NOTE X.—­In the use of participles and of verbal nouns, the leading word in sense should always be made the leading or governing word in the construction; and where there is reason to doubt whether the possessive case or some other ought to come before the participle, it is better to reject both, and vary the expression.  Examples:  “Any person may easily convince himself of the truth of this, by listening to foreigners conversing in a language [which] he does not understand.”—­Churchill’s Gram., p. 361.  “It is a relic of the ancient style abounding with negatives.”—­Ib., p. 367.  These forms are right; though the latter might be varied, by the insertion of “which abounds” for “abounding.”  But the celebrated examples before cited, about the “lady holding up her train,” or the “lady’s holding up her train,”—­the “person dismissing his servant,” or the “person’s dismissing his servant,”—­the “horse running to-day,” or the “horse’s running to-day,”—­and many others which some grammarians suppose to be interchangeable, are equally bad in both forms.

NOTE XI.—­Participles, in general, however construed, should have a clear reference to the proper subject of the being, action, or passion.  The following sentence is therefore faulty:  “By establishing good laws, our peace is secured.”—­Russell’s Gram., p. 88; Folker’s, p. 27.  Peace not being the establisher of the laws, these authors should have said, “By establishing good laws, we secure our peace.” “There will be no danger of spoiling their faces, or of gaining converts.”—­Murray’s Key, ii, p. 201.  This sentence is to me utterly unintelligible.  If the context were known, there might possibly be some sense in saying, “They will be in no danger of spoiling their faces,” &c.  “The law is annulled, in the very act of its being made.”—­O.  B. Peirce’s Gram., p. 267.  “The act of MAKING a law,” is a phrase intelligible; but, “the act of its BEING MADE,” is a downright solecism—­a positive absurdity.

NOTE XII.—­A needless or indiscriminate use of participles for nouns, or of nouns for participles, is inelegant, if not improper, and ought therefore to be avoided.  Examples:  “Of denotes possession or belonging.”—­ Murray’s Gram., Vol. i, p. 118; Ingersoll’s, 71.  “The preposition of, frequently implies possession, property, or belonging to.”—­Cooper’s Pl. and Pr.  Gram., p. 137.  Say, “Of frequently denotes possession, or the relation of property.”  “England perceives the folly of the denying of such concessions.”—­Nixon’s Parser, p. 149.  Expunge the and the last of, that denying may stand as a participle.