“I tell thee _what_, corporal, I could tear her.”–_Shak._
“He knows _what’s what_, and that’s as high As metaphysic wit can fly.”–_Hudibras_.
OBS. 11.–_What_ is sometimes used both as an adjective and as a relative at the same time, and is placed before the noun which it represents; being equivalent to the adjective _any_ or _all_, and the simple relative _who, which_[190] or _that_: as, “_What_ money we had, was taken away.” That is, “_All the_ money _that_ we had, was taken away.” “_What_ man but enters, dies.” That is, “_Any_ man _who_ enters, dies.” “It was agreed that _what_ goods were aboard his vessels, should be landed.”–_Mickle’s India_, p. 89. “_What_ appearances of worth afterwards succeeded, were drawn from thence.”–_Internal Policy of Great Britain_, p. 196. That is, “_All the_ appearances of worth, _which_ afterwards succeeded.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 93. Indeed, this pronoun does not admit of being construed after a noun, as a simple relative: none but the most illiterate ever seriously use it so. _What_ put for _who_ or _which_, is therefore a ludicrous vulgarism; as, “The aspiring youth _what_ fired the Ephesian dome.”–_Jester_. The word used as above, however, does not always preclude the introduction of a personal pronoun before the subsequent verb; as,[191]
“_What_ god but enters yon forbidden field, Who yields assistance, or but wills to yield, Back to the skies with shame _he_ shall be driven, Gash’d with dishonest wounds, the scorn of heaven.”–_Pope’s Homer_.
OBS. 12.–The compound _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ has the same peculiarities of construction as has the simpler word _what_: as, “Whatever word expresses an affirmation, or assertion, is a verb; or thus, _Whatever_ word, with a noun or pronoun before or after it, makes full sense, is a verb.”–_Adam’s Latin Gram._, p. 78. That is, “_Any_ word _which_ expresses,” &c. “We will certainly do _whatsoever_ thing goeth forth out of our own mouth.”–_Jeremiah_, xliv, 17. That is–“_any_ thing, or _every_ thing, _which_.” “_Whatever_ sounds are difficult in pronunciation, are, in the same proportion, harsh and painful to the ear.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 121; _Murray’s Gram._, p. 325. “_Whatsoever_ things were written aforetime, were written for our learning.”–_Romans_, xv, 4. In all these examples, the word _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ appears to be used both adjectively and relatively. There are instances, however, in which the relation of this term is not twofold, but simple: as, “_Whatever_ useful or engaging endowments we possess, virtue is requisite in order to their shining with proper lustre.”–_English Reader_, p. 23. Here _whatever_ is simply an adjective. “The declarations contained in them [the Scriptures] rest on the authority of God _himself_; and there can be no appeal from them to any other authority _whatsoever_.”–_London Epistle_, 1836. Here _whatsoever_ may be parsed either as an adjective relating to _authority_, or as an emphatic pronoun in apposition with its noun, like _himself_ in the preceding clause. In this general explanatory sense, _whatsoever_ may be applied to persons as well as to things; as, “I should be sorry if it entered into the imagination _of any person whatsoever_, that I was preferred to all other patrons.”–_Duncan’s Cicero_, p. 11. Here the word _whomsoever_ might have been used.
OBS. 13.–But there is an other construction to be here explained, in which _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ appears to be a _double relative_, or a term which includes both antecedent and relative; as, “_Whatever_ purifies, fortifies also the heart.”–_English Reader_, p. 23. That is. “_All that purifies_–or, _Everything which_ purifies–fortifies also the heart.” “_Whatsoever_ he doeth, shall prosper.”–_Psal._, i, 3. That is, “_All that_ he doeth–or, _All the things which he doeth_–shall prosper.” This construction, however, may be supposed elliptical. The Latin expression is, “_Omnia quaecumque faciet prosperabuntur_.”–_Vulgate_. The Greek is similar: [Greek: “Kai panta hosa an poiaei kateuodothaesetai.”]– _Septuagint_. It is doubtless by some sort of ellipsis which familiarity of use inclines us to overlook, that _what, whatever_, and _whatsoever_, which are essentially adjectives, have become susceptible of this double construction as pronouns. But it is questionable what particular ellipsis we ought here to suppose, or whether any; and certainly, we ought always to avoid the supposing of an ellipsis, if we can.[192] Now if we say the meaning is, “Whatsoever _things_ he doeth, shall prosper;” this, though analogous to other expressions, does not simplify the construction. If we will have it to be, “Whatsoever _things_ he doeth, _they_ shall prosper;” the pronoun _they_ appears to be pleonastic. So is the word _it_, in the text, “_Whatsoever_ he saith unto you, do _it_.”–_John_, ii, 5. If we say the full phrase is, “_All things_ whatsoever he doeth, shall prosper;” this presents, to an English ear, a still more obvious pleonasm. It may be, too, _a borrowed idiom_, found nowhere but in translations; as, “_All things whatsoever_ ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”–_Matt._, xxi, 22. From these views, there seems to be some objection to any and every method of parsing the above-mentioned construction as _elliptical_. The learner may therefore say, in such instances, that _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ is a double relative, including both antecedent and relative; and parse it, first as antecedent, in connexion with the latter verb, and then as relative, in connexion with the former. But let him observe that the order of the verbs may be the reverse of the foregoing; as, “Ye are my friends, if ye _do_ whatsoever I _command_ you.”–_John_, xv, 14. That is, according to the Greek, “If ye do whatsoever I command _to_ you;” Though it would be better English to say, “If ye do whatsoever I command you _to do_.” In the following example, however, it seems proper to recognize an ellipsis; nay, the omissions in the construction of the last line, are as many as three or four;–
“Expatiate with glad step, and choose at will Whate’er bright spoils the florid earth contains, Whate’er the waters, or the liquid air.”–_Akenside_.
OBS. 14.–As the simple word _who_ differs from _which_ and _what_, in being always a declinable pronoun; so its compounds differ from theirs, in being incapable of either of the double constructions above described. Yet _whoever_ and _whoso_ or _whosoever_, as well as _whichever_ and _whichsoever, whatever_ and _whatsoever_, derive, from the affix which is added, or from the peculiarity of their syntax, an unlimited signification–or a signification which is limited only by the following verb; and, as some general term, such as _any person_, or _all persons_, is implied as the antecedent, they are commonly connected with other words as if they stood for two cases at once: as, “_Whoever_ seeks, shall find.” That is, “_Any person who_ seeks, shall find.” But as the case of this compound, like that of the simple word _who, whose_, or _whom_, is known and determined by its form, it is necessary, in parsing, to treat this phraseology as being elliptical. The compounds of _who_ do not, therefore, actually stand for two cases, though some grammarians affirm that they do.[193] Example: “The soldiers made proclamation, that they would sell the empire to _whoever_ would purchase it at the highest price.”–_Goldsmith’s Rome_, p. 231. That is–“to _any man who_ would purchase it.” The affix _ever_ or _soever_ becomes unnecessary when the ellipsis is supplied; and this fact, it must be confessed, is a plausible argument against the supposition of an ellipsis. But the supposing of an antecedent understood, is here unavoidable; because the preposition _to_ cannot govern the nominative case, and the word _whoever_ cannot be an objective. And so in all other instances in which the two cases are different: as, “He bids _whoever_ is athirst, to come.”–_Jenks’s Devotions_, p. 151. “Elizabeth publicly threatened, that she would have the head of _whoever_ had advised it.”–HUME: _in Priestley’s Gram._, p. 104.
OBS. 15.–If it is necessary in parsing to supply the antecedent to _whoever_ or _whosoever_, when two _different_ cases are represented, it is but analogous and reasonable to supply it also when two similar cases occur: as, “_Whoever_ borrows money, _is bound_ in conscience to repay it.”–_Paley_. “_Whoever_ is eager to find excuses for vice and folly, _will find_ his own backwardness to practise them much diminished.”– _Chapone_. “_Whoever_ examines his own imperfections, _will cease_ to be fastidious; _whoever_ restrains humour and caprice, _will cease_ to be squeamish.”–_Crabb’s Synonymes_. In all these examples, we have the word in the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. And here it is most commonly found. It is always of the third person; and, though its number _may_ be plural; its gender, feminine; its case, possessive or objective; we do not often use it in any of these ways. In some instances, the latter verb is attended with an other pronoun, which represents the same person or persons; as, “And _whosoever_ will, let _him_ take of the water of life freely.”–_Rev._, xxii, 17. The case of this compound relative always depends upon what follows it, and not upon what precedes; as, “Or ask of _whomsoever_ he has taught.”–_Cowper_. That is–“of _any person whom_ he has taught.” In the following text, we have the possessive plural: “_Whosesoever_ sins ye remit, they are remitted unto _them_.”–_John_, xx, 23. That is, “_Whatever persons’_ sins.”
OBS. 16.–In such phraseology as the following, there is a stiffness which ought to be avoided: “For _whomever_ God loves, he loves _them_ in Christ, and no otherways.”–_Barclay’s Works_, Vol. iii, p. 215. Better: “For _all whom_ God loves, he loves in Christ, and no _otherwise_.” “When the Father draws, _whomever_ he draws, may come.”–_Penington_. Better: “When the Father draws, _all whom_ he draws, (or, _every one whom_ he draws.) may come.” A modern critic of immense promise cites the following clause as being found in the Bible: “But he loveth _whomsoever_ followeth after righteousness.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 72. It is lamentable to see the unfaithfulness of this gentleman’s quotations. About half of them are spurious; and I am confident that this one is neither Scripture nor good English. The compound relative, being the subject of _followeth_, should be in the nominative case; for the object of the verb _loveth_ is the antecedent _every one_, understood. But the idea may be better expressed, without any ellipsis, thus: “He loveth _every one who_ followeth after righteousness.” The following example from the same hand is also wrong, and the author’s rule and reasoning connected with it, are utterly fallacious: “I will give the reward to _whomsoever_ will apprehend the rogue.”–_Ib._, p. 256. Much better say, “_to any one who_;” but, if you choose the compound word, by all analogy, and all good authority, it must here be _whoever_ or _whosoever_. The shorter compound _whoso_, which occurs very frequently in the Bible, is now almost obsolete in prose, but still sometimes used by the poets. It has the same meaning as _whosoever_, but appears to have been confined to the nominative singular; and _whatso_ is still more rare: as, “_Whoso_ diggeth a pit, shall fall therein.”–_Prov._, xxvi, 27.
“Which _whoso_ tastes, can be enslaved no more.”–_Cowper_.
“On their intended journey to proceed, And over night _whatso_ thereto did need.”–_Hubbard_.
OBS. 17.–The relative _that_ is applied indifferently to persons, to brute animals, and to inanimate things. But the word _that_ is not always a relative pronoun. It is sometimes a pronoun, sometimes an adjective, and sometimes a conjunction. I call it not a demonstrative pronoun and also a relative; because, in the sense in which Murray and others have styled it a “demonstrative adjective _pronoun_,” it is a pronominal _adjective_, and it is better to call it so. (1.) It is a _relative pronoun_ whenever it is equivalent to _who, whom_, or _which_: as, “There is not a _just man_ upon earth, _that_ doeth good, and sinneth not”–_Eccl._, vii, 20. “It was diverse from all the _beasts that_ were before it.”–_Dan._, vii, 7. “And he had a _name_ written, _that_ no man knew but he himself.”–_Rev._, xix, 12. (2.) It is a _pronominal adjective_ whenever it relates to a noun expressed or understood after it: as, “Thus with violence shall _that_ great _city_, Babylon, be thrown down.”–_Rev._, xviii, 21. “Behold _that_ [thing] which I have seen.”–_Eccl._, v, 18. “And they said, ‘What is _that_[194] [matter] to us? See thou to _that_’ [matter].”–_Matt._, xxvii, 4. (3.) In its other uses, it is a _conjunction_, and, as such, it most commonly makes what follows it, the purpose, object, or final cause, of what precedes it: as, “I read _that_ I may learn.”–_Dr. Adam._ “Ye men of Athens, I perceive _that_ in all things ye are too superstitious.”–_St. Paul._ “Live well, _that_ you may die well.”–_Anon._ “Take heed _that_ thou speak not to Jacob.”–_Genesis._ “Judge not, _that_ ye be not judged.”–_Matthew._
OBS. 18.–The word _that_, or indeed any other word, should never be so used as to leave the part of speech uncertain; as, “For in the day _that_ thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.”–_Gen._, ii, 17. Here _that_ seems to be a relative _pronoun_, representing _day_, in the third person, singular, neuter; yet, in other respects, it seems to be a _conjunction_, because there is nothing to determine its case. Better: “For in the day _on which_ thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” This mongrel construction of the word _that_, were its justification possible, is common enough in our language to be made good English. But it must needs be condemned, because it renders the character of the term ambiguous, and is such a grammatical difficulty as puts the parser at a dead nonplus. Examples: (1.) “But _at the same time_ THAT men are giving their orders, God on his part is likewise giving his.”–_Rollin’s Hist._, ii, 106. Here the phrase, “_at the same time that_,” is only equivalent to the adverb _while_; and yet it is incomplete, because it means, “_at the same time at which_,” or, “_at the very time at which._” (2.) “The author of this work, _at the same time_ THAT he has endeavoured to avoid a plan, _which may be_ too concise or too extensive, defective in its parts or irregular in the disposition of them, has studied to render his _subject_ sufficiently easy, intelligible, and _comprehensive._”–_Murray’s Gram., Introd._, p. 1. This sentence, which is no unfair specimen of its author’s original style, needs three corrections: 1. For “_at the same time that_,” say _while_: 2. Drop the phrase, “_which may be_,” because it is at least useless: 3. For “_subject_,” read _treatise_, or _compilation._ You will thus have tolerable diction. Again: (3.) “The participles of active verbs _act upon objects_ and govern them in the objective case, in the same manner _that_ the verbs _do_, from which they are derived. _A participle_ in the nature of an adjective, belongs or refers to _nouns_ or _pronouns_ in the same manner _that_ adjectives do; and _when it will admit_ the degrees of comparison, _it is called_ a participial _adjective_.”–_Sanborn’s Gram._, p. 38. This is the style of a gentleman of no ordinary pretensions, one who thinks he has produced the best grammar that has ever appeared in our language. To me, however, his work suggests an abundance of questions like these; each of which would palpably involve him in a dilemma: What is here meant by “_objects_,” the _words_, or the _things?_ if the former, how are they acted upon? if the latter, how are they governed? If “a _participle_ is called an _adjective_,” which is it, an adjective, or a participle? If “_a_ participle refers to _nouns_ or _pronouns_,” _how many_ of these are required by the relation? When does a _participle_ “admit the degrees of comparison?” How shall we parse the word _that_ in the foregoing sentences?
OBS. 19.–The word _as_, though usually a conjunction or an adverb, has sometimes the construction of a relative pronoun, especially after _such, so many_, or _as many_; and, whatever the antecedent _noun_ may be, this is the _only fit relative_ to follow any of these terms in a restrictive sense. Examples: “We have been accustomed to repose on its veracity with _such_ humble confidence _as_ suppresses curiosity.”–_Johnson’s Life of Cowley._ “The malcontents made _such_ demands _as_ none but a tyrant could refuse.”–_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, Let. 7. “The Lord added to the church daily _such_ [persons] _as_ should be saved.”–_Acts_, ii, 47. “And _as many as_ were ordained to eternal life, believed.”–_Acts_, xiii, 48. “_As many as_ I love, I rebuke and chasten.”–_Rev._, iii, 19. “Know ye not, that _so many_ of us _as_ were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?”–_Rom._, vi, 3. “For _as many_ of you _as_ have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”–_Gal._, iii, 27. “A syllable is _so many_ letters _as_ are spoken with one motion of the voice.”–_Perley’s Gram._, p. 8. “The compound tenses are _such as_ cannot be formed without an auxiliary verb.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 91. “Send him _such_ books _as_ will please him.”–_Webster’s Improved Gram._, p. 37. “In referring to _such_ a division of the day _as_ is past, we use the imperfect.”– _Murray’s Gram._, p. 70. “Participles have _the same_ government _as_ the verbs from which they are derived.”–_Ib._, Rule xiv. “Participles have _the same_ government _as_ the verbs _have_ from which they are derived.”– _Sanborn’s Gram._, p. 94. In some of these examples, _as_ is in the nominative case, and in others, in the objective; in some, it is of the masculine gender, and in others, it is neuter; in some, it is of the plural number, and in others, it is singular: but in all, it is of the third person; and in all, its person, number, gender, and case, are as obvious as those of any invariable pronoun can be.
OBS. 20.–Some
writers–(the most popular are Webster, Bullions, Wells, and Chandler–) imagine that _as_, in such sentences as the foregoing, can be made a conjunction, and not a pronoun, if we will allow them to consider the phraseology elliptical. Of the example for which I am indebted to him, Dr. Webster says, “_As_ must be considered as the nominative to _will please_, or we must suppose an ellipsis of several words: as, ‘Send him such books as _the books which_ will please him, or as _those which_ will please him.'”–_Improved Gram._, p. 37. This pretended explanation must be rejected as an absurdity. In either form of it, _two_ nominatives are idly imagined between _as_ and its verb; and, I ask, of what is the first one the subject? If you say, “Of _are_ understood,” making the phrase, “such books _as the books are_;” does not _as_ bear the same relation to this new verb _are_, that is found in the pronoun _who_, when one says, “Tell him _who_ you _are?_” If so, _as_ is a pronoun still; so that, thus far, you gain nothing. And if you will have the whole explanation to be, “Send him such books _as the books are books which_ will please him;” you multiply words, and finally arrive at nothing, but tautology and nonsense. Wells, not condescending to show his pupils what he would supply after this _as_, thinks it sufficient to say, the word is “followed by an ellipsis of one or more words required to complete the construction; as, ‘He was the father of all such as [] handle the harp and organ.’–_Gen._ 4: 21.”–_Wells’s School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 164; 3d Ed., p. 172.
OBS. 21.–Chandler exhibits the sentence, “_These are not such as are worn_;” and, in parsing it, expounds the words _as_ and _are_, thus; the crotchets being his, not mine: “_as_…. is an _adverb, connecting_ the two sentences in comparing them, [_It is a fault_ of some, that they make _as_ a pronoun, when, in a comparative sentence, it corresponds with _such_, and is immediately followed by a verb, as in the sentence now given. This is probably done _from an ignorance_ of the real nominative to the verb. The sentence _should stand thus_: ‘These (_perhaps_ bonnets) are not such (bonnets) _as_ (those bonnets) are (which are) worn.’ Then] _are_ …. is the substantive verb, third person, plural number, indicative mood, present tense, and agrees with the noun _bonnets_, understood.”–_Chandler’s Common School Gram._, p. 162. All this bears the marks of shallow flippancy. No part of it is accurate. “_Are worn_,” which the critic unwarrantably divides by his misplaced curves and uncouth impletions, is a passive verb, agreeing with the pronoun _as_. But the text itself is faulty, being unintelligible through lack of a noun; for, of things that _may be_ “_worn_,” there are a thousand different sorts. Is it not ridiculous, for a great grammarian to offer, as a model for parsing, what he himself, “_from an ignorance_ of the real nominative,” can only interpret with a “_perhaps?_” But the noun which this author supplies, the meaning which he guesses that he had, he here very improperly stows away within a pair of _crotchets_. Nor is it true, that “the sentence _should stand_” as above exhibited; for the tautological correction not only has the very extreme of awkwardness, but still makes _as_ a pronoun, a nominative, belonging after _are_: so that the phrase, “_as are worn_,” is only encumbered and perverted by the verbose addition made. So of an other example given by this expounder, in which _as_ is an objective: “He is exactly such a man _as_ I saw.”–_Chandler’s Com. Sch. Gram._, p. 163. Here _as_ is the object of _saw_. But the author says, “The sentence, however, _should stand_ thus: ‘He is exactly such a man _as_ that person _was_ whom I saw.'”–_Ibid._ This inelegant alteration makes _as_ a nominative dependent on _was._
OBS. 22.–The use of _as_ for a relative pronoun, is almost entirely confined to those connexions in which no other relative would be proper; hence few instances occur, of its absolute equivalence to _who, which_, or _that_, by which to establish its claim to the same rank. Examples like the following, however, go far to prove it, if proof be necessary; because _who_ and _which_ are here employed, where _as_ is certainly now required by all good usage: “It is not only convenient, but absolutely needful, that there be certain meetings at certain places and times, _as_ may best suit the convenience of _such, who_ may be most particularly concerned in them.”–_Barclay’s Works_, Vol. i, p. 495. “Which, no doubt, will be found obligatory upon all _such, who_ have a sense and feeling of the mind of the Spirit.”–_Ib._, i, p. 578. “Condemning or removing _such_ things, _which_ in themselves are evil.”–_Ib._, i, p. 511. In these citations, not only are _who_ and _which_ improperly used for _as_, but the _commas_ before them are also improper, because the relatives are intended to be taken in a restrictive sense. “If there be _such that_ walk disorderly now.”–_Ib._, i, p. 488. Here _that_ ought to be _as_; or else _such_ ought to be _persons_, or _those._ “When such virtues, _as which_ still accompany the truth, are necessarily supposed to be wanting.”–_Ib._, i, p. 502. Here _which_, and the comma before _as_, should both be expunged. “I shall raise in their minds the same course of thought _as_ has taken possession of my own.”–_Duncan’s Logic_, p. 61. “The pronoun must be in the same case _as_ the antecedent would be _in_, if substituted for it.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 181. “The verb must therefore have the same construction _as_ it has in the following sentence.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 190. Here _as_ is exactly equivalent to the relative _that_, and either may be used with equal propriety. We cannot avoid the conclusion, therefore, that, as the latter word is sometimes a conjunction and sometimes a pronoun, so is the former.
OBS. 23.–The relatives _that_ and _as_ have this peculiarity; that, unlike _whom_ and _which_, they never follow the word on which their case depends; nor indeed can any simple relative be so placed, except it be governed by a preposition or an infinitive. Thus, it is said, (John, xiii, 29th,) “Buy those things _that_ we have need _of_;” so we may say, “Buy such things _as_ we have need of.” But we cannot say, “Buy those things _of that_ we have need;” or, “Buy such things _of as_ we have need.” Though we may say, “Buy those things _of which_ we have need,” as well as, “Buy those things _which_ we have need _of_;” or, “Admit those persons of whom we have need,” as well as, “Admit those persons _whom_ we have need _of._” By this it appears that _that_ and _as_ have a closer connexion with their antecedents than the other relatives require: a circumstance worthy to have been better remembered by some critics. “Again, _that_ and _as_ are used rather differently. When _that_ is used, the verb must be repeated; as, ‘Participles _require_ the same government, _that_ their verbs _require_.’–‘James _showed_ the same credulity, _that_ his minister _showed_.’ But when _as_ is used, the verb generally may, or may not be repeated; as, ‘Participles _require_ the same government _as_ their verbs;’ or, ‘_as_ their verbs _require_.’–‘James _showed_ the same credulity as his minister;’ or, ‘_as_ his minister _showed_:’ the second nominative _minister_ being parsed as the nominative to the same verb _showed_ understood.”–_Nixon’s Parser_, p. 140.[195]
OBS. 24.–The terminating of a sentence with a preposition, or other small particle, is in general undignified, though perhaps not otherwise improper. Hence the above-named inflexibility in the construction of _that_ and _as_, sometimes induces an ellipsis of the governing word designed; and is occasionally attended with some difficulty respecting the choice of our terms. Examples: “The answer is always in the same case _that_ the interrogative word _is_.”–_Sanborn’s Gram._, p. 70. Here is a faulty termination; and with it a more faulty ellipsis. In stead of ending the sentence with _is in_, say, “The answer always _agrees in case with_ the interrogative word.” Again: “The relative is of the same person _with_ the antecedent.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 101. This sentence is wrong, because the person of the relative is not really _identical with_ the antecedent. “The relative is of the same person _as_ the antecedent.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 154. Here the writer means–“_as_ the antecedent _is of_.” “A neuter verb becomes active, when followed by a noun of the same signification _with_ its own.”–_Sanborn’s Gram._, p. 127. Here same is wrong, or else the last three words are useless. It would therefore be improper to say–“of _the same_ signification _as_ its own.” The expression ought to be–“of a signification _similar to_ its own.” “Ode is, _in Greek_, the same _with_ song or hymn.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 396. _Song_ being no Greek word, I cannot think the foregoing expression accurate, though one might say, “Ode is _identical with_ song or hymn.” Would it not be better to say, “Ode is the same _as_ song or hymn?” That is, “Ode is, _literally_, the same _thing that_ song or hymn _is_?” “Treatises of philosophy, ought not to be composed in the same style _with_ orations.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 175. Here neither _with_ nor _as_ can be proper; because _orations_ are not _a style_. Expunge _same_; and say–“in the style _of_ orations.”
OBS. 25.–Few writers are sufficiently careful in their choice and management of relatives. In the following instance, Murray and others violate a special rule of their own grammars, by using _whom_ for _that_ “after an adjective of the superlative degree:” “Modifying them according to the genius of that tongue, and the established practice of _the best_ speakers and writers _by whom_ it is used.”–_Octavo Gram._, p. 1; _Fisk’s_, p. 11; _et al._ According to Priestley and himself, the great Compiler is here in an error. The rule is perhaps too stringent; but whoever teaches it, should keep it. If he did not like to say, “_the best_ speakers and writers _that_ it is used _by_;” he ought to have said, “_the best_ speakers and writers _that use it_.” Or, rather, he ought to have said _nothing_ after the word “writers;” because the whole relative clause is here weak and useless. Yet how many of the amenders of this grammar have not had perspicacity enough, either to omit the expression, or to correct it according to the author’s own rule!
OBS. 26.–Relative pronouns are capable of being taken in two very different senses: the one, restrictive of the general idea suggested by the antecedent; the other, _resumptive_ of that idea, in the full import of the term–or, in whatever extent the previous definitives allow. The distinction between these two senses, important as it is, is frequently made to depend solely upon the insertion or the omission of _a comma_. Thus, if I say, “Men who grasp after riches, are never satisfied;” the relative _who_ is taken restrictively, and I am understood to speak _only of the avaricious_. But, if I say, “Men, who grasp after riches, are never satisfied;” by separating the terms _men_ and _who_, I declare _all men_ to be covetous and unsatisfied. For the former sense, the relative _that_ is preferable to _who_; and I shall presently show why. This example, in the latter form, is found in Sanborn’s Grammar, page 142d; but whether the author meant what he says, or not, I doubt. Like many other unskillful writers, he has paid little regard to the above-mentioned distinction; and, in some instances, his meaning cannot have been what his words declare: as, “A prism is a solid, whose sides are all parallelograms.”–_Analytical Gram._, p. 142. This, as it stands, is no definition of a prism, but an assertion of two things; that a prism is a solid, and that all the sides of a solid are parallelograms. Erase the comma, and the words will describe the prism as a peculiar kind of solid; because _whose_ will then be taken in the restrictive sense. This sense, however, may be conveyed even with a comma before the relative; as, “Some fictitious histories yet remain, _that_ were composed during the decline of the Roman empire.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 374. This does not suggest that there are no other fictitious histories now extant, than such as were composed during the decline of the Roman empire; but I submit it to the reader, whether the word _which_, if here put for _that_, would not convey this idea.
OBS. 27.–Upon this point, many philologists are open to criticism; and none more so, than the recent author above cited. By his own plain showing, this grammarian has no conception of the difference of meaning, upon which the foregoing distinction is founded. What marvel, then, that he falls into errors, both of doctrine and of practice? But, if no such difference exists, or none that is worthy of a critic’s notice; then the error is mine, and it is vain to distinguish between the restrictive and the resumptive sense of relative pronouns. For example: “The boy that desires to assist his companions, deserves respect.”–_G. Brown._ “That boy, who desires to assist his companions, deserves respect.”–_D. H. Sanborn._ According to my notion, these two sentences clearly convey two very different meanings; the relative, in the former, being restrictive, but, in the latter, resumptive of the sense of the antecedent. But of the latter example this author says, “The clause, ‘who desires to assist his companions,’ with the relative who at its head, _explains or tells what boy deserves respect_; and, like a conjunction, connects this clause to the noun _boy_.”–_Analytical Gram._, p. 69. He therefore takes it in a restrictive sense, as if this sentence were exactly equivalent to the former. But he adds, “A relative pronoun is resolvable into a personal pronoun and a conjunction. The sentence would then read, ‘That boy desires to assist his companions, _and_ he deserves respect.’ The relative pronoun governs the nearer verb, and the antecedent the more distant one.”–_Ib._, p. 69. Now, concerning the restrictive relative, this doctrine of equivalence does not hold good; and, besides, the explanation here given, not only contradicts his former declaration of the sense he intended, but, with other seeming contradiction, joins the antecedent to the nearer verb, and the substituted pronoun to the more distant.
OBS. 28.–Again, the following principles of this author’s punctuation are no less indicative of his false views of this matter: “RULE xiv.–Relative pronouns in the nominative or [_the_] objective case, are preceded by commas, when the clause which the relative _connects_ [,] ends a sentence; as, ‘Sweetness of temper is a quality, which reflects a lustre on every accomplishment’–B. Greenleaf.’ Self [-] denial is the sacrifice [,] which virtue must make.’ [_–L. Murray._] The comma is omitted before the relative, when the verb which the antecedent governs, follows the relative clause; as, ‘He that suffers by imposture, has too often his virtue more impaired than his fortune.’–_Johnson_.” See _Sanborn’s Analytical Gram._, p. 269. Such are some of our author’s principles–“the essence of modern improvements.” His practice, though often wrong, is none the worse for contradicting these doctrines. Nay, his proudest boast is ungrammatical, though peradventure not the less believed: “_No_ [other] _grammar in the language_ probably contains so great a quantity of _condensed and_ useful matter with so little superfluity.”–_Sanborn’s Preface_, p. v.
OBS. 29.–Murray’s rule for the punctuation of relatives, (a rule which he chiefly copied from Lowth,) recognizes virtually the distinction which I have made above; but, in assuming that relatives “_generally_” require a comma before them, it erroneously suggests that the resumptive sense is more common than the restrictive. Churchill, on the contrary, as wrongly makes it an essential characteristic of _all_ relatives, “to limit or explain the words to which they refer.” See his _New Gram._, p. 74. The fact is, that relatives are so generally restrictive, that not one half of them are thus pointed; though some that do restrict their antecedent, nevertheless admit the point. This may be seen by the first example given us by Murray: “Relative pronouns are connective words, and _generally admit_ a comma before them: as, ‘He preaches sublimely, who lives a sober, righteous, and pious life.’ But when two members, or _phrases_, [say _clauses_,] are closely connected by a relative, restraining the general notion of the antecedent to a particular sense, _the comma should be omitted_: as, ‘_Self-denial_ is the _sacrifice which_ virtue must make;’ ‘A _man who_ is of a detracting spirit, will misconstrue the most innocent _words that_ can be put together.’ In the latter example, the assertion is not of ‘a man in general,’ but of ‘a man who is of a detracting spirit;’ and therefore _they_ [say _the pronoun and its antecedent_] should not be separated.”–_Murray’s Gram., Octavo_, p. 273; _Ingersoll’s_, 285; _Comly’s_, 152. This reasoning, strictly applied, would exclude the comma before _who_ in the first example above; but, as the pronoun does not “closely” or immediately follow its antecedent, the comma is allowed, though it is not much needed. Not so, when the sense is resumptive: as, “The _additions, which_ are very considerable, are chiefly _such as_ are calculated to obviate objections.” See _Murray’s Gram._, p. ix. Here the comma is essential to the meaning. Without it, _which_ would be equivalent to _that_; with it, which is equivalent to _and they_. But this latter meaning, as I imagine, cannot be expressed by the relative _that_.
OBS. 30.–Into the unfortunate example which Sanborn took from Murray, I have inserted the comma for him; not because it is necessary or right, but because his rule requires it: “_Self-denial_ is the _sacrifice_,” &c. The author of “a complete system of grammar,” might better contradict even Murray, than himself. But why was this text admired? and why have _Greene, Bullions, Hiley, Hart_, and others, also copied it? A _sacrifice_ is something devoted and lost, for the sake of a greater good; and, _if Virtue sacrifice self-denial_, what will she do, but run into indulgence? The great sacrifice which she demands of men, is rather that of their _self-love_. Wm. E. Russell has it, “_Self defence_ is the sacrifice which virtue must make!”–_Russell’s Abridgement of Murray’s Gram._, p. 116. Bishop Butler tells us, “It is indeed _ridiculous_ to assert, that _self-denial is essential to virtue and piety_; but it would have been nearer the truth, though not strictly the truth itself, to have said, that it is essential to discipline and improvement.”–_Analogy of Religion_, p. 123.
OBS. 31.–The relative _that_, though usually reckoned equivalent to _who_ or _which_, evidently differs from both, in being more generally, and perhaps more appropriately, taken in the restrictive sense. It ought therefore, for distinction’s sake, to be preferred to _who_ or _which_, whenever an antecedent not otherwise limited, is to be restricted by the relative clause; as, “_Men that_ grasp after riches, are never satisfied.”–“I love _wisdom that_ is gay and civilized.”–_Art of Thinking_, p. 34. This phraseology leaves not the limitation of the meaning to depend solely upon the absence of a pause after the antecedent; because the relative _that_ is seldom, if ever, used by good writers in any other than a restrictive sense. Again: “A man of a polite imagination is let into a great many pleasures _that_ the vulgar are not capable of receiving.”–_Addison, Spect._, No. 411. Here, too, according to my notion, _that_ is obviously preferable to _which_; though a great critic, very widely known, has taken some pains to establish a different opinion. The “many pleasures” here spoken of, are no otherwise defined, than as being such as “the vulgar are not capable of receiving.” The writer did not mean to deny that the vulgar are capable of receiving a great many pleasures; but, certainly, if _that_ were changed to _which_, this would be the meaning conveyed, unless the reader were very careful to avoid a pause where he would be apt to make one. I therefore prefer Addison’s expression to that which Dr. Blair would substitute.
OBS. 32.–The style of Addison is more than once censured by Dr. Blair, for the frequency with which the relative _that_ occurs in it, where the learned lecturer would have used which. The reasons assigned by the critic are these: “_Which_ is a much more definitive word than that, being never employed in any other way than as a relative; whereas _that_ is a word of many senses; sometimes a demonstrative pronoun, often a conjunction. In some cases we are indeed obliged to use _that_ for a relative, in order to avoid the ungraceful repetition of _which_ in the same sentence. But when we are laid under no necessity of this kind, _which_ is always the preferable word, and certainly was so in this sentence: ‘_Pleasures which_ the vulgar are not capable of receiving,’ is much better than ‘_pleasures that_ the vulgar are not capable of receiving.'”–_Blair’s Rhetoric_, Lect. xx, p. 200. Now the facts are these: (1.) That _that_ is the more definitive or restrictive word of the two. (2.) That the word _which_ has as many different senses and uses as the word _that_. (3.) That not the repetition of _which_ or _who_ in a series of clauses, but a _needless change_ of the relative, is ungraceful. (4.) That the necessity of using _that_ rather than _which_ or _who_, depends, not upon what is here supposed, but upon the different senses which these words usually convey. (5.) That as there is always some reason of choice, _that_ is sometimes to be preferred; _which_, sometimes; and _who_, sometimes: as, “It is not the man _who_ has merely taught, or _who_ has taught long, or _who_ is able to point out defects in authors, _that_ is capable of enlightening the world in the respective sciences _which_ have engaged his attention; but the man _who_ has taught well.”–_Kirkham’s Elocution_, p. 7.
OBS. 33.–Blair’s Rhetoric consists of forty-seven lectures; four of which are devoted to a critical examination of the style of Addison, as exhibited in four successive papers of the Spectator. The remarks of the professor are in general judicious; but, seeing his work is made a common textbook for students of “Belles Lettres,” it is a pity to find it so liable to reprehension on the score of inaccuracy. Among the passages which are criticised in the twenty-first lecture, there is one in which the essayist speaks of the effects of _novelty_ as follows:
‘It is this _which_ bestows charms on a monster, and makes even the imperfections of nature please us. It is this _that_ recommends variety, where the mind is every instant called off to something new, and the attention not suffered to dwell too long and waste itself on any particular object. It is this, likewise, _that_ improves what is great or beautiful, and makes it afford the mind a double entertainment.’–_Spectator_, No. 412.
This passage is deservedly praised by the critic, for its “perspicuity, grace, and harmony;” but, in using different relatives under like circumstances, the writer has hardly done justice to his own good taste. Blair’s remark is this: “His frequent use of _that_, instead of _which_, is another peculiarity of his style; but, on this occasion in particular, [it] cannot be much commended, as, ‘It is this _which_,’ seems, in every view, to be better than, ‘It is this _that_,’ three times repeated.”–_Lect._ xxi, p. 207. What is here meant by “_every view_,” may, I suppose, be seen in the corresponding criticism which is noticed in my last observation above; and I am greatly deceived, if, in this instance also, the relative _that_ is not better than _which_, and more agreeable to polite usage. The direct relative which corresponds to the introductory pronoun _it_ and _an other antecedent_, should, I think, be _that_, and not _who_ or _which_: as, “It is not ye _that_ speak.”–_Matt._, x, 20. “It is thou, Lord, _who_ hast the hearts of all men in thy hands, _that_ turnest the hearts of any to show me favour.”–_Jenks’s Prayers_, p. 278. Here _who_ has reference to _thou_ or _Lord_ only; but _that_ has some respect to the pronoun _it_, though it agrees in person and gender with _thou_. A similar example is cited at the close of the preceding observation; and I submit it to the reader, whether the word _that_, as it there occurs, is not the _only fit_ word for the place it occupies. So in the following examples: “There are _Words, which_ are _not Verbs, that_ signify actions and passions, and even things transient.”–_Brightland’s Gram._, p. 100. “It is the universal taste of mankind, which is subject to no such changing modes, _that_ alone is entitled to possess any authority.”–_Blair’s Rhetoric_, p. 286.
OBS. 34.–Sometimes the broad import of an antecedent is _doubly restricted_, first by one relative clause, and then by an other; as, “And all _that dwell upon the earth_, shall worship him, _whose names are not written in the book of life_.”–_Rev._, xiii, 8. “And then, like true Thames-Watermen, they abuse every man _that_ passes by, _who_ is better dressed than themselves.”–_Brown’s Estimate_, Vol. ii, p. 10. Here _and_, or _if he_, would be as good as “_who_;” for the connective only serves to carry the restriction into narrower limits. Sometimes the limit fixed by one clause is _extended_ by an other; as, “There is no evil _that you may suffer_, or _that you may expect to suffer, which_ prayer is not the appointed means to alleviate.”–_Bickersteth, on Prayer_, p. 16. Here _which_ resumes the idea of “_evil_,” in the extent last determined; or rather, in that which is fixed by either clause, since the limits of both are embraced in the assertion. And, in the two limiting clauses, the same pronoun was requisite, on account of their joint relation; but the clause which assumes a different relation, is rightly introduced by a different pronoun. This is also the case in the following examples: “For there is no condemnation to those _that_ are in Christ Jesus, _who_ walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”–_Barclay’s Works_, Vol. i, p. 432. “I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast _that_ carrieth her, _which_ hath the seven heads and ten horns.”–_Rev._, xvii, 7. Here the restrictive sense is well expressed by one relative, and the resumptive by an other. When neither of these senses is intended by the writer, _any_ form of the relative must needs be improper: as, “The greatest genius _which runs_ through the arts and sciences, takes a kind of tincture from them, and falls unavoidably into imitation.”–_Addison, Spect._, No. 160. Here, as I suppose, _which runs_ should be _in running_. What else can the author have meant?
OBS. 35.–Having now, as I imagine, clearly shown the difference between the restrictive and the resumptive sense of a relative pronoun, and the absolute necessity of making such a choice of words as will express that sense only which we intend; I hope the learner will see, by these observations, not merely that clearness requires the occasional use of each of our five relatives, _who, which, what, that_, and _as_; but that this distinction in the meaning, is a very common principle by which to determine what is, and what is not, good English. Thus _that_ and _as_ are appropriately our _restrictive_ relatives, though _who_ and _which_ are sometimes used restrictively; but, in a _resumptive_ sense, _who_ or _which_ is required, and required even after those terms which usually demand _that_ or _as_: thus, “We are vexed at the unlucky chance, and go away dissatisfied. _Such_ impressions, _which_ ought not to be cherished, are a sufficient reason for excluding stories of that kind from the theatre.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 279. Here _which_ is proper to the sense intended; but _such_ requires _as_, when the latter term limits the meaning of the former. In sentences like the following, _who_ or _which_ may be used in lieu of _that_; whether with any advantage or not, the reader may judge: “You seize the critical moment _that_ is favorable to emotion.”–_Bair’s Rhet._, p. 321. “_An_ historian _that_ would instruct us, must know when to be concise.”–_Ib._, p. 359. “Seneca has been censured for the affectation _that_ appears in his style.”–_Ib._, p. 367. “Such as the prodigies _that_ attended the death of Julius Caesar.”–_Ib._, p. 401. “By unfolding those principles _that_ ought to govern the taste of every individual.”–_Kames’s Dedication to El. of Crit._ “But I am sure he has that _that_ is better than an estate.”–_Spect._, No. 475. “There are two properties, _that_ characterize and essentially distinguish relative pronouns.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 74. By these examples, it may be seen, that Dr. Blair often forgot or disregarded his own doctrine respecting the use of this relative; though he was oftener led, by the error of that doctrine, to substitute _which_ for _that_ improperly.
OBS. 36.–_Whether_ was formerly used as an interrogative pronoun, in which sense it always referred to one of two things; as, “Ye fools and blind! for _whether_ is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?”–_Matt._, xxiii, 17. This usage is now obsolete; and, in stead of it, we say, “_Which_ is greater?” But as a disjunctive conjunction, corresponding to _or_, the word _whether_ is still in good repute; as, “Resolve _whether_ you will go _or_ not.”–_Webster’s Dict._ In this sense of the term, some choose to call _whether_ an _adverb_.
OBS. 37.–In the view of some writers, interrogative pronouns differ from relatives chiefly in this; that, as the subject referred to is unknown to the speaker, they do not relate to a _preceding_ noun, but to something which is to be expressed in the answer to the question. It is certain that their _person, number_, and _gender_, are not regulated by an antecedent noun; but by what the speaker supposes or knows of a subject which may, or may not, agree with them in these respects: as, “_What_ lies there?” Answer, “Two _men_ asleep.” Here _what_, standing for _what thing_, is of the third person, singular number, and neuter gender; but _men_, which is the term that answers to it, is of the third person, plural, masculine. There is therefore no necessary agreement between the question and the answer, in any of those properties in which a pronoun usually agrees with its noun. Yet some grammarians will have interrogatives to agree with these “_subsequents_,” as relatives agree with their _antecedents_. The answer, it must be granted, commonly contains a noun, corresponding in some respects to the interrogative pronoun, and agreeing with it _in case_; but this noun cannot be supposed to control the interrogation, nor is it, in any sense, the word for which the pronoun stands. For every pronoun must needs stand for something that is uttered or conceived by the same speaker; nor can any question be answered, until its meaning is understood. Interrogative pronouns must therefore be explained as direct substitutes for such other terms as one might use in stead of them. Thus _who_ means _what person_?
“_Who_ taught that heav’n-directed spire to rise? _The Man of Ross_, each lisping babe replies.”–_Pope_.
OBS. 38.–In the classification of the pronouns, and indeed in the whole treatment of them, almost all our English grammars are miserably faulty, as well as greatly at variance. In some forty or fifty, which I have examined on this point, the few words which constitute this part of speech, have more than twenty different modes of distribution. (1.) Cardell says, “There is but one kind of pronouns”–_Elements of Gram._, p. 30. (2.) D. Adam’s, Greenleaf, Nutting, and Weld, will have two kinds; “_personal_ and _relative_.” (3.) Dr. Webster’s “Substitutes, or pronouns, are of two kinds:” the one, “called _personal_;” the other, without name or number. See his _Improved Gram._, p. 24. (4.) Many have fixed upon three sorts; “_personal, relative_, and _adjective_;” with a subdivision of the last. Of these is Lindley Murray, in his late editions, with his amenders, Ainsworth, Alger, Bacon, Bullions, Fisk, A. Flint, Frost, Guy, Hall, Kirkham, Lennie, Merchant, Picket, Pond, and S. Putnam. (5.) Kirkham, however, changes the order of the classes; thus, “_personal, adjective_, and _relative_;” and, with ridiculous absurdity, makes _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_ to be “_compounds_.” (6.) Churchill adopts the plan of “_personal, relative_, and _adjective_ pronouns;” and then destroys it by a valid argument. (7.) Comly, Wilcox, Wells, and Perley, have these three classes; “_personal, relative_, and _interrogative_:” and this division is right. (8.) Sanborn makes the following bull: “The _general_ divisions of pronouns are _into personal, relative, interrogative_, and _several sub-divisions_.”–_Analytical Gram._, p. 91. (9.) Jaudon has these three kinds; “_personal, relative_, and _distributive_.” (10.) Robbins, these; “_simple, conjunctive_, and _interrogative_.” (11.) Lindley Murray, in his early editions, had these four; “_personal, possessive, relative_, and _adjective_.” (12.) Bucke has these; “_personal, relative, interrogative_, and _adjective_.” (13.) Ingersoll, these; “_personal, adjective, relative_, and _interrogative_.” (14.) Buchanan; “_personal, demonstrative, relative_, and _interrogative_.” (15.) Coar; “_personal, possessive_ or _pronominal adjectives, demonstrative_, and _relative_.” (16.) Bicknell; “_personal, possessive, relative_, and _demonstrative_.” (17.) Cobbett; “_personal, relative, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_.” (18) M’Culloch; “_personal, possessive, relative_, and _reciprocal_.” (19.) Staniford has five; “_personal, relative, interrogative, definitive_, and _distributive_.” (20.) Alexander, six; “_personal, relative, demonstrative, interrogative, definitive_, and _adjective_.” (21.) Cooper, in 1828, had five; “_personal, relative, possessive, definite_, and _indefinite_.” (22.) Cooper, in 1831, six; “_personal, relative, definite, indefinite, possessive_, and _possessive pronominal adjectives_.” (23.) Dr. Crombie says: “Pronouns may be divided into _Substantive_, and _Adjective; Personal_, and _Impersonal; Relative_, and _Interrogative_.” (24.) Alden has seven sorts; “_personal, possessive, relative, interrogative, distributive, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_.” (25.) R. C. Smith has many kinds, and treats them so badly that nobody can count them. In respect to definitions, too, most of these writers are shamefully inaccurate, or deficient. Hence the filling up of their classes is often as bad as the arrangement. For instance, four and twenty of them will have interrogative pronouns to be relatives; but who that knows what a relative pronoun is, can coincide with them in opinion? Dr. Crombie thinks, “that interrogatives are strictly relatives;” and yet divides the two classes with his own hand!
MODIFICATIONS.
Pronouns have the same modifications as nouns; namely, _Persons, Numbers, Genders_, and _Cases_. Definitions universally applicable have already been given of all these things; it is therefore unnecessary to define them again in this place.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–In the personal pronouns, most of these properties are distinguished by the words themselves; in the relative and the interrogative pronouns, they are ascertained chiefly by means of the antecedent and the verb. Interrogative pronouns, however, as well as the relatives _which, what, as_, and all the compounds of _who, which_, and _what_, are always of the third person. Even in etymological parsing, some regard must be had to the syntactical relations of words. By _modifications_, we commonly mean actual changes in the forms of words, by which their grammatical properties are inherently distinguished; but, in all languages, the distinguishable properties of words are somewhat more numerous than their actual variations of form; there being certain principles of universal grammar, which cause the person, number, gender, or case, of some words, to be inferred from their relation to others; or, what is nearly the same thing, from the sense which is conveyed by the sentence. Hence, if in a particular instance it happen, that some, or even all, of these properties, are without any index in the form of the pronoun itself, they are still to be ascribed in parsing, because they may be easily and certainly discovered from the construction. For example: in the following text, it is just as easy to discern the _genders_ of the pronouns, as the _cases_ of the nouns; and both are known and asserted to be what they are, upon principles of mere inference: “For what knowest _thou_, O _wife_, whether _thou_ shalt save _thy husband_? or how knowest _thou_, O _man_, whether _thou_ shalt save _thy wife_?”–_1 Cor._, vii, 16. Again: “_Who_ betrayed _her_ companion? Not _I_.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 211. Here _her_ being of the feminine gender, it is the inference of every reader, that _who_ and _I_ are so too; but whether the word _companion_ is masculine or feminine, is not so obvious.
OBS. 2.–The personal pronouns of the first and second persons, are equally applicable to both sexes; and should be considered masculine or feminine, according to the known application of them. [See _Levizac’s French Gram._, p. 73.] The speaker and the hearer, being present to each other, of course know the sex to which they respectively belong; and, whenever they appear in narrative or dialogue, we are told who they are. In _Latin_, an adjective or a participle relating to these pronouns, is varied _to agree_ with them in _number, gender_, and _case_. This is a sufficient proof that _ego, I_, and _tu, thou_, are not destitute of gender, though neither the Latin words nor the English are themselves varied to express it:–
“_Miserae_ hoc tamen unum
Exequere, Anna, _mihi: solam_ nam perfidus ille _Te_ colere, arcanos etiam tibi credere sensus; _Sola_ viri molles aditus et tempora noras.”–_Virgil_.
OBS. 3.–Many English grammarians, and Murray at their head, deny the first person of nouns, and the gender of pronouns of the first and second persons; and at the same time teach, that, “Pronouns must always agree with their antecedents, _and_ the nouns for which they stand, in _gender, number_, and _person_:” (_Murray’s Gr., 2d Ed._, p. 111; _Rev. T. Smith’s_, p. 60:) and further, with redundance of expression, that, “The relative is of the same person _with_ the antecedent, and the verb agrees with it accordingly.”–_Same_. These quotations form Murray’s fifth rule of syntax, as it stands in his early editions.[196] In some of his revisings, the author erased the word _person_ from the former sentence, and changed _with_ to _as_ in the latter. But other pronouns than relatives, agree with their nouns in person; so that his first alteration was not for the better, though Ingersoll, Kirkham, Alger, Bacon, J. Greenleaf, and some others, have been very careful to follow him in it. And why did he never discern, that the above-named principles of his etymology are both of them contradicted by this rule of his syntax, and one of them by his rule as it now stands? It is manifest, that no two words can possibly _agree_ in any property which belongs not to both. Else what _is_ agreement? Nay, no two things in nature, can in any wise agree, accord, or be alike, but by having some quality or accident in common. How strange a contradiction then is this! And what a compliment to learning, that it is still found in well-nigh all our grammars!
OBS. 4.–If there were truth in what Murray and others affirm, that “Gender has respect only to the third person singular of the pronouns, _he, she, it_,” [197] no two words could ever agree in gender; because there can be no such agreement between any two of the words here mentioned, and the assertion is, that gender has respect to no others. But, admitting that neither the author nor the numerous copiers of this false sentence ever meant to deny that gender has respect to _nouns_, they do deny that it has respect to any other _pronouns_ than these; whereas I affirm that it ought to be recognized as a property of _all_ pronouns, as well as of all nouns. Not that the gender of either is in all instances invariably fixed by the _forms_ of the particular words; but there is in general, if not in every possible case, some principle of grammar, on which the gender of any noun or pronoun in a sentence may be readily ascertained. Is it not plain, that if we know who speaks or writes, who hears or is addressed, we know also the gender of the pronouns which are applied to these persons? The poet of The Task looked upon his mother’s picture, and expressed his tender recollections of a deceased parent by way of _address_; and will any one pretend, that the pronouns which he applied to himself and to her, are either of the same gender, or of no gender? If we take neither of these assumptions, must we not say, they are of different genders? In this instance, then, let the parser call those of the first person, masculine; and those of the second, feminine:–
“_My_ mother! when _I_ learned that _thou_ wast dead, Say, wast _thou_ conscious of the tears _I_ shed?”–_Cowper_.
OBS. 5.–That the pronouns of the first and second persons are sometimes masculine and sometimes feminine, is perfectly certain; but whether they can or cannot be neuter, is a question difficult to be decided. To things inanimate they are applied only _figuratively_; and the question is, whether the figure always necessarily changes the gender of the antecedent noun. We assume the general principle, that the noun and its pronoun are always of the same gender; and we know that when inanimate objects are personified in the third person, they are usually represented as masculine or feminine, the gender being changed by the figure. But when a lifeless object is spoken to in the second person, or represented as speaking in the first, as the pronouns here employed are in themselves without distinction of gender, no such change can be proved by the mere words; and, if we allow that it would be needless to _imagine_ it where the words do not prove it, the gender of these pronouns must in such cases be neuter, because we have no ground to think it otherwise. Examples: “And Jesus answered and said unto _it_, [the barren _figtree_,] No man eat fruit of _thee_ hereafter forever.”–_Mark_, xi, 14. “O _earth_, cover not _thou_ my blood.”–_Job_, xvi, 18. “O _thou sword_ of the Lord, how long will it be ere _thou_ be quiet?”–_Jeremiah_, xlvii, 6. In these instances, the objects addressed do not appear to be figuratively invested with the attribute of sex. So likewise with respect to the first person. If, in the following example, _gold_ and _diamond_ are neuter, so is the pronoun _me_; and, if not neuter, of what gender are they? The personification indicates or discriminates no other.
“Where thy true treasure? Gold says, ‘Not in _me_; And, ‘Not in _me_,’ the diamond. Gold is poor.”–_Young_.
THE DECLENSION OF PRONOUNS.
The declension of a pronoun is a regular arrangement of its numbers and cases.
I. SIMPLE PERSONALS.
The simple personal pronouns are thus declined:–
I, _of the_ FIRST PERSON, _any of the genders_.[198]
Sing. Nom. I, Plur. Nom. we, Poss. my, _or_ mine,[199] Poss. our, _or_ ours, Obj. me; Obj. us.
THOU, _of the_ SECOND PERSON, _any of the genders_.
Sing. Nom. thou,[200] Plur. Nom. ye, or you, Poss. thy, _or_ thine, Poss. your, _or_ yours, Obj. thee; Obj. you, or ye.[201]
HE, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _masculine gender_.
Sing. Nom. he, Plur. Nom. they, Poss. his, Poss. their, _or_ theirs, Obj. him; Obj. them.
SHE, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _feminine gender_.
Sing. Nom. she, Plur. Nom. they, Poss. her, _or_ hers, Poss. their, _or_ theirs, Obj. her; Obj. them.
IT, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _neuter gender_.
Sing. Nom, it, Plur. Nom. they, Poss. its, Poss. their, _or_ theirs, Obj. it; Obj. them.
II. COMPOUND PERSONALS.
The word _self_, added to the simple personal pronouns, forms the class of _compound personal pronouns_; which are used when an action reverts upon the agent, and also when some persons are to be distinguished from others: as, sing, _myself_, plur. _ourselves_; sing, _thyself_, plur. _yourselves_; sing, _himself_, plur. _themselves_; sing, _herself_, plur. _themselves_; sing, _itself_, plur. _themselves_. They all want the possessive case, and are alike in the nominative and objective. Thus:–
MYSELF, _of the_ FIRST PERSON,[202] _any of the genders_.
Sing. Nom. myself, Plur. Nom. ourselves, Poss. ——, Poss. ———, Obj. myself; Obj. ourselves.
THYSELF, _of the_ SECOND PERSON, _any of the genders_.
Sing. Nom. thyself,[203] Plur. Nom. yourselves, Poss. ——-, Poss. ———-, Obj. thyself; Obj. yourselves.
HIMSELF, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _masculine gender_.
Sing. Nom. himself, Plur. Nom. themselves, Poss. ——-, Poss. ———-, Obj. himself; Obj. themselves.
HERSELF, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _feminine gender_.
Sing. Nom. herself, Plur. Nom. themselves, Poss. ——-, Poss. ———-, Obj. herself; Obj. themselves.
ITSELF, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _neuter gender_.
Sing. Nom. itself, Plur. Nom. themselves, Poss. ——, Poss. ———-, Obj. itself; Obj. themselves.
III. RELATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES.
The relative and the interrogative pronouns are thus declined:–
WHO, _literally applied to persons only_.
Sing. Nom. who, Plur. Nom. who, Poss. whose, Poss. whose,
Obj. whom; Obj. whom.
WHICH, _applied to animals and things_.
Sing. Nom. which, Plur. Nom. which, Poss. [204]–, Poss. —–,
Obj. which; Obj. which.
WHAT, _applied ordinarily to things only_.[205]
Sing. Nom. what, Plur. Nom. what, Poss. —-, Poss. —-,
Obj. what; Obj. what.
THAT, _applied to persons, animals, and things_.
Sing. Nom. that, Plur. Nom. that, Poss. —-, Poss. —-,
Obj. that; Obj. that.
AS, _applied to persons, animals, and things_.
Sing. Nom. as, Plur. Nom. as, Poss. —-, Poss. —-,
Obj. as; Obj. as.
IV. COMPOUND RELATIVES.
The compound relative pronouns, _whoever_ or _whosoever, whichever_ or _whichsoever_, and _whatever_ or _whatsoever_[206] are declined in the same manner as the simples, _who which, what_. Thus:–
WHOEVER or WHOSOEVER, _applied only to persons_.
Sing. Nom. whoever, Plur. Nom. whoever, Poss. whosever, Poss. whosever, Obj. whomever; Obj. whomever.
Sing. Nom. whosoever, Plur. Nom. whosoever, Poss. whosesoever, Poss. whosesoever, Obj. whomsoever; Obj. whomsoever.
WHICHEVER or WHICHSOEVER, _applied to persons, animals, and things_.
Sing. Nom. whichever, Plur. Nom. whichever, Poss. ———, Poss. ——–, Obj. whichever; Obj. whichever.
Sing. Nom. whichsoever, Plur. Nom. whichsoever, Poss. ———, Poss. ——–, Obj. whichsoever; Obj. whichsoever.
WHATEVER or WHATSOEVER, _applied ordinarily to things only_.
Sing. Nom. whatever, Plur. Nom. whatever, Poss. ——–, Poss. ——–, Obj. whatever; Obj. whatever.
Sing. Nom. whatsoever, Plur. Nom. whatsoever, Poss. ———, Poss. ——–, Obj. whatsoever; Obj. whatsoever.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–Most of the personal pronouns have two forms of the possessive case, in each number: as, _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours_; _thy_ or _thine, your_ or _yours_; _her_ or _hers, their_ or _theirs_. The former is used before a noun expressed, or when nothing but an adjective intervenes; the latter, when the governing noun is understood, or is so placed that a repetition of it is implied in or after the pronoun: as, “_My_ powers are _thine_; be _thine_ alone The glory of my song.”–_Montgomery_. “State what _mine_ and _your_ principles are.”–_Legh Richmond, to his Daughters_. Better, perhaps: “State what _my_ principles and _yours_ are;”–“State what _your_ principles and _mine_ are;”–or, “State what are _my_ principles and _your own_.”
“Resign’d he fell; superior to the dart That quench’d its rage in _yours_ and _Britain’s_ heart.”–_J. Brown_.
“Behold! to _yours_ and _my_ surprise, These trifles to a volume rise.”–_Lloyd_, p. 186.
OBS. 2.–Possibly, when the same persons or things stand in a joint relation of this kind to different individuals or parties, it may be proper to connect two of the simple possessives to express it; though this construction can seldom, if ever, be necessary, because any such expression as _thy and her sister, my and his duty_, if not erroneous, can mean nothing but _your sister, our duty, &c_. But some examples occur, the propriety of which it is worth while to consider: as, “I am sure it will be a pleasure to you to hear that she proves worthy of her father, worthy of you, and of _your and her_ ancestors.”–_Spectator_, No. 525. This sentence is from a version of Pliny’s letter to his wife’s aunt; and, as the ancestors of the two individuals are here the same, the phraseology may be allowable. But had the aunt commended her niece to Pliny, she should have said, “worthy of you and of _your_ ancestors and _hers_.” “Is it _her_ or _his_ honour that is tarnished? It is not _hers_, but _his_.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 175. This question I take to be bad English. It ought to be, “Is it _her_ honour or _his_, that is tarnished?” Her honour and his honour cannot be one and the same thing. This example was framed by Murray to illustrate that idle and puzzling distinction which he and some others make between “possessive adjective pronouns” and “the genitive case of the personal pronouns;” and, if I understand him, the author will here have _her_ and _his_ to be of the former class, and _hers_ and _his_ of the latter. It were a better use of time, to learn how to employ such words correctly. Unquestionably, they are of the same class and the same case, and would be every way equivalent, if the first form were fit to be used elliptically. For example: “The same phrenzy had hindered the Dutch from improving to _their_ and to the common advantage the public misfortunes of France.”–_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 309. Here the possessive case _their_ appears to be governed by _advantage_ understood, and therefore it would perhaps be better to say, _theirs_, or _their own_. But in the following instance, _our_ may be proper, because both possessives appear to be governed by one and the same noun:–
“Although ’twas _our_ and _their_ opinion Each other’s church was but a Rimmon.”–_Hudibras_.
OBS. 3.–_Mine_ and _thine_ were formerly preferred to _my_ and _thy_, before all words beginning with a vowel sound; or rather, _mine_ and _thine_ were the original forms,[207] and _my_ and _thy_ were first substituted for them before consonants, and afterwards before vowels: as, “But it was thou, a man _mine_ equal, _my_ guide, and _mine_ acquaintance.”–_Psalms_, lv, 13. “_Thy_ prayers and _thine_ alms are come up for a memorial before God.”–_Acts_, x, 4. When the Bible was translated, either form appears to have been used before the letter _h_; as, “Hath not _my hand_ made all these things?”–_Acts_, vii, 50. “By stretching forth _thine hand_ to heal.”–_Acts_, iv, 30. According to present practice, _my_ and _thy_ are in general to be preferred before all nouns, without regard to the sounds of letters. The use of the other forms, in the manner here noticed, has now become obsolete; or, at least, antiquated, and peculiar to the poets. We occasionally meet with it in modern verse, though not very frequently, and only where the melody of the line seems to require it: as,
“Time writes no wrinkle on _thine_ azure brow.”–_Byron_.
“Deign on the passing world to turn _thine_ eyes.”–_Johnson_.
“_Mine_ eyes beheld the messenger divine.”–_Lusiad_.
“_Thine_ ardent symphony sublime and high.”–_Sir W. Scott_.
OBS. 4.–The possessives _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, usually denote possession, or the relation of property, with an _ellipsis_ of the name of the thing possessed; as, “My sword and _yours_ are kin.”–_Shakspeare_. Here _yours_ means _your sword_. “You may imagine what kind of faith _theirs_ was.”–_Bacon_. Here _theirs_ means _their faith_. “He ran headlong into his own ruin whilst he endeavoured to precipitate _ours_.”–_Bolingbroke_. Here _ours_ means _our ruin_. “Every one that heareth these saying of _mine_.”–_Matt._, vii, 26. Here _mine_ means _my sayings_. “Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of _his_.”–_Psalms_, xxx, 4. Here _his_ means _his saints_. The noun which governs the possessive, is here _understood_ after it, being inferred from that which precedes, as it is in all the foregoing instances. “And the man of _thine_, whom I shall not cut off from _mine_ altar, shall be to consume _thine_ eyes, and to grieve _thine_ heart.”–_1 Samuel_, ii, 33. Here _thine_, in the first phrase, means _thy men_; but, in the subsequent parts of the sentence, both _mine and thine_ mean neither more nor less than _thy_ and _my_, because there is no ellipsis. _Of_ before the possessive case, governs the noun which is understood after this case; and is always taken in a _partitive_ sense, and not as the sign of the possessive relation: as, “When we say, ‘a soldier _of the king’s_’, we mean, ‘_one of_ the king’s _soldiers_.'”–_Webster’s Improved Gram._, p. 29. There is therefore an ellipsis of the word _soldiers_, in the former phrase. So, in the following example, _mine_ is used elliptically for _my feet_; or rather, _feet_ is understood after _mine_, though _mine feet_ is no longer good English, for reasons before stated:–
“Ere I absolve thee, stoop I that on thy neck Levelled with earth tins _foot of mine_ may tread.”–_Wordsworth_.
OBS. 5.–Respecting the _possessive case_ of the simple personal pronouns, there appears among our grammarians a strange diversity of sentiment. Yet is there but one view of the matter, that has in it either truth or reason, consistency or plausibility. And, in the opinion of any judicious teacher, an erroneous classification of words so common and so important as these, may well go far to condemn any system of grammar in which it is found. A pronoun agrees in person, number, and gender, with the noun _for which it is a substitute_; and, if it is in the possessive case, it is usually governed by _an other noun_ expressed or implied after it. That is, if it denotes possession, it stands for the name of the possessor, and is governed by the name of the thing possessed. Now do not _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_, and _mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, all equally denote possession? and do they not severally show by their forms the person, the number, and sometimes also the gender, of whomever or whatever they make to be the possessor? If they do, they are all of them _pronouns_, and nothing else; all found in the _possessive case_, and nowhere else. It is true, that in Latin, Greek, and some other languages, there are not only genitive cases corresponding to these possessives, but also certain declinable adjectives which we render in English by these same words: that is, by _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours; thy_ or _thine, your_ or _yours_; &c. But this circumstance affords no valid argument for considering any of these English terms to be mere adjectives; and, say what we will, it is plain that they have not the signification of adjectives, nor can we ascribe to them the construction of adjectives, without making their grammatical agreement to be what it very manifestly is not. They never agree, in any respect, with the nouns which _follow_ them, unless it be by mere accident. This view of the matter is sustained by the authority of many of our English grammars; as may be seen by the declensions given by Ash, C. Adams, Ainsworth, R. W. Bailey, Barnard, Buchanan, Bicknell, Blair, Burn, Butler, Comly, Churchill, Cobbett, Dalton, Davenport, Dearborn, Farnum, A. Flint, Fowler, Frost, Gilbert, S. S. Green, Greenleaf, Hamlin, Hiley, Kirkham, Merchant, Murray the schoolmaster, Parkhurst, Picket, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R. C. Smith, Wilcox.
OBS. 6.–In opposition to the classification and doctrine adopted above, many of our grammarians teach, that _my, thy, this, her, our, your, their_, are adjectives or “adjective pronouns;” and that _mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, are personal pronouns in the possessive case. Among the supporters of this notion, are D. Adams, Alden, Alger, Allen, Bacon, Barrett, Bingham, Bucke, Bullions, Cutler, Fisk, Frost, (in his small Grammar,) Guy, Hall, Hart, Harrison, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Lennie, Lowth, Miller, L. Murray, Pond, T. Smith, Spear, Spencer, Staniford, Webber, Woodworth. The authority of all these names, however, amounts to little more than that of one man; for Murray pretended to follow Lowth, and nearly all the rest copied Murray. Dr. Lowth says, “_Thy, my, her, our, your, their_, are pronominal adjectives; but _his_, (that is, _he’s_,) _her’s, our’s, your’s, their’s_, have evidently the form of the possessive case: And, by analogy, _mine, thine_, may be esteemed of the same rank.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 23.[208] But why did he not see, that by the same analogy, and also by the sense and meaning of the words, as well as by their distinctions of person, number, and gender, all the other six are entitled to “the same rank?” Are not the forms of _my, thy, her, our, your, their_, as fit to denote the relation of property, and to be called the possessive case, as _mine, thine, his_, or any others? In grammar, all needless distinctions are reprehensible. And where shall we find a more blamable one than this? It seems to have been based merely upon the false notion, that the possessive case of pronouns ought to be formed like that of nouns; whereas custom has clearly decided that they shall always be different: the former must never be written with an apostrophe; and the latter, never without it. Contrary to all good usage, however, the Doctor here writes “_her’s, our’s, your’s, their’s_,” each with a needless apostrophe. Perhaps he thought it would serve to strengthen his position; and help to refute what some affirmed, that all these words are adjectives.
OBS. 7.–Respecting _mine, thine_, and _his_, Lowth and L. Murray disagree. The latter will have them to be sometimes “_possessive pronouns_,” and sometimes “_possessive cases_.” An admirable distinction this for a great author to make! too slippery for even the inventor’s own hold, and utterly unintelligible to those who do not know its history! In short, these authors disagree also concerning _my, thy, her, our, your, their_; and where two leaders of a party are at odds with each other, and each is in the wrong, what is to be expected from their followers? Perceiving that Lowth was wrong in calling these words “_pronominal adjectives_,” Murray changed the term to “_possessive pronouns_,” still retaining the class entire; and accordingly taught, in his early editions, that, “There are _four kinds_ of pronouns, viz., the personal, _the possessive, the_ relative, and _the_ adjective pronouns.”–_Murray’s Gram._, 2d Edition, p. 37. “The Possessive Pronouns are such as principally relate to possession or property. There are seven of them; viz. _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_. The possessives _his, mine, thine_, may be accounted either _possessive pronouns_, or the _possessive cases_ of their respective personal pronouns.”–_Ib._, p. 40. He next idly demonstrates that these seven words may come before nouns of any number or case, without variation; then, forgetting his own distinction, adds, “When they are separated from the noun, all of them, except _his_, vary _their terminations_; as, this hat is _mine_, and the other is _thine_; those trinkets are _hers_; this house is _ours_, and that is _yours; theirs_ is more commodious than _ours_”–_Ib._, p. 40. Thus all his personal pronouns of the possessive case, he then made to be inflections of pronouns of _a different class!_ What are they now? Seek the answer under the head of that gross solecism, “_Adjective Pronouns_.” You may find it in one half of our English grammars.
OBS. 8.–Any considerable error in the classing of words, does not stand alone; it naturally brings others in its train. Murray’s “_Adjective Pronouns_,” (which he now subdivides into four little classes, _possessive, distributive, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_,) being all of them misnamed and misplaced in his etymology, have led both him and many others into strange errors in syntax. The _possessives only_ are “pronouns;” and these are pronouns of the possessive _case_. As such, they agree with the _antecedent_ nouns for which they stand, in _person, number_, and _gender_; and are governed, like all other possessives, by the nouns which follow them. The rest are _not pronouns_, but pronominal _adjectives_; and, as such, they relate to nouns expressed or understood _after them_. Accordingly, they have none of the above-mentioned qualities, except that the words _this_ and _that_ form the plurals _these_ and _those_. Or, if we choose to ascribe to a pronominal adjective all the properties of the noun understood, it is merely for the sake of brevity in parsing. The difference, then, between a “pronominal adjective” and an “adjective pronoun,” should seem to be this; that the one is _an adjective_, and the other _a pronoun_: it is like the difference between a _horserace_ and a _racehorse_. What can be hoped from the grammarian who cannot discern it? And what can be made of rules and examples like the following? “Adjective _pronouns_ must agree, in number, with _their substantives_: as, ‘_This_ book, _these_ books; _that_ sort, _those_ sorts; _another_ road, _other_ roads.'”–_Murray’s Gram._, Rule viii, _Late Editions; Alger’s Murray_, p. 56; _Alden’s, 85; Bacon’s, 48; Maltby’s, 59; Miller’s, 66; Merchant’s, 81; S. Putnam’s, 10; and others_. “Pronominal _adjectives_ must agree with _their nouns_ in gender, number, and person; thus, ‘_My son_, hear the instructions of _thy_ father.’ ‘Call the _labourers_, and give them _their_ hire.'”–_Maunder’s Gram._, Rule xvii. Here Murray gives a rule for _pronouns_, and illustrates it by _adjectives_; and Maunder, as ingeniously blunders in reverse: he gives a rule for _adjectives_, and illustrates it by _pronouns_. But what do they mean by “_their substantives_,” or “_their nouns_?” As applicable to _pronouns_, the phrase should mean _nouns antecedent_; as applicable to _adjectives_, it should mean _nouns subsequent_. Both these rules are therefore false, and fit only to bewilder; and the examples to both are totally inapplicable. Murray’s was once essentially right, but he afterwards corrupted it, and a multitude of his admirers have since copied the perversion. It formerly stood thus: “The pronominal adjectives _this_ and _that, &c_. and the numbers[209] _one, two_, &c., must agree in number with their substantives: as, ‘This book, these books; that sort, those sorts; one girl, ten girls; another road, other roads.’ “–_Murray’s Gram._, Rule viii, 2d Ed., 1796.
OBS. 9.–Among our grammarians, some of considerable note have contended, that the personal pronouns have but _two cases_, the nominative and the objective. Of this class, may be reckoned Brightland, Dr. Johnson, Fisher, Mennye, Cardell, Cooper, Dr. Jas. P. Wilson, W. B. Fowle. and, according to his late grammars, Dr. Webster. But, in contriving what to make of _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours, thy_ or _thine, your_ or _yours, his, her_ or _hers, its_, and _their_ or _theirs_, they are as far from any agreement, or even from self-consistency, as the cleverest of them could ever imagine. To the person, the number, the gender, and the case, of each of these words, they either profess themselves to be total strangers, or else prove themselves so, by the absurdities they teach. Brightland calls them “Possessive Qualities, or Qualities of Possession;” in which class he also embraces all _nouns_ of the possessive case. Johnson calls them pronouns; and then says of them, “The possessive _pronouns_, like _other adjectives_, are without _cases_ or change of termination.”–_Gram._, p. 6. Fisher calls them “Personal Possessive Qualities;” admits the person of _my, our_, &c.; but supposes _mine, ours_, &c. to supply the place of the _nouns which govern them!_ Mennye makes them one of his three classes of pronouns, “_personal, possessive_, and _relative_;” giving to both forms the rank which Murray once gave, and which Allen now gives, to the first form only. Cardell places them among his “defining adjectives.” With Fowle, these, and all other possessives, are “possessive adjectives.” Cooper, in his grammar of 1828. copies the last scheme of Murray: in that of 1831, he avers that the personal pronouns “want the possessive case.” Now, like Webster and Wilson, he will have _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, to be pronouns of the nominative or the objective case. Dividing the pronouns into six general classes, he makes these the fifth; calling them “Possessive Pronouns,” but preferring in a note the monstrous name, “_Possessive Pronouns Substitute_.” His sixth class are what he calls, “The Possessive Pronominal _Adjectives_;” namely, “_my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, its, own_, and sometimes _mine_ and _thine_.”–_Cooper’s Pl. and Pr. Gram._, p. 43. But all these he has, unquestionably, either misplaced or misnamed; while he tells us, that, “Simplicity of arrangement should be the object of every compiler.”–_Ib._, p. 33. Dr. Perley, (in whose scheme of grammar all the pronouns are _nouns_,) will have _my, thy, his, her, its, our, your_, and _their_, to be in the possessive case; but of _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, he says, “These may be called _Desiderative Personal Pronouns_.”–_Perley’s Gram._, p. 15.
OBS. 10.–Kirkham, though he professes to follow Murray, declines the simple personal pronouns as I have declined them; and argues admirably, that _my, thy, his, &c._, are pronouns of the possessive case, because, “They always _stand for nouns in the possessive case_.” But he afterwards contradicts both himself and the common opinion of all former grammarians, in referring _mine, thine, hers_, &c., to the class of “_Compound Personal Pronouns._” Nay, as if to outdo even himself in absurdity, he first makes _mine, thine, hers, ours_, &c., to be compounds, by assuming that, “These _pluralizing adjuncts, ne_ and _s_, were, no doubt, formerly detached from the pronouns with which they now coalesce;” and then, because he finds in each of his supposed compounds the signification of a pronoun and its governing noun, reassumes, in parsing them, the very principle of error, on which he condemns their common classification. He says, “They should be parsed _as two words_.” He also supposes them to represent the nouns _which govern them_–nouns with which they do not agree in any respect! Thus is he wrong in almost every thing he says about them. See _Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 99, p. 101, and p. 104. Goodenow, too, a still later writer, adopts the major part of all this absurdity. He will have _my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, their_, for the possessive case of his personal pronouns; but _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, he calls “_compound possessive pronouns_, in the subjective or [the] objective case.”–_Text-Book of E. Gram._, p. 33. Thus he introduces a new class, unknown to his primary division of the pronouns, and not included in his scheme of their declension. Fuller, too, in a grammar produced at Plymouth, Mass., in 1822, did nearly the same thing. He called _I, thou, he, she_, and _it_, with their plurals, “_antecedent_ pronouns;” took _my, thy, his, her_, &c., for their _only_ possessive forms in his declension; and, having passed from them by the space of just half his book, added: “Sometimes, to prevent the repetition of the same word, an _antecedent pronoun in the possessive case_, is made to represent, both the pronoun and a noun; as, ‘That book is _mine_’–i. e. ‘_my book_.’ MINE is a _compound antecedent pronoun_, and is equivalent to _my_ book. Then parse _my_, and _book_, as though they were both expressed.”–_Fuller’s Gram._, p. 71.
OBS. 11.–Amidst all this diversity of doctrine at the very centre of grammar, who shall so fix its principles that our schoolmasters and schoolmistresses may know _what to believe and teach_? Not he that speculates without regard to other men’s views; nor yet he that makes it a merit to follow implicitly “the footsteps of” _one only_. The true principles of grammar are with the learned; and that man is in the wrong, with whom the _most_ learned will not, in general, coincide. Contradiction of falsities, is necessary to the maintenance of truth; correction of errors, to the success of science. But not every man’s errors can be so considerable as to deserve correction from other hands than his own. Misinstruction in grammar has for this reason generally escaped censure. I do not wish any one to coincide with me merely through ignorance of what others inculcate. If doctors of divinity and doctors of laws will contradict themselves in teaching grammar, so far as they do so, the lovers of consistency will find it necessary to deviate from their track. Respecting these pronouns, I learned in childhood, from Webster, a doctrine which he now declares to be false. This was nearly the same as Lowth’s, which is quoted in the sixth observation above. But, in stead of correcting its faults, this zealous reformer has but run into others still greater. Now, with equal reproach to his etymology, his syntax, and his logic, he denies that our pronouns have any form of the possessive case at all. But grant the obvious fact, that _substitution_ is one thing, and _ellipsis_ an other, and his whole argument is easily overthrown; for it is only by confounding these, that he reaches his absurd conclusion.
OBS. 12.–Dr. Webster’s doctrine now is, that none of the English pronouns have more than two cases. He says, “_mine, thine, his, hers, yours_, and _theirs_, are _usually considered_ as [being of] the possessive case. But the _three first_ are either attributes, and used with nouns, or they are substitutes. The _three last_ are always substitutes, used in the place of names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD.”–“That _mine, thine, his_, [_ours_,] _yours, hers_, and _theirs_, do not constitute a possessive case, is demonstrable; for they are constantly used as the nominatives to verbs and as the objectives after verbs and prepositions, as in the following passages. ‘Whether it could perform its operations of thinking and memory out of a body organized as _ours is_.’–_Locke_. ‘The reason is, that his subject is generally things; _theirs_, on the contrary, _is_ persons.’–_Camp. Rhet._ ‘Therefore leave your forest of beasts for _ours_ of brutes, called men.’–_Wycherley to Pope_. It is needless to multiply proofs. We observe these _pretended possessives_ uniformly used as nominatives or objectives.[210] Should it be said that _a noun is understood_; I reply, _this cannot be true_,” &c.–_Philosophical Gram._, p. 35; _Improved Gram._, p. 26. Now, whether it be true or not, this very position is expressly affirmed by the Doctor himself, in the citation above; though he is, unquestionably, wrong in suggesting that the pronouns are “used _in the place_ of [those] names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD.” They are used in the place of other names–the names of _the possessors_; and are governed by those which he here both admits and denies to be “understood.”
OBS. 13.–The other arguments of Dr. Webster against the possessive case of pronouns, may perhaps be more easily answered than some readers imagine. The first is drawn from the fact that conjunctions connect like cases. “Besides, in three passages just quoted, the word _yours_ is joined by a connective _to a name_ in the same case; ‘To ensure _yours_ and _their immortality_.’ ‘The easiest part of _yours_ and _my design_.’ ‘_My sword_ and _yours_ are kin.’ Will any person pretend that the connective here joins different cases?”–_Improved Gram._, p. 28; _Philosophical Gram._, p. 36. I answer, No. But it is falsely assumed that _yours_ is here connected by _and_ to _immortality_, to _design_, or to _sword_; because these words are again severally understood after _yours_: or, if otherwise, the two pronouns alone are connected by _and_, so that the proof is rather, that _their_ and _my_ are in the possessive case. The second argument is drawn from the use of the preposition _of_ before the possessive. “For we say correctly, ‘an acquaintance _of yours, ours_, or _theirs_’–_of_ being the sign of the possessive; but if the words in themselves are possessives, then there must be two signs of the same case, which is absurd.”–_Improved Gram._, p. 28; _Phil. Gr._, 36. I deny that _of_ is here the sign of the possessive, and affirm that it is taken partitively, in all examples of this sort. “I know my sheep, and am known _of mine_,” is not of this kind; because _of_ here means _by_–a sense in which the word is antiquated. In recurring afterwards to this argument, the Doctor misquotes the following texts, and avers that they “are evidently meant to include the _whole number_: ‘Sing _to_ the Lord, _all_ ye saints of _his_.’–_Ps._ 30, 4. ‘_He_ that heareth these sayings _of mine_.’–_Matt._ 7.”–_Improved Gram._, p. 29; _Phil. Gr._, 38. If he is right about the meaning, however, the passages are mistranslated, as well as misquoted: they ought to be, “Sing _unto_ the Lord, _O ye his Saints_.”–“_Every one_ that heareth _these my sayings_.” But when a definitive particle precedes the noun, it is very common with us, to introduce the possessive elliptically after it; and what Dr. Wilson means by suggesting that it is erroneous, I know not: “When the preposition _of_ precedes _mine, ours, yours_, &c. the _errour_ lies, not in this, that there are double possessive cases, but in forming an implication of a noun, which the substitute already denotes, together with the persons.”–_Essay on Gram._, p. 110.
OBS. 14.–In his Syllabus of English Grammar, Dr. Wilson teaches thus: “_My, our, thy, your, his, her, its, their, whose_, and _whosesoever_ are possessive pronominal _adjectives. Ours, yours, hers_, and _theirs_ are _pronoun substantives_, used either as subjects, or [as] objects; as singulars, or [as] plurals; and are substituted both for [the names of] the possessors, and [for those of the] things possessed. _His, its, whose, mine_, and _thine_, are sometimes used as _such substantives_; but also are at other times _pronominal possessive_ adjectives.”–_Wilson’s Syllabus_, p. X. Now compare with these three positions, the following three from the same learned author. “In Hebrew, the _adjective_ generally agrees with its noun in gender and number, but _pronouns_ follow the gender of their antecedents, and not of the nouns with which they stand. So in English, _my, thy, his, her, its, our, your_, and _their_, agree with the nouns they represent, in number, gender, and person. But _adjectives_, having no change expressive of number, gender, or case, cannot accord with their nouns.”–_Wilson’s Essay on Gram._, p. 192. “_Ours, yours, hers_, and _theirs_, are most usually considered possessive cases of personal pronouns; but they are, more probably, possessive substitutes, not adjectives, but _nouns_.”–_Ib._, p. 109. “Nor can _mine_ or _thine_, with any more propriety than _ours, yours_, &c. be joined to any noun, as possessive adjectives and possessive cases may.”–_Ib._, p. 110. Whoever understands these instructions, cannot but see their inconsistency.
OBS. 15.–Murray argues at some length, without naming his opponents, that the words which he assumes to be such, are really personal pronouns standing rightfully in the possessive case; and that, “they should not, on the slight pretence of their differing from nouns, be dispossessed of the right and privilege, which, from time immemorial they have enjoyed.”–_Octavo Gram._, p. 53. Churchill as ably shows, that the corresponding terms, which Lowth calls _pronominal adjectives_, and which Murray and others will have to be _pronouns of no case_, are justly entitled to the same rank. “If _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, be the possessive case; _my, thy, her, our, your, their_, must be the same. Whether we say, ‘It is _John’s_ book,’ or, ‘The book is _John’s_;’ _John’s_ is not less the possessive case in one instance, than it is in the other. If we say, ‘It is _his_ book,’ or, ‘The book is _his_;’ ‘It is _her_ book,’ or, ‘The book is _hers_;’ ‘It is _my_ book,’ or, ‘The book is _mine_;’ ‘It is _your_ book,’ or, ‘The book is _yours_;’ are not these parallel instances? Custom has established it as a law, that this case of the pronoun shall drop its original termination, for the sake of euphony, when it precedes the noun that governs it; retaining it only where the noun is understood: but this certainly makes no alteration in the nature of the word; so that either _my_ is as much a possessive case as _mine_; or _mine_ and _my_ are equally pronominal adjectives.”–_Churchill’s New Gram._, p. 221. “Mr. Murray considers the phrases, ‘_our desire_,’ ‘_your intention_,’ ‘_their resignation_,’ as instances of plural adjectives _agreeing_ with singular nouns; and consequently exceptions to the general (may we not say _universal_?) rule: but if they [the words _our, your, their_,] be, as is attempted to be proved above, the possessive cases of pronouns, no rule is here violated.”–_Ib._, p. 224.
OBS. 16.–One strong argument, touching this much-disputed point of grammar, was incidentally noticed in the observations upon antecedents: an adjective cannot give person, number, and gender, to a relative pronoun; because, in our language, adjectives do not possess these qualities; nor indeed in any other, except as they take them by immediate agreement with nouns or pronouns in the same clause. But it is undeniable, that _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_, do sometimes stand as antecedents, and give person, number, and gender to relatives, which head other clauses. For the learner should remember, that, “When a relative pronoun is used, the sentence is divided into two parts; viz. the _antecedent_ sentence, or that which contains the _antecedent_; and the _relative_ sentence, containing the _relative_.”–_Nixon’s Parser_, p. 123. We need not here deny, that Terence’s Latin, as quoted in the grammars, “Omnes laudare fortunas _meas, qui_ haberem gnatum tali ingeuio praeditum,” is quite as intelligible syntax, as can literally be made of it in English–“That all would praise _my_ fortunes, _who had_ a son endued with such a genius.” For, whether the Latin be good or not, it affords no argument against us, except that of a supposed analogy; nor does the literality of the version prove, at all points, either the accuracy or the sameness of the construction.
OBS. 17.–Surely, without some imperative reason, we ought not, in English, to resort to such an assumption as is contained in the following Rule: “Sometimes the relative agrees in person with that pronoun substantive, from which the possessive pronoun adjective is derived; as, Pity _my_ condition, _who am_ so destitute. I rejoice at _thy_ lot, _who art_ so fortunate. We lament _his_ fate, _who is_ so unwary. Beware of _her_ cunning, _who is_ so deceitful. Commiserate _our_ condition, _who are_ so poor. Tremble at _your_ negligence, _who are_ so careless. It shall be _their_ property, _who are_ so diligent. We are rejoicing at _thy_ lot, _who hast_ been so fortunate.”–_Nixon’s Parser_, p. 142. In his explanation of the last of these sentences, the author says, “_Who_ is a relative pronoun; in the masculine gender, singular number, second person, and agrees with _thee_, implied in the adjective _thy_. RULE.–Sometimes the relative agrees in person, &c. And it is the nominative to the verb _hast been_. RULE.–When no nominative comes between the relative and the verb, the relative is the nominative to the verb.”–_Ib._, p. 143. A pupil of G. Brown’s would have said, “_Who_ is a relative pronoun, representing ‘_thy_,’ or the person addressed, in the second person, singular number, and masculine gender; according to the rule which says, ‘A pronoun must agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in person, number, and gender:’ and is in the nominative case, being the subject of _hast been_; according to the rule which says, ‘A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.’ Because the meaning is–_who hast been_; that is, _thy lot_, or the lot _of thee, who hast been_.”
OBS. 18.–Because the possessive case of a noun or pronoun is usually equivalent in meaning to the preposition _of_ and the objective case, some grammarians, mistaking this equivalence of meaning for sameness of case, have asserted that all our possessives have a double form. Thus Nixon: “When the particle _of_ comes between two substantives signifying different things, it is not to be considered a preposition, but _the sign of the substantive’s being in the possessive case_, equally as if the apostrophic _s_ had been affixed to it; as, ‘The skill _of Caesar_,’ or _Caesar’s_ skill.'”–_English Parser_, p. 38. “When the apostrophic _s_ is used, the genitive is the former of the two substantives; as, ‘_John’s_ house:’ but when the particle _of_ is used, it is the latter; as, ‘The house _of John_.'”–_Ib._, p. 46. The work here quoted is adapted to two different grammars; namely, Murray’s and Allen’s. These the author doubtless conceived to be the best English grammars extant. And it is not a little remarkable, that both of these authors, as well as many others, teach in such a faulty manner, that their intentions upon this point may be matter of dispute. “When Murray, Allen, and others, say, ‘we make use of the particle _of_ to express the _relation_ of the genitive,’ the ambiguity of their assertion leaves it in doubt whether or not they considered the substantive which is preceded by _of_ and an other substantive, as in the _genitive_ case.”–_Nixon’s English Parser_, p. 38. Resolving this doubt according to his own fancy, Nixon makes the possessive case of our personal pronouns to be as follows: “_mine_ or _of me, ours_ or _of us; thine_ or _of thee, yours_ or _of you; his_ or _of him, theirs_ or _of them; hers_ or _of her, theirs_ or _of them; its_ or _of it, theirs_ or _of them_.”–_English Parser_, p. 43. This doctrine gives us a form of declension that is both complex and deficient. It is therefore more objectionable than almost any of those which are criticised above. The arguments and authorities on which the author rests his position, are not thought likely to gain many converts; for which reason, I dismiss the subject, without citing or answering them.
OBS. 19.–In old books, we sometimes find the word _I_ written for the adverb _ay_, yes: as, “To dye, to sleepe; To sleepe, perchance to dreame; _I_, there’s the rub.”–_Shakspeare, Old Copies_. The British Grammar, printed in 1784, and the Grammar of Murray the schoolmaster, published some years earlier than Lindley Murray’s, say: “We use _I_ as an Answer, in a familiar, careless, or merry Way; as, ‘I, I, Sir, I, I;’ but to use _ay_, is accounted rude, especially to our Betters.” See _Brit. Gram._, p. 198. The age of this rudeness, or incivility, if it ever existed, has long passed away; and the fashion seems to be so changed, that to write or utter _I_ for _ay_, would now in its turn be “accounted _rude_”–the rudeness of ignorance–a false orthography, or a false pronunciation. In the word _ay_, the two sounds of _ah-ee_ are plainly heard; in the sound of _I_, the same elements are more quickly blended. (See a note at the foot of page 162.) When this sound is suddenly repeated, some writers make a new word of it, which must be called an _interjection_: as, “‘Pray, answer me a question or two.’ ‘_Ey, ey_, as many as you please, cousin Bridget, an they be not too hard.'”–_Burgh’s Speaker_, p. 99. “_Ey, ey_, ’tis so; she’s out of her head, poor thing.”–_Ib._, p. 100. This is probably a corruption of _ay_, which is often doubled in the same manner: thus,
“_Ay, ay_, Antipholus, look strange, and frown.”–_Shakspeare_.
OBS. 20.–The common fashion of address being nowadays altogether in the plural form, the pronouns _thou, thy, thine, thee_, and _thyself_, have become unfamiliar to most people, especially to the vulgar and uneducated. These words are now confined almost exclusively to the writings of the poets, to the language of the Friends, to the Holy Scriptures, and to the solemn services of religion. They are, however, the _only genuine_ representatives of the second person singular, in English; and to displace them from that rank in grammar, or to present _you, your_, and _yours_, as being literally singular, though countenanced by several late writers, is a useless and pernicious innovation. It is sufficient for the information of the learner, and far more consistent with learning and taste, to say, that the plural is fashionably used _for the singular_, by a figure of syntax; for, in all correct usage of this sort, the _verb_ is plural, as well as the pronoun–Dr. Webster’s fourteen authorities to the contrary notwithstanding. For, surely, “_You was_” cannot be considered good English, merely because that number of respectable writers have happened, on some particular occasions, to adopt the phrase; and even if we must needs concede this point, and grant to the Doctor and his converts, that “_You was_ is _primitive_ and _correct_,” the example no more proves that _you_ is singular, than that _was_ is plural. And what is one singular irregular preterit, compared with all the verbs in the language?
OBS. 21.–In our present authorized version of the Bible, the numbers and cases of the second person are kept remarkably distinct,[211] the pronouns being always used in the following manner: _thou_ for the nominative, _thy_ or _thine_ for the possessive, and _thee_ for the objective, singular; _ye_ for the nominative, _your_ or _yours_ for the possessive, and _you_ for the objective, plural. Yet, before that version was made, fashionable usage had commonly substituted _you_ for _ye_, making the former word nominative as well as objective, and applying it to one hearer as well as to more. And subsequently, as it appears, the religious sect that entertained a scruple about applying _you_ to an individual, fell for the most part into an ungrammatical practice of putting _thee_ for _thou_; making, in like manner, the objective pronoun to be both nominative and objective; or, at least, using it very commonly so in their conversation. Their manner of speaking, however, was not–or, certainly, with the present generation of their successors, _is_ not–as some grammarians represent it to be, that formal and antique phraseology which we call _the solemn style_.[212] They make no more use of the pronoun _ye_, or of the verbal termination _eth_, than do people of fashion; nor do they, in using the pronoun _thou_, or their improper nominative _thee_, ordinarily inflect with _st_ or _est_ the preterits or the auxiliaries of the accompanying verbs, as is done in the solemn style. Indeed, to use the solemn style familiarly, would be, to turn it into burlesque; as when Peter Pindar “_telleth what he troweth._” [213] And let those who think with Murray, that our present version of the Scriptures _is the best standard_ of English grammar,[214] remember that in it they have no warrant for substituting _s_ or _es_ for the old termination _eth_, any more than for ceasing to use the solemn style of the second person familiarly. That version was good in its day, yet it shows but very imperfectly what the English language now is. Can we consistently take for our present standard, a style which does not allow us to use _you_ in the nominative case, or _its_ for the possessive? And again, is not a simplification of the verb as necessary and proper in the familiar use of the second person singular, as in that of the third? This latter question I shall discuss in a future chapter.
OBS. 22.–The use of the pronoun _ye_ in the nominative case, is now mostly confined to the solemn style;[215] but the use of it in the objective, which is disallowed in the solemn style, and nowhere approved by our grammarians, is nevertheless _common_ when no emphasis falls upon the word: as,
“When you’re unmarried, never load _ye_ With jewels; they may incommode _ye_.”–_Dr. King_, p. 384.
Upon this point, Dr. Lowth observes, “Some writers have used _ye_ as the objective case plural of the pronoun of the second person, very improperly and ungrammatically; [as,]
‘The more shame for _ye_; holy men I thought _ye_.’ Shak. Hen. VIII.
‘But tyrants dread _ye_, lest your just decree Transfer the pow’r, and set the people free.’ Prior.
‘His wrath, which one day will destroy _ye_ both.’ Milt. P. L. ii. 734.
Milton uses the same manner of expression in a few other places of his Paradise Lost, and more frequently in his [smaller] poems, _It may, perhaps, be allowed in the comic and burlesque style_, which often imitates a vulgar and incorrect pronunciation; but in the serious and solemn style, _no authority is sufficient_ to justify so manifest a solecism.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 22. Churchill copies this remark, and adds; “Dryden has _you_ as the nominative, and _ye_ as the objective, in the same passage:[216]
‘What gain _you_, by forbidding it to tease _ye_? It now can neither trouble _ye_, nor please _ye_.’
Was this from a notion, that _you_ and _ye_, thus employed, were more analogous to _thou_ and _thee_ in the singular number?”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 25. I answer, No; but, more probably, from a notion, that the two words, being now confessedly equivalent in the one case, might as well be made so in the other: just as the Friends, in using _thee_ for _you_, are carelessly converting the former word into a nominative, to the exclusion of _thou_; because the latter has generally been made so, to the exclusion of _ye_. When the confounding of such distinctions is begun, who knows where it will end? With like ignorance, some writers suppose, that the fashion of using the plural for the singular is a sufficient warrant for putting the singular for the plural: as,
“The joys of love, are they not doubly _thine, Ye poor!_ whose health, whose spirits ne’er decline?” –_Southwick’s Pleas. of Poverty._
“But, _Neatherds_, go look to the kine, Their cribs with fresh fodder supply; The task of compassion be _thine_,
For herbage the pastures deny.”–_Perfect’s Poems_, p. 5.
OBS. 23.–When used in a burlesque or ludicrous manner, the pronoun _ye_ is sometimes a mere expletive; or, perhaps, intended rather as an objective governed by a preposition understood. But, in such a construction, I see no reason to prefer it to the regular objective _you_; as,
“He’ll laugh _ye_, dance _ye_, sing _ye_, vault, look gay, And ruffle all the ladies in his play.”–_King_, p. 574.
Some grammarians, who will have _you_ to be singular as well as plural, ignorantly tell us, that “_ye_ always means more than one.” But the fact is, that when _ye_ was in common use, it was as frequently applied to one person as _you_: thus,
“Farewell my doughter lady Margarete, God wotte full oft it grieued hath my mynde, That _ye_ should go where we should seldome mete: Now am I gone, and haue left _you_ behynde.”–_Sir T. More_, 1503.
In the following example, _ye_ is used for _thee_, the objective singular; and that by one whose knowledge of the English language, is said to have been unsurpassed:–
“Proud Baronet of Nova Scotia!
The Dean and Spaniard must reproach _ye_.”–_Swift_.
So in the story of the Chameleon:–
“‘Tis green, ’tis green, Sir, I assure _ye_.”–_Merrick_.
Thus we have _ye_ not only for the nominative in both numbers, but at length for the objective in both; _ye_ and _you_ being made everywhere equivalent, by very many writers. Indeed this pronoun has been so frequently used for the objective case, that one may well doubt any grammarian’s authority to condemn it in that construction. Yet I cannot but think it ill-chosen in the third line below, though right in the first:–
“_Ye_! who have traced the Pilgrim to the scene Which is his last, if in your memories dwell A thought which once was his, if on _ye_ swell A single recollection, not in vain
He wore his sandal-shoon, and scallop-shell.”–_Byron_.
OBS. 24.–The three pronouns of the third person, _he, she_, and _it_, have always formed their plural number after one and the same manner, _they, their_ or _theirs, them_. Or, rather, these plural words, which appear not to be regular derivatives from any of the singulars, have ever been applied alike to them all. But _it_, the neuter pronoun singular, had formerly no variation of cases, and is still alike in the nominative and the objective. The possessive _its_ is of comparatively recent origin. In our common Bible, the word is not found, except by misprint; nor do other writings of the same age contain it. The phrase, _of it_, was often used as an equivalent; as, “And it had three ribs in the mouth _of it_ between the teeth _of it_.”–_Dan._, vii, 5. That is–“in _its_ mouth, between _its_ teeth.” But, as a possessive case was sometimes necessary, our ancestors used to borrow one; commonly from the masculine, though sometimes from the feminine. This produced what now appears a strange confusion of the genders: as, “_Learning_ hath _his_ infancy, when _it_ is but beginning, and almost childish; then _his_ youth, when _it_ is luxuriant and juvenile; then _his_ strength of years, when _it_ is solid and reduced; and lastly _his_ old age, when _it_ waxeth dry and exhaust.”–_Bacon’s Essays_, p. 58. “Of beaten work shall the _candlestick_ be made: _his_ shaft, and _his_ branches, _his_ bowls, _his_ knops, and _his_ flowers, shall be of the same.”–_Exodus_, xxv, 31. “They came and emptied the _chest_, and took _it_ and carried _it_ to _his_ place again.”–_2 Chron._, xxiv, 11. “Look not thou upon the _wine, when_ it is red, when _it_ giveth _his_ colour in the cup, when _it_ moveth _itself_ aright.”–_Prov._, xxiii, 31. “The _tree_ is known by _his_ fruit.”–_Matt._, xii, 33. “When thou tillest the ground, _it_ shall not henceforth yield unto thee _her_ strength.”–_Gen._, iv, 12. “He that pricketh the heart, maketh _it_ to show _her_ knowledge.”–_Eccl._, xxii, 19. Shakspeare rarely, if ever, used _its_; and his style is sometimes obscure for the want of it: as,
“There is no _vice_ so simple, but assumes Some mark of virtue on _his_ outward parts.” –_Merch. of Venice_.
“The name of Cassius honours this corruption, And _chastisement_ doth therefore hide _his_ head.” –_Jul. Caes._, Act iv.
OBS. 25.–The possessive case of pronouns should never be written with an apostrophe. A few pronominal adjectives taken substantively receive it; but the construction which it gives them, seems to make them nouns: as, _one’s, other’s_, and, according to Murray, _former’s_ and _latter’s_. The real pronouns that end in _s_, as _his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, though true possessives after their kind, have no occasion for this mark, nor does good usage admit it. Churchill, with equal disregard of consistency and authority, gives it to one of them, and denies it to the rest. Referring to the classification of these words as possessives, and of _my, thy, her, our, your, their_, as adjectives, he says: “It seems as if the termination in _s_ had led to the distinction: but no one will contend, that _ours_ is the possessive case of _our_, or _theirs_ of _their_; though _ours, yours, hers_, and _theirs_, are often very improperly spelt with an apostrophe, a fault not always imputable to the printer; while in _it’s_, which is unquestionably the possessive case of _it_, the apostrophe, by a strange perverseness, is almost always omitted.”–_Churchill Gram._, p. 222. The charge of strange perverseness may, in this instance, I think, be retorted upon the critic; and that, to the fair exculpation of those who choose to conform to the general usage which offends him.
OBS. 26.–Of the compound personal pronouns, this author gives the following account: “_Self_, in the plural _selves_, a noun, is often combined with the personal pronouns, in order to express emphasis, or opposition, or the identity of the subject and [the] object of a verb; and thus forms a pronoun _relative_: as, ‘I did it _myself_;’ ‘he was not _himself_, when he said so;’ ‘the envious torment _themselves_ more than others.’ Formerly _self_ and _selves_ were used simply as nouns, and governed the pronoun, which was kept distinct from _it_ [them] in the possessive case: but since _they_ [the pronoun and the noun] have coalesced into one word, _they_ [the compounds] are used only in the following forms: for the first person, _myself, ourselves_; for the second, _thyself_, or _yourself, yourselves_; for the third, _himself, herself, itself, themselves_: except in the regal style, in which, as generally in the second person, the singular noun is added to the plural pronoun, [making] _ourself_. Each of these is _the same in all three cases._”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 75. In a note referring to the close of this explanation, he adds: “_Own_ also is often employed with the possessive cases of the personal pronouns by way of emphasis, or opposition; but separately, as an adjective, and not combining with them to form _a relative_: as, ‘I did it of _my own_ free will:’ ‘Did he do it with _his own_ hand?'”–_Ib._, p. 227.
OBS. 27.–The preceding instructions, faulty and ungrammatical as they are, seem to be the best that our writers have furnished upon this point. To detect falsities and blunders, is half the grammarian’s duty. The pronouns of which the term _self_ or _selves_ forms a part, are used, not for the connecting of different clauses of a sentence, but for the purpose of emphatic distinction in the sense. In calling them “_relatives_,” Churchill is wrong, even by his own showing. They have not the characteristics which he himself ascribes to relatives; but are compound personal pronouns, and nothing else. He is also manifestly wrong in asserting, that they are severally “the same in all three cases.” From the very nature of their composition, the possessive case is alike impossible to them all. To express ownership with emphasis or distinction, we employ neither these compounds nor any others; but always use the simple possessives with the separate adjective _own_: as, “With _my own_ eyes,”–“By _thy own_ confession,”–“To _his own_ house,”–“For _her own_ father,”–“By _its own_ weight,”–“To save _our own_ lives,”–“For _your own_ sake,”–“In _their own_ cause.”
OBS. 28.–The phrases, _my own, thy own, his own_, and so forth, Dr. Perley, in his little Grammar, has improperly converted by the hyphen into compound words: calling them the possessive forms of _myself, thyself, himself_, and so forth; as if one set of compounds could constitute the possessive case of an other! And again, as if the making of eight new pronouns for two great nations, were as slight a feat, as the inserting of so many hyphens! The word _own_, anciently written _owen_, is an _adjective_; from an old form of the perfect participle of the verb _to owe_; which verb, according to Lowth and others, once signified _to possess_. It is equivalent to _due, proper_, or _peculiar_; and, in its present use as an adjective, it stands nowhere else than between the possessive case and the name of the thing possessed; as, “The Boy’s _Own_ Book,”–“Christ’s _own_ words,”–“Solomon’s _own_ and only son.” Dr. Johnson, while he acknowledges the abovementioned derivation, very strangely calls own a noun substantive; and, with not more accuracy, says: “This is a word of no other use than as it is added to the possessive pronouns, _my, thy, his, our, your, their_.”–_Quarto Dict., w. Own_. O. B. Peirce, with obvious untruth, says, “_Own_ is used in combination with a name or substitute, and as a part of it, to constitute it emphatic.”–_Gram._, p. 63. He writes it separately, but parses it as a part of the possessive noun or pronoun which precedes it!
OBS. 29.–The word _self_ was originally _an adjective_, signifying _same, very_, or _particular_; but, when used alone, it is now generally _a noun_. This may have occasioned the diversity which appears in the formation of the compound personal pronouns. Dr. Johnson, in his great Dictionary, calls _self_ a pronoun; but he explains it as being both adjective and substantive, admitting that, “Its primary signification seems to be that of an adjective.”–Again he observes, “_Myself, himself, themselves_, and the rest, may, contrary to the analogy of _my, him, them_, be used as nominatives.” _Hisself, itsself_, and _theirselves_, would be more analogical than _himself, itself, themselves_; but custom has rejected the former, and established the latter. When an adjective qualifies the term _self_, the pronouns are written separately in the possessive case; as, _My single self,–My own self,–His own self,–Their own selves_. So, anciently, without an adjective: as, “A man shall have diffused his life, _his self_, and his whole concernments so far, that he can weep his sorrows with an other’s eyes.”–_South_. “Something valuable for _its self_ without view to anything farther.”–_Harris’s Hermes_, p. 293. “That they would willingly, and of _their selves_ endeavour to keep a perpetual chastity.”–_Stat. Ed. VI. in Lowth’s Gram._, p. 26. “Why I should either _imploy my self_ in that study or put others upon it.”–_Walker’s English Particles_, p. xiv. “It is no matter whether you do it by your proctor, or by _your self_.”–_Ib._, p. 96. The compound _oneself_ is sometimes written in stead of the phrase _one’s self_; but the latter is preferable, and more common. Even _his self_, when written as two words, may possibly be right in some instances; as,
“Scorn’d be the wretch that quits his genial bowl, His loves, his friendships, ev’n _his self_, resigns; Perverts the sacred instinct of his soul, And to a ducat’s dirty sphere confines.” –SHENSTONE: _Brit. Poets_, Vol. vii, p. 107.
OBS. 30.–In poetry, and even in some compositions not woven into regular numbers, the simple personal pronouns are not unfrequently used, for brevity’s sake, in a reciprocal sense; that is, in stead of the compound personal pronouns, which are the proper reciprocals: as, “Wash _you_, make _you_ clean.”–_Isaiah_, i, 16. “I made me great works; I builded _me_ houses; I planted _me_ vineyards; I made _me_ gardens and orchards.”–_Ecclesiastes_, ii, 4. “Thou shalt surely clothe _thee_ with them all as with an ornament, and bind them on _thee_ as a bride doeth.”–_Isaiah_, xlix, 18. Compare with these the more regular expression: “As a bridegroom decketh _himself_ with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth _herself_ with jewels.”–_Isaiah_, lxi, 10. This phraseology is almost always preferable in prose; the other is a poetical license, or peculiarity: as,
“I turn _me_ from the martial roar.”–_Scott’s L. L._, p. 97.
“Hush _thee_, poor maiden, and be still.”–_Ib._, p. 110.
“Firmer he roots _him_ the ruder it blow.”–_Ib._, p. 49.
OBS. 31.–To accommodate the writers of verse, the word _ever_ is frequently contracted into _e’er_, pronounced like the monosyllable _air_. An easy extension of this license, gives us similar contractions of all the compound relative pronouns; as, _whoe’er_ or _whosoe’er, whose’er_ or _whosesoe’er, whome’er_ or _whomsoe’er, whiche’er_ or _whichsoe’er, whate’er_ or _whatsoe’er_. The character and properties of these compounds are explained, perhaps sufficiently, in the observations upon the _classes_ of pronouns. Some of them are commonly parsed as representing two cases at once; there being, in fact, an ellipsis of the noun, before or after them: as,
“Each art he prompts, each charm he can create, _Whate’er_ he gives, _are given_ for you to hate.”–_Pope’s Dunciad_.
OBS. 32.–For a form of parsing the double relative _what_, or its compound _whatever_ or _whatsoever_, it is the custom of some teachers, to suggest equivalent words, and then proceed to explain these, in lieu of the word in question. This is the method of _Russell’s Gram._, p. 99; of _Merchants_, p. 110; of _Kirkham’s_, p. 111; of _Gilbert’s_, p. 92. But it should be remembered that equivalence of meaning is not sameness of grammatical construction; and, even if the construction be the same, to parse other equivalent words, is not really to parse the text that is given. A good parser, with the liberty to supply obvious ellipses, should know how to explain all good English _as it stands_; and for a teacher to pervert good English into false doctrine, must needs seem the very worst kind of ignorance. What can be more fantastical than the following etymology, or more absurd than the following directions for parsing? “_What_ is compounded of _which that_. These words have been contracted and made to coalesce, a part of the orthography of both being still retained: _what–wh[ich–t]hat_; (_which-that_.) Anciently it appeared in the varying forms, _tha qua, qua tha, qu’tha, quthat, quhat, hwat_, and finally _what_.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 111. This bald pedantry of “_tha qua, qua tha_,” was secretly borrowed from the grammatical speculations of William S. Cardell:[217] the “_which-that_” notion contradicts it, and is partly of the borrower’s own invention. If _what_ is a compound, it was compounded more than a thousand years ago; and, of course, long before any part of the English language existed as such. King Alfred used it, as he found it, in the Saxon form of _hwaet_. The Scotch afterwards spelled it _quhat_. Our English grammarians have _improperly_ called it a compound; and _Kirkham_, still more absurdly, calls the word _others_ a compound, and _mine, thine, ours, yours_, &e. compounds.[218]
OBS. 33.–According to this gentleman’s notion of things, there is, within the little circle of the word _what_, a very curious play of antecedent parts and parts relative–a dodging contra-dance of _which that_ and _that which_, with _things which_, and so forth. Thus: “When _what_ is a _compound relative_ you must always parse it as _two words_; that is, you must parse the antecedent part _as a noun_, and give it case; the relative part you may _analyze_ like any other relative, giving it a case likewise. Example: ‘I will try _what_ (that which) can be found in female delicacy.’ Here _that_, the antecedent part of _what_, is in the obj. case, governed