CHAPTER IV.

Themore serenerspirit.Themost straitestsect.

Themore serenerspirit.

Themost straitestsect.

These are instances of pleonasm in the strictest sense of the term.

§ 493.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.

Single simpleadjectives thus placed after their substantive, belong to the poetry of England, and especially to the ballad poetry—sighs profound—the leaves green.

§ 494.Government.—The only adjective that governs a case, is the wordlike. In the expression,this is like him, &c., the original power of the dative remains. This we infer—

1. From the fact that in most languages which haveinflections 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.

The most that can be said, in cases like these, is that particular adjectives determine the use of particular prepositions—thus the prepositionof, generally follows the adjectivefull, &c.

§ 495. The positive degree preceded by the adjective more, 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.

§ 496. The 9th Chapter of Part IV., should be read carefully. There, there 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

is preferable to

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

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.

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.

§ 497. 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.

§ 498. The syntax of substantives is, in English, simple, from the paucity of its inflections, a condition which is unfavourable towards the evolution of constructional complexities; the most remarkable exception being the phenomenon of convertibility noticed above.

The same is the case with adjectives. The want of inflexion simplifies their syntax equally with that of the substantives.

But with the pronouns this is not the case. Here we have—

1. Signs of gender; 2. Signs of case; 3. Signs of number, to a greater extent, and with more peculiarities, than elsewhere.

Furthermore, the pronouns exhibit in a great degree the phenomena of conversion indicated in p.400.

§ 499.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.

Of these forms, the first is more common than the second and third, and the fourth more common than the first.

§ 500. 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 to behe+his.

5. The-sinfather'sis the-isinpatris, and the -οςinπατέρος.

§ 501. 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.

§ 502.Personal pronouns.—The use of the second person plural instead of the second singular has been noticed in p.246. This use of one number for another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used is conveniently called thepronomen reverentiæ.

§ 503. In English, however, there is a second change over and above the change of number,viz.that of case. We not only sayyeinstead ofthou, butyouinstead ofye.—(See p.245).

Mr. Guest remarks, "that at one time the two formsyeandyouseem to have been nearly changing place in our language.

As I have madeyeone, Lords, one remain;So I grow strongeryoumore honour gain.Henry VIII.4, 2.

As I have madeyeone, Lords, one remain;So I grow strongeryoumore honour gain.

As I have madeyeone, Lords, one remain;

So I grow strongeryoumore honour gain.

Henry VIII.4, 2.

What gainyouby forbidding it to teazeye,It now can neither trouble you nor pleaseye.Dryden."

What gainyouby forbidding it to teazeye,It now can neither trouble you nor pleaseye.

What gainyouby forbidding it to teazeye,

It now can neither trouble you nor pleaseye.

Dryden."

In German and the Danish thepronomen reverentiæis got at by a change, not of number, but of person—in other words, the pronoun of thethirdperson is used instead of that of thesecond; just as if, in the English, we saidwill they walk=will you walk,will ye walk,wilt thou walk.

§ 504.Dativus ethicus.—In the phrase

Rob me the exchequer.—Henry IV.

themeis expletive, and is equivalent tofor me. This expletive use of the dative is conveniently called thedativus ethicus. It occurs more frequently in the Latin than in theEnglish, and more frequently in the Greek than in the Latin.

§ 505.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 two first persons, but for the third as well.

The exceptions to this rule are either poetical expressions, or imperative moods.

He sathimdown at a pillar's base.—Byron.Sit thee down.

He sathimdown at a pillar's base.—Byron.

Sit thee down.

§ 506.Reflective neuters.—In the phraseI strike methe 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.

§ 507.Equivocal reflectives.—The proper place of the reflective isafterthe verb.

The proper place of the governing pronoun is,inthe 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,

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.

§ 508. Reasons have been given in p.249, for considering the so-called pronouns of the third person (he,she,it,they) demonstrative rather than truly personal.

§ 509. Ashis, andher, are 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

§ 510. From p.250, it may be seen 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. This has been illustrated by Mr. Guest.

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."—2Henry IV.i. 2."If the salt have losthisflavour, 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."—2Henry IV.i. 2.

"If the salt have losthisflavour, 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 genitiveitsis of late introduction into our language. Though used by our dramatists and many of their cotemporaries, it does not occur in the versions of our Bible, the substitute beinghisor the compound termthereof."—Phil. Trans., No. 25.

§ 511. For the archaic and provincial use ofhimandheforitseeibid.; remembering that the two cases are different.Hisforitsis an old form retained:himandheforitare really changes of gender.

§ 512.Take them things away.—Here we havethemforthose. The expression, although not to be imitated, is explained by the originally demonstrative power ofthem.

Sometimes the expression is still more anomalous, and we hear the so-called nominative case used instead of the accusative. In the expressiontake they things away, the use oftheyforthem(itself forthose) is similarly capable of being, down to a certain period of our language, explained as an archaism. The original accusative wasþa, andþo: the form in-mbeing dative.

§ 513.Thisandthat.—The remarks upon the use of these words in certain expressions is brought at once to the Latin scholar by the quotation of the two following lines from Ovid, and the suggestion of a well-known rule in the Eton Latin Grammar.

Quocunque aspicies nihil est nisi pontus et aer;Nubibus hic tumidus, fluctibus ille minax.

Quocunque aspicies nihil est nisi pontus et aer;

Nubibus hic tumidus, fluctibus ille minax.

Herehic(=thisorthe one) refers to the antecedent last named (theair); whilstille(=thatorthe other) refers to the antecedent first named (thesea).

Now on the strength of this example, combined with others, it is laid down as a rule in Latin thathic(this) refers to the last-named antecedent,illeto the first-named.

§ 514. What is the rule in English?

Suppose we sayJohn's is a good sword and so is Charles's;this cut through a thick rope, the other cut through an iron rod. Or instead of sayingthisandthatwe may saythe oneandthe other. It is clear that, in determining to which of thetwo swords the respective demonstratives refer, the meaning will not help us at all, so that our only recourse is to the rules of grammar; and it is the opinion of the present writer that the rules of grammar will help us just as little. The Latin rule is adopted by scholars, but still it is a Latin rule rather than an English one.

The truth is, that it is a question which no authority can settle; and all that grammar can tell us is (what we know without it) thatthisrefers to the name of the idea which is logically the most close at hand, andthatto the idea which is logically the most distant.

What constitutes nearness or distance of ideas, in other words, what determines the sequence of ideas is another question. That the idea, however, of sequence, and, consequently of logical proximity and logical distance, is the fundamental idea in regard to the expressions in question is evident from the very use of the wordsthisandthat.

Now the sequence of ideas is capable of being determined by two tests.

1. The idea to which the name was last given, or (changing the expression) the name of the last idea may be the nearest idea in the order of sequence, and, consequently, the idea referred to by the pronoun of proximity. In this case the idea closest at hand to the writer of the second line of the couplet quoted above was the idea of theatmosphere(aer), and it was, consequently, expressed by (this)hic.

2. Or the idea to which the name was first given, or (changing the expression) the name of the first idea may be the nearest idea in the order of sequence, and consequently the idea referred to it by the pronoun of proximity; inasmuch as the idea which occurs first is the most prominent one, and what is prominent appears near. In this case, the idea closest at hand to the writer of the second line of the couplet quoted above would have been the idea of thesea(pontus), and it would, consequently, have been the idea expressed bythis(hic).

As Ovid, however, considered the idea at the end of the last half of one sentence to be the idea nearest to thebeginning of the next, we have him expressing himself as he does. On the other hand, it is easy to conceive a writer with whom the nearest idea is the idea that led the way to the others.

As I believe that one and the same individual may measure the sequence of his ideas sometimes according to one of these principles, and sometimes according to another, I believe that all rules about the relations ofthisandthatare arbitrary.

It is just a matter of chance whether a thinker take up his line of ideas by the end or by the beginning. The analogies of such expressions as the following are in favour ofthis, in English, applying to thefirstsubject,thatto thesecond; since the wordattorneytakes the place ofthis, and applies to the first name of the two,i. e., toThurlow.

"It was a proud day for the bar when Lord North made Thurlow (1) and (2) Wedderburn (1) Attorney (2) and Solicitor General."—Mathias from Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors.

ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF.

§ 515. The undoubted constructions of the wordself, in the present state of the cultivated English, are three-fold.

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.Him-self=him, the individual.

3.Composition.—It is only, however, whenhimselfandthemselves, are in the accusative case, that the construction is appositional. When they are used as nominatives, it must be explained on another principle. In phrases like

Hehimselfwas present.Theythemselveswere present.

Hehimselfwas present.

Theythemselveswere 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(they their 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-m, is dealt with as part and parcel of the root.

§ 516.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.

§ 517. In the exhibition of the second construction of the wordselfit was assumed that the case was a case of apposition, and thatselfwas substantival in character. Nevertheless, this is by no means a necessary phenomenon.Selfmight, as far as its power is determined by its construction alone, in words likehimselfas easily be an adjective as a substantive. In which case the construction would be a matter, not of apposition, but ofagreement. To illustrate this by the Latin language,himself, might equal eithereum personam(him, the person), oreum personalem(him personal). The evidence, however, of the forms likemyself, as well as other facts adduceable from comparative philology, prove the substantival character ofself. On the other hand, it ought not to be concealed that another word, whereof the preponderance of the adjectival over the substantival power is undoubted, is found in the Old English, with just the same inconsistency as the wordself;i.e., sometimes in government (like a substantive), and sometimes in either concord or apposition, like a word which may beeithersubstantive or adjective. This word isone; the following illustrations of which are from Mr. Guest.—Phil. Trans. No. 22.

In this world wote I no knight,Who dursthis onewith hym fight.Ipomedon, 1690.þah hahire anewereAyein so kene keisere and al his kine riche.St. Catherine, 90.Though shealonewereAgainst so fierce a kaiser, and all his kingdom.

In this world wote I no knight,Who dursthis onewith hym fight.

In this world wote I no knight,

Who dursthis onewith hym fight.

Ipomedon, 1690.

þah hahire anewereAyein so kene keisere and al his kine riche.

þah hahire anewere

Ayein so kene keisere and al his kine riche.

St. Catherine, 90.

Though shealonewereAgainst so fierce a kaiser, and all his kingdom.

Though shealonewere

Against so fierce a kaiser, and all his kingdom.

Herehis one,her one, meanhis singleness,her singleness.

He made his moneWithin a garden allhim one.Gower,Confess. Amant.

He made his moneWithin a garden allhim one.

He made his mone

Within a garden allhim one.

Gower,Confess. Amant.

Herehim one=himselfin respect to its construction.

§ 518. As to the inflection of the word-self, all its compounds are substantives; inasmuch as they all take plural forms as far as certain logical limitations will allow them to do so—ourselves,yourselves,themselves.

Myself,thyself,himself,itself, andherself, are naturally singular, and under no circumstances can become plural.

Themselvesis naturally plural, and under no circumstances can become singular.

Ourselvesandyourselvesare naturally plural; yet under certain circumstances they become singular.

a.Just as men sayweforI, so may they sayourformy.

b.Just as men sayyouforthou, so may they sayyourforthy.

In respect to the inflection in the way of case, there are no logical limitations whatever. There is nothing against the existence of a genitive formself'sexcept the habit of the English language not to use one, founded on the little necessity for so doing.—Are you sure this is your own?Yes, I am sure it is my own self's.Such an expression is both logic and grammar.

When an adjective intervenes betweenselfand its personal pronoun the construction is always in the way of government; in other words, the personal pronoun is always put in the genitive case.

His own self,nothim own self.Their own selves,notthem own selves.

His own self,nothim own self.

Their own selves,notthem own selves.

§ 519. The construction ofselfand a personal pronoun with a verb may be noticed in this place. It is only in the case of the two pronouns of the singular number that any doubt can arise.

1. Whenmyselforthyselfstands alone, the verb that follows is in the third person—myself is(notam)weak,thyself is(notart)weak. Here the construction is just the same as in the propositionmy body is weak.

2. Whenmyselforthyselfis preceded byIorthou, the verb that follows is in the first person—I, myself, am(notis)weak;thou, thyself, art(notis)weak.

ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.

§ 520. The possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first class contains the forms connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in their syntax, withmyandthy, &c. The second class contains the forms connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in their syntax, withmineandthine, &c.

The first class is the class of what may be called theobliquepossessives; the name being founded upon the etymological fact of their being connected with the oblique cases of the pronominal inflection.—My,thy,his(as inhis book),her,its(as inits book),our,your,their. These are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin formsmei,tui,ejus,nostrum,vestrum,eorum.

The second class is the class of what may be called theabsolutepossessives; the name being founded upon the syntactic fact of their being able to form the term of a proposition by themselves; aswhose is this?Mine(notmy).—Mine,thine,his(asin the 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. How far either or both of these two classes of pronouns are cases, or adjectives, is a point of etymology that has already been noticed (Part IV., chap. 37).

How far either or both are cases or adjectives is, in syntax, a matter of indifference.

§ 521. There is, however, a palpable difference between the construction ofmyandmine. We cannot saythis is mine hat, and we cannot saythis hat is my. Nevertheless, thisdifference 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, complimentary to each other when taken in their two forms.

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.

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 theforms in-'slikefather's, not as genitive cases but as adjectives. Looking to the logic of the question alone he is right, and looking to the practical 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.

§ 522. The wordthat, although originally, when a demonstrative pronoun, a neuter singular, is now used as a relative for all genders, and both numbers.

1. Hethatspoke.—Masculine gender.2. Shethatspoke.—Feminine gender.3. Theythatfought.—Plural number.4. The manthatI struck.—Objective case.

1. Hethatspoke.—Masculine gender.

2. Shethatspoke.—Feminine gender.

3. Theythatfought.—Plural number.

4. The manthatI struck.—Objective case.

§ 523. Etymologically,whichis no true neuter ofwho, but a compound word. It is used, however, with less latitude thanthat. The beginning of the Lord's Prayer exhibits it in combination with a masculine noun. Generally, however, it is confined to the neuter gender; in which it is common to both numbers.

1. The daggerwhichstabbed Cæsar.—Nominative singular.2. The daggerswhichstabbed Cæsar.—Nominative plural.3. The daggerwhichI grasp.—Objective singular.4. The daggerswhichI grasp.—Objective plural.

1. The daggerwhichstabbed Cæsar.—Nominative singular.

2. The daggerswhichstabbed Cæsar.—Nominative plural.

3. The daggerwhichI grasp.—Objective singular.

4. The daggerswhichI grasp.—Objective plural.

§ 524.Whichhas so nearly replacedwhatthat the general use of this last word with its proper power, as a neuter relative, is, in the present English, vulgar,e.g.,

1. The daggerwhatstabbed Cæsar.2. The daggerwhatI grasp.

1. The daggerwhatstabbed Cæsar.

2. The daggerwhatI grasp.

In one case, however,whatis used as a true relative,viz., when the antecedent is eitherthisorthat.

This iswhatI mean;not, this iswhichI mean.That iswhatI mean;not, that iswhichI mean.

This iswhatI mean;not, this iswhichI mean.

That iswhatI mean;not, that iswhichI mean.

§ 525. The wordas, properly a conjunction, is occasionally used as a relative—the manasrides to market.

This expression is not to be imitated. It ought, however, to be explained.Asis a conjunction denoting comparison. The ideas of comparison and equivalence are allied. The relative isex vi terminithe equivalent, in one part of a sentence, to the antecedent in another.

(1) The man—(2) who speaks.

Herewho=man.

(1) As white—(2) as snow.

Heresnow=white.

§ 526. It is necessary that the relative be in the samegenderas the antecedent—the man who—the woman who—the thing which.

§ 527. It is necessary that the relative be in the samenumberwith the antecedent. As, however,who,which,whom, are equally singular and plural, and aswhat, which is really singular, is not used as a relative, the application of this law is limited to the wordwhose. Nowwhoseis, etymologically, a genitive case, and a genitive case of the singular number. Hence the expressionthe men whose daggers stabbed Cæsarcan only be justified by considering that the wordwhoseis plural as well as singular. Such is the case. If not the expression is as illogical ashominescujussicæ, &c. would be in Latin.

§ 528. It isnotnecessary for the relative to be in the same case with 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.

§ 529. 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, theperson 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.

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.

§ 530.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.

§ 531. One or two points connected with the construction of those sentences wherein relative pronouns occur, are necessary to be familiarly understood in order for us to see our way clearly to certain real and apparent anomalies in the syntax of this class of words.

1. Every sentence wherein a relative occurs, is complex,i.e., it consists of two propositions—the man who rides is come=(1)the man is come; (2)who rides. Here the relativewhohas no meaning in itself, but takes a meaning from the noun of the preceding clause.

2.The relative is the demonstrative or personal pronoun under another form.—The two propositions (1)the man is come; (2)who rides=(1)the man is come; (2)he rides.

3.The demonstrative or personal pronoun is the substantive in another form.—The two propositions (1)the man is come; (2)he rides=(1)the man is come; (2)the man rides.

4. Hence the relative is the equivalent to a demonstrative pronoun, or to a substantive, indifferently.

5. But the relative is the equivalent to the pronoun and substantive, andsomething more. In sentences like

Back to Index Next