Chapter V: Pronouns (2)

OBS. 28.--Again, the following principles of this author's punctuation are no less indicative of his false views of this matter: "RULE xiv.--Relative pronouns in the nominative or [_the_] objective case, are preceded by commas, when the clause which the relative _connects_ [,] ends a sentence; as, 'Sweetness of temper is a quality, which reflects a lustre on every accomplishment'--B. Greenleaf.' Self [-] denial is the sacrifice [,] which virtue must make.' [_--L. Murray._] The comma is omitted before the relative, when the verb which the antecedent governs, follows the relative clause; as, 'He that suffers by imposture, has too often his virtue more impaired than his fortune.'--_Johnson_." See _Sanborn's Analytical Gram._, p. 269. Such are some of our author's principles--"the essence of modern improvements." His practice, though often wrong, is none the worse for contradicting these doctrines. Nay, his proudest boast is ungrammatical, though peradventure not the less believed: "_No_ [other] _grammar in the language_ probably contains so great a quantity of _condensed and_ useful matter with so little superfluity."--_Sanborn's Preface_, p. v.

OBS. 29.--Murray's rule for the punctuation of relatives, (a rule which he chiefly copied from Lowth,) recognizes virtually the distinction which I have made above; but, in assuming that relatives "_generally_" require a comma before them, it erroneously suggests that the resumptive sense is more common than the restrictive. Churchill, on the contrary, as wrongly makes it an essential characteristic of _all_ relatives, "to limit or explain the words to which they refer." See his _New Gram._, p. 74. The fact is, that relatives are so generally restrictive, that not one half of them are thus pointed; though some that do restrict their antecedent, nevertheless admit the point. This may be seen by the first example given us by Murray: "Relative pronouns are connective words, and _generally admit_ a comma before them: as, 'He preaches sublimely, who lives a sober, righteous, and pious life.' But when two members, or _phrases_, [say _clauses_,] are closely connected by a relative, restraining the general notion of the antecedent to a particular sense, _the comma should be omitted_: as, '_Self-denial_ is the _sacrifice which_ virtue must make;' 'A _man who_ is of a detracting spirit, will misconstrue the most innocent _words that_ can be put together.' In the latter example, the assertion is not of 'a man in general,' but of 'a man who is of a detracting spirit;' and therefore _they_ [say _the pronoun and its antecedent_] should not be separated."--_Murray's Gram., Octavo_, p. 273; _Ingersoll's_, 285; _Comly's_, 152. This reasoning, strictly applied, would exclude the comma before _who_ in the first example above; but, as the pronoun does not "closely" or immediately follow its antecedent, the comma is allowed, though it is not much needed. Not so, when the sense is resumptive: as, "The _additions, which_ are very considerable, are chiefly _such as_ are calculated to obviate objections." See _Murray's Gram._, p. ix. Here the comma is essential to the meaning. Without it, _which_ would be equivalent to _that_; with it, which is equivalent to _and they_. But this latter meaning, as I imagine, cannot be expressed by the relative _that_.

OBS. 30.--Into the unfortunate example which Sanborn took from Murray, I have inserted the comma for him; not because it is necessary or right, but because his rule requires it: "_Self-denial_ is the _sacrifice_," &c. The author of "a complete system of grammar," might better contradict even Murray, than himself. But why was this text admired? and why have _Greene, Bullions, Hiley, Hart_, and others, also copied it? A _sacrifice_ is something devoted and lost, for the sake of a greater good; and, _if Virtue sacrifice self-denial_, what will she do, but run into indulgence? The great sacrifice which she demands of men, is rather that of their _self-love_. Wm. E. Russell has it, "_Self defence_ is the sacrifice which virtue must make!"--_Russell's Abridgement of Murray's Gram._, p. 116. Bishop Butler tells us, "It is indeed _ridiculous_ to assert, that _self-denial is essential to virtue and piety_; but it would have been nearer the truth, though not strictly the truth itself, to have said, that it is essential to discipline and improvement."--_Analogy of Religion_, p. 123.

OBS. 31.--The relative _that_, though usually reckoned equivalent to _who_ or _which_, evidently differs from both, in being more generally, and perhaps more appropriately, taken in the restrictive sense. It ought therefore, for distinction's sake, to be preferred to _who_ or _which_, whenever an antecedent not otherwise limited, is to be restricted by the relative clause; as, "_Men that_ grasp after riches, are never satisfied."--"I love _wisdom that_ is gay and civilized."--_Art of Thinking_, p. 34. This phraseology leaves not the limitation of the meaning to depend solely upon the absence of a pause after the antecedent; because the relative _that_ is seldom, if ever, used by good writers in any other than a restrictive sense. Again: "A man of a polite imagination is let into a great many pleasures _that_ the vulgar are not capable of receiving."--_Addison, Spect._, No. 411. Here, too, according to my notion, _that_ is obviously preferable to _which_; though a great critic, very widely known, has taken some pains to establish a different opinion. The "many pleasures" here spoken of, are no otherwise defined, than as being such as "the vulgar are not capable of receiving." The writer did not mean to deny that the vulgar are capable of receiving a great many pleasures; but, certainly, if _that_ were changed to _which_, this would be the meaning conveyed, unless the reader were very careful to avoid a pause where he would be apt to make one. I therefore prefer Addison's expression to that which Dr. Blair would substitute.

OBS. 32.--The style of Addison is more than once censured by Dr. Blair, for the frequency with which the relative _that_ occurs in it, where the learned lecturer would have used which. The reasons assigned by the critic are these: "_Which_ is a much more definitive word than that, being never employed in any other way than as a relative; whereas _that_ is a word of many senses; sometimes a demonstrative pronoun, often a conjunction. In some cases we are indeed obliged to use _that_ for a relative, in order to avoid the ungraceful repetition of _which_ in the same sentence. But when we are laid under no necessity of this kind, _which_ is always the preferable word, and certainly was so in this sentence: '_Pleasures which_ the vulgar are not capable of receiving,' is much better than '_pleasures that_ the vulgar are not capable of receiving.'"--_Blair's Rhetoric_, Lect. xx, p. 200. Now the facts are these: (1.) That _that_ is the more definitive or restrictive word of the two. (2.) That the word _which_ has as many different senses and uses as the word _that_. (3.) That not the repetition of _which_ or _who_ in a series of clauses, but a _needless change_ of the relative, is ungraceful. (4.) That the necessity of using _that_ rather than _which_ or _who_, depends, not upon what is here supposed, but upon the different senses which these words usually convey. (5.) That as there is always some reason of choice, _that_ is sometimes to be preferred; _which_, sometimes; and _who_, sometimes: as, "It is not the man _who_ has merely taught, or _who_ has taught long, or _who_ is able to point out defects in authors, _that_ is capable of enlightening the world in the respective sciences _which_ have engaged his attention; but the man _who_ has taught well."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 7.

OBS. 33.--Blair's Rhetoric consists of forty-seven lectures; four of which are devoted to a critical examination of the style of Addison, as exhibited in four successive papers of the Spectator. The remarks of the professor are in general judicious; but, seeing his work is made a common textbook for students of "Belles Lettres," it is a pity to find it so liable to reprehension on the score of inaccuracy. Among the passages which are criticised in the twenty-first lecture, there is one in which the essayist speaks of the effects of _novelty_ as follows:

'It is this _which_ bestows charms on a monster, and makes even the imperfections of nature please us. It is this _that_ recommends variety, where the mind is every instant called off to something new, and the attention not suffered to dwell too long and waste itself on any particular object. It is this, likewise, _that_ improves what is great or beautiful, and makes it afford the mind a double entertainment.'--_Spectator_, No. 412.

This passage is deservedly praised by the critic, for its "perspicuity, grace, and harmony;" but, in using different relatives under like circumstances, the writer has hardly done justice to his own good taste. Blair's remark is this: "His frequent use of _that_, instead of _which_, is another peculiarity of his style; but, on this occasion in particular, [it] cannot be much commended, as, 'It is this _which_,' seems, in every view, to be better than, 'It is this _that_,' three times repeated."--_Lect._ xxi, p. 207. What is here meant by "_every view_," may, I suppose, be seen in the corresponding criticism which is noticed in my last observation above; and I am greatly deceived, if, in this instance also, the relative _that_ is not better than _which_, and more agreeable to polite usage. The direct relative which corresponds to the introductory pronoun _it_ and _an other antecedent_, should, I think, be _that_, and not _who_ or _which_: as, "It is not ye _that_ speak."--_Matt._, x, 20. "It is thou, Lord, _who_ hast the hearts of all men in thy hands, _that_ turnest the hearts of any to show me favour."--_Jenks's Prayers_, p. 278. Here _who_ has reference to _thou_ or _Lord_ only; but _that_ has some respect to the pronoun _it_, though it agrees in person and gender with _thou_. A similar example is cited at the close of the preceding observation; and I submit it to the reader, whether the word _that_, as it there occurs, is not the _only fit_ word for the place it occupies. So in the following examples: "There are _Words, which_ are _not Verbs, that_ signify actions and passions, and even things transient."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. 100. "It is the universal taste of mankind, which is subject to no such changing modes, _that_ alone is entitled to possess any authority."--_Blair's Rhetoric_, p. 286.

OBS. 34.--Sometimes the broad import of an antecedent is _doubly restricted_, first by one relative clause, and then by an other; as, "And all _that dwell upon the earth_, shall worship him, _whose names are not written in the book of life_."--_Rev._, xiii, 8. "And then, like true Thames-Watermen, they abuse every man _that_ passes by, _who_ is better dressed than themselves."--_Brown's Estimate_, Vol. ii, p. 10. Here _and_, or _if he_, would be as good as "_who_;" for the connective only serves to carry the restriction into narrower limits. Sometimes the limit fixed by one clause is _extended_ by an other; as, "There is no evil _that you may suffer_, or _that you may expect to suffer, which_ prayer is not the appointed means to alleviate."--_Bickersteth, on Prayer_, p. 16. Here _which_ resumes the idea of "_evil_," in the extent last determined; or rather, in that which is fixed by either clause, since the limits of both are embraced in the assertion. And, in the two limiting clauses, the same pronoun was requisite, on account of their joint relation; but the clause which assumes a different relation, is rightly introduced by a different pronoun. This is also the case in the following examples: "For there is no condemnation to those _that_ are in Christ Jesus, _who_ walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 432. "I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast _that_ carrieth her, _which_ hath the seven heads and ten horns."--_Rev._, xvii, 7. Here the restrictive sense is well expressed by one relative, and the resumptive by an other. When neither of these senses is intended by the writer, _any_ form of the relative must needs be improper: as, "The greatest genius _which runs_ through the arts and sciences, takes a kind of tincture from them, and falls unavoidably into imitation."--_Addison, Spect._, No. 160. Here, as I suppose, _which runs_ should be _in running_. What else can the author have meant?

OBS. 35.--Having now, as I imagine, clearly shown the difference between the restrictive and the resumptive sense of a relative pronoun, and the absolute necessity of making such a choice of words as will express that sense only which we intend; I hope the learner will see, by these observations, not merely that clearness requires the occasional use of each of our five relatives, _who, which, what, that_, and _as_; but that this distinction in the meaning, is a very common principle by which to determine what is, and what is not, good English. Thus _that_ and _as_ are appropriately our _restrictive_ relatives, though _who_ and _which_ are sometimes used restrictively; but, in a _resumptive_ sense, _who_ or _which_ is required, and required even after those terms which usually demand _that_ or _as_: thus, "We are vexed at the unlucky chance, and go away dissatisfied. _Such_ impressions, _which_ ought not to be cherished, are a sufficient reason for excluding stories of that kind from the theatre."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 279. Here _which_ is proper to the sense intended; but _such_ requires _as_, when the latter term limits the meaning of the former. In sentences like the following, _who_ or _which_ may be used in lieu of _that_; whether with any advantage or not, the reader may judge: "You seize the critical moment _that_ is favorable to emotion."--_Bair's Rhet._, p. 321. "_An_ historian _that_ would instruct us, must know when to be concise."--_Ib._, p. 359. "Seneca has been censured for the affectation _that_ appears in his style."--_Ib._, p. 367. "Such as the prodigies _that_ attended the death of Julius Cæsar."--_Ib._, p. 401. "By unfolding those principles _that_ ought to govern the taste of every individual."--_Kames's Dedication to El. of Crit._ "But I am sure he has that _that_ is better than an estate."--_Spect._, No. 475. "There are two properties, _that_ characterize and essentially distinguish relative pronouns."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 74. By these examples, it may be seen, that Dr. Blair often forgot or disregarded his own doctrine respecting the use of this relative; though he was oftener led, by the error of that doctrine, to substitute _which_ for _that_ improperly.

OBS. 36.--_Whether_ was formerly used as an interrogative pronoun, in which sense it always referred to one of two things; as, "Ye fools and blind! for _whether_ is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?"--_Matt._, xxiii, 17. This usage is now obsolete; and, in stead of it, we say, "_Which_ is greater?" But as a disjunctive conjunction, corresponding to _or_, the word _whether_ is still in good repute; as, "Resolve _whether_ you will go _or_ not."--_Webster's Dict._ In this sense of the term, some choose to call _whether_ an _adverb_.

OBS. 37.--In the view of some writers, interrogative pronouns differ from relatives chiefly in this; that, as the subject referred to is unknown to the speaker, they do not relate to a _preceding_ noun, but to something which is to be expressed in the answer to the question. It is certain that their _person, number_, and _gender_, are not regulated by an antecedent noun; but by what the speaker supposes or knows of a subject which may, or may not, agree with them in these respects: as, "_What_ lies there?" Answer, "Two _men_ asleep." Here _what_, standing for _what thing_, is of the third person, singular number, and neuter gender; but _men_, which is the term that answers to it, is of the third person, plural, masculine. There is therefore no necessary agreement between the question and the answer, in any of those properties in which a pronoun usually agrees with its noun. Yet some grammarians will have interrogatives to agree with these "_subsequents_," as relatives agree with their _antecedents_. The answer, it must be granted, commonly contains a noun, corresponding in some respects to the interrogative pronoun, and agreeing with it _in case_; but this noun cannot be supposed to control the interrogation, nor is it, in any sense, the word for which the pronoun stands. For every pronoun must needs stand for something that is uttered or conceived by the same speaker; nor can any question be answered, until its meaning is understood. Interrogative pronouns must therefore be explained as direct substitutes for such other terms as one might use in stead of them. Thus _who_ means _what person_?

"_Who_ taught that heav'n-directed spire to rise?
_The Man of Ross_, each lisping babe replies."--_Pope_.

OBS. 38.--In the classification of the pronouns, and indeed in the whole treatment of them, almost all our English grammars are miserably faulty, as well as greatly at variance. In some forty or fifty, which I have examined on this point, the few words which constitute this part of speech, have more than twenty different modes of distribution. (1.) Cardell says, "There is but one kind of pronouns"--_Elements of Gram._, p. 30. (2.) D. Adam's, Greenleaf, Nutting, and Weld, will have two kinds; "_personal_ and _relative_." (3.) Dr. Webster's "Substitutes, or pronouns, are of two kinds:" the one, "called _personal_;" the other, without name or number. See his _Improved Gram._, p. 24. (4.) Many have fixed upon three sorts; "_personal, relative_, and _adjective_;" with a subdivision of the last. Of these is Lindley Murray, in his late editions, with his amenders, Ainsworth, Alger, Bacon, Bullions, Fisk, A. Flint, Frost, Guy, Hall, Kirkham, Lennie, Merchant, Picket, Pond, and S. Putnam. (5.) Kirkham, however, changes the order of the classes; thus, "_personal, adjective_, and _relative_;" and, with ridiculous absurdity, makes _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_ to be "_compounds_." (6.) Churchill adopts the plan of "_personal, relative_, and _adjective_ pronouns;" and then destroys it by a valid argument. (7.) Comly, Wilcox, Wells, and Perley, have these three classes; "_personal, relative_, and _interrogative_:" and this division is right. (8.) Sanborn makes the following bull: "The _general_ divisions of pronouns are _into personal, relative, interrogative_, and _several sub-divisions_."--_Analytical Gram._, p. 91. (9.) Jaudon has these three kinds; "_personal, relative_, and _distributive_." (10.) Robbins, these; "_simple, conjunctive_, and _interrogative_." (11.) Lindley Murray, in his early editions, had these four; "_personal, possessive, relative_, and _adjective_." (12.) Bucke has these; "_personal, relative, interrogative_, and _adjective_." (13.) Ingersoll, these; "_personal, adjective, relative_, and _interrogative_." (14.) Buchanan; "_personal, demonstrative, relative_, and _interrogative_." (15.) Coar; "_personal, possessive_ or _pronominal adjectives, demonstrative_, and _relative_." (16.) Bicknell; "_personal, possessive, relative_, and _demonstrative_." (17.) Cobbett; "_personal, relative, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_." (18) M'Culloch; "_personal, possessive, relative_, and _reciprocal_." (19.) Staniford has five; "_personal, relative, interrogative, definitive_, and _distributive_." (20.) Alexander, six; "_personal, relative, demonstrative, interrogative, definitive_, and _adjective_." (21.) Cooper, in 1828, had five; "_personal, relative, possessive, definite_, and _indefinite_." (22.) Cooper, in 1831, six; "_personal, relative, definite, indefinite, possessive_, and _possessive pronominal adjectives_." (23.) Dr. Crombie says: "Pronouns may be divided into _Substantive_, and _Adjective; Personal_, and _Impersonal; Relative_, and _Interrogative_." (24.) Alden has seven sorts; "_personal, possessive, relative, interrogative, distributive, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_." (25.) R. C. Smith has many kinds, and treats them so badly that nobody can count them. In respect to definitions, too, most of these writers are shamefully inaccurate, or deficient. Hence the filling up of their classes is often as bad as the arrangement. For instance, four and twenty of them will have interrogative pronouns to be relatives; but who that knows what a relative pronoun is, can coincide with them in opinion? Dr. Crombie thinks, "that interrogatives are strictly relatives;" and yet divides the two classes with his own hand!

MODIFICATIONS.

Pronouns have the same modifications as nouns; namely, _Persons, Numbers, Genders_, and _Cases_. Definitions universally applicable have already been given of all these things; it is therefore unnecessary to define them again in this place.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--In the personal pronouns, most of these properties are distinguished by the words themselves; in the relative and the interrogative pronouns, they are ascertained chiefly by means of the antecedent and the verb. Interrogative pronouns, however, as well as the relatives _which, what, as_, and all the compounds of _who, which_, and _what_, are always of the third person. Even in etymological parsing, some regard must be had to the syntactical relations of words. By _modifications_, we commonly mean actual changes in the forms of words, by which their grammatical properties are inherently distinguished; but, in all languages, the distinguishable properties of words are somewhat more numerous than their actual variations of form; there being certain principles of universal grammar, which cause the person, number, gender, or case, of some words, to be inferred from their relation to others; or, what is nearly the same thing, from the sense which is conveyed by the sentence. Hence, if in a particular instance it happen, that some, or even all, of these properties, are without any index in the form of the pronoun itself, they are still to be ascribed in parsing, because they may be easily and certainly discovered from the construction. For example: in the following text, it is just as easy to discern the _genders_ of the pronouns, as the _cases_ of the nouns; and both are known and asserted to be what they are, upon principles of mere inference: "For what knowest _thou_, O _wife_, whether _thou_ shalt save _thy husband_? or how knowest _thou_, O _man_, whether _thou_ shalt save _thy wife_?"--_1 Cor._, vii, 16. Again: "_Who_ betrayed _her_ companion? Not _I_."--_Murray's Key_, p. 211. Here _her_ being of the feminine gender, it is the inference of every reader, that _who_ and _I_ are so too; but whether the word _companion_ is masculine or feminine, is not so obvious.

OBS. 2.--The personal pronouns of the first and second persons, are equally applicable to both sexes; and should be considered masculine or feminine, according to the known application of them. [See _Levizac's French Gram._, p. 73.] The speaker and the hearer, being present to each other, of course know the sex to which they respectively belong; and, whenever they appear in narrative or dialogue, we are told who they are. In _Latin_, an adjective or a participle relating to these pronouns, is varied _to agree_ with them in _number, gender_, and _case_. This is a sufficient proof that _ego, I_, and _tu, thou_, are not destitute of gender, though neither the Latin words nor the English are themselves varied to express it:--

"_Miseræ_ hoc tamen unum
Exequere, Anna, _mihi: solam_ nam perfidus ille
_Te_ colere, arcanos etiam tibi credere sensus;
_Sola_ viri molles aditus et tempora nôras."--_Virgil_.

OBS. 3.--Many English grammarians, and Murray at their head, deny the first person of nouns, and the gender of pronouns of the first and second persons; and at the same time teach, that, "Pronouns must always agree with their antecedents, _and_ the nouns for which they stand, in _gender, number_, and _person_:" (_Murray's Gr., 2d Ed._, p. 111; _Rev. T. Smith's_, p. 60:) and further, with redundance of expression, that, "The relative is of the same person _with_ the antecedent, and the verb agrees with it accordingly."--_Same_. These quotations form Murray's fifth rule of syntax, as it stands in his early editions.[196] In some of his revisings, the author erased the word _person_ from the former sentence, and changed _with_ to _as_ in the latter. But other pronouns than relatives, agree with their nouns in person; so that his first alteration was not for the better, though Ingersoll, Kirkham, Alger, Bacon, J. Greenleaf, and some others, have been very careful to follow him in it. And why did he never discern, that the above-named principles of his etymology are both of them contradicted by this rule of his syntax, and one of them by his rule as it now stands? It is manifest, that no two words can possibly _agree_ in any property which belongs not to both. Else what _is_ agreement? Nay, no two things in nature, can in any wise agree, accord, or be alike, but by having some quality or accident in common. How strange a contradiction then is this! And what a compliment to learning, that it is still found in well-nigh all our grammars!

OBS. 4.--If there were truth in what Murray and others affirm, that "Gender has respect only to the third person singular of the pronouns, _he, she, it_," [197] no two words could ever agree in gender; because there can be no such agreement between any two of the words here mentioned, and the assertion is, that gender has respect to no others. But, admitting that neither the author nor the numerous copiers of this false sentence ever meant to deny that gender has respect to _nouns_, they do deny that it has respect to any other _pronouns_ than these; whereas I affirm that it ought to be recognized as a property of _all_ pronouns, as well as of all nouns. Not that the gender of either is in all instances invariably fixed by the _forms_ of the particular words; but there is in general, if not in every possible case, some principle of grammar, on which the gender of any noun or pronoun in a sentence may be readily ascertained. Is it not plain, that if we know who speaks or writes, who hears or is addressed, we know also the gender of the pronouns which are applied to these persons? The poet of The Task looked upon his mother's picture, and expressed his tender recollections of a deceased parent by way of _address_; and will any one pretend, that the pronouns which he applied to himself and to her, are either of the same gender, or of no gender? If we take neither of these assumptions, must we not say, they are of different genders? In this instance, then, let the parser call those of the first person, masculine; and those of the second, feminine:--

"_My_ mother! when _I_ learned that _thou_ wast dead,
Say, wast _thou_ conscious of the tears _I_ shed?"--_Cowper_.

OBS. 5.--That the pronouns of the first and second persons are sometimes masculine and sometimes feminine, is perfectly certain; but whether they can or cannot be neuter, is a question difficult to be decided. To things inanimate they are applied only _figuratively_; and the question is, whether the figure always necessarily changes the gender of the antecedent noun. We assume the general principle, that the noun and its pronoun are always of the same gender; and we know that when inanimate objects are personified in the third person, they are usually represented as masculine or feminine, the gender being changed by the figure. But when a lifeless object is spoken to in the second person, or represented as speaking in the first, as the pronouns here employed are in themselves without distinction of gender, no such change can be proved by the mere words; and, if we allow that it would be needless to _imagine_ it where the words do not prove it, the gender of these pronouns must in such cases be neuter, because we have no ground to think it otherwise. Examples: "And Jesus answered and said unto _it_, [the barren _figtree_,] No man eat fruit of _thee_ hereafter forever."--_Mark_, xi, 14. "O _earth_, cover not _thou_ my blood."--_Job_, xvi, 18. "O _thou sword_ of the Lord, how long will it be ere _thou_ be quiet?"--_Jeremiah_, xlvii, 6. In these instances, the objects addressed do not appear to be figuratively invested with the attribute of sex. So likewise with respect to the first person. If, in the following example, _gold_ and _diamond_ are neuter, so is the pronoun _me_; and, if not neuter, of what gender are they? The personification indicates or discriminates no other.

"Where thy true treasure? Gold says, 'Not in _me_;
And, 'Not in _me_,' the diamond. Gold is poor."--_Young_.

THE DECLENSION OF PRONOUNS.

The declension of a pronoun is a regular arrangement of its numbers and cases.

I. SIMPLE PERSONALS.

The simple personal pronouns are thus declined:--

I, _of the_ FIRST PERSON, _any of the genders_.[198]

Sing. Nom. I, Plur. Nom. we,
Poss. my, _or_ mine,[199] Poss. our, _or_ ours,
Obj. me; Obj. us.

THOU, _of the_ SECOND PERSON, _any of the genders_.

Sing. Nom. thou,[200] Plur. Nom. ye, or you,
Poss. thy, _or_ thine, Poss. your, _or_ yours,
Obj. thee; Obj. you, or ye.[201]

HE, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _masculine gender_.

Sing. Nom. he, Plur. Nom. they,
Poss. his, Poss. their, _or_ theirs,
Obj. him; Obj. them.

SHE, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _feminine gender_.

Sing. Nom. she, Plur. Nom. they,
Poss. her, _or_ hers, Poss. their, _or_ theirs,
Obj. her; Obj. them.

IT, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _neuter gender_.

Sing. Nom, it, Plur. Nom. they,
Poss. its, Poss. their, _or_ theirs,
Obj. it; Obj. them.

II. COMPOUND PERSONALS.

The word _self_, added to the simple personal pronouns, forms the class of _compound personal pronouns_; which are used when an action reverts upon the agent, and also when some persons are to be distinguished from others: as, sing, _myself_, plur. _ourselves_; sing, _thyself_, plur. _yourselves_; sing, _himself_, plur. _themselves_; sing, _herself_, plur. _themselves_; sing, _itself_, plur. _themselves_. They all want the possessive case, and are alike in the nominative and objective. Thus:--

MYSELF, _of the_ FIRST PERSON,[202] _any of the genders_.

Sing. Nom. myself, Plur. Nom. ourselves,
Poss. ------, Poss. ---------,
Obj. myself; Obj. ourselves.

THYSELF, _of the_ SECOND PERSON, _any of the genders_.

Sing. Nom. thyself,[203] Plur. Nom. yourselves,
Poss. -------, Poss. ----------,
Obj. thyself; Obj. yourselves.

HIMSELF, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _masculine gender_.

Sing. Nom. himself, Plur. Nom. themselves,
Poss. -------, Poss. ----------,
Obj. himself; Obj. themselves.

HERSELF, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _feminine gender_.

Sing. Nom. herself, Plur. Nom. themselves,
Poss. -------, Poss. ----------,
Obj. herself; Obj. themselves.

ITSELF, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _neuter gender_.

Sing. Nom. itself, Plur. Nom. themselves,
Poss. ------, Poss. ----------,
Obj. itself; Obj. themselves.

III. RELATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES.

The relative and the interrogative pronouns are thus declined:--

WHO, _literally applied to persons only_.

Sing. Nom. who, Plur. Nom. who,
Poss. whose, Poss. whose,
Obj. whom; Obj. whom.

WHICH, _applied to animals and things_.

Sing. Nom. which, Plur. Nom. which,
Poss. [204]--, Poss. -----,
Obj. which; Obj. which.

WHAT, _applied ordinarily to things only_.[205]

Sing. Nom. what, Plur. Nom. what,
Poss. ----, Poss. ----,
Obj. what; Obj. what.

THAT, _applied to persons, animals, and things_.

Sing. Nom. that, Plur. Nom. that,
Poss. ----, Poss. ----,
Obj. that; Obj. that.

AS, _applied to persons, animals, and things_.

Sing. Nom. as, Plur. Nom. as,
Poss. ----, Poss. ----,
Obj. as; Obj. as.

IV. COMPOUND RELATIVES.

The compound relative pronouns, _whoever_ or _whosoever, whichever_ or _whichsoever_, and _whatever_ or _whatsoever_[206] are declined in the same manner as the simples, _who which, what_. Thus:--

WHOEVER or WHOSOEVER, _applied only to persons_.

Sing. Nom. whoever, Plur. Nom. whoever,
Poss. whosever, Poss. whosever,
Obj. whomever; Obj. whomever.

Sing. Nom. whosoever, Plur. Nom. whosoever,
Poss. whosesoever, Poss. whosesoever,
Obj. whomsoever; Obj. whomsoever.

WHICHEVER or WHICHSOEVER, _applied to persons, animals, and things_.

Sing. Nom. whichever, Plur. Nom. whichever,
Poss. ---------, Poss. --------,
Obj. whichever; Obj. whichever.

Sing. Nom. whichsoever, Plur. Nom. whichsoever,
Poss. ---------, Poss. --------,
Obj. whichsoever; Obj. whichsoever.

WHATEVER or WHATSOEVER, _applied ordinarily to things only_.

Sing. Nom. whatever, Plur. Nom. whatever,
Poss. --------, Poss. --------,
Obj. whatever; Obj. whatever.

Sing. Nom. whatsoever, Plur. Nom. whatsoever,
Poss. ---------, Poss. --------,
Obj. whatsoever; Obj. whatsoever.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--Most of the personal pronouns have two forms of the possessive case, in each number: as, _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours_; _thy_ or _thine, your_ or _yours_; _her_ or _hers, their_ or _theirs_. The former is used before a noun expressed, or when nothing but an adjective intervenes; the latter, when the governing noun is understood, or is so placed that a repetition of it is implied in or after the pronoun: as, "_My_ powers are _thine_; be _thine_ alone The glory of my song."--_Montgomery_. "State what _mine_ and _your_ principles are."--_Legh Richmond, to his Daughters_. Better, perhaps: "State what _my_ principles and _yours_ are;"--"State what _your_ principles and _mine_ are;"--or, "State what are _my_ principles and _your own_."

"Resign'd he fell; superior to the dart
That quench'd its rage in _yours_ and _Britain's_ heart."--_J. Brown_.

"Behold! to _yours_ and _my_ surprise,
These trifles to a volume rise."--_Lloyd_, p. 186.

OBS. 2.--Possibly, when the same persons or things stand in a joint relation of this kind to different individuals or parties, it may be proper to connect two of the simple possessives to express it; though this construction can seldom, if ever, be necessary, because any such expression as _thy and her sister, my and his duty_, if not erroneous, can mean nothing but _your sister, our duty, &c_. But some examples occur, the propriety of which it is worth while to consider: as, "I am sure it will be a pleasure to you to hear that she proves worthy of her father, worthy of you, and of _your and her_ ancestors."--_Spectator_, No. 525. This sentence is from a version of Pliny's letter to his wife's aunt; and, as the ancestors of the two individuals are here the same, the phraseology may be allowable. But had the aunt commended her niece to Pliny, she should have said, "worthy of you and of _your_ ancestors and _hers_." "Is it _her_ or _his_ honour that is tarnished? It is not _hers_, but _his_."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 175. This question I take to be bad English. It ought to be, "Is it _her_ honour or _his_, that is tarnished?" Her honour and his honour cannot be one and the same thing. This example was framed by Murray to illustrate that idle and puzzling distinction which he and some others make between "possessive adjective pronouns" and "the genitive case of the personal pronouns;" and, if I understand him, the author will here have _her_ and _his_ to be of the former class, and _hers_ and _his_ of the latter. It were a better use of time, to learn how to employ such words correctly. Unquestionably, they are of the same class and the same case, and would be every way equivalent, if the first form were fit to be used elliptically. For example: "The same phrenzy had hindered the Dutch from improving to _their_ and to the common advantage the public misfortunes of France."--_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 309. Here the possessive case _their_ appears to be governed by _advantage_ understood, and therefore it would perhaps be better to say, _theirs_, or _their own_. But in the following instance, _our_ may be proper, because both possessives appear to be governed by one and the same noun:--

"Although 'twas _our_ and _their_ opinion
Each other's church was but a Rimmon."--_Hudibras_.

OBS. 3.--_Mine_ and _thine_ were formerly preferred to _my_ and _thy_, before all words beginning with a vowel sound; or rather, _mine_ and _thine_ were the original forms,[207] and _my_ and _thy_ were first substituted for them before consonants, and afterwards before vowels: as, "But it was thou, a man _mine_ equal, _my_ guide, and _mine_ acquaintance."--_Psalms_, lv, 13. "_Thy_ prayers and _thine_ alms are come up for a memorial before God."--_Acts_, x, 4. When the Bible was translated, either form appears to have been used before the letter _h_; as, "Hath not _my hand_ made all these things?"--_Acts_, vii, 50. "By stretching forth _thine hand_ to heal."--_Acts_, iv, 30. According to present practice, _my_ and _thy_ are in general to be preferred before all nouns, without regard to the sounds of letters. The use of the other forms, in the manner here noticed, has now become obsolete; or, at least, antiquated, and peculiar to the poets. We occasionally meet with it in modern verse, though not very frequently, and only where the melody of the line seems to require it: as,

"Time writes no wrinkle on _thine_ azure brow."--_Byron_.

"Deign on the passing world to turn _thine_ eyes."--_Johnson_.

"_Mine_ eyes beheld the messenger divine."--_Lusiad_.

"_Thine_ ardent symphony sublime and high."--_Sir W. Scott_.

OBS. 4.--The possessives _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, usually denote possession, or the relation of property, with an _ellipsis_ of the name of the thing possessed; as, "My sword and _yours_ are kin."--_Shakspeare_. Here _yours_ means _your sword_. "You may imagine what kind of faith _theirs_ was."--_Bacon_. Here _theirs_ means _their faith_. "He ran headlong into his own ruin whilst he endeavoured to precipitate _ours_."--_Bolingbroke_. Here _ours_ means _our ruin_. "Every one that heareth these saying of _mine_."--_Matt._, vii, 26. Here _mine_ means _my sayings_. "Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of _his_."--_Psalms_, xxx, 4. Here _his_ means _his saints_. The noun which governs the possessive, is here _understood_ after it, being inferred from that which precedes, as it is in all the foregoing instances. "And the man of _thine_, whom I shall not cut off from _mine_ altar, shall be to consume _thine_ eyes, and to grieve _thine_ heart."--_1 Samuel_, ii, 33. Here _thine_, in the first phrase, means _thy men_; but, in the subsequent parts of the sentence, both _mine and thine_ mean neither more nor less than _thy_ and _my_, because there is no ellipsis. _Of_ before the possessive case, governs the noun which is understood after this case; and is always taken in a _partitive_ sense, and not as the sign of the possessive relation: as, "When we say, 'a soldier _of the king's_', we mean, '_one of_ the king's _soldiers_.'"--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 29. There is therefore an ellipsis of the word _soldiers_, in the former phrase. So, in the following example, _mine_ is used elliptically for _my feet_; or rather, _feet_ is understood after _mine_, though _mine feet_ is no longer good English, for reasons before stated:--

"Ere I absolve thee, stoop I that on thy neck
Levelled with earth tins _foot of mine_ may tread."--_Wordsworth_.

OBS. 5.--Respecting the _possessive case_ of the simple personal pronouns, there appears among our grammarians a strange diversity of sentiment. Yet is there but one view of the matter, that has in it either truth or reason, consistency or plausibility. And, in the opinion of any judicious teacher, an erroneous classification of words so common and so important as these, may well go far to condemn any system of grammar in which it is found. A pronoun agrees in person, number, and gender, with the noun _for which it is a substitute_; and, if it is in the possessive case, it is usually governed by _an other noun_ expressed or implied after it. That is, if it denotes possession, it stands for the name of the possessor, and is governed by the name of the thing possessed. Now do not _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_, and _mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, all equally denote possession? and do they not severally show by their forms the person, the number, and sometimes also the gender, of whomever or whatever they make to be the possessor? If they do, they are all of them _pronouns_, and nothing else; all found in the _possessive case_, and nowhere else. It is true, that in Latin, Greek, and some other languages, there are not only genitive cases corresponding to these possessives, but also certain declinable adjectives which we render in English by these same words: that is, by _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours; thy_ or _thine, your_ or _yours_; &c. But this circumstance affords no valid argument for considering any of these English terms to be mere adjectives; and, say what we will, it is plain that they have not the signification of adjectives, nor can we ascribe to them the construction of adjectives, without making their grammatical agreement to be what it very manifestly is not. They never agree, in any respect, with the nouns which _follow_ them, unless it be by mere accident. This view of the matter is sustained by the authority of many of our English grammars; as may be seen by the declensions given by Ash, C. Adams, Ainsworth, R. W. Bailey, Barnard, Buchanan, Bicknell, Blair, Burn, Butler, Comly, Churchill, Cobbett, Dalton, Davenport, Dearborn, Farnum, A. Flint, Fowler, Frost, Gilbert, S. S. Green, Greenleaf, Hamlin, Hiley, Kirkham, Merchant, Murray the schoolmaster, Parkhurst, Picket, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R. C. Smith, Wilcox.

OBS. 6.--In opposition to the classification and doctrine adopted above, many of our grammarians teach, that _my, thy, this, her, our, your, their_, are adjectives or "adjective pronouns;" and that _mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, are personal pronouns in the possessive case. Among the supporters of this notion, are D. Adams, Alden, Alger, Allen, Bacon, Barrett, Bingham, Bucke, Bullions, Cutler, Fisk, Frost, (in his small Grammar,) Guy, Hall, Hart, Harrison, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Lennie, Lowth, Miller, L. Murray, Pond, T. Smith, Spear, Spencer, Staniford, Webber, Woodworth. The authority of all these names, however, amounts to little more than that of one man; for Murray pretended to follow Lowth, and nearly all the rest copied Murray. Dr. Lowth says, "_Thy, my, her, our, your, their_, are pronominal adjectives; but _his_, (that is, _he's_,) _her's, our's, your's, their's_, have evidently the form of the possessive case: And, by analogy, _mine, thine_, may be esteemed of the same rank."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 23.[208] But why did he not see, that by the same analogy, and also by the sense and meaning of the words, as well as by their distinctions of person, number, and gender, all the other six are entitled to "the same rank?" Are not the forms of _my, thy, her, our, your, their_, as fit to denote the relation of property, and to be called the possessive case, as _mine, thine, his_, or any others? In grammar, all needless distinctions are reprehensible. And where shall we find a more blamable one than this? It seems to have been based merely upon the false notion, that the possessive case of pronouns ought to be formed like that of nouns; whereas custom has clearly decided that they shall always be different: the former must never be written with an apostrophe; and the latter, never without it. Contrary to all good usage, however, the Doctor here writes "_her's, our's, your's, their's_," each with a needless apostrophe. Perhaps he thought it would serve to strengthen his position; and help to refute what some affirmed, that all these words are adjectives.

OBS. 7.--Respecting _mine, thine_, and _his_, Lowth and L. Murray disagree. The latter will have them to be sometimes "_possessive pronouns_," and sometimes "_possessive cases_." An admirable distinction this for a great author to make! too slippery for even the inventor's own hold, and utterly unintelligible to those who do not know its history! In short, these authors disagree also concerning _my, thy, her, our, your, their_; and where two leaders of a party are at odds with each other, and each is in the wrong, what is to be expected from their followers? Perceiving that Lowth was wrong in calling these words "_pronominal adjectives_," Murray changed the term to "_possessive pronouns_," still retaining the class entire; and accordingly taught, in his early editions, that, "There are _four kinds_ of pronouns, viz., the personal, _the possessive, the_ relative, and _the_ adjective pronouns."--_Murray's Gram._, 2d Edition, p. 37. "The Possessive Pronouns are such as principally relate to possession or property. There are seven of them; viz. _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_. The possessives _his, mine, thine_, may be accounted either _possessive pronouns_, or the _possessive cases_ of their respective personal pronouns."--_Ib._, p. 40. He next idly demonstrates that these seven words may come before nouns of any number or case, without variation; then, forgetting his own distinction, adds, "When they are separated from the noun, all of them, except _his_, vary _their terminations_; as, this hat is _mine_, and the other is _thine_; those trinkets are _hers_; this house is _ours_, and that is _yours; theirs_ is more commodious than _ours_"--_Ib._, p. 40. Thus all his personal pronouns of the possessive case, he then made to be inflections of pronouns of _a different class!_ What are they now? Seek the answer under the head of that gross solecism, "_Adjective Pronouns_." You may find it in one half of our English grammars.

OBS. 8.--Any considerable error in the classing of words, does not stand alone; it naturally brings others in its train. Murray's "_Adjective Pronouns_," (which he now subdivides into four little classes, _possessive, distributive, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_,) being all of them misnamed and misplaced in his etymology, have led both him and many others into strange errors in syntax. The _possessives only_ are "pronouns;" and these are pronouns of the possessive _case_. As such, they agree with the _antecedent_ nouns for which they stand, in _person, number_, and _gender_; and are governed, like all other possessives, by the nouns which follow them. The rest are _not pronouns_, but pronominal _adjectives_; and, as such, they relate to nouns expressed or understood _after them_. Accordingly, they have none of the above-mentioned qualities, except that the words _this_ and _that_ form the plurals _these_ and _those_. Or, if we choose to ascribe to a pronominal adjective all the properties of the noun understood, it is merely for the sake of brevity in parsing. The difference, then, between a "pronominal adjective" and an "adjective pronoun," should seem to be this; that the one is _an adjective_, and the other _a pronoun_: it is like the difference between a _horserace_ and a _racehorse_. What can be hoped from the grammarian who cannot discern it? And what can be made of rules and examples like the following? "Adjective _pronouns_ must agree, in number, with _their substantives_: as, '_This_ book, _these_ books; _that_ sort, _those_ sorts; _another_ road, _other_ roads.'"--_Murray's Gram._, Rule viii, _Late Editions; Alger's Murray_, p. 56; _Alden's, 85; Bacon's, 48; Maltby's, 59; Miller's, 66; Merchant's, 81; S. Putnam's, 10; and others_. "Pronominal _adjectives_ must agree with _their nouns_ in gender, number, and person; thus, '_My son_, hear the instructions of _thy_ father.' 'Call the _labourers_, and give them _their_ hire.'"--_Maunder's Gram._, Rule xvii. Here Murray gives a rule for _pronouns_, and illustrates it by _adjectives_; and Maunder, as ingeniously blunders in reverse: he gives a rule for _adjectives_, and illustrates it by _pronouns_. But what do they mean by "_their substantives_," or "_their nouns_?" As applicable to _pronouns_, the phrase should mean _nouns antecedent_; as applicable to _adjectives_, it should mean _nouns subsequent_. Both these rules are therefore false, and fit only to bewilder; and the examples to both are totally inapplicable. Murray's was once essentially right, but he afterwards corrupted it, and a multitude of his admirers have since copied the perversion. It formerly stood thus: "The pronominal adjectives _this_ and _that, &c_. and the numbers[209] _one, two_, &c., must agree in number with their substantives: as, 'This book, these books; that sort, those sorts; one girl, ten girls; another road, other roads.' "--_Murray's Gram._, Rule viii, 2d Ed., 1796.

OBS. 9.--Among our grammarians, some of considerable note have contended, that the personal pronouns have but _two cases_, the nominative and the objective. Of this class, may be reckoned Brightland, Dr. Johnson, Fisher, Mennye, Cardell, Cooper, Dr. Jas. P. Wilson, W. B. Fowle. and, according to his late grammars, Dr. Webster. But, in contriving what to make of _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours, thy_ or _thine, your_ or _yours, his, her_ or _hers, its_, and _their_ or _theirs_, they are as far from any agreement, or even from self-consistency, as the cleverest of them could ever imagine. To the person, the number, the gender, and the case, of each of these words, they either profess themselves to be total strangers, or else prove themselves so, by the absurdities they teach. Brightland calls them "Possessive Qualities, or Qualities of Possession;" in which class he also embraces all _nouns_ of the possessive case. Johnson calls them pronouns; and then says of them, "The possessive _pronouns_, like _other adjectives_, are without _cases_ or change of termination."--_Gram._, p. 6. Fisher calls them "Personal Possessive Qualities;" admits the person of _my, our_, &c.; but supposes _mine, ours_, &c. to supply the place of the _nouns which govern them!_ Mennye makes them one of his three classes of pronouns, "_personal, possessive_, and _relative_;" giving to both forms the rank which Murray once gave, and which Allen now gives, to the first form only. Cardell places them among his "defining adjectives." With Fowle, these, and all other possessives, are "possessive adjectives." Cooper, in his grammar of 1828. copies the last scheme of Murray: in that of 1831, he avers that the personal pronouns "want the possessive case." Now, like Webster and Wilson, he will have _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, to be pronouns of the nominative or the objective case. Dividing the pronouns into six general classes, he makes these the fifth; calling them "Possessive Pronouns," but preferring in a note the monstrous name, "_Possessive Pronouns Substitute_." His sixth class are what he calls, "The Possessive Pronominal _Adjectives_;" namely, "_my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, its, own_, and sometimes _mine_ and _thine_."--_Cooper's Pl. and Pr. Gram._, p. 43. But all these he has, unquestionably, either misplaced or misnamed; while he tells us, that, "Simplicity of arrangement should be the object of every compiler."--_Ib._, p. 33. Dr. Perley, (in whose scheme of grammar all the pronouns are _nouns_,) will have _my, thy, his, her, its, our, your_, and _their_, to be in the possessive case; but of _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, he says, "These may be called _Desiderative Personal Pronouns_."--_Perley's Gram._, p. 15.

OBS. 10.--Kirkham, though he professes to follow Murray, declines the simple personal pronouns as I have declined them; and argues admirably, that _my, thy, his, &c._, are pronouns of the possessive case, because, "They always _stand for nouns in the possessive case_." But he afterwards contradicts both himself and the common opinion of all former grammarians, in referring _mine, thine, hers_, &c., to the class of "_Compound Personal Pronouns._" Nay, as if to outdo even himself in absurdity, he first makes _mine, thine, hers, ours_, &c., to be compounds, by assuming that, "These _pluralizing adjuncts, ne_ and _s_, were, no doubt, formerly detached from the pronouns with which they now coalesce;" and then, because he finds in each of his supposed compounds the signification of a pronoun and its governing noun, reassumes, in parsing them, the very principle of error, on which he condemns their common classification. He says, "They should be parsed _as two words_." He also supposes them to represent the nouns _which govern them_--nouns with which they do not agree in any respect! Thus is he wrong in almost every thing he says about them. See _Kirkham's Gram._, p. 99, p. 101, and p. 104. Goodenow, too, a still later writer, adopts the major part of all this absurdity. He will have _my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, their_, for the possessive case of his personal pronouns; but _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, he calls "_compound possessive pronouns_, in the subjective or [the] objective case."--_Text-Book of E. Gram._, p. 33. Thus he introduces a new class, unknown to his primary division of the pronouns, and not included in his scheme of their declension. Fuller, too, in a grammar produced at Plymouth, Mass., in 1822, did nearly the same thing. He called _I, thou, he, she_, and _it_, with their plurals, "_antecedent_ pronouns;" took _my, thy, his, her_, &c., for their _only_ possessive forms in his declension; and, having passed from them by the space of just half his book, added: "Sometimes, to prevent the repetition of the same word, an _antecedent pronoun in the possessive case_, is made to represent, both the pronoun and a noun; as, 'That book is _mine_'--i. e. '_my book_.' MINE is a _compound antecedent pronoun_, and is equivalent to _my_ book. Then parse _my_, and _book_, as though they were both expressed."--_Fuller's Gram._, p. 71.