ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRAETERITE.
s. 464. The remote origin of the weak praeterite in _-d_ or _-t_, has been
considered by Grimm, in the Deutsche Grammatik. He maintains that it is the
_d_ in _d-d_, the reduplicate praeterite of _do_. In all the Gothic
languages the termination of the past tense is either _-da_, _-ta_, _-de_,
_-dhi_, _-d_, _-t_, or _-ed_, for the singular, and _-don_, _-ton_,
_-t[^u]m[^e]s_, or _-dhum_, for the plural; in other words, _d_, or an
allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In the plural praeterite of the
Moeso-Gothic we have something more, _viz._ the termination _-d[^e]dum_; as
_nas-id[^e]dum_, _nas-id[^e]duth_, _nas-id[^e]dum_, from _nas-ja_;
_s[^o]k-id[^e]dum_, _s[^o]k-id[^e]duth_, _s[^o]k-id[^e]dum_ from
_s[^o]k-ja_; _salb-[^o]d[^e]dum_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]duth_,
_s[^a]lb-[^o]d[^e]dun_, from _salb[^o]_. Here there is a second d. The same
takes place with the dual form _salb-[^o]d[^e]duts_; and with the
subjunctive forms, _salb-[^o]d[^e]djan_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]duts_,
_salb-[^o]d[^e]di_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deits_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deima_,
_salb-[^o]d[^e]deith_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deina_. The English phrase, _we did
salve_, as compared with _salb-[^o]d[^e]dum_, is confirmatory of
this.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1042.
s. 465. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic praeterite, in the
Transactions of the Philological Society, induce me to identify the _d-_ in
words like _moved_, &c., with the _-t_ of the passive participles of the
Latin language; as found in mon-_it_-us, voc-_at_-us, rap-_t_-us, and
probably in Greek forms like [Greek: tuph-th-eis].
l. The Slavonic praeterite is commonly said to possess genders: in other
words, there is one form for speaking of a past action when done by a male,
and another for speaking of a past action when done by a female.
2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine or
feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the praeterite is a participle; and
the fact of its being so accounts for {391} the apparently remarkable fact
of its inflection. If, instead of saying _ille amavit_, the Latins said
_ille amatus_, whilst instead of saying _illa amavit_ they said _illa
amata_, they would exactly use the grammar of the Slavonians.
3. Hence, as one language, the Slavonic gives us the undoubted fact of an
active praeterite growing out of a passive participle (unless, indeed, we
chose to say that both are derived from a common origin); and as the
English participle and praeterite, when weak, are nearly identical, we have
reason for believing that the _d_, in the English active praeterite, is the
_t_ in the Latin passive participle.
s. 466. The following extract exhibits Dr. Trithen's remarks on the
Slavonic verb:--
"A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish
languages, consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an
active sense, for the purpose of expressing the praeterite. This
participle generally ends in _l_; and much uncertainty prevails both as
to its origin and its relations, though the termination has been
compared by various philologists with similar affixes in the Sanscrit,
and the classical languages.
"In the Old Slavish, or the language of the church, there are three
methods of expressing the past tense: one of them consists in the union
of the verb substantive with the participle; as,
_Rek esm'_ _chital esmi'_
_Rek esi'_ _chital esi'_
_Rek est'_ _chital est'_.
"In the corresponding tense of the Slavonic dialect we have the verb
substantive placed before the participle:
_Yasam imao_ _mi' smo_ _imali_
_Ti si imao_ _vi' ste_ _imali_
_On ye imao_ _omi su_ _imali_.
"In the Polish it appears as a suffix:
_Czytalem_ _czytalismy_
_Czytales_ _czytaliscie_
_Czytal_ _czytalie_.
"And in the Servian it follows the participle:
_Igrao sam_ _igrali smo_
_Igrao si_ _igrali ste_
_Igrao ye_ _igrali su_.
"The ending _ao_, of _igrao_ and _imao_, stands for the Russian _al_,
as in some English dialects _a'_ is used for _all_."
* * * * *
{392}
PART V.
SYNTAX.
--------
CHAPTER I.
ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL.
s. 467. The word _syntax_ is derived from the Greek _syn_ (_with_ or
_together_), and _taxis_ (_arrangement_). It relates to the arrangement, or
putting together of words. Two or more words must be used before there can
be any application of studied syntax.
Much that is considered by the generality of grammarians as syntax, can
either be omitted altogether, or else be better studied under another name.
s. 468. To reduce a sentence to its elements, and to show that these
elements are, 1, the subject, 2, the predicate, 3, the copula; to
distinguish between simple terms and complex terms,--this is the department
of logic.
To show the difference in force of expression, between such a sentence as
_great is Diana of the Ephesians_, and _Diana of the Ephesians is great_,
wherein the natural order of the subject and predicate is reversed, is a
point of rhetoric.
_I am moving._--To state that such a combination as _I am moving_ is
grammatical, is undoubtedly a point of syntax. Nevertheless it is a point
better explained in a separate treatise, than in a work upon any particular
language. The expression proves its correctness by the simple fact of its
universal intelligibility.
_I speaks._--To state that such a combination as _I speaks_, {393}
admitting that _I_ is exclusively the pronoun in the first person, and that
_speaks_ is exclusively the verb in the third, is undoubtedly a point of
syntax. Nevertheless, it is a point which is better explained in a separate
treatise, than in a work upon any particular language. An expression so
ungrammatical, involves a contradiction in terms, which unassisted common
sense can deal with. This position will again be reverted to.
_There is to me a father._--Here we have a circumlocution equivalent to _I
have a father_. In the English language the circumlocution is unnatural. In
the Latin it is common. To determine this, is a matter of idiom rather than
of syntax.
_I am speaking, I was reading._--There was a stage in the Gothic languages
when these forms were either inadmissible, or rare. Instead thereof, we had
the present tense, _I speak_, and the past, _I spoke_. The same is the case
with the classical languages in the classical stage. To determine the
difference in idea between these pairs of forms is a matter of metaphysics.
To determine at what period each idea came to have a separate mode of
expression is a matter of the _history_ of language. For example, _vas
l['a]isands_ appears in Ulphilas (Matt. vii. 29). There, it appears as a
rare form, and as a literal translation of the Greek [Greek: en didaskon]
(_was teaching_). The Greek form itself was, however, an unclassical
expression for [Greek: edidaske]. In Anglo-Saxon this mode of speaking
became common, and in English it is commoner still.--Deutsche Grammatik,
iv. 5. This is a point of idiom involved with one of history.
_Swear by your sword--swear on your sword._--Which of these two expressions
is right? This depends on what the speaker means. If he mean _make your
oath in the full remembrance of the trust you put in your sword, and with
the imprecation, therein implied, that it shall fail you, or turn against
you if you speak falsely_, the former expression is the right one. But, if
he mean swear _with your hand upon your sword_, it is the latter which
expresses his meaning. To take a different view of this question, and to
write as a rule that {394} _verbs of swearing are followed by the
preposition on_ (or _by_) is to mistake the province of the grammar.
Grammar tells no one what he should wish to say. It only tells him how what
he wishes to say should be said.
Much of the criticism on the use of _will_ and _shall_ is faulty in this
respect. _Will_ expresses one idea of futurity, _shall_ another. The syntax
of the two words is very nearly that of any other two. That one of the
words is oftenest used with a first person, and the other with a second, is
a fact, as will be seen hereafter, connected with the nature of _things_,
not of words.
s. 469. The following question now occurs. If the history of forms of
speech be one thing, and the history of idioms another; if this question be
a part of logic, and that question a part of rhetoric; and if such truly
grammatical facts as government and concord are, as matters of common
sense, to be left uninvestigated and unexplained, what remains as syntax?
This is answered by the following distinction. There are two sorts of
syntax; theoretical and practical, scientific and historical, pure and
mixed. Of these, the first consists in the analysis and proof of those
rules which common practice applies without investigation, and common sense
appreciates, in a rough and gross manner, from an appreciation of the
results. This is the syntax of government and concord, or of those points
which find no place in the present work, for the following reason--_they
are either too easy or too hard for it_. If explained scientifically they
are matters of close and minute reasoning; if exhibited empirically they
are mere rules for the memory. Besides this they are universal facts of
languages in general, and not the particular facts of any one language.
Like other universal facts they are capable of being expressed
symbolically. That the verb (A) agrees with its pronoun (B) is an immutable
fact: or, changing the mode of expression, we may say that language can
only fulfil its great primary object of intelligibility when A = B. And so
on throughout. A formal syntax thus exhibited, and even devised _[`a]
priori_, is a philological possibility. And it is also the measure of
philological anomalies. {395}
s. 470. _Pure syntax._--So much for one sort of syntax; _viz._, that
portion of grammar which bears the same relation to the practice of
language, that the investigation of the syllogism bears to the practice of
reasoning. The positions concerning it are by no means invalidated by such
phrases as _I speaks_ (for _I speak_), &c. In cases like these there is no
contradiction; since the peculiarity of the expression consists not in
joining two incompatible persons, but in mistaking a third person for a
first--_and as far as the speaker is concerned, actually making it so_. I
must here anticipate some objections that may be raised to these views, by
stating that I am perfectly aware that they lead to a conclusion which to
most readers must appear startling and to some monstrous, _viz._, to the
conclusion that _there is no such thing as bad grammar at all_; _that
everything is what the speaker chooses to make it_; _that a speaker may
choose to make any expression whatever, provided it answer the purpose of
language, and be intelligible_; _that, in short, whatever is is right_.
Notwithstanding this view of the consequence I still am satisfied with the
truth of the premises. I may also add that the terms _pure_ and _mixed_,
themselves suggestive of much thought on the subject which they express,
are not mine but Professor Sylvester's.
s. 471. _Mixed syntax._--That, notwithstanding the previous limitations,
there is still a considerable amount of syntax in the English, as in all
other languages, may be seen from the sequel. If I undertook to indicate
the essentials of mixed syntax, I should say that they consisted in the
explanation of combinations _apparently_ ungrammatical; in other words,
that they ascertained the results of those causes which disturb the
regularity of the pure syntax; that they measured the extent of the
deviation; and that they referred it to some principle of the human
mind--so accounting for it.
_I am going._--Pure syntax explains this.
_I have gone._--Pure syntax will not explain this. Nevertheless, the
expression is good English. The power, however, of both _have_ and _gone_
is different from the usual power of those words. This difference mixed
syntax explains. {396}
s. 472. Mixed syntax requires two sorts of knowledge--metaphysical, and
historical.
1. To account for such a fact in language as the expression _the man as
rides to market_, instead of the usual expression _the man who rides to
market_, is a question of what is commonly called metaphysics. The idea of
comparison is the idea common to the words _as_ and _who_.
2. To account for such a fact in language as the expression _I have ridden
a horse_ is a question of history. We must know that when there was a sign
of an accusative case in English the word _horse_ had that sign; in other
words that the expression was, originally, _I have a horse as a ridden
thing_. These two views illustrate each other.
s. 473. In the English, as in all other languages, it is convenient to
notice certain so-called figures of speech. They always furnish convenient
modes of expression, and sometimes, as in the case of the one immediately
about to be noticed, _account_ for facts.
s. 474. _Personification._--The ideas of apposition and collectiveness
account for the apparent violations of the concord of number. The idea of
personification applies to the concord of gender. A masculine or feminine
gender, characteristic of persons, may be substituted for the neuter
gender, characteristic of things. In this case the term is said to be
personified.
_The cities who aspired to liberty._--A personification of the idea
expressed by _cities_ is here necessary to justify the expression.
_It_, the sign of the neuter gender, as applied to a male or female
_child_, is the reverse of the process.
s. 475. _Ellipsis_ (from the Greek _elleipein_=_to fall short_), or a
_falling short_, occurs in sentences like _I sent to the bookseller's_.
Here the word _shop_ or _house_ is understood. Expressions like _to go on
all fours_, and _to eat of the fruit of the tree_, are reducible to
ellipses.
s. 476. _Pleonasm_ (from the Greek _pleonazein_=_to be in excess_) occurs
in sentences like _the king, he reigns_. Here the word _he_ is
superabundant. In many _pleonastic_ {397} expressions we may suppose an
interruption of the sentence, and afterwards an abrupt renewal of it; as
_the king_--_he reigns_.
The fact of the word _he_ neither qualifying nor explaining the word
_king_, distinguishes pleonasm from apposition.
Pleonasm, as far as the view above is applicable, is reduced to what is,
apparently, its opposite, _viz._, ellipsis.
_My banks, they are furnished_,--_the most straitest sect_,--these are
pleonastic expressions. In _the king, he reigns_, the word _king_ is in the
same predicament as in _the king, God bless him_.
The double negative, allowed in Greek and Anglo-Saxon, but not admissible
in English, is pleonastic.
The verb _do_, in _I do speak_, is _not_ pleonastic. In respect to the
sense it adds intensity. In respect to the construction it is not in
apposition, but in the same predicament with verbs like _must_ and
_should_, as in _I must go_, &c.; _i. e._ it is a verb followed by an
infinitive. This we know from its power in those languages where the
infinitive has a characteristic sign; as, in German,
Die Augen _thaten_ ihm winken.--GOETHE.
Besides this, _make_ is similarly used in Old English.--_But men make draw
the branch thereof, and beren him to be graffed at Babyloyne._--Sir J.
Mandeville.
s. 477. _The figure zeugma._--_They wear a garment like that of the
Scythians, but a language peculiar to themselves._--The verb, naturally
applying to _garment_ only, is here used to govern _language_. This is
called in Greek, _zeugma_ (junction).
s. 478. _My paternal home was made desolate, and he himself was
sacrificed._--The sense of this is plain; _he_ means _my father_. Yet no
such substantive as _father_ has gone before. It is supplied, however, from
the word _paternal_. The sense indicated by _paternal_ gives us a subject
to which _he_ can refer. In other words, the word _he_ is understood,
according to what is indicated, rather than according to what is expressed.
This figure in Greek is called _pros to semainomenon_ (_according to the
thing indicated_). {398}
s. 479. _Apposition._--_Caesar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain._--Here
the words _Roman emperor_ explain, or define, the word _Caesar_; and the
sentence, filled up, might stand, _Caesar, that is, the Roman emperor_, &c.
Again, the words _Roman emperor_ might be wholly ejected; or, if not
ejected, they might be thrown into a parenthesis. The practical bearing of
this fact is exhibited by changing the form of the sentence, and inserting
the conjunction _and_. In this case, instead of one person, two are spoken
of, and the verb _invades_ must be changed from the singular to the plural.
Now the words _Roman emperor_ are said to be in apposition to _Caesar_.
They constitute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original
one. They are, as it were, _laid alongside_ (_appositi_) _of_ the word
_Caesar_. Cases of doubtful number, wherein two substantives precede a
verb, and wherein it is uncertain whether the verb should be singular or
plural, are decided by determining whether the substantives be in
apposition or the contrary. No matter how many nouns there may be, as long
as it can be shown that they are in apposition, the verb is in the singular
number.
s. 480. _Collectiveness as opposed to plurality._--In sentences like _the
meeting_ was _large_, _the multitude_ pursue _pleasure_, _meeting_, and
_multitude_ are each collective nouns; that is, although they present the
idea of a single object, that object consists of a plurality of
individuals. Hence, _pursue_ is put in the plural number. To say, however,
_the meeting were large_ would sound improper. The number of the verb that
shall accompany a collective noun depends upon whether the idea of the
multiplicity of individuals, or that of the unity of the aggregate, shall
predominate.
_Sand and salt and a mass of iron is easier to bear than a man without
understanding._--Let _sand and salt and a mass of iron_ be dealt with as a
series of things the aggregate of which forms a mixture, and the expression
is allowable.
_The king and the lords and commons_ forms _an excellent frame of
government_.--Here the expression is doubtful. Substitute _with_ for the
first _and_, and there is no doubt as to the propriety of the singular form
_is_. {399}
s. 481. _The reduction of complex forms to simple ones._--Take, for
instance, the current illustration, viz., _the-king-of-Saxony's
army_.--Here the assertion is, not that the army belongs to _Saxony_, but
that it belongs to the _king of Saxony_; which words must, for the sake of
taking a true view of the construction, be dealt with as a single word in
the possessive case. Here two cases are dealt with as one; and a complex
term is treated as a single word.
The same reasoning applies to phrases like _the two king Williams_. If we
say _the two kings William_, we must account for the phrase by apposition.
s. 482. _True notion of the part of speech in use._--In _he is gone_, the
word _gone_ must be considered as equivalent to _absent_; that is, as an
adjective. Otherwise the expression is as incorrect as the expression _she
is eloped_. Strong participles are adjectival oftener than weak ones; their
form being common to many adjectives.
_True notion of the original form._--In the phrase _I must speak_, the word
_speak_ is an infinitive. In the phrase _I am forced to speak_, the word
_speak_ is (in the present English) an infinitive also. In one case,
however, it is preceded by _to_; whilst in the other, the particle _to_ is
absent. The reason for this lies in the original difference of form.
_Speak_ - _to_=the Anglo-Saxon _spr['e]can_, a simple infinitive; _to
speak_, or _speak + to_=the Anglo-Saxon _to spr['e]canne_, an infinitive in
the dative case.
s. 483. _Convertibility._--In the English language, the greater part of the
words may, as far as their form is concerned, be one part of speech as well
as another. Thus the combinations _s-a-n-th_, or _f-r-e-n-k_, if they
existed at all, might exist as either nouns or verbs, as either
substantives or adjectives, as conjunctions, adverbs, or prepositions. This
is not the case in the Greek language. There, if a word be a substantive,
it will probably end in _-s_, if an infinitive verb, in _-ein_, &c. The
bearings of this difference between languages like the English and
languages like the Greek will soon appear.
At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, {400} originally one part
of speech (_e.g._ a noun), may become another (_e.g._ a verb). This may be
called the convertibility of words.
There is an etymological convertibility, and a syntactic convertibility;
and although, in some cases, the line of demarcation is not easily drawn
between them, the distinction is intelligible and convenient.
s. 484. _Etymological convertibility._--The words _then_ and _than_, now
adverbs or conjunctions, were once cases: in other words, they have been
converted from one part of speech to another. Or, they may even be said to
be cases, at the present moment; although only in an historical point of
view. For the practice of language, they are not only adverbs or
conjunctions, but they are adverbs or conjunctions exclusively.
s. 485. _Syntactic convertibility._--The combination _to err_, is at this
moment an infinitive verb. Nevertheless it can be used as the equivalent to
the substantive _error_.
_To err is human_=_error is human_. Now this is an instance of syntactic
conversion. Of the two meanings, there is no doubt as to which is the
primary one; which primary meaning is part and parcel of the language at
this moment.
The infinitive, when used as a substantive, can be used in a singular form
only.
_To err_=_error_; but we have no such form as _to errs_=_errors_. Nor is it
wanted. The infinitive, in a substantival sense, always conveys a general
statement, so that even when singular, it has a plural power; just as _man
is mortal_=_men are mortal_.
s. 486. _The adjective used as a substantive._--Of these, we have examples
in expressions like the _blacks of Africa_--_the bitters and sweets of
life_--_all fours were put to the ground_. These are true instances of
conversion, and are proved to be so by the fact of their taking a plural
form.
_Let the blind lead the blind_ is not an instance of conversion. The word
_blind_ in both instances remains an adjective, and is shown to remain so
by its being uninflected.
s. 487. _Uninflected parts of speech, used as substantive._--When King
Richard III. says, _none of your ifs_, he uses the word _if_ as a
substantive=_expressions of doubt_. {401}
So in the expression _one long now_, the word _now_=_present time_.
s. 488. The convertibility of words in English is very great; and it is so
because the structure of the language favours it. As few words have any
peculiar signs expressive of their being particular parts of speech,
interchange is easy, and conversion follows the logical association of
ideas unimpeded.
_The convertibility of words is in the inverse ratio to the amount of their
inflection._
* * * * *
{402}
CHAPTER II.
SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES.
s. 489. The phenomena of convertibility have been already explained.
The remaining points connected with the syntax of substantives, are chiefly
points of either ellipsis, or apposition.
_Ellipsis of substantives._--The historical view of phrases, like _Rundell
and Bridge's_, _St. Pauls'_, &c., shows that this ellipsis is common to the
English and the other Gothic languages. Furthermore, it shows that it is
met with in languages not of the Gothic stock; and, finally, that the class
of words to which it applies, is, there or thereabouts, the same generally.
A. 1. The words most commonly understood, are _house_ and _family_, or
words reducible to them. In Latin, _Dianae_=_aedem Dianae_.--Deutsche
Grammatik, iv. 262.
2. _Country, retinue._--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 262.
3. _Son_, _daughter_, _wife_, _widow_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv.
262.--[Greek: Neleus Kodrou], Greek.
B. The following phrases are referable to a different class of relations--
1. _Right and left_--supply _hand_. This is, probably, a real ellipsis. The
words _right_ and _left_, have not yet become true substantives; inasmuch
as they have no plural forms. In this respect, they stand in contrast with
_bitter_ and _sweet_; inasmuch as we can say _he has tasted both the
bitters and sweets of life_. Nevertheless, the expression can be refined
on.
2. _All fours._--_To go on all fours._ No ellipsis. The word _fours_, is a
true substantive, as proved by its existence as a plural.
From expressions like [Greek: poterion psuchrou] (Matt. xiv. 51), {403}
from the Greek, and _perfundit gelido_ (understand _latice_), from the
Latin, we find that the present ellipsis was used with greater latitude in
the classical languages than our own.
s. 490. _Proper names can only be used in the singular number._--This is a
rule of logic, rather than of grammar. When we say _the four Georges_, _the
Pitts and Camdens_, &c., the words that thus take a plural form, have
ceased to be proper names. They either mean--
1. The persons called _George_, &c.
2. Or, persons so like _George_, that they may be considered as identical.
s. 491. _Collocation._--In the present English, the genitive case always
precedes the noun by which it is governed--_the man's hat_=_hominis
pileus_; never _the hat man's_=_pileus hominis_.
* * * * *
{404}
CHAPTER III.
SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES.
s. 492. _Pleonasm._--Pleonasm can take place with adjectives only in the
expression of the degrees of comparison. Over and above the etymological
signs of the comparative and superlative degrees, there may be used the
superlative words _more_ and _most_.
And this pleonasm really occurs--
_The_ more serener _spirit_.
_The_ most straitest _sect_.
These are instances of pleonasm in the strictest sense of the term.
s. 493. _Collocation._--As a general rule, the adjective precedes the
substantive--_a good man_, not _a man good_.
When, however, the adjective is qualified by either the expression of its
degree, or accompanied by another adjective, it may follow the
substantive--
A man _just and good_.
A woman _wise and fair_.
A hero _devoted to his country_.
A patriot _disinterested to a great degree_.
_Single simple_ adjectives thus placed after their substantive, belong to
the poetry of England, and especially to the ballad poetry--_sighs
profound_--_the leaves green_.
s. 494. _Government._--The only adjective that governs a case, is the word
_like_. In the expression, _this is like him_, &c., the original power of
the dative remains. This we infer--
1. From the fact that in most languages which have {405} inflections to a
sufficient extent, the word meaning _like_ governs a dative case.
2. That if ever we use in English any preposition at all to express
similitude, it is the preposition _to_--_like to me_, _like to death_, &c.
Expressions like _full of meat_, _good for John_, are by no means instances
of the government of adjectives; the really governing words being the
prepositions _to_ and _for_ respectively.
The most that can be said, in cases like these, is that particular
adjectives determine the use of particular prepositions--thus the
preposition _of_, generally follows the adjective _full_, &c.
s. 495. The positive degree preceded by the adjective more, is equivalent
to the comparative form--_e. g._, _more wise_=_wiser_.
The reasons for employing one expression in preference to the other, depend
upon the nature of the particular word used.
When the word is, at one and the same time, of Anglo-Saxon origin and
monosyllabic, there is no doubt about the preference to be given to the
form in _-er_. Thus, _wis-er_ is preferable to _more wise_.
When, however, the word is compound, or trisyllabic, the combination with
the word _more_, is preferable.
_more fruitful_ _fruitfuller_.
_more villanous_ _villanouser_.
Between these two extremes, there are several intermediate forms wherein
the use of one rather than another, will depend upon the taste of the
writer. The question, however, is a question of euphony, rather than of
aught else. It is also illustrated by the principle of not multiplying
secondary elements. In such a word as _fruit-full-er_, there are two
additions to the root. The same is the case with the superlative,
_fruit-full-est_.
s. 496. The 9th Chapter of Part IV., should be read carefully. There, there
is indicated a refinement upon the current notions as to the power of the
comparative degree, {406} and reasons are given for believing that the
fundamental notion expressed by the comparative inflexion is the idea of
comparison or contrast between _two_ objects.
In this case, it is better in speaking of only two objects to use the
comparative degree rather than the superlative--even when we use the
definite article _the_. Thus--
This is _the better_ of the two
is preferable to
This is _the best_ of the two.
This principle is capable of an application more extensive than our habits
of speaking and writing will verify. Thus, to go to other parts of speech,
we should logically say--
Whether of the two
rather than
Which of the two.
Either the father or the son,
but not
Either the father, the son, or the daughter.
This statement may be refined on. It is chiefly made for the sake of giving
fresh prominence to the idea of duality expressed by the terminations _-er_
and _-ter_.
s. 497. The absence of inflection simplifies the syntax of adjectives.
Violations of concord are impossible. We could not make an adjective
disagree with its substantive if we wished.
* * * * *
{407}
CHAPTER IV.
SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.
s. 498. The syntax of substantives is, in English, simple, from the paucity
of its inflections, a condition which is unfavourable towards the evolution
of constructional complexities; the most remarkable exception being the
phenomenon of convertibility noticed above.
The same is the case with adjectives. The want of inflexion simplifies
their syntax equally with that of the substantives.
But with the pronouns this is not the case. Here we have--
1. Signs of gender; 2. Signs of case; 3. Signs of number, to a greater
extent, and with more peculiarities, than elsewhere.
Furthermore, the pronouns exhibit in a great degree the phenomena of
conversion indicated in p. 400.
s. 499. _Pleonasm in the syntax of pronouns._--In the following sentences
the words in italics are pleonastic.
1. The king _he_ is just.
2. I saw _her_, the queen.
3. The _men_, they were there.
4. The king, _his_ crown.
Of these forms, the first is more common than the second and third, and the
fourth more common than the first.
s. 500. The fourth has another element of importance. It has given rise to
the absurd notion that the genitive case in _-s_ (_father-s_) is a
contraction from _his_ (_father his_).
To say nothing about the inapplicability of this rule to feminine genders,
and plural numbers, the whole history of the Indo-Germanic languages is
against it. {408}
1. We cannot reduce _the queen's majesty_ to _the queen his majesty_.
2. We cannot reduce _the children's bread_ to _the children his bread_.
3. The Anglo-Saxon forms are in _-es_, not in _his_.
4. The word _his_ itself must be accounted for; and that cannot be done by
assuming to be _he_ + _his_.
5. The _-s_ in _father's_ is the _-is_ in _patris_, and the -[Greek: os] in
[Greek: pateros].
s. 501. The preceding examples illustrate an apparent paradox, _viz._, the
fact of pleonasm and ellipsis being closely allied. _The king he is just_,
dealt with as a _single_ sentence, is undoubtedly pleonastic. But it is not
necessary to be considered as a mere simple sentence. _The king_--may
represent a first sentence incomplete, whilst _he is just_ represents a
second sentence in full. What is pleonasm in a single sentence, is ellipsis
in a double one.
* * * * *
{409}
CHAPTER V.
THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
s. 502. _Personal pronouns._--The use of the second person plural instead
of the second singular has been noticed in p. 246. This use of one number
for another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used
is conveniently called the _pronomen reverentiae_.
s. 503. In English, however, there is a second change over and above the
change of number, _viz._ that of case. We not only say _ye_ instead of
_thou_, but _you_ instead of _ye_.--(See p. 245).
Mr. Guest remarks, "that at one time the two forms _ye_ and _you_ seem to
have been nearly changing place in our language.
As I have made _ye_ one, Lords, one remain;
So I grow stronger _you_ more honour gain.
_Henry VIII._ 4, 2.
What gain _you_ by forbidding it to teaze _ye_,
It now can neither trouble you nor please _ye_.
DRYDEN."
In German and the Danish the _pronomen reverentiae_ is got at by a change,
not of number, but of person--in other words, the pronoun of the _third_
person is used instead of that of the _second_; just as if, in the English,
we said _will they walk_=_will you walk_, _will ye walk_, _wilt thou walk_.
s. 504. _Dativus ethicus._--In the phrase
Rob me the exchequer.--_Henry IV._
the _me_ is expletive, and is equivalent to _for me_. This expletive use of
the dative is conveniently called the _dativus ethicus_. It occurs more
frequently in the Latin than in the {410} English, and more frequently in
the Greek than in the Latin.
s. 505. _The reflected personal pronoun._--In the English language there is
no equivalent to the Latin _se_, the German _sich_, and the Scandinavian
_sik_, and _sig_.
It follows from this that the word _self_ is used to a greater extent than
would otherwise be the case.
_I strike me_ is awkward, but not ambiguous.
_Thou strikest thee_ is awkward, but not ambiguous.
_He strikes him_ is ambiguous; inasmuch as _him_ may mean either the
_person who strikes_ or some one else. In order to be clear we add the word
_self_ when the idea is reflective. _He strikes himself_ is, at once,
idiomatic, and unequivocal.
So it is with the plural persons.
_We strike us_ is awkward, but not ambiguous.
_Ye strike you_ is the same.
_They strike them_ is ambiguous.
This shows the value of a reflective pronoun for the third person.
As a general rule, therefore, whenever we use a verb reflectively we use
the word _self_ in combination with the personal pronoun.
Yet this was not always the case. The use of the simple personal pronoun
was current in Anglo-Saxon, and that, not only for the two first persons,
but for the third as well.
The exceptions to this rule are either poetical expressions, or imperative
moods.
He sat _him_ down at a pillar's base.--BYRON.
Sit thee down.
s. 506. _Reflective neuters._--In the phrase _I strike me_ the verb
_strike_ is transitive; in other words, the word _me_ expresses the object
of an action, and the meaning is different from the meaning of the simple
expression _I strike_.
In the phrase _I fear me_ (used by Lord Campbell in his Lives of the
Chancellors), the verb _fear_ is intransitive or neuter; in other words,
the word _me_ (unless, indeed, _fear_ mean _terrify_) {411} expresses no
object of any action at all; whilst the meaning is the same as in the
simple expression _I fear_.
Here the reflective pronoun appears out of place, _i. e._, after a neuter
or intransitive verb.
Such a use, however, is but the fragment of an extensive system of
reflective verbs thus formed, developed in different degrees in the
different Gothic languages; but in all more than in the English.
s. 507. _Equivocal reflectives._--The proper place of the reflective is
_after_ the verb.
The proper place of the governing pronoun is, in the indicative and
subjunctive moods, _before_ the verb.
Hence in expressions like the preceding there is no doubt as to the power
of the pronoun.
The imperative mood, however, sometimes presents a complication. Here the
governing person may follow the verb.
_Mount ye_=either _be mounted_, or _mount yourselves_. In phrases like
this, and in phrases
_Busk ye_, _busk ye_, my bonny, bonny bride,
_Busk ye_, _busk ye_, my winsome marrow,
the construction is ambiguous. _Ye_ may either be a nominative case
governing the verb _busk_, or an accusative case governed by it.
This is an instance of what may be called the _equivocal reflective_.
* * * * *
{412}
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND THE PRONOUNS OF THE THIRD
PERSON.
s. 508. Reasons have been given in p. 249, for considering the so-called
pronouns of the third person (_he_, _she_, _it_, _they_) demonstrative
rather than truly personal.
s. 509. As _his_, and _her_, are genitive cases (and not adjectives), there
is no need of explaining such combinations as _his mother_, _her father_,
inasmuch as no concord of gender is expected. The expressions are
respectively equivalent to
_mater ejus_, not _mater sua_;
_pater ejus_, -- _pater suus_.
s. 510. From p. 250, it may be seen that _its_ is a secondary genitive, and
it may be added, that it is of late origin in the language. The Anglo-Saxon
form was _his_, the genitive of _he_ for the neuter and masculine equally.
Hence, when, in the old writers, we meet _his_, where we expect _its_, we
must not suppose that any personification takes place, but simply that the
old genitive common to the two genders is used in preference to the modern
one limited to the neuter, and irregularly formed. This has been
illustrated by Mr. Guest.
The following instances are the latest specimens of its use.
"The apoplexy is, as I take it, a kind of lethargy. I have read the
cause of _his_ effects in Galen; _it_ is a kind of deafness."--2 _Henry
IV._ i. 2.
"If the salt have lost _his_ flavour, wherewith shall it be seasoned.
_It_ is neither fit for the land nor yet for the dunghill, but men cast
_it_ out."--_Luke_ xiv. 35.
"Some affirm that every plant has _his_ particular fly or caterpillar,
which it breeds and feeds."--WALTON'S _Angler_.
"This rule is not so general, but that _it_ admitteth of _his_
exceptions."--CAREW.
{413}
"The genitive _its_ is of late introduction into our language. Though used
by our dramatists and many of their cotemporaries, it does not occur in the
versions of our Bible, the substitute being _his_ or the compound term
_thereof_."--Phil. Trans., No. 25.
s. 511. For the archaic and provincial use of _him_ and _he_ for _it_ see
_ibid._; remembering that the two cases are different. _His_ for _its_ is
an old form retained: _him_ and _he_ for _it_ are really changes of gender.
s. 512. _Take them things away._--Here we have _them_ for _those_. The
expression, although not to be imitated, is explained by the originally
demonstrative power of _them_.
Sometimes the expression is still more anomalous, and we hear the so-called
nominative case used instead of the accusative. In the expression _take
they things away_, the use of _they_ for _them_ (itself for _those_) is
similarly capable of being, down to a certain period of our language,
explained as an archaism. The original accusative was _tha_, and _tho_: the
form in _-m_ being dative.
s. 513. _This_ and _that_.--The remarks upon the use of these words in
certain expressions is brought at once to the Latin scholar by the
quotation of the two following lines from Ovid, and the suggestion of a
well-known rule in the Eton Latin Grammar.
_Quocunque aspicies nihil est nisi pontus et aer;_
_Nubibus hic tumidus, fluctibus ille minax._
Here _hic_ (=_this_ or _the one_) refers to the antecedent last named (the
_air_); whilst _ille_ (=_that_ or _the other_) refers to the antecedent
first named (the _sea_).
Now on the strength of this example, combined with others, it is laid down
as a rule in Latin that _hic_ (_this_) refers to the last-named antecedent,
_ille_ to the first-named.
s. 514. What is the rule in English?
Suppose we say _John's is a good sword and so is Charles's_; _this cut
through a thick rope, the other cut through an iron rod_. Or instead of
saying _this_ and _that_ we may say _the one_ and _the other_. It is clear
that, in determining to which of the {414} two swords the respective
demonstratives refer, the meaning will not help us at all, so that our only
recourse is to the rules of grammar; and it is the opinion of the present
writer that the rules of grammar will help us just as little. The Latin
rule is adopted by scholars, but still it is a Latin rule rather than an
English one.
The truth is, that it is a question which no authority can settle; and all
that grammar can tell us is (what we know without it) that _this_ refers to
the name of the idea which is logically the most close at hand, and _that_
to the idea which is logically the most distant.
What constitutes nearness or distance of ideas, in other words, what
determines the sequence of ideas is another question. That the idea,
however, of sequence, and, consequently of logical proximity and logical
distance, is the fundamental idea in regard to the expressions in question
is evident from the very use of the words _this_ and _that_.
Now the sequence of ideas is capable of being determined by two tests.
1. The idea to which the name was last given, or (changing the expression)
the name of the last idea may be the nearest idea in the order of sequence,
and, consequently, the idea referred to by the pronoun of proximity. In
this case the idea closest at hand to the writer of the second line of the
couplet quoted above was the idea of the _atmosphere_ (_aer_), and it was,
consequently, expressed by (_this_) _hic_.
2. Or the idea to which the name was first given, or (changing the
expression) the name of the first idea may be the nearest idea in the order
of sequence, and consequently the idea referred to it by the pronoun of
proximity; inasmuch as the idea which occurs first is the most prominent
one, and what is prominent appears near. In this case, the idea closest at
hand to the writer of the second line of the couplet quoted above would
have been the idea of the _sea_ (_pontus_), and it would, consequently,
have been the idea expressed by _this_ (_hic_).
As Ovid, however, considered the idea at the end of the last half of one
sentence to be the idea nearest to the {415} beginning of the next, we have
him expressing himself as he does. On the other hand, it is easy to
conceive a writer with whom the nearest idea is the idea that led the way
to the others.
As I believe that one and the same individual may measure the sequence of
his ideas sometimes according to one of these principles, and sometimes
according to another, I believe that all rules about the relations of
_this_ and _that_ are arbitrary.
It is just a matter of chance whether a thinker take up his line of ideas
by the end or by the beginning. The analogies of such expressions as the
following are in favour of _this_, in English, applying to the _first_
subject, _that_ to the _second_; since the word _attorney_ takes the place
of _this_, and applies to the first name of the two, _i. e._, to _Thurlow_.
"It was a proud day for the bar when Lord North made Thurlow (1) and
(2) Wedderburn (1) Attorney (2) and Solicitor General."--_Mathias from
Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors._
* * * * *
{416}
CHAPTER VII.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF.
s. 515. The undoubted constructions of the word _self_, in the present
state of the cultivated English, are three-fold.
1. _Government._--In _my-self_, _thy-self_, _our-selves_, and
_your-selves_, the construction is that of a common substantive with an
adjective or genitive case. _My-self_=_my individuality_, and is similarly
construed--_mea individualitas_ (or _persona_), or _mei individualitas_ (or
_persona_).
2. _Apposition._--In _him-self_ and _them-selves_, when accusative, the
construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a pronoun.
_Him-self_=_him, the individual._
3. _Composition._--It is only, however, when _himself_ and _themselves_,
are in the accusative case, that the construction is appositional. When
they are used as nominatives, it must be explained on another principle. In
phrases like
He _himself_ was present.
They _themselves_ were present.
There is neither apposition nor government; _him_ and _them_, being neither
related to _my_ and _thy_, so as to be governed, nor yet to _he_ and
_they_, so as to form an apposition. In order to come under one of these
conditions, the phrases should be either _he his self_ (_they their
selves_), or else _he he self_ (_they they selves_). In this difficulty,
the only logical view that can be taken of the matter, is to consider the
words _himself_ and _themselves_, not as two words, but as a single word
compounded; and even then, the compound will be of an irregular kind;
inasmuch as the inflectional element _-m_, is dealt with as part and parcel
of the root.
s. 516. _Her-self._--The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of the
preceding constructions. Which, however it is, {417} is uncertain; since
_her_ may be either a so-called genitive, like _my_, or an accusative like
_him_.
_Itself_--is also ambiguous. The _s_ may represent the _-s_ in _its_, as
well as the _s-_ in _self_.
This inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxon stage of the English
language.
s. 517. In the exhibition of the second construction of the word _self_ it
was assumed that the case was a case of apposition, and that _self_ was
substantival in character. Nevertheless, this is by no means a necessary
phenomenon. _Self_ might, as far as its power is determined by its
construction alone, in words like _himself_ as easily be an adjective as a
substantive. In which case the construction would be a matter, not of
apposition, but of _agreement_. To illustrate this by the Latin language,
_himself_, might equal either _eum personam_ (_him, the person_), or _eum
personalem_ (_him personal_). The evidence, however, of the forms like
_myself_, as well as other facts adduceable from comparative philology,
prove the substantival character of _self_. On the other hand, it ought not
to be concealed that another word, whereof the preponderance of the
adjectival over the substantival power is undoubted, is found in the Old
English, with just the same inconsistency as the word _self_; _i.e._,
sometimes in government (like a substantive), and sometimes in either
concord or apposition, like a word which may be _either_ substantive or
adjective. This word is _one_; the following illustrations of which are
from Mr. Guest.--_Phil. Trans. No. 22._
In this world wote I no knight,
Who durst _his one_ with hym fight.
_Ipomedon_, 1690.
thah ha _hire ane_ were
Ayein so kene keisere and al his kine riche.
_St. Catherine_, 90.
Though she _alone_ were
Against so fierce a kaiser, and all his kingdom.
Here _his one_, _her one_, mean _his singleness_, _her singleness_.
He made his mone
Within a garden all _him one_.
GOWER, _Confess. Amant._
{418}
Here _him one_ = _himself_ in respect to its construction.
s. 518. As to the inflection of the word _-self_, all its compounds are
substantives; inasmuch as they all take plural forms as far as certain
logical limitations will allow them to do so--_ourselves_, _yourselves_,
_themselves_.
_Myself_, _thyself_, _himself_, _itself_, and _herself_, are naturally
singular, and under no circumstances can become plural.
_Themselves_ is naturally plural, and under no circumstances can become
singular.
_Ourselves_ and _yourselves_ are naturally plural; yet under certain
circumstances they become singular.
_a._ Just as men say _we_ for _I_, so may they say _our_ for _my_.
_b._ Just as men say _you_ for _thou_, so may they say _your_ for _thy_.
In respect to the inflection in the way of case, there are no logical
limitations whatever. There is nothing against the existence of a genitive
form _self's_ except the habit of the English language not to use one,
founded on the little necessity for so doing.--_Are you sure this is your
own?_ _Yes, I am sure it is my own self's._ Such an expression is both
logic and grammar.
When an adjective intervenes between _self_ and its personal pronoun the
construction is always in the way of government; in other words, the
personal pronoun is always put in the genitive case.
His own self, _not_ him own self.
Their own selves, _not_ them own selves.
s. 519. The construction of _self_ and a personal pronoun with a verb may
be noticed in this place. It is only in the case of the two pronouns of the
singular number that any doubt can arise.
1. When _myself_ or _thyself_ stands alone, the verb that follows is in the
third person--_myself is_ (not _am_) _weak_, _thyself is_ (not _art_)
_weak_. Here the construction is just the same as in the proposition _my
body is weak_.
2. When _myself_ or _thyself_ is preceded by _I_ or _thou_, the verb that
follows is in the first person--_I, myself, am_ (not _is_) _weak_; _thou,
thyself, art_ (not _is_) _weak_.
* * * * *
{419}
CHAPTER VIII.
ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
s. 520. The possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first class
contains the forms connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in
their syntax, with _my_ and _thy_, &c. The second class contains the forms
connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in their syntax, with
_mine_ and _thine_, &c.
The first class is the class of what may be called the _oblique_
possessives; the name being founded upon the etymological fact of their
being connected with the oblique cases of the pronominal inflection.--_My_,
_thy_, _his_ (as in _his book_), _her_, _its_ (as in _its book_), _our_,
_your_, _their_. These are conveniently considered as the equivalents to
the Latin forms _mei_, _tui_, _ejus_, _nostrum_, _vestrum_, _eorum_.
The second class is the class of what may be called the _absolute_
possessives; the name being founded upon the syntactic fact of their being
able to form the term of a proposition by themselves; as _whose is this?_
_Mine_ (not _my_).--_Mine_, _thine_, _his_ (as _in the book is his_),
_hers_, _ours_, _yours_, _theirs_ are conveniently considered as the
equivalents to the Latin forms _meus, mea, meum_; _tuus, tua, tuum_; _suus,
sua, suum_; _noster, nostra, nostrum_; _vester, vestra, vestrum_. How far
either or both of these two classes of pronouns are cases, or adjectives,
is a point of etymology that has already been noticed (Part IV., chap. 37).
How far either or both are cases or adjectives is, in syntax, a matter of
indifference.
s. 521. There is, however, a palpable difference between the construction
of _my_ and _mine_. We cannot say _this is mine hat_, and we cannot say
_this hat is my_. Nevertheless, this {420} difference is not explained by
any change of construction from that of adjectives to that of cases. As far
as the syntax is concerned the construction of _my_ and _mine_ is equally
that of an adjective _agreeing_ with a substantive, and of a genitive (or
possessive) case _governed_ by a substantive.
Now a common genitive case can be used in two ways; either as part of a
term, or as a whole term (_i. e._, absolutely).--1. As part of a
term--_this is John's hat_. 2. As a whole term--_this hat is John's_.
And a common adjective can be used in two ways; either as part of a term,
or as a whole term (_i. e._, absolutely).--1. As part of a term--_these are
good hats_. 2. As a whole term--_these hats are good_.
Now whether we consider _my_, and the words like it, as adjectives or
cases, they possess only _one_ of the properties just illustrated, _i. e._,
they can only be used as part of a term--_this is my hat_; not _this hat is
my_.
And whether we consider _mine_, and the words like it, as adjectives or
cases, they possess only _one_ of the properties just illustrated, _i. e._,
they can only be used as whole terms, or absolutely--_this hat is mine_;
not _this is mine hat_.
For a full and perfect construction whether of an adjective or a genitive
case, the possessive pronouns present the phenomenon of being, singly,
incomplete, but, nevertheless, complimentary to each other when taken in
their two forms.
In the absolute construction of a genitive case, the term is formed by the
single word only so far as the _expression_ is concerned. A substantive is
always _understood_ from what has preceded.--_This discovery is
Newton's_=_this discovery is Newton's discovery._
The same with adjectives.--_This weather is fine_=_this weather is fine
weather._
And the same with absolute pronouns.--_This hat is mine_=_this hat is my
hat_; and _this is a hat of mine_=_this is a hat of my hats_.
In respect to all matters of syntax considered exclusively, it is so
thoroughly a matter of indifference whether a word be an adjective or a
genitive case that Wallis considers the {421} forms in _-'s_ like
_father's_, not as genitive cases but as adjectives. Looking to the logic
of the question alone he is right, and looking to the practical syntax of
the question he is right, also. He is only wrong on the etymological side
of the question.
"Nomina substantiva apud nos nullum vel generum vel casuum discrimen
sortiuntur."--p. 76.
"Duo sunt adjectivorum genera, a substantivis immediate descendentia,
quae semper substantivis suis praeponuntur. Primum quidem adjectivum
possessivum libet appellare. Fit autem a quovis substantivo, sive
singulari sive plurali, addito _-s_.--Ut _man's nature_, _the nature of
man_, natura humana vel hominis; _men's nature_, natura humana vel
hominum; _Virgil's poems_, _the poems of Virgil_, poemata Virgilii vel
Virgiliana."--p. 89.
* * * * *
{422}
CHAPTER IX.
THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
s. 522. The word _that_, although originally, when a demonstrative pronoun,
a neuter singular, is now used as a relative for all genders, and both
numbers.
1. He _that_ spoke.--_Masculine gender._
2. She _that_ spoke.--_Feminine gender._
3. They _that_ fought.--_Plural number._
4. The man _that_ I struck.--_Objective case._
s. 523. Etymologically, _which_ is no true neuter of _who_, but a compound
word. It is used, however, with less latitude than _that_. The beginning of
the Lord's Prayer exhibits it in combination with a masculine noun.
Generally, however, it is confined to the neuter gender; in which it is
common to both numbers.
1. The dagger _which_ stabbed Caesar.--_Nominative singular._
2. The daggers _which_ stabbed Caesar.--_Nominative plural._
3. The dagger _which_ I grasp.--_Objective singular._
4. The daggers _which_ I grasp.--_Objective plural._
s. 524. _Which_ has so nearly replaced _what_ that the general use of this
last word with its proper power, as a neuter relative, is, in the present
English, vulgar, _e.g._,
1. The dagger _what_ stabbed Caesar.
2. The dagger _what_ I grasp.
In one case, however, _what_ is used as a true relative, _viz._, when the
antecedent is either _this_ or _that_.
This is _what_ I mean; _not_, this is _which_ I mean.
That is _what_ I mean; _not_, that is _which_ I mean.
{423}
s. 525. The word _as_, properly a conjunction, is occasionally used as a
relative--_the man_ as _rides to market_.
This expression is not to be imitated. It ought, however, to be explained.
_As_ is a conjunction denoting comparison. The ideas of comparison and
equivalence are allied. The relative is _ex vi termini_ the equivalent, in
one part of a sentence, to the antecedent in another.
(1) The man--(2) who speaks.
Here _who_=_man_.
(1) As white--(2) as snow.
Here _snow_=_white_.
s. 526. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _gender_ as the
antecedent--_the man who_--_the woman who_--_the thing which_.
s. 527. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _number_ with the
antecedent. As, however, _who_, _which_, _whom_, are equally singular and
plural, and as _what_, which is really singular, is not used as a relative,
the application of this law is limited to the word _whose_. Now _whose_ is,
etymologically, a genitive case, and a genitive case of the singular
number. Hence the expression _the men whose daggers stabbed Caesar_ can
only be justified by considering that the word _whose_ is plural as well as
singular. Such is the case. If not the expression is as illogical as
_homines_ cujus _sicae_, &c. would be in Latin.
s. 528. It is _not_ necessary for the relative to be in the same case with
its antecedent.
1. John, _who_ trusts me, comes here.
2. John, _whom_ I trust, comes here.
3. John, _whose_ confidence I possess, comes here.
4. I trust John _who_ trusts me.
s. 529. The reason why the relative must agree with its antecedent in both
number and gender, whilst it need not agree with it in case, is found in
the following observations.
1. All sentences containing a relative contain two verbs--_John who_ (1)
_trusts me_ (2) _comes here_.
2. Two verbs express two actions--(1) _trust_ (2) _come_.
3. Whilst, however, the actions are two in number, the {424} person or
thing which does, or suffers them is single--_John_.
4. _He_ (_she_ or _it_) is single _ex vi termini_. The relative expresses
the _identity_ between the subjects (or objects) of the two actions. Thus
_who_=_John_, or is another name for John.
5. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same
gender. The _John_ who _trusts_ is necessarily of the same gender with the
_John_ who _comes_.
6. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same
number. The number of _Johns_ who _trust_, is the same as the number of
_Johns_ who _come_. Both these elements of concord are immutable.
7. But a third element of concord is not immutable. The person or thing
that is an agent in the one part of the sentence, may be the object of an
action in the other. The _John_ whom I _trust_ may _trust_ me also. Hence
_a._ I trust John--_John_ the object.
_b._ John trusts me--_John_ the agent.
As the relative is only the antecedent in another form, it may change its
case according to the construction.
1. I trust John--(2) _John_ trusts me.
2. I trust John--(2) _He_ trusts me.
3. I trust John--(2) _Who_ trusts me.
4. John trusts me--(2) I trust _John_.
5. John trusts me--(2) I trust _him_.
6. John trusts me--(2) I trust _whom_.
7. John trusts me--(2) _Whom_ I trust.
8. John--(2) _Whom_ I trust trusts me.
s. 530. _The books I want are here._--This is a specimen of a true
ellipsis. In all such phrases in _full_, there are _three_ essential
elements.
1. The first proposition; as _the books are here_.
2. The second proposition; as _I want_.
3. The word which connects the two propositions, and without which, they
naturally make separate, independent, unconnected statements.
Now, although true and unequivocal ellipses are scarce, {425} the preceding
is one of the most unequivocal kind--the word which connects the two
propositions being wanting.
s. 531. One or two points connected with the construction of those
sentences wherein relative pronouns occur, are necessary to be familiarly
understood in order for us to see our way clearly to certain real and
apparent anomalies in the syntax of this class of words.
1. Every sentence wherein a relative occurs, is complex, _i.e._, it
consists of two propositions--_the man who rides is come_=(1) _the man is
come_; (2) _who rides_. Here the relative _who_ has no meaning in itself,
but takes a meaning from the noun of the preceding clause.
2. _The relative is the demonstrative or personal pronoun under another
form._--The two propositions (1) _the man is come_; (2) _who rides_=(1)
_the man is come_; (2) _he rides_.
3. _The demonstrative or personal pronoun is the substantive in another
form._--The two propositions (1) _the man is come_; (2) _he rides_=(1) _the
man is come_; (2) _the man rides_.
4. Hence the relative is the equivalent to a demonstrative pronoun, or to a
substantive, indifferently.
5. But the relative is the equivalent to the pronoun and substantive, and
_something more_. In sentences like
The man is come--he rides--
The man is come--the man rides.
The identity between the person mentioned in the two propositions is
implied, not expressed. This the relative _expresses_; and hence its use in
languages.
6. From these observations we get a practical rule for determining doubtful
constructions.
_a._ Reduce the sentence to the several propositions (which are never less
than two) which it contains.
_b._ Replace the relative by its equivalent personal or demonstrative
pronoun, or by its equivalent substantive.
_c._ The case of the demonstrative or substantive, is the case of the
relative also.
By applying this rule to such expressions as
Satan, than _whom_
None higher sat, thus spake
{426} we find them, _according to the current etymology_, incorrect--
Satan spake--none sat higher than he sat.
Satan spake--none sat higher than Satan sat.
Hence the expression should be,
Satan than _who_
None higher sat.
_Observe._--The words, _according to the current etymology_, indicate an
explanation which, rightly or wrongly, has been urged in favour of
expressions like the one in question, and which will be noticed in a future
chapter.
s. 532. _Observe._--That three circumstances complicate the syntax of the
relative pronoun.
1. The elliptic form of the generality of the sentences wherein it follows
the word _than_.
2. The influence of the oblique interrogation.
3. The influence of an omitted relative.
s. 533. This last finds place in the present chapter.
_When the relative and antecedent are in different cases, and the relative
is omitted, the antecedent is sometimes put in the case of the relative._
He whom I accuse has entered.
Contracted according to p. 424.
He I accuse has entered.
Changed, according to the present section,--
Him I accuse has entered.
And so (as shown by Mr. Guest, _Philological Transactions_), Shakspeare has
really written,--
_Him_ I accuse,
The city gates by this has entered.
_Coriolanus_, v. 5.
Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire
Too high a fame, when _him_ we serve's away.
_Antony and Cleopatra_, iii. 1.
The reason of this is clear. The verb that determines {427} the case of the
relative is brought in contact with the antecedent, and the case of the
antecedent is accommodated to the case of the relative.
The Greek phrase, [Greek: chromai bibliois hois echo], is an instance of
the converse process.
s. 534. _When there are two words in a clause, each capable of being an
antecedent, the relative refers to the latter._
1. _Solomon the son of David who slew Goliah._ This is unexceptionable.
2. _Solomon the son of David who built the temple._ This is exceptionable.
Nevertheless, it is defensible, on the supposition that
_Solomon-the-son-of-David_ is a single many-worded name.
* * * * *
{428}
CHAPTER X.
ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN.
s. 535. Questions are of two sorts, direct and oblique.
_Direct._--Who is he?
_Oblique._--Who do you say that he is?
All difficulties about the cases of the interrogative pronoun may be
determined by framing an answer, and observing the case of the word with
which the interrogative coincides. Whatever be the case of this word will
also be the case of the interrogative.
DIRECT.
_Qu._ _Who_ is this?--_Ans._ _I._
_Qu._ _Whose_ is this?--_Ans._ _His._
_Qu._ _Whom_ do you seek?--_Ans._ _Him._
OBLIQUE.
_Qu._ _Who_ do you say that it is?--_Ans._ _He._
_Qu._ _Whose_ do you say that it is?--_Ans._ _His._
_Qu._ _Whom_ do you say that they seek?--_Ans._ _Him._
_Note._--The answer should always be made by means of a pronoun, as, by so
doing we distinguish the accusative case from the nominative.
_Note._--And, if necessary, it should be made in full. Thus the full answer
to _whom do you say that they seek?_ is, _I say that they seek him_.
s. 536. Nevertheless, such expressions as _whom do they say that it is?_
are common, especially in oblique questions. The following examples are Mr.
Guest's.--_Philological Transactions._
"And he axed hem and seide, _whom_ seien the people that I am? Thei
answereden and seiden, Jon Baptist--and he seide to hem, But _whom_
seien ye that I am?"--WICLIF, _Luke_ ix.
{429}
"Tell me in sadness _whom_ she is you love."
_Romeo and Juliet_, i. 1.
"And as John fulfilled his course, he said, _whom_ think ye that I
am?"--_Acts_ xiii. 25.
Two circumstances encourage this confusion. 1. The presence of a second
verb, which takes the appearance of a governing verb. 2. The omission of a
really oblique antecedent or relative. 3. The use of accusative for
nominative forms in the case of personal pronouns.
s. 537. _The presence of a second verb_, &c.--_Tell_ me _whom_ she _is_.
Here _tell_ is made to govern _whom_, instead of _whom_ being left, as
_who_, to agree with _she_.
s. 538. _The omission_, &c.--Tell me _whom_ she is you _love_. Here the
full construction requires a second pronoun--tell me _who_ she is _whom_
you _love_; or else, tell me _her whom_ you love.
s. 539. To the question, _who is_ this? many would answer not _I_, but
_me_. This confusion of the case in the answer favours a confusion of case
in the question.
It is clear that much of this reasoning applies to the relative powers of
_who_, as well as to the interrogative.
But, it is possible that there may be no incorrectness at all: insomuch as
_whom_ may have become a true nominative. Mr. Guest has truly remarked that
such is the case in the Scandinavian language, where _hve-m_=_who_=_qui_.
This view, if true, justifies the use of _whom_ after the conjunctions
_than_ and _as_; so that the expression,--
Satan than _whom_
None higher sat,
may be right.
Nevertheless, it does not justify such expressions as--
None sit higher than _me_.
None sit higher than _thee_.
None sit higher than _us_.
None sit higher than _her_.
{430}
The reason of this is clear. _Whom_ is supposed to be admissible, not
because the sentence admits an accusative case; but because custom has
converted it into a nominative. For my own part, I doubt the application of
the Danish rule to the English language. Things may be going that way, but
they have not, as yet, gone far enough.
* * * * *
{431}
CHAPTER XI.
THE RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION.
s. 540. In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual
action there are in reality two assertions, _viz._, the assertion that A.
_strikes_ (or _loves_) B., and the assertion that B. _strikes_ (or _loves_)
A.; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence, if the expressions
exactly coincided with the fact signified, there would always be two
propositions. This, however, is not the habit of language. Hence arises a
more compendious form of expression, giving origin to an ellipsis of a
peculiar kind. Phrases like _Eteocles and Polynices killed each other_ are
elliptical, for _Eteocles and Polynices killed--each the other_. Here the
second proposition expands and explains the first, whilst the first
supplies the verb to the second. Each, however, is elliptic. The first is
without the object, the second without the verb. That the verb must be in
the plural (or dual) number, that one of the nouns must be in the
nominative case, and that the other must be objective, is self-evident from
the structure of the sentence; such being the conditions of the expression
of the idea. An aposiopesis takes place after a plural verb, and then there
follows a clause wherein the verb is supplied from what went before.
s. 541. This is the syntax. As to the power of the words _each_ and _one_
in the expression (_each other_ and _one another_), I am not prepared to
say that in the common practice of the English language there is any
distinction between them. A distinction, however, if it existed would give
strength to our language. Where two persons performed a reciprocal action
on another, the expression might be _one another_; as _Eteocles and
Polynices killed one another_. Where more than two {432} persons were
engaged on each side of a reciprocal action the expression might be _each
other_; as, _the ten champions praised each other_.
This amount of perspicuity is attained, by different processes, in the
French, Spanish, and Scandinavian languages.
1. French.--_Ils_ (_i.e._, A. and B.) _se battaient--l'un l'autre_. _Ils_
(A. B. C.) _se battaient--les uns les autres_. In Spanish, _uno otro_=_l'un
l'autre_, and _unos otros_=_les uns les autres_.
2. Danish.--_Hin_ander=the French _l'un l'autre_; whilst _hverandre_=_les
uns les autres_.
The Lapplandic, and, probably other languages, have the same elements of
perspicuity.
* * * * *
{433}
CHAPTER XII.
THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS.
s. 542. Different nations have different methods of expressing
indeterminate propositions.
Sometimes it is by the use of the passive voice. This is the common method
in Latin and Greek, and is also current in English--_dicitur_, [Greek:
legetai], _it is said_.
Sometimes the verb is reflective--_si dice_=_it says itself_, Italian.
Sometimes the plural pronoun of the third person is used. This also is an
English locution--_they say_=_the world at large says_.
Finally, the use of some word=_man_ is a common indeterminate expression.
The word _man_ has an indeterminate sense in the Modern German; as, _man
sagt_=_they say_.
The word _man_ was also used indeterminately in the Old English, although
it is not so used in the Modern.--Deutsche Grammatik.
In the Old English, the form _man_ often lost the _-n_, and became
_me_.--Deutsche Grammatik. This form is also extinct.
The present indeterminate pronoun is _one_; as, _one says_=_they say_=_it
is said_=_man sagt_, German=_on dit_, French=_si dice_, Italian.
It has been stated in p. 257, that the indeterminate pronoun _one_ has no
etymological connection with the numeral _one_; but that it is derived from
the French _on_=_homme_=_homo_=_man_; and that it has replaced the Old
English, _man_ or _me_.
s. 543. Two other pronouns, or, to speak more in accordance with the
present habit of the English language, one {434} pronoun, and one adverb of
pronominal origin are also used indeterminately viz., _it_ and _there_.
s. 544. _It_ can be either the subject or the predicate of a sentence,--_it
is this_, _this is it_, _I am it_, _it is I_. When _it_ is the subject of a
proposition, the verb necessarily agrees with it, and can be of the
singular number only; no matter what be the number of the predicate--_it is
this_, _it is these_.
When _it_ is the predicate of a proposition, the number of the verb depends
upon the number of the subject. These points of universal syntax are
mentioned here for the sake of illustrating some anomalous forms.
s. 545. _There_ can only be the predicate of a subject. It differs from
_it_ in this respect. It follows also that it must differ from _it_ in
never affecting the number of the verb. This is determined by the nature of
the subject--_there is this_, _there are these_.
When we say _there is these_, the analogy between the words _there_ and
_it_ misleads us; the expression being illogical.
Furthermore, although a predicate, _there_ always stands in the beginning
of propositions, _i.e._, in the place of the subject. This also misleads.
s. 546. Although _it_, when the subject, being itself singular, absolutely
requires that its verb should be singular also, there is a tendency to use
it incorrectly, and to treat it as a plural. Thus, in German, when the
predicate is plural, the verb joined to the singular form _es_ (=_it_) is
plural--_es sind menschen_, literally translated=_it are men_; which,
though bad English, is good German.
* * * * *
{435}
CHAPTER XIII.
THE ARTICLES.
s. 547. The rule of most practical importance about the articles is the
rule that determines when the article shall be repeated as often as there
is a fresh substantive, and when it shall not.
When two or more substantives following each other denote the same object,
the article precedes the first only. We say _the secretary and treasurer_
(or, _a secretary and treasurer_), when the two offices are held by one
person.
When two or more substantives following each other denote different
objects, the article is repeated, and precedes each. We say _the_ (or _a_)
_secretary and the_ (or _a_) _treasurer_, when the two offices are held by
different persons.
This rule is much neglected.
* * * * *
{436}
CHAPTER XIV.
THE NUMERALS.
s. 548. The numeral _one_ is naturally single. All the rest are naturally
plural.
Nevertheless such expressions--_one two_ (=_one collection of two_), _two
threes_ (=_two collections of three_), are legitimate. These are so because
the sense of the word is changed. We may talk of several _ones_ just as we
may talk of several _aces_; and of _one two_ just as of _one pair_.
Expressions like _the thousandth-and-first_ are incorrect. They mean
neither one thing nor another: 1001st being expressed by _the
thousand-and-first_, and 1000th + 1st being expressed by _the thousandth
and the first_.
Here it may be noticed that, although I never found it to do so, the word
_odd_ is capable of taking an ordinal form. The _thousand-and-odd-th_ is as
good an expression as the _thousand-and-eight-th_.
The construction of phrases like the _thousand-and-first_ is the same
construction as we find in the _king-of-Saxony's army_.
s. 549. It is by no means a matter of indifference whether we say the _two
first_ or the _first two_.
The captains of two different classes at school should be called the _two
first boys_. The first and second boys of the same class should be called
the _first two boys_. I believe that when this rule is attended to, more is
due to the printer than to the author: such, at least, is the case with
myself.
* * * * *
{437}
CHAPTER XV.
ON VERBS IN GENERAL.
s. 550. For the purposes of syntax it is necessary to divide verbs into the
five following divisions: transitive, intransitive, auxiliary, substantive,
and impersonal.
_Transitive verbs._--In transitive verbs the action is never a simple
action. It always affects some object or other,--_I move my limbs_; _I
strike my enemy_. The presence of a transitive verb implies also the
presence of a noun; which noun is the name of the object affected. A
transitive verb, unaccompanied by a noun, either expressed or understood,
is a contradiction in terms. The absence of the nouns, in and of itself,
makes it intransitive. _I move_ means, simply, _I am in a state of moving_.
_I strike_ means, simply, _I am in the act of striking_. Verbs like _move_
and _strike_ are naturally transitive.
_Intransitive verbs._--An act may take place, and yet no object be affected
by it. _To hunger_, _to thirst_, _to sleep_, _to wake_, are verbs that
indicate states of being, rather than actions affecting objects. Verbs like
_hunger_, and _sleep_, are naturally intransitive.
Many verbs, naturally transitive, may be used as intransitive,--_e.g._, _I
move_, _I strike_, &c.
Many verbs, naturally intransitive, may be used as transitives,--_e.g._, _I
walked the horse_=_I made the horse walk_.
This variation in the use of one and the same verb is of much importance in
the question of the government of verbs.
A. Transitive verbs are naturally followed by some noun or other; and that
noun is _always_ the name of something affected by them _as an object_.
{438}
B. Intransitive verbs are not naturally followed by any noun at all; and
when they are so followed, the noun is _never_ the name of anything
affected by them _as an object_.
Nevertheless, intransitive verbs may be followed by nouns denoting the
manner, degree, or instrumentality of their action,--_I walk with my
feet_=_incedo pedibus_.
s. 551. _The auxiliary verbs_ will be noticed fully in Chapter XXIII.
s. 552. The verb _substantive_ has this peculiarity, _viz._ that for all
purposes of syntax it is no verb at all. _I speak_ may, logically, be
reduced to _I am speaking_; in which case it is only the _part_ of a verb.
Etymologically, indeed, the verb substantive is a verb; inasmuch as it is
inflected as such: but for the purposes of construction, it is a copula
only, _i.e._, it merely denotes the agreement or disagreement between the
subject and the predicate.
This does not apply to the infinitive mood. The infinitive mood of the
so-called verb substantive is a noun; not, however, because it is a verb
substantive, but because it is an infinitive mood.
For the _impersonal_ verbs see Part IV., Chapter 27.
* * * * *
{439}
CHAPTER XVI.
THE CONCORD OF VERBS.
s. 553. The verb must agree with its subject in person, _I walk_, not _I
walks_: _he walks_, not _he walk_.
It must also agree with it in number,--_we walk_, not _we walks_: _he
walks_, not _he walk_.
Clear as these rules are, they require some expansion before they become
sufficient to solve all the doubtful points of English syntax connected
with the concord of the verb.
A. _It is I, your master, who command you._ Query? would _it is I, your
master, who commands you_, be correct? This is an example of a disputed
point of concord in respect to the person of the verb.
B. _The wages of sin is death._ Query? would _the wages of sin _are_ death_
be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to
the number of the verb.
s. 554. In respect to the concord of person the following rules will carry
us through a portion of the difficulties.
_Rule._--In sentences, where there is but one proposition, when a noun and
a pronoun of different persons are in apposition, the verb agrees with the
first of them,--_I, your master, command you_ (not _commands_): _your
master, I, commands you_ (not _command_).
To understand the nature of the difficulty, it is necessary to remember
that subjects may be extremely complex as well as perfectly simple; and
that a complex subject may contain, at one and the same time, a noun
substantive and a pronoun,--_I, the keeper_; _he, the merchant_, &c.
Now all noun-substantives are naturally of the third person--_John speaks_,
_the men run_, _the commander gives orders_. Consequently the verb is of
the third person also. {440}
But, the pronoun with which such a noun-substantive may be placed in
apposition, may be a pronoun of either person, the first or second: _I_ or
_thou_--_I the commander_--_thou the commander_.--In this case the
construction requires consideration. With which does the verb agree? with
the substantive which requires a third person? or with the pronoun which
requires a first or second?
Undoubtedly the idea which comes first is the leading idea; and,
undoubtedly, the idea which explains, qualifies, or defines it, is the
subordinate idea: and, undoubtedly, it is the leading idea which determines
the construction of the verb. We may illustrate this from the analogy of a
similar construction in respect to number--_a man with a horse and a gig
meets me on the road_. Here the ideas are three; nevertheless the verb is
singular. No addition of subordinate elements interferes with the
construction that is determined by the leading idea. In the expression _I,
your master_, the ideas are two; viz. the idea expressed by _I_, and the
idea expressed by _master_. Nevertheless, as the one only explains or
defines the other, the construction is the same as if the idea were single.
_Your master, I_, is in the same condition. The general statement is made
concerning the _master_, and it is intended to say what _he_ does. The word
_I_ merely defines the expression by stating who the master is. Of the two
expressions the latter is the awkwardest. The construction, however, is the
same for both.
From the analysis of the structure of complex subjects of the kind in
question, combined with a rule concerning the position of the subject,
which will soon be laid down, I believe that, for all single propositions,
the foregoing rule is absolute.
_Rule._--In all single propositions the verb agrees in person with the noun
(whether substantive or pronoun) which comes first.
s. 555. But the expression _it is I, your master, who command_ (or
_commands_) _you_, is not a single proposition. It is a sentence containing
two propositions.
1. _It is I._
2. _Who commands you._
{441}
Here, the word _master_ is, so to say, undistributed. It may belong to
either clause of the sentence, _i.e._, the whole sentence may be divided
into
Either--_it is I your master_--
Or--_your master who commands you_.
This is the first point to observe. The next is that the verb in the second
clause (_command_ or _commands_) is governed, not by either the personal
pronoun or the substantive, but by the relative, _i.e._, in the particular
case before us, not by either _I_ or _master_, but by _who_.
And this brings us to the following question--with which of the two
antecedents does the _relative_ agree? with _I_ or with _master_?
This may be answered by the two following rules:--
_Rule 1._--When the two antecedents are in the same proposition, the
relative agrees with the first. Thus--
1. It is _I_ your _master_--
2. Who _command_ you.
_Rule 2._--When the two antecedents are in different propositions, the
relative agrees with the second. Thus--
1. It is _I_--
2. Your _master_ who _commands_ you.
This, however, is not all. What determines whether the two antecedents
shall be in the same or in different propositions? I believe that the
following rules for what may be called _the distribution of the substantive
antecedent_ will bear criticism.
_Rule 1._ That when there is any natural connection between the substantive
antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to
the second clause. Thus, in the expression just quoted, the word _master_
is logically connected with the word _command_; and this fact makes the
expression, _It is I your master who commands you_ the better of the two.
_Rule 2._ That when there is no natural connection between the substantive
antecedent and the verb governed by the {442} relative, the antecedent
belongs to the first clause. _It is I, John, who command_ (not _commands_)
_you_.
To recapitulate, the train of reasoning has been as follows:--
1. The person of the second verb is the person of the relative.
2. The person of the relative is that of one of two antecedents.
3. Of such two antecedents the relative agrees with the one which stands in
the same proposition with itself.
4. Which position is determined by the connection or want of connection
between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative.
Respecting the person of the verb in the _first_ proposition of a complex
sentence there is no doubt. _I, your master, who commands you to make
haste, am_ (not _is_) _in a hurry_. Here, _I am in a hurry_ is the first
proposition; _who commands you to make haste_, the second.
It is not difficult to see why the construction of sentences consisting of
two propositions is open to an amount of latitude which is not admissible
in the construction of single propositions. As long as the different parts
of a complex idea are contained within the limits of a single proposition,
their subordinate character is easily discerned. When, however, they amount
to whole propositions, they take the appearance of being independent
members of the sentence.
s. 556. _The concord of number._--It is believed that the following three
rules will carry us through all difficulties of the kind just exhibited.
_Rule 1._ That the verb agrees with the subject, and with nothing but the
subject. The only way to justify such an expression as _the wages of sin is
death_, is to consider _death_ not as the subject, but as the predicate; in
other words, to consider the construction to be, _death is the wages of
sin_.
_Rule 2._ That, except in the case of the word _there_ (p. 434), the word
which comes first is always the subject, until the contrary be proved.
{443}
_Rule 3._ That no number of connected singular nouns can govern a plural
verb, unless they be connected by a copulative conjunction. _The sun _and_
moon shine_,--_the sun_ in conjunction with _the moon shines_.
s. 557. _Plural subjects with singular predicates._--The wages of sin _are_
death.--Honest men _are_ the salt of the earth.
_Singular subjects with plural predicates._--These constructions are rarer
than the preceding: inasmuch as two or more persons (or things) are oftener
spoken of as being equivalent to one, than one person (or thing) is spoken
of as being equivalent to two or more.
Sixpence _is_ twelve halfpennies.
He _is_ all head and shoulders.
Vulnera totus _erat_.
Tu _es_ deliciae meae.
[Greek: Hektor, atar su moi essi pater kai potnia meter,]
[Greek: Ede kasignetos, su de moi thaleros parakoites].
* * * * *
{444}
CHAPTER XVII.
ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS.
s. 558. The government of verbs is of two sorts, (1.) _objective_, and (2.)
_modal_.
It is objective where the noun which follows the verb is the name of some
object affected by the action of the verb,--as _he strikes me_; _he wounds
the enemy_.
It is modal when the noun which follows the verb is not the name of any
object affected by the verb, but the name of some object explaining the
manner in which the action of the verb takes place, the instrument with
which it is done, the end for which it is done, &c.
The government of all transitive verbs is necessarily objective. It may
also be modal,--_I strike the enemy with the sword_=_ferio hostem gladio_.
The government of all intransitive verbs can only be modal,--_I walk with
the stick_. When we say, _I walk the horse_, the word _walk_ has changed
its meaning, and signifies _make to walk_, and is, by the very fact of its
being followed by the name of an object, converted from an intransitive
into a transitive verb.
The modal construction may also be called the _adverbial construction_;
because the effect of the noun is akin to that of an adverb,--_I fight with
bravery_=_I fight bravely_: _he walks a king_=_he walks regally_. The modal
(or adverbial) construction (or government) sometimes takes the appearance
of the objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently followed by
a substantive; which substantive is in the objective case. Nevertheless,
this is no proof of government. For a verb to be capable of governing an
objective case, it must be a verb signifying an action affecting an object:
and {445} if there be no such object, there is no room for any objective
government. _To break the sleep of the righteous_, is to _affect, by
breaking, the sleep of the righteous_: but, _to sleep the sleep of the
righteous_, is not to _affect by sleeping the sleep of the righteous_;
since the act of sleeping is an act that affects no object whatever. It is
a _state_. We may, indeed, give it the appearance of a transitive verb, as
we do when we say, _the opiate slept the patient_, meaning thereby, _lulled
to sleep_; but the transitive character is only apparent.
_To sleep the sleep of the righteous_ is to _sleep in agreement with_--or
_according to_--or _after the manner of_--_the sleep of the righteous_, and
the construction is adverbial.
In the grammars of the classical languages, the following rule is
exceptionable--_Quodvis verbum admittit accusativum nominis sibi cognati_.
It does so; but it governs the accusative case not objectively but modally.
s. 559. Modal verbs may be divided into a multiplicity of divisions. Of
such, it is not necessary in English to give more than the following
four:--
1. _Appositional._--As, _she walks a queen_: _you consider me safe_. The
appositional construction is, in reality, a matter of concord rather than
of gender. It will be considered more fully in the following section.
2. _Traditive._--As, _I give the book to you_=_do librum tibi_. _I teach
you the lesson_=[Greek: didasko se ten didaskalian]. In all traditive
expressions there are three ideas; (1.) an agent, (2.) an object, (3.) a
person, or thing, to which the object is made over, or transferred, by the
agent. For this idea the term dative is too restricted: since in Greek and
some other languages, both the name of the object conveyed, and the name of
the person to whom it is conveyed are, frequently, put in the accusative
case.
3. _Instrumental._--As, _I fight with a sword_=_pugno ense_=_feohte
sweorde_,--Anglo-Saxon.
4. _Emphatic._--As, _he sleeps the sleep of the righteous_.
s. 560. _Verb and nominative case._--No verb governs a nominative case. The
appositional construction _seems_ to require such a form of government; but
the form is only apparent. {446}
It is I.
It is thou.
It is he, &c.
Here, although the word _is_ is _followed_ by a nominative case, it by no
means governs one--at least not as a verb.
It has been stated above that the so-called verb substantive is only a verb
for the purposes of etymology. In syntax, it is only a part of a verb,
_i. e._, the copula.
Now this fact changes the question of the construction in expressions like
_it is I_, &c., from a point of government to one of concord. In the
previous examples the words _it_, _is_, and _I_, were, respectively,
_subject_, _copula_, and _predicate_; and, as it is the function of the
copula to denote the agreement between the predicate and the subject, the
real point to investigate is the nature of the concord between these two
parts of a proposition.
Now the predicate need agree with the subject in case only.
1. It has no necessary concord in gender--_she is a man in courage_--_he is
a woman in effeminacy_--_it is a girl_.
2. It has no necessary concord in number--_sin is the wages of death_--_it
is these that do the mischief_.
3. It has no necessary concord in person--_I am he whom you mean_.
4. It _has_, however, a necessary concord in case. Nothing but a nominative
case can, by itself, constitute a term of either kind--subject or
predicate. Hence, both terms must be in the nominative, and, consequently,
both in the same case. Expressions like _this is for me_ are elliptic. The
logical expression is _this is a thing for me_.
_Rule._--The predicate must be of the same case with its subject.
Hence--The copula instead of determining[60] a case expresses a concord.
{447}
_Rule 1._--All words connected with a nominative case by the copula
(_i.e._, the so-called verb-substantive) must be nominative.--_It is I_; _I
am safe_.
_Rule 2._--All words in apposition with a word so connected must be
nominative.--It is difficult to illustrate this from the English language
from our want of inflexions. In Latin, however, we say _vocor Johannes_=_I
am called John_, not _vocor Johannem_. Here the logical equivalent is _ego
sum vocatus Johannes_--where--
1. _Ego_, is nominative because it is the subject.
2. _Vocatus_ is nominative because it is the predicate agreeing with the
subject.
3. _Johannes_, is nominative because it is part of the predicate, and in
apposition with _vocatus_.
N.B. Although in precise language _Johannes_ is said to agree with
_vocatus_ rather than to be in apposition with it, the expression, as it
stands, is correct. Apposition is the agreement of substantives, agreement
the apposition of adjectives.
_Rule 3._--All verbs which, when resolved into a copula and participle,
have their participle in apposition (or agreeing) with the noun, are in the
same condition as simple copulas--_she walks a queen_=_she is walking a
queen_=_illa est incedens regina_.
_Rule 4._--The construction of a subject and copula preceded by the
conjunction _that_, is the same in respect to the predicate by which they
are followed as if the sentence were an isolated proposition.
This rule determines the propriety of the expression--_I believe that it is
he_ as opposed to the expression _I believe that it is him_.
_I believe_=_I am believing_, and forms one proposition.
_It is he_, forms a second.
_That_, connects the two; but belongs to neither.
{448}
Now, as the relation between the subject and predicate of a proposition
cannot be affected by a word which does not belong to it, the construction
is the same as if the propositions were wholly separate.
N.B. The question (in cases where the conjunction _that_ is not used), as
to the greater propriety of the two expressions--_I believe it to be
him_--_I believe it to be he_--has yet to be considered.
s. 561. _The verb and genitive case._--No verb in the present English
governs a genitive case. In Anglo-Saxon certain verbs did: _e.g._, _verbs
of ruling_ and others--_weolde thises middangeardes_=_he ruled_ (_wealded_)
_this earth's_. Genitive cases, too, governed by a verb are common both in
Latin and Greek. _To eat of the fruit of the tree_ is no genitive
construction, however much it may be equivalent to one. _Fruit_ is in the
objective case, and is governed not by the verb but by the preposition
_of_.
s. 562. _The verb and accusative._--All transitive verbs govern an
accusative case,--_he strikes me_, _thee_, _him_, _her_, _it_, _us_, _you_,
_them_.
_The verb and dative case._--The word _give_, and a few others, govern a
dative case. Phrases like _give it him_, _whom shall I give it_, are
perfectly correct, and have been explained above. The prepositional
construction _give it_ to _him_,--_to whom shall I give it?_ is
unnecessary. The evidence of this is the same as in the construction of the
adjective _like_.
s. 563. _The partitive construction._--Certain transitive verbs, the action
whereof is extended not to the whole, but only to a part of their object,
are followed by the preposition of and an objective case. _To eat of the
fruit of the tree_=_to eat a part_ (or _some_) _of the fruit of the tree_:
_to drink of the water of the well_=_to drink a part_ (or _some_) _of the
water of the well_. It is not necessary, here, to suppose the ellipsis of
the words _part_ (or _some_). The construction is a construction that has
grown out of the partitive power of the genitive case; for which case the
preposition _of_, followed by the objective, serves as an equivalent.
s. 564. It has been already stated that forms like _I believe_ {449} _it to
be him_, and forms like _I believe it to be he_, had not been investigated.
Of these, the former is, logically, correct.
Here, the word, _to be_, is, in respect to its power, a noun.
As such, it is in the accusative case after the verb _believe_.
With this accusative infinitive, _it_ agrees, as being part of the same
complex idea. And _him_ does the same.
In English we have two methods of expressing one idea; the method in
question, and the method by means of the conjunction, _that_.
1. _I believe it to be him._
2. _I believe that it is he._
In the first example, _it_ is the object; and _it-to-be-him_ forms one
complex term.
In the second, _he_ agrees with _it_; and _it_ is the subject of a
separate, though connected, proposition.
Of these two forms the Latin language adopts but one, _viz._, the
former,--_credo eum esse_, not _credo quod illud est ille_.
s. 565. _The expression_ ob differentiam.--The classical languages,
although having but one of the two previous forms, are enabled to effect a
variation in the application of it, which, although perhaps illogical, is
convenient. When the speaker means himself, the noun that follows, _esse_,
or [Greek: einai], is nominative,--[Greek: phemi einai despotes]=_I say
that I am the master_: _ait fuisse celerrimus_=_he says that he himself was
the swiftest_--but, [Greek: phemi einai despoten]=_I say that he_ (some one
else) _is the master_; and _ait fuisse celerrimum_=_he says that he_ (some
one else) _is the swiftest_. This, though not adopted in English, is
capable of being adopted,--_He believes it to be he_ (_i.e._, the speaker)
_who invented the machine_; but, _he believes it to be him_ (that is,
another person) _who invented it_.
s. 566. When the substantive infinitive, _to be_, is preceded by a passive
participle, combined with the verb substantive, the construction is
nominative,--_it is believed to be he who spoke_, not _it is believed to be
him_.--Here there are two propositions:
1. It is believed.--
2. Who spoke.
{450} Now, here, _it_ is the subject, and, as such, nominative. But it is
also the equivalent to _to be he_, which must be nominative as well. _To be
he is believed_=_esse-ille creditur_,--or, changing the mode of proof,--
1. _It_ is the subject and nominative.
2. _Believed_ is part of the predicate; and, consequently, nominative also.
3. _To be he_ is a subordinate part of the predicate, in apposition with
_believed_--_est creditum, nempe entitas ejus_. Or, _to be he is
believed_=_esse-ille est creditum_.
As a general expression for the syntax of copulas and appositional
constructions, the current rule, that _copulas and appositional verbs must
be followed by the same case by which they are preceded_, stands good.
* * * * *
{451}
CHAPTER XVIII.
ON THE PARTICIPLES.
s. 567. The present participle, or the participle in _-ing_, must be
considered in respect to its relations with the substantive in _-ing_.
_Dying-day_ is, probably, no more a participle than _morning-walk_. In
respect to the syntax of such expressions as the forthcoming, I consider
that they are _either_ participles or substantives.
1. When substantives, they are in regimen, and govern a genitive
case--_What is the meaning of the lady's holding up her train?_ Here the
word _holding_=_the act of holding_.--_Quid est significatio elevationis
pallae de parte foeminae._
2. When participles, they are in apposition or concord, and would, if
inflected, appear in the same case with the substantive, or pronoun,
preceding them--_What is the meaning of the lady holding up her train?_
Here the word _holding_=_in the act of holding_, and answers to the Latin
_foeminae elevantis_.--_Quid est significatio foeminae elevantis pallam?_
For the extent to which the view differs from that of Priestley, and still
more with that of Mr. Guest, see _Phil. Trans._, 25.
s. 568. The past participle corresponds not with the Greek form [Greek:
tuptomenos], but with the form [Greek: tetummenos]. _I am beaten_ is
essentially a combination, expressive not of present but of past time, just
like the Latin _sum verberatus_. Its Greek equivalent is not [Greek: eimi
tuptomenos]=_I am a man in the act of being beaten_, but [Greek: eimi
tetummenos]=_I am a man who has been beaten_. It is past in respect to the
action, though present in respect to the state brought about by the action.
This essentially past element in the so-called present expression, _I am
beaten_, will be again referred to.
* * * * *
{452}
CHAPTER XIX.
ON THE MOODS.
s. 569. The infinitive mood is a noun. The current rule that _when two
verbs come together the latter is placed in the infinitive mood_ means that
one verb can govern another only by converting it into a noun--_I begin to
move_=_I begin the act of moving_. Verbs, _as verbs_, can only come
together in the way of apposition--_I irritate_, _I beat_, _I talk at him_,
_I call him names_, &c.
s. 570. The construction, however, of English infinitives is twofold. (1.)
Objective. (2.) Gerundial.
When one verb is followed by another without the preposition _to_, the
construction must be considered to have grown out of the objective case, or
from the form in _-an_.
This is the case with the following words, and, probably, with others.
I may go, _not_ I may _to_ go.
I might go, -- I might _to_ go.
I can move, -- I can _to_ move.
I could move, -- I could _to_ move.
I will speak, -- I will _to_ speak.
I would speak, -- I would _to_ speak.
I shall wait, -- I shall _to_ wait.
I should wait, -- I should _to_ wait.
Let me go, -- Let me _to_ go.
He let me go, -- He let me _to_ go.
I do speak, -- I do _to_ speak.
I did speak, -- I did _to_ speak.
I dare go, -- I dare _to_ go.
I durst go, -- I durst _to_ go.
Thou shalt not _see_ thy brother's ox or his ass _fall_ down by the
way.
We _heard_ him _say_ I will destroy the temple.
{453} I _feel_ the pain _abate_.
He _bid_ her _alight_.
I would fain _have_ any one _name_ to me that tongue that any one can
speak as he should do by the rules of grammar.
This, in the present English, is the rarer of the two constructions.
When a verb is followed by another, preceded by the preposition _to_, the
construction must be considered to have grown out of the so-called gerund,
_i.e._, the form in _-nne_, _i.e._, the dative case--_I begin to move_.
This is the case with the great majority of English verbs.
The following examples, from the Old English, of the gerundial construction
where we have, at present, the objective, are Mr. Guest's.
1. Eilrid _myght nought to stand_ tham ageyn.
_R. Br._
2. Whether feith schall _mowe to save_ him?
WICLIF, _James_ ii.
3. My woful child what flight _maist thou to take_?
HIGGINS, _Lady Sabrine_, 4.
4. Never to retourne no more,
Except he _would_ his life _to loose_ therfore.
HIGGINS, _King Albanaet_, 6.
5. He said he _could not to forsake_ my love.
HIGGINS, _Queen Elstride_, 20.
6. The mayster _lette_ X men and mo
_To wende_.
_Octavian_, 381.
7. And though we owe the fall of Troy requite,
Yet _let_ revenge thereof from gods _to_ lighte.
HIGGINS, _King Albanaet_, 16.
8. _I durst_, my lord, _to wager_ she is honest.
_Othello_, iv. 2.