He sathimdown at a pillar's base.—Byron.Sit thee down.
He sathimdown at a pillar's base.—Byron.
He sathimdown at a pillar's base.—Byron.
Sit thee down.
Sit thee down.
§ 442.Reflective neuters.—In the phraseI strike me, the verbstrikeis transitive; in other words, the wordmeexpresses the object of an action, and the meaning is different from the meaning of the simple expressionI strike.
In the phraseI fear me(used by Lord Campbell in his lives of the Chancellors), the verbfearis intransitive or neuter; in other words, the wordme(unless, indeed,fearmeanterrify), expresses no object of any action at all; whilst the meaning is the same as in the simple expressionI fear.
Here the reflective pronoun appears out of place,i.e., after a neuter or intransitive verb.
Such a use, however, is but the fragment of an extensive system of reflective verbs thus formed, developed in different degrees in the different Gothic languages; but in all more than in the English.
§ 443.Equivocal reflectives.—The proper place of the reflective isafterthe verb.
The proper place of the governing pronoun is, in the indicative and subjunctive moods,beforethe verb.
Hence in expressions like the preceding there is no doubt as to the power of the pronoun.
The imperative mood, however, sometimes presents a complication. Here the governing person may follow the verb.
Mount ye= eitherbe mounted, ormount yourselves. In phrases like this, and in phrases
Busk ye, busk ye, my bonny, bonny bride,Busk ye, busk ye, my winsome marrow,
Busk ye, busk ye, my bonny, bonny bride,Busk ye, busk ye, my winsome marrow,
Busk ye, busk ye, my bonny, bonny bride,
Busk ye, busk ye, my winsome marrow,
the construction is ambiguous.Yemay either be a nominative case governing the verbbusk, or an accusative case governed by it.
This is an instance of what may be called theequivocal reflective.
ON THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND THE PRONOUNS OF THE THIRD PERSON.
§ 444. Ashisandherare genitive cases (and not adjectives), there is no need of explaining such combinations ashis mother,her father, inasmuch as no concord of gender is expected. The expressions are respectively equivalent to
mater ejus, notmater sua;pater ejus, —pater suus.
mater ejus, notmater sua;pater ejus, —pater suus.
mater ejus, notmater sua;
pater ejus, —pater suus.
§ 445. It has been stated thatitsis a secondary genitive, and it may be added, that it is of late origin in the language. The Anglo-Saxon form washis, the genitive ofhefor the neuter and masculine equally. Hence, when, in the old writers, we meethis, where we expectits, we must not suppose that any personification takes place, but simply that the old genitive common to the two genders is used in preference to the modern one limited to the neuter, and irregularly formed.
The following instances are the latest specimens of its use:
"The apoplexy is, as I take it, a kind of lethargy. I have read the cause ofhiseffects in Galen;itis a kind of deafness."—2 Henry IV.i. 2."If the salt have losthissavour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?Itis neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men castitout."—Lukexiv. 35."Some affirm that every plant hashisparticular fly or caterpillar, which it breeds and feeds."—Walton'sAngler."This rule is not so general, but thatitadmitteth ofhisexceptions."—Carew.
"The apoplexy is, as I take it, a kind of lethargy. I have read the cause ofhiseffects in Galen;itis a kind of deafness."—2 Henry IV.i. 2.
"If the salt have losthissavour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?Itis neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men castitout."—Lukexiv. 35.
"Some affirm that every plant hashisparticular fly or caterpillar, which it breeds and feeds."—Walton'sAngler.
"This rule is not so general, but thatitadmitteth ofhisexceptions."—Carew.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF.
§ 446. The undoubted constructions of the wordself, in the present state of the cultivated English, are threefold.
1.Government.—Inmy-self,thy-self,our-selves, andyour-selves, the construction is that of a common substantive with an adjective or genitive case.My-self=my individuality, and is similarly construed—mea individualitas(orpersona), ormei individualitas(orpersona).
2.Apposition.—Inhim-selfandthem-selves, when accusative, the construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a pronoun.Himself=him,the individual.
3.Composition.—It is only, however, whenhimselfandthemselves, are in theaccusativecase, that the construction is appositional. When they are used asnominatives, it must be explained on another principle. In phrases like
He himselfwas presentThey themselveswere present,
He himselfwas presentThey themselveswere present,
He himselfwas present
They themselveswere present,
there is neither apposition nor government;himandthem, being neither related tomyandthy, so as to be governed, nor yet toheandthey, so as to form an apposition. In order to come under one of these conditions, the phrases should be eitherhe his self(theytheir selves), or elsehe he self(they they selves). In this difficulty, the only logical view that can be taken of the matter, is to consider the wordshimselfandthemselves, not as two words, but as a single word compounded; and even then, the compound will be of an irregular kind; inasmuch as the inflectional element-mis dealt with as part and parcel of the root.
§ 447.Her-self.—The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of the preceding constructions. Which, however it is, is uncertain; sincehermay be either a so-called genitive, likemy, or an accusative likehim.
Itself—is also ambiguous. Thesmay represent the-sinits, as well as thes-inself.
This inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxon stage of the English language.
ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
§ 448. The possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first contains the forms likemyandthy, &c.; the second, those likemineandthine, &c.
My,thy,his(as inhis book),her,its(as inits book),our,your,their, are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin formsmei,tui,ejus,nostrum,vestrum,eorum.
Mine,thine,his(as inthe book is his),hers,ours,yours,theirsare conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin formsmeus,mea,meum;tuus,tua,tuum;suus,sua,suum;noster,nostra,nostrum;vester,vestra,vestrum.
§ 449. There is a difference between the construction ofmyandmine. We cannot saythis is mine hat, and we cannot saythis hat is my. Nevertheless, this difference is not explained by any change of construction from that of adjectives to that of cases. As far as the syntax is concerned the construction ofmyandmineis equally that of an adjectiveagreeingwith a substantive, and of a genitive (or possessive) casegovernedby a substantive.
Now a common genitive case can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term (i.e., absolutely).—1. As part of a term—this is John's hat. 2. As a whole term—this hat is John's.
And a common adjective can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term (i.e.absolutely).—1. As part of a term—these are good hats. 2. As a whole term—these hats are good.
Now whether we considermy, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess onlyoneof the properties just illustrated,i.e., they can only be used as part of a term—this is my hat; notthis hat is my.
And whether we considermine, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess onlyoneof the properties just illustrated,i.e., they can only be used as whole terms, or absolutely—this hat is mine; notthis is mine hat.
For a full and perfect construction whether of an adjective or a genitive case, the possessive pronouns present the phenomenon of being, singly, incomplete, but, nevertheless, complementary to each other when taken in their two forms.
§ 450. In the absolute construction of a genitive case, the term is formed by the single word, only so far as theexpressionis concerned. A substantive is alwaysunderstoodfrom what has preceded.—This discovery is Newton's=this discovery is Newton's discovery.
The same with adjectives.—This weather is fine=this weather is fine weather.
And the same with absolute pronouns.—This hat is mine=this hat is my hat; andthis is a hat of mine=this is a hat of my hats.
§ 451. In respect to all matters of syntax considered exclusively, it is so thoroughly a matter of indifference whether a word be an adjective or a genitive case that Wallis considers the forms in-'s, likefather's, not as genitive cases but as adjectives. Looking to the logic of the question alone he is right, and looking to thepractical syntax of the question he is right also. He is only wrong on the etymological side of the question.
"Nomina substantiva apud nos nullum vel generum vel casuum discrimen sortiuntur."—p. 76."Duo sunt adjectivorum genera, a substantivis immediate descendentia, quæ semper substantivis suis præponuntur. Primum quidem adjectivum possessivum libet appellare. Fit autem a quovis substantivo, sive singulari sive plurali, addito-s.—Utman's nature,the nature of man, natura humana vel hominis;men's nature, natura humana vel hominum;Virgil's poems,the poems of Virgil, poemata Virgilii vel Virgiliana."—p. 89.
"Nomina substantiva apud nos nullum vel generum vel casuum discrimen sortiuntur."—p. 76.
"Duo sunt adjectivorum genera, a substantivis immediate descendentia, quæ semper substantivis suis præponuntur. Primum quidem adjectivum possessivum libet appellare. Fit autem a quovis substantivo, sive singulari sive plurali, addito-s.—Utman's nature,the nature of man, natura humana vel hominis;men's nature, natura humana vel hominum;Virgil's poems,the poems of Virgil, poemata Virgilii vel Virgiliana."—p. 89.
THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
§ 452. It is necessary that the relative be in the samegenderas the antecedent—the man who—the woman who—the thing which.
§ 453. It is necessary that the relative be in the samenumberwith the antecedent.
§ 454. It isnotnecessary for the relative to be in the samecasewith its antecedent.
1. John,whotrusts me, comes here.2. John,whomI trust, comes here.3. John,whoseconfidence I possess, comes here.4. I trust Johnwhotrusts me.
1. John,whotrusts me, comes here.2. John,whomI trust, comes here.3. John,whoseconfidence I possess, comes here.4. I trust Johnwhotrusts me.
1. John,whotrusts me, comes here.
2. John,whomI trust, comes here.
3. John,whoseconfidence I possess, comes here.
4. I trust Johnwhotrusts me.
§ 455. The reason why the relative must agree with its antecedent in both number and gender, whilst it need not agree with it in case, is found in the following observations.
1. All sentences containing a relative contain two verbs—John who(1)trusts me(2)comes here.
2. Two verbs express two actions—(1)trust(2)come.
3. Whilst, however, the actions are two in number, the person or thing which does or suffers them is single—John.
4.He(sheorit) is singleex vi termini. The relative expresses theidentitybetween the subjects (or objects)of the two actions. Thuswho=John, or is another name for John.
5. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same gender. TheJohnwhotrustsis necessarily of the same gender with theJohnwhocomes.
6. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same number. The number ofJohnswhotrust, is the same as the number ofJohnswhocome. Both these elements of concord are immutable.
7. But a third element of concord is not immutable. The person or thing that is an agent in the one part of the sentence, may be the object of an action in the other. TheJohnwhom Itrustmaytrustme also. Hence
a.I trust John—Johnthe object.b.John trusts me—Johnthe agent.
a.I trust John—Johnthe object.b.John trusts me—Johnthe agent.
a.I trust John—Johnthe object.
b.John trusts me—Johnthe agent.
§ 456. As the relative is only the antecedent in another form, it may change its case according to the construction.
1. I trust John—(2)Johntrusts me.2. I trust John—(2)Hetrusts me.3. I trust John—(2)Whotrusts me.4. John trusts me—(2) I trustJohn.5. John trusts me—(2) I trusthim.6. John trusts me—(2) I trustwhom.7. John trusts me—(2)WhomI trust.8. John—(2)WhomI trust trusts me.
1. I trust John—(2)Johntrusts me.2. I trust John—(2)Hetrusts me.3. I trust John—(2)Whotrusts me.4. John trusts me—(2) I trustJohn.5. John trusts me—(2) I trusthim.6. John trusts me—(2) I trustwhom.7. John trusts me—(2)WhomI trust.8. John—(2)WhomI trust trusts me.
1. I trust John—(2)Johntrusts me.
2. I trust John—(2)Hetrusts me.
3. I trust John—(2)Whotrusts me.
4. John trusts me—(2) I trustJohn.
5. John trusts me—(2) I trusthim.
6. John trusts me—(2) I trustwhom.
7. John trusts me—(2)WhomI trust.
8. John—(2)WhomI trust trusts me.
§ 457.The books I want are here.—This is a specimen of a true ellipsis. In all such phrases infull, there arethreeessential elements.
1. The first proposition; asthe books are here.
2. The second proposition; asI want.
3. The word which connects the two propositions, and without which, they naturally make separate, independent, unconnected statements.
Now, although true and unequivocal ellipses are scarce, the preceding is one of the most unequivocal kind—the word which connects the two propositions being wanting.
§ 458.When there are two words in a clause, each capable of being an antecedent, the relative refers to the latter.
1.Solomon the son of David that slew Goliah.—This is unexceptionable.
2.Solomon the son of David who built the temple.—This is exceptionable.
Nevertheless, it is defensible, on the supposition thatSolomon-the-son-of-Davidis a single many-worded name.
ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN.
§ 459. Questions are of two sorts, direct and oblique.
Direct.—Who is he?
Oblique.—Who do you say that he is?
All difficulties about the cases of the interrogative pronoun may be determined by framing an answer, and observing the case of the word with which the interrogative coincides. Whatever be the case of this word will also be the case of the interrogative.
DIRECT.Qu.Whois this?—Ans.I.Qu.Whoseis this?—Ans.His.Qu.Whomdo you seek?—Ans.Him.OBLIQUE.Qu.Whodo you say that it is?—Ans.He.Qu.Whosedo you say that it is?—Ans.His.Qu.Whomdo you say that they seek?—Ans.Him.
DIRECT.
DIRECT.
Qu.Whois this?—Ans.I.Qu.Whoseis this?—Ans.His.Qu.Whomdo you seek?—Ans.Him.
Qu.Whois this?—Ans.I.
Qu.Whoseis this?—Ans.His.
Qu.Whomdo you seek?—Ans.Him.
OBLIQUE.
OBLIQUE.
Qu.Whodo you say that it is?—Ans.He.Qu.Whosedo you say that it is?—Ans.His.Qu.Whomdo you say that they seek?—Ans.Him.
Qu.Whodo you say that it is?—Ans.He.
Qu.Whosedo you say that it is?—Ans.His.
Qu.Whomdo you say that they seek?—Ans.Him.
Note.—The answer should always be made by means of a pronoun, as by so doing we distinguish the accusative case from the nominative.
Note.—And, if necessary, it should be made in full. Thus the full answer towhom do you say that they seek?is,I say that they seek him.
§ 460. Nevertheless, such expressions aswhom dothey say that it is?are common, especially in oblique questions.
"And he axed him and seide,whomseien the people that I am?—Thei answereden and seiden, Jon Baptist—and he seide to hem, Butwhomseien ye that I am?"—Wiclif,Lukeix."Tell me in sadnesswhomshe is you love."—Romeo and Juliet, i, 1."And as John fulfilled his course, he said,whomthink ye that I am?"—Actsxiii. 25.
"And he axed him and seide,whomseien the people that I am?—Thei answereden and seiden, Jon Baptist—and he seide to hem, Butwhomseien ye that I am?"—Wiclif,Lukeix.
"Tell me in sadnesswhomshe is you love."—Romeo and Juliet, i, 1.
"And as John fulfilled his course, he said,whomthink ye that I am?"—Actsxiii. 25.
This confusion, however, is exceptionable.
THE RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION.
§ 461. In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual action there are in reality two assertions,viz., the assertion that A.strikes(orloves) B., and the assertion that B.strikes(orloves) A.; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence, if the expressions exactly coincided with the fact signified, there would always be two propositions. This, however, is not the habit of language. Hence arises a more compendious form of expression, giving origin to an ellipsis of a peculiar kind. Phrases likeEteocles and Polynices killed each otherare elliptical, forEteocles and Polynices killed—each the other. Here the second proposition expands and explains the first, whilst the first supplies the verb to the second. Each, however, is elliptic.
§ 462. This is the syntax. As to the power of the wordseachandonein the expression (each otherandone another), I am not prepared to say that in the common practice of the English language there is any distinction between them. A distinction, however, if it existed, would give strength to our language. Where two persons performed a reciprocal action on another, the expression might beone another; asEteocles and Polynices killed one another. Where more than two persons were engaged on each side of a reciprocal action,the expression might beeach other; as,the ten champions praised each other.
This amount of perspicuity is attained, by different processes, in the French, Spanish, and Scandinavian languages.
1. French.—Ils(i.e., A. and B.)se battaient—l'un l'autre.Ils(A. B. C.)se battaient—les uns les autres.In Spanish,uno otro=l'un l'autre, andunos otros=les uns les autres.
2. Danish.—Hinander = the Frenchl'un l'autre; whilsthverandre=les uns les autres.
THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS.
§ 463. Different nations have different methods of expressing indeterminate propositions.
Sometimes it is by the use of the passive voice. This is the common method in Latin and Greek, and is also current in English—dicitur,λέγεται,it is said.
Sometimes the verb is reflective—si dice=it says itself, Italian.
Sometimes the plural pronoun of the third person is used. This also is an English locution—they say=the world at large says.
Finally, the use of some word =manis a common indeterminate expression.
The wordmanhas an indeterminate sense in the Modern German; asman sagt=they say.
The wordmanwas also used indeterminately in the Old English, although it is not so used in the Modern.
In the Old English, the formmanoften lost the-n, and becameme.—"Deutsche Grammatik." This form is also extinct.
§ 464. The present indeterminate pronoun isone; asone says=they say=it is said=man sagt, German =on dit, French =si dice, Italian.
It has been stated, that the indeterminate pronounonehas no etymological connection with the numeralone; but that it is derived from the Frenchon=homme=homo=man; and that it has replaced the Old Englishmanorme.
§ 465. Two other pronouns, or, to speak more in accordance with the present habit of the English language, one pronoun, and one adverb of pronominal origin, are also used indeterminately,viz.,itandthere.
§ 466.Itcan be either the subject or the predicate of a sentence,—it is this,this is it,I am it,it is I. Whenitis the subject of a proposition, the verb necessarily agrees with it, and can be of the singular number only; no matter what be the number of the predicate—it is this,it is these.
Whenitis the predicate of a proposition, the number of the verb depends upon the number of the subject. These points of universal syntax are mentioned here for the sake of illustrating some anomalous forms.
§ 467.Therecan only be the predicate of a subject. It differs fromitin this respect. It follows also that it must differ fromitin never affecting the number of the verb. This is determined by the nature of the subject—there is this,there are these.
When we saythere is these, the analogy between the wordstheseanditmisleads us; the expression being illogical.
Furthermore, although a predicate,therealways stands in the beginning of propositions,i.e., in the place of the subject. This also misleads.
§ 468. Althoughit, when the subject, being itself singular, absolutely requires that its verb should be singular also, there is a tendency to use it incorrectly, and to treat it as a plural. Thus, in German, when the predicate is plural, the verb joined to the singular formes( =it) is plural—es sind menschen, literally translated =it are men; which, though bad English, is good German.
THE ARTICLES.
§ 469. The rule of most practical importance about the articles is the rule that determines when the article shall be repeated as often as there is a fresh substantive, and when it shall not.
When two or more substantives following each other denote the same object, the article precedes the first only. We say,the secretary and treasurer(or,a secretary and treasurer), when the two offices are held by one person.
When two or more substantives following each other denote different objects, the article is repeated, and precedes each. We say,the(ora)secretary and the(ora)treasurer, when the two offices are held by different persons.
This rule is much neglected.
THE NUMERALS.
§ 470. The numeraloneis naturally single. All the rest are naturally plural.
Nevertheless such expressions—one two( =one collection of two),two threes( =two collections of three) are legitimate. These are so, because the sense of the word is changed. We may talk of severalonesjust as we may talk of severalaces; and ofone twojust as ofone pair.
Expressions likethe thousand-and-firstare incorrect. They mean neither one thing nor another: 1001st being expressed bythe thousand-and-first, and 1000th + 1st being expressed bythe thousandth and the first.
Here it may be noticed that, although I never found it to do so, the wordoddis capable of taking an ordinal form. Thethousand-and-odd-this as good an expression as thethousand-and-eight-th.
The construction of phrases like thethousand-and-firstis the same construction as we find in theking of Saxony's army.
§ 471. It is by no means a matter of indifference whether we say thetwo firstor thefirst two.
The captains of two different classes at school should be called thetwo first boys. The first and second boys of the same class should be called thefirst two boys. I believe that when this rule is attended to, more is due to the printer than to the author: such, at least, is the case with myself.
ON VERBS IN GENERAL.
§ 472. For the purposes of syntax it is necessary to divide verbs into the five following divisions: transitive, intransitive, auxiliary, substantive, and impersonal.
Transitive verbs.—In transitive verbs the action is never a simple action. It always affects some object or other,—I move my limbs;I strike my enemy. The presence of a transitive verb implies also the presence of a noun; which noun is the name of the object affected. A transitive verb, unaccompanied by a noun, either expressed or understood, is a contradiction in terms. The absence of the nouns, in and of itself, makes it intransitive.I movemeans, simply,I am in a state of moving.I strikemeans, simply,I am in the act of striking. Verbs likemoveandstrikeare naturally transitive.
Intransitive verbs.—An act may take place, and yet no object be affected by it.To hunger,to thirst,to sleep,to wake, are verbs that indicate states of being, rather than actions affecting objects. Verbs likehungerandsleepare naturally intransitive.
Many verbs, naturally transitive, may be used as intransitive,—e.g.,I move,I strike, &c.
Many verbs, naturally intransitive, may be used as transitives,—e.g.,I walked the horse=I made the horse walk.
This variation in the use of one and the same verbis of much importance in the question of the government of verbs.
A. Transitive verbs are naturally followed by some noun or other; and that noun isalwaysthe name of something affected by themas an object.
B. Intransitive verbs are not naturally followed by any noun at all; and when they are so followed, the noun isneverthe name of anything affected by themas an object.
Nevertheless, intransitive verbs may be followed by nouns denoting the manner, degree, or instrumentality of their action,—I walk with my feet=incedo pedibus.
§ 473.The auxiliary verbswill be noticed fully in ChapterXXIII.
§ 474. The verbsubstantivehas this peculiarity,viz., that for all purposes of syntax it is no verb at all.I speakmay, logically, be reduced toI am speaking; in which case it is only thepartof a verb. Etymologically, indeed, the verb substantive is a verb; inasmuch as it is inflected as such: but for the purposes of construction, it is a copula only,i.e., it merely denotes the agreement or disagreement between the subject and the predicate.
For theimpersonalverbs see ChapterXXI.
THE CONCORD OF VERBS.
§ 475. The verb must agree with its subject in person,I walk, notI walks:he walks, nothe walk.
It must also agree with it in number,—we walk, notwe walks:he walks, nothe walk.
Clear as these rules are, they require some expansion before they become sufficient to solve all the doubtful points of English syntax connected with the concord of the verb.
A.It is I, your master, who command you. Query? wouldit is I, your master, who commands you, be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the person of the verb.
B.The wages of sin is death. Query? wouldthe wages of sinaredeathbe correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the number of the verb.
§ 476. In respect to the concord of person the following rules will carry us through a portion of the difficulties.
Rule.—In sentences where there is but one proposition, when a noun and a pronoun of different persons are in apposition, the verb agrees with the first of them,—I, your master, command you(notcommands):your master, I, commands you(notcommand).
To understand the nature of the difficulty, it isnecessary to remember that subjects may be extremely complex as well as perfectly simple; and that a complex subject may contain, at one and the same time, a noun substantive and a pronoun,—I, the keeper;he, the merchant, &c.
Now all noun-substantives are naturally of the third person—John speaks,the men run,the commander gives orders. Consequently the verb is of the third person also.
But the pronoun with which such a noun-substantive may be placed in apposition, may be a pronoun of either person, the first or second:Iorthou—I the commander—thou the commander.—In this case the construction requires consideration. With which does the verb agree? with the substantive which requires a third person? or with the pronoun which requires a first or second?
Undoubtedly the idea which comes first is the leading idea; and, undoubtedly, the idea which explains, qualifies, or defines it, is the subordinate idea: and, undoubtedly, it is the leading idea which determines the construction of the verb. We may illustrate this from the analogy of a similar construction in respect to number—a man with a horse and a gig meets me on the road. Here the ideas are three; nevertheless the verb is singular. No addition of subordinate elements interferes with the construction that is determined by the leading idea. In the expressionI, your master, the ideas are two;viz., the idea expressed byI, and the idea expressed bymaster. Nevertheless, as the one only explains or defines the other, the construction is the same as if the idea were single.Your master, I, is in the same condition. The general statement is made concerning themaster, and it is intended to say whathedoes. The wordImerelydefines the expression by stating who the master is. Of the two expressions the latter is the awkwardest. The construction, however, is the same for both.
From the analysis of the structure of complex subjects of the kind in question, combined with a rule concerning the position of the subject, which will soon be laid down, I believe that, for all single propositions, the foregoing rule is absolute.
Rule.—In all single propositions the verb agrees in person with the noun (whether substantive or pronoun) which comes first.
§ 477. But the expressionit is I your master, who command(orcommands) you, is not a single proposition. It is a sentence containing two propositions.
1.It is I.2.Who commands you.
1.It is I.2.Who commands you.
1.It is I.
2.Who commands you.
Here the wordmasteris, so to say, undistributed. It may belong to either clause of the sentence,i.e., the whole sentence may be divided into
Either—it is I your master—Or—your master who commands you.
Either—it is I your master—Or—your master who commands you.
Either—it is I your master—
Or—your master who commands you.
This is the first point to observe. The next is that the verb in the second clause (commandorcommands) is governed, not by either the personal pronoun or the substantive, but by the relative,i.e., in the particular case before us, not by eitherIormaster, but bywho.
And this brings us to the following question—with which of the two antecedents does therelativeagree? withIor withmaster?
This may be answered by the two following rules;—
Rule 1.—When the two antecedents are in thesame proposition, the relative agrees with the first. Thus—
1. It isIyourmaster—2. Whocommandyou.
1. It isIyourmaster—2. Whocommandyou.
1. It isIyourmaster—
2. Whocommandyou.
Rule 2.—When the two antecedents are in different propositions, the relative agrees with the second. Thus—
1. It isI—2. Yourmasterwhocommandsyou.
1. It isI—2. Yourmasterwhocommandsyou.
1. It isI—
2. Yourmasterwhocommandsyou.
This, however, is not all. What determines whether the two antecedents shall be in the same or in different propositions? I believe that the following rules for what may be calledthe distribution of the substantive antecedentwill bear criticism.
Rule 1.That when there is any natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the second clause. Thus, in the expression just quoted, the wordmasteris logically connected with the wordcommand; and this fact makes the expression,It is I your master who commands youthe better of the two.
Rule 2.That when there is no natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the first clause.It is I, John, who command(notcommands)you.
To recapitulate, the train of reasoning has been as follows:—
1. The person of the second verb is the person of the relative.
2. The person of the relative is that of one of two antecedents.
3. Of such two antecedents the relative agrees with the one which stands in the same proposition with itself.
4. Which position is determined by the connection or want of connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative.
Respecting the person of the verb in thefirstproposition of a complex sentence there is no doubt.I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am(notis)in a hurry.Here,I am in a hurryis the first proposition;who commands you to make haste, the second.
It is not difficult to see why the construction of sentences consisting of two propositions is open to an amount of latitude which is not admissible in the construction of single propositions. As long as the different parts of a complex idea are contained within the limits of a single proposition, their subordinate character is easily discerned. When, however, they amount to whole propositions, they take the appearance of being independent members of the sentence.
§ 478.The concord of number.—It is believed that the following three rules will carry us through all difficulties of the kind just exhibited.
Rule 1.That the verb agrees with the subject, and with nothing but the subject. The only way to justify such an expression asthe wages of sin is death, is to considerdeathnot as the subject, but as the predicate; in other words, to consider the construction to be,death is the wages of sin.
Rule 2.That, except in the case of the wordthere, the word which comes first is generally the subject.
Rule 3.That no number of connected singular nouns can govern a plural verb, unless they be connected by a copulative conjunction.The sunandmoon shine,—the sunin conjunction withthe moon shines.
§ 479.Plural subjects with singular predicates.—-The wages of sinaredeath.—Honest menarethe salt of the earth.
Singular subjects with plural predicates.—These constructions are rarer than the preceding: inasmuch as two or more persons (or things) are oftener spoken of as being equivalent to one, than one person (or thing) is spoken of as being equivalent to two or more.
Sixpenceistwelve halfpennies.Heisall head and shoulders.Vulnera totuserat.Tuesdeliciæ meæ.Ἑκτορ, ἀτὰρ σύ μοι ἐσσὶ πατὴρ καὶ πότνια μήτηρ,Ἠδὲ κασίγνητος, σὺ δέ μοι θαλερὸς παρακοίτης.
Sixpenceistwelve halfpennies.Heisall head and shoulders.Vulnera totuserat.Tuesdeliciæ meæ.Ἑκτορ, ἀτὰρ σύ μοι ἐσσὶ πατὴρ καὶ πότνια μήτηρ,Ἠδὲ κασίγνητος, σὺ δέ μοι θαλερὸς παρακοίτης.
Sixpenceistwelve halfpennies.
Heisall head and shoulders.
Vulnera totuserat.
Tuesdeliciæ meæ.
Ἑκτορ, ἀτὰρ σύ μοι ἐσσὶ πατὴρ καὶ πότνια μήτηρ,
Ἠδὲ κασίγνητος, σὺ δέ μοι θαλερὸς παρακοίτης.
ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS.
§ 480. The government of verbs is of two sorts, (1.)objective, and (2.)modal.
It is objective where the noun which follows the verb is the name of some object affected by the action of the verb,—ashe strikes me;he wounds the enemy.
It is modal when the noun which follows the verb is not the name of any object affected by the verb, but the name of some object explaining the manner in which the action of the verb takes place, the instrument with which it is done, the end for which it is done, &c.
The government of all transitive verbs is necessarily objective. It may also be modal,—I strike the enemy with the sword=ferio hostem gladio.
The government of all intransitive verbs can only be modal,—I walk with the stick. When we say,I walk the horse, the wordwalkhas changed its meaning, and signifiesmake to walk, and is, by the very fact of its being followed by the name of an object, converted from an intransitive into a transitive verb.
The modal construction may also be called theadverbial construction; because the effect of the noun is akin to that of an adverb,—I fight with bravery=I fight bravely:he walks a king=he walks regally. The modal (or adverbial) construction, sometimes takes the appearance of the objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs arefrequently followed by a substantive,e.g.,to sleep the sleep of the righteous. Here, nevertheless, this is no proof of government. For a verb to be capable of governing an objective case, it must be a verb signifying an action affecting an object; which is not the case here. The sentence means, tosleep as the righteous sleep, oraccording to the sleep of the righteous.
ON THE PARTICIPLES.
§ 481. The present participle, or the participle in-ing, must be considered in respect to its relations with the substantive in-ing.Dying-dayis, probably, no more a participle thanmorning-walk. In respect to the syntax of such expressions as the forthcoming, I consider that they areeitherparticiples or substantives.
1. When substantives, they are in regimen, and govern a genitive case—What is the meaning of the lady's holding up her train?Here the wordholding=the act of holding.—Quid est significatio elevationis pallæ de parte fœminæ.
2. When participles, they are in apposition or concord, and would, if inflected, appear in the same case with the substantive, or pronoun, preceding them—What is the meaning of the lady holding up her train?Here the wordholding=in the act of holding, and answers to the Latinfœminæ elevantis.—Quid est significatio fœminæ elevantis pallam?
§ 482. The past participle corresponds not with the Greek formτυπτόμενος, but with the formτετυμμένος.I am beatenis essentially a combination, expressive not of present but of past time, just like the Latinsum verberatus. Its Greek equivalent is notεἰμὶ τυπτόμενος=I am a man in the act of being beaten, butεἰμὶ τετυμμένος=I am a man who has been beaten. It is past in respect to the action, though present in respect to the state brought about by the action. This essentially past element in the so-called present expression,I am beaten, will be again referred to.
ON THE MOODS.
§ 483. The infinitive mood is a noun. The current rule thatwhen two verbs come together the latter is placed in the infinitive mood, means that one verb can govern another only by converting it into a noun—I begin to move=I begin the act of moving. Verbs,as verbs, can only come together in the way of apposition—I irritate,I beat,I talk at him,I call him names, &c.
§ 484. The construction, however, of English infinitives is two fold. (1.) Objective. (2.) Gerundial.
When one verb is followed by another without the prepositionto, the construction must be considered to have grown out of the objective case, or from the form in-an.
Such is the case with the following words, and, probably, with others:
This, in the present English, is the rarer of the two constructions.
When a verb is followed by another, preceded by the prepositionto, the construction must be considered to have grown out of the so-called gerund,i.e., the form in-nne,i.e., the dative case—I begin to move. This is the case with the great majority of English verbs.
§ 485.Imperativeshave three peculiarities. (1.) They can only, in English, be used in the second person—go thou on,get you gone, &c.: (2.) They take pronouns after, instead of before them: (3.) They often omit the pronoun altogether.
ON THE TENSES.
§ 486. Notwithstanding its name, the present tense in English does not express a strictlypresentaction. It rather expresses an habitual one.He speaks well=he is a good speaker. If a man means to say that he is in the act of speaking, he saysI am speaking.
It has also, especially when combined with a subjunctive mood, a future power—I beat you( =I will beat you)if you don't leave off.
§ 487. The English præterite is the equivalent, not to the Greek perfect but the Greek aorist.I beat=ἔτυψαnotτέτυφα. The true perfect is expressed, in English, by the auxiliaryhave+ the past participle.
SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS.
§ 488.The concord of persons.—A difficulty that occurs frequently in the Latin language is rare in English. In expressions likeego et illefollowed by a verb, there arises a question as to the person in which that verb should be used. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree withego, or in thethirdin order to agree withille? For the sake of laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the classical grammarians arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to theirdignity, making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the mostworthy. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said—