Of Interjections 160
PART II.
OF SYNTAX 161
PART III.
CHAPTER I.
CANONS OF CRITICISM 224
CHAPTER II.
Critical Remarks and Illustrations.
SECT. I.--The Noun 236
SECT. II.--The Adjective 244
SECT. III.--The Pronoun 254
SECT. IV.--The Verb 264
SECT. V.--The Adverb 284
SECT. VI.--The Preposition 290
SECT. VII.--The Conjunction 293
ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX
OF
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
INTRODUCTION.
Language consists of intelligible signs, and is the medium by which
the mind communicates its thoughts. It is either articulate or
inarticulate; artificial or natural. The former is peculiar to man;
the latter is common to all animals. By inarticulate language, we
mean those instinctive sounds, or cries, by which the several tribes
of inferior creatures are enabled to express their sensations and
desires. By articulate language is understood a system of expression,
composed of simple sounds, differently modified by the organs of
speech, and variously combined.
Man, like every other animal, has a natural language intelligible
to all of his own species. This language, however, is extremely
defective, being confined entirely to the general expression of
joy, grief, fear, and the other passions or emotions of the mind;
it is, therefore, wholly inadequate to the purposes of rational
intercourse, and the infinitely-diversified ideas of an intelligent
being. Hence arises the necessity of an artificial or articulate
language; a necessity coeval with the existence of man in his rudest
state, increasing also with the enlargement of his ideas, and the
improvement of his mind. Man, therefore, was formed capable of
speech. Nature has furnished him with the necessary organs, and with
ingenuity to render them subservient to his purposes. And though
at first his vocabulary was doubtless scanty, as his wants were
simple, and his exigencies few, his language and his intellect would
naturally keep pace. As the latter improved, the former would be
enlarged.
Oral language, we have reason to suppose, continued long to be
the only medium by which knowledge could be imparted, or social
intercourse maintained. But, in the progress of science, various
methods were devised for attaining a more permanent and more
extensive vehicle of thought. Of these, the earliest were, as
some think, picture-writing and hieroglyphics. Visible objects
and external events were delineated by pictures, while immaterial
things were emblematically expressed by figures representative of
such physical objects as bore some conceived analogy or resemblance
to the thing to be expressed. These figures or devices were termed
hieroglyphics[1]. It is obvious, however, that this medium of
communication must not only have embarrassed by its obscurity, but
must have also been extremely deficient in variety of expression.
At length oral language, by an effort of ingenuity which must ever
command admiration, was resolved into its simple or elementary
sounds, and these were characterized by appropriate symbols[2].
Words, the signs of thought, came thus to be represented by letters,
or characters arbitrarily formed, to signify the different sounds
of which the words were severally composed. The simplest elementary
part of written language is, therefore, a letter: and the elements or
letters into which the words of any language may be analyzed, form
the necessary alphabet of that language.
In the English alphabet are twenty-six letters.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z.
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z.
Of these there are six vowels, or letters which by themselves
make every one a perfect sound. The remaining twenty are called
consonants, or letters which cannot be sounded without a vowel.
This alphabet is both redundant and defective. It is redundant; for
of the vowels, the letters _i_ and _y_ are in sound the same: one of
them therefore is unnecessary. Of the consonants, the articulator
_c_ having sometimes the sound of _k_, and sometimes of _s_, one
of these must be unnecessary. _Q_, having in all cases the sound
of _k_, may likewise be deemed superfluous. _W_ appears to me in
every respect the same with the vowel _u_ (_oo_), and is therefore
supernumerary[3]. The double consonant _x_ might be denoted by the
combination of its component letters, _gs_ or _ks_.
It is to be observed also, that _g_, when it has the soft sound, is
a double consonant, and performs the same office as the letter _j_;
each having a sound compounded of the sounds of _d_ and the French
_j_. Thus, _g_ in _general_ has the same sound as _j_ in _join_. _J_,
however, is not, as some have supposed, resolvable into two letters,
for we have no character to express the simple sound of the French
_j_, of which, with the consonant _d_, the sound of the English
_j_ is compounded. To resolve it into _dg_, as some have done, is
therefore an error; as the soft _g_, without the aid of the other
consonant, is precisely identical, in respect to sound, with the
consonant _j_. The letter _h_ is no consonant; it is merely the note
of aspiration.
Our alphabet is likewise defective. There are nine simple vowel
sounds, for which we have only six characters, two of which, as it
has been already observed, perform the same office. The simple vowel
sounds are heard in these words,
Hall, hat, hate, met, mete, fin, hop, hope, but, full.
Some of these characters occasionally perform the office of
diphthongs. Thus, in the word _fine_, the vowel _i_ has the
diphthongal sound of the letters _â è_, as these are pronounced in
French; and the vowel _u_ frequently represents the diphthong _eu_
(e-oo), as fume (fe-oom).
There are, besides, four different consonants for which we have no
proper letters; namely, the initial consonant in the word _thin_, the
initial consonant in _then_, the sibilating sound of _sh_, and the
final consonant (marked _ng_), as in the word _sing_.
Consonants are generally divided into mutes and semi-vowels. The
mutes are those which entirely, and at once, obstruct the sound of
the vowel, and prevent its continuation. These are called perfect
mutes. Those which do not suddenly obstruct it are called imperfect
mutes.
Semi-vowels are those consonants which do not entirely obstruct the
voice: but whose sounds may be continued at pleasure, thus partaking
of the nature of vowels.
The nature of these consonants I proceed briefly to explain.
A vowel sound may be continued at pleasure, or it may be terminated,
either by discontinuing the vocal effort, in which case it is not
articulated by any consonant, as in pronouncing the vowel _o_; or by
changing the conformation of the mouth, or relative position of the
organs of speech, so that the vowel sound is lost by articulation,
as in pronouncing the syllable _or_. It is to be observed, also,
that a vowel may be articulated, not only by being terminated by a
consonant, as in the example now given, but likewise by introducing
the sound with that position of the organs, by which it had, in the
former case, been terminated, as in pronouncing the syllable _ro_.
In pronouncing the consonants, there are five distinguishable
positions of the organs[4]. The first is the application of the
lips to each other, so as to close the mouth. Thus are formed the
consonants _p_, _b_, and _m_.
In the second position, the under lip is applied to the fore teeth of
the upper jaw; and in this manner we pronounce the consonants _f_ and
_v_.
The third position is, when the tongue is applied to the fore teeth;
and thus we pronounce _th_.
In the fourth position we apply the fore part of the tongue to the
fore part of the palate, and by this application we pronounce the
letters _t_, _d_, _s_, _z_, _r_, _l_, _n_.
The fifth position is, when the middle part of the tongue is applied
to the palate, and thus we pronounce _k_, the hard sound of _g_ (as
in _ga_), _sh_, _j_, and _ng_.
In the first position we have three letters, of which the most
simple, and indeed the only articulator, being absolutely mute, is
_p_. In the formation of this letter, nothing is required but the
sudden closing of the mouth, and stopping the vowel sound; or the
sound may be articulated by the sudden opening of the lips, in order
to emit the compressed sound of the vowel.
Now, if instead of simply expressing the vowel sound by opening the
lips, in saying for example _pa_, we shall begin to form a guttural
sound, the position being still preserved; then, on opening the lips,
we shall pronounce the syllable _ba_. The guttural sound is produced
by a compression of the larynx, or windpipe; and is that kind of
murmur, as Bishop Wilkins expresses it, which is heard in the throat,
before the breath is emitted with the vocal sound. _B_, therefore,
though justly considered as a mute, is not a perfect mute.
The mouth being kept in the same position, and the breath being
emitted through the nostrils, the letter _m_ is produced.
In the first position, therefore, we have a perfect mute _p_, having
no audible sound; a labial and liquid consonant _m_, capable of a
continued sound; and between these two extremes we have the letter
_b_, somewhat audible, though different from any vocal sound.
Here, then, are three things to be distinguished. 1st, The perfect
mute, having no sound of any kind: 2dly, The perfect consonant,
having not only a proper, but continued sound: and 3dly, Between
these extremes we find the letter _b_, having a proper sound, but so
limited, that, in respect to the perfect consonant, it may be termed
a mute, and in relation to the perfect mute may be properly termed
imperfect.
In the second position, we have the letters _f_ and _v_, neither
of which are perfect mutes. The letter _f_ is formed by having the
aspiration not altogether interrupted, but emitted forcibly between
the fore teeth and under lip. This is the simple articulation in this
position. If to this we join the guttural sound, we shall have the
letter _v_, a letter standing in nearly the same relation to _f_, as
_b_ and _m_, in the first position, stand to _p_. The only difference
between _f_ and _v_ is, that, in the former, the compression of the
teeth and under lip is not so strong as in the latter; and that the
former is produced by the breath only, and the latter by the voice
and breath combined.
The consonant _f_, therefore, though not a mute like _p_, in having
the breath absolutely confined, may notwithstanding be considered as
such, consistently with that principle, by which a mute is understood
to be an aspiration without guttural sound.
Agreeably to the distinction already made, _v_ may be termed a
perfect consonant, and _f_ an imperfect one, having no proper sound,
though audible. Thus we have four distinctions in our consonantal
alphabet; namely, of perfect and imperfect consonants; perfect and
imperfect mutes: thus,
_p_ is a perfect mute, having no sound.
_b_ an imperfect mute, having proper sound, but limited.
_m_ a perfect consonant, having sound, and continued.
_f_ an imperfect consonant, having no sound, but audible.
In the third position we have _th_ as heard in the words _then_ and
_thin_, formed by placing the tip of the tongue between the teeth,
and pressing it against the upper teeth. The only difference between
these articulations is, that like _f_ and _v_, the one is formed by
the breath only, and the other by the breath and voice together[5].
Here also may be distinguished the perfect and the imperfect
consonant; for the _th_ in _thin_ has no sound, but is audible,
whereas the _th_ in _this_, _there_, has a sound, and that
continued[6].
In the fourth position there are several consonants formed.
1st, If the breath be stopped, by applying the fore part of the
tongue forcibly to that part of the palate, which is contiguous to
the fore teeth, we produce the perfect mute _t_, having neither
aspiration nor guttural sound. By accompanying this operation of the
tongue and palate with the guttural sound, we shall pronounce the
letter _d_, which, like _b_, of the first position, may be considered
as a mute, though not perfect. For in pronouncing _ed_, the tongue at
first gently touches the gum, and is gradually pressed closer, till
the sound is obstructed; whereas in pronouncing _et_, the tongue is
at once pressed so close, that the sound is instantly intercepted.
2dly, If the tip of the tongue be turned up towards the upper gum,
so as not to touch it, and thus the breath be cut by the sharp point
of the tongue passing through the narrow chink left between that and
the gum, we pronounce the sibilating sound of _s_. If we accompany
this operation with a guttural sound, as in _b_, _v_, and _th_ in
_then_, we shall pronounce the letter _z_; the same difference
subsisting between _s_ and _z_ as between _f_ and _v_, _p_ and _b_,
_tħ_ and _th_.
3dly, If we make the tip of the tongue vibrate rapidly between the
upper and lower jaw, so as not to touch the latter, and the former
but gently, we shall pronounce the letter _r_. The more closely and
forcibly the tongue vibrates against the upper jaw, the stronger will
the sound be rendered. It is formed about the same distance from the
teeth as the letter _d_, or rather somewhat behind it.
4thly, If the end of the tongue be gently applied to the fore part of
the palate, a little behind the seat of the letter _d_, and somewhat
before the place of _r_, and the voice be suffered to glide gently
over the sides of the tongue, we shall pronounce the letter _l_. Here
the breadth of the tongue is contracted, and a space left for the
breath to pass from the upper to the under part of the tongue, in
forming this the most vocal of all the consonants.
5thly, If the aspirating passage, in the formation of the preceding
consonant, be stopped, by extending the tongue to its natural
breadth, so as to intercept the voice, and prevent its exit by the
mouth, the breath emitted through the nose will give the letter _n_.
In the fifth position, namely, when we apply the middle or back part
of the tongue to the palate, we have the consonants _k_, _g_, _sh_,
_j_, and _ng_.
If the middle of the tongue be raised, so as to press closely against
the roof of the mouth, and intercept the voice at once, we pronounce
the letter _k_ (_ek_). If the tongue be not so closely applied at
first, and the sound be allowed to continue a little, we have the
letter _g_ (_eg_). Thus _ek_ and _eg_ bear the same analogy to each
other, as _et_ and _ed_ of the fourth position. If the tongue be
protruded towards the teeth, so as not to touch them, and be kept in
a position somewhat flatter than in pronouncing the letter _s_, the
voice and breath passing over it through a wider chink, we shall have
the sound of _esh_.
If we apply the tongue to the palate as in pronouncing _sh_, but a
little more forcibly, and accompanying it with the guttural sound, we
shall have the sound of the French _j_. Thus _j_ is in this position
analogous to the letters _b_, _v_, _th_, in the first, second, and
third positions, and is a simple consonant: _j_ in English is a
double consonant, compounded of _d_ and the French _j_, as in _join_.
If we raise the middle of the tongue to the palate gently, so as
to permit part of the voice to issue through the mouth, forcing
the remainder back through the nose, keeping at the same time the
tongue in the same position as in pronouncing _eg_, we shall have the
articulating sound of _ing_, for which we have no simple character.
The only remaining letter _h_ is the note of aspiration, formed in
various positions, according to the vowel with which it is combined.
The characters of the several letters may be seen in the following
table:
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
|Perfect|Sounded, or| Imperfect | |
| Mutes.| Imperfect.|Consonants.|Perfect.|
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| P | B | | |
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| | | | M |
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| | | F | V |
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| | | tħ | th the |
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| T | D | | |
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| | | S | Z |
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| | | | R |
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| | | | L |
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| | | | N |
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| K | G | | |
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| | | Sh |J French|
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| | | | ng |
+-------+-----------+-----------+--------+
What effect the compression of the larynx has in articulation may be
seen by comparing these pairs of consonants:
With compression. Without compression.
B P
G K
D T
Z S
Th Tħ
V F
J Sh
These, as Mr. Tooke observes, differ, each from its partner, by a
certain unnoticed and almost imperceptible motion or compression of
or near the larynx. This compression, he remarks, the Welsh never
use. For instead of
I vow by God, that Jenkin is a wizard;
they say,
I fow by Cot, that Shenkin iss a wisart.
The consonants have been distributed into different classes,
according to the organs chiefly employed in their formation.
The Labial are eb, ep, ef, ev.
Dental ed, et, etħ, eth.
Palatal eg, ek, el, er, ess, esh, ez, ej.
Nasal em, en, ing.
The association of two vowels, whether the sound of each be heard or
not, is called a diphthong, and the concurrence of three is called a
triphthong.
Of diphthongs there are twenty, viz. _ai_, _au_, _ea_, _ee_,
_ei_, _eo_, _eu_, _ie_, _oa_, _oo_, _ui_, _ay_, _ey_, _uy_, _oi_,
_oy_, _ou_, _aw_, _ew_, _ow_. Of the diphthongs seventeen have a
sound purely monophthongal; hence they have been called improper
diphthongs. It would be idle to dispute the propriety of a term
almost universally adopted; but to call that a diphthong whose sound
is monophthongal is an abuse of language, and creates confusion. The
only proper diphthongs in our language are _eu_, _oi_, _ou_, in which
each vowel is distinctly heard, forming together one syllable. The
triphthongs are three, _eau_, _ieu_, _iew_. Of these, the first _eau_
is sometimes pronounced _eu_, as in _beauty_; sometimes _o_, as in
_beau_: the other two have the diphthongal sound of _eu_.
PART I.
ETYMOLOGY.
OF WORDS IN GENERAL, AND THE PARTS OF SPEECH.
A word, in oral language, is either a significant simple sound, or
a significant combination of sounds. In written language, it may
be defined to be a simple character, or combination of characters,
expressive of significant sounds, simple or compound.
A word of one syllable is called a monosyllable; of two syllables, a
dissyllable; a word of three syllables, a trisyllable; and a word of
more than three syllables is called a polysyllable. The last term,
however, is frequently applied to words exceeding two syllables.
Words are either derivative or primitive.
A primitive is that which is formed from no other word, being itself
a root, whence others spring, as _angel_, _spirit_, _school_.
A derivative is that which is derived from some other word, as
_angelic_, _spiritual_, _scholar_.
A compound is a word made up of two or more words, as _archangel_,
_spiritless_, _schoolman_.
In examining the character of words as significant of ideas, we find
them reducible into classes, or denominations, according to the
offices which they severally perform. These classes are generally
called parts of speech; and how many of these belong to language has
long been a question among philosophers and grammarians. Some have
reckoned two, some three, and others four; while the generality have
affirmed, that there are not fewer than eight, nine, or ten[7]. This
strange diversity of opinion has partly arisen from a propensity to
judge of the character of words more from their form, which is a
most fallacious criterion, than from their import or signification.
One thing appears certain, how much soever the subject may have been
obscured by scholastic refinements, that to assign names to objects
of thought, and to express their properties and qualities, are the
only indispensable requisites in language. If this be admitted, it
follows, that the noun and the verb are the only parts of speech
which are essentially necessary; the former being the name of the
thing of which we speak, and the latter, verb, (or _the word_, by way
of eminence,) expressing what we think of it[8]. All other sorts of
words must be regarded as subsidiaries, convenient perhaps for the
more easy communication of thought, but by no means indispensably
requisite.
Had we a distinct name for every individual object of sensation
or thought, language would then be composed purely of proper
names, and thus become too great a load for any memory to retain.
Language, therefore, must be composed of general signs, that it may
be remembered; and as all our sensations and perceptions are of
single objects, it must also be capable of denoting individuals.
Now, whatever mode be adopted to render general terms significant
of individual objects, or whatever auxiliaries be employed for
this purpose, the general term, with its individuating word, must
be regarded as a substitute for the proper name. Thus _man_ is a
general term to denote the whole of a species; if I say, _the man_,
_this man_, _that man_, it is obvious that the words _the_, _this_,
and _that_, termed definitives, serve, with the general term, as a
substitute for the proper name of the individual.
Hence it is evident, that those words which are termed definitives,
how useful soever, cannot be regarded as indispensable.
The pronoun is clearly a substitute for the noun: it cannot therefore
be deemed essential. The adjective expressing merely the property
or quality _in concreto_, without affirmation, may be dispensed
with; the connexion of a substance with a quality or property
being expressible by the noun and the verb. Thus, “a good man” is
equivalent to “a man _of_, _with_, or _having_, goodness.” Adverbs,
which have been termed attributes of the second order, are nothing
but abbreviations, as, _here_, for _in this place_, _bravely_, for
_brave like_. These, therefore, cannot be considered as essentials
in language. In the same manner it might be shown, that all parts
of speech, noun and verb excepted, are either substitutes or
abbreviations, convenient indeed, but not indispensably requisite.
But, as there will be occasion to illustrate this theory, when the
generally received parts of speech are severally examined, it is
unnecessary to enlarge on the subject at present.
Though the essential parts of speech in every language are only two,
the noun and the verb; yet, as there is in all languages a number of
words not strictly reducible to either of these primary divisions,
it has been usual with grammarians to arrange words into a variety
of different classes. This distribution is partly arbitrary, there
being no definite or universally-received principle, by which to
determine what discriminative circumstances are sufficient to entitle
any species of words to the distinction of a separate order. Hence
grammarians are not agreed concerning the number of these subordinate
classes. But, into whatever number of denominations they may be
distributed, it should be always remembered, that the only necessary
parts of speech are noun and verb; every other species of words being
admitted solely for despatch or ornament. The parts of speech in
English may be reckoned ten: Noun, Article, Pronoun, Adjective, Verb,
Participle, Adverb, Preposition, Conjunction, Interjection.
CHAPTER I.
OF THE NOUN.
SECTION I.
Noun (Nomen) is that part of speech which expresses the subject of
discourse, or which is the name of the thing spoken of, as, _table_,
_house_, _river_.
Of nouns there are two kinds, proper and appellative.
A proper noun, or name, is the name of an individual, as _Alexander_,
_London_, _Vesuvius_.
An appellative, or common noun, expresses a genus, or class of
things, and is common or applicable to every individual of that class.
Nouns or Substantives (for these terms are equivalent) have also been
divided into natural, artificial, and abstract. Of the first class,
_man_, _horse_, _tree_, are examples. The names of things of our own
formation are termed artificial substantives, as, _watch_, _house_,
_ship_. The names of qualities or properties, conceived as existing
by themselves, or separated from the substances to which they belong,
are called abstract nouns; while Adjectives, expressing these
qualities as conjoined with their subjects, are called concretes.
_Hard_, for example, is termed the concrete, _hardness_ the abstract.
Nouns have also been considered as denoting genera, species, and
individuals. Thus _man_ is a generic term, _an Englishman_ a special
term, and _George_ an individual. Appellative nouns being employed
to denote genera or species, and these orders comprising each many
individuals, hence arises that accident of a common noun, called
Number, by which we signify, whether one or more individuals of any
genus or species be intended.
In English there are two numbers, the singular and the plural. The
singular, expressing only one of a class or genus, is the noun in
its simple form, as, _river_; the plural, denoting more than one,
is generally formed by adding the letter s to the singular, as,
_rivers_[9]. To this rule, however, there are many exceptions.
Nouns ending in _ch_, _sh_, _ss_, or _x_, form their plural by adding
the syllable _es_ to the singular number, as, _church, churches_.
Dr. Whately, (Archbishop of Dublin,) in violation of this universal
rule, writes _premiss_ in the singular number, and _premises_ in the
plural. (See his Logic, pp. 25, 26.) _Premise_, like _promise_, is
the proper term, and makes _premises_ in the plural. _Premiss_ and
_premises_ are repugnant to all analogy.--_Ch_ hard takes _s_ for
the plural termination, and not _es_, as _patriarch, patriarchs_;
_distich, distichs_.
Nouns ending in _f_ or _fe_, make their plural by changing _f_ or
_fe_ into _ves_, as, _calf, calves_; _knife, knives_. Except _hoof_,
_roof_, _grief_, _dwarf_, _mischief_, _handkerchief_, _relief_,
_muff_, _ruff_, _cuff_, _snuff_, _stuff_, _puff_, _cliff_, _skiff_,
with a few others, which in the formation of their plurals follow the
general rule.
Nouns in _o_ impure form their plural by adding _es_, as, _hero,
heroes_; _echo, echoes_: those which end in _o_ pure, by adding _s_,
as, _folio, folios_.
Some nouns have their plural in _en_, thus following the Teutonic
termination, as, _ox, oxen_; _man, men_.
Some are entirely anomalous, as, _die, dice_; _penny, pence_; _goose,
geese_; _sow, swine_; and _brother_ makes _brethren_[10], when
denoting persons of the same society or profession. _Die_, a stamp
for coining, makes _dies_ in the plural.
_Index_ makes in the plural _indexes_, when it expresses a table of
contents, and _indices_, when it denotes the exponent of an algebraic
quantity.
Some are used alike in both numbers, as, _hose_[11], _deer_, _sheep_,
these being either singular or plural.
Nouns expressive of whatever nature or art has made double or plural
have no singular, as, _bowels_, _lungs_, _scissors_, _ashes_,
_bellows_.
Nouns ending in _y_ impure form their plural by changing _y_ into
_ies_, as _quality, qualities_.
Nouns purely Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, &c., retain their original
plurals.
_Sing._ _Pl._
_Lat._ Arcanum Arcana
_Fr._ Beau Beaux
_Lat._ Erratum Errata
_Fr._ Monsieur Messieurs, Messrs.
_Heb._ Cherub Cherubim
_Heb._ Seraph Seraphim
_Lat._ Magus Magi
_Gr._ Phenomenon Phenomena
_Lat._ Stratum Strata
_Gr._ Automaton Automata
_Lat._ Vortex Vortices
_Lat._ Radius Radii
_Lat._ Genus Genera
_Gr._ Crisis Crises
_Gr._ Emphasis Emphases
_Gr._ Hypothesis Hypotheses
_Lat._ Genius Genii,
when denoting aërial spirits; but when signifying _men of genius_,
or employed to express the plural of that combination of mental
qualities which constitutes genius, it follows the general rule.
A proper name has a plural number when it becomes the name of more
individuals than one, as, _the two Scipios_; _the twelve Cæsars_.
It is to be observed, however, that it ceases then to be, strictly
speaking, a proper name.
Some nouns have no plural. 1st. Those which denote things measured
or weighed, unless when they express varieties, as, _sugar, sugars_;
_wheat, wheats_; _oil, oils_; _wine, wines_. Here, not numbers of
individuals, but different species or classes, are signified. In this
sense the nouns are used plurally.
2d. Names of abstract, and also of moral qualities, as, _hardness_,
_softness_, _prudence_, _envy_, _benevolence_, have no plural. It
is to be observed, however, that several nouns of this class ending
in _y_, when they do not express the quality or property in the
abstract, but either its varieties or its manifestations, are used
plurally. Thus we say, _levities_, _affinities_, _gravities_, &c.
There may be different degrees and different exhibitions of the
quality, but not a plurality.
Where displays of the mental quality are to be expressed, it is
better in all cases to employ a periphrasis. Thus, instead of using
with Hume (vol. vii. p. 411) the plural _insolences_, the expression
_acts of insolence_, would be preferable.
Some of those words which have no singular termination are names of
sciences, as, _mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _politics_, _ethics_,
_pneumatics_, &c.
Of these, the term _ethics_ is, I believe, considered as either
singular or plural.
_Mathematics_ is generally construed as plural; sometimes, however,
we find it as singular. “It is a great pity,” says Locke, (vol. iii.
p. 427, 8vo. 1794,) “Aristotle had not understood mathematics, as
well as Mr. Newton, and made use of _it_ in natural philosophy.”
“But when mathematics,” says Mr. Harris, “instead of being applied
to this excellent purpose, _are_ used not to exemplify logic, but to
supply its place, no wonder if logic pass into contempt.”
Bacon improperly uses the word as singular and plural in the same
sentence. “If a child,” says he, “be bird-witted, that is, hath
not the faculty of attention, the mathematics _giveth_ a remedy
thereunto; for in _them_, if the wit be caught away but a moment,
one is new to begin.” He likewise frequently gives to some names of
sciences a singular termination; and Beattie, with a few others,
have, in some instances, followed his example.
“Thus far we have argued for the sake of argument, and opposed
_metaphysic_ to metaphysic.”--_Essay on Truth._
“See physic beg the Stagyrite’s defence,
See metaphysic call for aid on sense.”--_Pope._
This usage, however, is not general.
_Metaphysics_ is used both as a singular and plural noun.
“Metaphysics _has_ been defined, by a writer deeply read in the
ancient philosophy, ‘The science of the principles and causes of all
things existing.’”--_Encyc. Brit._ Here the word is used as singular;
as likewise in the following example:
“Metaphysics _has_ been represented by painters and sculptors as a
woman crowned and blindfolded, holding a sceptre in her hand, and
having at her feet an hour-glass and a globe.”
“Metaphysics _is_ that science, in which are understood the
principles of other sciences.”--_Hutton._
In the following examples it is construed as a plural noun.
“Metaphysics _tend_ only to benight the understanding in a cloud of
its own making.”--_Knox._
“Here, indeed, lies the justest and most plausible objection against
a considerable part of metaphysics, that _they_ are not properly a
science.”--_Hume._
The latter of these usages is the more common, and more agreeable to
analogy. The same observation is applicable to the terms _politics_,
_optics_, _pneumatics_, and other similar names of sciences.
“But in order to prove more fully that politics _admit_ of general
truths.”--_Hume._
Here the term is used as plural.
_Folk_ and _folks_ are used indiscriminately; but the plural
termination is here superfluous, the word _folk_ implying plurality.
_Means_ is used both as a singular and plural noun. Lowth recommends
the latter usage only, and admits mean as the singular of means. But
notwithstanding the authority of Hooker, Sidney, and Shakspeare, for
the expressions _this mean_, _that mean_, &c., and the recommendation
they receive from analogy, custom has so long decided in favour of
_means_, repudiating the singular termination, that it may seem,
perhaps, idle, as well as fastidious, to propose its dismission.
It is likewise observable, that the singular form of this noun is not
to be found in our version of the Bible; a circumstance which clearly
shows, that the translators preferred the plural termination.
That the noun _means_ has been used as a substantive singular by
some of our best writers, it would be easy to prove by numberless
examples. Let a few suffice.
“By _this_ means it became every man’s interest, as well as his duty,
to prevent all crimes.”--_Temple_, vol. iii. p. 133.
“And by _this_ means I should not doubt.”--_Wilkins’s real Character._
“He by _that_ means preserves his superiority.”--_Addison._
“By _this_ means alone the greatest obstacles will vanish.”--_Pope._
“By _this_ means there was nothing left to the parliament of
Ireland.”--_Blackstone_, vol. i. p. 102.
“Faith is not only _a_ means of obeying, but a principal act of
obedience.”--_Young._
“_Every_ means was lawful for the public safety.”--_Gibbon._
That this word is also used as plural, the most inattentive English
reader must have frequently observed.
“He was careful to observe what means _were_ employed by his
adversaries to counteract his schemes.”
While we offer these examples to show that the term is used either
as a singular or as a plural noun, we would at the same time remark,
that though the expression “a mean” is at present generally confined
to denote “a middle, or medium, between two extremes,” we are
inclined to concur with the learned Dr. Lowth, and to recommend a
more extended use of the noun singular. This usage was common in the
days of Shakspeare.
“I’ll devise a _mean_ to draw the Moor out of the way.”--_Othello._
“Pamela’s noble heart would needs gratefully make known the valiant
_mean_ of her safety.”--_Sidney._
“Their virtuous conversation was a _mean_ to work the Heathen’s
conversion unto Christ.”--_Hooker._
Melmoth, Beattie, and several other writers, distinguished by their
elegance and accuracy of diction, have adopted this usage. _A means_,
indeed, is a form of expression which, though not wholly unsupported
by analogy, is yet so repugnant to the general idiom of our language,
and seems so ill adapted to denote the operation of a single cause,
that we should be pleased to see it dismissed from use. If we
say, “This was _one of the means_ which he employed to effect his
purpose,” analogy and metaphysical propriety concur in recommending
_a mean_, or _one mean_, as preferable to _a means_. _News_, _alms_,
_riches_, _pains_, have been used as either singular or plural; but
we never say, “one of the news,” “one of the alms,” “one of the
riches,” “one of the pains,” as we say “one of the means;” we may,
therefore, be justified, notwithstanding the authority of general
usage, in pronouncing “a means” a palpable anomaly.
_News_ is likewise construed sometimes as a singular, and sometimes
as a plural noun. The former usage, however, is far the more general.
“A general joy at _this_ glad news appeared.”--_Cowley._
“No news so bad as _this_ at home.”--_Shakspeare_, _Richard III._
“The amazing news of Charles at once _was_ spread.”--_Dryden._
“The king was employed in his usual exercise of besieging castles,
when the news _was_ brought of Henry’s arrival.”--_Swift._
“The only news you can expect from me _is_ news from heaven.”--_Gay._
“_This_ is all the news talked of.”--_Pope._
Swift, Pope, Gay, with most other classic writers of that age, seem
to have uniformly used it as singular.
A few examples occur of a plural usage.
“When Rhea heard _these_ news.”--_Raleigh_, _Hist. World_.
“_Are_ there any news of his intimate friend?”--_Smollett._
“News _were_ brought to the queen.”--_Hume._
The same rule as that just now recommended in regard to the noun
_means_ might perhaps be useful here also, namely, to consider
the word as singular when only one article of intelligence is
communicated, and as plural when several new things are reported.
_Pains_ is considered as either singular or plural, some of our best
writers using it in either way. This word is evidently of French
extraction, being the same with _peine_, pains or trouble, and was
originally used in a singular form thus, “Which may it please your
highness to take the _payne_ for to write.”--_Wolsey’s Letter to
Henry VIII._ It seems probable, that this word, after it assumed
a plural form, was more frequently used as a singular than as a
plural noun. Modern usage, however, seems to incline the other way.
A celebrated grammarian indeed, has pronounced this noun to be in
all cases plural; but this assertion might be proved erroneous by
numberless examples[12].
“The pains they had taken _was_ very great.”--_Clarendon._
“Great pains _has_ been taken.”--_Pope._
“No pains _is_ taken.”--_Pope._
In addition to these authorities in favour of a singular usage, it
may be observed, that the word _much_, a term of quantity, not of
number, is frequently joined with it, as,
“I found much art and pains employed.”--_Middleton._
“He will assemble materials with much pains.”--_Bolingbroke on
History._
The word _much_ is never joined to a plural noun; _much labours_,
_much papers_, would be insufferable[13].
_Riches_ is generally now considered as a plural noun; though it was
formerly used either as singular or plural. This substantive seems to
have been nothing but the French word _richesse_; and therefore no
more a plural than _gentlenesse, distresse_, and many others of the
same kind. In this form we find it in Chaucer:
“But for ye spoken of swiche gentlenesse,
As is descended out of old richesse.
And he that ones to love doeth his homage,
Full often times dere bought is the richesse.”
Accordingly he gives it a plural termination, and uses it as a plural
word.
“Thou hast dronke so much hony of swete temporal richesses, and
delices, and honours of this world.”
It seems evident, then, that this word was originally construed
as a substantive singular, and even admitted a plural form. The
orthography varying, and the noun singular assuming a plural
termination, it came in time to be considered by some as a noun
plural.
In our translation of the Bible, it is construed sometimes as a
singular, but generally as a plural noun.
“In one hour is so great riches come to nought.”--_Bible._
“Riches take to themselves wings, and fly away.”--_Ibid._
Modern usage, in like manner, inclines to the plural construction;
there are a few authorities, however, on the other side, as,
“_Was_ ever riches gotten by your golden mediocrities?”--_Cowley._
“The envy and jealousy which great riches _is_ always attended
with.”--_Moyle._
_Alms_ was also originally a noun singular, being a contraction of
the old Norman French _almesse_, the plural of which was _almesses_.
“This almesse shouldst thou do of thy proper things.”--_Chaucer._
“These ben generally the almesses and workes of charity.”--_Ibid._
Johnson says this word has no singular. It was, in truth, a first a
noun singular, and afterwards, by contraction, receiving a plural
form, it came to be considered by some as a noun plural. Johnson
would have had equal, nay, perhaps, better authority for saying that
this word has no plural. Our translators of the Bible seem to have
considered it as singular. “To ask _an_ alms,” “to give _much_ alms,”
and other similar phraseologies, occur in Scripture. Nay, Johnson
himself has cited two authorities, in which the indefinite article is
prefixed to it.
... “My arm’d knees,
Which bow’d but in my stirrup, bend like his
That hath received _an_ alms.”--_Shakspeare._
“The poor beggar hath a just demand of _an_ alms from the rich
man.”--_Swift._
Lowth objected to the phraseology _a means_, for this reason, that
_means_, being a plural noun, cannot admit the indefinite article, or
name of unity. The objection would be conclusive, if the expressions
_this means, that means_, did not oppose the learned author’s
opinion, that _means_ is a noun plural. To the substantive _alms_,
as represented by Johnson to have no singular, the objection is
applicable.
_Thanks_ is considered to be a plural noun, though denoting only one
expression of gratitude. It occurs in Scripture as a substantive
singular. “What thank have ye?”
It has been observed, that many of those words which have no singular
denote things consisting of two parts, and therefore have a plural
termination. Hence the word _pair_ is used with many of them, as, “_a
pair of bellows_, _a pair of scissors_, _a pair of colours_, _a pair
of drawers_.”
SECTION II.
_Of Genders._
We not only observe a plurality of substances, or of things of
the same sort, whence arises the distinction of number; but we
distinguish also another character of some substances, which we
call sex. Every substance is either male or female, or neither the
one nor the other. In English, all male animals are considered as
masculine; all female animals as feminine; and all things inanimate,
or destitute of sex, are termed neuter, as belonging neither to the
male nor the female sex. In this distribution we follow the order
of nature; and our language is, in this respect, both simple and
animated.
The difference of sex is, in some cases, expressed by different
words, as,
_Masc._ _Fem._
Boy Girl
Buck Doe
Bull Cow
Bullock Heifer
Boar Sow
Drake Duck
Friar Nun
Gaffer Gammer
Gander Goose
Gelding } Mare
Horse }
Milter Spawner
Nephew Niece
Ram Ewe
Sloven Slut
Stag Hind
Widower Widow
Wizard Witch
Sometimes the female is distinguished by the termination _ess_ or
_ix_.
_Masc._ _Fem._
Abbot Abbess
Actor Actress
Adulterer Adulteress
Ambassador Ambassadress
Arbiter Arbitress
Author Authoress
Baron Baroness
Chanter Chantress
Count Countess
Deacon Deaconess
Duke Duchess
Elector Electress
Emperor Empress
Governor Governess
Heir Heiress
Hunter Huntress
Jew Jewess
Lion Lioness
Marquis Marchioness
Master Mistress
Patron Patroness
Prince Princess
Peer Peeress
Prior Prioress
Poet Poetess
Prophet Prophetess
Shepherd Shepherdess
Sorcerer Sorceress
Traitor Traitress
Tutor Tutress
Tiger Tigress
Viscount Viscountess
There are a few whose feminine ends in _ix_, viz.
_Masc._ _Fem._
Administrator Administratrix
Executor Executrix
Testator Testatrix
Director Directrix
Where there is but one word to express both sexes, we add another
word to distinguish the sex; as, _he-goat, she-goat_; _man-servant,
maid-servant_; _cock-sparrow, hen-sparrow_.
It has been already observed, that all things destitute of sex are
in English considered as of the neuter gender; and, when we speak
with logical accuracy, we follow this rule. Sometimes, however,
by a figure in rhetoric, called personification, we assign sex to
things inanimate. Thus, instead of “virtue is _its_ own reward,” we
sometimes say, “virtue is _her_ own reward;” instead of “_it_ (the
sun) rises,” we say, “he rises;” instead of “_it_ (death) advances
with hasty steps,” we say, “_he_ advances.”
This figurative mode of expression, by which we give life and sex to
things inanimate, and embody abstract qualities, forms a singular
and striking beauty in our language, rendering it in this respect
superior to the languages of Greece and Rome, neither of which
admitted this animated phraseology[14].
When we say,
“The sun _his_ orient beams had shed,”
the expression possesses infinitely more vivacity than
“The sun _its_ orient beams had shed.”
In assigning sex to things inanimate, it has been supposed that
we have been guided by certain characters or qualities in the
inanimate objects, as bearing some resemblance to the distinctive or
characteristic qualities of male and female animals. Thus, it has
been said, that those inanimate substances, or abstract qualities,
which are characterized by the attributes of giving or imparting,
or which convey an idea of great strength, firmness, or energy, are
masculine; and that those, on the contrary, which are distinguished
by the properties of receiving, containing, and producing, or which
convey an idea of weakness or timidity, having more of a passive
than active nature, are feminine. Hence it has been observed, that
the _sun_, _death_, _time_, the names also of great rivers and
mountains, are considered as masculine; and that the _moon_, a
_ship_, the _sea_, _virtue_, in all its species, are considered as
feminine. Of these and such speculations it may be truly said, as the
learned author of them remarks himself, that they are at best but
ingenious conjectures. They certainly will not bear to be rigorously
examined; for there are not any two languages which harmonize in
this respect, assigning the same sex to the same inanimate objects,
nor any one language in which this theory is supported by fact[15].
Hence it is evident, that neither reason nor nature has any share
in the regulation of this matter; and that, in assigning sex to
inanimate things, the determination is purely fanciful. In Greek,
_death_ is masculine: in Latin, feminine. In those languages the
_sun_ is masculine; in the Gothic, German, Anglo-Saxon, and some
other northern languages, it is feminine; in Russian it is neuter. In
several of the languages of Asia, the _sun_ is feminine. According to
our northern mythology, the sun was the wife of Tuisco. The Romans
considered the winds as masculine; the Hebrews, says Caramuel,
represented them as nymphs. In the Hebrew language, however, they
were of the masculine gender, as were also the _sun_ and _death_. In
short, we know not any two languages which accord in this respect,
or any one language in which sex is assigned to things inanimate
according to any consistent or determinate rule.
In speaking of animals whose sex is not known to us, or not regarded,
we assign to them gender either masculine or feminine, according,
as it would appear, to the characteristic properties of the animal
himself. In speaking, for example, of the horse, a creature
distinguished by usefulness and a certain generosity of nature,
unless we be acquainted with the sex and wish to discriminate, we
always speak of this quadruped as of the male sex; thus,
“While winter’s shivering snow affects the horse
With frost, and makes _him_ an uneasy course.”--_Creech._
In speaking of a hare, an animal noted for timidity, we assign to
it, if we give it sex, the feminine gender; thus, “the hare is so
timorous a creature, that _she_ continually listens after every
noise, and will run a long way on the least suspicion of danger: so
that _she_ always eats in terror.”
The elephant is generally considered as of the masculine gender, an
animal distinguished not only by great strength and superiority of
size, but also by sagacity, docility, and fortitude.
“The elephant has joints, but not for courtesy;
_His_ legs are for necessity, not flexure.”--_Shakspeare._
To a cat we almost always assign the female sex; to a dog, on the
contrary, or one of the canine species, we attribute the masculine
gender.
“A cat, as _she_ beholds the light, draws the ball of _her_ eye small
and long.”--_Peacham on Drawing._
“The dog is a domestic animal remarkably various in _his_ species.”
It would be easy to illustrate, by more examples, this ascription of
either male or female sex to animals, when we speak of them in the
species, or are not acquainted with the sex of the individual; but
these now adduced will, I presume, be sufficient.
By what principle this phraseology is dictated, or whether it be
merely casual or arbitrary in its origin, it would be of no utility
at present to inquire. It may be necessary, however, to remark that,
when speaking of animals, particularly those of inferior size, we
frequently consider them as devoid of sex. “_It_ is a bold and daring
creature,” says a certain writer, speaking of a cat, “and also cruel
to _its_ enemy; and never gives over, till _it_ has destroyed it, if
possible. _It_ is also watchful, dexterous, swift, and pliable.”
Before I dismiss this subject, I would request the reader’s
attention to an idiom which seems to have escaped the notice of our
grammarians. It frequently happens, as I have already observed,
that our language furnishes two distinct terms for the male and the
female, as _shepherd, shepherdess_. It is to be observed, however,
that the masculine term has a general meaning, expressing both male
and female, and is always employed, when the office, occupation,
profession, &c., and not the sex of the individual is chiefly to be
expressed; and that the feminine term is used in those cases only,
when discrimination of sex is indispensably necessary. This may be
illustrated by the following examples. If I say, “The poets of this
age are distinguished more by correctness of taste, than sublimity
of conception,” I clearly include in the term _poet_, both male and
female writers of poetry. If I say, “She is the best poetess in this
country,” I assign her the superiority over those only of her own
sex. If I say, “She is the best poet in this country,” I pronounce
her superior to all other writers of poetry, both male and female.
“Spinning,” says Lord Kames in his Sketches, “is a female occupation,
and must have had a female inventor.” If he had said “a female
inventress,” the expression would have been pleonastic. If he had
said “must have had an inventress,” he would not have sufficiently
contrasted the male and the female; he would have merely predicated
the necessity of an inventress. He, therefore, properly adopts the
term _inventor_ as applicable to each of the sexes, limiting it to
the female by the appropriate term[16]. When distinction of sex is
necessary for the sake of perspicuity, or where the sex, rather
than the general idea implied by the term, is the primary object,
the feminine noun must be employed to express the female; thus, “I
hear that some _authoresses_ are engaged in this work.”--_Political
Register._ Here the feminine term is indispensable[17]. This subject
will be resumed in “the Critical Remarks and Illustrations.”
SECTION III.
_Of Cases._
The third accident of a noun is case, (_casus_, or fall,) so called
because ancient grammarians, it is said, represented the cases as
declining or falling from the nominative, which was represented by
a perpendicular, and thence called _Casus rectus_, or upright case,
while the others were named _Casus obliqui_, or oblique cases. The
cases, in the languages of Greece and Rome, were formed by varying
the termination; and were intended to express a few of the most
obvious and common relations.
In English there are only three cases, nominative, genitive, and
objective, or accusative case. In substantives the nominative case
and the objective, have, like neuter nouns in Greek and Latin, the
same form, being distinguishable from each other by nothing but their
place; thus,
Nom. Obj.
_Achilles slew Hector_,
_Hector slew Achilles_,
where the meaning is reversed by the interchange of the nouns, the
nominative or agent being known by its being placed before the verb;
and the subject of the action by its following it. Pronouns have
three cases, that is, two inflexions from the nominative, as, _I,
mine, me_; _thou, thine, thee_.
The genitive in English, by some called the possessive case, is
formed by adding to the nominative the letter s, with an apostrophe
before it, as _king, king’s_. It expresses a variety of relations,
and was hence called by the Greeks the general case[18]. The relation
which it most commonly denotes is that of property or possession,
as, _the king’s crown_; and is, in general, the same with that which
is denoted by the word _of_, as, _the crown of the king_, _the rage
of the tyrant_, _the death of the prince_, equivalent to _the king’s
crown_, _the tyrant’s rage_, _the prince’s death_.
The nature of the relation which the genitive expresses must, in
some instances, be collected from the scope of the context; for, in
English, as in most other languages, this case frequently involves an
ambiguity. When I say, “neither life nor death shall separate us from
the love of God,” it may mean, either from the love which we owe to
God, or the love which he bears to us; for “God’s love” may denote
either the relation which the affection bears to its subject, or that
which it bears to its object. If the latter be the meaning intended,
the ambiguity may be prevented by saying, “love to God.”
An ambiguity likewise arises from it, as expressing either the
relation of the effect to its cause, or that of the accident to its
subject. “A little after the reformation of Luther,” says Swift.
This may import either the change produced by Luther, or a change
produced in him. The latter indeed is properly the meaning, though
not that which was intended by the author. He should have said, “the
reformation by Luther.” It is clear, therefore, that the relation
expressed by the genitive is not uniformly the same, that the phrase
may be interpreted either in an active or passive sense[19], and that
the real import must be collected not from the expression, but the
context.
Mr. Harris has said, that the genitive is formed to express all
relations commencing from itself, and offers the analysis of this
case in all modern languages as a proof. That it expresses more than
this, both in English and Latin, and that it denotes relations,
not only commencing from itself, but likewise directed to itself,
the examples already quoted are sufficient to prove. Nay, were it
necessary, it would be easy to demonstrate, that this ambiguity in
the use of the genitive is not confined to these two languages, but
is found in Greek, Hebrew, Italian, and, I believe, in all the modern
languages of Europe.
Concerning the origin of the English genitive, grammarians and
critics are not agreed. That the cases, or nominal inflexions, in
all languages were originally formed by annexing to the noun in
its simple form a word significant of the relation intended, is a
doctrine which, I conceive, is not only approved by reason, but
also attested by fact. That any people, indeed, in framing their
language, should affix to their nouns insignificant terminations,
for the purpose of expressing any relation, is a theory extremely
improbable. Numerous as the inflexions are in the Greek and Latin
languages, I am persuaded that, were we sufficiently acquainted with
their original structure, we should find that all these terminations
were at first words significant, subjoined to the _radix_, and
afterwards abbreviated. This opinion is corroborated by the structure
of the Hebrew, and some other oriental languages, whose affixes and
prefixes, in the formation of their cases and conjugation of their
verbs, we can still ascertain.
Now the English genitive being formed by annexing to the nominative
the letter _s_, with an apostrophe, several critics, among whom is
Mr. Addison, deliver it as their opinion, that this termination is a
contraction for the possessive pronoun _his_. This opinion appears to
be countenanced by the examples which occur in the Bible, and Book
of Common Prayer, in which, instead of the English genitive, we find
the nominative with the possessive pronoun masculine of the third
person; thus, “for Christ his sake,” “Asa his heart was perfect.” Dr.
Lowth considers these expressions as errors either of the printers
or the authors. That they are not typographical mistakes I am fully
persuaded. They occur in the books now mentioned, and also in the
works of Bacon, Donne, and many other writers, much too frequently to
admit this supposition. If errors, therefore, they are errors not of
the printers, but of the authors themselves.
To evince the incorrectness of this phraseology, and to show that
Addison’s opinion is erroneous, Dr. Lowth observes that, though
we can resolve “the king’s crown” into “the king his crown,” we
cannot resolve “the queen’s crown” into “the queen her crown,”
or “the children’s bread” into “the children their bread.” This
fact, he observes, ought to have demonstrated to Mr. Addison the
incorrectness of his opinion. Lowth, therefore, refers the English
to the Saxon genitive for its real origin, and observes, that its
derivation from that genitive decides the question[20]. Hickes, in
his _Thesaurus_, had previously delivered the same opinion. Speaking
of the Anglo-Saxon genitive in _es_, he observes, “Inde in nostratium
sermone nominum substantivorum, genitivus singularis, et nominativus
pluralis, exeunt in es, vel _s_.” From the introduction of the Saxons
into this island, to the Norman conquest, the Saxon genitive was
in universal use. From the latter period to the time of Henry II.
(1170), though the English language underwent some alterations, we
still find the Saxon genitive. Thus, in a poem, entitled “The Life of
St. Margaret,” in the Normanno-Saxon dialect, we find the following
among other examples, “chrisꞇes angles,” and the pronoun hyꞅ (his)
spelled _is_; thus, “Theodosius was _is_ name.”--See _Hickes_,
_Thes._ vol. i. p. 226.
Webster has asserted that, in the age of Edward the Confessor (1050),
he does not find the Saxon genitive; and as a proof that the pronoun
_his_ was used instead of the Saxon termination, he quotes a passage
from a charter of Edward the Confessor, where the words, “bissop
his land” occur, which he conceives to be equivalent to “bishop’s
land.” Now, had he read but a small part of that charter, he would
have found the Saxon genitive; and what he imagines to be equivalent
to the English genitive is neither that case, nor synonymous with
it. The passage runs thus: “And ich ke þe eu þat Alfred havet iseld
Gise bissop his land at Llyton;” the meaning of which is, “Know that
Alfred hath sold to Bishop Gise his land at Lutton.” In the time
of Richard II. (1385) we find Trevisa and Chaucer using the Saxon
genitive. Thus, in Trevisa’s translation of the Athanasian creed, we
find among other examples, “Godes sight.”
In Gavin Douglas, who lived in the beginning of the sixteenth
century, we find _is_ instead of _es_, thus, _faderis hands_.
In the time of Henry the Eighth we find, in the works of Sir T. More,
both the Saxon and the English genitive; and in a letter, written
in 1559, by Maitland of Lethington, the English genitive frequently
occurs. Had this genitive, then, been an abbreviation for the noun
and the pronoun _his_, the use of the words separately would have
preceded their abbreviated form in composition. This, however, was
not the case.
To form the genitive plural, we annex the apostrophe without the
letter _s_, as _eagles’ wings_, that is, _the wings of eagles_. The
genitive singular of nouns terminating in _s_, is formed in the same
manner, as, _righteousness’ sake_, or _the sake of righteousness_.
I finish this article with observing, that there are in English a
few diminutive nouns, so called from their expressing a small one
of the kind. Some of these end in _kin_, from a Dutch and Teutonic
word signifying a _child_, as _manikin_, a little man, _lambkin_,
_pipkin_, _thomkin_. Proper names ending in _kin_ belonged originally
to this class of diminutives, as, _Wilkin_, Willielmulus; _Halkin,
Hawkin_, Henriculus; _Tomkin_, Thomulus; _Simkin_, _Peterkin_, &c.
Some diminutives end in _ock_, as, _hill, hillock_; _bull, bullock_;
some in _el_, as _pike, pickrel_; _cock, cockrel_; _sack, satchel_;
some in _ing_, as _goose, gosling_. These seem to be the only
legitimate ones, as properly belonging to our language. The rest are
derived from Latin, French, Italian, and have various terminations.
CHAPTER II.
OF THE ARTICLE.
Language is chiefly composed of general terms, most substantives
being the names of _genera_ or species. When we find a number of
substances resembling one another in their principal and most obvious
qualities, we refer them to one species, to which we assign a name
common to every individual of that species. In like manner, when
we find several of these species resembling one another in their
chief properties, we refer them to a higher order, to which also we
assign a common and more general name than that which was affixed
to the inferior class. Thus we assign the general name _man_ to the
human species, as possessing a common form, and distinguished by the
common attributes of life, reason, and speech. If we consider man as
possessed of life only, we perceive a resemblance in this respect
between him and other beings. To this higher class or genus, the
characteristic attribute of which is vitality, we affix the more
generic name of animal[21]. Hence, when we use an appellative or
common noun, it denotes the genus or class collectively, of which it
is the name, as,
“The proper study of mankind is man,” _i.e._ not one man, not many
men, but all men.
Not only, however, has this rule its limitations, though these seem
governed by no fixed principle, but we frequently find the articles
admitted when the whole genus or species is evidently implied. Thus
we may say,
“Metal is specifically heavier than water;” _i.e._ not this or that
metal, but all metals. But we cannot say, “Vegetable is specifically
lighter than water;” or, “Mineral is specifically heavier than
water.” Again; we say, “Man is born unto trouble;” but we cannot
say, “Tiger is ferocious,” or, “Fox is cunning;” but, “The tiger,
or a tiger, is ferocious;” “The fox, or a fox, is cunning;” the
expressions being applicable to the whole species. It would appear,
indeed, that when proper names assume the office of appellatives,
the reverse of the rule takes place. Thus we say, “A Douglas braves
the pointed steel;” the meaning being “every Douglas.” Suppress the
indefinite article, and the general proposition becomes individual.
But, though our words are general, all our perceptions are
individual, having single existences for their objects. It is
often necessary, however, to express two, three, or more of these
individual existences; and hence arises the use of that species
of words which have been called numerals, that is, words denoting
number. To signify unity or one of a class, our forefathers employed
_ae_ or _ane_, as _ae man_, _ane ox_. When unity, or the number
one, as opposed to two or more, was to be expressed, the emphasis
would naturally be laid on the word significant of unity; and when
unity was not so much the object as the species or kind, the term
expressive of unity would naturally be unemphatical; and hence
_ae_, by celerity of pronunciation, would become _a_, and _ane_
be shortened into _an_. These words _a_ and _an_ are now termed
indefinite articles; it is clear, however, that they are truly
numerals, belonging to the same class with two, three, four, &c.;
or, perhaps, more properly, these numerals may be considered as
abbreviations for the repeated expression of the term _one_. By
whatever name these terms, _a_, _an_, may be designed, it seems
evident that they were originally synonymous with the name of unity,
or rather themselves names of unity, emphasis only distinguishing
whether unity or the species were chiefly intended. Hence _a_ and
_an_ cannot be joined with a plural noun.
Some grammarians, indeed, have asserted that in every example where
_a_ or _an_ occurs, the term _one_ may be substituted in its stead,
without in the least degree injuring the sense. As far as the primary
idea denoted by these words is concerned, this opinion is doubtless
incontrovertible, for they each express unity; but with regard to the
secondary or implied ideas which these terms convey, the difference
is obvious. An example will illustrate this: If I say, “Will one man
be able to carry this burden so far?” I evidently oppose one to more:
and the answer might be, “No; but two men will.” Let us substitute
the term _a_, and say, “Will a man be able to carry this burden?” Is
the idea nowise changed by this alteration? I apprehend it is; for
the answer might naturally be, “No; but a horse will.” I have here
substituted _a_, for _one_; the converse will equally show that the
terms are by no means mutually convertible, or strictly synonymous.
If, instead of saying, “A horse, a horse, a kingdom for a horse,”
I should say, “One horse, one horse, one kingdom for one horse,”
the sentiment, I conceive, would not be strictly the same. In both
expressions the species is named, and in both one of that species
is demanded; but with this difference, that in the former the name
of the species is the emphatic word, and it opposes that species to
every other; in the latter, unity of object seems the leading idea,
“one kingdom for one horse.” In this respect, our language appears to
me to have a decided superiority over those languages where one word
performs the office of what we term an article, and at the same time
denotes the idea of unity. _Donnez-moi un livre_ means either “give
me one book,” _i.e._ not two or more books; or “give me a book,” that
is, “a book, not something else; a book, not a pen,” for example.
I acknowledge that, in oral language, emphasis may serve to
discriminate the sentiments, and prevent ambiguity. But emphasis is
addressed to the ear only, not to the eye; it can, therefore, be of
no service in written language. It is true also, that by attending to
the context, error may often be avoided; but let it be remembered,
as Quintilian observes[22], that language should be, not such as
the reader may understand if he will take the trouble to examine
it carefully, but such as he cannot even without effort fail to
comprehend. When it is asserted, therefore, that _one_ may in every
case be substituted for _a_, without in the least degree injuring the
expression, the position appears to me erroneous and false. Whatever
creates ambiguity, whether with respect to the primary or secondary
ideas annexed to words, in some degree, without question, violates
the sense. Be it observed also, that, though _a_, _an_, _ae_, _ane_,
_one_, may have been all etymologically the same, it does not follow,
nor is it practically true, as has been now shown, that they are all
precisely equivalent words. In Scotland, the distinction between
_a_ and _ae_ is well known. “Give me _a_ book,” means any book, in
contradistinction to any other object, as “a chair,” “a pen,” “a
knife;” “give me _ae_ book,” is in contradistinction to one or more.
Such also is the difference between _a_ and _one_.
It seems, therefore, undeniable that the word _a_, termed the
indefinite article, was originally identical with the name of unity,
expressing either one of any species, as opposed to more of that
species, or one of this kind, as opposed to one of that. Whether
the distinction of its noting one or unity, with less emphasis than
the appropriate name of unity, should entitle it to be referred
to a different class of words from the numeral _one_, and called
an article, it is unimportant to inquire. To me, however, I must
acknowledge the distinctive name of article assigned to this word
appears to be useless. Were emphasis to be admitted as the principle
of classification, (and I see no other distinction between _a_ and
_one_,) the parts of speech might be multiplied beyond number.
Besides the words _a_ and _an_, termed indefinite articles, as not
defining which of the species is signified, we have also another
word, _the_, named the definite article, because it is said to point
out the individual object. This word, I doubt not, proceeded from
the word _this_ or _that_, much in the same manner as _a_ and _an_
from _ae_ and _ane_. To what class of words _this_ and _that_ should
be referred has been a subject of controversy[23]. That they are not
pronouns, as some have asserted, seems abundantly evident; for they
never represent a noun. By some they have been called definitives;
and, though this designation be not strictly consonant with their
import, it is perhaps the least exceptionable. When opposed to each
other, they appear to be reducible to that species of words termed
adjectives of order; the only difference between them and ordinary
numerals being this, that the former express the arrangement in
relation to two objects, the latter in relation to a series. _This_
means “the nearer,” “the latter,” or “the second;” _that_, “the more
remote,” “the former,” or “the first.” Their office, in general,
seems to be emphatically to individuate some particular object
whose character was either previously known, or is then described;
hence they have also been named demonstratives. Under which of the
generally received parts of speech they should be comprehended it may
be difficult to determine. As, like simple attributives they accord
with nouns, frequently denoting the accident of place, they may be
grammatically referred to the class of adjectives. Their import will
appear from a few examples.
“That kind Being who is a father to the fatherless, will recompense
thee for this.”
Here a species is referred to, distinguished by benevolence. Of
this species one individual is emphatically particularized: “That
kind being.” Who? his distinctive character follows, “is a father
to the fatherless.” The concluding word _this_, points to something
previously described.
“---- ’T was idly done
To tell him of another world; for wits
Knew better; and the only good on earth
Was pleasure; not to follow _that_ was sin.”
Here the word _that_ refers with emphasis to a thing previously
specified, namely, pleasure.
“It is no uncommon thing to find a man who laughs at everything
sacred, yet is a slave to superstitious fears. I would not be that
man, were a crown to tempt me.” Here one indefinitely of a species is
mentioned, _a man_. The subject is afterwards limited by description
to one of a certain character, “who laughs at things sacred, and
is a slave to superstitious fears.” The word _that_ selects and
demonstrates the person thus described. The word _the_ has nearly
the same import; but is less emphatical. It seems to bear the same
analogy to _that_, which _a_ does to _one_. Hence in many cases they
may be used indifferently.
“Happy the man whose cautious feet shun the broad way that sinners
go.”
Here, “happy that man” would express the same idea. The Latins
accordingly employed the demonstrative word _ille_; _beatus ille_,
“happy the man.”
What, then, is the difference between _the_ and _that_? To ascertain
this, let us inquire, in what cases _the_ is employed, and whether
_that_ can be substituted in its stead.
The word _the_ is employed,
1st, When we express an object of eminence or notoriety, or the only
one of a kind in which we are interested, as, “the king,” when we
mean “the king of England.” “He was concerned in bringing about the
revolution,” when we mean the revolution in this country. “Virgil
copied the Grecian bard,” or “Homer.” “I am going to the city,” when
I mean “London.” In none of these cases can we substitute _that_
for _the_, without laying a particular emphasis on the subject, and
implying that its character is there described in contradistinction
to some other of the same species. Thus, “he was concerned in that
revolution, which was accomplished by the English barons.” “He copied
that Grecian bard, who disputes the claim of antiquity with Homer.”
2dly, We employ it in expressing objects of repeated perception, or
subjects of previous conversation. I borrow an example from Harris.
If I see, for the first time, a man with a long beard, I say, “there
goes a man with a long beard.” If I see him again, I say, “there goes
the man with the long beard.” Were the word _that_ substituted for
_the_, the same observation would be applicable as in the preceding
examples.
3dly, Mr. Harris has said, that the article _a_ is used to express
objects of primary perception, and _the_ employed to denote those
only of secondary perception. This opinion is controverted by the
author of the article Grammar in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Ed.
3d. who gives the following example to disprove its truth. “I am in
company, and finding the room warm, I say to the servant, Request
_the_ gentleman in the window seat (to whom I am an entire stranger)
to draw down the sash.” The example is apposite, and is sufficient to
overturn the hypothesis of Mr. Harris. There can be no question but
_the_ is frequently employed to denote objects of primary perception;
and merely particularizes, by some discriminating circumstance,
an individual whose character, person, or distinctive qualities,
were previously unknown. In the example now quoted, _that_ may be
substituted for _the_, if we say, “who is in the window seat.”
4thly, The definite article is used to distinguish the explicative
from the determinative sense. In the former case it is rarely
employed: in the latter it should never be omitted, unless when
something still more definite supplies its place. “Man, who is born
of a woman, is of few days, and full of trouble.” Here the relative
clause is explicative, and not restrictive; all men being “born of
a woman;” the definite article therefore is not employed. “The man”
would imply that all men are not thus born; and would confine the
predicating clause to those who are. In the latter sense, _that_
may, without any alteration in the phraseology, be substituted for
the article; for _the man_, and _that man_, are in this instance
equivalent.
5thly, The definite article is often used to denote the measure of
excess. “The more you study, the more learned you will become;” that
is, “by how much the more you study, by so much the more learned you
will become.” “The wiser, the better;” “that (by that) wiser, that
(by that) better.” There also _that_ and _the_ may be considered as
equivalent; and the Latins accordingly said “eo melior.”
From the preceding examples and observations it must appear, that
the definite article, and the word _that_, though not strictly
synonymous, are words nearly of the same import.
Their difference seems to be,
1st, That the article _the_, like _a_, must have a substantive
conjoined with it; whereas _that_, like _one_, may have it
understood. Speaking of books, I may select one and say, “give me
_that_,” but not “give me _the_;” “give me _one_,” but not “give me
_a_.” Here the analogy holds between _a_ and _one_, _the_ and _that_.
2dly, As the difference between _a_ and _one_ seems to be, that _one_
denotes unity in contradistinction to more, with greater emphasis
than _a_, so the distinction in general between _the_ and _that_ is,
that the latter marks the object more emphatically than the former,
being indirectly opposed to _this_. I cannot say, “there goes that
man with that long beard,” without implying a contrast with “this
man with this long beard,” the word _that_ being always emphatical
and discriminative.
The opinion here offered, respecting these words, receives some
corroboration from the following circumstances.
In Latin _ille_ frequently supplies the place of our definite
article. “Thou art the man.” _Tu es ille (iste) homo._
The _le_ in French is clearly a derivative from _ille_, of which the
former syllable _il_ expresses _he_, and the latter denotes _that_
unemphatically, serving as the definite article. From the same source
also proceed the Italian articles _il_, _lo_, _la_.
In Hebrew, in like manner, our definite article is expressed by the
prefix of the pronoun _ille_; thus, _aretz_, _terra_, “earth;”[24]
_ha’aretz_, _illa_ seu _hæc terra_, “the earth,” the letter _he_
abbreviated from _hou_, _ille_, expressing _the_;--_ashri_,
_haish_[25], _beatus ille vir_, “happy the man,” or “that man,” the
_he_ in like manner signifying _the_ or _that_.
It appears to me, then, that as _ae_, _ane_, when not opposed to
_more_, and therefore unemphatical, by celerity of pronunciation were
changed into _a_, _an_; so _that_, when not opposed to _this_, or
when it was unemphatical, was shortened to _the_. Hence, the words
termed articles seem to be the name of unity, and the demonstrative
word _that_ abbreviated.
Besides the words _a_, _an_, _the_, there are others which may
be considered as reducible to the same class with these; such as
_this_, _that_, _any_, _other_, _same_, _all_, _one_, _none_. _This_
and _that_ I have already considered. That they are not pronouns
is evident, for they are never used as the representatives of a
noun, and always require to be associated with a substantive. If
ever they appear without this accompaniment, it will invariably be
found that the expression is elliptical, some substantive or other
being necessarily understood. If I say, “This was a noble action.”
This what? “This action.” “This is true virtue.” This what? “This
practice,” “this habit,” “this temper.” To what class of words I
conceive them to belong has been already mentioned.
_One_ is a word significant of unity, and cannot, without manifest
impropriety, be called a pronominal adjective; unless, by an abuse
of all language, we be disposed to name _two_, _three_, _four_,
pronominal adjectives.
_Some_ is reducible to the same class, denoting an indefinite, but,
comparatively to _many_, a small number.
_Many_, _few_, _several_, are words of the same order, significant of
number indefinitely.
_None_, or _not one_, implies the negation of all number, exclusive
even of unity itself.
_Other_, which is improperly considered by some as a pronoun, is the
Saxon oðer coming from oððe. The Arabic _ahd_, the Hebrew _had_, or
_ahad_, the Saxon oððe, the Teutonic _odo_, and the Swedish _udda_,
with our English word _odd_, seem all to have sprung from the same
origin, the etymon expressing “one separately,” or “one by itself,”
answering nearly to the Latin _singulus_. The English word _odd_
plainly indicates its affinity to these words. We say, “He is an odd
character,” or “singular character.” “He had some odd ones,” that is,
“some separate from the rest,” not paired, or connected with them,
“single.”[26]
“As he in soueraine dignity is odde,
So will he in loue no parting fellowes have.”
_Sir T. More’s Works._
The same idea of singularity and separation is expressed by _other_;
which is now generally used as a comparative, and followed by _than_.
_Other_ is sometimes used substantively, and has then a plural
number, as, “Let others serve whom they will; as for me and my
house, we will serve the Lord.” The word _one_ has a plural number
when an assemblage of units is expressed, not in the aggregate, but
individually; and then it is used as a substantive, as, “I saw a
great many fine ones.” It is also used indefinitely, in the same
sense with the French _on_, as, “One would imagine these to be
expressions of a man blessed with ease.”--_Atterbury._ And, in using
it in this sense, it may be observed, in passing, that an error is
often committed by employing the personal pronouns as referring to
_one_; thus, “One is apt to exaggerate his own injuries,” instead
of “one’s own injuries.” It is sometimes, though rarely, used as
referring to a plural noun. “The Romans and the Carthaginians now
took the field; the one ambitious of conquest, and the others in
self-defence.” This mode of expression is objectionable. We should
rather say, “the former,” and “the latter.”
_Any_, _an_, _a_, _one_, seem all to be nearly equivalent words, and
derived from one origin, I mean from _ane_, the name of unity. Hence
_a_, or _an_, and _any_, are frequently synonymous. “A considerate
man would have acted differently;” that is, “any considerate man.”
Hence also, like _one_, it is opposed to _none_, as, “Have you a
book (any book) which you can lend me?” “None; my books are in the
country; nor, if they were here, have I any (or one) which would suit
you.” From expressing _one_ indefinitely, like _a_ or _an_, it came,
by an easy and natural transition, to denote “_whatever it be_,”
“_what you please_.” “Give me one (ane), any, no matter which.” In
this sense it corresponds to the Latin _quivis_ or _quilibet_[27]
in affirmative sentences; whereas, in interrogative or negative
sentences, it corresponds to _quisquam_, _quispiam_, or _ullus_. The
preceding observations it may be useful to recapitulate.
Nouns are names of genera, and not of individuals; our perceptions
are, on the contrary, all individual, not general. Hence, to denote
one or more individuals of a species, numerals, or words significant
of number, were invented. Some express a precise number, as _one_,
_two_, _three_; others number indefinitely, as _some_, _few_,
_many_, _several_. Our perceptions being all individual, and one
being the basis of all number, the term significant of unity must
frequently recur in expressing our sentiments. To denote this idea
our forefathers employed _ae_, _ane_. In the progress of language,
where unity was not to be expressed, as opposed to two or more, the
terms, thus becoming unemphatical, would naturally be abbreviated
into _a_, _an_. These latter, therefore, are the offspring of the
names of unity, and belong to the class of words named cardinal
numerals. To what part of speech these are reducible (if they can be
reduced to any) it is difficult to determine. In some languages they
have the form of adjectives; but, if their meaning be considered, it
is clear that they have no claim to this appellation, as they express
no accident, quality, or property whatever. In fact, they appear to
be a species of words totally different in character from any of the
parts of speech generally received; all of them, except the first of
the series, being abbreviations for the name of unity repeated.
It being necessary not only to express an individual indefinitely
of any species, but also to specify and select some particular one,
which at first would probably be done by pointing to the object, if
in sight, the words _this_ and _that_, hence called demonstratives,
were employed; the one to express the nearer, the other the more
distant object. From one of these proceeded the word _the_, having
the same relation to its original as _a_ or _an_ has to the name of
unity. Hence the words synonymous with _this_ and _that_, in those
languages which have no definite article, are frequently employed to
supply its place.
The use of these terms being to express any individual whatever of
a class, and likewise some certain or particular object; we have
also the words _few_, _some_, _many_, _several_, to denote a number
indefinitely, and the cardinal numerals _two_, _three_, _four_, &c.,
a precise number of individuals.
CHAPTER III.
OF PRONOUNS.
Whether we speak of things present, or of things absent, of
ourselves, or of others, and to whomsoever we address our discourse,
the repetition of the names of those persons or things would not only
be tiresome, but also sometimes productive of ambiguity. Besides, the
name of the person addressed may be unknown to the speaker, and the
name of the speaker may be unknown to the person addressed. Hence
appears the utility of pronouns, words, as the etymology of the term
denotes, supplying the place of nouns. They have therefore been
denominated by some grammarians, nouns of the second order.
When the person who addresses speaks of himself, the pronoun _I_,
called the pronoun of the first person, is employed instead of the
name of the speaker, as, “The Lord said to Moses, _I_ (the Lord) am
the God of Abraham.”
When the person addressed is the subject of discourse, the pronoun
_thou_, called the pronoun of the second person, is used instead of
his name, as, “Nathan said unto David, _Thou_ (David) art the man.”
When neither the person who speaks, nor the person addressed, but
some other person or thing, is the subject of discourse, we employ
the pronouns of the third person, namely, _he_, _she_, _it_; as,
“When Jesus saw the multitude, _he_ (Jesus) had compassion on them.”
I have said that pronouns are employed to prevent the tiresome
repetition of names. It is not, however, to be hence inferred, that
even the repetition of the name would, in all cases, answer the
same purpose, or denote the subject with the same precision as the
pronoun. For, as there is hardly any name, strictly speaking, proper
or peculiar to one individual, the employment of a name, belonging to
more persons than one, would not so clearly specify or individuate
the object as the appropriate pronoun. Hence it would often be
necessary to subjoin to the name some distinctive circumstances, to
discriminate the person intended from others of that name; or the
speaker would be obliged to point to the individual if he happened
to be present. Nay, though the person or subject designed might be
thus sufficiently ascertained, it is easy to see that the phraseology
would have nothing of that simplicity and energy which accompany
the pronoun. If, in the first example, instead of saying, “I am
the God,” we should say, “The Lord is the God;” or in the second,
instead of “Thou art the man,” “David is the man,” the energy of
the expression would be entirely destroyed. If any person, speaking
of himself, should distinguish himself from others of the same
name, by subjoining the necessary discriminating circumstances, so
as to leave no doubt in the mind of the hearer, it is obvious that
this phraseology would not only be inelegant, but also feeble and
unimpressive. To be convinced of the truth of this observation, it
is only necessary to compare the exanimate, stiff, and frequently
obscure diction of a common card, with the freedom, perspicuity, and
vivacity of a letter.
Pronouns may be divided into substantive and adjective, personal and
impersonal, relative and interrogative. The personal substantive
pronouns are _I_, _thou_, _he_, _she_. The impersonal substantive
pronoun is _it_.
The personal substantive pronouns have three cases, and are thus
declined:
_First Person, Masc. and Fem._
_Sing._ _Plur._
_Nom._ I[28] We
_Gen._ Mine Ours
_Obj._ Me Us.
_Second Person, Masc. and Fem._
_Sing._ _Plur._
_Nom._ Thou[29] Ye or you
_Gen._ Thine Yours
_Obj._ Thee You.
_Third Person._
_Masc._
_Nom._ He[30] They
_Gen._ His Theirs
_Obj._ Him Them.
_Fem._
_Sing._ _Plur._
_Nom._ She[31] They
_Gen._ Hers Theirs
_Obj._ Her Them.
_Third Person._
_Neuter._
_Impersonal._
_Nom._ It[32] They[33]
_Gen._ Its Theirs
_Obj._ It Them.
_My_, _thy_, _our_, _your_, _their_, being the representatives of
nouns, have the essential character of pronouns. Thus, when Decius
says to Cato, “Cæsar is well acquainted with your virtues,” the
pronoun is employed as a substitute for _Cato’s_. As they express not
only the subject, but also the relation of property or possession,
they are by some grammarians considered to be the genitives of
their respective substantive pronouns. In usage, however, they are
distinguished from the English genitive by their incapacity to stand
alone. Thus we say, “It is the king’s,” “It is yours;” but we cannot
say, “It is your,” the presence of a noun being necessary to the last
expression. They are, therefore, more correctly named pronominal
adjectives. For the purpose of denoting emphatically the relation
of possession or property, the word _own_ is frequently joined to
them, as, _my own_, _thy own_, _our own_. And to mark the person with
emphasis, they are compounded with the word _self_; in Saxon, _sylf_;
from the Gothic _silba_, _ipse_: thus, _myself, thyself_; _ourselves,
yourselves_. _Theirselves_ is now obsolete, _themselves_ being used
in its stead.
The pronouns of the first and second persons are either masculine
or feminine. The reason is, says Mr. Harris, because the sex of
the speaker and of the person addressed is generally obvious. This
explanation, which has been adopted by most grammarians, appears to
me unsatisfactory and erroneous. Others have said that the pronouns
of the first and second persons have no distinction of sex, because
all distinction of this kind is foreign to the intention of the
speaker, who, when he uses the pronoun _I_, means the person who
speaks, be it man or woman; and when he employs the pronoun _thou_,
means the person addressed, without any regard to the sex of the
individual. This matter seems sufficiently plain. Language, to be
useful, must be perspicuous and intelligible, exhibiting the subject
and its attributes with clearness and precision. If it should be
asked why the pronoun of the third person has three varieties, Mr.
Harris would answer, “to mark the sex.” If it were inquired whence
arises the necessity of marking the sex, he would answer, and very
justly, “in order to ascertain the subject of discourse.” It is
obvious, therefore, that to note the sex is not the primary object,
and that the principal aim of the speaker is to discriminate and
mark the subject. The pronouns of the first and second persons have
no variety of form significant of sex, because the speaker and the
person addressed are evident without it. Mr. Harris, therefore,
should have said that the pronouns in question have no distinction
of gender, not because the _sex_ of the speaker and of the person
addressed, but because the _persons_ themselves, are in general
obvious, without the aid of sexual designation. The intention of
the speaker is not to denote the sex, but the person spoken of,
whether male or female; to ascertain which person, if absent, the
discrimination of sex is generally necessary. The sex, therefore,
enters not as an essential, but as an explanatory circumstance;
not as the subject of discourse, but to distinguish the subject.
Where the person is present, and is either the speaker or the
person addressed, discrimination of sex becomes unnecessary, the
pronoun itself marking the individuals. When the person or subject
of discourse is absent, the distinction of sex serves frequently to
determine the subject. Hence the pronoun of the third person has
three varieties, _he_ for the masculine, _she_ for the feminine, and
_it_ for the neuter.
The four personal pronouns, _I_, _thou_, _he_, and _she_, have three
cases, viz., the nominative or leading case, expressing the principal
subject, and preceding the verb; the genitive case, whose form and
office have been already defined; and the objective, accusative, or
following case, (for it has obtained these three names,) expressing
the object to which the energy is directed, or the subject acted
upon. This case follows the verb.
_Mine_, _thine_, _hers_, _theirs_, _his_, _yours_, _ours_, are truly
pronouns in the possessive or genitive case. Johnson has indeed said
that _my_ and _mine_ are words precisely synonymous, _my_, according
to him, being used before a consonant, and _mine_ before a vowel; as,
_my sword_, _mine arm_. It is doubtless true that _mine_ and _thine_
are sometimes used as _my_ and _thy_, which are not substantive
pronouns, but pronominal adjectives; but that they are not precisely
synonymous or mutually convertible, is obvious; for _my_ and _thy_
cannot be used for _mine_ and _thine_, though _mine_ and _thine_, as
has been observed, may be used for _my_ and _thy_. Example: “Whose
book is this?” I cannot answer, “it is my,” but “it is mine.” We may
indeed say “it is my book;” but the addition of the substantive is
necessary.
As _my_ and _mine_, _thy_ and _thine_, _our_ and _ours_, _your_ and
_yours_, _their_ and _theirs_, are not mutually convertible, they
cannot be regarded as synonymous each with its fellow.
_This_ and _that_, which have improperly been referred by some to the
class of pronouns, have been considered already. The former makes in
the plural _these_, the latter _those_.
The relative pronouns, so called because they directly relate or
refer to a substantive preceding, which is therefore termed _the
antecedent_, are _who_, _which_, _that_.
The pronoun _who_ is of the masculine or feminine gender, referring
to persons, male or female. The pronoun _which_ is neuter. _That_ is
common to the three genders.
_Sing. and Plur._ _Sing. and Plur._
_Nom._ Who[34] Which
_Gen._ Whose Whose
_Obj._ Whom Which.
Lowth and several other grammarians have asserted that the pronoun
_which_ admits no variation. Numberless examples, however, from the
best authors might be cited to disprove this assertion. Shakspeare
occasionally uses _whose_ as the genitive of _which_; and, since his
time, writers of the highest eminence have employed it in the same
manner.
“Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree, _whose_ mortal taste.”--_Milton._
“The lights and shades, _whose_ well-accorded strife
Gives all the strength and colour of our life.”--_Pope._
“A true critic is like a dog at a feast, _whose_ thoughts and stomach
are wholly set on what the guests fling away.”--_Swift._
This usage is favourable to conciseness, and can very seldom create
ambiguity. Where obscurity indeed is apprehended, the periphrasis,
_of which_, should be adopted. I have, therefore, given _whose_ as
the genitive of _which_; not only because this usage is sanctioned
by classical authority, but likewise, because the other form, _of
which_, is frequently awkward and inelegant.
_Who_ is applied to persons, that is, to animals distinguished by
rationality, or represented as possessing it.
“The man _who_ has no music in himself.”--_Shakspeare._
The antecedent _man_, being a person, is followed by _who_.
“A stag, _who_ came to drink at a river, seeing his own image in the
clear stream, said thus to himself.”
Here the stag is represented as possessing reason and speech, and
therefore the pronoun _who_ is employed. In mythological writings
in general, such as the Fables of Æsop, inferior animals are very
properly denoted by the personal relative.
_Which_ is applied to things inanimate, and creatures either devoid
of all indications of rationality, or represented as such. “The city,
_which_ Romulus built, was called Rome.” Here _which_ is used, the
word _city_ being the antecedent, to which it refers.
“The sloth, _which_ is a creature remarkable for inactivity, lives on
leaves and the flowers of trees.” Here the sloth, an animal hardly
possessing sensation or life, is expressed by _which_.
The rule here given for the use of these pronouns is not uniformly
observed, several good writers occasionally applying them
indifferently to inferior animals, without any determinate principle
of discrimination. It would be better, however, were this rule
universally followed; and if such modes of expression as “frequented
by that fowl, _whom_ nature has taught,” were entirely repudiated.
Priestley, whose doctrine on this subject seems nearly to coincide
with ours, has even objected to the application of the pronoun
_who_ to children, because this pronoun conveys an idea of persons
possessing reason and reflection, of which mere children are
incapable. He, therefore, disapproves of Cadogan’s phraseology, when
he says, “a child who.”
_That_ is applied indiscriminately to things animate and inanimate,
and admits no variation.
The pronouns _who_, _which_, and _that_, are sometimes resolvable
into _and he_, _and she_, _and it_. Mr. Harris, indeed, has said,
that the pronoun _qui_ (who) may be always resolved into _et ille_,
_a_, _ud_ (_and he_, _and she_, _and it_). This opinion, however, is
not perfectly correct; for it is thus resolvable in those examples
only in which the relative clause does not limit or modify the
meaning of the antecedent. If I say, “Man who is born of a woman,
is of few days, and full of trouble,” the relative clause is not
restrictive; I may, therefore, resolve the pronoun, and say, “Man
is of few days, and he is born of woman.” “Light is a body which
moves with great velocity,” is resolvable into “Light is a body,
and it moves with great velocity.” But when the relative clause
limits the meaning of the antecedent, the relative is clearly not
thus resolvable. “Virgil was the only epic poet, among the Romans,
who can be compared to Homer.” The signification of the antecedent
is here restricted by the relative clause: we cannot, therefore, by
resolution, say, “Virgil was the only epic poet among the Romans, and
he can be compared to Homer;” for the former of these propositions is
not true, nor is the sentiment, which it conveys, accordant with the
meaning of the author.
The pronoun _what_, if not employed interrogatively, is equivalent
to _that which_; and is applicable to inanimate things only, as, “I
believe what I see,” or “that which I see.”
_What_ admits no variation.
The relative pronouns _who_, _which_, are often used interrogatively,
and are, therefore, in such cases considered as interrogatives.
When thus employed, it is the opinion of the author of the British
Grammar, that they still retain their relative character. “The only
difference,” says he, “is this, that the relative refers to an
antecedent and definite subject, and the interrogative to something
subsequent and unknown.” The example which he adduces in support
of his opinion is the following: “Who first seduced them to that
foul revolt?” “The very question,” says he, “supposes a seducer, to
which, though unknown, the pronoun _who_ has a reference.” Answer,
“The infernal serpent.” He continues, “Here, in the answer, we have
the subject, which was indefinite, ascertained; so that the _who_
in the interrogation is as much a relative as if it had been said
originally, without any interrogation at all. It was the infernal
serpent who seduced them.” Others adopt an opinion diametrically
opposite, contending that _who_ and _which_ are properly
interrogatives, and that even, when used as relatives, they still
retain their interrogative character. This theory a few examples will
sufficiently illustrate.
“The man who?” (which man?) his character follows, “has no music in
himself.”
“The city which? (what city?) Romulus built was called Rome.”
“Happy the man whose cautious feet.”
“Happy that man who? his (whose) cautious feet.”
“Light is a body which? (body) moves with great velocity.”