skill of Caesar,’ or Caesar’s skill.’”—­English Parser, p. 38.  “When the apostrophic s is used, the genitive is the former of the two substantives; as, ‘John’s house:’  but when the particle of is used, it is the latter; as, ’The house of John.’”—­Ib., p. 46.  The work here quoted is adapted to two different grammars; namely, Murray’s and Allen’s.  These the author doubtless conceived to be the best English grammars extant.  And it is not a little remarkable, that both of these authors, as well as many others, teach in such a faulty manner, that their intentions upon this point may be matter of dispute.  “When Murray, Allen, and others, say, ’we make use of the particle of to express the relation of the genitive,’ the ambiguity of their assertion leaves it in doubt whether or not they considered the substantive which is preceded by of and an other substantive, as in the genitive case.”—­Nixon’s English Parser, p. 38.  Resolving this doubt according to his own fancy, Nixon makes the possessive case of our personal pronouns to be as follows:  “mine or of me, ours or of us; thine or of thee, yours or of you; his or of him, theirs or of them; hers or of her, theirs or of them; its or of it, theirs or of them.”—­English Parser, p. 43.  This doctrine gives us a form of declension that is both complex and deficient.  It is therefore more objectionable than almost any of those which are criticised above.  The arguments and authorities on which the author rests his position, are not thought likely to gain many converts; for which reason, I dismiss the subject, without citing or answering them.

OBS. 19.—­In old books, we sometimes find the word I written for the adverb ay, yes:  as, “To dye, to sleepe; To sleepe, perchance to dreame; I, there’s the rub.”—­Shakspeare, Old Copies.  The British Grammar, printed in 1784, and the Grammar of Murray the schoolmaster, published some years earlier than Lindley Murray’s, say:  “We use I as an Answer, in a familiar, careless, or merry Way; as, ‘I, I, Sir, I, I;’ but to use ay, is accounted rude, especially to our Betters.”  See Brit.  Gram., p. 198.  The age of this rudeness, or incivility, if it ever existed, has long passed away; and the fashion seems to be so changed, that to write or utter I for ay, would now in its turn be “accounted rude”—­the rudeness of ignorance—­a false orthography, or a false pronunciation.  In the word ay, the two sounds of ah-ee are plainly heard; in the sound of I, the same elements are more quickly blended. (See a note at the foot of page 162.) When this sound is suddenly repeated, some writers make a new word of it, which must be called an interjection:  as, “’Pray, answer me a question or two.’ ’Ey, ey, as many as you please, cousin Bridget, an they be not too hard.’”—­Burgh’s Speaker, p. 99. “Ey, ey, ’tis so; she’s out of her head, poor thing.”—­Ib., p. 100.  This is probably a corruption of ay, which is often doubled in the same manner:  thus,