absurd.  Secondly, a compound noun formed of two or three words without any hyphen, is at best such an anomaly, as we ought rather to avoid than to prefer.  If these considerations do not positively condemn the former construction, they ought at least to prevent it from displacing the latter; and seldom is either to be preferred to the regular noun, which we can limit by the article or the possessive at pleasure:  as, “Much depends on an observance of the rule.”—­“Much depends on their observance of the rule.”  Now these two sentences are equivalent to the two former, but not to each other; and, vice versa:  that is, the two former are equivalent to these, but not to each other.[347]

OBS. 9.—­From Dr. Campbell’s commendation of Lowth, as having “given some excellent directions for preserving a proper distinction between the noun and the gerund,”—­that is, between the participial noun and the participle,—­it is fair to infer that he meant to preserve it himself; and yet, in the argument above mentioned, he appears to have carelessly framed one ambiguous or very erroneous sentence, from which, as I imagine, his views of this matter have been misconceived, and by which Murray and all his modifiers have been furnished with an example wherewith to confound this distinction, and also to contradict themselves.  The sentence is this:  “Much will depend on your pupil’s composing, but more on his reading frequently.”—­Philos. of Rhet., p. 235.  Volumes innumerable have gone abroad, into our schools and elsewhere, which pronounce this sentence to be “correct and proper.”  But after all, what does it mean?  Does the adverb “frequently” qualify the verb “will depend” expressed in the sentence? or “will depend” understood after more? or both? or neither?  Or does this adverb qualify the action of “reading?” or the action of “composing?” or both? or neither?  But composing and reading, if they are mere nouns, cannot properly be qualified by any adverb; and, if they are called participles, the question recurs respecting the possessives.  Besides, composing, as a participle, is commonly transitive; nor is it very fit for a noun, without some adjunct.  And, when participles become nouns, their government (it is said) falls upon of, and their adverbs are usually converted into adjectives; as, “Much will depend on your pupil’s composing of themes; but more, on his frequent reading.”  This may not be the author’s meaning, for the example was originally composed as a mere mock sentence, or by way of “experiment;” and one may doubt whether its meaning was ever at all thought of by the philosopher.  But, to make it a respectable example, some correction there must be; for, surely, no man can have any clear idea to communicate, which he cannot better express, than by imitating this loose phraseology.  It is scarcely more correct, than to say, “Much will depend on an author’s using, but more on his learning frequently.”  Yet is it commended as a model, either entire or in part, by Murray, Ingersoll, Fisk, R. C. Smith, Cooper, Lennie, Hiley, Bullions, C. Adams, A. H. Weld, and I know not how many other school critics.