsistencies, upon which the most strenuous efforts of scholastic impertinents might be lavished in vain to reconcile.

85. The classification of these possessive cases and describing forms is varied by almost every writer, and although they have often been set apart, yet the good sense of a few authors has properly given them the same classification. Regardless of this diversity, I fearlessly urge that these inflections of the fornames are all, legitimately, describing words.