Chapter CLXXXII: Appendix: IV (6)

[165] The authorities cited by Felch, for his doctrine of "_possessive adnouns_," amount to nothing. They are ostensibly two. The first is a remark of Dr. Adam's: "'_John's book_ was formerly written _Johnis book_. Some have thought the _'s_ a contraction of _his_, but improperly. Others have imagined, with more justness, that, by the addition of the _'s_, the substantive is changed into a possessive adjective.'--_Adam's Latin and English Grammar_, p. 7."--_Felch's Comp. Gram._, p. 26. Here Dr. Adam by no means concurs with what these "_others have imagined_;" for, in the very same place, he declares the possessive case of nouns to be their _only_ case. The second is a dogmatical and inconsistent remark of some anonymous writer in some part of the "_American Journal of Education_," a work respectable indeed, but, on the subject of grammar, too often fantastical and heterodox. Felch thinks it not improper, to use the possessive case before participles; in which situation, it denotes, not the owner of something, but the agent, subject, or recipient, of the action, being, or change. And what a jumble does he make, where he attempts to resolve this ungrammatical construction!--telling us, in almost the same breath, that, "The agent of a _nounal_ verb [i. e. participle] is never expressed," but that, "Sometimes it [the _nounal_ or _gerundial_ verb] is _qualified_, in its _nounal capacity_, by a possessive _adnoun_ indicative _of its agent_ as a verb; as, there is _nothing like one's_ BEING useful he doubted _their_ HAVING it:" and then concluding, "_Hence it appears_, that the _present participle_ may be used _as agent or object_, and yet retain its character as a verb."--_Felch's Comprehensive Gram._, p. 81. Alas for the schools, if the wise men of the East receive for grammar such utter confusion, and palpable self-contradiction, as this!

[166] A critic's accuracy is sometimes liable to be brought into doubt, by subsequent alterations of the texts which, he quotes. Many an error cited in this volume of criticism, may possibly not be found in some future edition of the book referred to; as several of those which were pointed out by Lowth, have disappeared from the places named for them. Churchill also cites this line as above; (_New Gram._, p. 214;) but, in my edition of the Odyssey, by Pope, the reading is this: "By _lov'd Telemachus's_ blooming years!"--Book xi, L 84.

[167] _Corpse_ forms the plural regularly, _corpses_; as in _2 Kings_, xix, 35: "In the morning, behold, they were all dead _corpses_."

[168] Murray says, "An _adjective_ put without a substantive, with the definite article before it, _becomes a substantive in sense and meaning_, and is _written as a substantive_: as, 'Providence rewards _the good_, and punishes _the bad_.'" If I understand this, it is very erroneous, and plainly contrary to the fact. I suppose the author to speak of _good persons_ and _bad persons_; and, if he does, is there not an ellipsis in his language? How can it be said, that _good_ and _bad_ are here substantives, since they have a plural meaning and refuse the plural form? A word "_written as a substantive_," unquestionably _is_ a substantive; but neither of these is here entitled to that name. Yet Smith, and other satellites of Murray, endorse his doctrine; and say, that _good_ and _bad_ in this example, and all adjectives similarly circumstanced, "may be considered _nouns_ in parsing."--_Smith's New Gram._, p. 52. "An adjective with the definite article before it, becomes a _noun_, (of the third person, plural number,) and _must be parsed_ as such."--_R. G. Greene's Grammatical Text-Book_, p. 55.

[169] Here the word _English_ appears to be used substantively, not by reason of the article, but rather because _it has no article_; for, when the definite article is used before such a word taken in the singular number, it seems to show that the noun _language_ is understood. And it is remarkable, that before the names or epithets by which we distinguish the languages, this article may, in many instances, be either used or not used, repeated or not repeated, without any apparent impropriety: as, "This is the case with _the_ Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish."--_Murray's Gram._, i, p. 38. Better, perhaps: "This is the case with _the_ Hebrew, _the_ French, _the_ Italian, and _the_ Spanish." But we may say: "This is the case with Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish." In the first of these forms, there appears to be an ellipsis of the plural noun _languages_, at the end of the sentence; in the second, an ellipsis of the singular noun _language_, after each of the national epithets; in the last, no ellipsis, but rather a substantive use of the words in question.

[170] The Doctor may, for aught I know, have taken his notion of this "_noun_," from the language "of Dugald Dalgetty, boasting of his '5000 _Irishes_' in the prison of Argyle." See _Letter of Wendell Phillips, in the Liberator_, Vol. xi, p. 211.

[171] Lindley Murray, or some ignorant printer of his octavo Grammar, has omitted this _s_; and thereby spoiled the prosody, if not the sense, of the line:

"Of Sericana, where _Chinese_ drive," &c.
--_Fourth American Ed._, p. 345.

If there was a design to correct the error of Milton's word, something should have been inserted. The common phrase, "_the Chinese_," would give the sense, and the right number of syllables, but not the right accent. It would be sufficiently analogous with our mode of forming the words, _Englishmen, Frenchmen, Scotchmen, Dutchmen_, and _Irishmen_, and perhaps not unpoetical, to say:

"Of Sericana, where _Chinese-men_ drive,
With sails and wind, their cany _wagons_ light."

[172] The last six words are perhaps more frequently pronouns; and some writers will have well-nigh all the rest to be pronouns also. "In like manner, in _the_ English, there have been _rescued_ from the adjectives, and classed with the pronouns, any, aught, each, every, many, none, one, other, some, such, that, those, this, these; and by other writers, all, another, both, either, few, first, last, neither, and several."--_Wilson's Essay on Gram._, p. 106. Had the author said _wrested_, in stead of "_rescued_," he would have taught a much better doctrine. These words are what Dr. Lowth correctly called "_Pronominal Adjectives_."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 24. This class of adjectives includes most of the words which Murray, Lennie, Bullions, Kirkham, and others, so absurdly denominate "_Adjective Pronouns_." Their "Distributive Adjective Pronouns, _each, every, either, neither_;" their "Demonstrative Adjective Pronouns, _this, that, these, those_;" and their "Indefinite Adjective Pronouns, _some, other, any, one, all, such_, &c.," are every one of them here; for they all are _Adjectives_, and not _Pronouns_. And it is obvious, that the corresponding words in Latin, Greek, or French, are adjectives likewise, and are, for the most part, so called; so that, from General Grammar, or "the usages of other languages," arises an argument for ranking them as adjectives, rather than as pronouns. But the learned Dr. Bullions, after improperly assuming that every adjective must "express _the quality of a noun_," and thence arguing that no such definitives can rightly be called _adjectives_, most absurdly suggests, that "_other languages_," or "_the usages of_ other languages," generally assign to these _English words_ the place of _substitutes_! But so remarkable for self-contradiction, as well as other errors, is this gentleman's short note upon the classification of these words, that I shall present the whole of it for the reader's consideration.

"NOTE. The distributives, demonstratives, and indefinites, cannot strictly be called _pronouns_; since they never stand _instead_ of nouns, but always _agree_ with _a noun_ expressed or understood: _Neither can they be properly_ called _adjectives_, since they never express _the quality of a noun_. They are here classed _with pronouns_, in accordance with _the usages of other languages_, which _generally assign them this place_. All these, together with the _possessives_, in parsing, may _with sufficient propriety_ be termed _adjectives_, being _uniformly regarded as such_ in syntax."--_Bullions's Principles of English Gram._, p. 27. (See also his _Appendix_ III, E. Gram., p. 199.)

What a sample of grammatical instruction is here! The pronominal adjectives "cannot properly _be called adjectives_," but "they may with sufficient propriety be _termed adjectives_!" And so may "_the possessives_," or _the personal pronouns in the possessive case_! "Here," i.e., in _Etymology_, they are all "_classed with pronouns_;" but, "in _Syntax_," they are "uniformly _regarded as adjectives_!" Precious MODEL for the "Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek, all on THE SAME PLAN!"

[173] _Some_, for _somewhat_, or _in some degree_, appears to me a vulgarism; as, "This pause is generally _some_ longer than that of a period."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 271. The word _what_ seems to have been used adverbially in several different senses; in none of which is it much to be commended: as, "Though I forbear, _what_ am I eased?"--_Job_, xvi, 6. "_What_ advantageth it me?"--_1 Cor._, xv, 32. Here _what_, means _in what degree? how much?_ or _wherein?_ "For _what_ knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?"--_1 Cor._, vii, 16. Here _how_ would have been better. "The enemy, having his country wasted, _what_ by himself and _what_ by the soldiers, findeth succour in no place."--_Spenser_. Here _what_ means _partly_;--"wasted _partly_ by himself and _partly_ by the soldiers." This use of _what_ was formerly very common, but is now, I think, obsolete. _What_ before an adjective seems sometimes to denote with admiration the degree of the quality; and is called, by some, an adverb; as, "_What partial_ judges are our love and hate!"--_Dryden_. But here I take _what_ to be an _adjective_; as when we say, _such_ partial judges, _some_ partial judges, &c. "_What_ need I be forward with Death, that calls not on me?"--_Shakspeare_. Here _what_ seems to be improperly put in place of _why_.

[174] Dr. Blair, in his Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres, often uses the phrase "_this much_;" but it is, I think, more common to say "_thus much_," even when the term is used substantively.

[175] There seems to be no good reason for joining _an_ and _other_: on the contrary, the phrase _an other_ is always as properly two words, as the phrase _the other_, and more so. The latter, being long ago vulgarly contracted into _t'other_, probably gave rise to the apparent contraction _another_; which many people nowadays are ignorant enough to divide wrong, and mispronounce. See _"a-no-ther"_ in _Murray's Spelling-Book_, p. 71; and _"a-noth-er"_ in _Emerson's_, p. 76. _An_ here excludes any other article; and both analogy and consistency require that the words be separated. Their union, like that of the words _the_ and _other_, has led sometimes to an improper repetition of the article: as, "_Another_ such _a_ man," for, "An other such man."--"Bind my hair up. An 'twas yesterday? No, nor _the t'other_ day."--BEN JONSON: _in Joh. Dict._ "He can not tell when he should take _the tone_, and when _the tother_."--SIR T. MOORE: Tooke's D. P., Vol. 15, p. 448. That is--"when he should take _the one_ and when _the other_." Besides, the word _other_ is declined, like a noun, and has the plural _others_; but the compounding of _another_ constrains our grammarians to say, that this word "has no plural." All these difficulties will be removed by writing _an other_ as two words. The printers chiefly rule this matter. To them, therefore, I refer it; with directions, not to unite these words for me, except where it has been done in the manuscript, for the sake of exactness in quotation.--G. BROWN.

[176] This is a misapplication of the word _between_, which cannot have reference to more than two things or parties: the term should have been _among_.--G. BROWN.

[177] I suppose that, in a comparison of _two_, any of the degrees may be accurately employed. The common usage is, to construe the positive with _as_, the comparative with _than_, and the superlative with _of_. But here custom allows us also to use the comparative with _of_, after the manner of the superlative; as, "This is _the better of_ the two." It was but an odd whim of some old pedant, to find in this a reason for declaring it ungrammatical to say "This is _the best of_ the two." In one grammar, I find the former construction _condemned_, and the latter approved, thus: "This is the better book of the two. Not correct, because the comparative state of the adjective, (_better_,) can not correspond with the preposition, _of_. The definite article, _the_, is likewise improperly applied to the comparative state; the sentence should stand thus, This is the _best_ book of the two."--_Chandler's Gram._, Ed. of 1821, p. 130; Ed. of 1847, p. 151.

[178] This example appears to have been borrowed from Campbell; who, however, teaches a different doctrine from Murray, and clearly sustains my position; "Both degrees are in such cases used _indiscriminately_. We say _rightly_, either 'This is the weaker of the two,' or--'the weakest of the two.'"--_Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 202. How positively do some other men contradict this! "In comparing _two_ persons or things, by means of an adjective, care must be taken, that the superlative state be not employed: We properly say, 'John is the _taller_ of the two;' but we _should not say_, 'John is the _tallest_ of the two.' The reason is plain: we compare but _two_ persons, and must _therefore_ use the comparative state."--_Wright's Philosophical Gram._, p. 143. Rev. Matt. Harrison, too, insists on it, that the superlative must "have reference to more than two," and censures _Dr. Johnson_ for not observing the rule. See _Harrison's English Language_, p. 255.

[179] L. Murray copied this passage literally, (though anonymously,) as far as the colon; and of course his book teaches us to account "_the termination ish_, in some sort, _a degree of comparison_."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 47. But what is more absurd, than to think of accounting this, or any other suffix, "_a degree of comparison?_" The inaccuracy of the language is a sufficient proof of the haste with which Johnson adopted this notion, and of the blindness with which he has been followed. The passage is now found in most of our English grammars. Sanborn expresses the doctrine thus: "Adjectives terminating with _ish_, denote a degree of comparison less than the positive; as, _saltish, whitish, blackish_."--_Analytical Gram._, p. 87. But who does not know, that most adjectives of this ending are derived from _nouns_, and are compared only by adverbs, as _childish, foolish_, and so forth? Wilcox says, "Words ending in _ish_, generally express a slight degree; as, _reddish, bookish_."--_Practical Gram._, p. 17. But who will suppose that _foolish_ denotes but a slight degree of folly, or _bookish_ but a slight fondness for books? And, with such an interpretation, what must be the meaning of _more bookish_ or _most foolish_?

[180] "'A rodde shall come _furth_ of the stocke of Jesse.' _Primer, Hen. VIII_."--_Craven Glossary_.

[181] _Midst_ is a contraction of the regular superlative _middest_, used by Spenser, but now obsolete. _Midst_, also, seems to be obsolete as an adjective, though still frequently used as a noun; as, "In the _midst_."--_Webster_. It is often a poetic contraction for the preposition _amidst_. In some cases it appears to be an adverb. In the following example it is equivalent to _middlemost_, and therefore an adjective: "Still greatest he _the midst_, Now dragon grown."--_Paradise Lost_, B. x, l. 528.

[182] What I here say, accords with the teaching of all our lexicographers and grammarians, except one dauntless critic, who has taken particular pains to put me, and some three or four others, on the defensive. This gentleman not only supposes _less_ and _fewer, least_ and _fewest_, to be sometimes equivalent in meaning, but actually exhibits them as being also etymologically of the same stock. _Less_ and _least_, however, he refers to three different positives, and _more_ and _most_, to four. And since, in once instance, he traces _less_ and _more, least_ and _most_, to the same primitive word, it follows of course, if he is right, that _more_ is there equivalent to _less_ and _most_ is equivalent to _least_! The following is a copy of this remarkable "DECLENSION ON INDEFINITE SPECIFYING ADNAMES," and just one half of the table is wrong: "_Some, more, most; Some, less, least_; Little, less, least; Few, fewer _or less_, fewest _or least; Several, more, most_; Much, more, most; Many, more most."--_Oliver B Peirce's Gram._, p. 144.

[183] Murray himself had the same false notion concerning six of these adjectives, and perhaps all the rest; for his indefinite _andsoforths_ may embrace just what the reader pleases to imagine. Let the following paragraph be compared with the observations and proofs which I shall offer: "Adjectives that have in themselves a superlative signification, do not properly admit of the superlative or [the] comparative form superadded: such as, 'Chief, extreme, perfect, right, universal, supreme,' &c.; which are sometimes improperly written, 'Chiefest, extremest, perfectest, rightest, most universal, most supreme,' &c. The following expressions are therefore improper. 'He sometimes claims admission to the _chiefest_ offices;' 'The quarrel became _so universal_ and national;' 'A method of attaining the _rightest_ and greatest happiness.' The phrases, so perfect, so right, so extreme, so universal, &c., are incorrect; because they imply that one thing is less perfect, less extreme, &c. than another, which is not possible."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, Vol. i, p. 167. For himself, a man may do as he pleases about comparing these adjectives; but whoever corrects others, on such principles as the foregoing, will have work enough on his hands. But the writer who seems to exceed all others, in error on this point, is _Joseph W. Wright_. In his "Philosophical Grammar," p. 51st, this author gives a list of seventy-two adjectives, which, he says, "admit of _no variation of state_;" i. e., are not compared. Among them are _round, flat, wet, dry, clear, pure, odd, free, plain, fair, chaste, blind_, and more than forty others, which are compared about as often as any words in the language. Dr. Blair is hypercritically censured by him, for saying "_most excellent_," "_more false_," "the _chastest_ kind," "_more perfect_" "_fuller, more full, fullest, most full, truest_ and _most true_;" Murray, for using "_quite wrong_;" and Cobbett, for the phrase, "_perfect correctness_." "Correctness," says the critic, "does not admit of _degrees of perfection_."--_Ib._, pp. 143 and 151. But what does such a thinker know about correctness? If this excellent quality cannot be _perfect_, surely nothing can. The words which Dr. Bullions thinks it "improper to compare," because he judges them to have "an absolute or superlative signification," are "_true, perfect, universal, chief, extreme, supreme_, &c."--no body knows how many. See _Principles of E. Gram._, p. 19 and p. 115.

[184] The regular comparison of this word, (_like, liker, likest_,) seems to be obsolete, or nearly so. It is seldom met with, except in old books: yet we say, _more like_, or _most like, less like_, or _least like_. "To say the flock with whom he is, is _likest_ to Christ."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 180. "Of Godlike pow'r? for _likest_ Gods they seem'd."--_Milton, P. L._ B. vi, l. 301.

[185] This example, and several others that follow it, are no ordinary solecisms; they are downright Irish bulls, making actions or relations reciprocal, where reciprocity is _utterly_ unimaginable. Two words can no more be "_derived from each other_," than two living creatures can have received their existence from each other. So, two things can never "_succeed each other_," except they alternate or move in a circle; and a greater number in train can "_follow one an other_" only in some imperfect sense, not at all reciprocal. In some instances, therefore, the best form of correction will be, to reject the reciprocal terms altogether--G. BROWN.

[186] This doctrine of punctuation, if not absolutely false in itself, is here very badly taught. When _only two words_, of any sort, occur in the same construction, they seldom require the comma; and never can they need _more than one_, whereas these grammarians, by their plural word "_commas_," suggest a constant demand for two or more.--G. BROWN.

[187] Some grammarians exclude the word _it_ from the list of personal pronouns, because it does not convey the idea of that personality which consists in _individual intelligence_. On the other hand, they will have _who_ to be a personal pronoun, because it is literally applied to _persons only_, or intelligent beings. But I judge them to be wrong in respect to both; and, had they given _definitions_ of their several classes of pronouns, they might perhaps have found out that the word _it_ is always personal, in a grammatical sense, and _who_, either relative or interrogative.

[188] "_Whoso_ and _whatso_ are found in old authors, but are now out of use."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 76. These antiquated words are equivalent in import to _whosoever_ and _whatsoever_. The former, _whoso_, being used many times in the Bible, and occasionally also by the poets, as by Cowper, Whittier, and others, can hardly be said to be obsolete; though Wells, like Churchill, pronounced it so, in his first edition.

[189] "'The man is prudent which speaks little.' This sentence is incorrect, because _which_ is a pronoun of the neuter gender."--_Murray's Exercises_, p. 18. "_Which_ is also a relative, but it is of [the] neuter gender. It is also interrogative."--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 26. For oversights like these, I cannot account. The relative _which_ is of all the genders, as every body ought to know, who has ever heard of the _horse which_ Alexander rode, of the _ass which_ spoke to Balaam, or of any of the _animals_ and _things_ which Noah had with him in the ark.

[190] The word _which_ also, when taken in its _discriminative_ sense (i.e. to distinguish some persons or things from others) may have a construction of this sort; and, by ellipsis of the noun after it, it may likewise bear a resemblance to the double relative _what_: as, "I shall now give you two passages; and request you to point out _which_ words are mono-syllables, _which_ dis-syllables, _which_ tris-syllables, and _which_ poly-syllables."--_Bucke's Gram._, p. 16. Here, indeed, the word _what_ might be substituted for _which_; because that also has a discriminative sense. Either would be right; but the author might have presented the same words and thoughts rather more accurately, thus: "I shall now give you two passages; and request you to point out which words are monosyllables; which, dissyllables; which, trissyllables; and which, polysyllables."

[191] The relative _what_, being equivalent to _that which_, sometimes has the demonstrative word _that_ set after it, by way of pleonasm; as, "_What_ I tell you in darkness, _that_ speak ye in light, and _what_ ye hear in the ear, _that_ preach ye upon the house-tops."--_Matt._, x, 27. In _Covell's Digest_, this text is presented as "_false syntax_," under the new and needless rule, "Double relatives always supply two cases."--_Digest of E. Gram._, p. 143. In my opinion, to strike out the word _that_, would greatly weaken the expression: and so thought our translators; for no equivalent term is used in the original.

[192] As for Butler's method of parsing these words by _always recognizing a noun as being_ "UNDERSTOOD" _before them_,--a method by which, according to his publishers notice, "The ordinary unphilosophical explanation of this class of words is discarded, and a simple, intelligible, common-sense view of the matter now _for the first time_ substituted,"--I know not what novelty there is in it, that is not also just so much _error_. "Compare," says he, "these two sentences: 'I saw _whom_ I wanted to see;' 'I saw what I wanted to see. If _what_ in the latter is equivalent to _that which_ or _the thing which, whom_, in the former is equivalent to _him whom_, or _the person whom_."--_Butler's Practical Gram._, p. 51. The former example being simply elliptical of the antecedent, he judges the latter to be so too; and infers, "that _what_ is nothing more than a relative pronoun, and includes nothing else."--_Ib._ This conclusion is not well drawn, because the two examples are _not analogous_; and whoever thus finds "that _what_ is nothing more than a relative," ought also to find it is something less,--a mere adjective. "I saw _the person whom_ I wanted to see," is a sentence that _can scarcely spare_ the antecedent and retain the sense; "I saw _what_ I wanted to see," is one which _cannot receive_ an antecedent, without changing both the sense and the construction. One may say, "I saw what _things_ I wanted to see;" but this, in stead of giving _what_ an _antecedent_, makes it an _adjective_, while it _retains the force of a relative_. Or he _may insert_ a noun before _what_, agreeably to the solution of Butler; as, "I saw _the things_, what I wanted to see:" or, if he please, both before and after; as, "I saw _the things_, what _things_ I wanted to see." But still, in either case, _what_ is no "simple relative;" for it here seems equivalent to the phrase, _so many as_. Or, again, he may omit the comma, and say, "I saw _the thing_ what I wanted to see;" but this, if it be not a vulgarism, will only mean, "I saw _the thing to be_ what I wanted to see." So that this method of parsing the pronoun what, is manifestly no improvement, but rather a perversion and misinterpretation.

But, for further proof of his position, Butler adduces instances of what he calls "_the relative_ THAT _with the antecedent omitted_. A few examples of this," he says, "will help us to ascertain the nature of _what_. 'We speak _that_ we do know,' _Bible_. [_John_, iii, 11.] 'I am _that_ I am.' _Bible_. [_Exod._, iii, 14.] 'Eschewe _that_ wicked is.' _Gower_. 'Is it possible he should know what he is, and be _that_ he is?' Shakespeare. 'Gather the sequel by _that_ went before.' _Id._ In these examples," continues he, "_that_ is a relative; and is _exactly synonymous_ with _what_. No one would contend that _that_ stands for itself and its antecedent at the same time. The antecedent is omitted, _because it is indefinite_, OR EASILY SUPPLIED."--_Butler's Practical Gram._, p. 52; _Bullions's Analytical and Practical Gram._, p. 233. Converted at his wisest age, by these false arguments, so as to renounce and gainsay the doctrine taught almost universally, and hitherto spread industriously by himself, in the words of Lennie, that, "_What_ is a compound relative, including both the relative and the antecedent," Dr. Bullions now most absurdly urges, that, "The truth is, _what_ is a _simple_ relative, having, wherever used, _like all other relatives_, BUT ONE CASE; but * * * that it always refers to a _general antecedent, omitted_, BUT EASILY SUPPLIED _by the mind_," though "_not_ UNDERSTOOD, _in the ordinary sense_ of that expression."--_Analyt. and Pract. Gram._ of 1849, p. 51. Accordingly, though he differs from Butler about this matter of "_the ordinary sense_," he cites the foregoing suggestions of this author, with the following compliment: "These remarks appear to me _just_, and _conclusive on this point_."--_Ib._, p. 233. But there must, I think, be many to whon they will appear far otherwise. These elliptical uses of _that_ are all of them bad or questionable English; because, the ellipsis being such as may be supplied in two or three different ways, the true construction is doubtful, the true meaning not exactly determined by the words. It is quite as easy and natural to take "_that_" to be here a demonstrative term, having the relative _which_ understood after it, as to suppose it "a relative," with an antecedent to be supplied before it. Since there would not be the same uncertainty, if _what_ were in these cases substituted for _that_, it is evident that the terms are _not_ "_exactly synonymous_;" but, even if they were so, exact synonymy would not evince a sameness of construction.

[193] See this erroneous doctrine in Kirkham's Grammar, p. 112; in Wells's, p. 74; in Sanborn's, p. 71, p. 96, and p. 177; in Cooper's, p. 38; in O. B. Peirce's, p. 70. These writers show a great fondness for this complex mode of parsing. But, in fact, no pronoun, not even the word _what_, has any double construction of cases from a real or absolute necessity; but merely because, the noun being suppressed, yet having a representative, we choose rather to understand and parse its representative doubly, than to supply the ellipsis. No pronoun includes "both the antecedent and the relative," by virtue of its own _composition_, or of its own derivation, as a word. No pronoun can properly be called "_compound_" merely because it has a double construction, and is equivalent to two other words. These positions, if true, as I am sure they are, will refute sundry assertions that are contained in the above-named grammars.

[194] Here the demonstrative word _that_, as well as the phrase _that matter_, which I form to explain its construction, unquestionably refers back to Judas's confession, that he had sinned; but still, as the word has not the connecting power of a relative pronoun, its true character is _that_ of an adjective, and not _that_ of a pronoun. This pronominal adjective is very often mixed with some such ellipsis, and _that_ to repeat the import of various kinds of words and phrases: as, "God shall help her, and _that_ right early."--_Psal._, xlvi, 5. "Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and _that_ your brethren."--l Cor., vi, 8. "I'll know your business, _that_ I will."--_Shakespeare._

[195] Dr. Bullions has undertaken to prove, "That the word AS should not be considered a relative in any circumstances." The force of his five great arguments to this end, the reader may well conceive of, when he has compared the following one with what is shown in the 22d and 23d observations above: "3. As _can never be used as a substitute for another relative pronoun, nor another relative pronoun as a substitute for it_. If, then, it is a relative pronoun, it is, to say the least, a very unaccommodating one."--_Bullions's Analytical and Practical Gram. of_ 1849, p. 233.

[196] The latter part of this awkward and complex rule was copied from Lowth's Grammar, p. 101. Dr. Ash's rule is, "_Pronouns_ must _always agree_ with the _nouns_ for which they _stand_, or to which they _refer_, in _Number, person_, and _gender_."--_Grammatical Institutes_, p. 54. I quote this _exactly as it stands_ in the book: the Italics are his, not mine. Roswell C. Smith appears to be ignorant of the change which Murray made in his fifth rule: for he still publishes as Murray's a principle of concord which the latter rejected as early as 1806: "RULE V. Corresponding with Murray's Grammar, RULE V. _Pronouns must agree with the nouns for which they stand, in gender, number_, AND PERSON."--_Smith's New Gram._, p. 130. So _Allen Fisk_, in his "Murray's English Grammar Simplified," p. 111; _Aaron M. Merchant_, in his "_Abridgment_ of Murray's English Grammar, Revised, _Enlarged_ and Improved," p. 79; and the _Rev. J. G. Cooper_, in his "Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar," p. 113; where, from the titles, every reader would expect to find the latest doctrines of Murray, and not what he had so long ago renounced or changed.

[197] L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 51; 12mo, 51; 18mo, 22; D. Adams's, 37; Alger's, 21; Bacon's, 19; Fisk's, 20; Kirkham's, 17; Merchant's Murray, 35; Merchant's American Gram., 40; F. H. Miller's Gram., 26; Pond's, 28; S. Putnam's, 22; Russell's, 16; Rev. T. Smith's, 22.

[198] Dr. Crombie, and some others, represent I and thou, with their inflections, as being "masculine and feminine." Lennie, M'Culloch, and others, represent them as being "masculine or feminine." But, if either of them can have an antecedent that is _neuter_, neither of these views is strictly correct. (See Obs. 5th, above.) Mackintosh says, "We use _our, your, their_, in speaking of a thing or things belonging to plural nouns of any gender."--_Essay on English Gram._, p. 149. So William Barnes says, "_I, thou, we, ye_ or _you_, and _they_, are of _all_ genders,"-- _Philosophical Gram._, p. 196.

[199] "It is perfectly plain, then, that _my_ and _mine_ are but different forms of the same word, as are _a_ and _an_. _Mine_, for the sake of euphony, or from custom, stands for the possessive case without a noun; but must be changed for _my_ when the noun is expressed: and _my_, for a similar reason, stands before a noun, but must be changed for _mine_ when the noun is dropped. * * * _Mine_ and _my, thine_ and _thy_, will, therefore, be considered in this book, as different forms of the possessive case from _I_ and _Thou_. And the same rule will be extended to _her_ and _hers, our_ and _ours, your_ and _yours, their_ and _theirs_."--_Barnard's Analytic Grammar_, p. 142.

[200] It has long been fashionable, in the ordinary intercourse of the world, to substitute the plural form of this pronoun for the singular through all the cases. Thus, by the figure ENALLAGE, "_you are_," for instance, is commonly put for "_thou art_." See Observations 20th and 21st, below; also Figures of Syntax, in Part IV.

[201] The original nominative was _ye_, which is still the only nominative of the solemn style; and the original objective was _you_, which is still the only objective that our grammarians in general acknowledge. But, whether grammatical or not, _ye_ is now very often used, in a familiar way, for the objective case. (See Observations 22d and 23d, upon the declensions of pronouns.) T. Dilworth gave both cases alike: "_Nom_. Ye _or_ you;" "_Acc._ [or _Obj._] Ye _or_ you."--His _New Guide_, p. 98. Latham gives these forms: "_Nom._ ye _or_ you; _Obj._ you or ye."--_Elementary Gram._, p. 90. Dr. Campbell says, "I am inclined to prefer that use which makes _ye_ invariably the nominative plural of the personal pronoun _thou_, and _you_ the accusative, when applied to an actual plurality."--_Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 174. Professor Fowler touches the case, rather blindly, thus: "Instead of the true nominative YE, we use, with few exceptions, _the objective case_; as, 'YOU _speak_;' 'YOU _two are speaking_.' In this we _substitute_ one case _for_ another."--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, §478. No other grammarian, however, discards _you_ as a nominative of "actual plurality;" and the present casual practice of putting _ye_ in the objective, has prevailed to some extent for at least two centuries: as,

"Your change approaches, when all these delights
Will vanish and deliver _ye_ to woe."
--_Milton_, P. L., B. iv, l. 367.

[202] Dr. Young has, in one instance, and with very doubtful propriety, converted this pronoun into the _second person_, by addressing himself thus:--

"O _thou, myself I_ abroad our counsels roam
And, like ill husbands, take no care at home."
--_Love of Fame_, Sat. II, l. 271.

[203] The fashion of using the plural number for the singular, or _you_ for _thou_, has also substituted _yourself_ for _thyself_, in common discourse. In poetry, in prayer, in Scripture, and in the familiar language of the Friends, the original compound is still retained; but the poets use either term, according to the gravity or the lightness of their style. But _yourself_, like the regal compound _ourself_, though apparently of the singular number, and always applied to one person only, is, in its very nature, an anomalous and ungrammatical word; for it can neither mean more than one, nor agree with a pronoun or a verb that is singular. Swift indeed wrote: "Conversation is but carving; carve for all, _yourself is starving_." But he wrote erroneously, and his meaning is doubtful: probably he meant, "To carve for all, is, _to starve yourself_." The compound personals, when they are nominatives before the verb, are commonly associated with the simple; as, "I _myself_ also _am_ a man."--_Acts_, x, 16. "That _thou thyself art_ a guide."--_Rom._, ii, 19. "If it stand, as _you yourself_ still _do_"--_Shakspeare_. "That _you yourself_ are much condemned."--_Id._ And, if the simple pronoun be omitted, the compound still requires the same form of the verb; as, "Which way I fly is Hell; _myself am_ Hell."--_Milton_. The following example is different: "I love mankind; and in a monarchy myself _is_ all that I _can_ love."--_Life of Schiller, Follen's Pref._, p. x. Dr. Follen objects to the British version, "Myself _were_ all that I _could_ love;" and, if his own is good English, the verb _is_ agrees with _all_, and not with _myself_. _Is_ is of the third person: hence, "_myself is_" or, "_yourself is_," cannot be good syntax; nor does any one say, "_yourself art_," or, "_ourself am_," but rather, "_yourself are_:" as, "Captain, _yourself are_ the fittest."--_Dryden_. But to call this a "_concord_," is to turn a third part of the language upsidedown; because, by analogy, it confounds, to such extent at least, the plural number with the singular through all our verbs; that is, if _ourself_ and _yourself_ are singulars, and not rather plurals put for singulars by a figure of syntax. But the words are, in some few instances, written separately; and then both the meaning and the construction are different; as, "Your _self_ is sacred, profane _it_ not."--_The Dial_, Vol. i, p. 86. Perhaps the word _myself_ above ought rather to have been two words; thus, "And, in a monarchy, _my self is all_ that I can love." The two words here differ in person and case, perhaps also in gender; and, in the preceding instance, they differ in person, number, gender, and case. But the compound always follows the person, number, and gender of its first part, and only the case of its last. The notion of some grammarians, (to wit, of Wells, and the sixty-eight others whom he cites for it,) that _you_ and _your_ are actually made singular by usage, is demonstrably untrue. Do _we, our_, and _us_, become actually singular, as often as a king or a critic applies them to himself? No: for nothing can be worse syntax than, _we am, we was_, or _you was_, though some contend for this last construction.

[204] _Whose_ is sometimes used as the possessive case of _which_; as, "A religion _whose_ origin is divine."--_Blair_. See Observations 4th and 5th, on the Classes of Pronouns.

[205] After _but_, as in the following sentence, the double relative _what_ is sometimes applied to persons; and it is here equivalent _to the friend who_:--

"Lorenzo, pride repress; nor hope to find
A friend, but _what_ has found a friend in thee."--_Young_.

[206] Of all these compounds. L. Murray very improperly says, "They are _seldom used_, in modern style."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 54; also _Fisk's_, p. 65. None of them are yet obsolete, though the shorter forms seem to be now generally preferred. The following suggestion of Cobbett's is erroneous; because it implies that the shorter forms are innovations and faults; and because the author carelessly speaks of them as _one thing only_: "We _sometimes_ omit the _so_, and say, _whoever, whomever, whatever_, and even _whosever_. _It is_ a mere _abbreviation_. The _so_ is understood: and, it is best not to omit to write it."--_Eng. Gram._, ¶ 209. R. C. Smith dismisses the compound relatives with three lines; and these he closes with the following notion: "_They are not often used!_"--_New Gram._, p. 61.

[207] Sanborn, with strange ignorance of the history of those words, teaches thus: "_Mine_ and _thine_ appear to have been formed from _my_ and _thy_ by changing _y_ into _i_ and adding _n_, and then subjoining _e_ to retain the long sound of the vowel."--_Analytical Gram._, p. 92. This false notion, as we learn from his guillemets and a remark in his preface, he borrowed from "Parkhurst's Systematic Introduction." Dr. Lowth says, "The Saxon _Ic_ hath the possessive case _Min; Thu_, possessive _Thin; He_, possessive _His_: From which our possessive cases of the same pronouns are taken _without alteration_."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 23.

[208] Latham, with a singularity quite remarkable, reverses this doctrine in respect to the two classes, and says, "_My, thy, our, your, her_, and _their_ signify possession, because they are possessive cases. * * * _Mine, thine, ours, yours, hers, theirs_, signify possession for a different reason. They partake of the nature of _adjectives_, and in all the allied languages are declined as such."--_Latham's Elementary E. Gram._, p. 94. Weld, like Wells, with a few more whose doctrine will be criticised by-and-by, adopting here an other odd opinion, takes the former class only for forms of the possessive case; the latter he disposes of thus: "_Ours, yours, theirs, hers_, and generally _mine_ and _thine_, are POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS, used in either the _nominative or objective_ case,"--_Weld's Gram., Improved Ed._, p. 68. Not only denying the possessives with ellipsis to be instances of the possessive case, but stupidly mistaking at once two dissimilar things for a third which is totally unlike to either,--i. e., assuming together for _substitution_ both an _ellipsis_ of one word and an _equivalence_ to two--(as some others more learned have very strangely done--) he supposes all this class of pronouns to have forsaken every property of their legitimate roots,--their person, their number, their gender, their case,--and to have assumed other properties, such as belong to "the thing possessed!" In the example, "_Your_ house is on the plain, _ours_ is on the hill," he supposes _ours_ to be of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case; and not, as it plainly is, of the first person, plural number, masculine gender, and possessive case. Such parsing should condemn forever any book that teaches it.

[209] This word should have been _numerals_, for two or three reasons. The author speaks of the _numeral adjectives_; and to say "the _numbers_ must agree in _number_ with their substantives," is tautological--G. Brown.

[210] Cardell assails the common doctrine of the grammarians on this point, with similar assertions, and still more earnestness. See his _Essay on Language_, p. 80. The notion that "these _pretended possessives_ [are] uniformly used as _nominatives_ or _objectives_"--though demonstrably absurd, and confessedly repugnant to what is "_usually considered_" to be their true explanation--was adopted by Jaudon, in 1812; and has recently found several new advocates; among whom are Davis, Felch, Goodenow, Hazen, Smart, Weld, and Wells. There is, however, much diversity, as well as much inaccuracy, in their several expositions of the matter. Smart inserts in his declensions, as the only forms of the possessive case, the words of which he afterwards speaks thus: "The following _possessive cases_ of the personal pronouns, (See page vii,) _must be called_ PERSONAL PRONOUNS POSSESSIVE: _mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, theirs_. For these words are always used _substantively_, so as to include the meaning of some noun in the third person singular or plural, in the nominative or the objective ease. Thus, if _we are speaking_ of books, and say [,] '_Mine_ are here,' _mine_ means _my books_, [Fist] and it must be deemed a personal pronoun _possessive_ in the _third_ person _plural_, and _nominative_ to the verb _are_."--_Smart's Accidence_, p. xxii. If to say, these "_possessive cases_ must be called a _class_ of _pronouns_, used _substantively_, and deemed _nominatives_ or _objectives_," is not absurd, then nothing can be. Nor is any thing in grammar more certain, than that the pronoun "_mine_" can only be used by the speaker or writer, to denote himself or herself as the owner of something. It is therefore of the _first_ person, _singular_ number, _masculine_ (or feminine) gender, and _possessive case_; being governed by the name of the thing or things possessed. This name is, of course, always _known_; and, if known and not expressed, it is "understood." For sometimes a word is repeated to the mind, and clearly understood, where "it cannot properly be" expressed; as, "And he came and sought _fruit_ thereon, and found _none_."--_Luke_, xiii, 6. Wells opposes this doctrine, citing a passage from Webster, as above, and also imitating his argument. This author acknowledges three classes of pronouns--"personal, relative, and interrogative;" and then, excluding these words from their true place among personals of the possessive case, absurdly makes them a _supernumerary class of possessive nominatives_ or _objectives_! "_Mine, thine, his_, _ours, yours_, and _theirs_, are POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS, used in construction either as _nominatives_ or _objectives_; as, 'Your pleasures are past, _mine_ are to come.' Here the word _mine_, which is used as a substitute for _my pleasures_, is _the subject_ of the verb _are_."--_Wells's School Gram._, p. 71; 113 Ed., p. 78. Now the question to find the subject of the verb _are_, is, "My _what_ are to come?" Ans. "_pleasures_." But the author proceeds to argue in a note thus: "_Mine, thine_, etc. are often parsed as pronouns in the possessive case, _and governed by nouns understood._ Thus, in the sentence, 'This book is mine,' the _word mine_ is said to _possess book_. That the word _book_ is _not here understood_, is obvious from the fact, that, when it is supplied, the phrase becomes not '_mine_ book,' but '_my_ book,' the pronoun being changed from _mine_ to _my_; so that we are made, by this practice, to parse _mine_ as _possessing a word_ understood, before which it cannot properly be used. The word _mine_ is here evidently employed as a substitute for the two words, _my_ and _book_."--_Wells, ibid._ This note appears to me to be, in many respects, faulty. In the first place, its whole design was, to disprove what is true. For, bating the mere difference of _person_, the author's example above is equal to this: "Your pleasures are past, _W. H. Wells's_ are to come." The ellipsis of "_pleasures_", is evident in both. But _ellipsis_ is not _substitution_; no, nor is _equivalence. Mine_, when it suggests an ellipsis of the governing noun, is _equivalent_ to _my and that noun_; but certainly, not "_a substitute for the two words_." It is a substitute, or pronoun, for the _name of the speaker or writer_; and so is _my_; both forms representing, and always agreeing with, that name or person only. No possessive agrees with what governs it; but every pronoun ought to agree with that for which it stands. Secondly, if the note above cited does not aver, in its first sentence, that the pronouns in question _are "governed by nouns understood_," it comes much nearer to saying this, than a writer should who meant to deny it. In the third place, the example, "This book is mine," is not a good one for its purpose. The word "_mine_" may be regularly parsed as a possessive, without supposing any ellipsis; for "_book_," the name of the thing possessed, is given, and in obvious connexion with it. And further, the matter affirmed is _ownership_, requiring _different cases_; and not the _identity_ of something under different names, which must be put in the _same case_. In the fourth place, to mistake regimen for possession, and thence speak of _one word "as possessing" an other_, a mode of expression occurring twice in the foregoing note, is not only unscholarlike, but positively absurd. But, possibly, the author may have meant by it, to ridicule the choice phraseology of the following Rule: "A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by _the noun it possesses_."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 181; _Frazee's_, 1844, p. 25.

[211] In respect to the _numbers_, the following text is an uncouth exception: "Pass _ye_ away, _thou_ inhabitant of Saphir."--_Micah_, i, 11. The singular and the plural are here strangely confounded. Perhaps the reading should be, "Pass _thou_ away, _O_ inhabitant of Saphir." Nor is the Bible free from _abrupt transitions_ from one number to the other, or from one person to an other, which are neither agreeable nor strictly grammatical; as, "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, _ye which [who]_ are spiritual, restore such _an [a]_ one in the spirit of meekness; considering _thyself_, lest _thou_ also be tempted."--_Gal._, vi, 1. "_Ye_ that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near; that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch _themselves_ upon _their_ couches," &c--_Amos_, vi, 9.

[212] "The solemn style is used, chiefly, in the Bible and in prayer. The Society of Friends _retain it in common parlance_. It consists in using _thou_ in the singular number, and _ye_ in the plural, instead of using _you_ in both numbers as in the familiar style. * * * The third person singular [of verbs] ends with _th_ or _eth_, which affects only the present indicative, and _hath_ of the perfect. The second person, singular, ends with _st, est_, or _t_ only."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 58. "In [the] solemn and poetic styles, _mine, thine_, and _thy_, are used; and THIS _is the style adopted by the Friends' society_. In common discourse it appears very stiff and affected."--_Bartlett's C. S. Man'l_, Part II, p. 72.

[213] "And of the History of his being _tost_ in a Blanket, _he saith_, 'Here, Scriblerus, _thou lessest_ in what _thou assertest_ concerning the blanket: it was not a blanket, but a rug.--Curlliad, p. 25."--_Notes to Pope's Dunciad_, B. ii, verse 3. A vulgar idea solemnly expressed, is ludicrous. Uttered in familiar terms, it is simply vulgar: as, "_You lie_, Scriblerus, in what _you say_ about the blanket."

[214] "Notwithstanding these verbal mistakes, the Bible, for the size of it, is the most accurate grammatical composition that we have in the English language. The authority of several eminent grammarians might be adduced in support of this assertion, but it may be sufficient to mention only that of Dr. Lowth, who says, 'The present translation of the Bible, is _the best standard_ of the English language.'"--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 166. I revere the Bible vastly too much to be pleased with an imitation of its peculiar style, in any man's ordinary speech or writing.--G. BROWN.

[215] "_Ye_, except in the solemn style, is _obsolete_; but it is used in the language of tragedy, to express contempt: as, 'When _ye_ shall know what Margaret knows, _ye_ may not be so thankful.' Franklin."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 57. "The second person plural had _formerly_ YE _both in the nominative and the objective._ This form is _now obsolete in the objective_, and nearly obsolete in the nominative."--_Hart's Gram._, p. 55.

[216] So has Milton:--

"To waste it all myself, and leave _ye_ none!
So disinherited how would _you_ bless me!"--_Par. Lost_, B. x, l. 820.

[217] "The word _what_ is a _compound of two specifying adjectives_, each, of course, referring to a noun, expressed or understood. It is equivalent to _the which_; _that which_; _which that_; or _that that_; used also in the plural. At different periods, and in different authors, it appears in the varying forms, _tha qua, qua tha, qu'tha, quthat, quhat_, _hwat_, and _what_. This word is found in other forms; but it is needless to multiply them."--_Cardell's Essay on Language_, p. 86.

[218] This author's distribution of the pronouns, of which I have taken some notice in Obs. 10th above, is remarkable for its inconsistencies and absurdities. First he avers, "Pronouns are _generally_ divided into three kinds, the _Personal_, the _Adjective_, and the _Relative_ pronouns. _They are all known by the lists._"--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 96. These short sentences are far from being accurate, clear, or true. He should have made the several kinds known, by a good definition of each. But this was work to which he did not find himself adequate. And if we look to his _lists_ for the particular words of each kind, we shall get little satisfaction. Of the _Personal_ pronouns, he says, "There are _five_ of them; _I, thou, he_, _she, it_."--_Ib._, p. 97. These are _simple_ words, and in their declension they are properly multiplied to forty. (See _Ib._, p. 99.) Next he seems to double the number, thus: "When _self_ is added to the personal pronouns, as himself, myself, itself, themselves, &c. _they_ are called _Compound Personal Pronouns_."--_Ib._, p. 99. Then he asserts that _mine_, _thine, his, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, are compounds of _ne_ or _s_ with _mi, thi, hi_, &c.: that their application invariably "gives them a compound character:" and that, "They may, therefore, be properly denominated _Compound Personal Pronouns_."--_Ib._, p. 101. Next he comes to his _Adjective_ pronouns; and, after proving that he has grossly misplaced and misnamed every one of them, he gives his lists of the three kinds of these. His _Relative_ pronouns are _who, which_, and _that_. "_What_ is generally a _compound_ relative."--_Ib._, p. 111. The compounds of _who, which, and_ _what_, with _ever_ or _soever_, he calls "compound _pronouns_, but not compound relatives."--_Ib._, pp. 110 and 112. Lastly he discovers, that, "Truth and simplicity" have been shamefully neglected in this his third section of pronouns; that, "Of the words called '_relatives_,' _who_ only is a pronoun, and this is strictly _personal_;" that, "It ought to be classed with the personal pronouns;" and that, "_Which, that_, and _what_, are always adjectives. They _never stand for_, but always _belong to_ nouns, either expressed or implied."--_Ib._, p. 114. What admirable teachings are these!

[219] "It is now proper to give some _examples of the manner_ in which the learners should be exercised, in order to improve their knowledge, and to render it familiar to them. This is called _parsing_. The nature of the subject, as well as the adaptation of it to learners, requires _that it should be divided_ into two parts: viz. parsing, as it respects etymology alone; and parsing, as it respects both etymology and syntax."--_Murray's Gram., Octavo_, Vol. 1, p. 225. How very little real respect for the opinions of Murray, has been entertained by these self-seeking magnifiers and modifiers of his work!