790
s equivalence of meaning for sameness of case, have asserted that all our possessives have a double form. Thus Nixon: "When the particle of comes between two substantives signifying different things, it is not to be considered a preposition, but _the sign of the substantive's being in the possessive case_, equally as if the apostrophic s had been affixed to it; as, 'The skill _of Cæsar_,' or _Cæsar's_ skill.'"--English Parser, p. 38. "When the apostrophic s is used, the genitive is the former of the two substantives; as, '_John's_ house:' but when the particle of is used, it is the latter; as, 'The house of John.'"--_Ib._, p. 46. The work here quoted is adapted to two different grammars; namely, Murray's and Allen's. These the author doubtless conceived to be the best English grammars extant. And it is not a little remarkable, that both of these authors, as well as many others, teach in such a faulty manner, that their intentions upon this point may be matter of dispute. "When Murray, Allen, and others, say, 'we make use of the particle of to express the relation of the genitive,' the ambiguity of their assertion leaves it in doubt whether or not they considered the substantive which is preceded by of and an other substantive, as in the genitive case."--_Nixon's English Parser_, p. 38. Resolving this doubt according to his own fancy, Nixon makes the possessive case of our personal pronouns to be as follows: "mine or _of me, ours_ or _of us; thine_ or _of thee, yours_ or _of you; his_ or _of him, theirs_ or _of them; hers_ or _of her, theirs_ or _of them; its_ or _of it, theirs_ or of them."--English Parser, p. 43. This doctrine gives us a form of declension that is both complex and deficient. It is therefore more objectionable than almost any of those which are criticised above. The arguments and authorities on which the author rests his position, are not thought likely to gain many con