CHAPTER X.

The man is come—he rides—The man is come—the man rides.

The man is come—he rides—

The man is come—the man rides.

The identity between the person mentioned in the two propositions is implied, not expressed. This the relativeexpresses; and hence its use in languages.

6. From these observations we get a practical rule for determining doubtful constructions.

a.Reduce the sentence to the several propositions (which are never less than two) which it contains.

b.Replace the relative by its equivalent personal or demonstrative pronoun, or by its equivalent substantive.

c.The case of the demonstrative or substantive, is the case of the relative also.

By applying this rule to such expressions as

Satan, thanwhomNone higher sat, thus spake

Satan, thanwhom

None higher sat, thus spake

we find them,according to the current etymology, incorrect—

Satan spake—none sat higher than he sat.Satan spake—none sat higher than Satan sat.

Satan spake—none sat higher than he sat.

Satan spake—none sat higher than Satan sat.

Hence the expression should be,

Satan thanwhoNone higher sat.

Satan thanwho

None higher sat.

Observe.—The words,according to the current etymology, indicate an explanation which, rightly or wrongly, has been urged in favour of expressions like the one in question, and which will be noticed in a future chapter.

§ 532.Observe.—That three circumstances complicate the syntax of the relative pronoun.

1. The elliptic form of the generality of the sentences wherein it follows the wordthan.

2. The influence of the oblique interrogation.

3. The influence of an omitted relative.

§ 533. This last finds place in the present chapter.

When the relative and antecedent are in different cases, and the relative is omitted, the antecedent is sometimes put in the case of the relative.

He whom I accuse has entered.

Contracted according to p. 424.

He I accuse has entered.

Changed, according to the present section,—

Him I accuse has entered.

And so (as shown by Mr. Guest,Philological Transactions), Shakspeare has really written,—

HimI accuse,The city gates by this has entered.Coriolanus, v. 5.Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquireToo high a fame, whenhimwe serve's away.Antony and Cleopatra, iii. 1.

HimI accuse,The city gates by this has entered.

HimI accuse,

The city gates by this has entered.

Coriolanus, v. 5.

Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquireToo high a fame, whenhimwe serve's away.

Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire

Too high a fame, whenhimwe serve's away.

Antony and Cleopatra, iii. 1.

The reason of this is clear. The verb that determinesthe case of the relative is brought in contact with the antecedent, and the case of the antecedent is accommodated to the case of the relative.

The Greek phrase,χρῶμαι βιβλίοις οἷς ἔχω, is an instance of the converse process.

§ 534.When there are two words in a clause, each capable of being an antecedent, the relative refers to the latter.

1.Solomon the son of David who slew Goliah.This is unexceptionable.

2.Solomon the son of David who built the temple.This is exceptionable.

Nevertheless, it is defensible, on the supposition thatSolomon-the-son-of-Davidis a single many-worded name.

ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN.

§ 535. Questions are of two sorts, direct and oblique.

Direct.—Who is he?

Oblique.—Who do you say that he is?

All difficulties about the cases of the interrogative pronoun may be determined by framing an answer, and observing the case of the word with which the interrogative coincides. Whatever be the case of this word will also be the case of the interrogative.

DIRECT.Qu.Whois this?—Ans.I.Qu.Whoseis this?—Ans.His.Qu.Whomdo you seek?—Ans.Him.

DIRECT.

Qu.Whois this?—Ans.I.Qu.Whoseis this?—Ans.His.Qu.Whomdo you seek?—Ans.Him.

Qu.Whois this?—Ans.I.

Qu.Whoseis this?—Ans.His.

Qu.Whomdo you seek?—Ans.Him.

OBLIQUE.Qu.Whodo you say that it is?—Ans.He.Qu.Whosedo you say that it is?—Ans.His.Qu.Whomdo you say that they seek?—Ans.Him.

OBLIQUE.

Qu.Whodo you say that it is?—Ans.He.Qu.Whosedo you say that it is?—Ans.His.Qu.Whomdo you say that they seek?—Ans.Him.

Qu.Whodo you say that it is?—Ans.He.

Qu.Whosedo you say that it is?—Ans.His.

Qu.Whomdo you say that they seek?—Ans.Him.

Note.—The answer should always be made by means of a pronoun, as, by so doing we distinguish the accusative case from the nominative.

Note.—And, if necessary, it should be made in full. Thus the full answer towhom do you say that they seek?is,I say that they seek him.

§ 536. Nevertheless, such expressions aswhom do they say that it is?are common, especially in oblique questions. The following examples are Mr. Guest's.—Philological Transactions.

"And he axed hem and seide,whomseien the people that I am? Thei answereden and seiden, Jon Baptist—and he seide to hem, Butwhomseien ye that I am?"—Wiclif,Lukeix.

"Tell me in sadnesswhomshe is you love."Romeo and Juliet, i. 1.

"Tell me in sadnesswhomshe is you love."

Romeo and Juliet, i. 1.

"And as John fulfilled his course, he said,whomthink ye that I am?"—Actsxiii. 25.

Two circumstances encourage this confusion. 1. The presence of a second verb, which takes the appearance of a governing verb. 2. The omission of a really oblique antecedent or relative. 3. The use of accusative for nominative forms in the case of personal pronouns.

§ 537.The presence of a second verb, &c.—Tellmewhomsheis. Heretellis made to governwhom, instead ofwhombeing left, aswho, to agree withshe.

§ 538.The omission, &c.—Tell mewhomshe is youlove. Here the full construction requires a second pronoun—tell mewhoshe iswhomyoulove; or else, tell meher whomyou love.

§ 539. To the question,who isthis? many would answer notI, butme. This confusion of the case in the answer favours a confusion of case in the question.

It is clear that much of this reasoning applies to the relative powers ofwho, as well as to the interrogative.

But, it is possible that there may be no incorrectness at all: insomuch aswhommay have become a true nominative. Mr. Guest has truly remarked that such is the case in the Scandinavian language, wherehve-m=who=qui.

This view, if true, justifies the use ofwhomafter the conjunctionsthanandas; so that the expression,—

Satan thanwhomNone higher sat,

Satan thanwhom

None higher sat,

may be right.

Nevertheless, it does not justify such expressions as—

None sit higher thanme.None sit higher thanthee.None sit higher thanus.None sit higher thanher.

None sit higher thanme.

None sit higher thanthee.

None sit higher thanus.

None sit higher thanher.

The reason of this is clear.Whomis supposed to be admissible, not because the sentence admits an accusative case; but because custom has converted it into a nominative. For my own part, I doubt the application of the Danish rule to the English language. Things may be going that way, but they have not, as yet, gone far enough.

THE RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION.

§ 540. In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual action there are in reality two assertions,viz., the assertion that A.strikes(orloves) B., and the assertion that B.strikes(orloves) A.; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence, if the expressions exactly coincided with the fact signified, there would always be two propositions. This, however, is not the habit of language. Hence arises a more compendious form of expression, giving origin to an ellipsis of a peculiar kind. Phrases likeEteocles and Polynices killed each otherare elliptical, forEteocles and Polynices killed—each the other. Here the second proposition expands and explains the first, whilst the first supplies the verb to the second. Each, however, is elliptic. The first is without the object, the second without the verb. That the verb must be in the plural (or dual) number, that one of the nouns must be in the nominative case, and that the other must be objective, is self-evident from the structure of the sentence; such being the conditions of the expression of the idea. An aposiopesis takes place after a plural verb, and then there follows a clause wherein the verb is supplied from what went before.

§ 541. This is the syntax. As to the power of the wordseachandonein the expression (each otherandone another), I am not prepared to say that in the common practice of the English language there is any distinction between them. A distinction, however, if it existed would give strength to our language. Where two persons performed a reciprocal action on another, the expression might beone another; asEteocles and Polynices killed one another. Where more than twopersons were engaged on each side of a reciprocal action the expression might beeach other; as,the ten champions praised each other.

This amount of perspicuity is attained, by different processes, in the French, Spanish, and Scandinavian languages.

1. French.—Ils(i.e., A. and B.)se battaient—l'un l'autre.Ils(A. B. C.)se battaient—les uns les autres. In Spanish,uno otro=l'un l'autre, andunos otros=les uns les autres.

2. Danish.—Hinander=the Frenchl'un l'autre; whilsthverandre=les uns les autres.

The Lapplandic, and, probably other languages, have the same elements of perspicuity.

THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS.

§ 542. Different nations have different methods of expressing indeterminate propositions.

Sometimes it is by the use of the passive voice. This is the common method in Latin and Greek, and is also current in English—dicitur,λέγεται,it is said.

Sometimes the verb is reflective—si dice=it says itself, Italian.

Sometimes the plural pronoun of the third person is used. This also is an English locution—they say=the world at large says.

Finally, the use of some word=manis a common indeterminate expression.

The wordmanhas an indeterminate sense in the Modern German; as,man sagt=they say.

The wordmanwas also used indeterminately in the Old English, although it is not so used in the Modern.—Deutsche Grammatik.

In the Old English, the formmanoften lost the-n, and becameme.—Deutsche Grammatik. This form is also extinct.

The present indeterminate pronoun isone; as,one says=they say=it is said=man sagt, German=on dit, French=si dice, Italian.

It has been stated in p. 257, that the indeterminate pronounonehas no etymological connection with the numeralone; but that it is derived from the Frenchon=homme=homo=man; and that it has replaced the Old English,manorme.

§ 543. Two other pronouns, or, to speak more in accordance with the present habit of the English language, onepronoun, and one adverb of pronominal origin are also used indeterminately viz.,itandthere.

§ 544.Itcan be either the subject or the predicate of a sentence,—it is this,this is it,I am it,it is I. Whenitis the subject of a proposition, the verb necessarily agrees with it, and can be of the singular number only; no matter what be the number of the predicate—it is this,it is these.

Whenitis the predicate of a proposition, the number of the verb depends upon the number of the subject. These points of universal syntax are mentioned here for the sake of illustrating some anomalous forms.

§ 545.Therecan only be the predicate of a subject. It differs fromitin this respect. It follows also that it must differ fromitin never affecting the number of the verb. This is determined by the nature of the subject—there is this,there are these.

When we saythere is these, the analogy between the wordsthereanditmisleads us; the expression being illogical.

Furthermore, although a predicate,therealways stands in the beginning of propositions,i.e., in the place of the subject. This also misleads.

§ 546. Althoughit, when the subject, being itself singular, absolutely requires that its verb should be singular also, there is a tendency to use it incorrectly, and to treat it as a plural. Thus, in German, when the predicate is plural, the verb joined to the singular formes(=it) is plural—es sind menschen, literally translated=it are men; which, though bad English, is good German.

THE ARTICLES.

§ 547. The rule of most practical importance about the articles is the rule that determines when the article shall be repeated as often as there is a fresh substantive, and when it shall not.

When two or more substantives following each other denote the same object, the article precedes the first only. We saythe secretary and treasurer(or,a secretary and treasurer), when the two offices are held by one person.

When two or more substantives following each other denote different objects, the article is repeated, and precedes each. We saythe(ora)secretary and the(ora)treasurer, when the two offices are held by different persons.

This rule is much neglected.

THE NUMERALS.

§ 548. The numeraloneis naturally single. All the rest are naturally plural.

Nevertheless such expressions—one two(=one collection of two),two threes(=two collections of three), are legitimate. These are so because the sense of the word is changed. We may talk of severalonesjust as we may talk of severalaces; and ofone twojust as ofone pair.

Expressions likethe thousandth-and-firstare incorrect. They mean neither one thing nor another: 1001st being expressed bythe thousand-and-first, and 1000th + 1st being expressed bythe thousandth and the first.

Here it may be noticed that, although I never found it to do so, the wordoddis capable of taking an ordinal form. Thethousand-and-odd-this as good an expression as thethousand-and-eight-th.

The construction of phrases like thethousand-and-firstis the same construction as we find in theking-of-Saxony's army.

§ 549. It is by no means a matter of indifference whether we say thetwo firstor thefirst two.

The captains of two different classes at school should be called thetwo first boys. The first and second boys of the same class should be called thefirst two boys. I believe that when this rule is attended to, more is due to the printer than to the author: such, at least, is the case with myself.

ON VERBS IN GENERAL.

§ 550. For the purposes of syntax it is necessary to divide verbs into the five following divisions: transitive, intransitive, auxiliary, substantive, and impersonal.

Transitive verbs.—In transitive verbs the action is never a simple action. It always affects some object or other,—I move my limbs;I strike my enemy. The presence of a transitive verb implies also the presence of a noun; which noun is the name of the object affected. A transitive verb, unaccompanied by a noun, either expressed or understood, is a contradiction in terms. The absence of the nouns, in and of itself, makes it intransitive.I movemeans, simply,I am in a state of moving.I strikemeans, simply,I am in the act of striking. Verbs likemoveandstrikeare naturally transitive.

Intransitive verbs.—An act may take place, and yet no object be affected by it.To hunger,to thirst,to sleep,to wake, are verbs that indicate states of being, rather than actions affecting objects. Verbs likehunger, andsleep, are naturally intransitive.

Many verbs, naturally transitive, may be used as intransitive,—e.g.,I move,I strike, &c.

Many verbs, naturally intransitive, may be used as transitives,—e.g.,I walked the horse=I made the horse walk.

This variation in the use of one and the same verb is of much importance in the question of the government of verbs.

A. Transitive verbs are naturally followed by some noun or other; and that noun isalwaysthe name of something affected by themas an object.

B. Intransitive verbs are not naturally followed by any noun at all; and when they are so followed, the noun isneverthe name of anything affected by themas an object.

Nevertheless, intransitive verbs may be followed by nouns denoting the manner, degree, or instrumentality of their action,—I walk with my feet=incedo pedibus.

§ 551.The auxiliary verbswill be noticed fully in Chapter XXIII.

§ 552. The verbsubstantivehas this peculiarity,viz.that for all purposes of syntax it is no verb at all.I speakmay, logically, be reduced toI am speaking; in which case it is only thepartof a verb. Etymologically, indeed, the verb substantive is a verb; inasmuch as it is inflected as such: but for the purposes of construction, it is a copula only,i.e., it merely denotes the agreement or disagreement between the subject and the predicate.

This does not apply to the infinitive mood. The infinitive mood of the so-called verb substantive is a noun; not, however, because it is a verb substantive, but because it is an infinitive mood.

For theimpersonalverbs see Part IV., Chapter 27.

THE CONCORD OF VERBS.

§ 553. The verb must agree with its subject in person,I walk, notI walks:he walks, nothe walk.

It must also agree with it in number,—we walk, notwe walks:he walks, nothe walk.

Clear as these rules are, they require some expansion before they become sufficient to solve all the doubtful points of English syntax connected with the concord of the verb.

A.It is I, your master, who command you.Query? wouldit is I, your master, who commands you, be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the person of the verb.

B.The wages of sin is death.Query? wouldthe wages of sinaredeathbe correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the number of the verb.

§ 554. In respect to the concord of person the following rules will carry us through a portion of the difficulties.

Rule.—In sentences, where there is but one proposition, when a noun and a pronoun of different persons are in apposition, the verb agrees with the first of them,—I, your master, command you(notcommands):your master, I, commands you(notcommand).

To understand the nature of the difficulty, it is necessary to remember that subjects may be extremely complex as well as perfectly simple; and that a complex subject may contain, at one and the same time, a noun substantive and a pronoun,—I, the keeper;he, the merchant, &c.

Now all noun-substantives are naturally of the third person—John speaks,the men run,the commander gives orders. Consequently the verb is of the third person also.

But, the pronoun with which such a noun-substantive may be placed in apposition, may be a pronoun of either person, the first or second:Iorthou—I the commander—thou the commander.—In this case the construction requires consideration. With which does the verb agree? with the substantive which requires a third person? or with the pronoun which requires a first or second?

Undoubtedly the idea which comes first is the leading idea; and, undoubtedly, the idea which explains, qualifies, or defines it, is the subordinate idea: and, undoubtedly, it is the leading idea which determines the construction of the verb. We may illustrate this from the analogy of a similar construction in respect to number—a man with a horse and a gig meets me on the road. Here the ideas are three; nevertheless the verb is singular. No addition of subordinate elements interferes with the construction that is determined by the leading idea. In the expressionI, your master, the ideas are two; viz. the idea expressed byI, and the idea expressed bymaster. Nevertheless, as the one only explains or defines the other, the construction is the same as if the idea were single.Your master, I, is in the same condition. The general statement is made concerning themaster, and it is intended to say whathedoes. The wordImerely defines the expression by stating who the master is. Of the two expressions the latter is the awkwardest. The construction, however, is the same for both.

From the analysis of the structure of complex subjects of the kind in question, combined with a rule concerning the position of the subject, which will soon be laid down, I believe that, for all single propositions, the foregoing rule is absolute.

Rule.—In all single propositions the verb agrees in person with the noun (whether substantive or pronoun) which comes first.

§ 555. But the expressionit is I, your master, who command(orcommands)you, is not a single proposition. It is a sentence containing two propositions.

1.It is I.2.Who commands you.

1.It is I.

2.Who commands you.

Here, the wordmasteris, so to say, undistributed. It may belong to either clause of the sentence,i.e., the whole sentence may be divided into

Either—it is I your master—Or—your master who commands you.

Either—it is I your master—

Or—your master who commands you.

This is the first point to observe. The next is that the verb in the second clause (commandorcommands) is governed, not by either the personal pronoun or the substantive, but by the relative,i.e., in the particular case before us, not by eitherIormaster, but bywho.

And this brings us to the following question—with which of the two antecedents does therelativeagree? withIor withmaster?

This may be answered by the two following rules:—

Rule 1.—When the two antecedents are in the same proposition, the relative agrees with the first. Thus—

1. It isIyourmaster—2. Whocommandyou.

1. It isIyourmaster—

2. Whocommandyou.

Rule 2.—When the two antecedents are in different propositions, the relative agrees with the second. Thus—

1. It isI—2. Yourmasterwhocommandsyou.

1. It isI—

2. Yourmasterwhocommandsyou.

This, however, is not all. What determines whether the two antecedents shall be in the same or in different propositions? I believe that the following rules for what may be calledthe distribution of the substantive antecedentwill bear criticism.

Rule 1.That when there is any natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the second clause. Thus, in the expression just quoted, the wordmasteris logically connected with the wordcommand; and this fact makes the expression,It is I your master who commands youthe better of the two.

Rule 2.That when there is no natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by therelative, the antecedent belongs to the first clause.It is I, John, who command(notcommands)you.

To recapitulate, the train of reasoning has been as follows:—

1. The person of the second verb is the person of the relative.

2. The person of the relative is that of one of two antecedents.

3. Of such two antecedents the relative agrees with the one which stands in the same proposition with itself.

4. Which position is determined by the connection or want of connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative.

Respecting the person of the verb in thefirstproposition of a complex sentence there is no doubt.I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am(notis)in a hurry. Here,I am in a hurryis the first proposition;who commands you to make haste, the second.

It is not difficult to see why the construction of sentences consisting of two propositions is open to an amount of latitude which is not admissible in the construction of single propositions. As long as the different parts of a complex idea are contained within the limits of a single proposition, their subordinate character is easily discerned. When, however, they amount to whole propositions, they take the appearance of being independent members of the sentence.

§ 556.The concord of number.—It is believed that the following three rules will carry us through all difficulties of the kind just exhibited.

Rule 1.That the verb agrees with the subject, and with nothing but the subject. The only way to justify such an expression asthe wages of sin is death, is to considerdeathnot as the subject, but as the predicate; in other words, to consider the construction to be,death is the wages of sin.

Rule 2.That, except in the case of the wordthere(p.434), the word which comes first is always the subject, until the contrary be proved.

Rule 3.That no number of connected singular nouns can govern a plural verb, unless they be connected by a copulative conjunction.The sunandmoon shine,—the sunin conjunction withthe moon shines.

§ 557.Plural subjects with singular predicates.—The wages of sinaredeath.—Honest menarethe salt of the earth.

Singular subjects with plural predicates.—These constructions are rarer than the preceding: inasmuch as two or more persons (or things) are oftener spoken of as being equivalent to one, than one person (or thing) is spoken of as being equivalent to two or more.

Sixpenceistwelve halfpennies.Heisall head and shoulders.Vulnera totuserat.Tuesdeliciæ meæ.

Sixpenceistwelve halfpennies.

Heisall head and shoulders.

Vulnera totuserat.

Tuesdeliciæ meæ.

Ἕκτορ, ἀτὰρ σύ μοι ἐσσὶ πατὴρ καὶ πότνια μήτηρ,Ἠδὲ κασίγνητος, σὺ δέ μοι θαλερὸς παρακοίτης.

Ἕκτορ, ἀτὰρ σύ μοι ἐσσὶ πατὴρ καὶ πότνια μήτηρ,

Ἠδὲ κασίγνητος, σὺ δέ μοι θαλερὸς παρακοίτης.

ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS.

§ 558. The government of verbs is of two sorts, (1.)objective, and (2.)modal.

It is objective where the noun which follows the verb is the name of some object affected by the action of the verb,—ashe strikes me;he wounds the enemy.

It is modal when the noun which follows the verb is not the name of any object affected by the verb, but the name of some object explaining the manner in which the action of the verb takes place, the instrument with which it is done, the end for which it is done, &c.

The government of all transitive verbs is necessarily objective. It may also be modal,—I strike the enemy with the sword=ferio hostem gladio.

The government of all intransitive verbs can only be modal,—I walk with the stick. When we say,I walk the horse, the wordwalkhas changed its meaning, and signifiesmake to walk, and is, by the very fact of its being followed by the name of an object, converted from an intransitive into a transitive verb.

The modal construction may also be called theadverbial construction; because the effect of the noun is akin to that of an adverb,—I fight with bravery=I fight bravely:he walks a king=he walks regally. The modal (or adverbial) construction (or government) sometimes takes the appearance of the objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently followed by a substantive; which substantive is in the objective case. Nevertheless, this is no proof of government. For a verb to be capable of governing an objective case, it must be a verb signifying an action affecting an object: andif there be no such object, there is no room for any objective government.To break the sleep of the righteous, is toaffect, by breaking, the sleep of the righteous: but,to sleep the sleep of the righteous, is not toaffect by sleeping the sleep of the righteous; since the act of sleeping is an act that affects no object whatever. It is astate. We may, indeed, give it the appearance of a transitive verb, as we do when we say,the opiate slept the patient, meaning thereby,lulled to sleep; but the transitive character is only apparent.

To sleep the sleep of the righteousis tosleep in agreement with—oraccording to—orafter the manner of—the sleep of the righteous, and the construction is adverbial.

In the grammars of the classical languages, the following rule is exceptionable—Quodvis verbum admittit accusativum nominis sibi cognati. It does so; but it governs the accusative case not objectively but modally.

§ 559. Modal verbs may be divided into a multiplicity of divisions. Of such, it is not necessary in English to give more than the following four:—

1.Appositional.—As,she walks a queen:you consider me safe. The appositional construction is, in reality, a matter of concord rather than of gender. It will be considered more fully in the following section.

2.Traditive.—As,I give the book to you=do librum tibi.I teach you the lesson=διδάσκω σὲ τὴν διδασκάλιαν. In all traditive expressions there are three ideas; (1.) an agent, (2.) an object, (3.) a person, or thing, to which the object is made over, or transferred, by the agent. For this idea the term dative is too restricted: since in Greek and some other languages, both the name of the object conveyed, and the name of the person to whom it is conveyed are, frequently, put in the accusative case.

3.Instrumental.—As,I fight with a sword=pugno ense=feohte sweorde,—Anglo-Saxon.

4.Emphatic.—As,he sleeps the sleep of the righteous.

§ 560.Verb and nominative case.—No verb governs a nominative case. The appositional constructionseemsto require such a form of government; but the form is only apparent.

It is I.It is thou.It is he, &c.

It is I.

It is thou.

It is he, &c.

Here, although the wordisisfollowedby a nominative case, it by no means governs one—at least not as a verb.

It has been stated above that the so-called verb substantive is only a verb for the purposes of etymology. In syntax, it is only a part of a verb,i. e., the copula.

Now this fact changes the question of the construction in expressions likeit is I, &c., from a point of government to one of concord. In the previous examples the wordsit,is, andI, were, respectively,subject,copula, andpredicate; and, as it is the function of the copula to denote the agreement between the predicate and the subject, the real point to investigate is the nature of the concord between these two parts of a proposition.

Now the predicate need agree with the subject in case only.

1. It has no necessary concord in gender—she is a man in courage—he is a woman in effeminacy—it is a girl.

2. It has no necessary concord in number—sin is the wages of death—it is these that do the mischief.

3. It has no necessary concord in person—I am he whom you mean.

4. Ithas, however, a necessary concord in case. Nothing but a nominative case can, by itself, constitute a term of either kind—subject or predicate. Hence, both terms must be in the nominative, and, consequently, both in the same case. Expressions likethis is for meare elliptic. The logical expression isthis is a thing for me.

Rule.—The predicate must be of the same case with its subject.

Hence—The copula instead of determining[60]a case expresses a concord.

Rule 1.—All words connected with a nominative case by the copula (i.e., the so-called verb-substantive) must be nominative.—It is I;I am safe.

Rule 2.—All words in apposition with a word so connected must be nominative.—It is difficult to illustrate this from the English language from our want of inflexions. In Latin, however, we sayvocor Johannes=I am called John, notvocor Johannem. Here the logical equivalent isego sum vocatus Johannes—where—

1.Ego, is nominative because it is the subject.

2.Vocatusis nominative because it is the predicate agreeing with the subject.

3.Johannes, is nominative because it is part of the predicate, and in apposition withvocatus.

N.B. Although in precise languageJohannesis said to agree withvocatusrather than to be in apposition with it, the expression, as it stands, is correct. Apposition is the agreement of substantives, agreement the apposition of adjectives.

Rule 3.—All verbs which, when resolved into a copula and participle, have their participle in apposition (or agreeing) with the noun, are in the same condition as simple copulas—she walks a queen=she is walking a queen=illa est incedens regina.

Rule 4.—The construction of a subject and copula preceded by the conjunctionthat, is the same in respect to the predicate by which they are followed as if the sentence were an isolated proposition.

This rule determines the propriety of the expression—I believe that it is heas opposed to the expressionI believe that it is him.

I believe=I am believing, and forms one proposition.

It is he, forms a second.

That, connects the two; but belongs to neither.

Now, as the relation between the subject and predicate of a proposition cannot be affected by a word which does not belong to it, the construction is the same as if the propositions were wholly separate.

N.B. The question (in cases where the conjunctionthatis not used), as to the greater propriety of the two expressions—I believe it to be him—I believe it to be he—has yet to be considered.

§ 561.The verb and genitive case.—No verb in the present English governs a genitive case. In Anglo-Saxon certain verbs did:e.g.,verbs of rulingand others—weolde thises middangeardes=he ruled(wealded)this earth's. Genitive cases, too, governed by a verb are common both in Latin and Greek.To eat of the fruit of the treeis no genitive construction, however much it may be equivalent to one.Fruitis in the objective case, and is governed not by the verb but by the prepositionof.

§ 562.The verb and accusative.—All transitive verbs govern an accusative case,—he strikes me,thee,him,her,it,us,you,them.

The verb and dative case.—The wordgive, and a few others, govern a dative case. Phrases likegive it him,whom shall I give it, are perfectly correct, and have been explained above. The prepositional constructiongive ittohim,—to whom shall I give it?is unnecessary. The evidence of this is the same as in the construction of the adjectivelike.

§ 563.The partitive construction.—Certain transitive verbs, the action whereof is extended not to the whole, but only to a part of their object, are followed by the preposition of and an objective case.To eat of the fruit of the tree=to eat a part(orsome)of the fruit of the tree:to drink of the water of the well=to drink a part(orsome)of the water of the well. It is not necessary, here, to suppose the ellipsis of the wordspart(orsome). The construction is a construction that has grown out of the partitive power of the genitive case; for which case the prepositionof, followed by the objective, serves as an equivalent.

§ 564. It has been already stated that forms likeI believeit to be him, and forms likeI believe it to be he, had not been investigated. Of these, the former is, logically, correct.

Here, the word,to be, is, in respect to its power, a noun.

As such, it is in the accusative case after the verbbelieve.

With this accusative infinitive,itagrees, as being part of the same complex idea. Andhimdoes the same.

In English we have two methods of expressing one idea; the method in question, and the method by means of the conjunction,that.

Back to Index Next