statesman.’  B. GREENLEAF.  ’We sometimes find a participle that takes the same case after as before it, converted into a verbal noun, and the latter word retained unchanged in connexion with it; as, I have some recollection of his father’s being a judge.’  GOOLD BROWN.”—­Sanborn’s Analytical Gram., p. 189.  On what principle the words statesman and judge can be affirmed to be in the nominative case, I see not; and certainly they are not nominatives “independent” because the word being, after which they stand, is not itself independent.  It is true, the phraseology is common enough to be good English:  but I dislike it; and if this citation from me, was meant for a confirmation of the reasonless dogmatism preceding, it is not made with fairness, because my opinion of the construction is omitted by the quoter.  See Institutes of English Gram., p. 162.  In an other late grammar,—­a shameful work, because it is in great measure a tissue of petty larcenies from my Institutes, with alterations for the worse,—­I find the following absurd “Note,” or Rule:  “An infinitive or participle is often followed by a substantive explanatory of an indefinite person or thing.  The substantive is then in the objective case, and may be called the objective after the infinitive, or participle; [as,] It is an honor to be the author of such a work.  His being a great man, did not make him a happy man.  By being an obedient child, you will secure the approbation of your parents.”—­Farnum’s Practical Gram., 1st Ed., p. 25.  The first of these examples is elliptical; (see Obs. 12th above, and the Marginal Note;) the second is bad English,—­or, at’ any rate, directly repugnant to the rule for same cases; and the third parsed wrong by the rule:  “child” is in the nominative case.  See Obs. 7th above.

[362] When the preceding case is not “the verb’s nominative” this phrase must of course be omitted; and when the word which is to be corrected, does not literally follow the verb, it may be proper to say, “constructively follows,” in lieu of the phrase, “comes after.”

[363] The author of this example supposes friend to be in the nominative case, though John’s is in the possessive, and both words denote the same person.  But this is not only contrary to the general rule for the same cases, but contrary to his own application of one of his rules.  Example:  “Maria’s duty, as a teacher, is, to instruct her pupils.”  Here, he says, “Teacher is in the possessive case, from its relation to the name Maria, denoting the same object.”—­Peirce’s Gram., p. 211.  This explanation, indeed, is scarcely intelligible, on account of its grammatical inaccuracy.  He means, however, that, “Teacher is in the possessive case, from its relation to the name Maria’s, the two words denoting the same object.”  No word can be possessive “from its relation to the name Maria,” except by standing immediately before it, in the usual manner of possessives; as, “Sterne’s Maria.”