MR. EDITOR,

GRAMMAR-BOOK, Jan. 28, 1851.

Dear Sir, I hardly know what character to assume in attempting to address you. Time was when I was a reality in the good old language to which I belonged. Time was when I was allowed to do my duty in it faithfully; when people were not afraid to write me down and to pronounce me distinctly as an s, is, or es, at the end of the words of which I formed a part. People called me then the possessive case, or something similar to this in meaning, and considered me something more than a mere hiatus,a gap, a catching of the breath, after such words as ox, fox, grass, lass, Stearns, Otis, Barnes, Andrews, &c. Good old Chaucer wrote

"But highe" (a dissyllable, by the way,) "God sometime senden can His grace unto a litel oxes stall."

But how would a great proportion of the modern refiners of language write the possessive of ox? Would they not write it and pronounce it ox'? I do not know that I ever heard the fashionables use this veritable word ox in this way; perhaps the animal never came within the range of their thought; — but I have hovered around many a young lady, while she has talked about going to Mr. Andrews', meaning Mr. Andrews's store, about going over to Mr. Barnes', meaning Mr. Barnes's house, about going in to Mr. Stearns', meaning Mr. Stearns's house; and I have tried to thrust myself into the throats of these pretty ones, so that I might be breathed forth from their lips, as a good, legitimately-recognized, English possessive case. But no: they would not receive me. My place must be supplied by a hiatus, a vacuum, a catching of the breath.

The

In some languages a hiatus between words is sometimes filled up by inserting some sound which adds nothing to the sense, but serves merely to smooth the way from the one to the other. old Greek, for instance, had its digamma; the modern French. has its t. But in such phrases as going in to Mr. Stearns', &c., I, the old fashioned English possessive, having the sound of is or es, am, in the opinion of these modern exquisites, entirely out of my place. I would not, for the world, accuse these ladies of any evil design upon the men in to whom they talk of going. Did they belong to the class of Xanthippe of old, or of the good wife of Rypp Van Winkle of blessed memory, I might suppose that they meant to go into them in good earnest, with broomstick, tongs, and poker. But it is not so. These ladies mean no such thing. It is not against these men of whom they_speak that their vengeance is raised, but against me, the poor English possessive case. Because in a few instances my sound is somewhat

too sharp, and may with propriety be omitted, they seem to have declared against me a war of extermination. Shall I yield the ghost at once, or shall I try yet to live? Whatever may be my fate, I will not die without making a protest against this exterminating war.

This protest I present to the Teachers of Massachusetts. I present it to them because I believe a great portion of them are fighting against me from a mistaken view of the subject before them, and because they have so much power for good or for evil, in regard to the language which they speak and teach.

This war against me arose, I think, from a misapprehension, on the part of teachers, of one of the rules laid down in Murray's English Grammar. The rule itself is well enough; and had teachers observed the rule, they would never have commenced the war which they have been waging against me. But they mistook the exception for the rule; and hence they have gone on banishing me from one class of words after another, till I hardly know whether I have an existence or not. I remember one of my friends, who still recognizes me as a legitimate part of the English language, had a discussion, while he was in college, with a brother student, in regard to the rule referred to, in Murray. My friend's friend had got it into his head that in every instance where a noun ends in s, the apostrophic s should be omitted; and this idea could n't be got out of his head, till Murray's octavo was obtained from the college library; when it appeared that a part of the exception to Murray's rule had stuck in my friend's friend's pate, while the rule itself had made no impression. And, more recently, a teacher of a private school, a teacher of no small pretensions in her profession, a lady belonging to and associating with the aristocracy of the place in which she taught, stated quite positively that all the grammars excluded the apostrophic s, when the noun ended in s.

Now, Mr. Editor, though I have n't much respect for a great proportion of the English grammars with which the community has been flooded for a few years past, still I believe these grammars haven't gone quite so far as that yet. Even the poorest of them have a little more common sense than that. I doubt whether any English grammar can be found, which would require this lady to write and speak the lass' bonnet, instead of the lass's bonnet, or the gas' weight, instead of the gas's weight. People do say, and very properly, gas light, gas pipe, &c.; but here the word gas stands in a very different relation to light and pipe, from what it does to weight. I give these as a few specimens of the manner in which the English grammars are sometimes understood by teachers; and I think I am justified in calling upon them to reexamine the authorities under which they are carrying on against me this war of extermination.

But to be a little bolder in my protest. I feel that I have a right to be recognized and treated respectfully by you and all your co-laborers in the cause of education. I am as much a legitimate part of the English language, as the German possessive in s, is a part of the German language. Indeed, the German and English are cognate languages, and I belong to both in almost the same form. My presence in English is as necessary as it is in German. Indeed, if there is any difference, it is more necessary in English than in German, inasmuch as the English has but one form for its possessive of nouns, while the German has more than one. In this statement I do not take into consideration the circumlocution for the possessive, made by the preposition of. I am speaking of the simple English possessive in s.

Why should a well-educated gentleman or lady say Fuss', rather than Fuss's Antiquities, Rees', rather than Rees's Cyclopædia, Otis', rather than Otis's office, Phinehas', rather than "Phinehas's wife? Which of these forms is in accordance with the fundamental structure of the language? To a person who has duly examined the subject, there can be no question whetever. Take either of these examples. Take Rees. Now Rees, not Ree, is the name of the man whose work is spoken of; and, in order that the speaker may give the hearer distinctly to understand that Dr. Rees, not Ree, published the work, he must do one of two things: either pause a distinctly perceptible time, after saying Rees', so that the hearer shall have time to perceive that the speaker does not mean Ree's; or fill up that pause, — that hiatus, with the regular, legitimate, possessive-case sound, passing directly and easily from one word to the other, leaving to the hearer no possible chance of mistaking the name of the author spoken of. The latter is the only true, English, idiomatic mode of writing and speaking. A truly well-bred and welleducated man will say Rees's Cyclopædia, of course.

But some of your readers may ask, perhaps, what they shall do with such phrases as Otis Place, Phillips Place, Adams House, &c. I answer, let them stand just as they are. The meaning here is not that Otis owns the Place, or that Adams owns the House. Otis and Adams are mere appellatives. Each name is, in fact, a part of a compound proper name. ship were implied, you would say Otis's Place and Adams's

House.

If owner

I not only claim the right of being recognized by the eye and the ear, as I have now explained, but I am happy to tell you that there are some writers, and they of a class from whose judgment and taste in regard to language, it would be hardly safe to make an appeal,-who give me my full due and treat me like gentlemen. I will, at present, mention but one. Ticknor, in his recent History of Spanish Literature, (vol. 2, p. 63,)

speaks of "Cervantes's experience in life." What will the exquisites do, on whose ears the sound of the English possessive 8, grates so harshly? This goes almost beyond the claim which I make for myself. But, after all, I believe Ticknor is right.

There is one class of words about which there may be a difference of opinion in regard to the manner in which they should be written and pronounced, in the possessive case. This class consists of words from foreign languages, and especially of proper names. Take, for instance, the French Bouhours, De Piles, Des Cartes. How shall these, and such as these, be written and pronounced in English, in the possessive case? Dr. Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, says "De Piles' original performance," and "Bouhours" version." This is the mode generally adopted of writing these and similar names. This mode of writing implies the French mode of pronouncing; so that without the apostrophe, the final s of the word is silent, with the apostrophe, the final s is sounded, like the simple English apostrophic 8. De Piles, the s silent: De Piles', in sound, the same as if written De Pile's.

But there is another, and, I think, a better way of writing such phrases; and that is to add the apostrophic 8,- as "De Piles's original," &c. In this way the mere English scholar, who knows nothing about French, would very properly pronounce the word Piles's as an English word, giving to each s its distinct and appropriate sound; while the person who should prefer the French pronunciation, would sound only the added apostrophic s, leaving the other silent as in the original word.

But, Mr. Editor, I must draw to a close. I do really feel very sensitive in regard to the annihilation with which I have been threatened. If the schoolmistresses and schoolmasters are against me, who will be for me? What will soon be the value of my life? It is true that the greatest and most thorough scholars are in my favor; but these men are few and far between. Their books are not generally fitted for childhood and youth. They are rather fitted for and read by a select few of adults. But the Teachers, they are all over the land. They it is who mould the speech as well as the character of the community, with a power almost irresistible. I call upon them through you, to reexamine my claims to a respectable and honorable place in the English language. I believe they mean to do what is right and honorable by me, but that they are prevented from doing it by some unaccountable delusion. Possibly they may awake from their delusion and rescue me from ruin. Possibly they may reinstate me in those gaps which I was intended to fill, and from which I have been so long excluded. Hoping that this may be the case, I subscribe myself very respectfully,

Your Obdt. Servt.

POSSESSIVE CASE.

USE OF TEXT-BOOKS IN SCHOOLS.

THERE is much said at the present day, about the use of text-books in schools. And there are many who would drive them from the school-house altogether, and have oral instruction and inductive reasoning take their place. It is said that ideas are the great desideratum for scholars to acquire, and not words: now we would say that ideas and words are both necessary to be learned.

Perhaps we might discover the origin of this opinion by glancing at the past. There is no doubt that there was a great deficiency in all our public schools fifty years ago. The teachers were men wholly unfit for their station, except, perhaps, in physical ability. There were but very few books used; and those that were used, were not best adapted to the young mind. When men who were thus educated, grew up, and reflected upon the manner in which they had been instructed, they thought they could remedy the defects in the school system by the introduction of more and better books. With the introduction of books, came the demand for teachers who had "book learning;" and for a series of years, the chief thing that was required in the examination of teachers, was a knowledge of books. But experience has shown that this system too is defective. The true Yankee spirit is ever seeking for the practical, and not for pleasure or show. Yet we still believe that books may be used in the present state of things, to great advantage— that they must be used, if we would do the greatest possible amount of good.

If text-books were not used in schools, we should require very different teachers from those that are now employed. In order to be fitted for a teacher, a man would need not merely to have a general understanding of the branches he was to teach; he must be a perfect master of them. The common-school teacher must have, in his own mind, a perfect system of Arithmetic and Grammar and Geography; and he must have them at perfect command. It would be a poor time to stop and study, and philosophize about the best method of unfolding a new principle in Arithmetic to the young mind, when the class were all assembled on the recitation seat, anxiously waiting to catch the words of wisdom as they fell from the lips of their teacher. We have no objection to teachers who are thus qualified; on the contrary we would rejoice to see such teachers, and such alone, employed. But it might be a difficult matter to find a sufficient number of this kind. Moreover, if such teachers only were employed, many of us who are now engaged in teaching, might be left out of business; so that if we wish to continue in our present calling, it would be well for us to let this matter rest.