The Grammar of English Grammars
by
Gould Brown
Part 13 out of 54
"I tell thee _what_, corporal, I could tear her."--_Shak._
"He knows _what's what_, and that's as high
As metaphysic wit can fly."--_Hudibras_.
OBS. 11.--_What_ is sometimes used both as an adjective and as a relative
at the same time, and is placed before the noun which it represents; being
equivalent to the adjective _any_ or _all_, and the simple relative _who,
which_[190] or _that_: as, "_What_ money we had, was taken away." That is,
"_All the_ money _that_ we had, was taken away." "_What_ man but enters,
dies." That is, "_Any_ man _who_ enters, dies." "It was agreed that _what_
goods were aboard his vessels, should be landed."--_Mickle's India_, p. 89.
"_What_ appearances of worth afterwards succeeded, were drawn from
thence."--_Internal Policy of Great Britain_, p. 196. That is, "_All the_
appearances of worth, _which_ afterwards succeeded."--_Priestley's Gram._,
p. 93. Indeed, this pronoun does not admit of being construed after a noun,
as a simple relative: none but the most illiterate ever seriously use it
so. _What_ put for _who_ or _which_, is therefore a ludicrous vulgarism;
as, "The aspiring youth _what_ fired the Ephesian dome."--_Jester_. The
word used as above, however, does not always preclude the introduction of a
personal pronoun before the subsequent verb; as,[191]
"_What_ god but enters yon forbidden field,
Who yields assistance, or but wills to yield,
Back to the skies with shame _he_ shall be driven,
Gash'd with dishonest wounds, the scorn of heaven."--_Pope's Homer_.
OBS. 12.--The compound _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ has the same
peculiarities of construction as has the simpler word _what_: as, "Whatever
word expresses an affirmation, or assertion, is a verb; or thus, _Whatever_
word, with a noun or pronoun before or after it, makes full sense, is a
verb."--_Adam's Latin Gram._, p. 78. That is, "_Any_ word _which_
expresses," &c. "We will certainly do _whatsoever_ thing goeth forth out of
our own mouth."--_Jeremiah_, xliv, 17. That is--"_any_ thing, or _every_
thing, _which_." "_Whatever_ sounds are difficult in pronunciation, are, in
the same proportion, harsh and painful to the ear."--_Blair's Rhet._, p.
121; _Murray's Gram._, p. 325. "_Whatsoever_ things were written aforetime,
were written for our learning."--_Romans_, xv, 4. In all these examples,
the word _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ appears to be used both adjectively and
relatively. There are instances, however, in which the relation of this
term is not twofold, but simple: as, "_Whatever_ useful or engaging
endowments we possess, virtue is requisite in order to their shining with
proper lustre."--_English Reader_, p. 23. Here _whatever_ is simply an
adjective. "The declarations contained in them [the Scriptures] rest on the
authority of God _himself_; and there can be no appeal from them to any
other authority _whatsoever_."--_London Epistle_, 1836. Here _whatsoever_
may be parsed either as an adjective relating to _authority_, or as an
emphatic pronoun in apposition with its noun, like _himself_ in the
preceding clause. In this general explanatory sense, _whatsoever_ may be
applied to persons as well as to things; as, "I should be sorry if it
entered into the imagination _of any person whatsoever_, that I was
preferred to all other patrons."--_Duncan's Cicero_, p. 11. Here the word
_whomsoever_ might have been used.
OBS. 13.--But there is an other construction to be here explained, in which
_whatever_ or _whatsoever_ appears to be a _double relative_, or a term
which includes both antecedent and relative; as, "_Whatever_ purifies,
fortifies also the heart."--_English Reader_, p. 23. That is. "_All that
purifies_--or, _Everything which_ purifies--fortifies also the heart."
"_Whatsoever_ he doeth, shall prosper."--_Psal._, i, 3. That is, "_All
that_ he doeth--or, _All the things which he doeth_--shall prosper." This
construction, however, may be supposed elliptical. The Latin expression is,
"_Omnia quaecumque faciet prosperabuntur_."--_Vulgate_. The Greek is
similar: [Greek: "Kai panta hosa an poiaei kateuodothaesetai."]--
_Septuagint_. It is doubtless by some sort of ellipsis which familiarity of
use inclines us to overlook, that _what, whatever_, and _whatsoever_, which
are essentially adjectives, have become susceptible of this double
construction as pronouns. But it is questionable what particular ellipsis
we ought here to suppose, or whether any; and certainly, we ought always to
avoid the supposing of an ellipsis, if we can.[192] Now if we say the
meaning is, "Whatsoever _things_ he doeth, shall prosper;" this, though
analogous to other expressions, does not simplify the construction. If we
will have it to be, "Whatsoever _things_ he doeth, _they_ shall prosper;"
the pronoun _they_ appears to be pleonastic. So is the word _it_, in the
text, "_Whatsoever_ he saith unto you, do _it_."--_John_, ii, 5. If we say
the full phrase is, "_All things_ whatsoever he doeth, shall prosper;" this
presents, to an English ear, a still more obvious pleonasm. It may be, too,
_a borrowed idiom_, found nowhere but in translations; as, "_All things
whatsoever_ ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."--_Matt._,
xxi, 22. From these views, there seems to be some objection to any and
every method of parsing the above-mentioned construction as _elliptical_.
The learner may therefore say, in such instances, that _whatever_ or
_whatsoever_ is a double relative, including both antecedent and relative;
and parse it, first as antecedent, in connexion with the latter verb, and
then as relative, in connexion with the former. But let him observe that
the order of the verbs may be the reverse of the foregoing; as, "Ye are my
friends, if ye _do_ whatsoever I _command_ you."--_John_, xv, 14. That is,
according to the Greek, "If ye do whatsoever I command _to_ you;" Though it
would be better English to say, "If ye do whatsoever I command you _to
do_." In the following example, however, it seems proper to recognize an
ellipsis; nay, the omissions in the construction of the last line, are as
many as three or four;--
"Expatiate with glad step, and choose at will
Whate'er bright spoils the florid earth contains,
Whate'er the waters, or the liquid air."--_Akenside_.
OBS. 14.--As the simple word _who_ differs from _which_ and _what_, in
being always a declinable pronoun; so its compounds differ from theirs, in
being incapable of either of the double constructions above described. Yet
_whoever_ and _whoso_ or _whosoever_, as well as _whichever_ and
_whichsoever, whatever_ and _whatsoever_, derive, from the affix which is
added, or from the peculiarity of their syntax, an unlimited
signification--or a signification which is limited only by the following
verb; and, as some general term, such as _any person_, or _all persons_, is
implied as the antecedent, they are commonly connected with other words as
if they stood for two cases at once: as, "_Whoever_ seeks, shall find."
That is, "_Any person who_ seeks, shall find." But as the case of this
compound, like that of the simple word _who, whose_, or _whom_, is known
and determined by its form, it is necessary, in parsing, to treat this
phraseology as being elliptical. The compounds of _who_ do not, therefore,
actually stand for two cases, though some grammarians affirm that they
do.[193] Example: "The soldiers made proclamation, that they would sell the
empire to _whoever_ would purchase it at the highest price."--_Goldsmith's
Rome_, p. 231. That is--"to _any man who_ would purchase it." The affix
_ever_ or _soever_ becomes unnecessary when the ellipsis is supplied; and
this fact, it must be confessed, is a plausible argument against the
supposition of an ellipsis. But the supposing of an antecedent understood,
is here unavoidable; because the preposition _to_ cannot govern the
nominative case, and the word _whoever_ cannot be an objective. And so in
all other instances in which the two cases are different: as, "He bids
_whoever_ is athirst, to come."--_Jenks's Devotions_, p. 151. "Elizabeth
publicly threatened, that she would have the head of _whoever_ had advised
it."--HUME: _in Priestley's Gram._, p. 104.
OBS. 15.--If it is necessary in parsing to supply the antecedent to
_whoever_ or _whosoever_, when two _different_ cases are represented, it is
but analogous and reasonable to supply it also when two similar cases
occur: as, "_Whoever_ borrows money, _is bound_ in conscience to repay
it."--_Paley_. "_Whoever_ is eager to find excuses for vice and folly,
_will find_ his own backwardness to practise them much diminished."--
_Chapone_. "_Whoever_ examines his own imperfections, _will cease_ to be
fastidious; _whoever_ restrains humour and caprice, _will cease_ to be
squeamish."--_Crabb's Synonymes_. In all these examples, we have the word
in the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative
case. And here it is most commonly found. It is always of the third person;
and, though its number _may_ be plural; its gender, feminine; its case,
possessive or objective; we do not often use it in any of these ways. In
some instances, the latter verb is attended with an other pronoun, which
represents the same person or persons; as, "And _whosoever_ will, let _him_
take of the water of life freely."--_Rev._, xxii, 17. The case of this
compound relative always depends upon what follows it, and not upon what
precedes; as, "Or ask of _whomsoever_ he has taught."--_Cowper_. That
is--"of _any person whom_ he has taught." In the following text, we have
the possessive plural: "_Whosesoever_ sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
_them_."--_John_, xx, 23. That is, "_Whatever persons'_ sins."
OBS. 16.--In such phraseology as the following, there is a stiffness which
ought to be avoided: "For _whomever_ God loves, he loves _them_ in Christ,
and no otherways."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. iii, p. 215. Better: "For _all
whom_ God loves, he loves in Christ, and no _otherwise_." "When the Father
draws, _whomever_ he draws, may come."--_Penington_. Better: "When the
Father draws, _all whom_ he draws, (or, _every one whom_ he draws.) may
come." A modern critic of immense promise cites the following clause as
being found in the Bible: "But he loveth _whomsoever_ followeth after
righteousness."--_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p. 72. It is lamentable to see the
unfaithfulness of this gentleman's quotations. About half of them are
spurious; and I am confident that this one is neither Scripture nor good
English. The compound relative, being the subject of _followeth_, should be
in the nominative case; for the object of the verb _loveth_ is the
antecedent _every one_, understood. But the idea may be better expressed,
without any ellipsis, thus: "He loveth _every one who_ followeth after
righteousness." The following example from the same hand is also wrong, and
the author's rule and reasoning connected with it, are utterly fallacious:
"I will give the reward to _whomsoever_ will apprehend the rogue."--_Ib._,
p. 256. Much better say, "_to any one who_;" but, if you choose the
compound word, by all analogy, and all good authority, it must here be
_whoever_ or _whosoever_. The shorter compound _whoso_, which occurs very
frequently in the Bible, is now almost obsolete in prose, but still
sometimes used by the poets. It has the same meaning as _whosoever_, but
appears to have been confined to the nominative singular; and _whatso_ is
still more rare: as, "_Whoso_ diggeth a pit, shall fall therein."--_Prov._,
xxvi, 27.
"Which _whoso_ tastes, can be enslaved no more."--_Cowper_.
"On their intended journey to proceed,
And over night _whatso_ thereto did need."--_Hubbard_.
OBS. 17.--The relative _that_ is applied indifferently to persons, to brute
animals, and to inanimate things. But the word _that_ is not always a
relative pronoun. It is sometimes a pronoun, sometimes an adjective, and
sometimes a conjunction. I call it not a demonstrative pronoun and also a
relative; because, in the sense in which Murray and others have styled it a
"demonstrative adjective _pronoun_," it is a pronominal _adjective_, and it
is better to call it so. (1.) It is a _relative pronoun_ whenever it is
equivalent to _who, whom_, or _which_: as, "There is not a _just man_ upon
earth, _that_ doeth good, and sinneth not"--_Eccl._, vii, 20. "It was
diverse from all the _beasts that_ were before it."--_Dan._, vii, 7. "And
he had a _name_ written, _that_ no man knew but he himself."--_Rev._, xix,
12. (2.) It is a _pronominal adjective_ whenever it relates to a noun
expressed or understood after it: as, "Thus with violence shall _that_
great _city_, Babylon, be thrown down."--_Rev._, xviii, 21. "Behold _that_
[thing] which I have seen."--_Eccl._, v, 18. "And they said, 'What is
_that_[194] [matter] to us? See thou to _that_' [matter]."--_Matt._, xxvii,
4. (3.) In its other uses, it is a _conjunction_, and, as such, it most
commonly makes what follows it, the purpose, object, or final cause, of
what precedes it: as, "I read _that_ I may learn."--_Dr. Adam._ "Ye men of
Athens, I perceive _that_ in all things ye are too superstitious."--_St.
Paul._ "Live well, _that_ you may die well."--_Anon._ "Take heed _that_
thou speak not to Jacob."--_Genesis._ "Judge not, _that_ ye be not
judged."--_Matthew._
OBS. 18.--The word _that_, or indeed any other word, should never be so
used as to leave the part of speech uncertain; as, "For in the day _that_
thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."--_Gen._, ii, 17. Here _that_
seems to be a relative _pronoun_, representing _day_, in the third person,
singular, neuter; yet, in other respects, it seems to be a _conjunction_,
because there is nothing to determine its case. Better: "For in the day _on
which_ thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." This mongrel
construction of the word _that_, were its justification possible, is common
enough in our language to be made good English. But it must needs be
condemned, because it renders the character of the term ambiguous, and is
such a grammatical difficulty as puts the parser at a dead nonplus.
Examples: (1.) "But _at the same time_ THAT men are giving their orders,
God on his part is likewise giving his."--_Rollin's Hist._, ii, 106. Here
the phrase, "_at the same time that_," is only equivalent to the adverb
_while_; and yet it is incomplete, because it means, "_at the same time at
which_," or, "_at the very time at which._" (2.) "The author of this work,
_at the same time_ THAT he has endeavoured to avoid a plan, _which may be_
too concise or too extensive, defective in its parts or irregular in the
disposition of them, has studied to render his _subject_ sufficiently easy,
intelligible, and _comprehensive._"--_Murray's Gram., Introd._, p. 1. This
sentence, which is no unfair specimen of its author's original style, needs
three corrections: 1. For "_at the same time that_," say _while_: 2. Drop
the phrase, "_which may be_," because it is at least useless: 3. For
"_subject_," read _treatise_, or _compilation._ You will thus have
tolerable diction. Again: (3.) "The participles of active verbs _act upon
objects_ and govern them in the objective case, in the same manner _that_
the verbs _do_, from which they are derived. _A participle_ in the nature
of an adjective, belongs or refers to _nouns_ or _pronouns_ in the same
manner _that_ adjectives do; and _when it will admit_ the degrees of
comparison, _it is called_ a participial _adjective_."--_Sanborn's Gram._,
p. 38. This is the style of a gentleman of no ordinary pretensions, one who
thinks he has produced the best grammar that has ever appeared in our
language. To me, however, his work suggests an abundance of questions like
these; each of which would palpably involve him in a dilemma: What is here
meant by "_objects_," the _words_, or the _things?_ if the former, how are
they acted upon? if the latter, how are they governed? If "a _participle_
is called an _adjective_," which is it, an adjective, or a participle? If
"_a_ participle refers to _nouns_ or _pronouns_," _how many_ of these are
required by the relation? When does a _participle_ "admit the degrees of
comparison?" How shall we parse the word _that_ in the foregoing sentences?
OBS. 19.--The word _as_, though usually a conjunction or an adverb, has
sometimes the construction of a relative pronoun, especially after _such,
so many_, or _as many_; and, whatever the antecedent _noun_ may be, this is
the _only fit relative_ to follow any of these terms in a restrictive
sense. Examples: "We have been accustomed to repose on its veracity with
_such_ humble confidence _as_ suppresses curiosity."--_Johnson's Life of
Cowley._ "The malcontents made _such_ demands _as_ none but a tyrant could
refuse."--_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, Let. 7. "The Lord added to the church
daily _such_ [persons] _as_ should be saved."--_Acts_, ii, 47. "And _as
many as_ were ordained to eternal life, believed."--_Acts_, xiii, 48. "_As
many as_ I love, I rebuke and chasten."--_Rev._, iii, 19. "Know ye not,
that _so many_ of us _as_ were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized
into his death?"--_Rom._, vi, 3. "For _as many_ of you _as_ have been
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."--_Gal._, iii, 27. "A syllable is
_so many_ letters _as_ are spoken with one motion of the voice."--_Perley's
Gram._, p. 8. "The compound tenses are _such as_ cannot be formed without
an auxiliary verb."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 91. "Send him _such_ books _as_
will please him."--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 37. "In referring to
_such_ a division of the day _as_ is past, we use the imperfect."--
_Murray's Gram._, p. 70. "Participles have _the same_ government _as_ the
verbs from which they are derived."--_Ib._, Rule xiv. "Participles have
_the same_ government _as_ the verbs _have_ from which they are derived."--
_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 94. In some of these examples, _as_ is in the
nominative case, and in others, in the objective; in some, it is of the
masculine gender, and in others, it is neuter; in some, it is of the plural
number, and in others, it is singular: but in all, it is of the third
person; and in all, its person, number, gender, and case, are as obvious as
those of any invariable pronoun can be.
OBS. 20.--Some
writers--(the most popular are Webster, Bullions, Wells, and Chandler--)
imagine that _as_, in such sentences as the foregoing, can be made a
conjunction, and not a pronoun, if we will allow them to consider the
phraseology elliptical. Of the example for which I am indebted to him, Dr.
Webster says, "_As_ must be considered as the nominative to _will please_,
or we must suppose an ellipsis of several words: as, 'Send him such books
as _the books which_ will please him, or as _those which_ will please
him.'"--_Improved Gram._, p. 37. This pretended explanation must be
rejected as an absurdity. In either form of it, _two_ nominatives are idly
imagined between _as_ and its verb; and, I ask, of what is the first one
the subject? If you say, "Of _are_ understood," making the phrase, "such
books _as the books are_;" does not _as_ bear the same relation to this new
verb _are_, that is found in the pronoun _who_, when one says, "Tell him
_who_ you _are?_" If so, _as_ is a pronoun still; so that, thus far, you
gain nothing. And if you will have the whole explanation to be, "Send him
such books _as the books are books which_ will please him;" you multiply
words, and finally arrive at nothing, but tautology and nonsense. Wells,
not condescending to show his pupils what he would supply after this _as_,
thinks it sufficient to say, the word is "followed by an ellipsis of one or
more words required to complete the construction; as, 'He was the father of
all such as [] handle the harp and organ.'--_Gen._ 4: 21."--_Wells's School
Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 164; 3d Ed., p. 172.
OBS. 21.--Chandler exhibits the sentence, "_These are not such as are
worn_;" and, in parsing it, expounds the words _as_ and _are_, thus; the
crotchets being his, not mine: "_as_.... is an _adverb, connecting_ the two
sentences in comparing them, [_It is a fault_ of some, that they make _as_
a pronoun, when, in a comparative sentence, it corresponds with _such_, and
is immediately followed by a verb, as in the sentence now given. This is
probably done _from an ignorance_ of the real nominative to the verb. The
sentence _should stand thus_: 'These (_perhaps_ bonnets) are not such
(bonnets) _as_ (those bonnets) are (which are) worn.' Then] _are_ .... is
the substantive verb, third person, plural number, indicative mood, present
tense, and agrees with the noun _bonnets_, understood."--_Chandler's Common
School Gram._, p. 162. All this bears the marks of shallow flippancy. No
part of it is accurate. "_Are worn_," which the critic unwarrantably
divides by his misplaced curves and uncouth impletions, is a passive verb,
agreeing with the pronoun _as_. But the text itself is faulty, being
unintelligible through lack of a noun; for, of things that _may be_
"_worn_," there are a thousand different sorts. Is it not ridiculous, for a
great grammarian to offer, as a model for parsing, what he himself, "_from
an ignorance_ of the real nominative," can only interpret with a
"_perhaps?_" But the noun which this author supplies, the meaning which he
guesses that he had, he here very improperly stows away within a pair of
_crotchets_. Nor is it true, that "the sentence _should stand_" as above
exhibited; for the tautological correction not only has the very extreme of
awkwardness, but still makes _as_ a pronoun, a nominative, belonging after
_are_: so that the phrase, "_as are worn_," is only encumbered and
perverted by the verbose addition made. So of an other example given by
this expounder, in which _as_ is an objective: "He is exactly such a man
_as_ I saw."--_Chandler's Com. Sch. Gram._, p. 163. Here _as_ is the object
of _saw_. But the author says, "The sentence, however, _should stand_ thus:
'He is exactly such a man _as_ that person _was_ whom I saw.'"--_Ibid._
This inelegant alteration makes _as_ a nominative dependent on _was._
OBS. 22.--The use of _as_ for a relative pronoun, is almost entirely
confined to those connexions in which no other relative would be proper;
hence few instances occur, of its absolute equivalence to _who, which_, or
_that_, by which to establish its claim to the same rank. Examples like the
following, however, go far to prove it, if proof be necessary; because
_who_ and _which_ are here employed, where _as_ is certainly now required
by all good usage: "It is not only convenient, but absolutely needful, that
there be certain meetings at certain places and times, _as_ may best suit
the convenience of _such, who_ may be most particularly concerned in
them."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 495. "Which, no doubt, will be found
obligatory upon all _such, who_ have a sense and feeling of the mind of the
Spirit."--_Ib._, i, p. 578. "Condemning or removing _such_ things, _which_
in themselves are evil."--_Ib._, i, p. 511. In these citations, not only
are _who_ and _which_ improperly used for _as_, but the _commas_ before
them are also improper, because the relatives are intended to be taken in a
restrictive sense. "If there be _such that_ walk disorderly now."--_Ib._,
i, p. 488. Here _that_ ought to be _as_; or else _such_ ought to be
_persons_, or _those._ "When such virtues, _as which_ still accompany the
truth, are necessarily supposed to be wanting."--_Ib._, i, p. 502. Here
_which_, and the comma before _as_, should both be expunged. "I shall raise
in their minds the same course of thought _as_ has taken possession of my
own."--_Duncan's Logic_, p. 61. "The pronoun must be in the same case _as_
the antecedent would be _in_, if substituted for it."--_Murray's Gram._, p.
181. "The verb must therefore have the same construction _as_ it has in the
following sentence."--_Murray's Key_, p. 190. Here _as_ is exactly
equivalent to the relative _that_, and either may be used with equal
propriety. We cannot avoid the conclusion, therefore, that, as the latter
word is sometimes a conjunction and sometimes a pronoun, so is the former.
OBS. 23.--The relatives _that_ and _as_ have this peculiarity; that, unlike
_whom_ and _which_, they never follow the word on which their case depends;
nor indeed can any simple relative be so placed, except it be governed by a
preposition or an infinitive. Thus, it is said, (John, xiii, 29th,) "Buy
those things _that_ we have need _of_;" so we may say, "Buy such things
_as_ we have need of." But we cannot say, "Buy those things _of that_ we
have need;" or, "Buy such things _of as_ we have need." Though we may say,
"Buy those things _of which_ we have need," as well as, "Buy those things
_which_ we have need _of_;" or, "Admit those persons of whom we have need,"
as well as, "Admit those persons _whom_ we have need _of._" By this it
appears that _that_ and _as_ have a closer connexion with their antecedents
than the other relatives require: a circumstance worthy to have been better
remembered by some critics. "Again, _that_ and _as_ are used rather
differently. When _that_ is used, the verb must be repeated; as,
'Participles _require_ the same government, _that_ their verbs
_require_.'--'James _showed_ the same credulity, _that_ his minister
_showed_.' But when _as_ is used, the verb generally may, or may not be
repeated; as, 'Participles _require_ the same government _as_ their verbs;'
or, '_as_ their verbs _require_.'--'James _showed_ the same credulity as
his minister;' or, '_as_ his minister _showed_:' the second nominative
_minister_ being parsed as the nominative to the same verb _showed_
understood."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 140.[195]
OBS. 24.--The terminating of a sentence with a preposition, or other small
particle, is in general undignified, though perhaps not otherwise improper.
Hence the above-named inflexibility in the construction of _that_ and _as_,
sometimes induces an ellipsis of the governing word designed; and is
occasionally attended with some difficulty respecting the choice of our
terms. Examples: "The answer is always in the same case _that_ the
interrogative word _is_."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 70. Here is a faulty
termination; and with it a more faulty ellipsis. In stead of ending the
sentence with _is in_, say, "The answer always _agrees in case with_ the
interrogative word." Again: "The relative is of the same person _with_ the
antecedent."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 101. This sentence is wrong, because the
person of the relative is not really _identical with_ the antecedent. "The
relative is of the same person _as_ the antecedent."--_Murray's Gram._, p.
154. Here the writer means--"_as_ the antecedent _is of_." "A neuter verb
becomes active, when followed by a noun of the same signification _with_
its own."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 127. Here same is wrong, or else the last
three words are useless. It would therefore be improper to say--"of _the
same_ signification _as_ its own." The expression ought to be--"of a
signification _similar to_ its own." "Ode is, _in Greek_, the same _with_
song or hymn."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 396. _Song_ being no Greek word, I
cannot think the foregoing expression accurate, though one might say, "Ode
is _identical with_ song or hymn." Would it not be better to say, "Ode is
the same _as_ song or hymn?" That is, "Ode is, _literally_, the same _thing
that_ song or hymn _is_?" "Treatises of philosophy, ought not to be
composed in the same style _with_ orations."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 175. Here
neither _with_ nor _as_ can be proper; because _orations_ are not _a
style_. Expunge _same_; and say--"in the style _of_ orations."
OBS. 25.--Few writers are sufficiently careful in their choice and
management of relatives. In the following instance, Murray and others
violate a special rule of their own grammars, by using _whom_ for _that_
"after an adjective of the superlative degree:" "Modifying them according
to the genius of that tongue, and the established practice of _the best_
speakers and writers _by whom_ it is used."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 1;
_Fisk's_, p. 11; _et al._ According to Priestley and himself, the great
Compiler is here in an error. The rule is perhaps too stringent; but
whoever teaches it, should keep it. If he did not like to say, "_the best_
speakers and writers _that_ it is used _by_;" he ought to have said, "_the
best_ speakers and writers _that use it_." Or, rather, he ought to have
said _nothing_ after the word "writers;" because the whole relative clause
is here weak and useless. Yet how many of the amenders of this grammar have
not had perspicacity enough, either to omit the expression, or to correct
it according to the author's own rule!
OBS. 26.--Relative pronouns are capable of being taken in two very
different senses: the one, restrictive of the general idea suggested by the
antecedent; the other, _resumptive_ of that idea, in the full import of the
term--or, in whatever extent the previous definitives allow. The
distinction between these two senses, important as it is, is frequently
made to depend solely upon the insertion or the omission of _a comma_.
Thus, if I say, "Men who grasp after riches, are never satisfied;" the
relative _who_ is taken restrictively, and I am understood to speak _only
of the avaricious_. But, if I say, "Men, who grasp after riches, are never
satisfied;" by separating the terms _men_ and _who_, I declare _all men_ to
be covetous and unsatisfied. For the former sense, the relative _that_ is
preferable to _who_; and I shall presently show why. This example, in the
latter form, is found in Sanborn's Grammar, page 142d; but whether the
author meant what he says, or not, I doubt. Like many other unskillful
writers, he has paid little regard to the above-mentioned distinction; and,
in some instances, his meaning cannot have been what his words declare: as,
"A prism is a solid, whose sides are all parallelograms."--_Analytical
Gram._, p. 142. This, as it stands, is no definition of a prism, but an
assertion of two things; that a prism is a solid, and that all the sides of
a solid are parallelograms. Erase the comma, and the words will describe
the prism as a peculiar kind of solid; because _whose_ will then be taken
in the restrictive sense. This sense, however, may be conveyed even with a
comma before the relative; as, "Some fictitious histories yet remain,
_that_ were composed during the decline of the Roman empire."--_Blair's
Rhet._, p. 374. This does not suggest that there are no other fictitious
histories now extant, than such as were composed during the decline of the
Roman empire; but I submit it to the reader, whether the word _which_, if
here put for _that_, would not convey this idea.
OBS. 27.--Upon this point, many philologists are open to criticism; and
none more so, than the recent author above cited. By his own plain showing,
this grammarian has no conception of the difference of meaning, upon which
the foregoing distinction is founded. What marvel, then, that he falls into
errors, both of doctrine and of practice? But, if no such difference
exists, or none that is worthy of a critic's notice; then the error is
mine, and it is vain to distinguish between the restrictive and the
resumptive sense of relative pronouns. For example: "The boy that desires
to assist his companions, deserves respect."--_G. Brown._ "That boy, who
desires to assist his companions, deserves respect."--_D. H. Sanborn._
According to my notion, these two sentences clearly convey two very
different meanings; the relative, in the former, being restrictive, but, in
the latter, resumptive of the sense of the antecedent. But of the latter
example this author says, "The clause, 'who desires to assist his
companions,' with the relative who at its head, _explains or tells what boy
deserves respect_; and, like a conjunction, connects this clause to the
noun _boy_."--_Analytical Gram._, p. 69. He therefore takes it in a
restrictive sense, as if this sentence were exactly equivalent to the
former. But he adds, "A relative pronoun is resolvable into a personal
pronoun and a conjunction. The sentence would then read, 'That boy desires
to assist his companions, _and_ he deserves respect.' The relative pronoun
governs the nearer verb, and the antecedent the more distant one."--_Ib._,
p. 69. Now, concerning the restrictive relative, this doctrine of
equivalence does not hold good; and, besides, the explanation here given,
not only contradicts his former declaration of the sense he intended, but,
with other seeming contradiction, joins the antecedent to the nearer verb,
and the substituted pronoun to the more distant.
OBS. 28.--Again, the following principles of this author's punctuation are
no less indicative of his false views of this matter: "RULE xiv.--Relative
pronouns in the nominative or [_the_] objective case, are preceded by
commas, when the clause which the relative _connects_ [,] ends a sentence;
as, 'Sweetness of temper is a quality, which reflects a lustre on every
accomplishment'--B. Greenleaf.' Self [-] denial is the sacrifice [,] which
virtue must make.' [_--L. Murray._] The comma is omitted before the
relative, when the verb which the antecedent governs, follows the relative
clause; as, 'He that suffers by imposture, has too often his virtue more
impaired than his fortune.'--_Johnson_." See _Sanborn's Analytical Gram._,
p. 269. Such are some of our author's principles--"the essence of modern
improvements." His practice, though often wrong, is none the worse for
contradicting these doctrines. Nay, his proudest boast is ungrammatical,
though peradventure not the less believed: "_No_ [other] _grammar in the
language_ probably contains so great a quantity of _condensed and_ useful
matter with so little superfluity."--_Sanborn's Preface_, p. v.
OBS. 29.--Murray's rule for the punctuation of relatives, (a rule which he
chiefly copied from Lowth,) recognizes virtually the distinction which I
have made above; but, in assuming that relatives "_generally_" require a
comma before them, it erroneously suggests that the resumptive sense is
more common than the restrictive. Churchill, on the contrary, as wrongly
makes it an essential characteristic of _all_ relatives, "to limit or
explain the words to which they refer." See his _New Gram._, p. 74. The
fact is, that relatives are so generally restrictive, that not one half of
them are thus pointed; though some that do restrict their antecedent,
nevertheless admit the point. This may be seen by the first example given
us by Murray: "Relative pronouns are connective words, and _generally
admit_ a comma before them: as, 'He preaches sublimely, who lives a sober,
righteous, and pious life.' But when two members, or _phrases_, [say
_clauses_,] are closely connected by a relative, restraining the general
notion of the antecedent to a particular sense, _the comma should be
omitted_: as, '_Self-denial_ is the _sacrifice which_ virtue must make;' 'A
_man who_ is of a detracting spirit, will misconstrue the most innocent
_words that_ can be put together.' In the latter example, the assertion is
not of 'a man in general,' but of 'a man who is of a detracting spirit;'
and therefore _they_ [say _the pronoun and its antecedent_] should not be
separated."--_Murray's Gram., Octavo_, p. 273; _Ingersoll's_, 285;
_Comly's_, 152. This reasoning, strictly applied, would exclude the comma
before _who_ in the first example above; but, as the pronoun does not
"closely" or immediately follow its antecedent, the comma is allowed,
though it is not much needed. Not so, when the sense is resumptive: as,
"The _additions, which_ are very considerable, are chiefly _such as_ are
calculated to obviate objections." See _Murray's Gram._, p. ix. Here the
comma is essential to the meaning. Without it, _which_ would be equivalent
to _that_; with it, which is equivalent to _and they_. But this latter
meaning, as I imagine, cannot be expressed by the relative _that_.
OBS. 30.--Into the unfortunate example which Sanborn took from Murray, I
have inserted the comma for him; not because it is necessary or right, but
because his rule requires it: "_Self-denial_ is the _sacrifice_," &c. The
author of "a complete system of grammar," might better contradict even
Murray, than himself. But why was this text admired? and why have _Greene,
Bullions, Hiley, Hart_, and others, also copied it? A _sacrifice_ is
something devoted and lost, for the sake of a greater good; and, _if Virtue
sacrifice self-denial_, what will she do, but run into indulgence? The
great sacrifice which she demands of men, is rather that of their
_self-love_. Wm. E. Russell has it, "_Self defence_ is the sacrifice which
virtue must make!"--_Russell's Abridgement of Murray's Gram._, p. 116.
Bishop Butler tells us, "It is indeed _ridiculous_ to assert, that
_self-denial is essential to virtue and piety_; but it would have been
nearer the truth, though not strictly the truth itself, to have said, that
it is essential to discipline and improvement."--_Analogy of Religion_, p.
123.
OBS. 31.--The relative _that_, though usually reckoned equivalent to _who_
or _which_, evidently differs from both, in being more generally, and
perhaps more appropriately, taken in the restrictive sense. It ought
therefore, for distinction's sake, to be preferred to _who_ or _which_,
whenever an antecedent not otherwise limited, is to be restricted by the
relative clause; as, "_Men that_ grasp after riches, are never
satisfied."--"I love _wisdom that_ is gay and civilized."--_Art of
Thinking_, p. 34. This phraseology leaves not the limitation of the meaning
to depend solely upon the absence of a pause after the antecedent; because
the relative _that_ is seldom, if ever, used by good writers in any other
than a restrictive sense. Again: "A man of a polite imagination is let into
a great many pleasures _that_ the vulgar are not capable of
receiving."--_Addison, Spect._, No. 411. Here, too, according to my notion,
_that_ is obviously preferable to _which_; though a great critic, very
widely known, has taken some pains to establish a different opinion. The
"many pleasures" here spoken of, are no otherwise defined, than as being
such as "the vulgar are not capable of receiving." The writer did not mean
to deny that the vulgar are capable of receiving a great many pleasures;
but, certainly, if _that_ were changed to _which_, this would be the
meaning conveyed, unless the reader were very careful to avoid a pause
where he would be apt to make one. I therefore prefer Addison's expression
to that which Dr. Blair would substitute.
OBS. 32.--The style of Addison is more than once censured by Dr. Blair, for
the frequency with which the relative _that_ occurs in it, where the
learned lecturer would have used which. The reasons assigned by the critic
are these: "_Which_ is a much more definitive word than that, being never
employed in any other way than as a relative; whereas _that_ is a word of
many senses; sometimes a demonstrative pronoun, often a conjunction. In
some cases we are indeed obliged to use _that_ for a relative, in order to
avoid the ungraceful repetition of _which_ in the same sentence. But when
we are laid under no necessity of this kind, _which_ is always the
preferable word, and certainly was so in this sentence: '_Pleasures which_
the vulgar are not capable of receiving,' is much better than '_pleasures
that_ the vulgar are not capable of receiving.'"--_Blair's Rhetoric_, Lect.
xx, p. 200. Now the facts are these: (1.) That _that_ is the more
definitive or restrictive word of the two. (2.) That the word _which_ has
as many different senses and uses as the word _that_. (3.) That not the
repetition of _which_ or _who_ in a series of clauses, but a _needless
change_ of the relative, is ungraceful. (4.) That the necessity of using
_that_ rather than _which_ or _who_, depends, not upon what is here
supposed, but upon the different senses which these words usually convey.
(5.) That as there is always some reason of choice, _that_ is sometimes to
be preferred; _which_, sometimes; and _who_, sometimes: as, "It is not the
man _who_ has merely taught, or _who_ has taught long, or _who_ is able to
point out defects in authors, _that_ is capable of enlightening the world
in the respective sciences _which_ have engaged his attention; but the man
_who_ has taught well."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 7.
OBS. 33.--Blair's Rhetoric consists of forty-seven lectures; four of which
are devoted to a critical examination of the style of Addison, as exhibited
in four successive papers of the Spectator. The remarks of the professor
are in general judicious; but, seeing his work is made a common textbook
for students of "Belles Lettres," it is a pity to find it so liable to
reprehension on the score of inaccuracy. Among the passages which are
criticised in the twenty-first lecture, there is one in which the essayist
speaks of the effects of _novelty_ as follows:
'It is this _which_ bestows charms on a monster, and makes even the
imperfections of nature please us. It is this _that_ recommends variety,
where the mind is every instant called off to something new, and the
attention not suffered to dwell too long and waste itself on any particular
object. It is this, likewise, _that_ improves what is great or beautiful,
and makes it afford the mind a double entertainment.'--_Spectator_, No.
412.
This passage is deservedly praised by the critic, for its "perspicuity,
grace, and harmony;" but, in using different relatives under like
circumstances, the writer has hardly done justice to his own good taste.
Blair's remark is this: "His frequent use of _that_, instead of _which_, is
another peculiarity of his style; but, on this occasion in particular, [it]
cannot be much commended, as, 'It is this _which_,' seems, in every view,
to be better than, 'It is this _that_,' three times repeated."--_Lect._
xxi, p. 207. What is here meant by "_every view_," may, I suppose, be seen
in the corresponding criticism which is noticed in my last observation
above; and I am greatly deceived, if, in this instance also, the relative
_that_ is not better than _which_, and more agreeable to polite usage. The
direct relative which corresponds to the introductory pronoun _it_ and _an
other antecedent_, should, I think, be _that_, and not _who_ or _which_:
as, "It is not ye _that_ speak."--_Matt._, x, 20. "It is thou, Lord, _who_
hast the hearts of all men in thy hands, _that_ turnest the hearts of any
to show me favour."--_Jenks's Prayers_, p. 278. Here _who_ has reference to
_thou_ or _Lord_ only; but _that_ has some respect to the pronoun _it_,
though it agrees in person and gender with _thou_. A similar example is
cited at the close of the preceding observation; and I submit it to the
reader, whether the word _that_, as it there occurs, is not the _only fit_
word for the place it occupies. So in the following examples: "There are
_Words, which_ are _not Verbs, that_ signify actions and passions, and even
things transient."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. 100. "It is the universal
taste of mankind, which is subject to no such changing modes, _that_ alone
is entitled to possess any authority."--_Blair's Rhetoric_, p. 286.
OBS. 34.--Sometimes the broad import of an antecedent is _doubly
restricted_, first by one relative clause, and then by an other; as, "And
all _that dwell upon the earth_, shall worship him, _whose names are not
written in the book of life_."--_Rev._, xiii, 8. "And then, like true
Thames-Watermen, they abuse every man _that_ passes by, _who_ is better
dressed than themselves."--_Brown's Estimate_, Vol. ii, p. 10. Here _and_,
or _if he_, would be as good as "_who_;" for the connective only serves to
carry the restriction into narrower limits. Sometimes the limit fixed by
one clause is _extended_ by an other; as, "There is no evil _that you may
suffer_, or _that you may expect to suffer, which_ prayer is not the
appointed means to alleviate."--_Bickersteth, on Prayer_, p. 16. Here
_which_ resumes the idea of "_evil_," in the extent last determined; or
rather, in that which is fixed by either clause, since the limits of both
are embraced in the assertion. And, in the two limiting clauses, the same
pronoun was requisite, on account of their joint relation; but the clause
which assumes a different relation, is rightly introduced by a different
pronoun. This is also the case in the following examples: "For there is no
condemnation to those _that_ are in Christ Jesus, _who_ walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 432. "I will
tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast _that_ carrieth her,
_which_ hath the seven heads and ten horns."--_Rev._, xvii, 7. Here the
restrictive sense is well expressed by one relative, and the resumptive by
an other. When neither of these senses is intended by the writer, _any_
form of the relative must needs be improper: as, "The greatest genius
_which runs_ through the arts and sciences, takes a kind of tincture from
them, and falls unavoidably into imitation."--_Addison, Spect._, No. 160.
Here, as I suppose, _which runs_ should be _in running_. What else can the
author have meant?
OBS. 35.--Having now, as I imagine, clearly shown the difference between
the restrictive and the resumptive sense of a relative pronoun, and the
absolute necessity of making such a choice of words as will express that
sense only which we intend; I hope the learner will see, by these
observations, not merely that clearness requires the occasional use of each
of our five relatives, _who, which, what, that_, and _as_; but that this
distinction in the meaning, is a very common principle by which to
determine what is, and what is not, good English. Thus _that_ and _as_ are
appropriately our _restrictive_ relatives, though _who_ and _which_ are
sometimes used restrictively; but, in a _resumptive_ sense, _who_ or
_which_ is required, and required even after those terms which usually
demand _that_ or _as_: thus, "We are vexed at the unlucky chance, and go
away dissatisfied. _Such_ impressions, _which_ ought not to be cherished,
are a sufficient reason for excluding stories of that kind from the
theatre."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 279. Here _which_ is proper to the
sense intended; but _such_ requires _as_, when the latter term limits the
meaning of the former. In sentences like the following, _who_ or _which_
may be used in lieu of _that_; whether with any advantage or not, the
reader may judge: "You seize the critical moment _that_ is favorable to
emotion."--_Bair's Rhet._, p. 321. "_An_ historian _that_ would instruct
us, must know when to be concise."--_Ib._, p. 359. "Seneca has been
censured for the affectation _that_ appears in his style."--_Ib._, p. 367.
"Such as the prodigies _that_ attended the death of Julius Caesar."--_Ib._,
p. 401. "By unfolding those principles _that_ ought to govern the taste of
every individual."--_Kames's Dedication to El. of Crit._ "But I am sure he
has that _that_ is better than an estate."--_Spect._, No. 475. "There are
two properties, _that_ characterize and essentially distinguish relative
pronouns."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 74. By these examples, it may be seen,
that Dr. Blair often forgot or disregarded his own doctrine respecting the
use of this relative; though he was oftener led, by the error of that
doctrine, to substitute _which_ for _that_ improperly.
OBS. 36.--_Whether_ was formerly used as an interrogative pronoun, in which
sense it always referred to one of two things; as, "Ye fools and blind! for
_whether_ is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the
gold?"--_Matt._, xxiii, 17. This usage is now obsolete; and, in stead of
it, we say, "_Which_ is greater?" But as a disjunctive conjunction,
corresponding to _or_, the word _whether_ is still in good repute; as,
"Resolve _whether_ you will go _or_ not."--_Webster's Dict._ In this sense
of the term, some choose to call _whether_ an _adverb_.
OBS. 37.--In the view of some writers, interrogative pronouns differ from
relatives chiefly in this; that, as the subject referred to is unknown to
the speaker, they do not relate to a _preceding_ noun, but to something
which is to be expressed in the answer to the question. It is certain that
their _person, number_, and _gender_, are not regulated by an antecedent
noun; but by what the speaker supposes or knows of a subject which may, or
may not, agree with them in these respects: as, "_What_ lies there?"
Answer, "Two _men_ asleep." Here _what_, standing for _what thing_, is of
the third person, singular number, and neuter gender; but _men_, which is
the term that answers to it, is of the third person, plural, masculine.
There is therefore no necessary agreement between the question and the
answer, in any of those properties in which a pronoun usually agrees with
its noun. Yet some grammarians will have interrogatives to agree with these
"_subsequents_," as relatives agree with their _antecedents_. The answer,
it must be granted, commonly contains a noun, corresponding in some
respects to the interrogative pronoun, and agreeing with it _in case_; but
this noun cannot be supposed to control the interrogation, nor is it, in
any sense, the word for which the pronoun stands. For every pronoun must
needs stand for something that is uttered or conceived by the same speaker;
nor can any question be answered, until its meaning is understood.
Interrogative pronouns must therefore be explained as direct substitutes
for such other terms as one might use in stead of them. Thus _who_ means
_what person_?
"_Who_ taught that heav'n-directed spire to rise?
_The Man of Ross_, each lisping babe replies."--_Pope_.
OBS. 38.--In the classification of the pronouns, and indeed in the whole
treatment of them, almost all our English grammars are miserably faulty, as
well as greatly at variance. In some forty or fifty, which I have examined
on this point, the few words which constitute this part of speech, have
more than twenty different modes of distribution. (1.) Cardell says, "There
is but one kind of pronouns"--_Elements of Gram._, p. 30. (2.) D. Adam's,
Greenleaf, Nutting, and Weld, will have two kinds; "_personal_ and
_relative_." (3.) Dr. Webster's "Substitutes, or pronouns, are of two
kinds:" the one, "called _personal_;" the other, without name or number.
See his _Improved Gram._, p. 24. (4.) Many have fixed upon three sorts;
"_personal, relative_, and _adjective_;" with a subdivision of the last. Of
these is Lindley Murray, in his late editions, with his amenders,
Ainsworth, Alger, Bacon, Bullions, Fisk, A. Flint, Frost, Guy, Hall,
Kirkham, Lennie, Merchant, Picket, Pond, and S. Putnam. (5.) Kirkham,
however, changes the order of the classes; thus, "_personal, adjective_,
and _relative_;" and, with ridiculous absurdity, makes _mine, thine, hers,
ours, yours_, and _theirs_ to be "_compounds_." (6.) Churchill adopts the
plan of "_personal, relative_, and _adjective_ pronouns;" and then destroys
it by a valid argument. (7.) Comly, Wilcox, Wells, and Perley, have these
three classes; "_personal, relative_, and _interrogative_:" and this
division is right. (8.) Sanborn makes the following bull: "The _general_
divisions of pronouns are _into personal, relative, interrogative_, and
_several sub-divisions_."--_Analytical Gram._, p. 91. (9.) Jaudon has these
three kinds; "_personal, relative_, and _distributive_." (10.) Robbins,
these; "_simple, conjunctive_, and _interrogative_." (11.) Lindley Murray,
in his early editions, had these four; "_personal, possessive, relative_,
and _adjective_." (12.) Bucke has these; "_personal, relative,
interrogative_, and _adjective_." (13.) Ingersoll, these; "_personal,
adjective, relative_, and _interrogative_." (14.) Buchanan; "_personal,
demonstrative, relative_, and _interrogative_." (15.) Coar; "_personal,
possessive_ or _pronominal adjectives, demonstrative_, and _relative_."
(16.) Bicknell; "_personal, possessive, relative_, and _demonstrative_."
(17.) Cobbett; "_personal, relative, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_."
(18) M'Culloch; "_personal, possessive, relative_, and _reciprocal_." (19.)
Staniford has five; "_personal, relative, interrogative, definitive_, and
_distributive_." (20.) Alexander, six; "_personal, relative, demonstrative,
interrogative, definitive_, and _adjective_." (21.) Cooper, in 1828, had
five; "_personal, relative, possessive, definite_, and _indefinite_." (22.)
Cooper, in 1831, six; "_personal, relative, definite, indefinite,
possessive_, and _possessive pronominal adjectives_." (23.) Dr. Crombie
says: "Pronouns may be divided into _Substantive_, and _Adjective;
Personal_, and _Impersonal; Relative_, and _Interrogative_." (24.) Alden
has seven sorts; "_personal, possessive, relative, interrogative,
distributive, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_." (25.) R. C. Smith has many
kinds, and treats them so badly that nobody can count them. In respect to
definitions, too, most of these writers are shamefully inaccurate, or
deficient. Hence the filling up of their classes is often as bad as the
arrangement. For instance, four and twenty of them will have interrogative
pronouns to be relatives; but who that knows what a relative pronoun is,
can coincide with them in opinion? Dr. Crombie thinks, "that interrogatives
are strictly relatives;" and yet divides the two classes with his own hand!
MODIFICATIONS.
Pronouns have the same modifications as nouns; namely, _Persons, Numbers,
Genders_, and _Cases_. Definitions universally applicable have already been
given of all these things; it is therefore unnecessary to define them again
in this place.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--In the personal pronouns, most of these properties are
distinguished by the words themselves; in the relative and the
interrogative pronouns, they are ascertained chiefly by means of the
antecedent and the verb. Interrogative pronouns, however, as well as the
relatives _which, what, as_, and all the compounds of _who, which_, and
_what_, are always of the third person. Even in etymological parsing, some
regard must be had to the syntactical relations of words. By
_modifications_, we commonly mean actual changes in the forms of words, by
which their grammatical properties are inherently distinguished; but, in
all languages, the distinguishable properties of words are somewhat more
numerous than their actual variations of form; there being certain
principles of universal grammar, which cause the person, number, gender, or
case, of some words, to be inferred from their relation to others; or, what
is nearly the same thing, from the sense which is conveyed by the sentence.
Hence, if in a particular instance it happen, that some, or even all, of
these properties, are without any index in the form of the pronoun itself,
they are still to be ascribed in parsing, because they may be easily and
certainly discovered from the construction. For example: in the following
text, it is just as easy to discern the _genders_ of the pronouns, as the
_cases_ of the nouns; and both are known and asserted to be what they are,
upon principles of mere inference: "For what knowest _thou_, O _wife_,
whether _thou_ shalt save _thy husband_? or how knowest _thou_, O _man_,
whether _thou_ shalt save _thy wife_?"--_1 Cor._, vii, 16. Again: "_Who_
betrayed _her_ companion? Not _I_."--_Murray's Key_, p. 211. Here _her_
being of the feminine gender, it is the inference of every reader, that
_who_ and _I_ are so too; but whether the word _companion_ is masculine or
feminine, is not so obvious.
OBS. 2.--The personal pronouns of the first and second persons, are equally
applicable to both sexes; and should be considered masculine or feminine,
according to the known application of them. [See _Levizac's French Gram._,
p. 73.] The speaker and the hearer, being present to each other, of course
know the sex to which they respectively belong; and, whenever they appear
in narrative or dialogue, we are told who they are. In _Latin_, an
adjective or a participle relating to these pronouns, is varied _to agree_
with them in _number, gender_, and _case_. This is a sufficient proof that
_ego, I_, and _tu, thou_, are not destitute of gender, though neither the
Latin words nor the English are themselves varied to express it:--
"_Miserae_ hoc tamen unum
Exequere, Anna, _mihi: solam_ nam perfidus ille
_Te_ colere, arcanos etiam tibi credere sensus;
_Sola_ viri molles aditus et tempora noras."--_Virgil_.
OBS. 3.--Many English grammarians, and Murray at their head, deny the first
person of nouns, and the gender of pronouns of the first and second
persons; and at the same time teach, that, "Pronouns must always agree with
their antecedents, _and_ the nouns for which they stand, in _gender,
number_, and _person_:" (_Murray's Gr., 2d Ed._, p. 111; _Rev. T. Smith's_,
p. 60:) and further, with redundance of expression, that, "The relative is
of the same person _with_ the antecedent, and the verb agrees with it
accordingly."--_Same_. These quotations form Murray's fifth rule of syntax,
as it stands in his early editions.[196] In some of his revisings, the
author erased the word _person_ from the former sentence, and changed
_with_ to _as_ in the latter. But other pronouns than relatives, agree with
their nouns in person; so that his first alteration was not for the better,
though Ingersoll, Kirkham, Alger, Bacon, J. Greenleaf, and some others,
have been very careful to follow him in it. And why did he never discern,
that the above-named principles of his etymology are both of them
contradicted by this rule of his syntax, and one of them by his rule as it
now stands? It is manifest, that no two words can possibly _agree_ in any
property which belongs not to both. Else what _is_ agreement? Nay, no two
things in nature, can in any wise agree, accord, or be alike, but by having
some quality or accident in common. How strange a contradiction then is
this! And what a compliment to learning, that it is still found in
well-nigh all our grammars!
OBS. 4.--If there were truth in what Murray and others affirm, that "Gender
has respect only to the third person singular of the pronouns, _he, she,
it_," [197] no two words could ever agree in gender; because there can be
no such agreement between any two of the words here mentioned, and the
assertion is, that gender has respect to no others. But, admitting that
neither the author nor the numerous copiers of this false sentence ever
meant to deny that gender has respect to _nouns_, they do deny that it has
respect to any other _pronouns_ than these; whereas I affirm that it ought
to be recognized as a property of _all_ pronouns, as well as of all nouns.
Not that the gender of either is in all instances invariably fixed by the
_forms_ of the particular words; but there is in general, if not in every
possible case, some principle of grammar, on which the gender of any noun
or pronoun in a sentence may be readily ascertained. Is it not plain, that
if we know who speaks or writes, who hears or is addressed, we know also
the gender of the pronouns which are applied to these persons? The poet of
The Task looked upon his mother's picture, and expressed his tender
recollections of a deceased parent by way of _address_; and will any one
pretend, that the pronouns which he applied to himself and to her, are
either of the same gender, or of no gender? If we take neither of these
assumptions, must we not say, they are of different genders? In this
instance, then, let the parser call those of the first person, masculine;
and those of the second, feminine:--
"_My_ mother! when _I_ learned that _thou_ wast dead,
Say, wast _thou_ conscious of the tears _I_ shed?"--_Cowper_.
OBS. 5.--That the pronouns of the first and second persons are sometimes
masculine and sometimes feminine, is perfectly certain; but whether they
can or cannot be neuter, is a question difficult to be decided. To things
inanimate they are applied only _figuratively_; and the question is,
whether the figure always necessarily changes the gender of the antecedent
noun. We assume the general principle, that the noun and its pronoun are
always of the same gender; and we know that when inanimate objects are
personified in the third person, they are usually represented as masculine
or feminine, the gender being changed by the figure. But when a lifeless
object is spoken to in the second person, or represented as speaking in the
first, as the pronouns here employed are in themselves without distinction
of gender, no such change can be proved by the mere words; and, if we allow
that it would be needless to _imagine_ it where the words do not prove it,
the gender of these pronouns must in such cases be neuter, because we have
no ground to think it otherwise. Examples: "And Jesus answered and said
unto _it_, [the barren _figtree_,] No man eat fruit of _thee_ hereafter
forever."--_Mark_, xi, 14. "O _earth_, cover not _thou_ my blood."--_Job_,
xvi, 18. "O _thou sword_ of the Lord, how long will it be ere _thou_ be
quiet?"--_Jeremiah_, xlvii, 6. In these instances, the objects addressed do
not appear to be figuratively invested with the attribute of sex. So
likewise with respect to the first person. If, in the following example,
_gold_ and _diamond_ are neuter, so is the pronoun _me_; and, if not
neuter, of what gender are they? The personification indicates or
discriminates no other.
"Where thy true treasure? Gold says, 'Not in _me_;
And, 'Not in _me_,' the diamond. Gold is poor."--_Young_.
THE DECLENSION OF PRONOUNS.
The declension of a pronoun is a regular arrangement of its numbers and
cases.
I. SIMPLE PERSONALS.
The simple personal pronouns are thus declined:--
I, _of the_ FIRST PERSON, _any of the genders_.[198]
Sing. Nom. I, Plur. Nom. we,
Poss. my, _or_ mine,[199] Poss. our, _or_ ours,
Obj. me; Obj. us.
THOU, _of the_ SECOND PERSON, _any of the genders_.
Sing. Nom. thou,[200] Plur. Nom. ye, or you,
Poss. thy, _or_ thine, Poss. your, _or_ yours,
Obj. thee; Obj. you, or ye.[201]
HE, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _masculine gender_.
Sing. Nom. he, Plur. Nom. they,
Poss. his, Poss. their, _or_ theirs,
Obj. him; Obj. them.
SHE, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _feminine gender_.
Sing. Nom. she, Plur. Nom. they,
Poss. her, _or_ hers, Poss. their, _or_ theirs,
Obj. her; Obj. them.
IT, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _neuter gender_.
Sing. Nom, it, Plur. Nom. they,
Poss. its, Poss. their, _or_ theirs,
Obj. it; Obj. them.
II. COMPOUND PERSONALS.
The word _self_, added to the simple personal pronouns, forms the class of
_compound personal pronouns_; which are used when an action reverts upon
the agent, and also when some persons are to be distinguished from others:
as, sing, _myself_, plur. _ourselves_; sing, _thyself_, plur. _yourselves_;
sing, _himself_, plur. _themselves_; sing, _herself_, plur. _themselves_;
sing, _itself_, plur. _themselves_. They all want the possessive case, and
are alike in the nominative and objective. Thus:--
MYSELF, _of the_ FIRST PERSON,[202] _any of the genders_.
Sing. Nom. myself, Plur. Nom. ourselves,
Poss. ------, Poss. ---------,
Obj. myself; Obj. ourselves.
THYSELF, _of the_ SECOND PERSON, _any of the genders_.
Sing. Nom. thyself,[203] Plur. Nom. yourselves,
Poss. -------, Poss. ----------,
Obj. thyself; Obj. yourselves.
HIMSELF, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _masculine gender_.
Sing. Nom. himself, Plur. Nom. themselves,
Poss. -------, Poss. ----------,
Obj. himself; Obj. themselves.
HERSELF, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _feminine gender_.
Sing. Nom. herself, Plur. Nom. themselves,
Poss. -------, Poss. ----------,
Obj. herself; Obj. themselves.
ITSELF, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _neuter gender_.
Sing. Nom. itself, Plur. Nom. themselves,
Poss. ------, Poss. ----------,
Obj. itself; Obj. themselves.
III. RELATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES.
The relative and the interrogative pronouns are thus declined:--
WHO, _literally applied to persons only_.
Sing. Nom. who, Plur. Nom. who,
Poss. whose, Poss. whose,
Obj. whom; Obj. whom.
WHICH, _applied to animals and things_.
Sing. Nom. which, Plur. Nom. which,
Poss. [204]--, Poss. -----,
Obj. which; Obj. which.
WHAT, _applied ordinarily to things only_.[205]
Sing. Nom. what, Plur. Nom. what,
Poss. ----, Poss. ----,
Obj. what; Obj. what.
THAT, _applied to persons, animals, and things_.
Sing. Nom. that, Plur. Nom. that,
Poss. ----, Poss. ----,
Obj. that; Obj. that.
AS, _applied to persons, animals, and things_.
Sing. Nom. as, Plur. Nom. as,
Poss. ----, Poss. ----,
Obj. as; Obj. as.
IV. COMPOUND RELATIVES.
The compound relative pronouns, _whoever_ or _whosoever, whichever_ or
_whichsoever_, and _whatever_ or _whatsoever_[206] are declined in the same
manner as the simples, _who which, what_. Thus:--
WHOEVER or WHOSOEVER, _applied only to persons_.
Sing. Nom. whoever, Plur. Nom. whoever,
Poss. whosever, Poss. whosever,
Obj. whomever; Obj. whomever.
Sing. Nom. whosoever, Plur. Nom. whosoever,
Poss. whosesoever, Poss. whosesoever,
Obj. whomsoever; Obj. whomsoever.
WHICHEVER or WHICHSOEVER, _applied to persons, animals, and things_.
Sing. Nom. whichever, Plur. Nom. whichever,
Poss. ---------, Poss. --------,
Obj. whichever; Obj. whichever.
Sing. Nom. whichsoever, Plur. Nom. whichsoever,
Poss. ---------, Poss. --------,
Obj. whichsoever; Obj. whichsoever.
WHATEVER or WHATSOEVER, _applied ordinarily to things only_.
Sing. Nom. whatever, Plur. Nom. whatever,
Poss. --------, Poss. --------,
Obj. whatever; Obj. whatever.
Sing. Nom. whatsoever, Plur. Nom. whatsoever,
Poss. ---------, Poss. --------,
Obj. whatsoever; Obj. whatsoever.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--Most of the personal pronouns have two forms of the possessive
case, in each number: as, _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours_; _thy_ or _thine,
your_ or _yours_; _her_ or _hers, their_ or _theirs_. The former is used
before a noun expressed, or when nothing but an adjective intervenes; the
latter, when the governing noun is understood, or is so placed that a
repetition of it is implied in or after the pronoun: as, "_My_ powers are
_thine_; be _thine_ alone The glory of my song."--_Montgomery_. "State what
_mine_ and _your_ principles are."--_Legh Richmond, to his Daughters_.
Better, perhaps: "State what _my_ principles and _yours_ are;"--"State what
_your_ principles and _mine_ are;"--or, "State what are _my_ principles and
_your own_."
"Resign'd he fell; superior to the dart
That quench'd its rage in _yours_ and _Britain's_ heart."--_J. Brown_.
"Behold! to _yours_ and _my_ surprise,
These trifles to a volume rise."--_Lloyd_, p. 186.
OBS. 2.--Possibly, when the same persons or things stand in a joint
relation of this kind to different individuals or parties, it may be proper
to connect two of the simple possessives to express it; though this
construction can seldom, if ever, be necessary, because any such expression
as _thy and her sister, my and his duty_, if not erroneous, can mean
nothing but _your sister, our duty, &c_. But some examples occur, the
propriety of which it is worth while to consider: as, "I am sure it will be
a pleasure to you to hear that she proves worthy of her father, worthy of
you, and of _your and her_ ancestors."--_Spectator_, No. 525. This sentence
is from a version of Pliny's letter to his wife's aunt; and, as the
ancestors of the two individuals are here the same, the phraseology may be
allowable. But had the aunt commended her niece to Pliny, she should have
said, "worthy of you and of _your_ ancestors and _hers_." "Is it _her_ or
_his_ honour that is tarnished? It is not _hers_, but _his_."--_Murray's
Gram._, p. 175. This question I take to be bad English. It ought to be, "Is
it _her_ honour or _his_, that is tarnished?" Her honour and his honour
cannot be one and the same thing. This example was framed by Murray to
illustrate that idle and puzzling distinction which he and some others make
between "possessive adjective pronouns" and "the genitive case of the
personal pronouns;" and, if I understand him, the author will here have
_her_ and _his_ to be of the former class, and _hers_ and _his_ of the
latter. It were a better use of time, to learn how to employ such words
correctly. Unquestionably, they are of the same class and the same case,
and would be every way equivalent, if the first form were fit to be used
elliptically. For example: "The same phrenzy had hindered the Dutch from
improving to _their_ and to the common advantage the public misfortunes of
France."--_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 309. Here the possessive case _their_
appears to be governed by _advantage_ understood, and therefore it would
perhaps be better to say, _theirs_, or _their own_. But in the following
instance, _our_ may be proper, because both possessives appear to be
governed by one and the same noun:--
"Although 'twas _our_ and _their_ opinion
Each other's church was but a Rimmon."--_Hudibras_.
OBS. 3.--_Mine_ and _thine_ were formerly preferred to _my_ and _thy_,
before all words beginning with a vowel sound; or rather, _mine_ and
_thine_ were the original forms,[207] and _my_ and _thy_ were first
substituted for them before consonants, and afterwards before vowels: as,
"But it was thou, a man _mine_ equal, _my_ guide, and _mine_
acquaintance."--_Psalms_, lv, 13. "_Thy_ prayers and _thine_ alms are come
up for a memorial before God."--_Acts_, x, 4. When the Bible was
translated, either form appears to have been used before the letter _h_;
as, "Hath not _my hand_ made all these things?"--_Acts_, vii, 50. "By
stretching forth _thine hand_ to heal."--_Acts_, iv, 30. According to
present practice, _my_ and _thy_ are in general to be preferred before all
nouns, without regard to the sounds of letters. The use of the other forms,
in the manner here noticed, has now become obsolete; or, at least,
antiquated, and peculiar to the poets. We occasionally meet with it in
modern verse, though not very frequently, and only where the melody of the
line seems to require it: as,
"Time writes no wrinkle on _thine_ azure brow."--_Byron_.
"Deign on the passing world to turn _thine_ eyes."--_Johnson_.
"_Mine_ eyes beheld the messenger divine."--_Lusiad_.
"_Thine_ ardent symphony sublime and high."--_Sir W. Scott_.
OBS. 4.--The possessives _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, usually
denote possession, or the relation of property, with an _ellipsis_ of the
name of the thing possessed; as, "My sword and _yours_ are
kin."--_Shakspeare_. Here _yours_ means _your sword_. "You may imagine what
kind of faith _theirs_ was."--_Bacon_. Here _theirs_ means _their faith_.
"He ran headlong into his own ruin whilst he endeavoured to precipitate
_ours_."--_Bolingbroke_. Here _ours_ means _our ruin_. "Every one that
heareth these saying of _mine_."--_Matt._, vii, 26. Here _mine_ means _my
sayings_. "Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of _his_."--_Psalms_, xxx, 4.
Here _his_ means _his saints_. The noun which governs the possessive, is
here _understood_ after it, being inferred from that which precedes, as it
is in all the foregoing instances. "And the man of _thine_, whom I shall
not cut off from _mine_ altar, shall be to consume _thine_ eyes, and to
grieve _thine_ heart."--_1 Samuel_, ii, 33. Here _thine_, in the first
phrase, means _thy men_; but, in the subsequent parts of the sentence, both
_mine and thine_ mean neither more nor less than _thy_ and _my_, because
there is no ellipsis. _Of_ before the possessive case, governs the noun
which is understood after this case; and is always taken in a _partitive_
sense, and not as the sign of the possessive relation: as, "When we say, 'a
soldier _of the king's_', we mean, '_one of_ the king's
_soldiers_.'"--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 29. There is therefore an
ellipsis of the word _soldiers_, in the former phrase. So, in the following
example, _mine_ is used elliptically for _my feet_; or rather, _feet_ is
understood after _mine_, though _mine feet_ is no longer good English, for
reasons before stated:--
"Ere I absolve thee, stoop I that on thy neck
Levelled with earth tins _foot of mine_ may tread."--_Wordsworth_.
OBS. 5.--Respecting the _possessive case_ of the simple personal pronouns,
there appears among our grammarians a strange diversity of sentiment. Yet
is there but one view of the matter, that has in it either truth or reason,
consistency or plausibility. And, in the opinion of any judicious teacher,
an erroneous classification of words so common and so important as these,
may well go far to condemn any system of grammar in which it is found. A
pronoun agrees in person, number, and gender, with the noun _for which it
is a substitute_; and, if it is in the possessive case, it is usually
governed by _an other noun_ expressed or implied after it. That is, if it
denotes possession, it stands for the name of the possessor, and is
governed by the name of the thing possessed. Now do not _my, thy, his, her,
our, your, their_, and _mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, all
equally denote possession? and do they not severally show by their forms
the person, the number, and sometimes also the gender, of whomever or
whatever they make to be the possessor? If they do, they are all of them
_pronouns_, and nothing else; all found in the _possessive case_, and
nowhere else. It is true, that in Latin, Greek, and some other languages,
there are not only genitive cases corresponding to these possessives, but
also certain declinable adjectives which we render in English by these same
words: that is, by _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours; thy_ or _thine, your_ or
_yours_; &c. But this circumstance affords no valid argument for
considering any of these English terms to be mere adjectives; and, say what
we will, it is plain that they have not the signification of adjectives,
nor can we ascribe to them the construction of adjectives, without making
their grammatical agreement to be what it very manifestly is not. They
never agree, in any respect, with the nouns which _follow_ them, unless it
be by mere accident. This view of the matter is sustained by the authority
of many of our English grammars; as may be seen by the declensions given by
Ash, C. Adams, Ainsworth, R. W. Bailey, Barnard, Buchanan, Bicknell, Blair,
Burn, Butler, Comly, Churchill, Cobbett, Dalton, Davenport, Dearborn,
Farnum, A. Flint, Fowler, Frost, Gilbert, S. S. Green, Greenleaf, Hamlin,
Hiley, Kirkham, Merchant, Murray the schoolmaster, Parkhurst, Picket,
Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R. C. Smith, Wilcox.
OBS. 6.--In opposition to the classification and doctrine adopted above,
many of our grammarians teach, that _my, thy, this, her, our, your, their_,
are adjectives or "adjective pronouns;" and that _mine, thine, hers, its,
ours, yours, theirs_, are personal pronouns in the possessive case. Among
the supporters of this notion, are D. Adams, Alden, Alger, Allen, Bacon,
Barrett, Bingham, Bucke, Bullions, Cutler, Fisk, Frost, (in his small
Grammar,) Guy, Hall, Hart, Harrison, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Lennie, Lowth,
Miller, L. Murray, Pond, T. Smith, Spear, Spencer, Staniford, Webber,
Woodworth. The authority of all these names, however, amounts to little
more than that of one man; for Murray pretended to follow Lowth, and nearly
all the rest copied Murray. Dr. Lowth says, "_Thy, my, her, our, your,
their_, are pronominal adjectives; but _his_, (that is, _he's_,) _her's,
our's, your's, their's_, have evidently the form of the possessive case:
And, by analogy, _mine, thine_, may be esteemed of the same
rank."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 23.[208] But why did he not see, that by the
same analogy, and also by the sense and meaning of the words, as well as by
their distinctions of person, number, and gender, all the other six are
entitled to "the same rank?" Are not the forms of _my, thy, her, our, your,
their_, as fit to denote the relation of property, and to be called the
possessive case, as _mine, thine, his_, or any others? In grammar, all
needless distinctions are reprehensible. And where shall we find a more
blamable one than this? It seems to have been based merely upon the false
notion, that the possessive case of pronouns ought to be formed like that
of nouns; whereas custom has clearly decided that they shall always be
different: the former must never be written with an apostrophe; and the
latter, never without it. Contrary to all good usage, however, the Doctor
here writes "_her's, our's, your's, their's_," each with a needless
apostrophe. Perhaps he thought it would serve to strengthen his position;
and help to refute what some affirmed, that all these words are adjectives.
OBS. 7.--Respecting _mine, thine_, and _his_, Lowth and L. Murray disagree.
The latter will have them to be sometimes "_possessive pronouns_," and
sometimes "_possessive cases_." An admirable distinction this for a great
author to make! too slippery for even the inventor's own hold, and utterly
unintelligible to those who do not know its history! In short, these
authors disagree also concerning _my, thy, her, our, your, their_; and
where two leaders of a party are at odds with each other, and each is in
the wrong, what is to be expected from their followers? Perceiving that
Lowth was wrong in calling these words "_pronominal adjectives_," Murray
changed the term to "_possessive pronouns_," still retaining the class
entire; and accordingly taught, in his early editions, that, "There are
_four kinds_ of pronouns, viz., the personal, _the possessive, the_
relative, and _the_ adjective pronouns."--_Murray's Gram._, 2d Edition, p.
37. "The Possessive Pronouns are such as principally relate to possession
or property. There are seven of them; viz. _my, thy, his, her, our, your,
their_. The possessives _his, mine, thine_, may be accounted either
_possessive pronouns_, or the _possessive cases_ of their respective
personal pronouns."--_Ib._, p. 40. He next idly demonstrates that these
seven words may come before nouns of any number or case, without variation;
then, forgetting his own distinction, adds, "When they are separated from
the noun, all of them, except _his_, vary _their terminations_; as, this
hat is _mine_, and the other is _thine_; those trinkets are _hers_; this
house is _ours_, and that is _yours; theirs_ is more commodious than
_ours_"--_Ib._, p. 40. Thus all his personal pronouns of the possessive
case, he then made to be inflections of pronouns of _a different class!_
What are they now? Seek the answer under the head of that gross solecism,
"_Adjective Pronouns_." You may find it in one half of our English
grammars.
OBS. 8.--Any considerable error in the classing of words, does not stand
alone; it naturally brings others in its train. Murray's "_Adjective
Pronouns_," (which he now subdivides into four little classes, _possessive,
distributive, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_,) being all of them misnamed
and misplaced in his etymology, have led both him and many others into
strange errors in syntax. The _possessives only_ are "pronouns;" and
these are pronouns of the possessive _case_. As such, they agree with the
_antecedent_ nouns for which they stand, in _person, number_, and _gender_;
and are governed, like all other possessives, by the nouns which follow
them. The rest are _not pronouns_, but pronominal _adjectives_; and, as
such, they relate to nouns expressed or understood _after them_.
Accordingly, they have none of the above-mentioned qualities, except that
the words _this_ and _that_ form the plurals _these_ and _those_. Or, if we
choose to ascribe to a pronominal adjective all the properties of the noun
understood, it is merely for the sake of brevity in parsing. The
difference, then, between a "pronominal adjective" and an "adjective
pronoun," should seem to be this; that the one is _an adjective_, and the
other _a pronoun_: it is like the difference between a _horserace_ and a
_racehorse_. What can be hoped from the grammarian who cannot discern it?
And what can be made of rules and examples like the following? "Adjective
_pronouns_ must agree, in number, with _their substantives_: as, '_This_
book, _these_ books; _that_ sort, _those_ sorts; _another_ road, _other_
roads.'"--_Murray's Gram._, Rule viii, _Late Editions; Alger's Murray_, p.
56; _Alden's, 85; Bacon's, 48; Maltby's, 59; Miller's, 66; Merchant's, 81;
S. Putnam's, 10; and others_. "Pronominal _adjectives_ must agree with
_their nouns_ in gender, number, and person; thus, '_My son_, hear the
instructions of _thy_ father.' 'Call the _labourers_, and give them _their_
hire.'"--_Maunder's Gram._, Rule xvii. Here Murray gives a rule for
_pronouns_, and illustrates it by _adjectives_; and Maunder, as ingeniously
blunders in reverse: he gives a rule for _adjectives_, and illustrates it
by _pronouns_. But what do they mean by "_their substantives_," or "_their
nouns_?" As applicable to _pronouns_, the phrase should mean _nouns
antecedent_; as applicable to _adjectives_, it should mean _nouns
subsequent_. Both these rules are therefore false, and fit only to
bewilder; and the examples to both are totally inapplicable. Murray's was
once essentially right, but he afterwards corrupted it, and a multitude of
his admirers have since copied the perversion. It formerly stood thus: "The
pronominal adjectives _this_ and _that, &c_. and the numbers[209] _one,
two_, &c., must agree in number with their substantives: as, 'This book,
these books; that sort, those sorts; one girl, ten girls; another road,
other roads.' "--_Murray's Gram._, Rule viii, 2d Ed., 1796.
OBS. 9.--Among our grammarians, some of considerable note have contended,
that the personal pronouns have but _two cases_, the nominative and the
objective. Of this class, may be reckoned Brightland, Dr. Johnson, Fisher,
Mennye, Cardell, Cooper, Dr. Jas. P. Wilson, W. B. Fowle. and, according to
his late grammars, Dr. Webster. But, in contriving what to make of _my_ or
_mine, our_ or _ours, thy_ or _thine, your_ or _yours, his, her_ or _hers,
its_, and _their_ or _theirs_, they are as far from any agreement, or even
from self-consistency, as the cleverest of them could ever imagine. To the
person, the number, the gender, and the case, of each of these words, they
either profess themselves to be total strangers, or else prove themselves
so, by the absurdities they teach. Brightland calls them "Possessive
Qualities, or Qualities of Possession;" in which class he also embraces all
_nouns_ of the possessive case. Johnson calls them pronouns; and then says
of them, "The possessive _pronouns_, like _other adjectives_, are without
_cases_ or change of termination."--_Gram._, p. 6. Fisher calls them
"Personal Possessive Qualities;" admits the person of _my, our_, &c.; but
supposes _mine, ours_, &c. to supply the place of the _nouns which govern
them!_ Mennye makes them one of his three classes of pronouns, "_personal,
possessive_, and _relative_;" giving to both forms the rank which Murray
once gave, and which Allen now gives, to the first form only. Cardell
places them among his "defining adjectives." With Fowle, these, and all
other possessives, are "possessive adjectives." Cooper, in his grammar of
1828. copies the last scheme of Murray: in that of 1831, he avers that the
personal pronouns "want the possessive case." Now, like Webster and Wilson,
he will have _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, to be pronouns
of the nominative or the objective case. Dividing the pronouns into six
general classes, he makes these the fifth; calling them "Possessive
Pronouns," but preferring in a note the monstrous name, "_Possessive
Pronouns Substitute_." His sixth class are what he calls, "The Possessive
Pronominal _Adjectives_;" namely, "_my, thy, his, her, our, your, their,
its, own_, and sometimes _mine_ and _thine_."--_Cooper's Pl. and Pr.
Gram._, p. 43. But all these he has, unquestionably, either misplaced or
misnamed; while he tells us, that, "Simplicity of arrangement should be the
object of every compiler."--_Ib._, p. 33. Dr. Perley, (in whose scheme of
grammar all the pronouns are _nouns_,) will have _my, thy, his, her, its,
our, your_, and _their_, to be in the possessive case; but of _mine, thine,
hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, he says, "These may be called
_Desiderative Personal Pronouns_."--_Perley's Gram._, p. 15.
OBS. 10.--Kirkham, though he professes to follow Murray, declines the
simple personal pronouns as I have declined them; and argues admirably,
that _my, thy, his, &c._, are pronouns of the possessive case, because,
"They always _stand for nouns in the possessive case_." But he afterwards
contradicts both himself and the common opinion of all former grammarians,
in referring _mine, thine, hers_, &c., to the class of "_Compound Personal
Pronouns._" Nay, as if to outdo even himself in absurdity, he first makes
_mine, thine, hers, ours_, &c., to be compounds, by assuming that, "These
_pluralizing adjuncts, ne_ and _s_, were, no doubt, formerly detached from
the pronouns with which they now coalesce;" and then, because he finds in
each of his supposed compounds the signification of a pronoun and its
governing noun, reassumes, in parsing them, the very principle of error, on
which he condemns their common classification. He says, "They should be
parsed _as two words_." He also supposes them to represent the nouns _which
govern them_--nouns with which they do not agree in any respect! Thus is he
wrong in almost every thing he says about them. See _Kirkham's Gram._, p.
99, p. 101, and p. 104. Goodenow, too, a still later writer, adopts the
major part of all this absurdity. He will have _my, thy, his, her, its,
our, your, their_, for the possessive case of his personal pronouns; but
_mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, he calls "_compound possessive
pronouns_, in the subjective or [the] objective case."--_Text-Book of E.
Gram._, p. 33. Thus he introduces a new class, unknown to his primary
division of the pronouns, and not included in his scheme of their
declension. Fuller, too, in a grammar produced at Plymouth, Mass., in 1822,
did nearly the same thing. He called _I, thou, he, she_, and _it_, with
their plurals, "_antecedent_ pronouns;" took _my, thy, his, her_, &c., for
their _only_ possessive forms in his declension; and, having passed from
them by the space of just half his book, added: "Sometimes, to prevent the
repetition of the same word, an _antecedent pronoun in the possessive
case_, is made to represent, both the pronoun and a noun; as, 'That book is
_mine_'--i. e. '_my book_.' MINE is a _compound antecedent pronoun_, and is
equivalent to _my_ book. Then parse _my_, and _book_, as though they were
both expressed."--_Fuller's Gram._, p. 71.
OBS. 11.--Amidst all this diversity of doctrine at the very centre of
grammar, who shall so fix its principles that our schoolmasters and
schoolmistresses may know _what to believe and teach_? Not he that
speculates without regard to other men's views; nor yet he that makes it a
merit to follow implicitly "the footsteps of" _one only_. The true
principles of grammar are with the learned; and that man is in the wrong,
with whom the _most_ learned will not, in general, coincide. Contradiction
of falsities, is necessary to the maintenance of truth; correction of
errors, to the success of science. But not every man's errors can be so
considerable as to deserve correction from other hands than his own.
Misinstruction in grammar has for this reason generally escaped censure. I
do not wish any one to coincide with me merely through ignorance of what
others inculcate. If doctors of divinity and doctors of laws will
contradict themselves in teaching grammar, so far as they do so, the lovers
of consistency will find it necessary to deviate from their track.
Respecting these pronouns, I learned in childhood, from Webster, a doctrine
which he now declares to be false. This was nearly the same as Lowth's,
which is quoted in the sixth observation above. But, in stead of correcting
its faults, this zealous reformer has but run into others still greater.
Now, with equal reproach to his etymology, his syntax, and his logic, he
denies that our pronouns have any form of the possessive case at all. But
grant the obvious fact, that _substitution_ is one thing, and _ellipsis_ an
other, and his whole argument is easily overthrown; for it is only by
confounding these, that he reaches his absurd conclusion.
OBS. 12.--Dr. Webster's doctrine now is, that none of the English pronouns
have more than two cases. He says, "_mine, thine, his, hers, yours_, and
_theirs_, are _usually considered_ as [being of] the possessive case. But
the _three first_ are either attributes, and used with nouns, or they are
substitutes. The _three last_ are always substitutes, used in the place of
names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD."--"That _mine, thine, his_, [_ours_,] _yours,
hers_, and _theirs_, do not constitute a possessive case, is demonstrable;
for they are constantly used as the nominatives to verbs and as the
objectives after verbs and prepositions, as in the following passages.
'Whether it could perform its operations of thinking and memory out of a
body organized as _ours is_.'--_Locke_. 'The reason is, that his subject is
generally things; _theirs_, on the contrary, _is_ persons.'--_Camp. Rhet._
'Therefore leave your forest of beasts for _ours_ of brutes, called
men.'--_Wycherley to Pope_. It is needless to multiply proofs. We observe
these _pretended possessives_ uniformly used as nominatives or
objectives.[210] Should it be said that _a noun is understood_; I reply,
_this cannot be true_," &c.--_Philosophical Gram._, p. 35; _Improved
Gram._, p. 26. Now, whether it be true or not, this very position is
expressly affirmed by the Doctor himself, in the citation above; though he
is, unquestionably, wrong in suggesting that the pronouns are "used _in the
place_ of [those] names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD." They are used in the place
of other names--the names of _the possessors_; and are governed by those
which he here both admits and denies to be "understood."
OBS. 13.--The other arguments of Dr. Webster against the possessive case of
pronouns, may perhaps be more easily answered than some readers imagine.
The first is drawn from the fact that conjunctions connect like cases.
"Besides, in three passages just quoted, the word _yours_ is joined by a
connective _to a name_ in the same case; 'To ensure _yours_ and _their
immortality_.' 'The easiest part of _yours_ and _my design_.' '_My sword_
and _yours_ are kin.' Will any person pretend that the connective here
joins different cases?"--_Improved Gram._, p. 28; _Philosophical Gram._, p.
36. I answer, No. But it is falsely assumed that _yours_ is here connected
by _and_ to _immortality_, to _design_, or to _sword_; because these words
are again severally understood after _yours_: or, if otherwise, the two
pronouns alone are connected by _and_, so that the proof is rather, that
_their_ and _my_ are in the possessive case. The second argument is drawn
from the use of the preposition _of_ before the possessive. "For we say
correctly, 'an acquaintance _of yours, ours_, or _theirs_'--_of_ being the
sign of the possessive; but if the words in themselves are possessives,
then there must be two signs of the same case, which is absurd."--_Improved
Gram._, p. 28; _Phil. Gr._, 36. I deny that _of_ is here the sign of the
possessive, and affirm that it is taken partitively, in all examples of
this sort. "I know my sheep, and am known _of mine_," is not of this kind;
because _of_ here means _by_--a sense in which the word is antiquated. In
recurring afterwards to this argument, the Doctor misquotes the following
texts, and avers that they "are evidently meant to include the _whole
number_: 'Sing _to_ the Lord, _all_ ye saints of _his_.'--_Ps._ 30, 4.
'_He_ that heareth these sayings _of mine_.'--_Matt._ 7."--_Improved
Gram._, p. 29; _Phil. Gr._, 38. If he is right about the meaning, however,
the passages are mistranslated, as well as misquoted: they ought to be,
"Sing _unto_ the Lord, _O ye his Saints_."--"_Every one_ that heareth
_these my sayings_." But when a definitive particle precedes the noun, it
is very common with us, to introduce the possessive elliptically after it;
and what Dr. Wilson means by suggesting that it is erroneous, I know not:
"When the preposition _of_ precedes _mine, ours, yours_, &c. the _errour_
lies, not in this, that there are double possessive cases, but in forming
an implication of a noun, which the substitute already denotes, together
with the persons."--_Essay on Gram._, p. 110.
OBS. 14.--In his Syllabus of English Grammar, Dr. Wilson teaches thus:
"_My, our, thy, your, his, her, its, their, whose_, and _whosesoever_ are
possessive pronominal _adjectives. Ours, yours, hers_, and _theirs_ are
_pronoun substantives_, used either as subjects, or [as] objects; as
singulars, or [as] plurals; and are substituted both for [the names of] the
possessors, and [for those of the] things possessed. _His, its, whose,
mine_, and _thine_, are sometimes used as _such substantives_; but also are
at other times _pronominal possessive_ adjectives."--_Wilson's Syllabus_,
p. X. Now compare with these three positions, the following three from the
same learned author. "In Hebrew, the _adjective_ generally agrees with its
noun in gender and number, but _pronouns_ follow the gender of their
antecedents, and not of the nouns with which they stand. So in English,
_my, thy, his, her, its, our, your_, and _their_, agree with the nouns they
represent, in number, gender, and person. But _adjectives_, having no
change expressive of number, gender, or case, cannot accord with their
nouns."--_Wilson's Essay on Gram._, p. 192. "_Ours, yours, hers_, and
_theirs_, are most usually considered possessive cases of personal
pronouns; but they are, more probably, possessive substitutes, not
adjectives, but _nouns_."--_Ib._, p. 109. "Nor can _mine_ or _thine_, with
any more propriety than _ours, yours_, &c. be joined to any noun, as
possessive adjectives and possessive cases may."--_Ib._, p. 110. Whoever
understands these instructions, cannot but see their inconsistency.
OBS. 15.--Murray argues at some length, without naming his opponents, that
the words which he assumes to be such, are really personal pronouns
standing rightfully in the possessive case; and that, "they should not, on
the slight pretence of their differing from nouns, be dispossessed of the
right and privilege, which, from time immemorial they have
enjoyed."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 53. Churchill as ably shows, that the
corresponding terms, which Lowth calls _pronominal adjectives_, and which
Murray and others will have to be _pronouns of no case_, are justly
entitled to the same rank. "If _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, be
the possessive case; _my, thy, her, our, your, their_, must be the same.
Whether we say, 'It is _John's_ book,' or, 'The book is _John's_;' _John's_
is not less the possessive case in one instance, than it is in the other.
If we say, 'It is _his_ book,' or, 'The book is _his_;' 'It is _her_ book,'
or, 'The book is _hers_;' 'It is _my_ book,' or, 'The book is _mine_;' 'It
is _your_ book,' or, 'The book is _yours_;' are not these parallel
instances? Custom has established it as a law, that this case of the
pronoun shall drop its original termination, for the sake of euphony, when
it precedes the noun that governs it; retaining it only where the noun is
understood: but this certainly makes no alteration in the nature of the
word; so that either _my_ is as much a possessive case as _mine_; or _mine_
and _my_ are equally pronominal adjectives."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p.
221. "Mr. Murray considers the phrases, '_our desire_,' '_your
intention_,' '_their resignation_,' as instances of plural adjectives
_agreeing_ with singular nouns; and consequently exceptions to the general
(may we not say _universal_?) rule: but if they [the words _our, your,
their_,] be, as is attempted to be proved above, the possessive cases of
pronouns, no rule is here violated."--_Ib._, p. 224.
OBS. 16.--One strong argument, touching this much-disputed point of
grammar, was incidentally noticed in the observations upon antecedents: an
adjective cannot give person, number, and gender, to a relative pronoun;
because, in our language, adjectives do not possess these qualities; nor
indeed in any other, except as they take them by immediate agreement with
nouns or pronouns in the same clause. But it is undeniable, that _my, thy,
his, her, our, your, their_, do sometimes stand as antecedents, and give
person, number, and gender to relatives, which head other clauses. For the
learner should remember, that, "When a relative pronoun is used, the
sentence is divided into two parts; viz. the _antecedent_ sentence, or that
which contains the _antecedent_; and the _relative_ sentence, containing
the _relative_."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 123. We need not here deny, that
Terence's Latin, as quoted in the grammars, "Omnes laudare fortunas _meas,
qui_ haberem gnatum tali ingeuio praeditum," is quite as intelligible
syntax, as can literally be made of it in English--"That all would praise
_my_ fortunes, _who had_ a son endued with such a genius." For, whether the
Latin be good or not, it affords no argument against us, except that of a
supposed analogy; nor does the literality of the version prove, at all
points, either the accuracy or the sameness of the construction.
OBS. 17.--Surely, without some imperative reason, we ought not, in English,
to resort to such an assumption as is contained in the following Rule:
"Sometimes the relative agrees in person with that pronoun substantive,
from which the possessive pronoun adjective is derived; as, Pity _my_
condition, _who am_ so destitute. I rejoice at _thy_ lot, _who art_ so
fortunate. We lament _his_ fate, _who is_ so unwary. Beware of _her_
cunning, _who is_ so deceitful. Commiserate _our_ condition, _who are_ so
poor. Tremble at _your_ negligence, _who are_ so careless. It shall be
_their_ property, _who are_ so diligent. We are rejoicing at _thy_ lot,
_who hast_ been so fortunate."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 142. In his
explanation of the last of these sentences, the author says, "_Who_ is a
relative pronoun; in the masculine gender, singular number, second person,
and agrees with _thee_, implied in the adjective _thy_. RULE.--Sometimes
the relative agrees in person, &c. And it is the nominative to the verb
_hast been_. RULE.--When no nominative comes between the relative and the
verb, the relative is the nominative to the verb."--_Ib._, p. 143. A pupil
of G. Brown's would have said, "_Who_ is a relative pronoun, representing
'_thy_,' or the person addressed, in the second person, singular number,
and masculine gender; according to the rule which says, 'A pronoun must
agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in
person, number, and gender:' and is in the nominative case, being the
subject of _hast been_; according to the rule which says, 'A noun or a
pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative
case.' Because the meaning is--_who hast been_; that is, _thy lot_, or the
lot _of thee, who hast been_."
OBS. 18.--Because the possessive case of a noun or pronoun is usually
equivalent in meaning to the preposition _of_ and the objective case, some
grammarians, mistaking this equivalence of meaning for sameness of case,
have asserted that all our possessives have a double form. Thus Nixon:
"When the particle _of_ comes between two substantives signifying different
things, it is not to be considered a preposition, but _the sign of the
substantive's being in the possessive case_, equally as if the apostrophic
_s_ had been affixed to it; as, 'The skill _of Caesar_,' or _Caesar's_
skill.'"--_English Parser_, p. 38. "When the apostrophic _s_ is used, the
genitive is the former of the two substantives; as, '_John's_ house:' but
when the particle _of_ is used, it is the latter; as, 'The house _of
John_.'"--_Ib._, p. 46. The work here quoted is adapted to two different
grammars; namely, Murray's and Allen's. These the author doubtless
conceived to be the best English grammars extant. And it is not a little
remarkable, that both of these authors, as well as many others, teach in
such a faulty manner, that their intentions upon this point may be matter
of dispute. "When Murray, Allen, and others, say, 'we make use of the
particle _of_ to express the _relation_ of the genitive,' the ambiguity of
their assertion leaves it in doubt whether or not they considered the
substantive which is preceded by _of_ and an other substantive, as in the
_genitive_ case."--_Nixon's English Parser_, p. 38. Resolving this doubt
according to his own fancy, Nixon makes the possessive case of our personal
pronouns to be as follows: "_mine_ or _of me, ours_ or _of us; thine_ or
_of thee, yours_ or _of you; his_ or _of him, theirs_ or _of them; hers_ or
_of her, theirs_ or _of them; its_ or _of it, theirs_ or _of
them_."--_English Parser_, p. 43. This doctrine gives us a form of
declension that is both complex and deficient. It is therefore more
objectionable than almost any of those which are criticised above. The
arguments and authorities on which the author rests his position, are not
thought likely to gain many converts; for which reason, I dismiss the
subject, without citing or answering them.
OBS. 19.--In old books, we sometimes find the word _I_ written for the
adverb _ay_, yes: as, "To dye, to sleepe; To sleepe, perchance to dreame;
_I_, there's the rub."--_Shakspeare, Old Copies_. The British Grammar,
printed in 1784, and the Grammar of Murray the schoolmaster, published some
years earlier than Lindley Murray's, say: "We use _I_ as an Answer, in a
familiar, careless, or merry Way; as, 'I, I, Sir, I, I;' but to use _ay_,
is accounted rude, especially to our Betters." See _Brit. Gram._, p. 198.
The age of this rudeness, or incivility, if it ever existed, has long
passed away; and the fashion seems to be so changed, that to write or utter
_I_ for _ay_, would now in its turn be "accounted _rude_"--the rudeness of
ignorance--a false orthography, or a false pronunciation. In the word _ay_,
the two sounds of _ah-ee_ are plainly heard; in the sound of _I_, the same
elements are more quickly blended. (See a note at the foot of page 162.)
When this sound is suddenly repeated, some writers make a new word of it,
which must be called an _interjection_: as, "'Pray, answer me a question or
two.' '_Ey, ey_, as many as you please, cousin Bridget, an they be not too
hard.'"--_Burgh's Speaker_, p. 99. "_Ey, ey_, 'tis so; she's out of her
head, poor thing."--_Ib._, p. 100. This is probably a corruption of _ay_,
which is often doubled in the same manner: thus,
"_Ay, ay_, Antipholus, look strange, and frown."--_Shakspeare_.
OBS. 20.--The common fashion of address being nowadays altogether in the
plural form, the pronouns _thou, thy, thine, thee_, and _thyself_, have
become unfamiliar to most people, especially to the vulgar and uneducated.
These words are now confined almost exclusively to the writings of the
poets, to the language of the Friends, to the Holy Scriptures, and to the
solemn services of religion. They are, however, the _only genuine_
representatives of the second person singular, in English; and to displace
them from that rank in grammar, or to present _you, your_, and _yours_, as
being literally singular, though countenanced by several late writers, is a
useless and pernicious innovation. It is sufficient for the information of
the learner, and far more consistent with learning and taste, to say, that
the plural is fashionably used _for the singular_, by a figure of syntax;
for, in all correct usage of this sort, the _verb_ is plural, as well as
the pronoun--Dr. Webster's fourteen authorities to the contrary
notwithstanding. For, surely, "_You was_" cannot be considered good
English, merely because that number of respectable writers have happened,
on some particular occasions, to adopt the phrase; and even if we must
needs concede this point, and grant to the Doctor and his converts, that
"_You was_ is _primitive_ and _correct_," the example no more proves that
_you_ is singular, than that _was_ is plural. And what is one singular
irregular preterit, compared with all the verbs in the language?
OBS. 21.--In our present authorized version of the Bible, the numbers and
cases of the second person are kept remarkably distinct,[211] the pronouns
being always used in the following manner: _thou_ for the nominative, _thy_
or _thine_ for the possessive, and _thee_ for the objective, singular; _ye_
for the nominative, _your_ or _yours_ for the possessive, and _you_ for the
objective, plural. Yet, before that version was made, fashionable usage had
commonly substituted _you_ for _ye_, making the former word nominative as
well as objective, and applying it to one hearer as well as to more. And
subsequently, as it appears, the religious sect that entertained a scruple
about applying _you_ to an individual, fell for the most part into an
ungrammatical practice of putting _thee_ for _thou_; making, in like
manner, the objective pronoun to be both nominative and objective; or, at
least, using it very commonly so in their conversation. Their manner of
speaking, however, was not--or, certainly, with the present generation of
their successors, _is_ not--as some grammarians represent it to be, that
formal and antique phraseology which we call _the solemn style_.[212] They
make no more use of the pronoun _ye_, or of the verbal termination _eth_,
than do people of fashion; nor do they, in using the pronoun _thou_, or
their improper nominative _thee_, ordinarily inflect with _st_ or _est_ the
preterits or the auxiliaries of the accompanying verbs, as is done in the
solemn style. Indeed, to use the solemn style familiarly, would be, to turn
it into burlesque; as when Peter Pindar "_telleth what he troweth._" [213]
And let those who think with Murray, that our present version of the
Scriptures _is the best standard_ of English grammar,[214] remember that in
it they have no warrant for substituting _s_ or _es_ for the old
termination _eth_, any more than for ceasing to use the solemn style of the
second person familiarly. That version was good in its day, yet it shows
but very imperfectly what the English language now is. Can we consistently
take for our present standard, a style which does not allow us to use _you_
in the nominative case, or _its_ for the possessive? And again, is not a
simplification of the verb as necessary and proper in the familiar use of
the second person singular, as in that of the third? This latter question I
shall discuss in a future chapter.
OBS. 22.--The use of the pronoun _ye_ in the nominative case, is now mostly
confined to the solemn style;[215] but the use of it in the objective,
which is disallowed in the solemn style, and nowhere approved by our
grammarians, is nevertheless _common_ when no emphasis falls upon the
word: as,
"When you're unmarried, never load _ye_
With jewels; they may incommode _ye_."--_Dr. King_, p. 384.
Upon this point, Dr. Lowth observes, "Some writers have used _ye_ as the
objective case plural of the pronoun of the second person, very improperly
and ungrammatically; [as,]
'The more shame for _ye_; holy men I thought _ye_.' Shak. Hen. VIII.
'But tyrants dread _ye_, lest your just decree
Transfer the pow'r, and set the people free.' Prior.
'His wrath, which one day will destroy _ye_ both.' Milt. P. L. ii. 734.
Milton uses the same manner of expression in a few other places of his
Paradise Lost, and more frequently in his [smaller] poems, _It may,
perhaps, be allowed in the comic and burlesque style_, which often imitates
a vulgar and incorrect pronunciation; but in the serious and solemn style,
_no authority is sufficient_ to justify so manifest a solecism."--_Lowth's
Gram._, p. 22. Churchill copies this remark, and adds; "Dryden has _you_ as
the nominative, and _ye_ as the objective, in the same passage:[216]
'What gain _you_, by forbidding it to tease _ye_?
It now can neither trouble _ye_, nor please _ye_.'
Was this from a notion, that _you_ and _ye_, thus employed, were more
analogous to _thou_ and _thee_ in the singular number?"--_Churchill's
Gram._, p. 25. I answer, No; but, more probably, from a notion, that the
two words, being now confessedly equivalent in the one case, might as well
be made so in the other: just as the Friends, in using _thee_ for _you_,
are carelessly converting the former word into a nominative, to the
exclusion of _thou_; because the latter has generally been made so, to the
exclusion of _ye_. When the confounding of such distinctions is begun, who
knows where it will end? With like ignorance, some writers suppose, that
the fashion of using the plural for the singular is a sufficient warrant
for putting the singular for the plural: as,
"The joys of love, are they not doubly _thine,
Ye poor!_ whose health, whose spirits ne'er decline?"
--_Southwick's Pleas. of Poverty._
"But, _Neatherds_, go look to the kine,
Their cribs with fresh fodder supply;
The task of compassion be _thine_,
For herbage the pastures deny."--_Perfect's Poems_, p. 5.
OBS. 23.--When used in a burlesque or ludicrous manner, the pronoun _ye_ is
sometimes a mere expletive; or, perhaps, intended rather as an objective
governed by a preposition understood. But, in such a construction, I see no
reason to prefer it to the regular objective _you_; as,
"He'll laugh _ye_, dance _ye_, sing _ye_, vault, look gay,
And ruffle all the ladies in his play."--_King_, p. 574.
Some grammarians, who will have _you_ to be singular as well as plural,
ignorantly tell us, that "_ye_ always means more than one." But the fact
is, that when _ye_ was in common use, it was as frequently applied to one
person as _you_: thus,
"Farewell my doughter lady Margarete,
God wotte full oft it grieued hath my mynde,
That _ye_ should go where we should seldome mete:
Now am I gone, and haue left _you_ behynde."--_Sir T. More_, 1503.
In the following example, _ye_ is used for _thee_, the objective singular;
and that by one whose knowledge of the English language, is said to have
been unsurpassed:--
"Proud Baronet of Nova Scotia!
The Dean and Spaniard must reproach _ye_."--_Swift_.
So in the story of the Chameleon:--
"'Tis green, 'tis green, Sir, I assure _ye_."--_Merrick_.
Thus we have _ye_ not only for the nominative in both numbers, but at
length for the objective in both; _ye_ and _you_ being made everywhere
equivalent, by very many writers. Indeed this pronoun has been so
frequently used for the objective case, that one may well doubt any
grammarian's authority to condemn it in that construction. Yet I cannot but
think it ill-chosen in the third line below, though right in the first:--
"_Ye_! who have traced the Pilgrim to the scene
Which is his last, if in your memories dwell
A thought which once was his, if on _ye_ swell
A single recollection, not in vain
He wore his sandal-shoon, and scallop-shell."--_Byron_.
OBS. 24.--The three pronouns of the third person, _he, she_, and _it_, have
always formed their plural number after one and the same manner, _they,
their_ or _theirs, them_. Or, rather, these plural words, which appear not
to be regular derivatives from any of the singulars, have ever been applied
alike to them all. But _it_, the neuter pronoun singular, had formerly no
variation of cases, and is still alike in the nominative and the objective.
The possessive _its_ is of comparatively recent origin. In our common
Bible, the word is not found, except by misprint; nor do other writings of
the same age contain it. The phrase, _of it_, was often used as an
equivalent; as, "And it had three ribs in the mouth _of it_ between the
teeth _of it_."--_Dan._, vii, 5. That is--"in _its_ mouth, between _its_
teeth." But, as a possessive case was sometimes necessary, our ancestors
used to borrow one; commonly from the masculine, though sometimes from the
feminine. This produced what now appears a strange confusion of the
genders: as, "_Learning_ hath _his_ infancy, when _it_ is but beginning,
and almost childish; then _his_ youth, when _it_ is luxuriant and juvenile;
then _his_ strength of years, when _it_ is solid and reduced; and lastly
_his_ old age, when _it_ waxeth dry and exhaust."--_Bacon's Essays_, p. 58.
"Of beaten work shall the _candlestick_ be made: _his_ shaft, and _his_
branches, _his_ bowls, _his_ knops, and _his_ flowers, shall be of the
same."--_Exodus_, xxv, 31. "They came and emptied the _chest_, and took
_it_ and carried _it_ to _his_ place again."--_2 Chron._, xxiv, 11. "Look
not thou upon the _wine, when_ it is red, when _it_ giveth _his_ colour in
the cup, when _it_ moveth _itself_ aright."--_Prov._, xxiii, 31. "The
_tree_ is known by _his_ fruit."--_Matt._, xii, 33. "When thou tillest the
ground, _it_ shall not henceforth yield unto thee _her_ strength."--_Gen._,
iv, 12. "He that pricketh the heart, maketh _it_ to show _her_
knowledge."--_Eccl._, xxii, 19. Shakspeare rarely, if ever, used _its_; and
his style is sometimes obscure for the want of it: as,
"There is no _vice_ so simple, but assumes
Some mark of virtue on _his_ outward parts."
--_Merch. of Venice_.
"The name of Cassius honours this corruption,
And _chastisement_ doth therefore hide _his_ head."
--_Jul. Caes._, Act iv.
OBS. 25.--The possessive case of pronouns should never be written with an
apostrophe. A few pronominal adjectives taken substantively receive it; but
the construction which it gives them, seems to make them nouns: as, _one's,
other's_, and, according to Murray, _former's_ and _latter's_. The real
pronouns that end in _s_, as _his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, though
true possessives after their kind, have no occasion for this mark, nor does
good usage admit it. Churchill, with equal disregard of consistency and
authority, gives it to one of them, and denies it to the rest. Referring to
the classification of these words as possessives, and of _my, thy, her,
our, your, their_, as adjectives, he says: "It seems as if the termination
in _s_ had led to the distinction: but no one will contend, that _ours_ is
the possessive case of _our_, or _theirs_ of _their_; though _ours, yours,
hers_, and _theirs_, are often very improperly spelt with an apostrophe, a
fault not always imputable to the printer; while in _it's_, which is
unquestionably the possessive case of _it_, the apostrophe, by a strange
perverseness, is almost always omitted."--_Churchill Gram._, p. 222. The
charge of strange perverseness may, in this instance, I think, be retorted
upon the critic; and that, to the fair exculpation of those who choose to
conform to the general usage which offends him.
OBS. 26.--Of the compound personal pronouns, this author gives the
following account: "_Self_, in the plural _selves_, a noun, is often
combined with the personal pronouns, in order to express emphasis, or
opposition, or the identity of the subject and [the] object of a verb; and
thus forms a pronoun _relative_: as, 'I did it _myself_;' 'he was not
_himself_, when he said so;' 'the envious torment _themselves_ more than
others.' Formerly _self_ and _selves_ were used simply as nouns, and
governed the pronoun, which was kept distinct from _it_ [them] in the
possessive case: but since _they_ [the pronoun and the noun] have coalesced
into one word, _they_ [the compounds] are used only in the following forms:
for the first person, _myself, ourselves_; for the second, _thyself_, or
_yourself, yourselves_; for the third, _himself, herself, itself,
themselves_: except in the regal style, in which, as generally in the
second person, the singular noun is added to the plural pronoun, [making]
_ourself_. Each of these is _the same in all three cases._"--_Churchill's
Gram._, p. 75. In a note referring to the close of this explanation, he
adds: "_Own_ also is often employed with the possessive cases of the
personal pronouns by way of emphasis, or opposition; but separately, as an
adjective, and not combining with them to form _a relative_: as, 'I did it
of _my own_ free will:' 'Did he do it with _his own_ hand?'"--_Ib._, p.
227.
OBS. 27.--The preceding instructions, faulty and ungrammatical as they are,
seem to be the best that our writers have furnished upon this point. To
detect falsities and blunders, is half the grammarian's duty. The pronouns
of which the term _self_ or _selves_ forms a part, are used, not for the
connecting of different clauses of a sentence, but for the purpose of
emphatic distinction in the sense. In calling them "_relatives_," Churchill
is wrong, even by his own showing. They have not the characteristics which
he himself ascribes to relatives; but are compound personal pronouns, and
nothing else. He is also manifestly wrong in asserting, that they are
severally "the same in all three cases." From the very nature of their
composition, the possessive case is alike impossible to them all. To
express ownership with emphasis or distinction, we employ neither these
compounds nor any others; but always use the simple possessives with the
separate adjective _own_: as, "With _my own_ eyes,"--"By _thy own_
confession,"--"To _his own_ house,"--"For _her own_ father,"--"By _its own_
weight,"--"To save _our own_ lives,"--"For _your own_ sake,"--"In _their
own_ cause."
OBS. 28.--The phrases, _my own, thy own, his own_, and so forth, Dr.
Perley, in his little Grammar, has improperly converted by the hyphen into
compound words: calling them the possessive forms of _myself, thyself,
himself_, and so forth; as if one set of compounds could constitute the
possessive case of an other! And again, as if the making of eight new
pronouns for two great nations, were as slight a feat, as the inserting of
so many hyphens! The word _own_, anciently written _owen_, is an
_adjective_; from an old form of the perfect participle of the verb _to
owe_; which verb, according to Lowth and others, once signified _to
possess_. It is equivalent to _due, proper_, or _peculiar_; and, in its
present use as an adjective, it stands nowhere else than between the
possessive case and the name of the thing possessed; as, "The Boy's _Own_
Book,"--"Christ's _own_ words,"--"Solomon's _own_ and only son." Dr.
Johnson, while he acknowledges the abovementioned derivation, very
strangely calls own a noun substantive; and, with not more accuracy, says:
"This is a word of no other use than as it is added to the possessive
pronouns, _my, thy, his, our, your, their_."--_Quarto Dict., w. Own_. O. B.
Peirce, with obvious untruth, says, "_Own_ is used in combination with a
name or substitute, and as a part of it, to constitute it
emphatic."--_Gram._, p. 63. He writes it separately, but parses it as a
part of the possessive noun or pronoun which precedes it!
OBS. 29.--The word _self_ was originally _an adjective_, signifying _same,
very_, or _particular_; but, when used alone, it is now generally _a noun_.
This may have occasioned the diversity which appears in the formation of
the compound personal pronouns. Dr. Johnson, in his great Dictionary, calls
_self_ a pronoun; but he explains it as being both adjective and
substantive, admitting that, "Its primary signification seems to be that of
an adjective."--Again he observes, "_Myself, himself, themselves_, and the
rest, may, contrary to the analogy of _my, him, them_, be used as
nominatives." _Hisself, itsself_, and _theirselves_, would be more
analogical than _himself, itself, themselves_; but custom has rejected the
former, and established the latter. When an adjective qualifies the term
_self_, the pronouns are written separately in the possessive case; as, _My
single self,--My own self,--His own self,--Their own selves_. So,
anciently, without an adjective: as, "A man shall have diffused his life,
_his self_, and his whole concernments so far, that he can weep his sorrows
with an other's eyes."--_South_. "Something valuable for _its self_ without
view to anything farther."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 293. "That they would
willingly, and of _their selves_ endeavour to keep a perpetual
chastity."--_Stat. Ed. VI. in Lowth's Gram._, p. 26. "Why I should either
_imploy my self_ in that study or put others upon it."--_Walker's English
Particles_, p. xiv. "It is no matter whether you do it by your proctor, or
by _your self_."--_Ib._, p. 96. The compound _oneself_ is sometimes written
in stead of the phrase _one's self_; but the latter is preferable, and more
common. Even _his self_, when written as two words, may possibly be right
in some instances; as,
"Scorn'd be the wretch that quits his genial bowl,
His loves, his friendships, ev'n _his self_, resigns;
Perverts the sacred instinct of his soul,
And to a ducat's dirty sphere confines."
--SHENSTONE: _Brit. Poets_, Vol. vii, p. 107.
OBS. 30.--In poetry, and even in some compositions not woven into regular
numbers, the simple personal pronouns are not unfrequently used, for
brevity's sake, in a reciprocal sense; that is, in stead of the compound
personal pronouns, which are the proper reciprocals: as, "Wash _you_, make
_you_ clean."--_Isaiah_, i, 16. "I made me great works; I builded _me_
houses; I planted _me_ vineyards; I made _me_ gardens and
orchards."--_Ecclesiastes_, ii, 4. "Thou shalt surely clothe _thee_ with
them all as with an ornament, and bind them on _thee_ as a bride
doeth."--_Isaiah_, xlix, 18. Compare with these the more regular
expression: "As a bridegroom decketh _himself_ with ornaments, and as a
bride adorneth _herself_ with jewels."--_Isaiah_, lxi, 10. This phraseology
is almost always preferable in prose; the other is a poetical license, or
peculiarity: as,
"I turn _me_ from the martial roar."--_Scott's L. L._, p. 97.
"Hush _thee_, poor maiden, and be still."--_Ib._, p. 110.
"Firmer he roots _him_ the ruder it blow."--_Ib._, p. 49.
OBS. 31.--To accommodate the writers of verse, the word _ever_ is
frequently contracted into _e'er_, pronounced like the monosyllable _air_.
An easy extension of this license, gives us similar contractions of all the
compound relative pronouns; as, _whoe'er_ or _whosoe'er, whose'er_ or
_whosesoe'er, whome'er_ or _whomsoe'er, whiche'er_ or _whichsoe'er,
whate'er_ or _whatsoe'er_. The character and properties of these compounds
are explained, perhaps sufficiently, in the observations upon the _classes_
of pronouns. Some of them are commonly parsed as representing two cases at
once; there being, in fact, an ellipsis of the noun, before or after them:
as,
"Each art he prompts, each charm he can create,
_Whate'er_ he gives, _are given_ for you to hate."--_Pope's Dunciad_.
OBS. 32.--For a form of parsing the double relative _what_, or its
compound _whatever_ or _whatsoever_, it is the custom of some teachers, to
suggest equivalent words, and then proceed to explain these, in lieu of the
word in question. This is the method of _Russell's Gram._, p. 99; of
_Merchants_, p. 110; of _Kirkham's_, p. 111; of _Gilbert's_, p. 92. But it
should be remembered that equivalence of meaning is not sameness of
grammatical construction; and, even if the construction be the same, to
parse other equivalent words, is not really to parse the text that is
given. A good parser, with the liberty to supply obvious ellipses, should
know how to explain all good English _as it stands_; and for a teacher to
pervert good English into false doctrine, must needs seem the very worst
kind of ignorance. What can be more fantastical than the following
etymology, or more absurd than the following directions for parsing?
"_What_ is compounded of _which that_. These words have been contracted and
made to coalesce, a part of the orthography of both being still retained:
_what--wh[ich--t]hat_; (_which-that_.) Anciently it appeared in the varying
forms, _tha qua, qua tha, qu'tha, quthat, quhat, hwat_, and finally
_what_."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 111. This bald pedantry of "_tha qua, qua
tha_," was secretly borrowed from the grammatical speculations of William
S. Cardell:[217] the "_which-that_" notion contradicts it, and is partly of
the borrower's own invention. If _what_ is a compound, it was compounded
more than a thousand years ago; and, of course, long before any part of the
English language existed as such. King Alfred used it, as he found it, in
the Saxon form of _hwaet_. The Scotch afterwards spelled it _quhat_. Our
English grammarians have _improperly_ called it a compound; and _Kirkham_,
still more absurdly, calls the word _others_ a compound, and _mine, thine,
ours, yours_, &e. compounds.[218]
OBS. 33.--According to this gentleman's notion of things, there is, within
the little circle of the word _what_, a very curious play of antecedent
parts and parts relative--a dodging contra-dance of _which that_ and _that
which_, with _things which_, and so forth. Thus: "When _what_ is a
_compound relative_ you must always parse it as _two words_; that is, you
must parse the antecedent part _as a noun_, and give it case; the relative
part you may _analyze_ like any other relative, giving it a case likewise.
Example: 'I will try _what_ (that which) can be found in female delicacy.'
Here _that_, the antecedent part of _what_, is in the obj. case, governed
Back to Full Books
|