ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRÆTERITE.
§ 408. The remote origin of the weak præterite in -d or -t, has been
considered by Grimm. He maintains that it is the d in _d-d_, the
reduplicate præterite of _do_. In all the Gothic languages the termination
of the past tense is either -da, -ta, -de, -ði, -d, -t, or -ed, for the
singular, and -don, -ton, -tûmês, or -ðum, for the plural; in other words,
d, or an allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In the _plural_
præterite of the _Moeso-Gothic_, however, we have something more, viz., the
termination _-dêdum_; as _nas-idêdum_, _nas-idêduþ_, _nas-idedun_, from
_nas-ja_; _sôk-idêdum_, _sôk-idêduþ_, _sôk-idêdun_, from _sôk-ja_;
_salb-ôdedum_, _salb-ôdêduþ_, _salb-ôdêdun_, from _salbô_. Here there is a
second d. The same takes place with the dual form _salb-ôdêduts_, and with
the subjunctive forms, _salb-ôdêdjan_, _salb-ôdêduts_, _salb-ôdedi_,
_salb-ôdêdeits_, _salb-ôdêdeima_, _salb-ôdedeiþ_, _salb-ôdedina_. The
English phrase, _we did salve_, as compared with _salb-ôdedum_, is
confirmatory of this.
§ 409. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic præterite, in the
"Transactions of the Philological Society," induce me to prefer a different
doctrine, and 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].
1. The Slavonic præterite is commonly said to possess genders: in other
words, there is one form for speaking of a past action when done by a male,
and another for speaking of a past action when done by a female.
2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine or
feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the præterite is a participle. 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 class of languages, at least, gives us the undoubted fact
of an active præterite being identical with a passive participle, and as
the participle and præterite in question are nearly identical, we have a
fair reason for believing that the d, in the English active præterite, is
the d of the participle, which in its turn, is the t of the Latin passive
participle.
§ 410. The following extract gives Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic
verb in his own words:--
"A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish
languages, consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an
active sense, for the purpose of expressing the præterite. This
participle generally ends 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:
_Ya sam 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_."
* * * * *
PART V.
SYNTAX.
* * * * *
CHAPTER I.
ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL.
§ 411. 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 syntax.
_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.
§ 412. 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.
§ 413. _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.
§ 414. _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.
§ 415. _Pleonasm_ (from the Greek _pleoazein_ = _to be in excess_) occurs
in sentences like _the king, he reigns_. Here the word _he_ is
superabundant.
_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.
§ 416. _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).
§ 417. _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_).
§ 418.--_Apposition,_--_Cæsar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain._---Here
the words _Roman emperor_ explain, or define, the word _Cæsar_; and the
sentence, filled up, might stand, _Cæsar, 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 _Cæsar_. They
constitute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original one.
They are, as it were, _laid alongside_ (_appositi_) of the word _Cæsar_.
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.
§ 419. _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_.
§ 420. _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 reason applies to phrases like _the two king Williams_. If we say
the _two kings William_, we must account for the phrase by apposition.
§ 421. _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 _sprécan_, a simple infinitive; _to
speak_, or _speak_ + _to_ = the Anglo-Saxon _to sprécanne_, an infinitive
in the dative case.
§ 422. _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 languages. There, if a word be a substantive,
it will probably end in -s; if an infinitive verb, in -ein, &c. The
bearings of this difference between languages like the English and
languages like the Greek will soon appear.
At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, originally one part of
speech (e.g., a noun), may become another (e.g., a verb). This may be
called the convertibility of words.
There is an etymological convertibility, and a syntactic convertibility;
and although, in some cases, the line of demarcation is not easily drawn
between them, the distinction is intelligible and convenient.
§ 423. _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.
§ 424. _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_.
§ 425. _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.
§ 426. _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_.
So in the expression _one long now_, the word _now_ = _present time_.
§ 427. 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._
* * * * *
CHAPTER II.
SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES.
§ 428. The phenomena of convertibility have been already explained.
The remaining points connected with the syntax of substantives, are chiefly
points of ellipsis.
_Ellipsis of substantives._--The historical view of phrases, like _Rundell
and Bridge's_, _St. Paul's_, &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.
§ 429. 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.
* * * * *
CHAPTER III.
SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES.
§ 430. _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.
§ 431. 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_.
§ 432. _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 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.
§ 433. 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 villainous_ _villainouser_.
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_.
§ 434. In the Chapter on the Comparative Degree is indicated a refinement
upon the current notions as to the power of the comparative degree, and
reasons are given for believing that the fundamental notion expressed by
the comparative inflexion is the idea of comparison or contrast 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.
§ 435. 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.
* * * * *
CHAPTER IV.
SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.
§ 436. _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.
§ 437. 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.
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 it to be _he_ + _his_.
5. The -s in _father's_ is the -is in _patris_, and the [Greek: -os] in
[Greek: pateros].
§ 438. 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.
* * * * *
CHAPTER V.
THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
§ 439. _Personal pronouns._--The use of the second person plural instead of
the second singular has been noticed already. This use of one number for
another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used is
conveniently called the _pronomen reverentiæ_.
§ 440. _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_.
§ 441. _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 first two 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.
§ 442. _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_), 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.
§ 443. _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_.
* * * * *
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND THE PRONOUNS OF THE THIRD
PERSON.
§ 444. 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_.
§ 445. It has been stated 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.
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_ savour, 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.
* * * * *
CHAPTER VII.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF.
§ 446. The undoubted constructions of the word _self_, in the present state
of the cultivated English, are threefold.
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.
_Himself_ = _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.
§ 447. _Her-self_.--The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of the
preceding constructions. Which, however it is, 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.
* * * * *
CHAPTER VIII.
ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
§ 448. The possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first contains
the forms like _my_ and _thy_, &c.; the second, those like _mine_ and
_thine_, &c.
_My_, _thy_, _his_ (as in _his book_), _her_, _its_ (as in _its book_),
_our_, _your_, _their_, are conveniently considered as the equivalents to
the Latin forms _mei_, _tui_, _ejus_, _nostrum_, _vestrum_, _eorum_.
_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_.
§ 449. There is a 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 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, complementary to each other when taken in
their two forms.
§ 450. 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_.
§ 451. 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 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,
quæ semper substantivis suis præponuntur. 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.
* * * * *
CHAPTER IX.
THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
§ 452. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _gender_ as the
antecedent--_the man who_--_the woman who_--_the thing which_.
§ 453. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _number_ with the
antecedent.
§ 454. 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.
§ 455. 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 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.
§ 456. 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.
§ 457. _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, the preceding is
one of the most unequivocal kind--the word which connects the two
propositions being wanting.
§ 458. _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 that 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.
* * * * *
CHAPTER X.
ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN.
§ 459. 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._
§ 460. Nevertheless, such expressions as _whom do they say that it is?_ are
common, especially in oblique questions.
"And he axed him 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.
"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.
This confusion, however, is exceptionable.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XI.
THE RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION.
§ 461. 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.
§ 462. 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 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_.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XII.
THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS.
§ 463. 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.
In the Old English, the form _man_ often lost the -n, and became
_me_.--"Deutsche Grammatik." This form is also extinct.
§ 464. 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, 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_.
§ 465. Two other pronouns, or, to speak more in accordance with the present
habit of the English language, one pronoun, and one adverb of pronominal
origin, are also used indeterminately, viz., _it_ and _there_.
§ 466. _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.
§ 467. _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 _these_ 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.
§ 468. 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.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XIII.
THE ARTICLES.
§ 469. 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.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XIV.
THE NUMERALS.
§ 470. 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 thousand-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_.
§ 471. 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.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XV.
ON VERBS IN GENERAL.
§ 472. 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_.
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_.
§ 473. _The auxiliary verbs_ will be noticed fully in Chapter XXIII.
§ 474. 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.
For the _impersonal_ verbs see Chapter XXI.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XVI.
THE CONCORD OF VERBS.
§ 475. 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.
§ 476. 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.
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.
§ 477. 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._
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 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.
§ 478. _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_, the word which
comes first is generally the subject.
_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_.
§ 479. _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_ deliciæ meæ.
[Greek: Hektor, atar su moi essi patêr kai potnia mêtêr,]
[Greek: Êde kasignêtos, su de moi thaleros parakoitês.]
* * * * *
CHAPTER XVII.
ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS.
§ 480. 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, sometimes takes the appearance of the
objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently followed by a
substantive, e.g., _to sleep the sleep of the righteous_. Here,
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; which is not the case here. The sentence means, to
_sleep as the righteous sleep_, or _according to the sleep of the
righteous_.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XVIII.
ON THE PARTICIPLES.
§ 481. 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
pallæ de parte foeminæ._
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
_foeminæ elevantis_.--_Quid est significatio foeminæ elevantis pallam?_
§ 482. 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.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XIX.
ON THE MOODS.
§ 483. 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.
§ 484. The construction, however, of English infinitives is two fold. (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.
Such 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.
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.
§ 485. _Imperatives_ have three peculiarities. (1.) They can only, in
English, be used in the second person--_go thou on_, _get you gone_, &c.:
(2.) They take pronouns after, instead of before them: (3.) They often omit
the pronoun altogether.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XX.
ON THE TENSES.
§ 486. Notwithstanding its name, the present tense in English does not
express a strictly _present_ action. It rather expresses an habitual one.
_He speaks well_ = _he is a good speaker_. If a man means to say that he is
in the act of speaking, he says _I am speaking_.
It has also, especially when combined with a subjunctive mood, a future
power--_I beat you_ ( = _I will beat you_) _if you don't leave off_.
§ 487. The English præterite is the equivalent, not to the Greek perfect
but the Greek aorist. _I beat_ = [Greek: etupsa] not [Greek: tetupha]. The
true perfect is expressed, in English, by the auxiliary _have_ + the past
participle.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XXI.
SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS.
§ 488. _The concord of persons._--A difficulty that occurs frequently in
the Latin language is rare in English. In expressions like _ego et ille_
followed by a verb, there arises a question as to the person in which that
verb should be used. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree with
_ego_, or in the _third_ in order to agree with _ille_? For the sake of
laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the classical grammarians
arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to their _dignity_,
making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the
most _worthy_. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the
second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said--
_Ego_ et _Balbus_ _sustulimus_ manus.
_Tu_ et _Balbus_ _sustulistis_ manus.
Now, in English, the plural form is the same for all three persons. Hence
we say _I and you are friends_, _you and I are friends_, _I and he are
friends_, &c., so that for the practice of language, the question as to the
relative dignity of the three persons is a matter of indifference.
Nevertheless, it _may_ occur even in English. Whenever two or more pronouns
of different persons, and of the _singular_ number, follow each other
_disjunctively_, the question of concord arises. _I or you_,--_you or
he_,--_he or I_. I believe that, in these cases, the rule is as follows:--
1. Whenever the words _either_ or _neither_ precede the pronouns, the verb
is in the third person. _Either you or I is in the wrong_; _neither you nor
I is in the wrong_.
2. Whenever the disjunctive is simple (i.e. unaccompanied with the word
_either_ or _neither_) the verb agrees with the _first_ of the two
pronouns.
_I_ (or _he_) _am_ in the wrong.
_He_ (or _I_) _is_ in the wrong.
_Thou_ (or _he_) _art_ in the wrong.
_He_ (or _thou_) _is_ in the wrong.
Now, provided that they are correct, it is clear that the English language
knows nothing about the relative degrees of dignity between these three
pronouns; since its habit is to make the verb agree with the one which is
placed first--whatever may be the person. I am strongly inclined to believe
that the same is the case in Latin; in which case (in the sentence _ego et
Balbus sustulimus manus_) _sustulimus_ agrees, in person, with _ego_, not
because the first person is the worthiest, but because it comes first in
the proposition,
§ 489. In the Chapter on the Impersonal Verbs, it is stated that the
construction of _me-thinks_ is peculiar.
This is because in Anglo-Saxon the word _þincan_ = _seem_. Hence
_me-thinks_ is [Greek: phainetai moi], or _mihi videtur_, and _me_ is a
_dative_ case, not an _accusative_.
The _þencan_ = _think_, was, in Anglo-Saxon, a different word.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XXII.
ON THE VOICES OF VERBS.
§ 490. In English there is neither a passive nor a middle voice.
The following couplet from Dryden's "Mac Flecnoe" exhibits a construction
which requires explanation:--
An ancient fabric, raised to inform the sight,
There stood of yore, and Barbican _it hight_.
Here the word _hight_ = _was called_, and seems to present an instance of
the participle being used in a passive sense without the so-called verb
substantive. Yet it does no such thing. The word is no participle at all;
but a simple preterite. Certain verbs are _naturally_ either passive or
active, as one of two allied meanings may predominate. _To be called_ is
passive; so is, _to be beaten_. But, _to bear as a name_ is active; so is,
_to take a beating_. The word, _hight_, is of the same class of verbs with
the Latin _vapulo_; and it is the same as the Latin word,
_cluo_.--_Barbican cluit_ = _Barbican audivit_ = _Barbican it hight_.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XXIII.
ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS.
§ 491. The auxiliary verbs, in English, play a most important part in the
syntax of the language. They may be classified upon a variety of
principles. The following, however, are all that need here be applied.
A. _Classification of auxiliaries according to their inflection or
non-inflectional powers._--Inflectional auxiliaries are those that may
either replace or be replaced by an inflection. Thus--_I am struck_ = the
Latin _ferior_, and the Greek [Greek: tuptomai]. These auxiliaries are in
the same relation to verbs that prepositions are to nouns. The inflectional
auxiliaries are,--
1. _Have_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense--_I have bitten_
= _mo-mordi_.
2. _Shall_; ditto. _I shall call_ = _voc-abo_.
3. _Will_; ditto. _I will call_ = _voc-abo_.
4. _May_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of mood. _I am come that I
may see_ = _venio ut vid-eam_.
5. _Be_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of voice. _To be beaten_ =
_verberari_, [Greek: tuptesthai].
6. _Am_, _art_, _is_, _are_; ditto. Also equivalent to an inflection in the
way of tense. _I am moving_ = _move-o_.
7. _Was_, _were_; ditto, ditto. _I was beaten_ = [Greek: e-tuphthên]. _I
was moving_ = _move-bam_.
_Do_, _can_, _must_, and _let_, are non-inflectional auxiliaries.
B. _Classification of auxiliaries according to their non-auxiliary
significations._--The power of the word _have_ in the combination of _I
have a horse_ is clear enough. It means possession. The power of the same
word in the combination _I have been_ is not so clear; nevertheless it is a
power which has grown out of the idea of possession. This shows that the
power of a verb as an auxiliary may be a modification of its original
power; i.e., of the power it has in non-auxiliary constructions. Sometimes
the difference is very little: the word _let_, in _let us go_, has its
natural sense of permission unimpaired. Sometimes it is lost altogether.
_Can_ and _may_ exist only as auxiliaries.
1. Auxiliary derived from the idea of possession--_have_.
2. Auxiliaries derived from the idea of existence--_be_, _is_, _was_.
3. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon
circumstances external to the agent--_shall_. There are etymological
reasons for believing that _shall_ is no present tense, but a perfect.
4. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon
the volition of the agent--_will_. _Shall_ is simply predictive; _will_ is
predictive and promissive as well.
5. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances
external to the agent--_may_.
6. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances
internal to the agent--_can_. _May_ is simply permissive; _can_ is
potential. In respect to the idea of power residing in the agent being the
cause which determines a contingent action, _can_ is in the same relation
to _may_ as _will_ is to _shall_.
"_May_ et _can_, cum eorum præteritis imperfectis, _might_ et _could_,
potentiam innuunt: cum hoc tamen discrimine: _may_ et _might_ vel de
jure vel saltem de rei possibilitate, dicuntur, at _can_ et _could_ de
viribus agentis."--WALLIS, p. 107.
7. Auxiliary derived from the idea of sufferance--_let_.
8. Auxiliary derived from the idea of necessity--_must_.
"_Must_ necessitatem innuit. Debeo, oportet, necesse est urere, _I must
burn_. Aliquando sed rarius in præterito dicitur _must_ (quasi ex
_must'd_ seu _must't_ contractum). Sic, si de præterito dicatur, _he
must_ (seu _must't_) _be burnt_, oportebat uri seu necesse habuit ut
ureretur."--WALLIS, 107.
9. Auxiliary derived from the idea of action--_do_.
C. _Classification of auxiliary verbs in respect to their mode of
construction._--Auxiliary verbs combine with others in three ways.
1. _With participles._--a) With the present, or active, participle--_I am
speaking_: b) With the past, or passive, participle--_I am beaten_, _I have
beaten_.
2. _With infinitives._--a) With the objective infinitive--_I can speak_: b)
With the gerundial infinitive--_I have to speak_.
3. _With both infinitives and participles._--_I shall have done_, _I mean
to have done_.
D. _Auxiliary verbs may be classified according to their
effect._--Thus--_have_ makes the combination in which it appears equivalent
to a tense; _be_ to a passive form; _may_ to a sign of mood, &c.
This sketch of the different lights under which auxiliary verbs may be
viewed, has been written for the sake of illustrating, rather than
exhausting, the subject.
§ 492. The combination of the auxiliary, _have_, with the past participle
requires notice. It is, here, advisable to make the following
classifications.
1. The combination with the participle of a _transitive verb._--_I have
ridden the horse_; _thou hast broken the sword_; _he has smitten the
enemy_.
2. The combination with the participle of an _intransitive_ verb,--_I have
waited_; _thou hast hungered_; _he has slept_.
3. The combination with the participle of the verb substantive, _I have
been_; _thou hast been_; _he has been_.
It is by examples of the first of these three divisions that the true
construction is to be shown.
For an object of any sort to be in the possession of a person, it must
previously have existed. If I possess a horse, that horse must have had a
previous existence.
Hence, in all expressions like _I have ridden a horse_, there are two
ideas, a past idea in the participle, and a present idea in the word
denoting possession.
For an object of any sort, affected in a particular manner, to be in the
possession of a person, it must previously have been affected in the manner
required. If I possess a horse that has been ridden, the riding must have
taken place before I mention the fact of the ridden horse being in my
possession; inasmuch as I speak of it as a thing already done,--the
participle, _ridden_, being in the past tense.
_I have ridden a horse_ = _I have a horse ridden_ = _I have a horse as a
ridden horse_, or (changing the gender and dealing with the word _horse_ as
a thing) _I have a horse as a ridden thing_.
In this case the syntax is of the usual sort. (1) _Have_ = _own_ = _habeo_
= _teneo_; (2) _horse_ is the accusative case _equum_; (3) _ridden_ is a
past participle agreeing either with _horse_, or _with a word in apposition
with it understood_.
Mark the words in italics. The word _ridden_ does not agree with _horse_,
since it is of the neuter gender. Neither if we said _I have ridden the
horses_, would it agree with _horses_; since it is of the singular number.
The true construction is arrived at by supplying the word _thing_. _I have
a horse as a ridden thing_ = _habeo equum equitatum_ (neuter). Here the
construction is the same as _triste lupus stabulis_.
_I have horses as a ridden thing_ = _habeo equos equitatum_ (singular,
neuter). Here the construction is--
"Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres,
Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllidos iræ."
or in Greek--
[Greek: Deinon gunaixin hai di' ôdinôn gonai].
The classical writers supply instances of this use of _have_. _Compertum
habeo_, milites, verba viris virtutem non addere = _I have discovered_ = _I
am in possession of the discovery_. Quæ cum ita sint, satis de Cæsare hoc
_dictum habeo_.
The combination of _have_ with an intransitive verb is irreducible to the
idea of possession: indeed, it is illogical. In _I have waited_, we cannot
make the idea expressed by the word _waited_ the object of the verb _have_
or _possess_. The expression has become a part of language by means of the
extension of a false analogy. It is an instance of an illegitimate
imitation.
The combination of _have_ with _been_ is more illogical still, and is a
stronger instance of the influence of an illegitimate imitation. In German
and Italian, where even _intransitive_ verbs are combined with the
equivalents to the English _have_ (_haben_, and _avere_), the verb
substantive is not so combined; on the contrary, the combinations are
Italian; _io sono stato_ = _I am been_.
German; _ich bin gewesen_ = _ditto_.
which is logical.
§ 493. _I am to speak_.--Three facts explain this idiom.
1. The idea of _direction towards an object_ conveyed by the dative case,
and by combinations equivalent to it.
2. The extent to which the ideas of necessity, obligation, or intention are
connected with the idea of _something that has to be done_, or _something
towards which some action has a tendency_.
3. The fact that expressions like the one in question historically
represent an original dative case, or its equivalent; since _to speak_
grows out of the Anglo-Saxon form _to sprecanne_, which, although called a
gerund, is really a dative case of the infinitive mood.
When Johnson thought that, in the phrase _he is to blame_, the word _blame_
was a noun, if he meant a noun in the way that _culpa_ is a noun, his view
was wrong. But if he meant a noun in the way that _culpare_, _ad
culpandum_, are nouns, it was right.
§ 494. _I am to blame_.--This idiom is one degree more complex than the
previous one; since _I am to blame_ = _I am to be blamed_. As early,
however, as the Anglo-Saxon period the gerunds were liable to be used in a
passive sense: _he is to lufigenne_ = not _he is to love_, but _he is to be
loved_.
The principle of this confusion may be discovered by considering that _an
object to be blamed_, is _an object for some one to blame_, _an object to
be loved_ is _an object for some one to love_.
§ 495. _I am beaten_.--This is a present combination, and it is present on
the strength of the verb _am_, not on the strength of the participle
_beaten_, which is præterite.
The following table exhibits the _expedients_ on the part of the different
languages of the Gothic stock, since the loss of the proper passive form of
the Moeso-Gothic.
_Language_ LATIN _datur_, LATIN _datus est_.
_Moeso-Gothic_ gibada, ist, vas, varth gibans.
_Old High German_ ist, wirdit kepan, was, warth kepan.
_Notker_ wirt keben, ist keben.
_Middle High German_ wirt geben, ist geben.
_New High German_ wird gegeben, ist gegeben worden.
_Old Saxon_ is, wirtheth gebhan, was, warth gebhan.
_Middle Dutch_ es blïft ghegheven, waert, blêf ghegeven.
_New Dutch_ wordt gegeven, es gegeven worden.
_Old Frisian_ werth ejeven, is ejeven.
_Anglo-Saxon_ weorded gifen, is gifen.
_English_ is given, has been given.
_Old Norse_ er gefinn, hefr verit gefinn.
_Swedish_ gifves, har varit gifven.
_Danish_ bliver, vorder given, har varet given.
"Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 19."
* * * * *
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS.
§ 496. The syntax of the adverb is simpler than that of any other part of
speech, excepting, perhaps, that of the adjective.
Adverbs have no concord.
Neither have they any government. They _seem_, indeed, to have it, when
they are in the comparative or superlative degree; but it is merely
apparent. In _this is better than that_, the word _that_ is governed
neither by _better_ nor by _than_. It is not governed at all. It is a
nominative case; the subject of a separate proposition. _This is better
(i.e., more good) than that is good._ Even if we admit such an expression
as _he is stronger than me_ to be good English, there is no adverbial
government. _Than_, if it govern _me_ at all, governs it as a preposition.
The position of an adverb is, in respect to matters of syntax,
pre-eminently parenthetic; i.e., it may be omitted without injuring the
construction. _He is fighting--now; he was fighting--then; he
fights--bravely; I am almost--tired_, &c.
§ 497. By referring to the Chapter on the Adverbs, we shall find that the
neuter adjective is frequently converted into an adverb by deflection. As
any neuter adjective may be so deflected, we may justify such expressions
as _full_ (for _fully_) as _conspicuous_ (for _conspicuously_), and
_peculiar_ (for _peculiarly_) _bad grace_, &c. We are not, however, bound
to imitate everything that we can justify.
§ 498. The termination -ly was originally adjectival. At present it is a
derivational syllable by which we can convert an adjective into an adverb:
_brave, brave-ly_. When, however, the adjective ends in -ly already, the
formation is awkward. _I eat my daily bread_ is unexceptionable English; _I
eat my bread daily_ is exceptionable. One of two things must here take
place: the two syllables ly are packed into one (the full expression being
_dai-li-ly_), or else the construction is that of a neuter adjective
deflected.
Adverbs are convertible. _The then men_ = [Greek: hoi nun brotoi], &c. This
will be seen more clearly in the Chapter on Conjunctions.
§ 499. It has been remarked that in expressions like _he sleeps the sleep
of the righteous_, the construction is adverbial. So it is in expressions
like _he walked a mile, it weighs a pound_. The ideas expressed by _mile_
and _pound_ are not the names of anything that serves as either object or
instrument to the verb. They only denote the _manner_ of the action, and
define the meaning of the verb.
§ 500. _From whence_, _from thence_.--This is an expression which, if it
have not taken root in our language, is likely to do so. It is an instance
of excess of expression in the way of syntax; the -ce denoting direction
_from_ a place, and the preposition doing the same. It is not so important
to determine what this construction _is_, as to suggest what it is _not_.
It is _not_ an instance of an adverb governed by a preposition. If the two
words be dealt with as logically separate, _whence_ (or _thence_) must be a
noun = _which place_ (or _that place_); just as _from then till now_ =
_from that time to this_. But if (which is the better view) the two words
be dealt with as one (i.e., as an improper compound) the preposition _from_
has lost its natural power, and become the element of an adverb.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XXV.
ON PREPOSITIONS.
§ 501. All prepositions govern an oblique case. If a word ceases to do
this, it ceases to be a preposition. In the first of the two following
sentences the word _up_ is a preposition, in the second an adverb.
1. _I climbed up the tree._
2. _I climbed up._
All prepositions in English, precede the noun which they govern. _I climbed
up the tree_, never _I climbed the tree up_. This is a matter not of
government, but of collocation. It is the case in most languages; and, from
the frequency of its occurrence, the term _pre-position_ (or _pre-fix_) has
originated. Nevertheless, it is by no means a philological necessity. In
many languages the prepositions are_ post-positive_, following their noun.
§ 502. No preposition, in the present English, governs a genitive case.
This remark is made, because expressions like the _part of the body = pars
corporis,--a piece of the bread = portio panis_, make it appear as if the
preposition _of_ did so. The true expression is, that the preposition _of_
followed by an objective case is equivalent in many instances, to the
genitive case of the classical languages.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XXVI.
ON CONJUNCTIONS.
§ 503. A conjunction is a part of speech which connects
_propositions_,--_the day is bright_, is one proposition. _The sun shines_,
is another. _The day is bright_ because _the sun shines_ is a pair of
propositions connected by the conjunction, _because_.
From this it follows, that whenever there is a conjunction, there are two
subjects, two copulas, and two predicates: i.e., two propositions in all
their parts.
But this may be expressed compendiously. _The sun shines, and the moon
shines_ may be expressed by the _sun and moon shine_.
Nevertheless, however compendious may be the expression, there are always
two propositions wherever there is one conjunction. A part of speech that
merely combines two words is a preposition,--_the sun along with the moon
shines_.
It is highly important to remember that conjunctions connect propositions.
It is also highly important to remember that many double propositions may
be expressed so compendiously as to look like one. When this takes place,
and any question arises as to the construction, they must be exhibited in
their fully expanded form, i.e., the second subject, the second predicate,
and the second copula must be supplied. This can always be done from the
first proposition,--_he likes you better than me_ = _he likes you better
than he likes me_. The compendious expression of the second proposition is
the first point of note in the syntax of conjunctions.
§ 504. The second point in the syntax of conjunctions is the fact of their
great convertibility. Most conjunctions have been developed out of some
other part of speech.
The conjunction of comparison, _than_, is derived from the adverb of time,
_then_: which is derived from the accusative singular of the demonstrative
pronoun.
The conjunction, _that_, is derived also from a demonstrative pronoun.
The conjunction, _therefore_, is a demonstrative pronoun + a preposition.
The conjunction, _because_, is a substantive governed by a preposition.
One and the same word, in one and the same sentence, may be a conjunction
or preposition, as the case may be.
_All fled but John_.--If this mean _all fled_ except _John_, the word _but_
is a preposition, the word _John_ is an accusative case, and the
proposition is single. If instead of _John_, we had a personal pronoun, we
should say _all fled but_ him.
_All fled but John_.--If this mean _all fled but John did not fly_, the
word _but_ is a conjunction, the word _John_ is a nominative case, and the
propositions are two in number. If, instead of _John_, we had a personal
pronoun, we should say, _all fled but_ he.
From the fact of the great convertibility of conjunctions it is often
necessary to determine whether a word be a conjunction or not. _If it be a
conjunction, it cannot govern a case. If it govern a case it is no
conjunction but a preposition._ A conjunction cannot govern a case, for the
following reasons,--the word that follows it _must_ be the subject of the
second proposition, and as such, a nominative case.
§ 505. The third point to determine in the syntax of conjunctions is the
certainty or uncertainty in the mind of the speaker as to the facts
expressed by the propositions which they serve to connect.
1. Each proposition may contain a certain, definite, absolute fact--_the
day is clear_ because _the sun shines_. Here there is neither doubt nor
contingency of either the _day being clear_, or of the _sun shining_.
Of two propositions one may be the condition of the other--_the day will be
clear_ if _the sun shine_. Here, although it is certain that _if the sun
shine the day will be clear_, there is no certainty of _the sun shining_.
Of the two propositions one only embodies a certain fact, and that is
certain only conditionally.
Now an action, wherein there enters any notion of uncertainty, or
indefinitude, and is at the same time connected with another action, is
expressed, not by the indicative mood, but by the subjunctive. _If the sun_
shine (not _shines_) _the day will be clear._
Simple uncertainty will not constitute a subjunctive construction,--_I am_,
perhaps, _in the wrong_.
Neither will simple connection.--_I am wrong_, because _you are right_.
But, the two combined constitute the construction in question,--_if I _be_
wrong, you are right_.
Now, a conjunction that connects two certain propositions may be said to
govern an indicative mood.
And a conjunction that connects an uncertain proposition with a certain
one, may be said to govern a subjunctive mood.
_The government of mood is the only form of government of which
conjunctions are capable._
§ 506. Previous to the question of the government of conjunctions in the
way of mood, it is necessary to notice certain points of agreement between
them and the relative pronouns; inasmuch as, in many cases, the relative
pronoun exerts the same government, in the way of determining the mood of
the verb, as the conjunction.
Between the relative pronouns and conjunctions in general there is this
point of connection,--both join propositions. Wherever there is a relative,
there is a second proposition. So there is wherever there is a conjunction.
Between certain relative pronouns and those particular conjunctions that
govern a subjunctive mood there is also a point of connection. Both suggest
an element of uncertainty or indefinitude. This the relative pronouns do,
through the logical elements common to them and to the interrogatives:
these latter essentially suggesting the idea of doubt. Wherever the person,
or thing, connected with an action, and expressed by a relative is
indefinite, there is room for the use of a subjunctive mood. Thus--"he that
troubled you shall bear his judgment, _whosoever_ he _be_."
§ 507. By considering the nature of such words as _when_, their origin as
relatives on the one hand, and their conjunctional character on the other
hand, we are prepared for finding a relative element in words like _till_,
_until_, _before_, _as long as_, &c. These can all be expanded into
expressions like _until the time when_, _during the time when_, &c. Hence,
in an expression like _seek out his wickedness till thou_ find (not
_findest_) _none_, the principle of the construction is nearly the same as
in _he that troubled you_, &c., or _vice versâ_.[64]
§ 508. In most conditional expressions the subjunctive mood should follow
the conjunction. All the following expressions are conditional.
1. _Except_ I _be_ by Silvia in the night,
There is no music in the nightingale.--SHAKSPEARE.
2. Let us go and sacrifice to the Lord our God, _lest_ he _fall_ upon
us with pestilence.--_Old Testament._
3. ----Revenge back on itself recoils.
Let it. I reck not, _so_ it _light_ well aimed.--J. MILTON.
4. _If_ this _be_ the case.
5. _Although_ my house _be_ not so with God.--_Old Testament._
6. He shall not eat of the holy thing _unless_ he _wash_ his flesh with
water.--_Old Testament._
Expressions like _except_ and _unless_ are equally conditional with words
like _if_ and _provided that_, since they are equivalent to _if--not_.
Expressions like _though_ and _although_ are peculiar. They join
propositions, of which the one is a _primâ facie_ reason against the
existence of the other: and this is the conditional element. In the
sentence, _if the children be so badly brought-up, they are not to be
trusted_, the _bad bringing-up_ is the reason for their being _unfit to be
trusted_; and, as far as the expression is concerned, _is admitted to be
so_. The only uncertainty lies in the question as to the degree of the
badness of the education. The inference from it is unequivocal.
But if, instead of saying _if_, we say _although_, and omit the word _not_,
so that the sentence run _although the children be so badly brought-up they
are to be trusted_, we do two things: we indicate the general relation of
cause and effect that exists between _bad bringing-up_ and _unfitness for
being trusted_, but we also, at the same time, take an exception to it in
the particular instance before us. These remarks have been made for the
sake of showing the extent to which words like _though_, &c., are
conditional.
It must be remembered, however, that conjunctions, like the ones lately
quoted, do not govern subjunctive moods because they are conditional, but
because, in the particular condition which they accompany, there is an
element of uncertainty.
§ 509. This introduces a fresh question. Conditional conjunctions are of
two sorts:--
1. Those which express a condition as an actual fact, and one admitted as
such by the speaker.
2. Those which express a condition as a possible fact, and one which the
speaker either does not admit, or admits only in a qualified manner.
Since _the children_ are _so badly brought-up_, &c.--This is an instance of
the first construction. The speaker admits as an actual fact the _bad
bringing-up of the children_.
If _the children_ be _so badly brought-up_, &c.--This is an instance of the
second construction. The speaker admits as a possible (perhaps, as a
probable) fact the _bad bringing-up of the children_: but he does not adopt
it as an indubitable one.
§ 510. Now, if every conjunction had a fixed unvariable meaning, there
would be no difficulty in determining whether a condition was absolute, and
beyond doubt, or possible, and liable to doubt. But such is not the case.
_Although_ may precede a proposition which is admitted as well as one which
is doubted.