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.
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.
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. Are they genitive cases of a personal pronoun, asmeiandtuiare supposed to be in Latin, or are they possessive pronouns likemeusandtuus?
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 the Anglo-Saxon grammars, however,minandþin, the older forms ofmineandthine, are treated as genitives; of whichmyandthyhave been dealt with as abbreviated forms, and that by respectable scholars.
Now, to prove from the syntax of the older English that in many cases the two forms were convertible, and to answer that the words in question areeithergenitive cases or adjectives, is lax philology; since the real question is,which of the two is the primary, and which the secondary meaning?
§ 447. Theà prioriview of the likelihood of words likemineandthinebeing genitive cases, must be determined by the comparison of three series of facts.
1. The ideas expressed by the genitive case, with particular reference to the two preponderating notions of possession and partition.
2. The circumstance of the particular notion of possession being, in the case of the personal pronouns of the two first persons singular, generally expressed by a form undoubtedly adjectival.
3. The extent to which the idea of partition becomes merged in that of possession, andvice versâ.
§ 448.The ideas of possession and partition as expressed by genitive forms.—If we take a hundred genitive cases, and observe their construction, we shall find, that, with a vast majority of them, the meaning is reducible to one of two heads;viz., the idea of possession or the idea of partition.
Compared with these two powers all the others are inconsiderable, both in number and importance; and if, as in the Greek and Latin languages, they take up a large space in the grammars, it is from their exceptional character rather than from their normal genitival signification.
Again, if both the ideas of possession and partition may, and in many cases must be, reduced to the more general idea of relation, this is a point of grammatical phraseology by no means affecting the practical and special bearings of the present division.
§ 449.The adjectival expression of the idea of possession.—All the world over, a property is a possession; andpersons, at least, may be said to be the owners of their attributes. Whatever may be the nature of words likemineandthine, the adjectival character of their Latin equivalents,meusandtuus, is undoubted.
The ideas of partition and possession merge into one another.—A man's spade is thepossessionof a man; a man's hand is thepartof a man.Nevertheless, when a man uses his hand as the instrument of his will, the idea which arises from the fact of its beingpartof his body is merged in the idea of the possessorship which arises from the feeling of ownership or mastery which is evinced in its subservience and application. Without following the refinements to which the further investigation of these questions would lead us, it is sufficient to suggest that the preponderance of the two allied ideas of partition and possession is often determined by thepersonality or the non-personality of the subject, and that, when the subject is a person, the idea is chiefly possessive; when a thing, partitive—caput fluvii=the head, which is a part, of a river;caput Toli=the head, which is the possession, of Tolus.
But as persons may be degraded to the rank of things, and as things may, by personification, be elevated to the level of persons, this distinction, although real, may become apparently invalid. In phrases like atributary to the Tiber—the criminal lost his eye—this field belongs to that parish—the ideas of possessorship and partition, as allied ideas subordinate to the idea of relationship in general, verify the interchange.
§ 450. These observations should bring us to the fact that there are two ideas which, more than any other, determine the evolution of a genitive case—the idea of partition and the idea of possession;and that genitive cases are likely to be evolved just in proportion as there is a necessity for the expression of these two ideas.—Let this be applied to the question of the à priori probability of the evolution of a genitive case to the pronouns of the first and second persons of the singular number.
§ 451.The idea ofpossession, and its likelihood of determining the evolution of a genitive form to the pronouns of the first and second person singular.—It is less likely to do so with such pronouns than with other words, inasmuch as it is less necessary. It has been before observed, that the practice of most languages shows a tendency to express the relation by adjectival forms—meus,tuus.
An objection against the conclusiveness of this argument will be mentioned in the sequel.
§ 452.The idea ofpartition, and its likelihood of determining the evolution of a genitive form, &c.—Less than with other words.
A personal pronoun of thesingularnumber is the name of a unity, and, as such, the name of an object far less likely to be separated into parts than the name of a collection. Phrases like,some of them,one of you,many of us,any of them,few of us, &c., have no analogues in the singular number, such asone of me,a few of thee, &c. The partitive words that cancombine with singular pronouns are comparatively few;viz.,half,quarter,part, &c.: and they can all combine equally with plurals—half of us,a quarter of them,a part of you,a portion of us. The partition of a singular object with a pronominal name is of rare occurrence in language.
This last statement proves something more than appears at first sight. It proves that no argument in favour of the so-calledsingulargenitives, likemineandthine, can be drawn from the admission (if made) of the existence of the true plural genitivesou-r,you-r,thei-r. The two ideas are not in the same predicament. We can say,one of ten, orten of twenty; but we cannot sayone of one—Wæs hira Matheus sum=Matthew was one of them; Andreas—Your noither=neither of you; Amis and Ameloun—from Mr. Guest:Her eyder=either of them; Octavian.—Besides this, the form of the two numbers are neither identical, nor equally genitival; as may be seen by contrastingmi-nandthi-nwithou-randyou-r.
§ 453. Such are the chiefà prioriarguments against the genitival character of words likemineandthine.
Akin to these, and a point which precedes theà posteriorievidence as to the nature of the words in question, is the determination of the side on which lies theonus probandi. This question is material; inasmuch as, although the present writer believes, for his own part, that the forms under discussion are adjectival rather than genitival, this is not the point upon which he insists. What he insists upon is the fact of the genitival character ofmineandthinerequiring a particular proof; which particular proof no one has yet given: in other words, his position is that they are not to be thought genitive until proved to be such.
It has not been sufficiently considered that theprimâ facieevidence is against them. They have not the form of a genitive case—indeed, they have a different one; and whoever assumes a second form for a given case has the burden of proof on his side.
§ 454. Against this circumstance of the-ninmineandthinebeing the sign of anything rather than of a genitive case, and against theprimâ facieevidence afforded by it, thefollowing facts may, or have been, adduced as reasons on the other side. The appreciation of their value, either taken singly or in the way of cumulative evidence, is submitted to the reader. It will be seen that none of them are unexceptionable.
§ 455.The fact, that, if the wordsmineandthineare not genitive cases, there is not a genitive case at all.—It is not necessary that there should be one. Particular reasons in favour of the probability of personal pronouns of the singular number being destitute of such a case have been already adduced.It is more likely that a word should be defective than that it should have a separate form.
§ 456.The analogy of the formsmeiandἐμοῦin Latin and Greek.—It cannot be denied that this has some value. Nevertheless, the argument deducible from it is anything but conclusive.
1. It is by no means an indubitable fact thatmeiandἐμοῦare really cases of the pronoun. Theextensionof a principle acknowledged in the Greek language might make them the genitive cases of adjectives used pronominally. Thus,
Assume the omission of the article and the extension of the Greek principle to the Latin language, andἐμοῦandmeimay be cases, not ofἐμὲandme, but ofἐμὸςandmeus.
2. In the classical languages the partitive power was expressed by the genitive.
"—— multaque pars meiVitabit Libitinam."
"—— multaque pars meiVitabit Libitinam."
"—— multaque pars mei
Vitabit Libitinam."
This is a reason for the evolution of a genitive power. Few such forms exist in the Gothic;part myis not English, nor wasdæl minAnglo-Saxon,=part of me, orpars mei.
§ 457. The following differences of form, are found in the different Gothic languages, between the equivalents ofmeiandtui, the so-called genitives ofegoandtu, and the equivalents ofmeusandtuus, the so-called possessive adjectives.
In this list, those languages where the two forms are alike are not exhibited. This is the case with the Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon.
In the above-noticed 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.
§ 458. But this is not the present question. In Anglo-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.
§ 459.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 beadapted 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. Such is the general statement. Reasons for believing that in the particular cases of the words in question such is the fact, will be found hereafter.
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.Cujus(as incujum pecus) andsestertiumare Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one.
§ 460.Syntactic evidence.—If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions asdæl min=pars mei,hælf þin=dimidium tui, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a genitive with a partitive power. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted; whilst, even if quoted, they would not beconclusive. Expressions likeσὸς πόθος=desiderium tui,σῆ προμηθίᾳ=providentiâ propter te, show the extent to which the possessive expression encroaches on the partitive.
1. The wordsminorþin, with a power anything rather than possessive, would not for that reason be proved (on the strength of their meaning) to be genitive cases rather than possessive pronouns; since such latitude in the power of the possessive pronoun is borne out by the comparison of languages—πατὲρ ἡμῶν(notἡμέτερος) in Greek ispater noster(notnostrum) in Latin.
§ 461. 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 agenitive 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 (real or apparent) exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward.
Such instances have yet to be quoted; whilst even if quoted, they would not be conclusive.
§ 462. A few references to theDeutsche Grammatikwill explain this.
As early as the Mœso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of the omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in theneuter singularsometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms,nim thata badi theinata=ἆρον σοῦ τὸν κράββατον(Mark ii. 9.) opposed tonim thata badi theintwo verses afterwards. So also withmeinandmeinata.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 470. It is remarkable that this omission should begin with forms 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.—Deutsche Grammatik, 474-478.
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.—Deutsche Grammatik, 480. 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.—Deutsche Grammatik, 470.
§ 463. Now by assuming (which is only a fair assumption) 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 andafter their nouns), we explain these constructions by a process which, in the mind of the present writer, is involved in fewer difficulties than the opposite doctrine of a genitive case, in words where it is not wanted, and with a termination which is foreign to it elsewhere.
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.—See pp. 251-253.
ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRÆTERITE.
§ 464. The remote origin of the weak præterite in-dor-t, has been considered by Grimm, in the Deutsche Grammatik. 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 the plural præterite of the Mœso-Gothic we have something more,viz.the termination-dêdum; asnas-idêdum,nas-idêduþ,nas-idêdum, fromnas-ja;sôk-idêdum,sôk-idêduþ,sôk-idêdumfromsôk-ja;salb-ôdêdum,salb-ôdêduþ,sâlb-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-ôdêdi,salb-ôdêdeits,salb-ôdêdeima,salb-ôdêdeiþ,salb-ôdêdeina. The English phrase,we did salve, as compared withsalb-ôdêdum, is confirmatory of this.—Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1042.
§ 465. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic præterite, in the Transactions of the Philological Society, induce me to identify thed-in 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.
l. 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; and the fact of its being so accounts forthe apparently remarkable fact of its inflection. If, instead of sayingille amavit, the Latins saidille amatus, whilst instead of sayingilla amavitthey saidilla amata, they would exactly use the grammar of the Slavonians.
3. Hence, as one language, the Slavonic gives us the undoubted fact of an active præterite growing out of a passive participle (unless, indeed, we chose to say that both are derived from a common origin); and as the English participle and præterite, when weak, are nearly identical, we have reason for believing that thed, in the English active præterite, is thetin the Latin passive participle.
§ 466. The following extract exhibits Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic verb:—
"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:Yasam imaomi´ smoimaliTi si imaovi´ steimaliOn ye imaoomi suimali."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 endingao, ofigraoandimao, stands for the Russianal, as in some English dialectsa'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,
Rek esm´chital esmi´Rek esi´chital esi´Rek est´chital est´.
Rek esm´chital esmi´Rek esi´chital esi´Rek est´chital est´.
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:
Yasam imaomi´ smoimaliTi si imaovi´ steimaliOn ye imaoomi suimali.
Yasam imaomi´ smoimaliTi si imaovi´ steimaliOn ye imaoomi suimali.
Yasam imaomi´ smoimali
Ti si imaovi´ steimali
On ye imaoomi suimali.
"In the Polish it appears as a suffix:
CzytalemczytalismyCzytalesczytaliscieCzytalczytalie.
CzytalemczytalismyCzytalesczytaliscieCzytalczytalie.
Czytalemczytalismy
Czytalesczytaliscie
Czytalczytalie.
"And in the Servian it follows the participle:
Igrao samigrali smoIgrao siigrali steIgrao yeigrali su.
Igrao samigrali smoIgrao siigrali steIgrao yeigrali su.
Igrao samigrali smo
Igrao siigrali ste
Igrao yeigrali su.
"The endingao, ofigraoandimao, stands for the Russianal, as in some English dialectsa'is used forall."
SYNTAX.
————
ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL.
§ 467. 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 studied syntax.
Much that is considered by the generality of grammarians as syntax, can either be omitted altogether, or else be better studied under another name.
§ 468. To reduce a sentence to its elements, and to show that these elements are, 1, the subject, 2, the predicate, 3, the copula; to distinguish between simple terms and complex terms,—this is the department of logic.
To show the difference in force of expression, between such a sentence asgreat is Diana of the Ephesians, andDiana of the Ephesians is great, wherein the natural order of the subject and predicate is reversed, is a point of rhetoric.
I am moving.—To state that such a combination asI am movingis grammatical, is undoubtedly a point of syntax. Nevertheless it is a point better explained in a separate treatise, than in a work upon any particular language. The expression proves its correctness by the simple fact of its universal intelligibility.
I speaks.—To state that such a combination asI speaks,admitting thatIis exclusively the pronoun in the first person, and thatspeaksis exclusively the verb in the third, is undoubtedly a point of syntax. Nevertheless, it is a point which is better explained in a separate treatise, than in a work upon any particular language. An expression so ungrammatical, involves a contradiction in terms, which unassisted common sense can deal with. This position will again be reverted to.
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.
I am speaking, I was reading.—There was a stage in the Gothic languages when these forms were either inadmissible, or rare. Instead thereof, we had the present tense,I speak, and the past,I spoke. The same is the case with the classical languages in the classical stage. To determine the difference in idea between these pairs of forms is a matter of metaphysics. To determine at what period each idea came to have a separate mode of expression is a matter of thehistoryof language. For example,vas láisandsappears in Ulphilas (Matt. vii. 29). There, it appears as a rare form, and as a literal translation of the Greekἦν διδασκών(was teaching). The Greek form itself was, however, an unclassical expression forἐδίδασκε. In Anglo-Saxon this mode of speaking became common, and in English it is commoner still.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 5. This is a point of idiom involved with one of history.
Swear by your sword—swear on your sword.—Which of these two expressions is right? This depends on what the speaker means. If he meanmake your oath in the full remembrance of the trust you put in your sword, and with the imprecation, therein implied, that it shall fail you, or turn against you if you speak falsely, the former expression is the right one. But, if he mean swearwith your hand upon your sword, it is the latter which expresses his meaning. To take a different view of this question, and to write as a rule thatverbs of swearing are followed by the preposition on(orby) is to mistake the province of the grammar. Grammar tells no one what he should wish to say. It only tells him how what he wishes to say should be said.
Much of the criticism on the use ofwillandshallis faulty in this respect.Willexpresses one idea of futurity,shallanother. The syntax of the two words is very nearly that of any other two. That one of the words is oftenest used with a first person, and the other with a second, is a fact, as will be seen hereafter, connected with the nature ofthings, not of words.
§ 469. The following question now occurs. If the history of forms of speech be one thing, and the history of idioms another; if this question be a part of logic, and that question a part of rhetoric; and if such truly grammatical facts as government and concord are, as matters of common sense, to be left uninvestigated and unexplained, what remains as syntax? This is answered by the following distinction. There are two sorts of syntax; theoretical and practical, scientific and historical, pure and mixed. Of these, the first consists in the analysis and proof of those rules which common practice applies without investigation, and common sense appreciates, in a rough and gross manner, from an appreciation of the results. This is the syntax of government and concord, or of those points which find no place in the present work, for the following reason—they are either too easy or too hard for it. If explained scientifically they are matters of close and minute reasoning; if exhibited empirically they are mere rules for the memory. Besides this they are universal facts of languages in general, and not the particular facts of any one language. Like other universal facts they are capable of being expressed symbolically. That the verb (A) agrees with its pronoun (B) is an immutable fact: or, changing the mode of expression, we may say that language can only fulfil its great primary object of intelligibility when A = B. And so on throughout. A formal syntax thus exhibited, and even devisedà priori, is a philological possibility. And it is also the measure of philological anomalies.
§ 470.Pure syntax.—So much for one sort of syntax;viz., that portion of grammar which bears the same relation to the practice of language, that the investigation of the syllogism bears to the practice of reasoning. The positions concerning it are by no means invalidated by such phrases asI speaks(forI speak), &c. In cases like these there is no contradiction; since the peculiarity of the expression consists not in joining two incompatible persons, but in mistaking a third person for a first—and as far as the speaker is concerned, actually making it so. I must here anticipate some objections that may be raised to these views, by stating that I am perfectly aware that they lead to a conclusion which to most readers must appear startling and to some monstrous,viz., to the conclusion thatthere is no such thing as bad grammar at all;that everything is what the speaker chooses to make it;that a speaker may choose to make any expression whatever, provided it answer the purpose of language, and be intelligible;that, in short, whatever is is right. Notwithstanding this view of the consequence I still am satisfied with the truth of the premises. I may also add that the termspureandmixed, themselves suggestive of much thought on the subject which they express, are not mine but Professor Sylvester's.
§ 471.Mixed syntax.—That, notwithstanding the previous limitations, there is still a considerable amount of syntax in the English, as in all other languages, may be seen from the sequel. If I undertook to indicate the essentials of mixed syntax, I should say that they consisted in the explanation of combinationsapparentlyungrammatical; in other words, that they ascertained the results of those causes which disturb the regularity of the pure syntax; that they measured the extent of the deviation; and that they referred it to some principle of the human mind—so accounting for it.
I am going.—Pure syntax explains this.
I have gone.—Pure syntax will not explain this. Nevertheless, the expression is good English. The power, however, of bothhaveandgoneis different from the usual power of those words. This difference mixed syntax explains.
§ 472. Mixed syntax requires two sorts of knowledge—metaphysical, and historical.
1. To account for such a fact in language as the expressionthe man as rides to market, instead of the usual expressionthe man who rides to market, is a question of what is commonly called metaphysics. The idea of comparison is the idea common to the wordsasandwho.
2. To account for such a fact in language as the expressionI have ridden a horseis a question of history. We must know that when there was a sign of an accusative case in English the wordhorsehad that sign; in other words that the expression was, originally,I have a horse as a ridden thing. These two views illustrate each other.
§ 473. 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.
§ 474.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 feminine gender, 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 bycitiesis 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.
§ 475.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.
§ 476.Pleonasm(from the Greekpleonazein=to be in excess) occurs in sentences likethe king, he reigns. Here the wordheis superabundant. In manypleonasticexpressions we may suppose an interruption of the sentence, and afterwards an abrupt renewal of it; asthe king—he reigns.
The fact of the wordheneither qualifying nor explaining the wordking, distinguishes pleonasm from apposition.
Pleonasm, as far as the view above is applicable, is reduced to what is, apparently, its opposite,viz., ellipsis.
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.
§ 477.The figure zeugma.—They wear a garment like 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).
§ 478.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 whichhecan 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).
§ 479.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)ofthe 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 it can be shown that they are in apposition, the verb is in the singular number.
§ 480.Collectiveness as opposed to plurality.—In sentences likethe meetingwaslarge,the multitudepursuepleasure,meeting, andmultitudeare 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 iron is easier 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.
§ 481.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 reasoning applies to phrases likethe two king Williams. If we saythe two kings William, we must account for the phrase by apposition.
§ 482.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 wordspeakis an 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.
§ 483.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 language. 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, the line of demarcation is not easily drawn between them, the distinction is intelligible and convenient.
§ 484.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.
§ 485.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.
§ 486.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 remains an adjective, and is shown to remain so by its being uninflected.
§ 487.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.
§ 488. 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.
§ 489. The phenomena of convertibility have been already explained.
The remaining points connected with the syntax of substantives, are chiefly points of either ellipsis, or apposition.
Ellipsis of substantives.—The historical view of phrases, likeRundell and Bridge's,St. Pauls', &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.
A. 1. The words most commonly understood, arehouseandfamily, or words reducible to them. In Latin,Dianæ=ædem Dianæ.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 262.
2.Country, retinue.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 262.
3.Son,daughter,wife,widow.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 262.—Νηλεὺς Κόδρου, Greek.
B. 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 wordfours, is a true substantive, as proved by its existence as a plural.
From expressions likeποτήριον ψυχροῦ(Matt. xiv. 51),from the Greek, andperfundit gelido(understandlatice), from the Latin, we find that the present ellipsis was used with greater latitude in the classical languages than our own.
§ 490.Proper names can only be used in the singular number.—This is a rule of logic, rather than of grammar. When we saythe four Georges,the Pitts and Camdens, &c., the words that thus take a plural form, have ceased to be proper names. They either mean—
1. The persons calledGeorge, &c.
2. Or, persons so likeGeorge, that they may be considered as identical.
§ 491.Collocation.—In the present English, the genitive case always precedes the noun by which it is governed—the man's hat=hominis pileus; neverthe hat man's=pileus hominis.
SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES.
§ 492.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—