whom every English grammarian owes a tribute of reverence, calls this modification of the noun an adjective possessive; I think with no more propriety than he might have applied the same to the genitive in equitum decus, Trojae oris, or any other Latin genitive.  Dr. Lowth, on the other part, supposes the possessive pronouns mine and thine to be genitive cases.

This termination of the noun seems to constitute a real genitive indicating possession.  It is derived to us from the Saxon’s who declined smith, a smith; Gen. smither, of a smith; Plur. smither or smithar, smiths; and so in two other of their seven declensions.

It is a further confirmation of this opinion, that in the old poets both the genitive and plural were longer by a syllable than the original word:  knitis for knight’s, in Chaucer; leavis for leaves, in Spenser.

    When a word ends in s, the genitive may be the same with the
    nominative, as Venus temple.

The plural is formed by adding s, as table, tables; fly, flies; sister, sisters; wood, woods; or es where s could not otherwise be sounded, as after ch, s, sh, x, z; after c sounded like s, and g like j; the mute e is vocal before s, as lance, lances; outrage, outrages.

    The formation of the plural and genitive singular is the same.

    A few words still make the plural in n, as men, women, oxen, swine, and
    more anciently eyen, shoon.  This formation is that which generally
    prevails in the Teutonick dialects.

Words that end in f commonly form their plural by ves, as loaf, loaves; calf, calves.

    Except a few, muff, muffs; chief, chiefs.  So hoof, roof, proof, relief,
    mischief, puff, cuff, dwarf, handkerchief, grief.

    Irregular plurals are teeth from tooth, lice from louse, mice from
    mouse, geese from goose, feet from foot, dice from die, pence from
    penny, brethren from brother, children from child.

Plurals ending in s have no genitives; but we say, Womens excellencies, and Weigh the mens wits against the ladies hairs.

Dr. Willis thinks the Lords’ house may he said for the house of Lords; but such phrases are not now in use; and surely an English ear rebels against them.  They would commonly produce a troublesome ambiguity, as the Lord’s house may be the house of Lords, or the house of a Lord.  Besides that the mark of elision is improper, for in the Lords’ house nothing is cut off.

Some English substantives, like those of many other languages, change their termination as they express different sexes; as prince, princess; actor, actress; lion, lioness; hero, heroine.  To these mentioned by Dr. Lowth may be added arbitress, poetess, chauntress, duchess, tigress, governess, tutress, peeress, authoress, traytress, and perhaps othets.  Of these variable terminations we have only a sufficient number to make us feel