Chapter V: Pronouns (1)

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.