The Vocative case, or that which is used in naming the person addressed, comes next in order, not merely from its frequent coincidence in form with the nominative, but from its being probably of earlier origin in the proper names of persons than any other form of the noun. It is peculiar to nouns which designate persons, because it ap plies only to beings capable of hearing what is said. In these, however, it seems to be prior in the order of nature to the nominative. The Latin vocative, wherever it dif fers from the nominative, inclines to greater brevity. Vir gillus was addressed Virgili, Minutius, Minuti, Dominus, "Janine, and Filius, Fili. In this characteristic the voca tive case of the noun resembles the imperative of the verb. Being the earliest use of the word, it is its shortest form.
When we enter on the consideration of the Genitive, Accusative, and Dative cases, especially the two last, it is found difficult to assign to each an invariable meaning, however general. In particular phrases their uses are steady ; but no principle strictly universal seems to regu late their application. The most comprehensive that we can adopt is found liable to exceptions. The most likely way to discover their original meaning is, to observe the prevailing application of each, and also to enquire if there is any circumstance of application, however limited, which is peculiar to one. It is thus also thdt we shall be most likely to trace the species of idiom which has given origin to such exceptions as occur. Some have proceeded in a contrary direction. They have first attached to the par ticular case a plausible general meaning, and then exerted their ingenuity, to show that this meaning would be found applicable to instances which at first appeared most dis tant from it. But these modes of explanation might easily be applied to account for any possible substitution of one case for another, and therefore are erroneously considered as illustrations of a principle, while they are exceptions to a rule.
It has been common to consider the different cases as intended to express different sorts of ideas, or different relations existing betwixt the objects named. On mature reflection, we find it more conformable to the general aspect of the facts, to consider them as referring rather to the different parts of speech with which the noun is con nected, and the different degrees of importance which are assigned to the idea in the present use; of language. These circumstances may sometimes arise out of permanent rela tions ; but this does not uniformly take place, and there fore the cases do not depend on them. This opinion de rives presumptive evidence from the illustrations already given of the nominative and the vocative.
Our attention will be chiefly directed to cases as exem plified in the Latin and English languages. The Greek eases follow different rules, a comparison of which with those of the Latin language might suggest some interest ing conjectures respecting their original uses ; but they would lead us into details too extensive for the limits of this article. The Latin language, when it borrowed its cases from the Greek, deviated from the parent language in the extent which it assigned to carp. A different con ception seems to have been attached to the use of mem. This appears in a particular manner from the addition which they have given of an ablative case, which does rot depend on a subdivision of one of the others, but is in some of its uses substituted for the genitive, i.i others fot the d.. tive of the Greeks.
The variations and exceptions to general rules w hich are so often practised in the use of the cases diminish their importance in the doctrines of universal grammar. Such distinctions as they imply might have been in most in stances dispensed with. The discussion of them partakes more of the character of an inquiry into the conjectural history of particular dialects, than of an investigation of the radical principles of language ; and the length to which that discussion sometimes extends is clue rather to the difficulty than to the importance of the subject.
The Genitive case, though sometimes governed by a verb, as by the verbs Jzotiri, fungi, 712fillillieSe, and angi, sometimes by an adjective, such as simitis, appears to have been originally applied in the Latin language to signify a relation betwixt the idea expressed by a noun and that contained in SCMC other noun in the same sentence. The English preposition of corresponds so exactly to it, that any observations made on the one are equally applicable to the other. Attempts have been made, both by means of etymological derivations and explanations of existing phrases, to represent the word of as signifying some spe cific relation, as, for example, possession or origin. These attempts, however, have failed. We find it expressing every sort of relation that can exist betwixt the ideas con tained in two nouns. This circumstance implies no am biguity. It arises from the mere generality of the sign. When it is too general for expressing our meaning, we add some more specific ideas. In the article GRAIN' MA It of the Encycloptedia Britannica, it is justly observed that injuria regis may mean either " an injury inflicted by the king," or " an injury received by the king." The speci fic idea intended to be conveyed, must either be infer red from the connection, or pointed out by some additional sign.