being ourselves.”—­Butler’s Analogy, p. 150.  “In consequence of this revelation being made.”—­Ib., p. 162.  If such relations between the participle and the objective be disapproved, the substitution of the possessive case is liable to still stronger objections; but both may be avoided, by the use of the nominative or otherwise:  thus, “Scarcely is any one ever chosen for a pattern.”—­ “Its authenticity, in stead of being shaken, has been rendered more sure than ever.”—­“When there is no longer a possibility that a proper candidate will be nominated by either party.”—­“As soon as the first stone was thrown, there was returned a fire of musketry.”—­“To raise a cry, as if an innocent person had been circumvented by bribery.”—­ “Whose principles forbid them to take part in the administration of the government.”—­“It can have no other ground than some such imagination, as that our gross bodies are ourselves.”—­“In consequence of this revelation which is made.”

OBS. 33.—­A recent grammarian quotes Dr. Crombie thus:  “Some late writers have discarded a phraseology which appears unobjectionable, and substituted one that seems less correct; and instead of saying, ’Lady Macbeth’s walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror,’ would say, ‘Lady Macbeth walking in her sleep is an incident full of tragic horror.’  This seems to me an idle affectation of the Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode of expression, and less consonant with the genius of our language; for, ask what was an incident full of tragic horror, and, according to this phraseology, the answer must be, Lady Macbeth; whereas the meaning is, not that Lady Macbeth, but her walking in her sleep, is an incident full of tragic horror.  This phraseology also, in many instances, conveys not the intended idea; for, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, ‘What think you of my horse’s running to-day?’ it is implied that the horse did actually run.  If it is said, ’What think you of my horse running to-day?’ it is intended to ask whether it be proper for my horse to run to-day.  This distinction, though frequently neglected, deserves attention; for it is obvious that ambiguity may arise from using the latter only of these phraseologies to express both meanings.”—­ Maunder’s Compendious Eng.  Gram., p. 15. (See Crombie’s Treatise, p. 288-290.) To this, before any comment is offered, let me add an other quotation:  “RULE. A noun before the present participle is put in the possessive case; as, Much will depend on the pupil’s composing frequently.  Sometimes, however, the sense forbids it to be put in the possessive case; thus, What do you think of my horse running to-day? means, Do you think I should let him run? but, What do you think of my horse’s running? means, he has run, do you think he ran well?”—­ Lennie’s Gram., p. 91; Brace’s Gram., 94.  See Bullions’s Gram., p. 107; Hiley’s, 94; Murray’s, 8vo. 195:  Ingersoll’s, 201:  and many others.