being or action, but for what would otherwise be the object of the gerund, or of the participle, as may be seen above. The objection to the participle as governing the possessive, is, that it retains its object or its adverb; for when it does not, it becomes fairly a noun, and the objection is removed. R. Johnson, like many others, erroneously thinks it a noun, even when it governs an objective, and has merely a preposition before it; as, "For the sake of seeing them. Where seeing (says he) is a Substantive."--Gram. Com., p. 353.
OBS. 43.--If the Latin gerund were made to govern the genitive of the agent, and allowed at the same time to retain its government as a gerund, it would then correspond in every thing but declension, to the English participle when made to govern both the possessive case and the objective. But I have before observed that no such analogy appears. The following example has been quoted by Seyer, as a proof that the gerund may govern the genitive of the agent: "Cujus autem in dicendo aliquid reprehensum est--Cic."--Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 236. That is, (as I understand it,) "But in whose speaking something is reprehended." This seems to me a case in point; though Crombie and Grant will not allow it to be so. But a single example is not sufficient. If the doctrine is true, there must be others. In this solitary instance, it would be easier to doubt the accuracy even of Cicero, than to approve the notion of these two critics, that cujus is here governed by aliquid, and not by the gerund. "Here," says Grant, "I am inclined to concur in opinion with Dr. Crombie, whose words I take the liberty to use, 'That, for the sake of euphony, the gerund is sometimes found governing the genitive of the patient, or subject [say object] of the action, is unquestionable: thus, studio videndi patrum vestrorum. [That is, literally, By a desire of seeing of your fathers.] But I recollect no example, where the gerund is joined with a possessive adjective, or genitive of a noun substantive, where the person is not the patient, but the agent; as, dicendum meum, ejus dicendum, cujus dicendum. [That is, my speaking, his speaking, whose speaking.] In truth, these phraseologies appear to me, not only repugnant to the idiom of the language, but also unfavourable to precision and perspicuity.'"--Grant's Latin Gram., 8vo, p. 236.
OBS. 44.--Of that particular distinction between the participle and the participial noun, which depends on the insertion or omission of the article and the preposition of, a recent grammarian of considerable merit adopts the following views: "This double nature of the participle has led to much irregularity in its use. Thus we find, 'indulging which,' 'indulging of which,' 'the indulging which,' and 'the indulging of which,' used indiscriminately. Lowth very properly instructs us, either to use both the article and the preposition with the participle; as, 'the indulging of which:' or to reject both; as, 'indulging which:' thus keeping the verbal and substantive forms distinct. But he is wrong, as Dr. Crombie justly remarks, in considering these two modes of expression as perfectly similar. Suppose I am told, 'Bloomfield spoke warmly of the pleasure he had in hearing Fawcet:' I understand at once, that the eloquence of Fawcet gave Bloomfield great pleasure. But were it said, 'Bloomfield spoke warmly of the pleasure he had in the hearing of Fawcet:' I should be led to conclude merely that the orator was within hearing, when the poet spoke of the pleasure he felt from something, about which I have no information. Accordingly Dr. Crombie suggests as a general rule, conducive at least to perspicuity, and perhaps to elegance; that, when the noun connected with the participle is active, or doing something, the article should be inserted before the participle, and the preposition after it; and, when the noun is passive, or represents the object of an action, both the article and the preposition should be omitted:[425] agreeably to the examples just adduced. It is true, that when the noun following the participle denotes something incapable of the action the participle expresses, no mistake can arise from using either form: as, 'The middle condition seems to be the most advantageously situate for the gaining of wisdom. Poverty turns our thoughts too much upon the supplying of our wants; and riches, upon enjoying our superfluities.' Addison, Spect., 464. Yet I cannot think it by any means a commendable practice, thus to jumble together different forms; and indeed it is certainly better, as the two modes of expression have different significations, to confine each to its distinct and proper use, agreeably to Dr. Crombie's rule, even when no mistake could arise from interchanging them."--Churchill's Gram., p. 319.
OBS. 45.--The two modes of expression which these grammarians would thus apply constantly to different uses, on the supposition that they have always different significations, are the same that Lindley Murray and his copyists suppose to be generally equivalent, and concerning which it is merely admitted by the latter, that they do "not in every instance convey the same meaning." (See Obs. 27th above.) If Dr. Lowth considered them "as perfectly similar," he was undoubtedly very wrong in this matter: though not more so than these gentlemen, who resolve to interpret them as being perfectly and constantly dissimilar. Dr. Adam says, "There are, both in Latin and [in] English, substantives derived from the verb, which so much resemble the Gerund in their signification, that frequently they may be substituted in its place. They are generally used, however, in a more undetermined sense than the Gerund, and in English, have the article always[426] prefixed to them. Thus, with the gerund, Detector legendo Ciceronem, I am delighted with reading Cicero. But with the substantive, Delector lectione Ciceronis, I am delighted with the reading of Cicero."--Lat. and Eng. Gram., p. 142. "Gerunds are so called because they, as it were, signify the thing in gerendo, (anciently written gerundo,) in doing; and, along with the
