G R A M M A R. 



Jbmctimes preceded by tlie ■interjection O ! But we have 

 not yet done : the nomiimlive and nccufative are cxprefl'ed 

 by pylition ; while the oblique cafes, the genitive, ablative, 

 aud'datiye depend on words exprefling beginning, medium, 

 and end... Let iis a little contemplate the confequence of 

 tliefe.w;ords, or \yprds of the fame import, when firtl intro- 

 duced into difeourfe. As the i-clations of things are in the 

 •rdec of our ideas confcqiatU upon the things fo related, pK- 

 pqiltions denoting thofc relations mull at urft have fuccecdcd 

 the lioujis. which they now precede and govern. Tluis in the 

 abftve inllanccs, the order would have been Cod of- — dcnth by — 

 hapfinefsfar. And it is r/?markablc, that in the liindooflanic 

 the prs^pofitions to this day generally fucceed the dependent 

 nouns, inilead of going before them, as in oilier tongues. 

 The confeqiience of this was, that tlie prepofitions, abbrevi- 

 ated perhaps into fmgle letters, coalefced with the prccedmg 

 *,)iin, forming thereby one word with it. Thus godof, godhy, 

 go.lfor ; ;md the>,variety of terminations given by this means 

 to the noun is the origin of cafes. Modern tongues, in re- 

 je_iling this variety, and fiibltitutiug prepofitions, have only 

 reeurred to the original purity of language. 



Grainmarians have generally concurred in defining cafes to 

 he changes of termination. In this, if the above account be 

 jull, they are mi(laken,not only hecauic pofi/ion is the prima- 

 ry and effential idea of a cafe ; but becaule while, they reject 

 pcepoiitions as marks of cafes, the cafes defined by them are 

 no other than the prepofitions whieh they reject. Conform- 

 ably to this notion, they maintain that the Englifli noun has 

 no other than the potfefTive cafe: and Dr. Lowth and Mr. 

 Liindley . Murray, purfuing the faine error to its coiife- 

 <Iuences,.comprchend nouns expreffing the relation of efledl, 

 tiie relation of beginning, the relation of mediimi, and the 

 relation of end, under one unmeaning phrafe of olji^'ive cafe, 

 thus confounding, relations the moll neceffary to tiie purpofes 

 of fpeech, the moll dillinft in themfelvcs, and moft reqiiifite 

 to be kept dhlinft in tlie mind. 



The ideas of the moll acute and learned grammarians 

 have hitherto been confufed and contradictory on the lubjedl 

 of cafes, efpecially the oblique cales. And the author of 

 the treatife in the Encyclop. Britannica has jull left the 

 matter obfcure and uncertain, as he found it. " Tiic genitive, 

 fays he, is the moll general of all the cafcp, and gives notice 

 that fome conncdlion indeed fubfifls between two objedls, 

 but docs not point out the particular kind of connecilion. 

 That we nuiil infer, not from the nature or termination of the 

 genitive itlelf, but from our previous knowledge of the 

 objecls connetttd. That the geniiive denotes merely rela- 

 tion in general, might be proved by adducing innumerable 

 examples, in which the relations expreffed by this cafe are 

 different." TJiefe obfervations clearly Pnew that this writer 

 did not himfelf unde; ftand the meaning of the genitive cafe, 

 \thich, inftead of expreffing fom: connexion between two 

 objects, 01 -itKTc n-laticn in general, uniformly eNpreffes one 

 and the fame relation, namely, that oibt'g}r.n'n:g,fo'.jru', and ori- 

 gin ; and of, the mark of it, has uniformly the lane ieirfe with 

 from. Thus a table of wood, a table from wood ; wood 

 being the origin of the table, Rays o/" the fon, myi from 

 the lun, tlie lun b^ing the origin of the rays. And beginrihig 

 will appear to be .the primary idea implied in of, if we trace 

 it to i:s origin ; of, ah, a.-',, "2;^, ab, parait, ft:r,i, root. Thiis 

 nifo in LaimZ)«^ra//«,ti,e grace of God, the ffrace from God, 

 the grace -of which God is the folircc. Of the phrafe injuria 

 regis the writar.fays, no man can know whctlicr rlie injury 

 liieirtioncd be an injury fuffi-rsd, or an iniiiry inflitlnd by "the 

 king. We deny this ; .it tue terms be ulcd in Uriel propriety 

 thev muft. mean an injury from the king, an injury of which 

 ii»e king ic the iourte luid author ; and, if they are intended 



to denote an injury received by I'.im, the expreffion 13 in-' 

 correct and ambiguous, though the ambiguity would be 

 removed by the context : and this leads me to remark, that 

 as the beginning of a thing is the author of it ; and as thi- 

 author has a full right to the fruits of his labours, io that' 

 ft^ate of the noun which expreffcs beginning came to fignify 

 tlie O'U.'ner ox poffejfor. And thus the genitive in Greek and 

 Latin exprclTcs the relation of poffefTion, and anfwers to what- 

 is called in Englifii the pojfjpve cafe. Thus, niy father's 

 luill may mean the will of which my father is owner ; it 

 means alfo the will which originated in my father. The 

 pofieflive cafe, in our tongue, is an evident abbreviation oft! e 

 genitive termination of the third declcnfion in Latin, father '! 

 hoife, father's houfe, the apollrophe above fupplying th(.' 

 place of the excluded vowel. 



The fame writer has not defined tlie meaning of the dati-J.'y 

 though the relation denoted by it is the moll obvious of any,, 

 contenting himfelf with faying, that it has nearly the fame 

 fenfe with the accufative, 19. No two relations, howeyeiv 

 can be more dillinft ; as the acculative exprefies the elFcA 

 of an aftion, and therefore Hands immediately conneftcd 

 with that aftion ; whereas the dative denotes the end to 

 which a motion or adlion tends, and in which it terminates, 

 or the point to which the attention is directed forward, as 

 that to v.'hich foniethhig elfe is related. Thus, in tiie in- 

 (lance given by him, comparo VirgiHiim Homero. 1"he imme- 

 diate objeft ot comparifon is Virgil, and Hom-:r is the point,, 

 or flandai-d placed before me in making that comparifon. 

 The two hrll words exprefs the aftion and its efrcdl, the 

 hifl. holds to view the point to which they are diredled. ,'It 

 is true that in this and iimilar inllances, the mind brings 

 under one view the perfon compared and the perfon to whom 

 the comparifon is made ; and this proximity or juxtapofitioa 

 conllitutes the affinity which the writer trroncoufiy fuppofes 

 to be between the two cafes. Antonius heftt Ciceronem, and 

 Antonius nociiit Cieeroni, he farther fuppofes to be exprelTions 

 of the fame import ; but in this he has been niifled by the 

 geniu.i of our tongue, which would exprefs each phrafe by 

 Antony hurt Cicero. But this is the exaft meaning of tlie 

 iirll claui'c only. In the fccond claufe nccuit exprefies not' 

 an ailion, but afierts a quality. Antony was hurtful to 

 Cicero. Antonv washurtful, and Cicero was a perfon to 

 whom his hurtful behaviour was dircdttd. 



The dative cafe Hands oppofed to the genitive as end to< 

 beginning The latter is the point where motion begins, the- 

 former where it terminates, and the ablative is the n.edium or- 

 inftrnment between both. In confequence of this connec- 

 tion between the ablative and the geniiive, on one hand, it 

 came in Latin, by the mere impulfe of repeated afiociations,. 

 to mean in many inllances the fame relation with the geni- 

 tive, and this is the reafon why the lame word- often governs 

 a genitive or an ablative, why in our -Cwn tongue of and 

 from have precifely the fame fignification, and why the 

 French and Italian exprefs the genitive by thofc prepofitions 

 yhicii in Latin govern the ablative. On the other hand, as 

 the inllrnmcnt or medium is connefted with the end, the 

 ablative holds a fimilar connefiion with the dative. Hence 

 in Latin thefe two' cafes are often uftd one for the other,, 

 which is certainly a great iniprc.priety in that language,, and 

 which occafions much perplexity to the learner ; while in 

 Greek, which has not a dillindl ablative, the relittions of 

 inilrumcntahty' and end are cxprefftd by the fame termina- 

 tion, which is certainly a great defcft iir that elegatit and 

 copious language. Inlirnmentaiity 'wwyiiKi concotnitaccf ; but 

 this is not the primary fenfe of ihe-ablative, as the. author .of 

 the above treatife erroiicouily fuppofes, , ' . 



. . The 



