OBS. 24.—­A participle construed after the nominative or the objective case, is not in general equivalent to a verbal noun governing the possessive.  There is sometimes a nice distinction to be observed in the application of these two constructions.  For the leading word in sense, should not be made the adjunct in construction.  The following sentences exhibit a disregard to this principle, and are both inaccurate:  “He felt his strength’s declining.”—­“He was sensible of his strength declining.”  In the former sentence, the noun strength should be in the objective case, governed by felt; and in the latter, it should rather be in the possessive, governed by declining.  Thus:  “He felt his strength declining;” i.e., “felt it decline.”—­“He was sensible of his strength’s declining;” i.e., “of its decline.”  These two sentences state the same fact, but, in construction, they are very different; nor does it appear, that where there is no difference of meaning, the two constructions are properly interchangeable.  This point has already been briefly noticed in Obs. 12th and 13th on Rule 4th.  But the false and discordant instructions which our grammarians deliver respecting possessives before participles; their strange neglect of this plain principle of reason, that the leading word in sense ought to be made the leading or governing word in the construction; and the difficulties which they and other writers are continually falling into, by talking their choice between two errors, in stead of avoiding both:  these, as well as their suggestions of sameness or difference of import between the participle and the participial noun, require some farther extension of my observations in this place.

OBS. 25.—­Upon the classification of words, as parts of speech, distinguished according to their natures and uses, depends the whole scheme of grammatical science.  And it is plain, that a bad distribution, or a confounding of such things as ought to be separated, must necessarily be attended with inconveniences to the student, for which no skill or learning in the expounder of such a system can ever compensate.  The absurdity of supposing with Horne Tooke, that the same word can never be used so differently as to belong to different parts of speech, I have already alluded to more than once.  The absolute necessity of classing words, not according to their derivation merely, but rather according to their sense and construction, is too evident to require any proof.  Yet, different as are the natures and the uses of verbs, participles, and nouns, it is no uncommon thing to find these three parts of speech confounded together; and that too to a very great extent, and by some of our very best grammarians, without even an attempt on their part to distinguish them.  For instances of this glaring fault and perplexing inconsistency, the reader may turn to the books of W. Allen and T.