OBS. 25.—­“Little explanatory circumstances,” says Priestley, “are particularly awkward between the genitive case, and the word which usually follows it; as, ’She began to extol the farmer’s, as she called him, excellent understanding.’  Harriet Watson, Vol. i, p. 27.”—­Priestley’s Gram., p 174.  Murray assumes this remark, and adds respecting the example, “It ought to be, ’the excellent understanding of the farmer, as she called him.’ “—­Murray’s Gram., p. 175.  Intersertions of this kind are as uncommon as they are uncouth.  Murray, it seems, found none for his Exercises, but made up a couple to suit his purpose.  The following might have answered as well for an other:  “Monsieur D’acier observes, that Zeno’s (the Founder of the Sect,) opinion was Fair and Defensible in these Points.”—­Colliers Antoninus, p. ii.

OBS. 26.—­It is so usual a practice in our language, to put the possessive sign always and only where the two terms of the possessive relation meet, that this ending is liable to be added to any adjunct which can be taken as a part of the former noun or name; as, (1.) “The court-martial’s violent proceedings.”  Here the plural would be courts-martial; but the possessive sign must be at the end. (2.) “In Henry the Eighth’s time.”—­Walker’s Key, Introd., p. 11.  This phrase can be justified only by supposing the adjective a part of the name.  Better, “In the time of Henry the Eighth.” (3.) “And strengthened with a year or two’s age.”—­Locke, on Education, p. 6.  Here two’s is put for two years; and, I think, improperly; because the sign is such as suits the former noun, and not the plural.  Better, “And strengthened with a year’s age or more.”  The word two however is declinable as a noun, and possibly it may be so taken in Locke’s phrase. (4.) “This rule is often infringed, by the case absolute’s not being properly distinguished from certain forms of expression apparently similar to it.”—­Murray’s Gram., p. 155; Fisk’s, 113; Ingersoll’s, 210.  Here the possessive sign, being appended to a distinct adjective, and followed by nothing that can be called a noun, is employed as absurdly as it well can be.  Say, “This rule is often infringed by an improper use of the nominative absolute;” for this is precisely what these authors mean. (5.) “The participle is distinguished from the adjective by the former’s expressing the idea of time, and the latter’s denoting only a quality”—­Murray’s Gram., p. 65; Fisk’s, 82; Ingersoll’s, 45; Emmons’s, 64; Alger’s, 28.  This is liable to nearly the same objections.  Say, “The participle differs from an adjective by expressing the idea of time, whereas the adjective denotes only a quality.” (6.) “The relatives that and as differ from who and which in the former’s not being immediately joined to the governing word.”—­Nixon’s Parser, p. 140.  This is still worse, because former’s, which is like a singular noun, has here a plural meaning; namely, “in the former terms’ not being,” &c.  Say—­“in that the former never follow the governing word.”