The Greek language has no case corresponding to the ablative. The use of the genitive is in that language ex tended in such a manner as to include it. The Greek :2;e ;lithe seems to have a greater similat ity to the Latin ab lative than to the Latin genitive, as the ablative is the leapt dependent of the two, and possesses the most general ap plication. In Latin it is in some instances governed by a noun ; a circumstance which we have not before mention ed, as it takes place only in particular phrases, as vir egre gici sapientid, or egregi,e eapientix. The Greek geni tive is governed by prepositions like the Latin ablative ; and the noun in the absolute state, which in Latin is put in the ablative, is in Greek in the genitive. In this latter language therefore we are left to infer from the connection, whether the meaning of the genitive case or one of those applications which in Latin are assigned to the ablative is attached to it in each particular instance. The only meaning proper to it is the general one of concomitance ; and it may be either a concomitance with an object expressed by a noun, or, like the ablative, it may be concomitance with an idea expressed by an adjective, a preposition, or a verb.
In the French and English languages, the noun is sub jected to very few variations corresponding to cases. We have the genitive in s with an apostrophe, which is some times called the possessive case. In the pronouns " " thou," " he," and their plurals, we have one variation, consisting in a case equivalent to the Latin accusative, and technically called the objective case; as " me," "thee," and " him." It is by means of this form, preceded by the prepositions " of" and " to," that the genitive and dative in Latin are translated ; and by different other prepositions suited to each occasion, we express a variety of relations which in Latin are indiscriminately, and with less particu lar meaning, expressed by the ablative. In the French language, the nouns je and tic have in like manner moi and toi for their objective cases. Mot in that language is even used where the nominative would be used in English, as c'est 77/0i, for " it is I." Hence some have described moi as a complete noun, being a nominative as well as an ob jective form. In the use of the English language, persons who have not been taught to adhere rigorously to gram matical rules, sometimes say " it is me," instead of " it is I." It is probable that this was orignally a legitimate use of the word, and that the establishment of a contrary rule has proceeded from a forced application of a Latin idiom. Even moi in French is not used as a nominative to a verb. The French do not say moi park, or moi fais. It is only that sort of nominative which follows the substantive verb. (We do not here speak of that subsequence in mere ar rangement which indicates interrogation, and depends on inversion, in which the nominative always follows the verb, as in suis je; and we do not think that any attentive read er would have taken such an exception against our views, though we had not stated this circumstance. Those who
would have been so disposed may object to several others which the limits of this article do not allow us to defend against every slight exception. We here speak of that form of the noun which follows a substantive verb, after that verb has been introduced by its proper nominative.) This application of the noun after the substantive verb is peculiar, and might with as great propriety have a pe culiar form assigned to it as those which are expressed by cases. It has not an appropriate form, because it is of less frequent recurrence. In Latin, it is put in the nomina tive. In French it is put in the objective case, being treated as a state of the noun introduced (or governed) by the substantive verb. In English we now adopt the Latin idiom. But, while our language was unfixed, it certainly would have been equally natural to have followed a simi lar usage to that of the French.
Of 4djectives.
Tnr, impropriety of considering adjectives as intended to express our ideas of qualities, in contradistinction to our ideas of substances, has been already pointed out. The only objects known to us are qualities, and therefore this distinction has no foundation in nature. Qualities habi tually conjoined, and forming definite assemblages, com prehend the whole of our concrete ideas, called ideas of substances. We have words to represent these assem blages, and words to represent single qualities. But this does not constitute the distinction betwixt substantives and adjectives. Both kinds of ideas are indiscriminately ex pressed by these two parts of speech. The adjective, like the substantive or noun, is the name of an object. The circumstance which constitutes its peculiarity is, that it also contains an intimation of the subordination of the idea expressed by it to idea expressed by a noun in the same sentence. It has in fact the same application with the genitive case of the noun. Sometimes these two parts of speech may be shown to be synonymous. The words " Peter's," " Solomon's," " Cicero's," are by sonic called genitive cases, by others adjectives of possession. The words " Aristotelian" and " Ciceronian" are reckoned ad jectives by all, and also such words as 66 Roman" and Grecian." All of these equally contain the name of a person or country, with an intimation that it is to be con nected with some other idea expressed by a noun in the sentence. We shall soon see the similarity of use betwixt these adjectives and such as discover less composition in their structure. We shall also see the cause of their ap parent difference.