A numerous portion of these words take the syllable _ly_, contracted from _like_, which is still retained in many words; as, Judas-_like_, lady-_like_, gentleman-_like_. These two last words, are of late, occasionally used as other words, lady_ly_, gentleman_ly_; but the last more frequently than the former. She behaved very ladi_ly_, or lady_like_; and his appearance was quite gentleman_ly_. But to say ladi_ly_ appearance, does not yet sound quite soft enough; but it is incorrect only because it is uncommon. God_ly_ and god_like_ are both in use, and equally correct, with a nice shade of difference in meaning.
All grammarians have found a difficulty in the word _like_, which they were unable to unravel. They could never account for its use in expressing a relation between two objectives. They forgot that to be like, one thing must be _likened_ to another, and that it was the very meaning of this word to express such like_ness_. John looks _like_ his brother. The looks, the countenance, or appearance of John, are _likened_ to his brother's looks or appearance. "This machine is more like the pattern than any I have seen." Here the adjective _like_ takes the comparative degree, as it is called, to show a nearer resemblance than has been before observed between the things compared. "He has a statesman-_like_ appearance." I _like_ this apple, because it agrees with my taste; it has qualities _like_ my notion of what is palateable." In every situation the word is used to express likeness between two things. It describes one thing by its likeness to another.
Many adjectives are formed from proper nouns by adding an apostrophe and the letter _s_, except when the word ends in _s_, in which case the final _s_ is usually omitted for the sake of euphony. This, however, was not generally adopted by old writers. It is not observed in the earliest translations of the Bible into the english language. It is now in common practice. Thus, Montgomery's monument in front of St. Paul's church; Washington's funeral; Shay's rebelion; England's bitterest foes; Hamlet's father's ghost; Peter's wife's mother; Todd's, Walker's, Johnson's dictionary; Winchell's Watts' hymns; Pond's Murray's grammar. No body would suppose that the "relation of property or possession" was expressed in these cases, as our grammar books tell us, but that the terms employed are used to _define_ certain objects, about which we are speaking. They possess the true character and use of adjectives, and as such let them be regarded. It must be as false as frivolous to say that Montgomery, who nobly fell at the siege of Quebec, _owns_ the monument erected over his remains, which were conveyed to New-York many years after his death; or that St. Paul _owns_ or _possesses_ the church beneath which they were deposited; that Hamlet owned his father, and his father his ghost; that Todd owns Walker, and Walker owns Johnson, and Johnson his dictionary which may have had a hundred owners, and never been the property of its author, but printed fifty years after his death. These words, I repeat, are merely _definitive_ terms, and like others serve to point out or specify particular objects which may thus be better known.