OBS. 38.--It is clear, that the participle in ing partakes sometimes the nature of its verb and an adjective; so that it relates to a noun, like an adjective, and yet implies time, and, if transitive, governs an object, like a verb: as, "Horses running a race." Hence, by dropping what here distinguishes it as a participle, the word may become an adjective, and stand before its noun; as, "A running brook." So, too, this participle sometimes partakes the nature of its verb and a noun; so that it may be governed by a preposition, like a noun, though in itself it has no cases or numbers, but is indeclinable: as "In running a race." Hence, again, by dropping what distinguishes it as a participle, it may become a noun; as, "Running is a safer sport than wrestling." Now, if to a participle we prefix something which makes it an adjective, we also take away its regimen, by inserting a preposition; as, "A doctrine undeserving of praise,"--"A man uncompromising in his principles." So, if we put before it an article, an adjective, or a possessive, and thus give to the participle a substantive character or relation, there is reason to think, that we ought, in like manner, to take away its regimen, and its adverb too, if it have any, and be careful also to distinguish this noun from the participial adjective; as, "The running of a race,"--"No racing of horses,"--"Your deserving of praise."--"A man's compromising of his principles." With respect to the articles, or any adjectives, it seems now to be generally conceded, that these are signs of substantives; and that, if added to participles, they must cause them to be taken, in all respects, substantively. But with respect to possessives before participles, the common practice of our writers very extensively indulges the mixed construction of which I have said so much, and concerning the propriety of which, the opinions of our grammarians are so various, so confused, and so self-contradictory.
OBS. 39.--Though the participle with a nominative or an objective before it, is not in general, equivalent to the verbal noun or the mixed participle with a possessive before it; and though the significations of the two phrases are often so widely different as to make it palpably absurd to put either for the other; yet the instances are not few in which it makes little or no difference to the sense, which of the two forms we prefer, and therefore, in these instances, I would certainly choose the more simple and regular construction; or, where a better than either can readily be found, reject both. It is also proper to have some regard to the structure of other languages, and to the analogy of General Grammar. If there be "some late writers" who are chargeable with "an idle affectation of the Latin idiom," there are perhaps more who as idly affect what they suppose "consonant with the genius of our language." I allude to those who would prefer the possessive case in a text like the following: "Wherefore is this noise of the city being in an uproar?"'--1 Kings, i, 41. "Quid sibi vult clamor civitatis tumultuantis?"--Vulgate. "[Greek: Gis hæ phonæ tæs poleos æchousæs];"--Septuagint. Literally: "What [means] the clamour of the city resounding?" "Que veut dire ce bruit de la ville qui est ainsi émue?"--French Bible. Literally: "What means this noise of the city which is so moved?" Better English: "What means this noise with which the city rings?" In the following example, there is a seeming imitation of the foregoing Latin or Greek construction; but it may well be doubted whether it would be any improvement to put the word "disciples" in the possessive case; nor is it easy to find a third form which would be better than these: "Their difficulties will not be increased by the intended disciples having ever resided in a Christian country."--West's Letters, p. 119.
OBS. 40.--It may be observed of these different relations between participles and other words, that nouns are much more apt to be put in the nominative or the objective case, than are pronouns. For example: "There is no more of moral principle in the way of abolitionists nominating their own candidates, than in that of their voting for those nominated by others."--GERRIT SMITH: Liberator, Vol. X, p. 17. Indeed, a pronoun of the nominative or the objective case is hardly ever used in such a relation, unless it be so obviously the leading word in sense, as to preclude all question about the construction.[423] And this fact seems to make it the more doubtful, whether
