$f men,” Aa, 
7 ir, but. i haghir. 
eh eet the genitive 
case is sometimes expressed by the termination s with 
a he, as in the first line of Paradise Lost, « Of 
man's first disobedience, and the ae It is on 
a some grammarians an improvement in nomenclature 
ren this form of the noun an adjective of ion 
derived from the noun. This distinction makes no dif- 
ference of doctrine. That mode of describing it seems to 
havebeen inconsciously suggested by the circumstance of 
_ its being, like the adjective in lish, placed before the 
noun to which it a on ut nothing more than 
~ the meaning of any genitive is signified by the adjective 
noun 
‘he English s has, with to its etymology, been 
oiioes er some as <p este for his. But this 
_ (or the equivalent syllable is) is evidently an original 
in our , at least independent of such words 
as his;-and the latter is evidently derived from the pro- 
noun fe by having this sign attached to it. 
The genitive case is sometimes expressed in English, 
as itis in Hebrew, by the mere juxtaposition of the 
nouns, with this difference, that the governed is placed 
before the governing noun ; as in “ cart wheel,” “corn 
field,” “ garden wall.” Some of these phrases are of more 
frequent recurrence than others. Sometimes the two 
words thus conjoined have, both in spelling and pro- 
nunciation, been run er into one, as in “ time- 
piece,” “statesman,” “footman.” Others of them are fre- 
uently connected in writing by a hyphen, to denote that 
y are scarcely to be considered as one word, yet not 
 somuch separated as two words generally are. In other 
instances, they are kept as distinct in a sentence as any 
other words. The meaning is not affected by this va- 
riety, and is so clearly expressed by simple juxtaposi- 
tion in this order as never to admit of ambiguity. Here 
we have one fact by the consideration of which any 
inordinate predilection for the individuality of words 
may be reduced within just bounds. 
he chief ultimate barges for which the genitive 
case is employed is, to add a particular circumstance 
for completin;s the description of an individual, or of a 
species of objects, already characterised by a term which 
is in itself too general for the “Man” is a 
general word. ‘A man of genius,’’ “ a country man,” 
are instances in which the genitive is used to point out 
a relationship for designating a limited species contain- 
- ed in the genus “ Man.” ‘This may be done when an 
individual, or a species, is introduced ag the subject of 
discourse; as, for example, “ A man of genius differs 
from other persons in his feelings and habits ;” or it 
may be introduced into the predicate of a sentence, and 
form a part of some new assertion, as, “ Bacon was a 
man of genius,” 
‘ ae. other cases are distinguished from ys genitive, 
oting an annexation to some of s dif- 
tm from the noun. weit — 
The Accusative and Dative have by some been con- 
sidered as very nearly alike. By others some dif- 
ferences have been stated betwixt them depending on 
differences in the objects, motions, or relations repre- 
sented by the governing word. . Attempts of this last 
sort have proceeded on principles which served to ex- 
plain a limited set of phrases, while they were totally 
_ _ Inadequate to explain others, ; 
® Accu- «The most obvious circumstance which distinguishes 
» the Accusative case in Latin from the genitive is, that it 
— PEGE Sees wee 
- + ‘ 
om GRAMMAR. 
itself, as will appear when we come to treat of it. . 
411 
is governed not by nouns, but by active verbs and Universal 
certain prepositions. It is by attending to the different Grammar. 
occasions on which itis em ed, and tracing the pro- 
perties which uniformly aoe to it, that we shall make 
the most convenient approaches to an explanation of its 
use, 
, Sometimes it represents an object to which some ac- 
tion or motion passes, or in which it terminates, as 
Hac studia adolescentiam alunt, senectutem oblectant. This 
character, however, has been ascribed to the accusative 
in phrases in which it will not apply. - When the verb [°° Pt 
“to love” governs the noun signifying the object of pif) ihe = 
that affection in the accusative, it expresses no transi- ception of 
tion of an act. The person who is loved may be igno- energy. 
rant of this passion, and totally unaffected by it. When 
we speak of “ loving all mankind,” we do not speak of 
any action which terminates in that extensive range of 
objects... This remark applies to all transitive verbs 
expressing emotions of mind that have a reference to 
external objects, as “to hate,” “to dread,” “to re- 
spect,” * to esteem.” These affections may be pro- 
ductive of acts by which the objects of them are afs 
fected ; but such acts are not implied in the affections 
themselves. They are excited by the objects na- 
med in the accusative, but they terminate in the in- 
dividual mentioned in the nominative. To represent 
them as terminating in the beings called their objects, 
is a mere fiction: it applies only to the range of ideas 
of the individual mentioned, not to the actual relative 
energies of the different objects. ‘Some other verbs 
governing the accusative are expressive of quiescent 
ualities, which do not affect any object different from 
that to which they belong. Yet these qualities impl 
a reference to other objects, and the mention of this 
reference is absolutely necessary. These other ob- 
jects are put in the accusative case. Such are the verbs 
“resemble” in English, and similare, or simulare, and 
referre, when used in that sense in Latin. . Here, as no 
transition of any act or motion from one object to ano- 
ther takes place, the accusative cannot be considered in 
any respect as expressing such a transition. It will give 
but little satisfaction to say in reply, that, though no- 
thing of this kind exists, yet it is figured in the speak- 
er’s mind, and that even in such a proposition as this, 
“a benevolent man loves the whole human race,” we 
imagine a benignant emanation proceeding from the 
benevolent man to influence the whole species. This 
is an evasion of the argument. It) is-in like man- 
ner an evasion, rather than an explanation, to say 
that a person who asserts that one man ‘‘ resem~- 
bles” another, seems to consider such a man as in- 
fluencing the state and relations of the other. This 
is an unconscious acknowledgment that the conceptions 
of the speaker, or the transitions of his thoughts, and 
the transitions which he studies to produce in those of 
the hearer, are the foundation of the use of the accusa- 
tive case. This is the view which we considey as 
on all occasions the true one. Such mental transi« 
tions have a certain degree of rapidity which corre- 
nds more closely with the idea of an action termina~- 
ting in an object named, than with the greater part 
of our associated ideas, On this account the regimen 
7 4 . The use of 
of the accusative case is more frequently applied to): 
signify these than any other trains of thought. roe! = de- 
When the accusative is governed by -prepositions, pend on the 
these prepositions prepare us for a transition equally hind of idea 
rapid with that of the active transitive verb. In order — 
to shew that this regimen,does not depend on the idea xfer ge 
expressed by the governing word, we shall take this op~ word. 
