but here made superlative by the adverb _least_. 1. An adjective is a word
added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A common
adjective is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or
situation. 8. The superlative degree is that which is _most_ or _least_ of
all included with it.
_Teach_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or
_to be acted upon_.
_Learnedly_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a
participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time,
place, degree, or manner.
_Rebuking_ is a participle. 1. A participle is a word derived from a verb,
participating the properties of a verb, and of an adjective or a noun; and
is generally formed by adding _ing, d_, or _ed_, to the verb.
_Whatsoever_ is a pronoun. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun.
_Is_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to
be acted upon_.
_False_ is a common adjective, of the positive degree; compared regularly,
_false, falser, falsest_. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or
pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A common adjective is any
ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation. 3. The
positive degree is that which is expressed by the adjective in its simple
form.
_Blundering_ is a participial adjective, compared by means of the adverbs;
_blundering, more blundering, most blundering_; or, _blundering, less
blundering, least blundering_. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or
pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A participial adjective is one
that has the form of a participle, but differs from it by rejecting the
idea of time. 3. Those adjectives which may be varied in sense, but not in
form, are compared by means of adverbs.
_Or_ is a conjunction. 1. A conjunction is a word used to connect words or
sentences in construction, and to show the dependence of the terms so
connected.
_Unmannerly_ is a common adjective, compared by means of the adverbs;
_unmannerly, more unmannerly, most unmannerly_; or, _unmannerly, less
unmannerly, least unmannerly_. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or
pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A common adjective is any
ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation. 3. Those
adjectives which may be varied in sense, but not in form, are compared by
means of adverbs.
LESSON I.--PARSING.
"The noblest and most beneficial invention of which human ingenuity can
boast, is that of writing."--_Robertson's America_, Vol. II, p. 193.
"Charlemagne was the tallest, the handsomest, and the strongest man of his
time; his appearance was truly majestic, and he had surprising agility in
all sorts of manly exercises."--_Stories of France_, p. 19.
"Money, like other things, is more or less valuable, as it is less or more
plentiful."--_Beanie's Moral Science_, p. 378.
"The right way of acting, is, in a moral sense, as much a reality, in the
mind of an ordinary man, as the straight or the right road."--_Dr. Murray's
Hist. Lang._, i, 118.
"The full period of several members possesses most dignity and modulation,
and conveys also the greatest degree of force, by admitting the closest
compression of thought."--_Jamieson's Rhet._, p. 79.
"His great master, Demosthenes, in addressing popular audiences, never had
recourse to a similar expedient. He avoided redundancies, as equivocal and
feeble. He aimed only to make the deepest and most efficient impression;
and he employed for this purpose, the plainest, the fewest, and the most
emphatic words."--_Ib._, p. 68.
"The high eloquence which I have last mentioned, is always the offspring of
passion. A man actuated by a strong passion, becomes much greater than he
is at other times. He is conscious of more strength and force; he utters
greater sentiments, conceives higher designs, and executes them with a
boldness and felicity, of which, on other occasions, he could not think
himself capable."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 236.
"His words bore sterling weight, nervous and strong,
In manly tides of sense they roll'd along."--_Churchill_.
"To make the humble proud, the proud submiss,
Wiser the wisest, and the brave more brave."--_W. S. Landor_.
LESSON II.--PARSING.
"I am satisfied that in this, as in all cases, it is best, safest, as well
as most right and honorable, to speak freely and plainly."--_Channing's
Letter to Clay_, p. 4.
"The gospel, when preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven,
through the wonder-working power of God, can make the proud humble, the
selfish disinterested, the worldly heavenly, the sensual pure."--_Christian
Experience_, p. 399.
"I am so much the better, as I am the liker[184] the best; and so much the
holier, as I am more conformable to the holiest, or rather to Him who is
holiness itself."--_Bp. Beneridge_.
"Whether any thing in Christianity appears to them probable, or improbable;
consistent, or inconsistent; agreeable to what they should have expected,
or the contrary; wise and good, or ridiculous and useless; is perfectly
irrelevant."--_M'Ilvaine's Evidences_, p. 523.
"God's providence is higher, and deeper, and larger, and stronger, than all
the skill of his adversaries; and his pleasure shall be accomplished in
their overthrow, except they repent and become his friends."--_Cox, on
Christianity_, p. 445.
"A just relish of what is beautiful, proper, elegant, and ornamental, in
writing or painting, in architecture or gardening, is a fine preparation
for the same just relish of these qualities in character and behaviour. To
the man who has acquired a taste so acute and accomplished, every action
wrong or improper must be highly disgustful: if, in any instance, the
overbearing power of passion sway him from his duty, he returns to it with
redoubled resolution never to be swayed a second time."--_Kames, Elements
of Criticism_, Vol. i, p. 25.
"In grave Quintilian's copious work, we find
The justest rules and clearest method join'd."--_Pope, on Crit._
LESSON III.--PARSING.
"There are several sorts of scandalous tempers; some malicious, and some
effeminate; others obstinate, brutish, and savage. Some humours are
childish and silly; some, false, and others, scurrilous; some, mercenary,
and some, tyrannical."--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 52.
"Words are obviously voluntary signs: and they are also arbitrary;
excepting a few simple sounds expressive of certain internal emotions,
which sounds being the same in all languages, must be the work of nature:
thus the unpremeditated tones of admiration are the same in all
men."--_Kames, Elements of Crit._, i, 347.
"A stately and majestic air requires sumptuous apparel, which ought not to
be gaudy, nor crowded with little ornaments. A woman of consummate beauty
can bear to be highly adorned, and yet shows best in a plain
dress."--_Ib._, p. 279. "Of all external objects a graceful person is the
most agreeable. But in vain will a person attempt to be graceful, who is
deficient in amiable qualities."--_Ib._, p. 299.
"The faults of a writer of acknowledged excellence are more dangerous,
because the influence of his example is more extensive; and the interest of
learning requires that they should be discovered and stigmatized, before
they have the sanction of antiquity bestowed upon them, and become
precedents of indisputable authority."--_Dr. Johnson, Rambler_, Vol. ii,
No. 93.
"Judges ought to be more learned than witty, more reverend than plausible,
and more advised than confident; above all things, integrity is their
portion and proper virtue."--_Bacon's Essays_, p. 145.
"The wisest nations, having the most and best ideas, will consequently have
the best and most copious languages."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 408.
"Here we trace the operation of powerful causes, while we remain ignorant
of their nature; but everything goes on with such regularity and harmony,
as to give a striking and convincing proof of a combining directing
intelligence."--_Life of W. Allen_, Vol. i, p. 170.
"The wisest, unexperienced, will be ever
Timorous and loth, with novice modesty,
Irresolute, unhardy, unadventurous."--_Milton_.
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.
ERRORS OF ADJECTIVES.
LESSON I.--DEGREES.
"I have the real excuse of the honestest sort of bankrupts."--_Cowley's
Preface_, p. viii.
[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the adjective _honestest_ is harshly
compared by _est_. But, according to a principle stated on page 283d
concerning the regular degrees, "This method of comparison is to be applied
only to monosyllables, and to dissyllables of a smooth termination, or such
as receive it and still have but one syllable after the accent." Therefore,
_honestest_ should be _most honest_; thus, "I have real excuse of the _most
honest_ sort of bankrupts."]
"The honourablest part of talk, is, to give the occasion."--_Bacon's
Essays_, p. 90. "To give him one of his own modestest proverbs."--
_Barclay's Works_, iii, 340. "Our language is now certainly properer and
more natural, than it was formerly."--_Bp. Burnet_. "Which will be of most
and frequentest use to him in the world."--_Locke, on Education_, p. 163.
"The same is notified in the notablest places in the diocese."--_Whitgift_.
"But it was the dreadfullest sight that ever I saw."--_Pilgrim's Progress_,
p. 70. "Four of the ancientest, soberest, and discreetest of the brethren,
chosen for the occasion, shall regulate it."--_Locke, on Church Gov_. "Nor
can there be any clear understanding of any Roman author, especially of
ancienter time, without this skill."--_Walker's Particles_, p. x. "Far the
learnedest of the Greeks."--_Ib._, p. 120. "The learneder thou art, the
humbler be thou."--_Ib._, p. 228. "He is none of the best or honestest."--
_Ib._, p. 274. "The properest methods of communicating it to others."--
_Burn's Gram._, Prof, p. viii. "What heaven's great King hath powerfullest
to send against us."--_Paradise Lost_. "Benedict is not the unhopefullest
husband that I know."--SHAK.: _in Joh. Dict._ "That he should immediately
do all the meanest and triflingest things himself."--RAY: _in Johnson's
Gram._, p. 6. "I shall be named among the famousest of women."--MILTON'S
_Samson Agonistes: ib._ "Those have the inventivest heads for all
purposes."--ASCHAM: _ib._ "The wretcheder are the contemners of all
helps."--BEN JONSON: _ib._ "I will now deliver a few of the properest and
naturallest considerations that belong to this piece."--WOTTON: _ib._ "The
mortalest poisons practised by the West Indians, have some mixture of the
blood, fat, or flesh of man."--BACON: _ib._ "He so won upon him, that he
rendered him one of the faithfulest and most affectionate allies the Medes
ever had."--_Rollin_, ii, 71. "'You see before you,' says he to him, 'the
most devoted servant, and the faithfullest ally, you ever had.'"--_Ib._,
ii, 79. "I chose the flourishing'st tree in all the park."--_Cowley_.
"Which he placed, I think, some centuries backwarder than Julius Africanus
thought fit to place it afterwards."--_Bolingbroke, on History_, p. 53.
"The Tiber, the notedest river of Italy."--_Littleton's Dict._
"To fartherest shores the ambrosial spirit flies."
--_Cutler's Gram._, p. 140.
----"That what she wills to do or say,
Seems wisest, virtuousest, discreetest, best."
--_Milton_, B. viii, l. 550.
LESSON II.--MIXED.
"During the three or four first years of its
existence."--_Taylor's District School_, p. 27.
[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the cardinal numbers, _three_ and _four_ are
put before the ordinal _first_. But, according to the 7th part of Obs. 7th,
page 280th, "In specifying any part of a series, we ought to place the
cardinal number after the ordinal." Therefore the words _three_ and _four_
should be placed after _first_; thus, "During the _first three_ or _four_
years of its existence."]
"To the first of these divisions, my ten last lectures have been
devoted."--_Adams's Rhet._, Vol. i, p. 391. "There are in the twenty-four
states not less than sixty thousand common schools."--_Taylor's District
School_, p. 38. "I know of nothing which gives teachers so much trouble as
this want of firmness."--_Ib._, p. 57. "I know of nothing that throws such
darkness over the line which separates right from wrong."--_Ib._, p. 58.
"None need this purity and simplicity of language and thought so much as
the common school instructor."--_Ib._, p. 64. "I know of no periodical that
is so valuable to the teacher as the Annals of Education."--_Ib._, p. 67.
"Are not these schools of the highest importance? Should not every
individual feel the deepest interest in their character and
condition?"--_Ib._, p. 78. "If instruction were made a profession, teachers
would feel a sympathy for each other."--_Ib._, p. 93. "Nothing is so likely
to interest children as novelty and change."--_Ib._, p. 131. "I know of no
labour which affords so much happiness as that of the teacher's."--_Ib._,
p. 136. "Their school exercises are the most pleasant and agreeable of any
that they engage in."--_Ib._, p. 136. "I know of no exercise so beneficial
to the pupil as that of drawing maps."--_Ib._, p. 176. "I know of nothing
in which our district schools are so defective as they are in the art of
teaching grammar."--_Ib._, p. 196. "I know of nothing so easily acquired as
history."--_Ib._ p. 206. "I know of nothing for which scholars usually have
such an abhorrence, as composition."--_Ib._, p. 210. "There is nothing in
our fellow-men that we should respect with so much sacredness as their good
name."--_Ib._, p. 307. "Sure never any thing was so unbred as that odious
man."--CONGREVE: _in Joh. Dict._ "In the dialogue between the mariner and
the shade of the deceast."--_Philological Museum_, i, 466. "These
master-works would still be less excellent and finisht"--_Ib._, i, 469.
"Every attempt to staylace the language of polisht conversation, renders
our phraseology inelegant and clumsy."--_Ib._, i, 678. "Here are a few of
the unpleasant'st words that ever blotted paper."--SHAK.: _in Joh. Dict._
"With the most easy, undisobliging transitions."--BROOME: _ib._ "Fear is,
of all affections, the unaptest to admit any conference with
reason."--HOOKER: _ib._ "Most chymists think glass a body more
undestroyable than gold itself."--BOYLE: _ib._ "To part with unhackt edges,
and bear back our barge undinted."--SHAK.: _ib._ "Erasmus, who was an
unbigotted Roman Catholic, was transported with this passage."--ADDISON:
_ib._ "There are no less than five words, with any of which the sentence
might have terminated."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 397. "The one preach Christ
of contention; but the other, of love."--_Philippians_, i, 16. "Hence we
find less discontent and heart-burnings, than where the subjects are
unequally burdened."--_Art of Thinking_, p. 56.
"The serpent, subtil'st beast of all the field,
I knew; but not with human voice indu'd."
--MILTON: _Joh. Dict., w. Human._
"How much more grievous would our lives appear,
To reach th' eighth hundred, than the eightieth year?"
--DENHAM: B. P., ii, 244.
LESSON III.--MIXED.
"Brutus engaged with Aruns; and so fierce was the attack, that they pierced
one another at the same time."--_Lempriere's Dict._
[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the phrase _one another_ is here applied to
two persons only, the words _an_ and _other_ being needlessly compounded.
But, according to Observation 15th, on the Classes of Adjectives, _each
other_ must be applied to two persons or things, and _one an other_ to more
than two. Therefore _one another_ should here be _each other_; thus,
"Brutus engaged with Aruns; and so fierce was the attack, that they pierced
_each other_ at the same time."]
"Her two brothers were one after another turned into stone."--_Art of
Thinking_, p. 194. "Nouns are often used as adjectives; as, A _gold_-ring,
a _silver_-cup."--_Lennie's Gram._, p. 14. "Fire and water destroy one
another."--_Wanostrocht's Gram._, p. 82. "Two negatives in English destroy
one another, or are equivalent to an affirmative."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 94;
_E. Devis's_, 111; _Mack's_, 147; _Murray's_, 198; _Churchill's_, 148;
_Putnam's_, 135; _C. Adams's_, 102; _Hamlin's_, 79; _Alger's_, 66;
_Fisk's_, 140; _Ingersoll's_, 207; and _many others_. "Two negatives
destroy one another, and are generally equivalent to an
affirmative."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 191; _Felton's_, 85. "Two negatives
destroy one another and make an affirmative."--_J. Flint's Gram._, p. 79.
"Two negatives destroy one another, being equivalent to an
affirmative."--_Frost's El. of E. Gram._, p. 48. "Two objects, resembling
one another, are presented to the imagination."--_Parker's Exercises in
Comp._, p. 47. "Mankind, in order to hold converse with each other, found
it necessary to give names to objects."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 42. "Words
are derived from each other[185] in various ways."--_Cooper's Gram._, p.
108. "There are many other ways of deriving words from one
another."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 131. "When several verbs connected by
conjunctions, succeed each other in a sentence, the auxiliary is usually
omitted except with the first."--_Frost's Gram._, p. 91. "Two or more
verbs, having the same nominative case, and immediately following one
another, are also separated by commas." [186]--_Murray's Gram._, p. 270;
_C. Adams's_, 126; _Russell's_, 113; and others. "Two or more adverbs
immediately succeeding each other, must be separated by commas."--_Same
Grammars_. "If, however, the members succeeding each other, are very
closely connected, the comma is unnecessary."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 273;
_Comly's_, 152; _and others_. "Gratitude, when exerted towards one another,
naturally produces a very pleasing sensation in the mind of a grateful
man."--_Mur._, p. 287. "Several verbs in the infinitive mood, having a
common dependence, and succeeding one another, are also divided by
commas."--_Comly's Gram._, p. 153. "The several words of which it consists,
have so near a relation to each other."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 268;
_Comly's_, 144; _Russell's_, 111; _and others_. "When two or more verbs
have the same nominative, and immediately follow one another, or two or
more adverbs immediately succeed one another, they must be separated by
commas."--_Comly's Gram._, p. 145. "Nouns frequently succeed each other,
meaning the same thing."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 63. "And these two tenses
may thus answer one another."--_Johnson's Gram._ _Com._, p. 322. "Or some
other relation which two objects bear to one another."--_Jamieson's Rhet._,
p. 149. "That the heathens tolerated each other, is allowed."--_Gospel its
own Witness_, p. 76. "And yet these two persons love one another
tenderly."--_Murray's E. Reader_, p. 112. "In the six hundredth and first
year."--_Gen._, viii, 13. "Nor is this arguing of his but a reiterate
clamour."--_Barclay's Works_, i, 250. "In severals of them the inward life
of Christianity is to be found."--_Ib._, iii, 272. "Though Alvarez,
Despauterius, and other, allow it not to be Plural."--_Johnson's Gram.
Com._, p. 169. "Even the most dissipate and shameless blushed at the
sight."--_Lemp. Dict., w. Antiochus_. "We feel a superior satisfaction in
surveying the life of animals, than that of vegetables."--_Jamieson's
Rhet._, 172. "But this man is so full fraughted with malice."--_Barclay's
Works_, i11, 205. "That I suggest some things concerning the properest
means."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 337.
"So hand in hand they pass'd, the loveliest pair
That ever since in love's embraces met."
--_Milton_, P. L., B., iv, l. 321.
"Aim at the high'est, without the high'est attain'd
Will be for thee no sitting, or not long."
--_Id._, P. R., B. iv, l. 106.
CHAPTER V.--PRONOUNS.
A Pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun: as, The boy loves _his_ book;
_he_ has long lessons, and _he_ learns _them_ well.
The pronouns in our language are twenty-four; and their variations are
thirty-two: so that the number of _words_ of this class, is fifty-six.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--The word for which a pronoun stands, is called its _antecedent_,
because it usually precedes the pronoun. But some have limited the term
_antecedent_ to the word represented by a _relative_ pronoun. There can be
no propriety in this, unless we will have every pronoun to be a relative,
when it stands for a noun which precedes it; and, if so, it should be
called something else, when the noun is to be found elsewhere. In the
example above, _his_ and _he_ represent _boy_, and _them_ represents
_lessons_; and these nouns are as truly the antecedents to the pronouns, as
any can be. Yet _his, he_, and _them_, in our most approved grammars, are
not called relative pronouns, but personal.
OBS. 2.--Every pronoun may be explained as standing for the _name_ of
something, for the _thing itself_ unnamed, or for a _former pronoun_; and,
with the noun, pronoun, or thing, for which it stands, every pronoun must
agree in person, number, and gender. The exceptions to this, whether
apparent or real, are very few; and, as their occurrence is unfrequent,
there will be little occasion to notice them till we come to syntax. But if
the student will observe the use and import of pronouns, he may easily see,
that some of them are put _substantively_, for nouns not previously
introduced; some, _relatively_, for nouns or pronouns going before; some,
_adjectively_, for nouns that must follow them in any explanation which can
be made of the sense. These three modes of substitution, are very
different, each from the others. Yet they do not serve for an accurate
division of the pronouns; because it often happens, that a substitute which
commonly represents the noun in one of these ways, will sometimes represent
it in an other.
OBS. 3.--The pronouns _I_ and _thou_, in their different modifications,
stand immediately for persons that are, in general, sufficiently known
without being named; (_I_ meaning _the speaker_, and _thou, the hearer_;)
their antecedents, or nouns, are therefore generally _understood_. The
other personal pronouns, also, are sometimes taken in a general and
demonstrative sense, to denote persons or things not previously mentioned;
as, "_He_ that hath knowledge, spareth his words."--_Bible_. Here _he_ is
equivalent to _the man_, or _the person_. "The care of posterity is most in
_them_ that have no posterity."--_Bacon_. Here _them_ is equivalent to
_those persons_. "How far do you call _it_ to such a place?"--_Priestley's
Gram._, p. 85. Here _it_, according to Priestley, is put for _the
distance_. "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and _they_ should
seek the law at his mouth."--_Malachi_, ii, 7. Here _they_ is put
indefinitely for _men_ or _people_. So _who_ and _which_, though called
relatives, do not always relate to a noun or pronoun going before them; for
_who_ may be a direct substitute for _what person_; and _which_ may mean
_which person_, or _which thing_: as, "And he that was healed, wist not
_who_ it was."--_John_, v, 13. That is, "_The man who_ was healed, knew not
_what person_ it was." "I care not _which_ you take; they are so much
alike, one cannot tell _which_ is _which_."
OBS. 4.--A pronoun with which a question is asked, usually stands for some
person or thing unknown to the speaker; the noun, therefore, cannot occur
before it, but may be used after it or in place of it. Examples: "In the
grave, _who_ shall give thee thanks?"--_Ps._, vi, 5. Here the word _who_ is
equivalent to _what person_, taken interrogatively. "Which of you
convinceth me of sin?"--_John_, viii, 46. That is, "_Which man_ of you?"
"Master, _what_ shall we do?"--_Luke_, iii, 12. That is, "_What act_, or
_thing_?" These solutions, however, convert _which_ and _what_ into
_adjectives_: and, in fact, as they have no inflections for the numbers and
cases, there is reason to think them at all times essentially such. We call
them pronouns, to avoid the inconvenience of supposing and supplying an
infinite multitude of ellipses. But _who_, though often equivalent (as
above) to an adjective and a noun, is never itself used adjectively; it is
always a pronoun.
OBS. 5.--In respect to _who_ or _whom_, it sometimes makes little or no
difference to the sense, whether we take it as a demonstrative pronoun
equivalent to _what person_, or suppose it to relate to an antecedent
understood before it: as, "Even so the Son quickeneth _whom_ he
will."--_John_, v, 21. That is--"_what persons_ he will," or, "_those
persons_ whom he will;" for the Greek word for _whom_, is, in this
instance, plural. The former is a shorter explanation of the meaning, but
the latter I take to be the true account of the construction; for, by the
other, we make _whom_ a double relative, and the object of two governing
words at once. So, perhaps, of the following example, which Dr. Johnson
cites under the word _who_, to show what he calls its "_disjunctive_
sense:"--
"There thou tellst _of_ kings, and _who_ aspire;
_Who_ fall, _who_ rise, _who_ triumph, _who_ do moan."--_Daniel_.
OBS. 6.--It sometimes happens that the real antecedent, or the term which
in the order of the sense must stand before the pronoun, is not placed
antecedently to it, in the order given to the words: as, "It is written, To
_whom_ he was not spoken of, _they_ shall see; and they that have not
heard, shall understand."--_Romans_, xv, 21. Here the sense is, "_They_ to
_whom_ he was not spoken of, shall see." Whoever takes the passage
otherwise, totally misunderstands it. And yet the same order of the words
might be used to signify, "They shall see _to whom_ (that is, _to what
persons_) he was not spoken of." Transpositions of this kind, as well as of
every other, occur most frequently in poetry. The following example is from
an Essay on Satire, printed with Pope's Works, but written by one of his
friends:--
"_Whose_ is the crime, the scandal too be _theirs_;
The knave and fool are their own libellers."--_J. Brown._
OBS. 7.--The personal and the interrogative pronouns often stand in
construction as the antecedents to other pronouns: as, "_He_ also _that_ is
slothful in his work, is brother to _him that_ is a great
waster."--_Prov._, xviii. 9. Here _he_ and _him_ are each equivalent to
_the man_, and each is taken as the antecedent to the relative which
follows it. "For both _he that_ sanctifieth, and _they who_ are sanctified,
are all of one: for which cause, _he_ is not ashamed to call _them_
brethren."--_Heb._, ii, 11. Here _he_ and _they_ may be considered the
antecedents to _that_ and _who_, of the first clause, and also to _he_ and
_them_, of the second. So the interrogative _who_ may be the antecedent to
the relative _that_; as, "_Who that_ has any moral sense, dares tell lies?"
Here _who_, being equivalent to _what person_, is the term with which the
other pronoun agrees. Nay, an interrogative pronoun, (or the noun which is
implied in it,) may be the antecedent to a _personal_ pronoun; as, "_Who_
hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to _him_
again?"--_Romans_, xi, 35. Here the idea is, "_What person_ hath first
given _any thing_ to _the Lord_, so that it ought to be repaid _him_?" that
is, "so that _the gift_ ought to be recompensed from Heaven to _the
giver_?" In the following example, the first pronoun is the antecedent to
all the rest:--
"And _he that_ never doubted of _his_ state,
_He_ may perhaps--perhaps _he_ may--too late."--_Cowper_.
OBS. 8.--So the personal pronouns of the _possessive_ case, (which some
call adjectives,) are sometimes represented by relatives, though less
frequently than their primitives: as, "How different, O Ortogrul, is _thy_
condition, _who_ art doomed to the perpetual torments of unsatisfied
desire!"--_Dr. Johnson_. Here _who_ is of the second person, singular,
masculine; and represents the antecedent pronoun _thy_: for _thy_ is a
pronoun, and not (as some writers will have it) an adjective. Examples like
this, disprove the doctrine of those grammarians who say that _my, thy,
his, her, its_, and their plurals, _our, your, their_, are adjectives. For,
if they were mere adjectives, they could not thus be made antecedents.
Examples of this construction are sufficiently common, and sufficiently
clear, to settle that point, unless they can be better explained in some
other way. Take an instance or two more: "And they are written for _our_
admonition, upon _whom_ the ends of the world are come."--_1 Cor._, x, 11.
"Be thou the first true merit to befriend;
_His_ praise is lost, _who_ stays till all commend."--_Pope_.
CLASSES.
Pronouns are divided into three classes; _personal, relative_, and
_interrogative_.
I. A _personal pronoun_ is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what
person it is; as, "Whether _it_[187] were _I_ or _they_, so _we_ preach,
and so _ye_ believed."--_1 Cor._, xv, 11.
The simple personal pronouns are five: namely, _I_, of the first person;
_thou_, of the second person; _he, she_, and _it_, of the third person.
The compound personal pronouns are also five: namely, _myself_, of the
first person; _thyself_, of the second person; _himself, herself_, and
_itself_, of the third person.
II. A _relative pronoun_ is a pronoun that represents an antecedent word or
phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence; as, "No people can be
great, _who_ have ceased to be virtuous."--_Dr. Johnson._
The relative pronouns are _who, which, what, that, as_, and the compounds
_whoever_ or _whosoever, whichever_ or _whichsoever, whatever_ or
_whatsoever_.[188]
_What_ is a kind of _double relative_, equivalent to _that which_ or _those
which_; and is to be parsed, first as antecedent, and then as relative: as,
"This is _what_ I wanted; that is to say, _the thing which_ I wanted."--_L.
Murray_. III. An _interrogative pronoun_ is a pronoun with which a question
is asked; as, "_Who_ touched my clothes?"--_Mark_, v, 30.
The interrogative pronouns are _who, which_, and _what_; being the same in
form as relatives.
_Who_ demands a person's name; _which_, that a person or thing be
distinguished from others; _what_, the name of a thing, or a person's
occupation and character.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--The pronouns _I_ and _myself, thou_ and _thyself_, with their
inflections, are literally applicable to persons only; but, _figuratively_,
they represent brutes, or whatever else the human imagination invests with
speech and reason. The latter use of them, though literal perhaps in every
thing _but person_, constitutes the purest kind of personification. For
example: "The _trees_ went forth on a time to anoint a king over them: and
they said unto the _olive-tree_, 'Reign _thou_ over _us_.' But the
_olive-tree_ said unto them, 'Should _I_ leave _my_ fatness, wherewith by
_me_ they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?'" See
_Judges_, ix, from 8 to 16.
OBS. 2.--The pronouns _he_ and _himself, she_ and _herself_, with their
inflections, are literally applicable to persons and to brutes, and to
these only; if applied to lifeless objects, they animate them, and are
figurative _in gender_, though literal perhaps in every other respect. For
example: "A _diamond_ of beauty and lustre, observing at _his_ side in the
same cabinet, not only many other gems, but even a _loadstone_, began to
question the latter how _he_ came there--_he, who_ appeared to be no better
than a mere flint, a sorry rusty-looking pebble, without the least shining
quality to advance _him_ to such honour; and concluded with desiring _him_
to keep _his_ distance, and to pay a proper respect to _his_
superiors."--_Kames's Art of Thinking_, p. 226.
OBS. 3.--The pronoun _it_, as it carries in itself no such idea as that of
personality, or sex, or life, is chiefly used with reference to things
inanimate; yet the word is, in a certain way, applicable to animals, or
even to persons; though it does not, in itself, present them as such. Thus
we say, "_It_ is _I_;"--"_It_ was _they_;"--"_It_ was _you_;"--"_It_ was
your _agent_;"--"_It_ is your _bull_ that has killed one of my oxen." In
examples of this kind, the word _it_ is simply demonstrative; meaning, _the
thing or subject spoken of_. That subject, whatever it be in itself, may be
introduced again after the verb, in any person, number, or gender, that
suits it. But, as the verb agrees with the pronoun _it_, the word which
follows, can in no sense be made, as Dr. Priestley will have it to be, the
_antecedent_ to that pronoun. Besides, it is contrary to the nature of what
is primarily demonstrative, to represent a preceding word of any kind. The
Doctor absurdly says, "Not only things, but persons, may be the
_antecedent_ to this pronoun; as, _Who is it_? _Is it not Thomas_? i. e.
_Who is the person_? _Is not he Thomas?_"--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 85. In
these examples, the terms are transposed by interrogation; but that
circumstance, though it may have helped to deceive this author and his
copiers, affects not my assertion.
OBS. 4.--The pronoun _who_ is usually applied only to persons. Its
application to brutes or to things is improper, unless we mean to personify
them. But _whose_, the possessive case of this relative, is sometimes used
to supply the place of the possessive case, otherwise wanting, to the
relative _which_. Examples: "The mutes are those consonants _whose_ sounds
cannot be protracted."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 9. "Philosophy, _whose_ end
is, to instruct us in the knowledge of nature."--_Ib._, p. 54; _Campbell's
Rhet._, 421. "Those adverbs are compared _whose_ primitives are
obsolete."--_Adam's Latin Gram._, p. 150. "After a sentence _whose_ sense
is complete in itself, a period is used."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 124. "We
remember best those things _whose_ parts are methodically disposed, and
mutually connected."--_Beattie's Moral Science_, i, 59. "Is there any other
doctrine _whose_ followers are punished?"--ADDISON: _Murray's Gram._, p.
54; _Lowth's_, p. 25.
"The question, _whose_ solution I require,
Is, what the sex of women most desire."--DRYDEN: _Lowth_, p. 25.
OBS. 5.--Buchanan, as well as Lowth, condemns the foregoing use of _whose_,
except in grave poetry: saying, "This manner of _personification_ adds an
air of dignity to the higher and more solemn kind of poetry, but it is
highly improper in the lower kind, or in prose."--_Buchanan's English
Syntax_, p. 73. And, of the last two examples above quoted, he says, "It
ought to be _of which_, in both places: i. e. The followers _of which_; the
solution _of which_."--_Ib._, p. 73. The truth is, that no personification
is here intended. Hence it may be better to avoid, if we can, this use of
_whose_, as seeming to imply what we do not mean. But Buchanan himself
(stealing the text of an older author) has furnished at least one example
as objectionable as any of the foregoing: "Prepositions are naturally
placed betwixt the Words _whose_ Relation and Dependence each of them is to
express."--_English Syntax_, p. 90; _British Gram._, p. 201. I dislike this
construction, and yet sometimes adopt it, for want of another as good. It
is too much, to say with Churchill, that "this practice is now
discountenanced by all correct writers."--_New Gram._, p. 226. Grammarians
would perhaps differ less, if they would read more. Dr. Campbell commends
the use of _whose_ for _of which_, as an improvement suggested by good
taste, and established by abundant authority. See _Philosophy of Rhetoric_,
p. 420. "WHOSE, the possessive or genitive case of _who_ or _which_;
applied to persons or things."--_Webster's Octavo Dict._ "_Whose_ is well
authorized by good usage, as the possessive of _which_."--_Sanborn's
Gram._, p. 69. "Nor is any language complete, _whose_ verbs have not
tenses."--_Harris's Hermes_.
"--------'Past and future, are the wings
On _whose_ support, harmoniously conjoined,
Moves the great spirit of human knowledge.'--MS."
_Wordsworth's Preface to his Poems_, p. xviii.
OBS. 6.--The relative _which_, though formerly applied to persons and made
equivalent to _who_, is now confined to brute animals and inanimate things.
Thus, "Our Father _which_ art in heaven," is not now reckoned good English;
it should be, "Our Father _who_ art in heaven." In this, as well as in many
other things, the custom of speech has changed; so that what was once
right, is now ungrammatical. The use of _which_ for _who_ is very common in
the Bible, and in other books of the seventeenth century; but all good
writers now avoid the construction. It occurs seventy-five times in the
third chapter of Luke; as, "Joseph, _which_ was the son of Heli, _which_
was the son of Matthat," etc. etc. After a personal term taken by metonymy
for a thing, _which_ is not improper; as, "Of the particular _author which_
he is studying."--_Gallaudet_. And as an interrogative or a demonstrative
pronoun or adjective, the word _which_ is still applicable to persons, as
formerly; as, "_Which_ of you all?"--"_Which_ man of you all?"--"There
arose a reasoning among them, _which_ of them should be the
greatest."--_Luke_, ix, 46. "Two fair twins--the puzzled Strangers, _which_
is _which_, inquire."--_Tickell_.
OBS. 7.--If _which_, as a direct relative, is inapplicable to persons,
_who_ ought to be preferred to it in all personifications: as,
"The seal is set. Now welcome thou dread power,
Nameless, yet thus omnipotent, _which_ here
Walk'st in the shadow of the midnight hour."
BYRON: _Childe Harold's Pilgrimage_, Cant, iv, st. 138.
What sort of personage is here imagined and addressed, I will not pretend
to say; but it should seem, that _who_ would be more proper than _which_,
though less agreeable in sound before the word _here_. In one of his notes
on this word, Churchill has fallen into a strange error. He will have _who_
to represent a _horse!_ and that, in such a sense, as would require _which_
and not _who_, even for a person. As he prints the masculine pronoun in
Italics, perhaps he thought, with Murray and Webster, that _which_ must
needs be "of the _neuter gender_." [189] He says, "In the following
passage, _which_ seems to be used _instead_ of _who_:--
'Between two horses, _which_ doth bear him best;
I have, perhaps, some shallow spirit of judgment'
SHAKS., 1 Hen. VI."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 226.
OBS. 8.--The pronoun _what_ is usually applied to things only. It has a
twofold relation, and is often used (by ellipsis of the noun) both as
antecedent and as relative, in the form of a single word; being equivalent
to _that which_, or _the thing which,--those which_, or _the things which_.
In this double relation, _what_ represents two cases at the same time: as,
"He is ashamed of _what_ he has done;" that is, "of what [_thing_ or
_action_] he has done;"--or, "of _that_ [thing or action] _which_ he has
done." Here are two objectives. The two cases are sometimes alike,
sometimes different; for either of them may be the nominative, and either,
the objective. Examples: "The dread of censure ought not to prevail _over
what is_ proper."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. i, p. 252. "The public ear
will not easily _bear what is_ slovenly and incorrect."--_Blair's Rhet._,
p. 12. "He who buys _what_ he does not need, will often need _what_ he
cannot buy."--_Student's Manual_, p. 290. "_What_ is just, is honest; and
again, _what_ is honest, is just."--_Cicero_. "He that hath an ear, let him
hear _what_ the Spirit saith unto the churches."--_Rev._, ii, 7, 11, 17,
29; iii, 6, 13, 22.
OBS. 9.--This pronoun, _what_, is usually of the singular number, though
sometimes plural: as, "I must turn to the faults, or _what appear_ such to
me."--_Byron_. "All distortions and mimicries, as such, are _what raise_
aversion instead of pleasure."--_Steele_. "Purified indeed from _what
appear_ to be its real defects."--_Wordsworth's Pref._, p. xix. "Every
single impression, made even by the same object, is distinguishable from
_what_ have gone before, and from _what_ succeed."--_Kames, El. of Crit._,
Vol. i, p. 107. "Sensible people express no thoughts but _what_ make some
figure."--_Ib._, Vol. i, p. 399. The following example, which makes _what_
both singular and plural at once, is a manifest solecism: "_What has_ since
followed _are_ but natural consequences."--J. C. CALHOUN, _Speech in U. S.
Senate_, March 4, 1850. Here _has_ should be _have_; or else the form
should be this: "What has since followed, _is_ but _a_ natural
_consequence_."
OBS. 10.--The common import of this remarkable pronoun, _what_, is, as we
see in the foregoing examples, twofold; but some instances occur, in which
it does not appear to have this double construction, but to be simply
declaratory; and many, in which the word is simply an adjective: as,
"_What_ a strange run of luck I have had to-day!"--_Columbian Orator_, p.
293. Here _what_ is a mere adjective; and, in the following examples, a
pronoun indefinite:--
"I tell thee _what_, corporal, I could tear her."--_Shak._
"He knows _what's what_, and that's as high
As metaphysic wit can fly."--_Hudibras_.
OBS. 11.--_What_ is sometimes used both as an adjective and as a relative
at the same time, and is placed before the noun which it represents; being
equivalent to the adjective _any_ or _all_, and the simple relative _who,
which_[190] or _that_: as, "_What_ money we had, was taken away." That is,
"_All the_ money _that_ we had, was taken away." "_What_ man but enters,
dies." That is, "_Any_ man _who_ enters, dies." "It was agreed that _what_
goods were aboard his vessels, should be landed."--_Mickle's India_, p. 89.
"_What_ appearances of worth afterwards succeeded, were drawn from
thence."--_Internal Policy of Great Britain_, p. 196. That is, "_All the_
appearances of worth, _which_ afterwards succeeded."--_Priestley's Gram._,
p. 93. Indeed, this pronoun does not admit of being construed after a noun,
as a simple relative: none but the most illiterate ever seriously use it
so. _What_ put for _who_ or _which_, is therefore a ludicrous vulgarism;
as, "The aspiring youth _what_ fired the Ephesian dome."--_Jester_. The
word used as above, however, does not always preclude the introduction of a
personal pronoun before the subsequent verb; as,[191]
"_What_ god but enters yon forbidden field,
Who yields assistance, or but wills to yield,
Back to the skies with shame _he_ shall be driven,
Gash'd with dishonest wounds, the scorn of heaven."--_Pope's Homer_.
OBS. 12.--The compound _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ has the same
peculiarities of construction as has the simpler word _what_: as, "Whatever
word expresses an affirmation, or assertion, is a verb; or thus, _Whatever_
word, with a noun or pronoun before or after it, makes full sense, is a
verb."--_Adam's Latin Gram._, p. 78. That is, "_Any_ word _which_
expresses," &c. "We will certainly do _whatsoever_ thing goeth forth out of
our own mouth."--_Jeremiah_, xliv, 17. That is--"_any_ thing, or _every_
thing, _which_." "_Whatever_ sounds are difficult in pronunciation, are, in
the same proportion, harsh and painful to the ear."--_Blair's Rhet._, p.
121; _Murray's Gram._, p. 325. "_Whatsoever_ things were written aforetime,
were written for our learning."--_Romans_, xv, 4. In all these examples,
the word _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ appears to be used both adjectively and
relatively. There are instances, however, in which the relation of this
term is not twofold, but simple: as, "_Whatever_ useful or engaging
endowments we possess, virtue is requisite in order to their shining with
proper lustre."--_English Reader_, p. 23. Here _whatever_ is simply an
adjective. "The declarations contained in them [the Scriptures] rest on the
authority of God _himself_; and there can be no appeal from them to any
other authority _whatsoever_."--_London Epistle_, 1836. Here _whatsoever_
may be parsed either as an adjective relating to _authority_, or as an
emphatic pronoun in apposition with its noun, like _himself_ in the
preceding clause. In this general explanatory sense, _whatsoever_ may be
applied to persons as well as to things; as, "I should be sorry if it
entered into the imagination _of any person whatsoever_, that I was
preferred to all other patrons."--_Duncan's Cicero_, p. 11. Here the word
_whomsoever_ might have been used.
OBS. 13.--But there is an other construction to be here explained, in which
_whatever_ or _whatsoever_ appears to be a _double relative_, or a term
which includes both antecedent and relative; as, "_Whatever_ purifies,
fortifies also the heart."--_English Reader_, p. 23. That is. "_All that
purifies_--or, _Everything which_ purifies--fortifies also the heart."
"_Whatsoever_ he doeth, shall prosper."--_Psal._, i, 3. That is, "_All
that_ he doeth--or, _All the things which he doeth_--shall prosper." This
construction, however, may be supposed elliptical. The Latin expression is,
"_Omnia quæcumque faciet prosperabuntur_."--_Vulgate_. The Greek is
similar: [Greek: "Kai panta hosa an poiæi kateuodothæsetai."]--
_Septuagint_. It is doubtless by some sort of ellipsis which familiarity of
use inclines us to overlook, that _what, whatever_, and _whatsoever_, which
are essentially adjectives, have become susceptible of this double
construction as pronouns. But it is questionable what particular ellipsis
we ought here to suppose, or whether any; and certainly, we ought always to
avoid the supposing of an ellipsis, if we can.[192] Now if we say the
meaning is, "Whatsoever _things_ he doeth, shall prosper;" this, though
analogous to other expressions, does not simplify the construction. If we
will have it to be, "Whatsoever _things_ he doeth, _they_ shall prosper;"
the pronoun _they_ appears to be pleonastic. So is the word _it_, in the
text, "_Whatsoever_ he saith unto you, do _it_."--_John_, ii, 5. If we say
the full phrase is, "_All things_ whatsoever he doeth, shall prosper;" this
presents, to an English ear, a still more obvious pleonasm. It may be, too,
_a borrowed idiom_, found nowhere but in translations; as, "_All things
whatsoever_ ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."--_Matt._,
xxi, 22. From these views, there seems to be some objection to any and
every method of parsing the above-mentioned construction as _elliptical_.
The learner may therefore say, in such instances, that _whatever_ or
_whatsoever_ is a double relative, including both antecedent and relative;
and parse it, first as antecedent, in connexion with the latter verb, and
then as relative, in connexion with the former. But let him observe that
the order of the verbs may be the reverse of the foregoing; as, "Ye are my
friends, if ye _do_ whatsoever I _command_ you."--_John_, xv, 14. That is,
according to the Greek, "If ye do whatsoever I command _to_ you;" Though it
would be better English to say, "If ye do whatsoever I command you _to
do_." In the following example, however, it seems proper to recognize an
ellipsis; nay, the omissions in the construction of the last line, are as
many as three or four;--
"Expatiate with glad step, and choose at will
Whate'er bright spoils the florid earth contains,
Whate'er the waters, or the liquid air."--_Akenside_.
OBS. 14.--As the simple word _who_ differs from _which_ and _what_, in
being always a declinable pronoun; so its compounds differ from theirs, in
being incapable of either of the double constructions above described. Yet
_whoever_ and _whoso_ or _whosoever_, as well as _whichever_ and
_whichsoever, whatever_ and _whatsoever_, derive, from the affix which is
added, or from the peculiarity of their syntax, an unlimited
signification--or a signification which is limited only by the following
verb; and, as some general term, such as _any person_, or _all persons_, is
implied as the antecedent, they are commonly connected with other words as
if they stood for two cases at once: as, "_Whoever_ seeks, shall find."
That is, "_Any person who_ seeks, shall find." But as the case of this
compound, like that of the simple word _who, whose_, or _whom_, is known
and determined by its form, it is necessary, in parsing, to treat this
phraseology as being elliptical. The compounds of _who_ do not, therefore,
actually stand for two cases, though some grammarians affirm that they
do.[193] Example: "The soldiers made proclamation, that they would sell the
empire to _whoever_ would purchase it at the highest price."--_Goldsmith's
Rome_, p. 231. That is--"to _any man who_ would purchase it." The affix
_ever_ or _soever_ becomes unnecessary when the ellipsis is supplied; and
this fact, it must be confessed, is a plausible argument against the
supposition of an ellipsis. But the supposing of an antecedent understood,
is here unavoidable; because the preposition _to_ cannot govern the
nominative case, and the word _whoever_ cannot be an objective. And so in
all other instances in which the two cases are different: as, "He bids
_whoever_ is athirst, to come."--_Jenks's Devotions_, p. 151. "Elizabeth
publicly threatened, that she would have the head of _whoever_ had advised
it."--HUME: _in Priestley's Gram._, p. 104.
OBS. 15.--If it is necessary in parsing to supply the antecedent to
_whoever_ or _whosoever_, when two _different_ cases are represented, it is
but analogous and reasonable to supply it also when two similar cases
occur: as, "_Whoever_ borrows money, _is bound_ in conscience to repay
it."--_Paley_. "_Whoever_ is eager to find excuses for vice and folly,
_will find_ his own backwardness to practise them much diminished."--
_Chapone_. "_Whoever_ examines his own imperfections, _will cease_ to be
fastidious; _whoever_ restrains humour and caprice, _will cease_ to be
squeamish."--_Crabb's Synonymes_. In all these examples, we have the word
in the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative
case. And here it is most commonly found. It is always of the third person;
and, though its number _may_ be plural; its gender, feminine; its case,
possessive or objective; we do not often use it in any of these ways. In
some instances, the latter verb is attended with an other pronoun, which
represents the same person or persons; as, "And _whosoever_ will, let _him_
take of the water of life freely."--_Rev._, xxii, 17. The case of this
compound relative always depends upon what follows it, and not upon what
precedes; as, "Or ask of _whomsoever_ he has taught."--_Cowper_. That
is--"of _any person whom_ he has taught." In the following text, we have
the possessive plural: "_Whosesoever_ sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
_them_."--_John_, xx, 23. That is, "_Whatever persons'_ sins."
OBS. 16.--In such phraseology as the following, there is a stiffness which
ought to be avoided: "For _whomever_ God loves, he loves _them_ in Christ,
and no otherways."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. iii, p. 215. Better: "For _all
whom_ God loves, he loves in Christ, and no _otherwise_." "When the Father
draws, _whomever_ he draws, may come."--_Penington_. Better: "When the
Father draws, _all whom_ he draws, (or, _every one whom_ he draws.) may
come." A modern critic of immense promise cites the following clause as
being found in the Bible: "But he loveth _whomsoever_ followeth after
righteousness."--_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p. 72. It is lamentable to see the
unfaithfulness of this gentleman's quotations. About half of them are
spurious; and I am confident that this one is neither Scripture nor good
English. The compound relative, being the subject of _followeth_, should be
in the nominative case; for the object of the verb _loveth_ is the
antecedent _every one_, understood. But the idea may be better expressed,
without any ellipsis, thus: "He loveth _every one who_ followeth after
righteousness." The following example from the same hand is also wrong, and
the author's rule and reasoning connected with it, are utterly fallacious:
"I will give the reward to _whomsoever_ will apprehend the rogue."--_Ib._,
p. 256. Much better say, "_to any one who_;" but, if you choose the
compound word, by all analogy, and all good authority, it must here be
_whoever_ or _whosoever_. The shorter compound _whoso_, which occurs very
frequently in the Bible, is now almost obsolete in prose, but still
sometimes used by the poets. It has the same meaning as _whosoever_, but
appears to have been confined to the nominative singular; and _whatso_ is
still more rare: as, "_Whoso_ diggeth a pit, shall fall therein."--_Prov._,
xxvi, 27.
"Which _whoso_ tastes, can be enslaved no more."--_Cowper_.
"On their intended journey to proceed,
And over night _whatso_ thereto did need."--_Hubbard_.
OBS. 17.--The relative _that_ is applied indifferently to persons, to brute
animals, and to inanimate things. But the word _that_ is not always a
relative pronoun. It is sometimes a pronoun, sometimes an adjective, and
sometimes a conjunction. I call it not a demonstrative pronoun and also a
relative; because, in the sense in which Murray and others have styled it a
"demonstrative adjective _pronoun_," it is a pronominal _adjective_, and it
is better to call it so. (1.) It is a _relative pronoun_ whenever it is
equivalent to _who, whom_, or _which_: as, "There is not a _just man_ upon
earth, _that_ doeth good, and sinneth not"--_Eccl._, vii, 20. "It was
diverse from all the _beasts that_ were before it."--_Dan._, vii, 7. "And
he had a _name_ written, _that_ no man knew but he himself."--_Rev._, xix,
12. (2.) It is a _pronominal adjective_ whenever it relates to a noun
expressed or understood after it: as, "Thus with violence shall _that_
great _city_, Babylon, be thrown down."--_Rev._, xviii, 21. "Behold _that_
[thing] which I have seen."--_Eccl._, v, 18. "And they said, 'What is
_that_[194] [matter] to us? See thou to _that_' [matter]."--_Matt._, xxvii,
4. (3.) In its other uses, it is a _conjunction_, and, as such, it most
commonly makes what follows it, the purpose, object, or final cause, of
what precedes it: as, "I read _that_ I may learn."--_Dr. Adam._ "Ye men of
Athens, I perceive _that_ in all things ye are too superstitious."--_St.
Paul._ "Live well, _that_ you may die well."--_Anon._ "Take heed _that_
thou speak not to Jacob."--_Genesis._ "Judge not, _that_ ye be not
judged."--_Matthew._
OBS. 18.--The word _that_, or indeed any other word, should never be so
used as to leave the part of speech uncertain; as, "For in the day _that_
thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."--_Gen._, ii, 17. Here _that_
seems to be a relative _pronoun_, representing _day_, in the third person,
singular, neuter; yet, in other respects, it seems to be a _conjunction_,
because there is nothing to determine its case. Better: "For in the day _on
which_ thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." This mongrel
construction of the word _that_, were its justification possible, is common
enough in our language to be made good English. But it must needs be
condemned, because it renders the character of the term ambiguous, and is
such a grammatical difficulty as puts the parser at a dead nonplus.
Examples: (1.) "But _at the same time_ THAT men are giving their orders,
God on his part is likewise giving his."--_Rollin's Hist._, ii, 106. Here
the phrase, "_at the same time that_," is only equivalent to the adverb
_while_; and yet it is incomplete, because it means, "_at the same time at
which_," or, "_at the very time at which._" (2.) "The author of this work,
_at the same time_ THAT he has endeavoured to avoid a plan, _which may be_
too concise or too extensive, defective in its parts or irregular in the
disposition of them, has studied to render his _subject_ sufficiently easy,
intelligible, and _comprehensive._"--_Murray's Gram., Introd._, p. 1. This
sentence, which is no unfair specimen of its author's original style, needs
three corrections: 1. For "_at the same time that_," say _while_: 2. Drop
the phrase, "_which may be_," because it is at least useless: 3. For
"_subject_," read _treatise_, or _compilation._ You will thus have
tolerable diction. Again: (3.) "The participles of active verbs _act upon
objects_ and govern them in the objective case, in the same manner _that_
the verbs _do_, from which they are derived. _A participle_ in the nature
of an adjective, belongs or refers to _nouns_ or _pronouns_ in the same
manner _that_ adjectives do; and _when it will admit_ the degrees of
comparison, _it is called_ a participial _adjective_."--_Sanborn's Gram._,
p. 38. This is the style of a gentleman of no ordinary pretensions, one who
thinks he has produced the best grammar that has ever appeared in our
language. To me, however, his work suggests an abundance of questions like
these; each of which would palpably involve him in a dilemma: What is here
meant by "_objects_," the _words_, or the _things?_ if the former, how are
they acted upon? if the latter, how are they governed? If "a _participle_
is called an _adjective_," which is it, an adjective, or a participle? If
"_a_ participle refers to _nouns_ or _pronouns_," _how many_ of these are
required by the relation? When does a _participle_ "admit the degrees of
comparison?" How shall we parse the word _that_ in the foregoing sentences?
OBS. 19.--The word _as_, though usually a conjunction or an adverb, has
sometimes the construction of a relative pronoun, especially after _such,
so many_, or _as many_; and, whatever the antecedent _noun_ may be, this is
the _only fit relative_ to follow any of these terms in a restrictive
sense. Examples: "We have been accustomed to repose on its veracity with
_such_ humble confidence _as_ suppresses curiosity."--_Johnson's Life of
Cowley._ "The malcontents made _such_ demands _as_ none but a tyrant could
refuse."--_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, Let. 7. "The Lord added to the church
daily _such_ [persons] _as_ should be saved."--_Acts_, ii, 47. "And _as
many as_ were ordained to eternal life, believed."--_Acts_, xiii, 48. "_As
many as_ I love, I rebuke and chasten."--_Rev._, iii, 19. "Know ye not,
that _so many_ of us _as_ were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized
into his death?"--_Rom._, vi, 3. "For _as many_ of you _as_ have been
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."--_Gal._, iii, 27. "A syllable is
_so many_ letters _as_ are spoken with one motion of the voice."--_Perley's
Gram._, p. 8. "The compound tenses are _such as_ cannot be formed without
an auxiliary verb."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 91. "Send him _such_ books _as_
will please him."--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 37. "In referring to
_such_ a division of the day _as_ is past, we use the imperfect."--
_Murray's Gram._, p. 70. "Participles have _the same_ government _as_ the
verbs from which they are derived."--_Ib._, Rule xiv. "Participles have
_the same_ government _as_ the verbs _have_ from which they are derived."--
_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 94. In some of these examples, _as_ is in the
nominative case, and in others, in the objective; in some, it is of the
masculine gender, and in others, it is neuter; in some, it is of the plural
number, and in others, it is singular: but in all, it is of the third
person; and in all, its person, number, gender, and case, are as obvious as
those of any invariable pronoun can be.
OBS. 20.--Some
writers--(the most popular are Webster, Bullions, Wells, and Chandler--)
imagine that _as_, in such sentences as the foregoing, can be made a
conjunction, and not a pronoun, if we will allow them to consider the
phraseology elliptical. Of the example for which I am indebted to him, Dr.
Webster says, "_As_ must be considered as the nominative to _will please_,
or we must suppose an ellipsis of several words: as, 'Send him such books
as _the books which_ will please him, or as _those which_ will please
him.'"--_Improved Gram._, p. 37. This pretended explanation must be
rejected as an absurdity. In either form of it, _two_ nominatives are idly
imagined between _as_ and its verb; and, I ask, of what is the first one
the subject? If you say, "Of _are_ understood," making the phrase, "such
books _as the books are_;" does not _as_ bear the same relation to this new
verb _are_, that is found in the pronoun _who_, when one says, "Tell him
_who_ you _are?_" If so, _as_ is a pronoun still; so that, thus far, you
gain nothing. And if you will have the whole explanation to be, "Send him
such books _as the books are books which_ will please him;" you multiply
words, and finally arrive at nothing, but tautology and nonsense. Wells,
not condescending to show his pupils what he would supply after this _as_,
thinks it sufficient to say, the word is "followed by an ellipsis of one or
more words required to complete the construction; as, 'He was the father of
all such as [] handle the harp and organ.'--_Gen._ 4: 21."--_Wells's School
Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 164; 3d Ed., p. 172.
OBS. 21.--Chandler exhibits the sentence, "_These are not such as are
worn_;" and, in parsing it, expounds the words _as_ and _are_, thus; the
crotchets being his, not mine: "_as_.... is an _adverb, connecting_ the two
sentences in comparing them, [_It is a fault_ of some, that they make _as_
a pronoun, when, in a comparative sentence, it corresponds with _such_, and
is immediately followed by a verb, as in the sentence now given. This is
probably done _from an ignorance_ of the real nominative to the verb. The
sentence _should stand thus_: 'These (_perhaps_ bonnets) are not such
(bonnets) _as_ (those bonnets) are (which are) worn.' Then] _are_ .... is
the substantive verb, third person, plural number, indicative mood, present
tense, and agrees with the noun _bonnets_, understood."--_Chandler's Common
School Gram._, p. 162. All this bears the marks of shallow flippancy. No
part of it is accurate. "_Are worn_," which the critic unwarrantably
divides by his misplaced curves and uncouth impletions, is a passive verb,
agreeing with the pronoun _as_. But the text itself is faulty, being
unintelligible through lack of a noun; for, of things that _may be_
"_worn_," there are a thousand different sorts. Is it not ridiculous, for a
great grammarian to offer, as a model for parsing, what he himself, "_from
an ignorance_ of the real nominative," can only interpret with a
"_perhaps?_" But the noun which this author supplies, the meaning which he
guesses that he had, he here very improperly stows away within a pair of
_crotchets_. Nor is it true, that "the sentence _should stand_" as above
exhibited; for the tautological correction not only has the very extreme of
awkwardness, but still makes _as_ a pronoun, a nominative, belonging after
_are_: so that the phrase, "_as are worn_," is only encumbered and
perverted by the verbose addition made. So of an other example given by
this expounder, in which _as_ is an objective: "He is exactly such a man
_as_ I saw."--_Chandler's Com. Sch. Gram._, p. 163. Here _as_ is the object
of _saw_. But the author says, "The sentence, however, _should stand_ thus:
'He is exactly such a man _as_ that person _was_ whom I saw.'"--_Ibid._
This inelegant alteration makes _as_ a nominative dependent on _was._
OBS. 22.--The use of _as_ for a relative pronoun, is almost entirely
confined to those connexions in which no other relative would be proper;
hence few instances occur, of its absolute equivalence to _who, which_, or
_that_, by which to establish its claim to the same rank. Examples like the
following, however, go far to prove it, if proof be necessary; because
_who_ and _which_ are here employed, where _as_ is certainly now required
by all good usage: "It is not only convenient, but absolutely needful, that
there be certain meetings at certain places and times, _as_ may best suit
the convenience of _such, who_ may be most particularly concerned in
them."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 495. "Which, no doubt, will be found
obligatory upon all _such, who_ have a sense and feeling of the mind of the
Spirit."--_Ib._, i, p. 578. "Condemning or removing _such_ things, _which_
in themselves are evil."--_Ib._, i, p. 511. In these citations, not only
are _who_ and _which_ improperly used for _as_, but the _commas_ before
them are also improper, because the relatives are intended to be taken in a
restrictive sense. "If there be _such that_ walk disorderly now."--_Ib._,
i, p. 488. Here _that_ ought to be _as_; or else _such_ ought to be
_persons_, or _those._ "When such virtues, _as which_ still accompany the
truth, are necessarily supposed to be wanting."--_Ib._, i, p. 502. Here
_which_, and the comma before _as_, should both be expunged. "I shall raise
in their minds the same course of thought _as_ has taken possession of my
own."--_Duncan's Logic_, p. 61. "The pronoun must be in the same case _as_
the antecedent would be _in_, if substituted for it."--_Murray's Gram._, p.
181. "The verb must therefore have the same construction _as_ it has in the
following sentence."--_Murray's Key_, p. 190. Here _as_ is exactly
equivalent to the relative _that_, and either may be used with equal
propriety. We cannot avoid the conclusion, therefore, that, as the latter
word is sometimes a conjunction and sometimes a pronoun, so is the former.
OBS. 23.--The relatives _that_ and _as_ have this peculiarity; that, unlike
_whom_ and _which_, they never follow the word on which their case depends;
nor indeed can any simple relative be so placed, except it be governed by a
preposition or an infinitive. Thus, it is said, (John, xiii, 29th,) "Buy
those things _that_ we have need _of_;" so we may say, "Buy such things
_as_ we have need of." But we cannot say, "Buy those things _of that_ we
have need;" or, "Buy such things _of as_ we have need." Though we may say,
"Buy those things _of which_ we have need," as well as, "Buy those things
_which_ we have need _of_;" or, "Admit those persons of whom we have need,"
as well as, "Admit those persons _whom_ we have need _of._" By this it
appears that _that_ and _as_ have a closer connexion with their antecedents
than the other relatives require: a circumstance worthy to have been better
remembered by some critics. "Again, _that_ and _as_ are used rather
differently. When _that_ is used, the verb must be repeated; as,
'Participles _require_ the same government, _that_ their verbs
_require_.'--'James _showed_ the same credulity, _that_ his minister
_showed_.' But when _as_ is used, the verb generally may, or may not be
repeated; as, 'Participles _require_ the same government _as_ their verbs;'
or, '_as_ their verbs _require_.'--'James _showed_ the same credulity as
his minister;' or, '_as_ his minister _showed_:' the second nominative
_minister_ being parsed as the nominative to the same verb _showed_
understood."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 140.[195]
OBS. 24.--The terminating of a sentence with a preposition, or other small
particle, is in general undignified, though perhaps not otherwise improper.
Hence the above-named inflexibility in the construction of _that_ and _as_,
sometimes induces an ellipsis of the governing word designed; and is
occasionally attended with some difficulty respecting the choice of our
terms. Examples: "The answer is always in the same case _that_ the
interrogative word _is_."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 70. Here is a faulty
termination; and with it a more faulty ellipsis. In stead of ending the
sentence with _is in_, say, "The answer always _agrees in case with_ the
interrogative word." Again: "The relative is of the same person _with_ the
antecedent."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 101. This sentence is wrong, because the
person of the relative is not really _identical with_ the antecedent. "The
relative is of the same person _as_ the antecedent."--_Murray's Gram._, p.
154. Here the writer means--"_as_ the antecedent _is of_." "A neuter verb
becomes active, when followed by a noun of the same signification _with_
its own."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 127. Here same is wrong, or else the last
three words are useless. It would therefore be improper to say--"of _the
same_ signification _as_ its own." The expression ought to be--"of a
signification _similar to_ its own." "Ode is, _in Greek_, the same _with_
song or hymn."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 396. _Song_ being no Greek word, I
cannot think the foregoing expression accurate, though one might say, "Ode
is _identical with_ song or hymn." Would it not be better to say, "Ode is
the same _as_ song or hymn?" That is, "Ode is, _literally_, the same _thing
that_ song or hymn _is_?" "Treatises of philosophy, ought not to be
composed in the same style _with_ orations."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 175. Here
neither _with_ nor _as_ can be proper; because _orations_ are not _a
style_. Expunge _same_; and say--"in the style _of_ orations."
OBS. 25.--Few writers are sufficiently careful in their choice and
management of relatives. In the following instance, Murray and others
violate a special rule of their own grammars, by using _whom_ for _that_
"after an adjective of the superlative degree:" "Modifying them according
to the genius of that tongue, and the established practice of _the best_
speakers and writers _by whom_ it is used."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 1;
_Fisk's_, p. 11; _et al._ According to Priestley and himself, the great
Compiler is here in an error. The rule is perhaps too stringent; but
whoever teaches it, should keep it. If he did not like to say, "_the best_
speakers and writers _that_ it is used _by_;" he ought to have said, "_the
best_ speakers and writers _that use it_." Or, rather, he ought to have
said _nothing_ after the word "writers;" because the whole relative clause
is here weak and useless. Yet how many of the amenders of this grammar have
not had perspicacity enough, either to omit the expression, or to correct
it according to the author's own rule!
OBS. 26.--Relative pronouns are capable of being taken in two very
different senses: the one, restrictive of the general idea suggested by the
antecedent; the other, _resumptive_ of that idea, in the full import of the
term--or, in whatever extent the previous definitives allow. The
distinction between these two senses, important as it is, is frequently
made to depend solely upon the insertion or the omission of _a comma_.
Thus, if I say, "Men who grasp after riches, are never satisfied;" the
relative _who_ is taken restrictively, and I am understood to speak _only
of the avaricious_. But, if I say, "Men, who grasp after riches, are never
satisfied;" by separating the terms _men_ and _who_, I declare _all men_ to
be covetous and unsatisfied. For the former sense, the relative _that_ is
preferable to _who_; and I shall presently show why. This example, in the
latter form, is found in Sanborn's Grammar, page 142d; but whether the
author meant what he says, or not, I doubt. Like many other unskillful
writers, he has paid little regard to the above-mentioned distinction; and,
in some instances, his meaning cannot have been what his words declare: as,
"A prism is a solid, whose sides are all parallelograms."--_Analytical
Gram._, p. 142. This, as it stands, is no definition of a prism, but an
assertion of two things; that a prism is a solid, and that all the sides of
a solid are parallelograms. Erase the comma, and the words will describe
the prism as a peculiar kind of solid; because _whose_ will then be taken
in the restrictive sense. This sense, however, may be conveyed even with a
comma before the relative; as, "Some fictitious histories yet remain,
_that_ were composed during the decline of the Roman empire."--_Blair's
Rhet._, p. 374. This does not suggest that there are no other fictitious
histories now extant, than such as were composed during the decline of the
Roman empire; but I submit it to the reader, whether the word _which_, if
here put for _that_, would not convey this idea.
OBS. 27.--Upon this point, many philologists are open to criticism; and
none more so, than the recent author above cited. By his own plain showing,
this grammarian has no conception of the difference of meaning, upon which
the foregoing distinction is founded. What marvel, then, that he falls into
errors, both of doctrine and of practice? But, if no such difference
exists, or none that is worthy of a critic's notice; then the error is
mine, and it is vain to distinguish between the restrictive and the
resumptive sense of relative pronouns. For example: "The boy that desires
to assist his companions, deserves respect."--_G. Brown._ "That boy, who
desires to assist his companions, deserves respect."--_D. H. Sanborn._
According to my notion, these two sentences clearly convey two very
different meanings; the relative, in the former, being restrictive, but, in
the latter, resumptive of the sense of the antecedent. But of the latter
example this author says, "The clause, 'who desires to assist his
companions,' with the relative who at its head, _explains or tells what boy
deserves respect_; and, like a conjunction, connects this clause to the
noun _boy_."--_Analytical Gram._, p. 69. He therefore takes it in a
restrictive sense, as if this sentence were exactly equivalent to the
former. But he adds, "A relative pronoun is resolvable into a personal
pronoun and a conjunction. The sentence would then read, 'That boy desires
to assist his companions, _and_ he deserves respect.' The relative pronoun
governs the nearer verb, and the antecedent the more distant one."--_Ib._,
p. 69. Now, concerning the restrictive relative, this doctrine of
equivalence does not hold good; and, besides, the explanation here given,
not only contradicts his former declaration of the sense he intended, but,
with other seeming contradiction, joins the antecedent to the nearer verb,
and the substituted pronoun to the more distant.
OBS. 28.--Again, the following principles of this author's punctuation are
no less indicative of his false views of this matter: "RULE xiv.--Relative
pronouns in the nominative or [_the_] objective case, are preceded by
commas, when the clause which the relative _connects_ [,] ends a sentence;
as, 'Sweetness of temper is a quality, which reflects a lustre on every
accomplishment'--B. Greenleaf.' Self [-] denial is the sacrifice [,] which
virtue must make.' [_--L. Murray._] The comma is omitted before the
relative, when the verb which the antecedent governs, follows the relative
clause; as, 'He that suffers by imposture, has too often his virtue more
impaired than his fortune.'--_Johnson_." See _Sanborn's Analytical Gram._,
p. 269. Such are some of our author's principles--"the essence of modern
improvements." His practice, though often wrong, is none the worse for
contradicting these doctrines. Nay, his proudest boast is ungrammatical,
though peradventure not the less believed: "_No_ [other] _grammar in the
language_ probably contains so great a quantity of _condensed and_ useful
matter with so little superfluity."--_Sanborn's Preface_, p. v.
OBS. 29.--Murray's rule for the punctuation of relatives, (a rule which he
chiefly copied from Lowth,) recognizes virtually the distinction which I
have made above; but, in assuming that relatives "_generally_" require a
comma before them, it erroneously suggests that the resumptive sense is
more common than the restrictive. Churchill, on the contrary, as wrongly
makes it an essential characteristic of _all_ relatives, "to limit or
explain the words to which they refer." See his _New Gram._, p. 74. The
fact is, that relatives are so generally restrictive, that not one half of
them are thus pointed; though some that do restrict their antecedent,
nevertheless admit the point. This may be seen by the first example given
us by Murray: "Relative pronouns are connective words, and _generally
admit_ a comma before them: as, 'He preaches sublimely, who lives a sober,
righteous, and pious life.' But when two members, or _phrases_, [say
_clauses_,] are closely connected by a relative, restraining the general
notion of the antecedent to a particular sense, _the comma should be
omitted_: as, '_Self-denial_ is the _sacrifice which_ virtue must make;' 'A
_man who_ is of a detracting spirit, will misconstrue the most innocent
_words that_ can be put together.' In the latter example, the assertion is
not of 'a man in general,' but of 'a man who is of a detracting spirit;'
and therefore _they_ [say _the pronoun and its antecedent_] should not be
separated."--_Murray's Gram., Octavo_, p. 273; _Ingersoll's_, 285;
_Comly's_, 152. This reasoning, strictly applied, would exclude the comma
before _who_ in the first example above; but, as the pronoun does not
"closely" or immediately follow its antecedent, the comma is allowed,
though it is not much needed. Not so, when the sense is resumptive: as,
"The _additions, which_ are very considerable, are chiefly _such as_ are
calculated to obviate objections." See _Murray's Gram._, p. ix. Here the
comma is essential to the meaning. Without it, _which_ would be equivalent
to _that_; with it, which is equivalent to _and they_. But this latter
meaning, as I imagine, cannot be expressed by the relative _that_.
OBS. 30.--Into the unfortunate example which Sanborn took from Murray, I
have inserted the comma for him; not because it is necessary or right, but
because his rule requires it: "_Self-denial_ is the _sacrifice_," &c. The
author of "a complete system of grammar," might better contradict even
Murray, than himself. But why was this text admired? and why have _Greene,
Bullions, Hiley, Hart_, and others, also copied it? A _sacrifice_ is
something devoted and lost, for the sake of a greater good; and, _if Virtue
sacrifice self-denial_, what will she do, but run into indulgence? The
great sacrifice which she demands of men, is rather that of their
_self-love_. Wm. E. Russell has it, "_Self defence_ is the sacrifice which
virtue must make!"--_Russell's Abridgement of Murray's Gram._, p. 116.
Bishop Butler tells us, "It is indeed _ridiculous_ to assert, that
_self-denial is essential to virtue and piety_; but it would have been
nearer the truth, though not strictly the truth itself, to have said, that
it is essential to discipline and improvement."--_Analogy of Religion_, p.
123.
OBS. 31.--The relative _that_, though usually reckoned equivalent to _who_
or _which_, evidently differs from both, in being more generally, and
perhaps more appropriately, taken in the restrictive sense. It ought
therefore, for distinction's sake, to be preferred to _who_ or _which_,
whenever an antecedent not otherwise limited, is to be restricted by the
relative clause; as, "_Men that_ grasp after riches, are never
satisfied."--"I love _wisdom that_ is gay and civilized."--_Art of
Thinking_, p. 34. This phraseology leaves not the limitation of the meaning
to depend solely upon the absence of a pause after the antecedent; because
the relative _that_ is seldom, if ever, used by good writers in any other
than a restrictive sense. Again: "A man of a polite imagination is let into
a great many pleasures _that_ the vulgar are not capable of
receiving."--_Addison, Spect._, No. 411. Here, too, according to my notion,
_that_ is obviously preferable to _which_; though a great critic, very
widely known, has taken some pains to establish a different opinion. The
"many pleasures" here spoken of, are no otherwise defined, than as being
such as "the vulgar are not capable of receiving." The writer did not mean
to deny that the vulgar are capable of receiving a great many pleasures;
but, certainly, if _that_ were changed to _which_, this would be the
meaning conveyed, unless the reader were very careful to avoid a pause
where he would be apt to make one. I therefore prefer Addison's expression
to that which Dr. Blair would substitute.
OBS. 32.--The style of Addison is more than once censured by Dr. Blair, for
the frequency with which the relative _that_ occurs in it, where the
learned lecturer would have used which. The reasons assigned by the critic
are these: "_Which_ is a much more definitive word than that, being never
employed in any other way than as a relative; whereas _that_ is a word of
many senses; sometimes a demonstrative pronoun, often a conjunction. In
some cases we are indeed obliged to use _that_ for a relative, in order to
avoid the ungraceful repetition of _which_ in the same sentence. But when
we are laid under no necessity of this kind, _which_ is always the
preferable word, and certainly was so in this sentence: '_Pleasures which_
the vulgar are not capable of receiving,' is much better than '_pleasures
that_ the vulgar are not capable of receiving.'"--_Blair's Rhetoric_, Lect.
xx, p. 200. Now the facts are these: (1.) That _that_ is the more
definitive or restrictive word of the two. (2.) That the word _which_ has
as many different senses and uses as the word _that_. (3.) That not the
repetition of _which_ or _who_ in a series of clauses, but a _needless
change_ of the relative, is ungraceful. (4.) That the necessity of using
_that_ rather than _which_ or _who_, depends, not upon what is here
supposed, but upon the different senses which these words usually convey.
(5.) That as there is always some reason of choice, _that_ is sometimes to
be preferred; _which_, sometimes; and _who_, sometimes: as, "It is not the
man _who_ has merely taught, or _who_ has taught long, or _who_ is able to
point out defects in authors, _that_ is capable of enlightening the world
in the respective sciences _which_ have engaged his attention; but the man
_who_ has taught well."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 7.
OBS. 33.--Blair's Rhetoric consists of forty-seven lectures; four of which
are devoted to a critical examination of the style of Addison, as exhibited
in four successive papers of the Spectator. The remarks of the professor
are in general judicious; but, seeing his work is made a common textbook
for students of "Belles Lettres," it is a pity to find it so liable to
reprehension on the score of inaccuracy. Among the passages which are
criticised in the twenty-first lecture, there is one in which the essayist
speaks of the effects of _novelty_ as follows:
'It is this _which_ bestows charms on a monster, and makes even the
imperfections of nature please us. It is this _that_ recommends variety,
where the mind is every instant called off to something new, and the
attention not suffered to dwell too long and waste itself on any particular
object. It is this, likewise, _that_ improves what is great or beautiful,
and makes it afford the mind a double entertainment.'--_Spectator_, No.
412.
This passage is deservedly praised by the critic, for its "perspicuity,
grace, and harmony;" but, in using different relatives under like
circumstances, the writer has hardly done justice to his own good taste.
Blair's remark is this: "His frequent use of _that_, instead of _which_, is
another peculiarity of his style; but, on this occasion in particular, [it]
cannot be much commended, as, 'It is this _which_,' seems, in every view,
to be better than, 'It is this _that_,' three times repeated."--_Lect._
xxi, p. 207. What is here meant by "_every view_," may, I suppose, be seen
in the corresponding criticism which is noticed in my last observation
above; and I am greatly deceived, if, in this instance also, the relative
_that_ is not better than _which_, and more agreeable to polite usage. The
direct relative which corresponds to the introductory pronoun _it_ and _an
other antecedent_, should, I think, be _that_, and not _who_ or _which_:
as, "It is not ye _that_ speak."--_Matt._, x, 20. "It is thou, Lord, _who_
hast the hearts of all men in thy hands, _that_ turnest the hearts of any
to show me favour."--_Jenks's Prayers_, p. 278. Here _who_ has reference to
_thou_ or _Lord_ only; but _that_ has some respect to the pronoun _it_,
though it agrees in person and gender with _thou_. A similar example is
cited at the close of the preceding observation; and I submit it to the
reader, whether the word _that_, as it there occurs, is not the _only fit_
word for the place it occupies. So in the following examples: "There are
_Words, which_ are _not Verbs, that_ signify actions and passions, and even
things transient."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. 100. "It is the universal
taste of mankind, which is subject to no such changing modes, _that_ alone
is entitled to possess any authority."--_Blair's Rhetoric_, p. 286.
OBS. 34.--Sometimes the broad import of an antecedent is _doubly
restricted_, first by one relative clause, and then by an other; as, "And
all _that dwell upon the earth_, shall worship him, _whose names are not
written in the book of life_."--_Rev._, xiii, 8. "And then, like true
Thames-Watermen, they abuse every man _that_ passes by, _who_ is better
dressed than themselves."--_Brown's Estimate_, Vol. ii, p. 10. Here _and_,
or _if he_, would be as good as "_who_;" for the connective only serves to
carry the restriction into narrower limits. Sometimes the limit fixed by
one clause is _extended_ by an other; as, "There is no evil _that you may
suffer_, or _that you may expect to suffer, which_ prayer is not the
appointed means to alleviate."--_Bickersteth, on Prayer_, p. 16. Here
_which_ resumes the idea of "_evil_," in the extent last determined; or
rather, in that which is fixed by either clause, since the limits of both
are embraced in the assertion. And, in the two limiting clauses, the same
pronoun was requisite, on account of their joint relation; but the clause
which assumes a different relation, is rightly introduced by a different
pronoun. This is also the case in the following examples: "For there is no
condemnation to those _that_ are in Christ Jesus, _who_ walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 432. "I will
tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast _that_ carrieth her,
_which_ hath the seven heads and ten horns."--_Rev._, xvii, 7. Here the
restrictive sense is well expressed by one relative, and the resumptive by
an other. When neither of these senses is intended by the writer, _any_
form of the relative must needs be improper: as, "The greatest genius
_which runs_ through the arts and sciences, takes a kind of tincture from
them, and falls unavoidably into imitation."--_Addison, Spect._, No. 160.
Here, as I suppose, _which runs_ should be _in running_. What else can the
author have meant?
OBS. 35.--Having now, as I imagine, clearly shown the difference between
the restrictive and the resumptive sense of a relative pronoun, and the
absolute necessity of making such a choice of words as will express that
sense only which we intend; I hope the learner will see, by these
observations, not merely that clearness requires the occasional use of each
of our five relatives, _who, which, what, that_, and _as_; but that this
distinction in the meaning, is a very common principle by which to
determine what is, and what is not, good English. Thus _that_ and _as_ are
appropriately our _restrictive_ relatives, though _who_ and _which_ are
sometimes used restrictively; but, in a _resumptive_ sense, _who_ or
_which_ is required, and required even after those terms which usually
demand _that_ or _as_: thus, "We are vexed at the unlucky chance, and go
away dissatisfied. _Such_ impressions, _which_ ought not to be cherished,
are a sufficient reason for excluding stories of that kind from the
theatre."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 279. Here _which_ is proper to the
sense intended; but _such_ requires _as_, when the latter term limits the
meaning of the former. In sentences like the following, _who_ or _which_
may be used in lieu of _that_; whether with any advantage or not, the
reader may judge: "You seize the critical moment _that_ is favorable to
emotion."--_Bair's Rhet._, p. 321. "_An_ historian _that_ would instruct
us, must know when to be concise."--_Ib._, p. 359. "Seneca has been
censured for the affectation _that_ appears in his style."--_Ib._, p. 367.
"Such as the prodigies _that_ attended the death of Julius Cæsar."--_Ib._,
p. 401. "By unfolding those principles _that_ ought to govern the taste of
every individual."--_Kames's Dedication to El. of Crit._ "But I am sure he
has that _that_ is better than an estate."--_Spect._, No. 475. "There are
two properties, _that_ characterize and essentially distinguish relative
pronouns."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 74. By these examples, it may be seen,
that Dr. Blair often forgot or disregarded his own doctrine respecting the
use of this relative; though he was oftener led, by the error of that
doctrine, to substitute _which_ for _that_ improperly.
OBS. 36.--_Whether_ was formerly used as an interrogative pronoun, in which
sense it always referred to one of two things; as, "Ye fools and blind! for
_whether_ is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the
gold?"--_Matt._, xxiii, 17. This usage is now obsolete; and, in stead of
it, we say, "_Which_ is greater?" But as a disjunctive conjunction,
corresponding to _or_, the word _whether_ is still in good repute; as,
"Resolve _whether_ you will go _or_ not."--_Webster's Dict._ In this sense
of the term, some choose to call _whether_ an _adverb_.
OBS. 37.--In the view of some writers, interrogative pronouns differ from
relatives chiefly in this; that, as the subject referred to is unknown to
the speaker, they do not relate to a _preceding_ noun, but to something
which is to be expressed in the answer to the question. It is certain that
their _person, number_, and _gender_, are not regulated by an antecedent
noun; but by what the speaker supposes or knows of a subject which may, or
may not, agree with them in these respects: as, "_What_ lies there?"
Answer, "Two _men_ asleep." Here _what_, standing for _what thing_, is of
the third person, singular number, and neuter gender; but _men_, which is
the term that answers to it, is of the third person, plural, masculine.
There is therefore no necessary agreement between the question and the
answer, in any of those properties in which a pronoun usually agrees with
its noun. Yet some grammarians will have interrogatives to agree with these
"_subsequents_," as relatives agree with their _antecedents_. The answer,
it must be granted, commonly contains a noun, corresponding in some
respects to the interrogative pronoun, and agreeing with it _in case_; but
this noun cannot be supposed to control the interrogation, nor is it, in
any sense, the word for which the pronoun stands. For every pronoun must
needs stand for something that is uttered or conceived by the same speaker;
nor can any question be answered, until its meaning is understood.
Interrogative pronouns must therefore be explained as direct substitutes
for such other terms as one might use in stead of them. Thus _who_ means
_what person_?
"_Who_ taught that heav'n-directed spire to rise?
_The Man of Ross_, each lisping babe replies."--_Pope_.
OBS. 38.--In the classification of the pronouns, and indeed in the whole
treatment of them, almost all our English grammars are miserably faulty, as
well as greatly at variance. In some forty or fifty, which I have examined
on this point, the few words which constitute this part of speech, have
more than twenty different modes of distribution. (1.) Cardell says, "There
is but one kind of pronouns"--_Elements of Gram._, p. 30. (2.) D. Adam's,
Greenleaf, Nutting, and Weld, will have two kinds; "_personal_ and
_relative_." (3.) Dr. Webster's "Substitutes, or pronouns, are of two
kinds:" the one, "called _personal_;" the other, without name or number.
See his _Improved Gram._, p. 24. (4.) Many have fixed upon three sorts;
"_personal, relative_, and _adjective_;" with a subdivision of the last. Of
these is Lindley Murray, in his late editions, with his amenders,
Ainsworth, Alger, Bacon, Bullions, Fisk, A. Flint, Frost, Guy, Hall,
Kirkham, Lennie, Merchant, Picket, Pond, and S. Putnam. (5.) Kirkham,
however, changes the order of the classes; thus, "_personal, adjective_,
and _relative_;" and, with ridiculous absurdity, makes _mine, thine, hers,
ours, yours_, and _theirs_ to be "_compounds_." (6.) Churchill adopts the
plan of "_personal, relative_, and _adjective_ pronouns;" and then destroys
it by a valid argument. (7.) Comly, Wilcox, Wells, and Perley, have these
three classes; "_personal, relative_, and _interrogative_:" and this
division is right. (8.) Sanborn makes the following bull: "The _general_
divisions of pronouns are _into personal, relative, interrogative_, and
_several sub-divisions_."--_Analytical Gram._, p. 91. (9.) Jaudon has these
three kinds; "_personal, relative_, and _distributive_." (10.) Robbins,
these; "_simple, conjunctive_, and _interrogative_." (11.) Lindley Murray,
in his early editions, had these four; "_personal, possessive, relative_,
and _adjective_." (12.) Bucke has these; "_personal, relative,
interrogative_, and _adjective_." (13.) Ingersoll, these; "_personal,
adjective, relative_, and _interrogative_." (14.) Buchanan; "_personal,
demonstrative, relative_, and _interrogative_." (15.) Coar; "_personal,
possessive_ or _pronominal adjectives, demonstrative_, and _relative_."
(16.) Bicknell; "_personal, possessive, relative_, and _demonstrative_."
(17.) Cobbett; "_personal, relative, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_."
(18) M'Culloch; "_personal, possessive, relative_, and _reciprocal_." (19.)
Staniford has five; "_personal, relative, interrogative, definitive_, and
_distributive_." (20.) Alexander, six; "_personal, relative, demonstrative,
interrogative, definitive_, and _adjective_." (21.) Cooper, in 1828, had
five; "_personal, relative, possessive, definite_, and _indefinite_." (22.)
Cooper, in 1831, six; "_personal, relative, definite, indefinite,
possessive_, and _possessive pronominal adjectives_." (23.) Dr. Crombie
says: "Pronouns may be divided into _Substantive_, and _Adjective;
Personal_, and _Impersonal; Relative_, and _Interrogative_." (24.) Alden
has seven sorts; "_personal, possessive, relative, interrogative,
distributive, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_." (25.) R. C. Smith has many
kinds, and treats them so badly that nobody can count them. In respect to
definitions, too, most of these writers are shamefully inaccurate, or
deficient. Hence the filling up of their classes is often as bad as the
arrangement. For instance, four and twenty of them will have interrogative
pronouns to be relatives; but who that knows what a relative pronoun is,
can coincide with them in opinion? Dr. Crombie thinks, "that interrogatives
are strictly relatives;" and yet divides the two classes with his own hand!
MODIFICATIONS.
Pronouns have the same modifications as nouns; namely, _Persons, Numbers,
Genders_, and _Cases_. Definitions universally applicable have already been
given of all these things; it is therefore unnecessary to define them again
in this place.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--In the personal pronouns, most of these properties are
distinguished by the words themselves; in the relative and the
interrogative pronouns, they are ascertained chiefly by means of the
antecedent and the verb. Interrogative pronouns, however, as well as the
relatives _which, what, as_, and all the compounds of _who, which_, and
_what_, are always of the third person. Even in etymological parsing, some
regard must be had to the syntactical relations of words. By
_modifications_, we commonly mean actual changes in the forms of words, by
which their grammatical properties are inherently distinguished; but, in
all languages, the distinguishable properties of words are somewhat more
numerous than their actual variations of form; there being certain
principles of universal grammar, which cause the person, number, gender, or
case, of some words, to be inferred from their relation to others; or, what
is nearly the same thing, from the sense which is conveyed by the sentence.
Hence, if in a particular instance it happen, that some, or even all, of
these properties, are without any index in the form of the pronoun itself,
they are still to be ascribed in parsing, because they may be easily and
certainly discovered from the construction. For example: in the following
text, it is just as easy to discern the _genders_ of the pronouns, as the
_cases_ of the nouns; and both are known and asserted to be what they are,
upon principles of mere inference: "For what knowest _thou_, O _wife_,
whether _thou_ shalt save _thy husband_? or how knowest _thou_, O _man_,
whether _thou_ shalt save _thy wife_?"--_1 Cor._, vii, 16. Again: "_Who_
betrayed _her_ companion? Not _I_."--_Murray's Key_, p. 211. Here _her_
being of the feminine gender, it is the inference of every reader, that
_who_ and _I_ are so too; but whether the word _companion_ is masculine or
feminine, is not so obvious.
OBS. 2.--The personal pronouns of the first and second persons, are equally
applicable to both sexes; and should be considered masculine or feminine,
according to the known application of them. [See _Levizac's French Gram._,
p. 73.] The speaker and the hearer, being present to each other, of course
know the sex to which they respectively belong; and, whenever they appear
in narrative or dialogue, we are told who they are. In _Latin_, an
adjective or a participle relating to these pronouns, is varied _to agree_
with them in _number, gender_, and _case_. This is a sufficient proof that
_ego, I_, and _tu, thou_, are not destitute of gender, though neither the
Latin words nor the English are themselves varied to express it:--
"_Miseræ_ hoc tamen unum
Exequere, Anna, _mihi: solam_ nam perfidus ille
_Te_ colere, arcanos etiam tibi credere sensus;
_Sola_ viri molles aditus et tempora nôras."--_Virgil_.
OBS. 3.--Many English grammarians, and Murray at their head, deny the first
person of nouns, and the gender of pronouns of the first and second
persons; and at the same time teach, that, "Pronouns must always agree with
their antecedents, _and_ the nouns for which they stand, in _gender,
number_, and _person_:" (_Murray's Gr., 2d Ed._, p. 111; _Rev. T. Smith's_,
p. 60:) and further, with redundance of expression, that, "The relative is
of the same person _with_ the antecedent, and the verb agrees with it
accordingly."--_Same_. These quotations form Murray's fifth rule of syntax,
as it stands in his early editions.[196] In some of his revisings, the
author erased the word _person_ from the former sentence, and changed
_with_ to _as_ in the latter. But other pronouns than relatives, agree with
their nouns in person; so that his first alteration was not for the better,
though Ingersoll, Kirkham, Alger, Bacon, J. Greenleaf, and some others,
have been very careful to follow him in it. And why did he never discern,
that the above-named principles of his etymology are both of them
contradicted by this rule of his syntax, and one of them by his rule as it
now stands? It is manifest, that no two words can possibly _agree_ in any
property which belongs not to both. Else what _is_ agreement? Nay, no two
things in nature, can in any wise agree, accord, or be alike, but by having
some quality or accident in common. How strange a contradiction then is
this! And what a compliment to learning, that it is still found in
well-nigh all our grammars!
OBS. 4.--If there were truth in what Murray and others affirm, that "Gender
has respect only to the third person singular of the pronouns, _he, she,
it_," [197] no two words could ever agree in gender; because there can be
no such agreement between any two of the words here mentioned, and the
assertion is, that gender has respect to no others. But, admitting that
neither the author nor the numerous copiers of this false sentence ever
meant to deny that gender has respect to _nouns_, they do deny that it has
respect to any other _pronouns_ than these; whereas I affirm that it ought
to be recognized as a property of _all_ pronouns, as well as of all nouns.
Not that the gender of either is in all instances invariably fixed by the
_forms_ of the particular words; but there is in general, if not in every
possible case, some principle of grammar, on which the gender of any noun
or pronoun in a sentence may be readily ascertained. Is it not plain, that
if we know who speaks or writes, who hears or is addressed, we know also
the gender of the pronouns which are applied to these persons? The poet of
The Task looked upon his mother's picture, and expressed his tender
recollections of a deceased parent by way of _address_; and will any one
pretend, that the pronouns which he applied to himself and to her, are
either of the same gender, or of no gender? If we take neither of these
assumptions, must we not say, they are of different genders? In this
instance, then, let the parser call those of the first person, masculine;
and those of the second, feminine:--
"_My_ mother! when _I_ learned that _thou_ wast dead,
Say, wast _thou_ conscious of the tears _I_ shed?"--_Cowper_.
OBS. 5.--That the pronouns of the first and second persons are sometimes
masculine and sometimes feminine, is perfectly certain; but whether they
can or cannot be neuter, is a question difficult to be decided. To things
inanimate they are applied only _figuratively_; and the question is,
whether the figure always necessarily changes the gender of the antecedent
noun. We assume the general principle, that the noun and its pronoun are
always of the same gender; and we know that when inanimate objects are
personified in the third person, they are usually represented as masculine
or feminine, the gender being changed by the figure. But when a lifeless
object is spoken to in the second person, or represented as speaking in the
first, as the pronouns here employed are in themselves without distinction
of gender, no such change can be proved by the mere words; and, if we allow
that it would be needless to _imagine_ it where the words do not prove it,
the gender of these pronouns must in such cases be neuter, because we have
no ground to think it otherwise. Examples: "And Jesus answered and said
unto _it_, [the barren _figtree_,] No man eat fruit of _thee_ hereafter
forever."--_Mark_, xi, 14. "O _earth_, cover not _thou_ my blood."--_Job_,
xvi, 18. "O _thou sword_ of the Lord, how long will it be ere _thou_ be
quiet?"--_Jeremiah_, xlvii, 6. In these instances, the objects addressed do
not appear to be figuratively invested with the attribute of sex. So
likewise with respect to the first person. If, in the following example,
_gold_ and _diamond_ are neuter, so is the pronoun _me_; and, if not
neuter, of what gender are they? The personification indicates or
discriminates no other.
"Where thy true treasure? Gold says, 'Not in _me_;
And, 'Not in _me_,' the diamond. Gold is poor."--_Young_.
THE DECLENSION OF PRONOUNS.
The declension of a pronoun is a regular arrangement of its numbers and
cases.
I. SIMPLE PERSONALS.
The simple personal pronouns are thus declined:--
I, _of the_ FIRST PERSON, _any of the genders_.[198]
Sing. Nom. I, Plur. Nom. we,
Poss. my, _or_ mine,[199] Poss. our, _or_ ours,
Obj. me; Obj. us.
THOU, _of the_ SECOND PERSON, _any of the genders_.
Sing. Nom. thou,[200] Plur. Nom. ye, or you,
Poss. thy, _or_ thine, Poss. your, _or_ yours,
Obj. thee; Obj. you, or ye.[201]
HE, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _masculine gender_.
Sing. Nom. he, Plur. Nom. they,
Poss. his, Poss. their, _or_ theirs,
Obj. him; Obj. them.
SHE, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _feminine gender_.
Sing. Nom. she, Plur. Nom. they,
Poss. her, _or_ hers, Poss. their, _or_ theirs,
Obj. her; Obj. them.
IT, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _neuter gender_.
Sing. Nom, it, Plur. Nom. they,
Poss. its, Poss. their, _or_ theirs,
Obj. it; Obj. them.
II. COMPOUND PERSONALS.
The word _self_, added to the simple personal pronouns, forms the class of
_compound personal pronouns_; which are used when an action reverts upon
the agent, and also when some persons are to be distinguished from others:
as, sing, _myself_, plur. _ourselves_; sing, _thyself_, plur. _yourselves_;
sing, _himself_, plur. _themselves_; sing, _herself_, plur. _themselves_;
sing, _itself_, plur. _themselves_. They all want the possessive case, and
are alike in the nominative and objective. Thus:--
MYSELF, _of the_ FIRST PERSON,[202] _any of the genders_.
Sing. Nom. myself, Plur. Nom. ourselves,
Poss. ------, Poss. ---------,
Obj. myself; Obj. ourselves.
THYSELF, _of the_ SECOND PERSON, _any of the genders_.
Sing. Nom. thyself,[203] Plur. Nom. yourselves,
Poss. -------, Poss. ----------,
Obj. thyself; Obj. yourselves.
HIMSELF, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _masculine gender_.
Sing. Nom. himself, Plur. Nom. themselves,
Poss. -------, Poss. ----------,
Obj. himself; Obj. themselves.
HERSELF, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _feminine gender_.
Sing. Nom. herself, Plur. Nom. themselves,
Poss. -------, Poss. ----------,
Obj. herself; Obj. themselves.
ITSELF, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _neuter gender_.
Sing. Nom. itself, Plur. Nom. themselves,
Poss. ------, Poss. ----------,
Obj. itself; Obj. themselves.
III. RELATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES.
The relative and the interrogative pronouns are thus declined:--
WHO, _literally applied to persons only_.
Sing. Nom. who, Plur. Nom. who,
Poss. whose, Poss. whose,
Obj. whom; Obj. whom.
WHICH, _applied to animals and things_.
Sing. Nom. which, Plur. Nom. which,
Poss. [204]--, Poss. -----,
Obj. which; Obj. which.
WHAT, _applied ordinarily to things only_.[205]
Sing. Nom. what, Plur. Nom. what,
Poss. ----, Poss. ----,
Obj. what; Obj. what.
THAT, _applied to persons, animals, and things_.
Sing. Nom. that, Plur. Nom. that,
Poss. ----, Poss. ----,
Obj. that; Obj. that.
AS, _applied to persons, animals, and things_.
Sing. Nom. as, Plur. Nom. as,
Poss. ----, Poss. ----,
Obj. as; Obj. as.
IV. COMPOUND RELATIVES.
The compound relative pronouns, _whoever_ or _whosoever, whichever_ or
_whichsoever_, and _whatever_ or _whatsoever_[206] are declined in the same
manner as the simples, _who which, what_. Thus:--
WHOEVER or WHOSOEVER, _applied only to persons_.
Sing. Nom. whoever, Plur. Nom. whoever,
Poss. whosever, Poss. whosever,
Obj. whomever; Obj. whomever.
Sing. Nom. whosoever, Plur. Nom. whosoever,
Poss. whosesoever, Poss. whosesoever,
Obj. whomsoever; Obj. whomsoever.
WHICHEVER or WHICHSOEVER, _applied to persons, animals, and things_.
Sing. Nom. whichever, Plur. Nom. whichever,
Poss. ---------, Poss. --------,
Obj. whichever; Obj. whichever.
Sing. Nom. whichsoever, Plur. Nom. whichsoever,
Poss. ---------, Poss. --------,
Obj. whichsoever; Obj. whichsoever.
WHATEVER or WHATSOEVER, _applied ordinarily to things only_.
Sing. Nom. whatever, Plur. Nom. whatever,
Poss. --------, Poss. --------,
Obj. whatever; Obj. whatever.
Sing. Nom. whatsoever, Plur. Nom. whatsoever,
Poss. ---------, Poss. --------,
Obj. whatsoever; Obj. whatsoever.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.--Most of the personal pronouns have two forms of the possessive
case, in each number: as, _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours_; _thy_ or _thine,
your_ or _yours_; _her_ or _hers, their_ or _theirs_. The former is used
before a noun expressed, or when nothing but an adjective intervenes; the
latter, when the governing noun is understood, or is so placed that a
repetition of it is implied in or after the pronoun: as, "_My_ powers are
_thine_; be _thine_ alone The glory of my song."--_Montgomery_. "State what
_mine_ and _your_ principles are."--_Legh Richmond, to his Daughters_.
Better, perhaps: "State what _my_ principles and _yours_ are;"--"State what
_your_ principles and _mine_ are;"--or, "State what are _my_ principles and
_your own_."
"Resign'd he fell; superior to the dart
That quench'd its rage in _yours_ and _Britain's_ heart."--_J. Brown_.
"Behold! to _yours_ and _my_ surprise,
These trifles to a volume rise."--_Lloyd_, p. 186.
OBS. 2.--Possibly, when the same persons or things stand in a joint
relation of this kind to different individuals or parties, it may be proper
to connect two of the simple possessives to express it; though this
construction can seldom, if ever, be necessary, because any such expression
as _thy and her sister, my and his duty_, if not erroneous, can mean
nothing but _your sister, our duty, &c_. But some examples occur, the
propriety of which it is worth while to consider: as, "I am sure it will be
a pleasure to you to hear that she proves worthy of her father, worthy of
you, and of _your and her_ ancestors."--_Spectator_, No. 525. This sentence
is from a version of Pliny's letter to his wife's aunt; and, as the
ancestors of the two individuals are here the same, the phraseology may be
allowable. But had the aunt commended her niece to Pliny, she should have
said, "worthy of you and of _your_ ancestors and _hers_." "Is it _her_ or
_his_ honour that is tarnished? It is not _hers_, but _his_."--_Murray's
Gram._, p. 175. This question I take to be bad English. It ought to be, "Is
it _her_ honour or _his_, that is tarnished?" Her honour and his honour
cannot be one and the same thing. This example was framed by Murray to
illustrate that idle and puzzling distinction which he and some others make
between "possessive adjective pronouns" and "the genitive case of the
personal pronouns;" and, if I understand him, the author will here have
_her_ and _his_ to be of the former class, and _hers_ and _his_ of the
latter. It were a better use of time, to learn how to employ such words
correctly. Unquestionably, they are of the same class and the same case,
and would be every way equivalent, if the first form were fit to be used
elliptically. For example: "The same phrenzy had hindered the Dutch from
improving to _their_ and to the common advantage the public misfortunes of
France."--_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 309. Here the possessive case _their_
appears to be governed by _advantage_ understood, and therefore it would
perhaps be better to say, _theirs_, or _their own_. But in the following
instance, _our_ may be proper, because both possessives appear to be
governed by one and the same noun:--
"Although 'twas _our_ and _their_ opinion
Each other's church was but a Rimmon."--_Hudibras_.
OBS. 3.--_Mine_ and _thine_ were formerly preferred to _my_ and _thy_,
before all words beginning with a vowel sound; or rather, _mine_ and
_thine_ were the original forms,[207] and _my_ and _thy_ were first
substituted for them before consonants, and afterwards before vowels: as,
"But it was thou, a man _mine_ equal, _my_ guide, and _mine_
acquaintance."--_Psalms_, lv, 13. "_Thy_ prayers and _thine_ alms are come
up for a memorial before God."--_Acts_, x, 4. When the Bible was
translated, either form appears to have been used before the letter _h_;
as, "Hath not _my hand_ made all these things?"--_Acts_, vii, 50. "By
stretching forth _thine hand_ to heal."--_Acts_, iv, 30. According to
present practice, _my_ and _thy_ are in general to be preferred before all
nouns, without regard to the sounds of letters. The use of the other forms,
in the manner here noticed, has now become obsolete; or, at least,
antiquated, and peculiar to the poets. We occasionally meet with it in
modern verse, though not very frequently, and only where the melody of the
line seems to require it: as,
"Time writes no wrinkle on _thine_ azure brow."--_Byron_.
"Deign on the passing world to turn _thine_ eyes."--_Johnson_.
"_Mine_ eyes beheld the messenger divine."--_Lusiad_.
"_Thine_ ardent symphony sublime and high."--_Sir W. Scott_.
OBS. 4.--The possessives _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, usually
denote possession, or the relation of property, with an _ellipsis_ of the
name of the thing possessed; as, "My sword and _yours_ are
kin."--_Shakspeare_. Here _yours_ means _your sword_. "You may imagine what
kind of faith _theirs_ was."--_Bacon_. Here _theirs_ means _their faith_.
"He ran headlong into his own ruin whilst he endeavoured to precipitate
_ours_."--_Bolingbroke_. Here _ours_ means _our ruin_. "Every one that
heareth these saying of _mine_."--_Matt._, vii, 26. Here _mine_ means _my
sayings_. "Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of _his_."--_Psalms_, xxx, 4.
Here _his_ means _his saints_. The noun which governs the possessive, is
here _understood_ after it, being inferred from that which precedes, as it
is in all the foregoing instances. "And the man of _thine_, whom I shall
not cut off from _mine_ altar, shall be to consume _thine_ eyes, and to
grieve _thine_ heart."--_1 Samuel_, ii, 33. Here _thine_, in the first
phrase, means _thy men_; but, in the subsequent parts of the sentence, both
_mine and thine_ mean neither more nor less than _thy_ and _my_, because
there is no ellipsis. _Of_ before the possessive case, governs the noun
which is understood after this case; and is always taken in a _partitive_
sense, and not as the sign of the possessive relation: as, "When we say, 'a
soldier _of the king's_', we mean, '_one of_ the king's
_soldiers_.'"--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 29. There is therefore an
ellipsis of the word _soldiers_, in the former phrase. So, in the following
example, _mine_ is used elliptically for _my feet_; or rather, _feet_ is
understood after _mine_, though _mine feet_ is no longer good English, for
reasons before stated:--
"Ere I absolve thee, stoop I that on thy neck
Levelled with earth tins _foot of mine_ may tread."--_Wordsworth_.
OBS. 5.--Respecting the _possessive case_ of the simple personal pronouns,
there appears among our grammarians a strange diversity of sentiment. Yet
is there but one view of the matter, that has in it either truth or reason,
consistency or plausibility. And, in the opinion of any judicious teacher,
an erroneous classification of words so common and so important as these,
may well go far to condemn any system of grammar in which it is found. A
pronoun agrees in person, number, and gender, with the noun _for which it
is a substitute_; and, if it is in the possessive case, it is usually
governed by _an other noun_ expressed or implied after it. That is, if it
denotes possession, it stands for the name of the possessor, and is
governed by the name of the thing possessed. Now do not _my, thy, his, her,
our, your, their_, and _mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, all
equally denote possession? and do they not severally show by their forms
the person, the number, and sometimes also the gender, of whomever or
whatever they make to be the possessor? If they do, they are all of them
_pronouns_, and nothing else; all found in the _possessive case_, and
nowhere else. It is true, that in Latin, Greek, and some other languages,
there are not only genitive cases corresponding to these possessives, but
also certain declinable adjectives which we render in English by these same
words: that is, by _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours; thy_ or _thine, your_ or
_yours_; &c. But this circumstance affords no valid argument for
considering any of these English terms to be mere adjectives; and, say what
we will, it is plain that they have not the signification of adjectives,
nor can we ascribe to them the construction of adjectives, without making
their grammatical agreement to be what it very manifestly is not. They
never agree, in any respect, with the nouns which _follow_ them, unless it
be by mere accident. This view of the matter is sustained by the authority
of many of our English grammars; as may be seen by the declensions given by
Ash, C. Adams, Ainsworth, R. W. Bailey, Barnard, Buchanan, Bicknell, Blair,
Burn, Butler, Comly, Churchill, Cobbett, Dalton, Davenport, Dearborn,
Farnum, A. Flint, Fowler, Frost, Gilbert, S. S. Green, Greenleaf, Hamlin,
Hiley, Kirkham, Merchant, Murray the schoolmaster, Parkhurst, Picket,
Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R. C. Smith, Wilcox.
OBS. 6.--In opposition to the classification and doctrine adopted above,
many of our grammarians teach, that _my, thy, this, her, our, your, their_,
are adjectives or "adjective pronouns;" and that _mine, thine, hers, its,
ours, yours, theirs_, are personal pronouns in the possessive case. Among
the supporters of this notion, are D. Adams, Alden, Alger, Allen, Bacon,
Barrett, Bingham, Bucke, Bullions, Cutler, Fisk, Frost, (in his small
Grammar,) Guy, Hall, Hart, Harrison, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Lennie, Lowth,
Miller, L. Murray, Pond, T. Smith, Spear, Spencer, Staniford, Webber,
Woodworth. The authority of all these names, however, amounts to little
more than that of one man; for Murray pretended to follow Lowth, and nearly
all the rest copied Murray. Dr. Lowth says, "_Thy, my, her, our, your,
their_, are pronominal adjectives; but _his_, (that is, _he's_,) _her's,
our's, your's, their's_, have evidently the form of the possessive case:
And, by analogy, _mine, thine_, may be esteemed of the same
rank."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 23.[208] But why did he not see, that by the
same analogy, and also by the sense and meaning of the words, as well as by
their distinctions of person, number, and gender, all the other six are
entitled to "the same rank?" Are not the forms of _my, thy, her, our, your,
their_, as fit to denote the relation of property, and to be called the
possessive case, as _mine, thine, his_, or any others? In grammar, all
needless distinctions are reprehensible. And where shall we find a more
blamable one than this? It seems to have been based merely upon the false
notion, that the possessive case of pronouns ought to be formed like that
of nouns; whereas custom has clearly decided that they shall always be
different: the former must never be written with an apostrophe; and the
latter, never without it. Contrary to all good usage, however, the Doctor
here writes "_her's, our's, your's, their's_," each with a needless
apostrophe. Perhaps he thought it would serve to strengthen his position;
and help to refute what some affirmed, that all these words are adjectives.
OBS. 7.--Respecting _mine, thine_, and _his_, Lowth and L. Murray disagree.
The latter will have them to be sometimes "_possessive pronouns_," and
sometimes "_possessive cases_." An admirable distinction this for a great
author to make! too slippery for even the inventor's own hold, and utterly
unintelligible to those who do not know its history! In short, these
authors disagree also concerning _my, thy, her, our, your, their_; and
where two leaders of a party are at odds with each other, and each is in
the wrong, what is to be expected from their followers? Perceiving that
Lowth was wrong in calling these words "_pronominal adjectives_," Murray
changed the term to "_possessive pronouns_," still retaining the class
entire; and accordingly taught, in his early editions, that, "There are
_four kinds_ of pronouns, viz., the personal, _the possessive, the_
relative, and _the_ adjective pronouns."--_Murray's Gram._, 2d Edition, p.
37. "The Possessive Pronouns are such as principally relate to possession
or property. There are seven of them; viz. _my, thy, his, her, our, your,
their_. The possessives _his, mine, thine_, may be accounted either
_possessive pronouns_, or the _possessive cases_ of their respective
personal pronouns."--_Ib._, p. 40. He next idly demonstrates that these
seven words may come before nouns of any number or case, without variation;
then, forgetting his own distinction, adds, "When they are separated from
the noun, all of them, except _his_, vary _their terminations_; as, this
hat is _mine_, and the other is _thine_; those trinkets are _hers_; this
house is _ours_, and that is _yours; theirs_ is more commodious than
_ours_"--_Ib._, p. 40. Thus all his personal pronouns of the possessive
case, he then made to be inflections of pronouns of _a different class!_
What are they now? Seek the answer under the head of that gross solecism,
"_Adjective Pronouns_." You may find it in one half of our English
grammars.
OBS. 8.--Any considerable error in the classing of words, does not stand
alone; it naturally brings others in its train. Murray's "_Adjective
Pronouns_," (which he now subdivides into four little classes, _possessive,
distributive, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_,) being all of them misnamed
and misplaced in his etymology, have led both him and many others into
strange errors in syntax. The _possessives only_ are "pronouns;" and
these are pronouns of the possessive _case_. As such, they agree with the
_antecedent_ nouns for which they stand, in _person, number_, and _gender_;
and are governed, like all other possessives, by the nouns which follow
them. The rest are _not pronouns_, but pronominal _adjectives_; and, as
such, they relate to nouns expressed or understood _after them_.
Accordingly, they have none of the above-mentioned qualities, except that
the words _this_ and _that_ form the plurals _these_ and _those_. Or, if we
choose to ascribe to a pronominal adjective all the properties of the noun
understood, it is merely for the sake of brevity in parsing. The
difference, then, between a "pronominal adjective" and an "adjective
pronoun," should seem to be this; that the one is _an adjective_, and the
other _a pronoun_: it is like the difference between a _horserace_ and a
_racehorse_. What can be hoped from the grammarian who cannot discern it?
And what can be made of rules and examples like the following? "Adjective
_pronouns_ must agree, in number, with _their substantives_: as, '_This_
book, _these_ books; _that_ sort, _those_ sorts; _another_ road, _other_
roads.'"--_Murray's Gram._, Rule viii, _Late Editions; Alger's Murray_, p.
56; _Alden's, 85; Bacon's, 48; Maltby's, 59; Miller's, 66; Merchant's, 81;
S. Putnam's, 10; and others_. "Pronominal _adjectives_ must agree with
_their nouns_ in gender, number, and person; thus, '_My son_, hear the
instructions of _thy_ father.' 'Call the _labourers_, and give them _their_
hire.'"--_Maunder's Gram._, Rule xvii. Here Murray gives a rule for
_pronouns_, and illustrates it by _adjectives_; and Maunder, as ingeniously
blunders in reverse: he gives a rule for _adjectives_, and illustrates it
by _pronouns_. But what do they mean by "_their substantives_," or "_their
nouns_?" As applicable to _pronouns_, the phrase should mean _nouns
antecedent_; as applicable to _adjectives_, it should mean _nouns
subsequent_. Both these rules are therefore false, and fit only to
bewilder; and the examples to both are totally inapplicable. Murray's was
once essentially right, but he afterwards corrupted it, and a multitude of
his admirers have since copied the perversion. It formerly stood thus: "The
pronominal adjectives _this_ and _that, &c_. and the numbers[209] _one,
two_, &c., must agree in number with their substantives: as, 'This book,
these books; that sort, those sorts; one girl, ten girls; another road,
other roads.' "--_Murray's Gram._, Rule viii, 2d Ed., 1796.