ON CASE.

There is no term made use of in the language of grammar, on the meaning and application of which so much frivolous discussion has been raised. The cause, one cause at least, of this may be the difference between the meanings attached to it by different writers on grammar, and even by the same writers, at different times. The two leading ideas implied in the word "Case," are, relationship, and change of termination. Now it is evident that, in the former sense, we should have an endless and very inconvenient number of cases in every language. "He gave a book to a boy." Here the word "boy" is placed by the preposition to in a certain relationship to the word book, consequently boy is in a certain case. "He took the book from the boy." Here it is clear that the same word, boy, is placed in a different kind of relationship, and consequently should be said to be in a different case; and so instances may be multiplied without number, in which the same word would be placed in different relationships, and would be consequently in different cases; in fact, it has long been proved that, if the idea of difference of relationship in a noun were allowed to constitute "Case," we should have as many cases as there are prepositions in a language. This difficulty-absurdity it cannot be called, (it being probable, after all, that the true theory of Case involves the question of relationship)—this difficulty has been so strongly felt as to compel grammarians generally to limit the meaning of the word "Case," and to lay it down as a law, that where there is no change of termination in a noun, there is no "case." Hence it would follow that in the English noun there would be but two cases; as, for instance, father, father's. In the expressions, however, "I saw your father," and "Your father came home," the word father is evidently placed in a different relationship to the other words in the sentences, and thus it would be absurd to say that father in both, though identical in form, is in the same case. Here, again, is a difficulty in the way of accepting that de

finition of Case which regards change of form alone as essential to the constitution of Case.

In examining the expressions

"Your Father came home,"

"Your Father's name is John,"

"I saw your Father,"

we find that the word father, is differently related in each to the other words with which it is connected; or that there is conveyed a difference of idea by the mention of the word father in each of the sentences in which it occurs. We find moreover, upon examination of a great variety of sentences, that the position of the word father in each of these sentences, and the general idea conveyed thereby, correspond exactly, or very nearly so, with that position which it occupies, and that idea which it conveys, in every sentence in which it can by possibility be placed; hence it is laid down. that in the English noun there are three cases, and thus the difference is amicably settled between the belligerents on "Case," each giving up something to the other; neither relationship nor difference of termination, but a kind of amalgamation of both, being allowed to enter into the definition of this much, though needlessly, distracted word.

The three Cases are, Nominative, Possessive, Objective. The word Nominative from Nomen, a name, does but badly convey an idea of what the Nominative Case in language really is. In the expressions, "The rain falls," and "I see the rain falling," the word rain is a name in the same sense, for the same thing, though rain in each is in a different case; hence we are driven from the mere name, and obliged to find our idea of nominative, applied as a name to a certain case of the noun, in the functions of the nominative case in those positions wherein it is found. These being examined, it is laid down that a noun is said to be in the nominative case, when it is a name for the subject of conversation, or when it is a name for any person or thing concerning which any assertion is made; in other words, a noun is in the nominative case, when a name for anything which is said to exist, to act, or receive an action. Thus, in the sentences, "God is Ruler," "The sun shines," "The nation is exalted;" the words God, sun, nation, are

each in the nominative case; and so are all nouns which, like them, stand in sentences as the subjects of affirmations.

The possessive case denotes possession, by the person or thing for whom or which the noun in the possessive case is a name, of that with which it is immediately connected. Thus, in the expression, "The Queen's subjects," the word Queen's is in the possessive case, being a name for the individual who is described as in the possession of that which is expressed by the noun with which it stands connected. This possession is frequently expressed by the equivalent prepositional form "Of the Queen," in which the position of the words as regards priority of order becomes inverted; i. e., "The Queen's subjects" becomes "The subjects of the Queen." This case and its equivalent prepositional form are called the complement of the word which they explain, being necessary to complete (compleo to fill up) the sense; the word "Subjects," and words similarly placed, evidently conveying by themselves no perfect sense.

NOTE. The possessive case and the prepositional form of expression are not always identical in meaning. In the sentences, "This is the Queen's picture," and "This is a picture of the Queen;" the former means a picture, it may be of any person, in the possession of the Queen; the latter, a picture, i. e., likeness of the Queen, possessed no matter by whom.

the

The objective case is that case in which a noun is said to be when it stands as a name for the recipient of an action; or a name for an individual or thing, between whom or which, and something else a relationship is expressed through the instrumentality of a preposition. In the sentences: "John struck his brother," "My hand is under the table," brother, table, are in the objective case; former being the name for the individual who is represented as receiving the act expressed by the word struck, and the latter being the name for that thing between which and some other thing (hand in this case) a relationship is expressed by the aid of the preposition under. The inflection in case of the English noun is very simple. The following specimen of a noun, regular and irregular, will illustrate such inflection in all the varieties which can possibly occur.

Observation 1.-The nominative and objective being identical in form, the analysis of a sentence, by which we obtain a knowledge of the position of each word therein, is the only safe guide in determining whether a noun is in one case or the other. In the sentences:

1. "Porsenna defeated the Romans,"

2. "The Romans supplicated Porsenna,"

3. "The Romans were defeated by Porsenna,"

the words Romans and Porsenna, though unchanged in form, are in the nominative or objective, according to the connection wherein they are placed. In No. 1, Porsenna is in the nominative, as being the name of the individual of whom the assertion is made by the word defeated; and Romans is in the objective, as being the name for the individuals represented as the recipients of, i. e., affected by the act expressed by the verb defeated. In No. 2, for similar reasons, the same words change cases, Romans being in the nominative, and Porsenna in the objective; whilst in No. 3, Porsenna is in the objective, because it stands related to the Romans by the intervention of the preposition by.

"A noun," says Latham, "is said to be in the nominative case when it can by itself constitute a term. The words he and father are nominative cases, since one can say, 'He is speaking,' 'Father is coming,' 'This is he,' 'This is father.' - A noun is said to be in the accusative case" (this is equivalent to objective) "when, taken along with a verb, it and the verb together can form a logical term. The sun (subject) is (copula) warming

52

him (predicate). Here the words warming him form, by themselves, a term; him, therefore, is in the objective case." Observation 2.-The nominative and objective singular in all nouns are alike in form. So the nominative and objective plural. The possessive singular is formed from the nominative by adding 's, with a dot or stop like a comma before it, as here; this stop is called the apostrophe. The possessive plural is formed differently in different cases; the possessive plural of men is men's, with the apostrophe before the s, as in the singular; whilst the possessive plural of ladies is ladie's, the apostrophe being in this case also before the s; the possessive plural of houses, boys, &c., having, on the contrary, the apostrophe after the s. From an observation of what takes place, it may be laid down generally, that when the possessive singular and plural coincide in form, as in the case of the latter-named words, the apostrophe is placed differently-in the singular, before thes in the plural, after it; and this evidently for the purpose of distinction; when they do not coincide in form, as in the case of the words, man, lady; then the apostrophe is placed similarly, such distinction being then unnecessary.

Observation 3.-In the case of nouns ending in s-as righteousness, Cassius, the apostrophe alone without the & indicates the possessive. Thus, " For righteousness' sake," "Cassius' honour was dear to him;" in which righteousness', Cassius', are each in the possessive, being the complements of the nouns with which they are respectively

connected.

Observation 4.-The formation of the possessive in 's is said by some grammarians to result from the contraction of the word his into this form, i. e., the expression-father his becoming father's. "The expression in our Liturgy," says Latham, "in opposition to this theory, 'For Jesus Christ his sake,' which is merely a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea, however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest, errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake of contradiction to it :

"1. The expression, The Queen's Majesty, is not capable · of being reduced to The Queen his Majesty.