410 
Universal that we shall be most likely to trace thespecies of idiom 
Grammar. which has given origin to such exceptions as occur. Some 
have proceeded ina contrary direction. They have first 
attached to the particular case a plausible general mean- 
ing, and then exerted their ingenuity to show that this 
meaning would be found applicable to instances which 
at first appeared most distant from it. But these modes 
of explanation might easily be applied to account for 
any possible substitution of one case for another, and 
therefore are erroneously considered as illustrations of a 
principle, while they are exceptions toa rule. ‘ 
It has been common to consider the different cases as 
intended to express different sorts of ideas, or different 
relations existing betwixt the objects named. On ma- 
ture reflection, we find it more conformable to the gene- 
ral aspect of the facts, toconsider them asreferring rather 
to the different parts of speech with which the noun is 
connected, and the different degrees of importance which 
are assigned to the idea in the present use of language. 
These circumstances may sometimes arise out of perma- 
nent relations ; but this does not uniformly take place, 
and therefore the cases do not depend on them. This 
opinion derives presumptive evidence from the illus- 
trations already given of the nominative and the voca- 
tive. 
Our attention will be chiefly directed to cases as ex- 
emplified in the Latin and English languages. The 
Greek cases follow different rules, a comparison of 
which with those of the Latin language might suggest 
some interesting conjectures respecting their original 
uses ; but they would lead us into details too exten- 
sive for the limits of this article. The Latin language, 
when it borrowed its cases from the Greek, deviated 
from the parent language in the extent which it assign- 
ed to each. A different conception seems to have 
been attached to the use of them. This appears in a 
particular manner from the addition which they have 
given of an ablative case, which does not depend on a 
subdivision of one of the others, but is in some of its 
uses substituted for the genitive, in others for the da- 
tive of the Greeks, 
The variations and exceptions to general rules which 
are so often practised in the use of the cases dimi- 
nish their importance in the doctrines of universal 
grammar. Such distinctions as they imply might have 
been in most instances dispensed with. The discus- 
sion of them partakes more of the charaeter of an in- 
quity into the conjectural history of particular dia- 
lects than of an investigation of the radical princi- 
ples of language ; and the length to which that discus- 
sion sometimes extends is due rather to the difficulty 
than to the importance of the subject. 
The Genitive case, though sometimes governed by a 
verb, as by the verbs potiri, fungi, meminisse, and angi, 
sometimes by an adjective, such as similis, appears to 
have been originally applied in the Latin language to 
signify a relation betwixt the idea expressed by a noun 
and that contained in some other noun in the same sen- 
tence. The English preposition ¢f corresponds so ex- 
actly to it, that any observations made on the one are 
equally applicable to the other. Attempts have been 
made, both by means of etymological derivations ‘and 
explanations of existing phrases, to represent the word 
of as signifying some specific relation, as, for exam 
le, possession or origin. These attempts, however, 
ave failed. We find it expressing every sort of rela- 
tion that can exist betwixt the ideas contained in two 
nouns, This circumstance implies no ambiguity. It 
wT from the mere generality of the sign. When it 
General re- 
marks on 
the oblique 
cases, 
The Geni- 
tive 
not expres. 
sive of spe~ 
cific rela- 4 
tions, 
GRAMMAR. 
is too general for expressing our meaning, we add some Uni 
more specific ideas. In the article Grammar of the 
Encyclopedia Britannica, it is justly observed that in- “ 
juria regis may mean either “an-injury inflicted by the _ 
king,” or “an injury received by the king.” The speci- 
fic idea intended to be conveyed, must either be infer= 
red from the connection, or pointed out by some ad= 
ditional sign. : beanies xe . 
The genitive case though thus > an eee a 
by dobar to have in the Greek: language derived froni aa 
this circumstance its technical name wreis yzvien, Ought its w 
not perhaps to be considered as more than the the o 
others. It is distinguished from them by the circum- 
stance of being employed to show that the word put — 
in this case is subordinate to a noun. Nothing more — 
than a general relation betwixt the two ideas is - a 
sed ; but the connection thus established rrp we Iti 
ticular in its adaptation to the purposes of discourse. the s 
The ideas thus connected could not exchange places, nor dina 
are they of equal ey in the sentence, as of an 
would beif conjoined by means of the word “and.” «The in 
man of virtue” and * the virtue of the man” do not 
mean the same thing. The ideas expressed by the words 
man and virtue are indeed connected in both of these . 
phrases ; but when we say “aman of virtue,” itis inti- 
mated that something further is said of “the man.” ~ 
When we say “ the virtue of the man,’ it is intimated 
that the subject on which we en is “ the virtue.’ 
Both of these are different from 4 connection formed 
betwixt two nouns by the word “ and ;” which inti- 
mates that they are on equal terms in the assertions 
which are made. , r 
Such instances as we mentioned of the genitive be- Fixe 
ing put after verbs and adjectives are so rare that they and 
may be considered as exceptions in which a stretch is lies 
made to give these governing words the power of nouns 
in the use of language. Every word resembles a noun 
in containing the name of an object oridea. It is only — 
in relative importance in the syntax of sentences that 
nouns differ from other parts of speech. 
Exceptions of a different kind are also found. Nouns 
are in some instances annexed to other nouns by marks 
different from those which form the genitive; e.g. 
homo a secretis,a Latin phrase for a “ secretary ;” and in 
English we have the “« father-1n-law,” “cou 
sin By the mother’s . er" ae last seis fe seating te 
employed without the use of the verb 1s preceding it, 
witch ited a different turn to the whole phraseology, 
and has the power of introducing a greater variety of 
words than can be annexed solely to thenoun. Such 
exceptions as we have now. mentioned are equally 
rare with the former; a circumstance whieh shews 
the nature of the genitive case to be almost pecu- 
liar. 
In the Hebrew language, of one noun 
after another is often the only sign of the genitive. 
Jein signifies wine, Helbon is the proper name of a 
mountain, and Jein Helbon is the expression for ** wine 
of Helbon.” Sometimes it is expressed in a manner 
which must appear remarkable to those who are not 
acquainted with any analogous language. The change 
indicating this mode of annexation is made on the go~ 
verning noun, which is then technically said to be in its 
constructed state, while the noun in the genitive case un- . 
dergoes no chan signifies word, and Elohim 
lang’ 
Dabar si 
God ; but there is no separate word for of, nor is any 
change made on Elohim, to make it equivalent to “ of 
God.” Débar is put in its construeted state by being. 
changed into debar, which signifies word of. Debax 
