“But the participle,” says he, “will also take the adjective; as, ‘Superficial reading is useless.’”—­Analytic Gram., p. 212.  In my opinion, this last construction ought to be preferred; and the second, which is both irregular and unnecessary, rejected.  Again, this author says:  “We have laid it down as a rule, that the possessive case belongs, like an adjective, to a noun.  What shall be said of the following?  ’Since the days of Samson, there has been no instance of a man’s accomplishing a task so stupendous.’  The entire clause following man’s, is taken as a noun.  ’Of a man’s success in a task so stupendous.’ would present no difficulty.  A part of a sentence, or even a single participle, thus often stands for a noun.  ’My going will depend on my father’s giving his consent,’ or ‘on my father’s consenting.’  A participle thus used as a noun, may be called a PARTICIPIAL NOUN.”—­Ib., p. 131.  I dislike this doctrine also.  In the first example, man may well be made the leading word in sense; and, as such, it must be in the objective case; thus:  “There has been no instance of a man accomplishing a task so stupendous.”  It is also proper to say. “My going will depend on my father’s consenting,” or, “on my father’s consent.”  But an action possessed by the agent, ought not to be transitive.  If, therefore, you make this the leading idea, insert of:  thus, “There has been no instance of a man’s accomplishing of a task so stupendous.”  “My going will depend on my father’s giving of his consent.”—­“My brother’s acquiring [of] the French language will be a useful preparation for his travels.”—­Barnard’s Gram., p. 227.  If participial nouns retain the power of participles, why is it wrong to say, “A superficial reading books is useless?” Again, Barnard approves of the question, “What do you think of my horse’s running to-day?” and adds, “Between this form of expression and the following, ‘What do you think of my horse running to-day?’ it is sometimes said, that we should make a distinction; because the former implies that the horse had actually run, and the latter, that it is in contemplation to have him do so. The difference of meaning certainly exists; but it would seem more judicious to treat the latter as an improper mode of speaking.  What can be more uncouth than to say, ’What do you think of me going to Niagara?’ We should say my going, notwithstanding the ambiguity.  We ought, therefore, to introduce something explanatory; as, ’What do you think of the propriety of my going to Niagara?”—­Analytic Gram., p. 227.  The propriety of a past action is as proper a subject of remark as that of a future one; the explanatory phrase here introduced has therefore nothing to do with Priestley’s distinction, or with the alleged ambiguity.  Nor does the uncouthness of an objective pronoun with the leading word in sense improperly taken as an adjunct, prove that a participle may properly take to itself a possessive adjunct, and still retain the active nature of a participle.