That form of the Describing Word implying comparison, is the comparitive state. Examples-Taller, less, kinder, larger. That form of the Describing Word implying the highest or lowest comparison, is the superlative state. Examples-Tallest, least, kindest, largest. 99. Er, added to the simple state, generally forms the comparative, and est, the superlative, as low, lower, lowest, But when a disagreeableness of expression would be occasioned by adding these terminations, more and most are employed in their stead, as, simple, astonishing; comparative, more astonishing; superlative, most astonishing. To denote the lower and lowest states, we add less and least, as, wise, less wise, least wise, except when there is a distinct form of spelling for the purpose, as in the word little. Simple, little; comparative, less; superlative, least. 100. Describers from names of substance admit no comparison, as, "an iron pan" cannot be more or less iron; "a steel pen cannot be more or less steel; and many others not from substances, such as perfect, extreme, universal, cannot be more or less so. When, however, more than common strength is necessary, they are sometimes construed as a double superlative. God is said to be the " most perfect." PART II. 101. In the preceding Part your attention was directed to the several classes of words composing language. It is more particularly the design of the present part to explain what, in grammar, is commonly denominated the Possessive Case, under the respective heads of Possessive Describing Words, Possessive Case of Names, and Possessive Case of Fornames, which will embrace also the Fornames her, their, and your, accompanied by the apostrophic s, whose origin will likewise be glanced at. This part will also embrace an examination of the compounded Fornames himself, themselves, &c., together with the articles a, an, and the, which will introduce an investigation into the nature of the four classes of Adjective Pronouns, to be succeeded by an inquiry into the properties and functions of the words who, which, what, and that. THE POSSESSIVE CASES OF NAMES AND FORNAMES. 102. The first head, then, to be considered, is Possessive Describing Words, embracing the Possessive Case of Names, and the Possessive Case of Fornames. 103. A Name or Forname, it is said, is in the Possessive Case when it describes possession, as, John's shoes-his shoes. Men's clothes-their clothes. The words John's, his, men's, and their, are called the possessive cases of the words out of which they arise. 104. The possessive case of the name differs from the acting or the receiving case only by the addition of the apostrophic s, but the possessive case of the forname differs variously-mine is called the possessive case of I; thine the possessive of thou; his the possessive of he; hers the possessive of she; its the possessive of it; theirs the possessive of they; ours the possessive of we; and yours the possessive of you.* 105. A recent writer 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 speak or think 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 itsay 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 *These Describers have been called the possessive cases of the names and fornames from which they spring, for the same reason that the author calls them Describing Words, because they describe possession. It is generally laid down, that a plural name, ending in s. or a singular one, ending in ss, should only have an apostrophe added, for the sake of sound, as, "On eagles' wings;" "For righteousness' sake." It is preferable, however, when any disagreeableness to the ear would be occasioned by the 's, that the phraseology should be altered, for the sake of sound We can, generally, like the French always do, use of to denote possession, as, "On the wings of eagles," instead of "On eagles' wings; ""For the sake of righteousness," instead of "For righteousness sake." The "Lords 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, as due attention to the sense will show. 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." 106. The same writer, who says and proves that names have not a possessive case, yet teaches that fornames have one. 107. 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. 108. Those forms of the fornames, however, which he calls the possessive cases, are of the same character, and serve precisely the same purpose, in language, with those he calls the descriptive forms, and, consequently, allowing their functions to be the same, they ought to be classed under the same head-describing words. For, if this is the reason for his 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 simpilcity," "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 we use his describing form of the forname they, instead of men's, we must say, "Their understanding is frail," but if we employ his possessive case of the same forname, we 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. 109. You perceive that frail MAY be used without a name, and 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? When we wish to leave out the name immediately after the descriptive form of the writer before quoted, the s, forming his possessive case of the forname, as in the example of their and theirs, is merely added to indicate the omission. My and thy are spelled mine and thine for the same purpose, and many other describing words undergo a similar change when the name is omitted. The 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. This word others, as it here occurs, is a striking instance-s is annexed to other to avoid a repetition of names, as, "And so on with other names," and yet grammarians aquiesce in calling other and others of the same part of speech. Who and which, the same writer calls describing words, and yet he says, who will never admit a name after it, but which always will. Here rests the inconsistency and non-feasibility of the system he propounds. 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, ard 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 it may be said with respect to his describing forms and his possessive cases-when the name is not inserted, it is clearly understood. 110. A principle is good for nothing that shrinks on application. He is, in accordance with his own express doctrines, necessitated either to rob he and it of their possessive cases or their describing forms. Thus, his own avowal of principles leaves him fairly open to the application of the well-known saying,-" Incidis in Scyllam, cupiens vitare Charybdim." He says, as before remarked, 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? Why he must then allow that his becomes negatived as a forname, and stands in the capacity of a describing word. 111. Thus his violation of sense and custom rests |