[334] “I will not take upon me to say, whether we have any Grammar that sufficiently instructs us by rule and example; but I am sure we have none, that in the manner here attempted, teaches us what is right, by showing what is wrong; though this perhaps may prove the more useful and effectual method of Instruction.”—­Lowth’s Gram., Pref., p. viii.

[335] With the possessive case and its governing noun, we use but one article; and sometimes it seems questionable, to which of the two that article properly relates:  as, “This is one of the Hebrews’ children.”—­Exodus, ii, 6.  The sentence is plainly equivalent to the following, which has two articles:  “This is one of the children of the Hebrews.”  Not because the one article is equivalent to the two, or because it relates to both of the nouns; but because the possessive relation itself makes one of the nouns sufficiently definite.  Now, if we change the latter construction back into the former, it is the noun children that drops its article; it is therefore the other to which the remaining article relates.  But we sometimes find examples in which the same analogy does not hold.  Thus, “a summer’s day” means, “a day of summer;” and we should hardly pronounce it equivalent to “the day of a summer.”  So the questionable phrase, “a three days’ journey,” means, “a journey of three days;” and, whether the construction be right or wrong, the article a cannot be said to relate to the plural noun.  Possibly such a phrase as, “the three years’ war,” might mean, “the war of three years;” so that the article must relate to the latter noun.  But in general it is the latter noun that is rendered definite by the possessive relation:  thus the phrase, “man’s works” is equivalent to “the works of man,” not to “works of the man;” so, “the man’s works,” is equivalent, not to “the works of man,” but to “the works of the man.”

[336] Horne Tooke says, “The use of A after the word MANY is a corruption for of; and has no connection whatever with the article A, i. e. one.”—­Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 324.  With this conjecture of the learned etymologist, I do not concur:  it is hardly worth while to state here, what may he urged pro and con.

[337] “Nothing can be more certain than that [in Greek syntax] all words used for the purpose of definition, either stand between the article and the noun, or have their own article prefixed.  Yet it may sometimes happen that an apposition [with an article] is parenthetically inserted instead of being affixed.”—­J.  W. DONALDSON:  Journal of Philology, No. 2, p. 223.