Chapter XXV: Section III: The Pronoun

BARBARISM.

Pronouns are so few in number, and so simple, that this species of error, in respect to them, can scarcely occur. To this class, however, may perhaps be reduced such as, _his’n_, _her’n_, _our’n_, _your’n_, _their’n_, for _his own_, _her own_, _our own_, &c., or for _his one_, _her one_, &c.

SOLECISM.

“Who calls?” “’T is me.” This is a violation of that rule, by which the verb _to be_ has the same case after it that it has before it. It should be, “It is I.”

“You were the quarrel,” says Petulant in “The Way of the World.” Millamant answers, “Me!” For the reason just given it should be “_I_.”

“Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults.” As the relative refers to persons, it should be _who_.

“Nor is mankind so much to blame, in his choice thus determining him.”--_Swift._ _Mankind_ is a collective noun, and is uniformly considered as plural; _his_, therefore, is a gross solecism.

“By this institution, each legion, to whom a certain portion of auxiliaries was allotted, contained within itself every species of lighter troops, and of missile weapons.”--_Gibbon._ It ought to be, _to which_--the pronoun _itself_, which follows, referring to a noun of the neuter gender. _To whom_ and _itself_ cannot each agree with one common antecedent.

“The seeming importance given to every part of female dress, each of which is committed to the care of a different sylph.”--_Essay on the Writings of Pope._ This sentence is ungrammatical. _Each_ implying “one of two,” or “every one singly of more than two,” requires the correlative to be considered as plural; yet the antecedent _part_, to which it refers, is singular. It should be “all parts of female dress.”

“To be sold, the stock of Mr. Smith, left off business.” This is an ungrammatical and very offensive vulgarism. The verb _left off_, as Baker observes, has no subject, to which it can grammatically belong. It should be, “who has left off,” or “leaving off business” “A. B. lieutenant, _vice_ C. D. resigned.” Here is a similar error. Is C. D. resigned? or is it the office which has been resigned? An excessive love of brevity gives occasion to such solecisms.

“He was ignorant, the profane historian, of the testimony which he is compelled to give.”--_Gibbon’s Decline of the Roman Empire._

“The youth and inexperience of the prince, he was only fifteen years of age, declined a perilous encounter.”--_Ib._

In the former sentence _the historian_ appears neither as the nominative, nor the regimen to any verb. If it be intended to agree with _he_ by apposition, it should have immediately followed the pronoun. If it be designed emphatically, and ironically, to mark the character of the historian, it should have been thrown into the form of a parenthetic exclamation. In the latter sentence a phraseology occurs, which, notwithstanding its frequency in Gibbon, is extremely awkward and inelegant. The fault may be corrected either by throwing the age of the prince into a parenthesis, or, preferably, by the substitution of _who_ for _he_.

“Fare thee well” is a phraseology which, though sanctioned by the authority of a celebrated poet, and also by other writers, involves a solecism. The verb is intransitive, and its imperative is _fare thou_. No one would say, “I fare me well,” “we fare us well.”

“That faction in England, who most powerfully opposed his arbitrary pretensions.”--_Mrs. Macaulay._ It ought rather to be, “that faction in England, _which_.” It is justly observed by Priestley, “that a term, which only implies the idea of persons, and expresses them by some circumstance or epithet, will hardly authorize the use of _who_.”

“He was certainly one of the most acute metaphysicians, one of the deepest philosophers, and one of the best critics, and most learned divines, which modern times have produced.”--_Keith on the Life and Writings of Campbell._

“Moses was the mildest of all men, which were then on the face of the earth.”--_Geddes._

“Lord Sidney was one of the wisest and most active governors, whom Ireland had enjoyed for several years.”--_Hume._

In the two first of these passages, _which_ is improperly applied to persons; in the last, the author has avoided this impropriety, and used _whom_. The pronoun _that_, however, is much preferable to _who_, or _which_, after a superlative.

“Such of the Morescoes might remain, who demeaned themselves as Christians.”--_Watson’s Life of Philip III._ _Such_ is here improperly followed by _who_ instead of _as_. The correlative terms are _those who_, and _such as_.

“It is hard to be conceived, that a set of men could ever be chosen by their contemporaries, to have divine honours paid to them, while numerous persons were alive, who knew their imperfections, and who themselves, or their immediate ancestors, might have as fair a pretence, and come in competition with them.”--_Prideaux’s Connexion._ The identity of subject, in the relative clauses of this sentence, requires the repetition of the same pronoun. It should be, “who themselves, or whose immediate ancestors.”

“If you were here, you would find three or four in the parlour, after dinner, whom you would say past their afternoons very agreeably.”--_Swift._ The pronoun _whom_ should not be under the government of the verb _would say_, having no connection with it; but should be a nominative to the verb _passed_; thus, “who, you would say, passed their afternoons.”

“By these means, that religious princess became acquainted with Athenias, whom she found was the most accomplished woman of her age.” _Whom_, for the reason already assigned, should be _who_, being the nominative to the verb _was_. If it were intended to be a regimen to the verb _found_, the sentence should proceed thus, “whom she found to be.”

“Solomon was the wisest man, him only excepted, who was much greater and wiser than Solomon.” In English the absolute case is the nominative; it should, therefore, be, “he only excepted.”

“Who, instead of being useful members of society, they are pests to mankind.” Here the verb _are_ has two nominatives, _who_ and _they_, each representing the same subjects of discourse. One of them is redundant; and by the use of both, the expression becomes solecistical, there being no verb to which the relative _who_ can be a nominative.

“My banks, they are furnish’d with bees,”

is faulty for the same reason, though here, perhaps, the poetic licence may be pleaded in excuse.

“It is against the laws of the realm, which, as they are preserved and maintained by your majesty’s authority, so we assure ourselves, you will not suffer them to be violated.” _Which_ is neither a regimen nor a nominative to any verb; the sentence, therefore, is ungrammatical--_Them_ is redundant.

“Whom do men say that I am?” The relative is here in the objective case, though there be no word in the sentence by which it can be governed. In such inverted sentences, it is a good rule for those who are not well acquainted with the language to arrange the words in the natural order, beginning with the nominative and the verbs, thus, “men say, that I am who,” a sentence precisely analogous to “men say, that I am he,” the verb requiring the same case after it, as before it. Hence it is obvious, that it should be, “Who do men say that I am?”

“Who do you speak to?” It ought to be _whom_, the relative being under the government of the preposition, thus, “To whom do you speak?”

“Who she knew to be dead.”--_Henry’s Hist. of Britain._ Here also the relative should be in the objective case, under the government of the verb, thus, “whom she knew,” or “she knew whom to be dead.”

“Than whom, Satan except, none higher sat.”--_Milton._

“The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud,
With deeper sable blots the silver flood.”--_Pope._

This phraseology I have already examined. In answer to Mr. Baker’s reason for condemning the phrase “than whom,” Story’s observations betray, as I conceive, extreme ignorance, and require correction. “The English,” says he, “is strictly good; for the relative _whom_ is not in the same case with _sluice_, (which is the nominative to the verb _blots_,) but referring to its antecedent, _the king of dykes_, is very properly in the objective case, even though the personal pronoun _he_, if substituted in its place, would be in the nominative.”

If Mr. Story conceives that the relative must agree with its antecedent in case, he labours under an egregious mistake. Every page of English evinces the contrary. Yet, such must be his opinion, or his argument means nothing; for the only reason, which he offers for _whom_, is, that its antecedent is in the objective case. Besides, if _than whom_ be admissible, nay proper, he will have difficulty in assigning a good reason, why it should not be also _than him_. But Mr. Story should have known, that, when two nouns are coupled by a conjunction, the latter term is not governed by the conjunction, but is either the nominative to the verb, or is governed by it, or by the preposition understood. The sentence proceeds thus, “no sluice of mud blots with deeper sable, than _he_ or _who_ blots.”

“It is no wonder if such a man did not shine at the court of Queen Elizabeth, who was but another name for prudence and economy.”--_Hume._ The word _Elizabeth_, as represented in the latter clause, is here a mere word, _nuda vox_, and not the sign of a person; for it is said to be another name for _prudence_ and _economy_. Not the person, but the word, is said to be significant of this quality. The pronoun, therefore, should be _which_, not _who_. The sentence, however, even thus corrected, would be inelegant. Better thus, “Queen Elizabeth, whose name was but another word for prudence and economy.”

“Be not diverted from thy duty by any idle reflections the silly world may make upon you.” Consistency requires either “_your_ duty,” or “upon _thee_.” _Thy_ and _your_, a singular and a plural pronoun, each addressed to the same individual, are incongruous.

A similar error occurs in the following passage: “I pray _you_, tarry all night, lodge here, that _thy_ heart may be merry.”--_Bible._

“It is more good to fall among crows than flatterers, for these only devour the dead, those the living.” The pronoun _this_ always refers to the nearer object, _that_ to the more remote. This distinction is here reversed. It should be, “those (crows) devour the dead; these (flatterers) the living.” I observe also, in passing, that those adjectives, whose mode of comparison is irregular, are not compared by _more_ and _most_. It ought to be, “it is better.”

“It is surprising, that this people, so happy in invention, have never penetrated beyond the elements of geometry.” It should be _has_, _this people_ being in the singular number. We may say, “people have,” the noun being collective, but not “this people have.”

“I and you love reading.” This is a Latinism, and not accordant with our mode of arrangement. Wolsey was right, when he said, “Ego, et rex meus;” but in English we reverse the order. It should be, “you and I.” We say also, “he and I,” “they and I.” _You_ always precedes.

“Each of the sexes should keep within its proper bounds, and content themselves with the advantages of their particular districts.”--_Addison._ Here the pronoun does not agree with the word to which it refers, the word _each_ being singular; whereas _themselves_ and _their_ are plural. It should be, _itself_ and _its_.

A similar error occurs in the following sentence: “Some of our principal public schools have each a grammar of _their_ own.”--_Barrow on Education._ It ought to be, “each a grammar of _its_ own.” The expression is elliptical, for “schools have each (has) a grammar of its own.” Thus we say, “Simeon and Levi took each man _his sword_,” not _their swords._--_Gen._ xxxiv. 25.

“Let each esteem other better than themselves.”--_Bible._ For the reason just given, it ought to be _himself_.

“So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”--_Bible._ Here is a manifest solecism, the pronoun _their_ referring to “his brother,” a singular subject.

“I wonder that such a valiant hero as you should trifle away your time in making war upon women.”--_Essay on the Writings of Pope._ Here the pronoun disagrees in person with the noun to which it refers, _hero_ being of the third person, and _your_ of the second. The connexion is, “I wonder that such a valiant hero should trifle away _his_ time.”

“The venison, which I received yesterday, and was a present from a friend,” &c. _Which_ is here in the objective case, and cannot properly be understood as the nominative to the verb _was_: better, therefore, “and which was a present.” The following sentence is still more faulty: “It was happy for them, that the storm, in which they were, and was so very severe, lasted but a short time.” This is ungrammatical, the verb “was” having no nominative. It should be, “which was.”

“There is not a sovereign state in Europe, but keeps a body of regular troops in their pay.” This expression, to say the least of it, is inelegant and awkward. Better, “its pay.” “Is any nation sensible of the lowness of their own manners?”--_Kames. Nation_ is here improperly construed as both singular and plural. It should be rather “its own.”

“The treaty he concluded can only be considered as a temporary submission, and of which he took no care to secure the continuance of it.”--_Dryden._ The redundancy of the words _of it_, renders the sentence somewhat ungrammatical. It should run thus, “The treaty he concluded can only be considered as a temporary submission, of which he took no care to secure the continuance.”

An improper reference occurs in the following sentence: “Unless one be very cautious, he will be liable to be deceived.” _One_ here answers to the indefinite word _on_ in French, and cannot be represented by any pronoun. It must, therefore, be repeated, thus, “Unless one be very cautious, one will be liable to be deceived.”

IMPROPRIETY.

“Give me them books.” Here the substantive pronoun is used adjectively, instead of the demonstrative _those_ or _these_. The substantive pronouns, which are, strictly speaking, the only pronouns, cannot be construed as adjectives agreeing with substantives. We cannot say, “it book,” “they books,” “them books:” but “this” or “that book,” “these” or “those books.” The former phraseology may be deemed solecistical.

“Great numbers were killed on either side.”--_Watson’s Philip III._ “The Nile flows down the country above five hundred miles from the tropic of Cancer, and marks on either side the extent of fertility by the measure of its inundation.”--_Gibbon._

It has been already observed, that the Saxon word _ægther_ signifies _each_, as Gen. vii. 2. “Clean animals thou shalt take by sevens of each kind,” _ægthres gecyndes_. The English word _either_ is sometimes used in the same sense. But as this is the only word in our language, by which we can express “one of two,” “which of the two you please,” and as it is generally employed in that sense, perspicuity requires that it be strictly confined to this signification. For, if _either_ be used equivocally, it must, in many cases, be utterly impossible for human ingenuity to ascertain, whether only “one of two,” or “both,” be intended. In such expressions, for example, as “take either side,” “the general ordered his troops to march on either bank,” how is the reader or hearer to divine, whether _both sides_, _both banks_, or _only one_, be signified? By employing _each_ to express “both,” taken individually, and _either_ to denote “one of the two,” all ambiguity is removed.

“The Bishop of Clogher intends to call on you this morning, as well as your humble servant, in my return from Chapel Izzard.”--_Addison to Swift._ After the writer has spoken of himself in the third person, there is an impropriety in employing the pronoun of the first. Much better “in his return.”

“The ends of a divine and human legislator are vastly different.”--_Warburton._ From this sentence it would seem, that there is only one subject of discourse, _the ends_ belonging to one individual, _a divine and human legislator_. The author intended to express two different subjects, namely, “the objects of a divine,” and “the objects of a human legislator.” The demonstrative _those_ is omitted. It should be, “the ends of a divine, and those of a human legislator, are vastly different.” This error consists in defect, or an improper ellipsis of the pronoun: in the following sentence the error is redundancy. “They both met on a trial of skill.” _Both_ means “they two,” as _ambo_ in Latin is equivalent to “οἱ δύο” It should therefore be, “both met on a trial of skill.”

“These two men (A and B) are both equal in strength.” This, says Baker, is nonsense; for these words signify only, that A is equal in strength, and B equal in strength, without implying to whom; so that the word _equal_ has nothing to which it refers. “A and B,” says he, “are equal in strength,” is sense; this means, that they are equal to each other. “A and B are both equal in strength to C,” is likewise sense. It signifies, that A is equal to C, and that B likewise is equal to C. Thus Mr. Baker. Now, it appears to me, that, when he admits the expression, “are both equal,” as significant of the equality of each, he admits a phraseology which does not strictly convey that idea. For if we say, “A and B are both equal,” it seems to me to imply, that the two individuals are possessed of two attributes or qualities, one of which is here expressed; and in this sense only, as I conceive, is this phraseology correct. Thus we may say, with strict propriety, “A and B are both equal in strength, and superior in judgment to their contemporaries.” Or it may denote, that “they two together, namely, A and B, are equal to C singly.” In the former case, _both_ is necessarily followed by _and_, which is in Latin rendered by _et_. Thus, “A and B are the two things, (both) _equal in strength_, and (add) _superior in judgment_ to their contemporaries.” In the latter case, it is equivalent to _ambo_, expressing two collectively, as, “they two _together_ are equal to C, but not _separately_.” I am aware, that the word _both_ in English, like _ambo_ in Latin, is an ambiguous term, denoting either “the two collectively,” or “the two separately,” and that many examples of the latter usage may be adduced. But that surely cannot be deemed a correct or appropriate term, which, in its strict signification, conveys an idea different from that intended by the speaker; or which leaves the sentiment in obscurity, and the reader in doubt. The word _each_, substituted for _both_, renders the expression clear and precise, thus, “A and B are each equal to C, in strength.”[144]

An error the reverse of this occurs in the following sentence: “This proves, that the date of each letter must have been nearly coincident.” Coincident with what? Not surely with itself; nor can the date of each letter be coincident with each other. It should be, “that the dates of both letters must have been nearly coincident with each other.”

“It’s great cruelty to torture a poor dumb animal.” Better, _’Tis_, in order to distinguish the contraction from the genitive singular of the pronoun _it_.

“Neither Lady Haversham, nor Miss Mildmay, will ever believe but what I have been entirely to blame.” The pronoun _what_, equivalent to _that which_, is here improperly used for _that_. This mode of expression still obtains among the lower orders of the people, and is not confined to them in the northern parts of the island. It should be, “_that_ I have been.” The converse of this error occurs in the following passages:

“That all our doings may be ordered by thy governance, to do always that is righteous in thy sight.”--_Book of Common Prayer._

“For, if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted, according to that a man hath.”--_Bible._

The pronouns _it_ and _that_ were formerly used as including the relative. “This submission is it implieth them all.” “This is it men mean by distributive justice.”--_Hobbes._ “To consider advisedly of that is moved.”--_Bacon._ This usage is now obsolete. The clauses should therefore proceed thus, “to do always what,” or “that, which is righteous.” “According to what,” or “that, which a man hath.”