a.Personal pronouns.b.Relative pronouns.c.Articles.
a.Personal pronouns.b.Relative pronouns.c.Articles.
a.Personal pronouns.
b.Relative pronouns.
c.Articles.
The reflective pronoun often becomes reciprocal.
§ 395. These statements are made for the sake of illustrating, not of exhausting, the subject. It follows, however, as an inference from them, that the classification of pronouns is complicated. Even if we knew the original power and derivation of every form of every pronoun in a language, it would be far from an easy matter to determine therefrom the paradigm that they should take in grammar. To place a word according to its power in a late stage of language might confuse the study of an early stage. To say that because a word was once in a given class, it should always be so, would be to deny that in the present Englishthey,these, andsheare personal pronouns at all.
The two tests, then, of the grammatical place of a pronoun, itspresent powerand itsoriginal power, are often conflicting.
§ 396. In the English language the point of most importance in this department of grammar is the place of forms likemineandthine; in other words, of the forms in-n.
Now, if we take up the common grammars of the English languageas it is, we find, that, whilstmyandthyare dealt with as genitive cases,mineandthineare considered adjectives. In theAnglo-Saxongrammars, however,minandþin, the older forms ofmineandthine, are treated as genitives or possessives.
§ 397. This gives us two views of the wordsmyandthy.
a.They may be genitives or possessives, which were originally datives or accusatives; in which case they are deduced from the Anglo-Saxonmecandþec.
b.They may be the Anglo-Saxonminandþin,minusthe final-n.
Each of these views has respectable supporters. The former is decidedly preferred by the present writer.
§ 398. What, however, arethineandmine? Are they adjectives likemeus,tuus, andsuus, or cases likemei,tui,sui, in Latin, andhi-sin English?
It is no answer to say that sometimes they are one and sometimes the other. They were not so originally. They did not begin with meaning two things at once; on the contrary, they were either possessive cases, of which the power became subsequently adjectival, or adjectives, of which the power became subsequently possessive.
§ 399. In Anglo-Saxon and in Old Saxon there is but one form to express the Latinmei(ortui), on the one side, andmeus,mea,meum(ortuus, &c.), on the other. In several other Gothic tongues, however, there was the following difference of form:
In these differences of form lie the best reasons for the assumption of a genitive case, as the origin of an adjectival form; and, undoubtedly, in those languages where both forms occur, it is convenient to consider one as a case and one as an adjective.
§ 400. But this is not the present question. InAnglo-Saxon there is but one form,minandþin=meiandmeus,tuiandtuus, indifferently. Is this form an oblique case or an adjective?
This involves two sorts of evidence.
§ 401.Etymological evidence.—Assuming twopowersfor the wordsminandþin, one genitive, and one adjectival, which is the original one? Or, going beyond the Anglo-Saxon, assuming that of twoformslikemeinaandmeins, the one has been derived from the other, which is the primitive, radical, primary, or original one?
Men, from whom it is generally unsafe to differ, consider that the adjectival form is the derived one; and, as far as forms likemîner, as opposed tomîn, are concerned, the evidence of the foregoing list is in their favour. But what is the case with the Middle Dutch? The genitivemînsis evidently the derivative ofmîn.
The reason why the forms likemînerseem derived is because they are longer and more complex than the others. Nevertheless, it is by no means an absolute rule in philology that the least compound form is the oldest. A word may be adapted to a secondary meaning by a change in its parts in the way of omission, as well as by a change in the way of addition.
§ 402. As to the question whether it is most likely for an adjective to be derived from a case, or a case from an adjective, it may be said, that philology furnishes instances both ways.Oursis a case derived, in syntax at least, from an adjective.Cujum(as incujum pecus) andsestertiumare Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one.
§ 403.Syntactic evidence.—If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions asdœl min=pars mei,hœlf þin=dimidium tui, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a true genitive. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted.
§ 404. Again—asminandþinare declined like adjectives, even asmeusandtuusare so declined, we have means of ascertaining their nature from the form they take in certain constructions; thus,minra =meorum, andminre =meæ, are the genitive plural and the dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon forof thy eyesshould beeagena þinra, and the Anglo-Saxon forto my widow, should bewuduwan minre; just as in Latin, they would beoculorum tuorum, andviduæ meæ.
If, however, instead of this we find such expressions aseagena þin, orwuduwan min, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the wordsþinandminmust be construed as the Latin formstuiandmeiwould be inoculorum mei, andviduæ mei;viz.: as genitive cases. Now, whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward.
Such instances, even if quoted, would not be conclusive.
§ 405. Why would they not be conclusive? Becauseeven of the adjective there are uninflected forms.
As early as the Mœso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of this omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in theneuter singularsometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms,nim thata badi theinata=ᾆρόν σου τὸν κράββατον(Mark ii. 9), opposed tonim thata badi thein, two verses afterwards. So also withmeinandmeinata. It is remarkable that this omission should begin withforms so marked as those of the neuter (-ata). It has, perhaps, its origin in the adverbial character of that gender.
Old High German.—Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it—thin dohter,sîn quenâ,min dohter,sinaz lîb. In a few cases, when the pronoun comes after, even theobliquecases drop the inflection.
Middle High German.—Precedingthe noun, the nominative of all genders is destitute of inflection;sîn lîb,mîn ere,dîn lîb, &c.Followingthe nouns, the oblique cases do the same;ine herse sîn. The influence of position should here be noticed. Undoubtedly a placeafterthe substantive influences the omission of the inflection. This appears in itsmaximumin the Middle High German. In Mœso-Gothic we havemein leikandleik meinata.
§ 406. Now by assuming the extension of the Middle High German omission of the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and by supposing it to affect the words in question inallpositions (i.e., both before and after their nouns), we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as already stated, no instances of them have been quoted.
To supposetwoadjectival forms, one inflected (min,minre, &c.), and one uninflected, or common to all genders and both numbers (min), is to suppose no more than is the case with the uninflectedþe, as compared with the inflectedþæt.
§ 407. Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance ofminorþin, thenecessaryequivalents tomeiandtui, rather than tomeusandtuus, must consist in the quotation from the Anglo-Saxon of sometext, whereinminorþinoccurs with a feminine substantive, in anobliquecase, the pronounprecedingthe noun. When this has been done, it will be time enough to treatmineandthineas the equivalents tomeiandtui, rather than as those tomeusandtuus.
ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRÆTERITE.
§ 408. The remote origin of the weak præterite in-dor-t, has been considered by Grimm. He maintains that it is thedind-d, the reduplicate præterite ofdo. In all the Gothic languages the termination of the past tense is either-da,-ta,-de,-ði,-d,-t, or-ed, for the singular, and-don,-ton,-tûmês, or-ðum, for the plural; in other words,d, or an allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In thepluralpræterite of theMœso-Gothic, however, we have something more,viz., the termination-dêdum; asnas-idêdum,nas-idêduþ,nas-idedun, fromnas-ja;sôk-idêdum,sôk-idêduþ,sôk-idêdun, fromsôk-ja;salb-ôdedum,salb-ôdêduþ,salb-ôdêdun, fromsalbô. Here there is a secondd. The same takes place with the dual formsalb-ôdêduts, and with the subjunctive forms,salb-ôdêdjan,salb-ôdêduts,salb-ôdedi,salb-ôdêdeits,salb-ôdêdeima,salb-ôdedeiþ,salb-ôdedina. The English phrase,we did salve, as compared withsalb-ôdedum, is confirmatory of this.
§ 409. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic præterite, in the "Transactions of the Philological Society," induce me to prefer a different doctrine, and to identify the-din words likemoved, &c., with the-tof the passive participles of the Latin language; as found in mon-it-us, voc-at-us, rap-t-us, and probably in Greek forms likeτυφ-θ-είς.
1. The Slavonic præterite is commonly said to possess genders: in other words, there is one form for speaking of a past action when done by a male, and another for speaking of a past action when done by a female.
2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine or feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the præterite is a participle. If, instead of sayingille amavit, the Latins saidille amatus, whilst, instead of sayingilla amavit, they saidilla amata, they would exactly use the grammar of the Slavonians.
3. Hence, as one class of languages, at least, gives us the undoubted fact of an active præterite being identical with a passive participle, and as the participle and præterite in question are nearly identical, we have a fair reason for believing that thed, in the English active præterite, is thedof the participle, which in its turn, is thetof the Latin passive participle.
§ 410. The following extract gives Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic verb in his own words:—
"A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish languages, consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an active sense, for the purpose of expressing the præterite. This participle generally ends inl; and much uncertainty prevails both as to its origin and its relations, though the termination has been compared by various philologists with similar affixes in the Sanscrit, and the classical languages."In the Old Slavish, or the language of the church, there are three methods of expressing the past tense: one of them consists in the union of the verb substantive with the participle; as,Rek esm'chital esmi'Rek esi'chital esi'Rek est'chital est'."In the corresponding tense of the Slavonic dialect we have the verb substantive placed before the participle:Ya sam imaomi' smo imaliTi si imaovi' ste imaliOn ye imaoomi su imali."In the Polish it appears as a suffix:CzytalemczytalismyCzytalesczytaliscieCzytalczytalie."And in the Servian it follows the participle:Igrao samigrali smoIgrao siigrali steIgrao yeigrali su."The ending-ao, ofigraoandimao, stands for the Russianal, as in some English dialects a' is used forall."
"A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish languages, consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an active sense, for the purpose of expressing the præterite. This participle generally ends inl; and much uncertainty prevails both as to its origin and its relations, though the termination has been compared by various philologists with similar affixes in the Sanscrit, and the classical languages.
"In the Old Slavish, or the language of the church, there are three methods of expressing the past tense: one of them consists in the union of the verb substantive with the participle; as,
"In the corresponding tense of the Slavonic dialect we have the verb substantive placed before the participle:
"In the Polish it appears as a suffix:
"And in the Servian it follows the participle:
"The ending-ao, ofigraoandimao, stands for the Russianal, as in some English dialects a' is used forall."
SYNTAX.
ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL.
§ 411. The wordsyntaxis derived from the Greeksyn(withortogether) andtaxis(arrangement). It relates to the arrangement, or putting together, of words. Two or more words must be used before there can be any application of syntax.
There is to me a father.—Here we have a circumlocution equivalent toI have a father. In the English language the circumlocution is unnatural. In the Latin it is common. To determine this, is a matter of idiom rather than of syntax.
§ 412. In the English, as in all other languages, it is convenient to notice certain so-called figures of speech. They always furnish convenient modes of expression, and sometimes, as in the case of the one immediately about to be noticed,accountfor facts.
§ 413.Personification.—The ideas of apposition and collectiveness account for the apparent violations of the concord of number. The idea of personification applies to the concord of gender. A masculine or femininegender, characteristic of persons, may be substituted for the neuter gender, characteristic of things. In this case the term is said to be personified.
The cities who aspired to liberty.—A personification of the idea expressed by cities is here necessary to justify the expression.
It, the sign of the neuter gender, as applied to a male or femalechild, is the reverse of the process.
§ 414.Ellipsis(from the Greekelleipein=to fall short), or afalling short, occurs in sentences likeI sent to the bookseller's. Here the wordshoporhouseis understood. Expressions liketo go on all fours, andto eat of the fruit of the tree, are reducible to ellipses.
§ 415.Pleonasm(from the Greekpleoazein=to be in excess) occurs in sentences likethe king, he reigns. Here the wordheis superabundant.
My banks, they are furnished,—the most straitest sect,—these are pleonastic expressions. Inthe king, he reigns, the wordkingis in the same predicament as inthe king, God bless him.
The double negative, allowed in Greek and Anglo-Saxon, but not admissible in English, is pleonastic.
The verbdo, inI do speak, isnotpleonastic. In respect to the sense it adds intensity. In respect to the construction it is not in apposition, but in the same predicament with verbs likemustandshould, as inI must go, &c.;i.e., it is a verb followed by an infinitive. This we know from its power in those languages where the infinitive has a characteristic sign; as, in German,
Die Augenthatenihm winken.—Goethe.
Die Augenthatenihm winken.—Goethe.
Die Augenthatenihm winken.—Goethe.
Besides this,makeis similarly used in Old English,—But men make draw the branch thereof, and beren him to be graffed at Babyloyne.—Sir J. Mandeville.
§ 416.The figure zeugma.—They wear a garmentlike that of the Scythians, but a language peculiar to themselves.—The verb, naturally applying togarmentonly, is here used to governlanguage. This is called in Greek,zeugma(junction).
§ 417.My paternal home was made desolate, and he himself was sacrificed.—The sense of this is plain;hemeansmy father. Yet no such substantive asfatherhas gone before. It is supplied, however, from the wordpaternal. The sense indicated bypaternalgives us a subject to which he can refer. In other words, the wordheis understood, according to what is indicated, rather than according to what is expressed. This figure in Greek is calledpros to semainomenon(according to the thing indicated).
§ 418.—Apposition,—Cæsar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain.—-Here the wordsRoman emperorexplain, or define, the wordCæsar; and the sentence, filled up, might stand,Cæsar, that is, the Roman emperor, &c. Again, thewordsRoman emperormight be wholly ejected; or, if not ejected, they might be thrown into a parenthesis. The practical bearing of this fact is exhibited by changing the form of the sentence, and inserting the conjunctionand. In this case, instead of one person, two are spoken of, and the verbinvadesmust be changed from the singular to the plural.
Now the wordsRoman emperorare said to be in apposition toCæsar. They constitute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original one. They are, as it were,laid alongside(appositi) of the wordCæsar. Cases of doubtful number, wherein two substantives precede a verb, and wherein it is uncertain whether the verb should be singular or plural, are decided by determining whether the substantives be in apposition or the contrary. No matter how many nouns there may be, as long as itcan be shown that they are in apposition, the verb is in the singular number.
§ 419.Collectiveness as opposed to plurality.—In sentences likethe meetingwaslarge,the multitudepursuepleasure,meetingandmultitudeare each collective nouns; that is, although they present the idea of a single object, that object consists of a plurality of individuals. Hence,pursueis put in the plural number. To say, however,the meeting were largewould sound improper. The number of the verb that shall accompany a collective noun depends upon whether the idea of the multiplicity of individuals, or that of the unity of the aggregate, shall predominate.
Sand and salt and a mass of ironiseasier to bear than a man without understanding.—Letsand and salt and a mass of ironbe dealt with as a series of things the aggregate of which forms a mixture, and the expression is allowable.
The king and the lords and commonsformsan excellent frame of government.—Here the expression is doubtful. Substitutewithfor the firstand, and there is no doubt as to the propriety of the singular formis.
§ 420.The reduction of complex forms to simple ones.—Take, for instance, the current illustration, viz.,the-king-of-Saxony's army.—Here the assertion is, not that the army belongs toSaxony, but that it belongs to theking of Saxony; which words must, for the sake of taking a true view of the construction, be dealt with as a single word in the possessive case. Here two cases are dealt with as one; and a complex term is treated as a single word.
The same reason applies to phrases likethe two king Williams. If we say thetwo kings William, we must account for the phrase by apposition.
§ 421.True notion of the part of speech in use.—Inhe is gone, the wordgonemust be considered as equivalent toabsent; that is, as an adjective. Otherwise the expression is as incorrect as the expressionshe is eloped. Strong participles are adjectival oftener than weak ones: their form being common to many adjectives.
True notion of the original form.—In the phraseI must speak, the wordspeakisan infinitive. In the phraseI am forced to speak, the wordspeakis (in the present English) an infinitive also. In one case, however, it is preceded byto; whilst in the other, the particletois absent. The reason for this lies in the original difference of form.Speak-to= the Anglo-Saxonsprécan, a simple infinitive;to speak, orspeak+to= the Anglo-Saxonto sprécanne, an infinitive in the dative case.
§ 422.Convertibility.—In the English language, the greater part of the words may, as far as their form is concerned, be one part of speech as well as another. Thus the combinationss-a-n-th, orf-r-e-n-k, if they existed at all, might exist as either nouns or verbs, as either substantives or adjectives, as conjunctions, adverbs, or prepositions. This is not the case in the Greek languages. There, if a word be a substantive, it will probably end in-s; if an infinitive verb, in-ein, &c. The bearings of this difference between languages like the English and languages like the Greek will soon appear.
At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, originally one part of speech (e.g., a noun), may become another (e.g., a verb). This may be called the convertibility of words.
There is an etymological convertibility, and a syntactic convertibility; and although, in some cases, theline of demarcation is not easily drawn between them, the distinction is intelligible and convenient.
§ 423.Etymological convertibility.—The wordsthenandthan, now adverbs or conjunctions, were once cases: in other words, they have been converted from one part of speech to another. Or, they may even be said to be cases, at the present moment; although only in an historical point of view. For the practice of language, they are not only adverbs or conjunctions, but they are adverbs or conjunctions exclusively.
§ 424.Syntactic convertibility.—The combinationto err, is at this moment an infinitive verb. Nevertheless it can be used as the equivalent to the substantiveerror.
To err is human=error is human. Now this is an instance of syntactic conversion. Of the two meanings, there is no doubt as to which is the primary one; which primary meaning is part and parcel of the language at this moment.
The infinitive, when used as a substantive, can be used in a singular form only.
To err=error; but we have no such form asto errs=errors. Nor is it wanted. The infinitive, in a substantival sense, always conveys a general statement, so that even when singular, it has a plural power; just asman is mortal=men are mortal.
§ 425.The adjective used as a substantive.—Of these, we have examples in expressions like theblacks of Africa—the bitters and sweets of life—all fours were put to the ground. These are true instances of conversion, and are proved to be so by the fact of their taking a plural form.
Let the blind lead the blindis not an instance of conversion. The wordblindin both instances remainsan adjective, and is shown to remain so by its being uninflected.
§ 426.Uninflected parts of speech, used as substantive.—When King Richard III. says,none of your ifs, he uses the wordifas a substantive =expressions of doubt.
So in the expressionone long now, the wordnow=present time.
§ 427. The convertibility of words in English is very great; and it is so because the structure of the language favours it. As few words have any peculiar signs expressive of their being particular parts of speech, interchange is easy, and conversion follows the logical association of ideas unimpeded.
The convertibility of words is in the inverse ratio to the amount of their inflection.
SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES.
§ 428. The phenomena of convertibility have been already explained.
The remaining points connected with the syntax of substantives, are chiefly points of ellipsis.
Ellipsis of substantives.—The historical view of phrases, likeRundell and Bridge's,St. Paul's, &c., shows that this ellipsis is common to the English and the other Gothic languages. Furthermore, it shows that it is met with in languages not of the Gothic stock; and, finally, that the class of words to which it applies, is, there or thereabouts, the same generally.
§ 429. The following phrases are referable to a different class of relations—
1.Right and left—supplyhand. This is, probably, a real ellipsis. The wordsrightandleft, have not yet become true substantives; inasmuch as they have no plural forms. In this respect they stand in contrast withbitterandsweet; inasmuch as we can sayhe has tasted both the bitters and sweets of life. Nevertheless, the expression can be refined on.
2.All fours.To go on all fours.No ellipsis. The wordfoursis a true substantive, as proved by its existence as a plural.
SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES.
§ 430.Pleonasm.—Pleonasm can take place with adjectives only in the expression of the degrees of comparison. Over and above the etymological signs of the comparative and superlative degrees, there may be used the superlative wordsmoreandmost.
And this pleonasm really occurs—
Themore serenerspirit.Themost straitestsect.
Themore serenerspirit.Themost straitestsect.
Themore serenerspirit.
Themost straitestsect.
These are instances of pleonasm in the strictest sense of the term.
§ 431. Collocation.—As a general rule, the adjective precedes the substantive—a good man, nota man good.
When, however, the adjective is qualified by either the expression of its degree, or accompanied by another adjective, it may follow the substantive—
A manjust and good.A womanwise and fair.A herodevoted to his country.A patriotdisinterested to a great degree.
A manjust and good.A womanwise and fair.A herodevoted to his country.A patriotdisinterested to a great degree.
A manjust and good.
A womanwise and fair.
A herodevoted to his country.
A patriotdisinterested to a great degree.
Single simpleadjectives thus placed after their substantive, belong to the poetry of England, and especially to the ballad poetry—sighs profound—the leaves green.
§ 432.Government.—The only adjective that governs a case, is the wordlike. In the expression,this is likehim, &c., the original power of the dative remains. This we infer—
1. From the fact that in most languages which have inflections to a sufficient extent, the word meaninglikegoverns a dative case.
2. That if ever we use in English any preposition at all to express similitude, it is the prepositionto—like to me,like to death, &c.
Expressions likefull of meat,good for John, are by no means instances of the government of adjectives; the really governing words being the prepositionstoandforrespectively.
§ 433. The positive degree preceded by the adjectivemore, is equivalent to the comparative form—e.g.,more wise=wiser.
The reasons for employing one expression in preference to the other, depend upon the nature of the particular word used.
When the word is at one and the same time of Anglo-Saxon origin and monosyllabic, there is no doubt about the preference to be given to the form in-er. Thus,wis-eris preferable tomore wise.
When, however, the word is compound, or trisyllabic, the combination with the wordmore, is preferable.
Between these two extremes there are several intermediate forms, wherein the use of one rather than another will depend upon the taste of the writer. The question, however, is a question of euphony, rather than of aught else. It is also illustrated by the principle of not multiplying secondary elements. In such a word asfruit-full-er, there are two additions to the root. The same is the case with the superlative,fruit-full-est.
§ 434. In the Chapter on the Comparative Degree is indicated a refinement upon the current notions as to the power of the comparative degree, and reasons are given for believing that the fundamental notion expressed by the comparative inflexion is the idea of comparison or contrast betweentwoobjects.
In this case, it is better in speaking of only two objects to use the comparative degree rather than the superlative—even when we use the definite articlethe. Thus—
This isthe betterof the two
This isthe betterof the two
is preferable to
This isthe bestof the two.
This isthe bestof the two.
This principle is capable of an application more extensive than our habits of speaking and writing will verify. Thus to go to other parts of speech, we should logically say—
Whether of the two,
Whether of the two,
rather than
Which of the two.Either the father or the son,
Which of the two.
Either the father or the son,
but not
Either the father, the son, or the daughter.
Either the father, the son, or the daughter.
This statement may be refined on. It is chiefly made for the sake of giving fresh prominence to the idea of duality, expressed by the terminations-erand-ter.
§ 435. The absence of inflection simplifies the syntax of adjectives. Violations of concord are impossible. We could not make an adjective disagree with its substantive if we wished.
SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.
§ 436.Pleonasm in the syntax of pronouns.—In the following sentences the words in italics are pleonastic:
1. The kingheis just.2. I sawher, the queen.3. Themen, they were there.4. The king,hiscrown.
1. The kingheis just.2. I sawher, the queen.3. Themen, they were there.4. The king,hiscrown.
1. The kingheis just.
2. I sawher, the queen.
3. Themen, they were there.
4. The king,hiscrown.
Of these forms, the first is more common than the second and third, and the fourth more common than the first.
§ 437. The fourth has another element of importance. It has given rise to the absurd notion that the genitive case in-'s(father-'s) is a contraction fromhis(father his).
To say nothing about the inapplicability of this rule to feminine genders, and plural numbers, the whole history of the Indo-Germanic languages is against it.
1. We cannot reducethe queen's majestytothe queen his majesty.
2. We cannot reducethe children's breadtothe children his bread.
3. The Anglo-Saxon forms are in-es, not inhis.
4. The wordhisitself must be accounted for; and that cannot be done by assuming it to behe+his.
5. The-sinfather'sis the-isinpatris, and the-οςinπατέρος.
§ 438. The preceding examples illustrate an apparent paradox,viz., the fact of pleonasm and ellipsis being closely allied.The king he is just, dealt with as asinglesentence, is undoubtedly pleonastic. But it is not necessary to be considered as a mere simple sentence.The king—may represent a first sentence incomplete, whilsthe is justrepresents a second sentence in full. What is pleonasm in a single sentence is ellipsis in a double one.
THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
§ 439.Personal pronouns.—The use of the second person plural instead of the second singular has been noticed already. This use of one number for another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used is conveniently called thepronomen reverentiæ.
§ 440.Dativus ethicus.—In the phrase
Rob me the exchequer,—Henry IV.,
Rob me the exchequer,—Henry IV.,
Rob me the exchequer,—Henry IV.,
themeis expletive, and is equivalent tofor me. This expletive use of the dative is conveniently called thedativus ethicus.
§ 441.The reflected personal pronoun.—In the English language there is no equivalent to the Latinse, the Germansich, and the Scandinaviansik, andsig.
It follows from this that the wordselfis used to a greater extent than would otherwise be the case.
I strike meis awkward, but not ambiguous.
Thou strikest theeis awkward, but not ambiguous.
He strikes himis ambiguous; inasmuch ashimmay mean either theperson who strikesor some one else. In order to be clear we add the wordselfwhen the idea is reflective.He strikes himselfis, at once idiomatic and unequivocal.
So it is with the plural persons.
We strike usis awkward, but not ambiguous.
Ye strike youis the same.
They strike themis ambiguous.
This shows the value of a reflective pronoun for the third person.
As a general rule, therefore, whenever we use a verb reflectively we use the wordselfin combination with the personal pronoun.
Yet this was not always the case. The use of the simple personal pronoun was current in Anglo-Saxon, and that, not only for the first two persons, but for the third as well.
The exceptions to this rule are either poetical expressions, or imperative moods.