f 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 hae
phonae taes poleos aechousaes_];"--_Septuagint_. Literally: "What [_means_] the
clamour of the _city resounding_?" "Que veut dire ce bruit de la ville qui
est ainsi emue?"--_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 it be proper to use nouns in that
manner. But it may safely be held, that if the noun can well be considered
the leading word in sense, we are at least under no _necessity_ of
subjecting it to the government of a mere participle. If it be thought
desirable to vary the