possessed;” but, in my judgement, a change still greater might not be amiss.  “The possessive is often governed by a participial clause; as, much will depend on the pupil’s composing frequently. Pupil’s is governed by the clause, ‘composing frequently.’  NOTE.—­The sign (’s) should be annexed to the word governed by the participial clause following it.”—­Weld’s Gram., 2d Edition, p. 150.  Again:  “The possessive is often governed by a participial noun; as, Much will depend on the pupil’s composing frequently. Pupil’s is governed by the participial noun composing.  NOTE.—­The sign (’s) should be annexed to the word governed by the participial noun following it.”—­Weld’s Gram., Abridged, p. 117.  Choosing the possessive case, where, both by analogy and by authority, the objective would be quite as grammatical, if not more so; destroying, as far as possible, all syntactical distinction between the participle and the participial noun, by confounding them purposely, even in name; this author, like Wells, whom he too often imitates, takes no notice of the question here discussed, and seems quite unconscious that participles partly made nouns can produce false syntax.  To the foregoing instructions, he subjoins the following comment, as a marginal note:  “The participle used as a noun, still retains its verbal properties, and may govern the objective case, or be modified by an adverb or adjunct, like the verb from which it is derived.”—­Ibid. When one part of speech is said to be used as an other, the learner may be greatly puzzled to understand to which class the given word belongs.  If “the participle used as a noun, still retains its verbal properties,” it is, manifestly, not a noun, but a participle still; not a participial noun, but a nounal participle, whether the thing be allowable or not.  Hence the teachings just cited are inconsistent.  Wells says, “Participles are often used in the sense of nouns; as, ’There was again the smacking of whips, the clattering of hoofs, and the glittering of harness.’—­IRVING.”—­School Gram., p. 154.  This is not well stated; because these are participial nouns, and not “participles.”  What Wells calls “participial nouns,” differ from these, and are all spurious, all mongrels, all participles rather than nouns.  In regard to possessives before participles, no instructions appear to be more defective than those of this gentleman.  His sole rule supposes the pupil always to know when and why the possessive is proper, and only instructs him not to form it without the sign! It is this:  “When a noun or a pronoun, preceding a participle used as a noun, is properly in the possessive case, the sign of possession should not be omitted.”—­School Gram., p. 121.  All the examples put under this rule, are inappropriate:  each will mislead the learner.  Those which are called “Correct,” are, I think erroneous; and those which are called “False Syntax,” the adding of the possessive sign will not amend.