repeats his note elsewhere, with the following illustrations:  “E. g. Olmstead’s and Comstock’s Philosophies. Gould’s Adam’s Latin Grammar.”—­Ib., p. 106.  The latter example is no better suited to his text, than “Peter’s wife’s mother;” and the former is fit only to mean, “Olmstead’s Philosophies and Comstock’s Philosophies.”  To speak of the two books only, say,” Olmstead’s Philosophy and Comstock’s.”

OBS. 24.—­The possessive sign is sometimes annexed to that part of a compound name, which is, of itself, in the objective case; as, “At his father-in-law’s residence.”  Here, “At the residence of his father-in-law,” would be quite as agreeable; and, as for the plural, one would hardly think of saying, “Men’s wedding parties are usually held at their fathers-in-law’s houses.”  When the compound is formed with of, to prevent a repetition of this particle, the possessive sign is sometimes added as above; and yet the hyphen is not commonly inserted in the phrase, as I think it ought to be.  Examples:  “The duke of Bridgewater’s canal;”—­“The bishop of Landaff’s excellent book;”—­“The Lord mayor of London’s authority;”—­“The captain of the guard’s house.”—­Murray’s Gram., p. 176.  “The Bishop of Cambray’s writings on eloquence.”—­Blair’s Rhet., p. 345.  “The bard of Lomond’s lay is done.”—­Queen’s Wake, p. 99.  “For the kingdom of God’s sake.”—­Luke, xviii, 29.  “Of the children of Israel’s half.”—­Numbers, xxxi, 30.  From these examples it would seem, that the possessive sign has a less intimate alliance with the possessive case, than with the governing noun; or, at any rate, a dependence less close than that of the objective noun which here assumes it.  And since the two nouns here so intimately joined by of, cannot be explained separately as forming two cases, but must be parsed together as one name governed in the usual way, I should either adopt some other phraseology, or write the compound terms with hyphens, thus:  “The Duke-of-Bridgewater’s canal;”—­“The Bishop-of-Landaff’s excellent book;”—­“The Bard-of-Lomond’s lay is done.”  But there is commonly some better mode of correcting such phrases.  With deference to Murray and others, “The King of Great Britain’s prerogative,” [349] is but an untoward way of saying, “The prerogative of the British King;” and, “The Lord mayor of London’s authority,” may quite as well be written, “The authority of London’s Lord Mayor.”  Blair, who for brevity robs the Archbishop of half his title, might as well have said, “Fenelon’s writings on eloquence.” “Propter regnum Dei,” might have been rendered, “For the kingdom of God;”—­“For the sake of the kingdom of God;”—­or, “For the sake of God’s kingdom.”  And in lieu of the other text, we might say, “Of the Israelites’ half.”