Chapter V: Pronouns (3)

OBS. 11.--Amidst all this diversity of doctrine at the very centre of grammar, who shall so fix its principles that our schoolmasters and schoolmistresses may know _what to believe and teach_? Not he that speculates without regard to other men's views; nor yet he that makes it a merit to follow implicitly "the footsteps of" _one only_. The true principles of grammar are with the learned; and that man is in the wrong, with whom the _most_ learned will not, in general, coincide. Contradiction of falsities, is necessary to the maintenance of truth; correction of errors, to the success of science. But not every man's errors can be so considerable as to deserve correction from other hands than his own. Misinstruction in grammar has for this reason generally escaped censure. I do not wish any one to coincide with me merely through ignorance of what others inculcate. If doctors of divinity and doctors of laws will contradict themselves in teaching grammar, so far as they do so, the lovers of consistency will find it necessary to deviate from their track. Respecting these pronouns, I learned in childhood, from Webster, a doctrine which he now declares to be false. This was nearly the same as Lowth's, which is quoted in the sixth observation above. But, in stead of correcting its faults, this zealous reformer has but run into others still greater. Now, with equal reproach to his etymology, his syntax, and his logic, he denies that our pronouns have any form of the possessive case at all. But grant the obvious fact, that _substitution_ is one thing, and _ellipsis_ an other, and his whole argument is easily overthrown; for it is only by confounding these, that he reaches his absurd conclusion.

OBS. 12.--Dr. Webster's doctrine now is, that none of the English pronouns have more than two cases. He says, "_mine, thine, his, hers, yours_, and _theirs_, are _usually considered_ as [being of] the possessive case. But the _three first_ are either attributes, and used with nouns, or they are substitutes. The _three last_ are always substitutes, used in the place of names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD."--"That _mine, thine, his_, [_ours_,] _yours, hers_, and _theirs_, do not constitute a possessive case, is demonstrable; for they are constantly used as the nominatives to verbs and as the objectives after verbs and prepositions, as in the following passages. 'Whether it could perform its operations of thinking and memory out of a body organized as _ours is_.'--_Locke_. 'The reason is, that his subject is generally things; _theirs_, on the contrary, _is_ persons.'--_Camp. Rhet._ 'Therefore leave your forest of beasts for _ours_ of brutes, called men.'--_Wycherley to Pope_. It is needless to multiply proofs. We observe these _pretended possessives_ uniformly used as nominatives or objectives.[210] Should it be said that _a noun is understood_; I reply, _this cannot be true_," &c.--_Philosophical Gram._, p. 35; _Improved Gram._, p. 26. Now, whether it be true or not, this very position is expressly affirmed by the Doctor himself, in the citation above; though he is, unquestionably, wrong in suggesting that the pronouns are "used _in the place_ of [those] names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD." They are used in the place of other names--the names of _the possessors_; and are governed by those which he here both admits and denies to be "understood."

OBS. 13.--The other arguments of Dr. Webster against the possessive case of pronouns, may perhaps be more easily answered than some readers imagine. The first is drawn from the fact that conjunctions connect like cases. "Besides, in three passages just quoted, the word _yours_ is joined by a connective _to a name_ in the same case; 'To ensure _yours_ and _their immortality_.' 'The easiest part of _yours_ and _my design_.' '_My sword_ and _yours_ are kin.' Will any person pretend that the connective here joins different cases?"--_Improved Gram._, p. 28; _Philosophical Gram._, p. 36. I answer, No. But it is falsely assumed that _yours_ is here connected by _and_ to _immortality_, to _design_, or to _sword_; because these words are again severally understood after _yours_: or, if otherwise, the two pronouns alone are connected by _and_, so that the proof is rather, that _their_ and _my_ are in the possessive case. The second argument is drawn from the use of the preposition _of_ before the possessive. "For we say correctly, 'an acquaintance _of yours, ours_, or _theirs_'--_of_ being the sign of the possessive; but if the words in themselves are possessives, then there must be two signs of the same case, which is absurd."--_Improved Gram._, p. 28; _Phil. Gr._, 36. I deny that _of_ is here the sign of the possessive, and affirm that it is taken partitively, in all examples of this sort. "I know my sheep, and am known _of mine_," is not of this kind; because _of_ here means _by_--a sense in which the word is antiquated. In recurring afterwards to this argument, the Doctor misquotes the following texts, and avers that they "are evidently meant to include the _whole number_: 'Sing _to_ the Lord, _all_ ye saints of _his_.'--_Ps._ 30, 4. '_He_ that heareth these sayings _of mine_.'--_Matt._ 7."--_Improved Gram._, p. 29; _Phil. Gr._, 38. If he is right about the meaning, however, the passages are mistranslated, as well as misquoted: they ought to be, "Sing _unto_ the Lord, _O ye his Saints_."--"_Every one_ that heareth _these my sayings_." But when a definitive particle precedes the noun, it is very common with us, to introduce the possessive elliptically after it; and what Dr. Wilson means by suggesting that it is erroneous, I know not: "When the preposition _of_ precedes _mine, ours, yours_, &c. the _errour_ lies, not in this, that there are double possessive cases, but in forming an implication of a noun, which the substitute already denotes, together with the persons."--_Essay on Gram._, p. 110.

OBS. 14.--In his Syllabus of English Grammar, Dr. Wilson teaches thus: "_My, our, thy, your, his, her, its, their, whose_, and _whosesoever_ are possessive pronominal _adjectives. Ours, yours, hers_, and _theirs_ are _pronoun substantives_, used either as subjects, or [as] objects; as singulars, or [as] plurals; and are substituted both for [the names of] the possessors, and [for those of the] things possessed. _His, its, whose, mine_, and _thine_, are sometimes used as _such substantives_; but also are at other times _pronominal possessive_ adjectives."--_Wilson's Syllabus_, p. X. Now compare with these three positions, the following three from the same learned author. "In Hebrew, the _adjective_ generally agrees with its noun in gender and number, but _pronouns_ follow the gender of their antecedents, and not of the nouns with which they stand. So in English, _my, thy, his, her, its, our, your_, and _their_, agree with the nouns they represent, in number, gender, and person. But _adjectives_, having no change expressive of number, gender, or case, cannot accord with their nouns."--_Wilson's Essay on Gram._, p. 192. "_Ours, yours, hers_, and _theirs_, are most usually considered possessive cases of personal pronouns; but they are, more probably, possessive substitutes, not adjectives, but _nouns_."--_Ib._, p. 109. "Nor can _mine_ or _thine_, with any more propriety than _ours, yours_, &c. be joined to any noun, as possessive adjectives and possessive cases may."--_Ib._, p. 110. Whoever understands these instructions, cannot but see their inconsistency.

OBS. 15.--Murray argues at some length, without naming his opponents, that the words which he assumes to be such, are really personal pronouns standing rightfully in the possessive case; and that, "they should not, on the slight pretence of their differing from nouns, be dispossessed of the right and privilege, which, from time immemorial they have enjoyed."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 53. Churchill as ably shows, that the corresponding terms, which Lowth calls _pronominal adjectives_, and which Murray and others will have to be _pronouns of no case_, are justly entitled to the same rank. "If _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, be the possessive case; _my, thy, her, our, your, their_, must be the same. Whether we say, 'It is _John's_ book,' or, 'The book is _John's_;' _John's_ is not less the possessive case in one instance, than it is in the other. If we say, 'It is _his_ book,' or, 'The book is _his_;' 'It is _her_ book,' or, 'The book is _hers_;' 'It is _my_ book,' or, 'The book is _mine_;' 'It is _your_ book,' or, 'The book is _yours_;' are not these parallel instances? Custom has established it as a law, that this case of the pronoun shall drop its original termination, for the sake of euphony, when it precedes the noun that governs it; retaining it only where the noun is understood: but this certainly makes no alteration in the nature of the word; so that either _my_ is as much a possessive case as _mine_; or _mine_ and _my_ are equally pronominal adjectives."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 221. "Mr. Murray considers the phrases, '_our desire_,' '_your intention_,' '_their resignation_,' as instances of plural adjectives _agreeing_ with singular nouns; and consequently exceptions to the general (may we not say _universal_?) rule: but if they [the words _our, your, their_,] be, as is attempted to be proved above, the possessive cases of pronouns, no rule is here violated."--_Ib._, p. 224.

OBS. 16.--One strong argument, touching this much-disputed point of grammar, was incidentally noticed in the observations upon antecedents: an adjective cannot give person, number, and gender, to a relative pronoun; because, in our language, adjectives do not possess these qualities; nor indeed in any other, except as they take them by immediate agreement with nouns or pronouns in the same clause. But it is undeniable, that _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_, do sometimes stand as antecedents, and give person, number, and gender to relatives, which head other clauses. For the learner should remember, that, "When a relative pronoun is used, the sentence is divided into two parts; viz. the _antecedent_ sentence, or that which contains the _antecedent_; and the _relative_ sentence, containing the _relative_."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 123. We need not here deny, that Terence's Latin, as quoted in the grammars, "Omnes laudare fortunas _meas, qui_ haberem gnatum tali ingeuio præditum," is quite as intelligible syntax, as can literally be made of it in English--"That all would praise _my_ fortunes, _who had_ a son endued with such a genius." For, whether the Latin be good or not, it affords no argument against us, except that of a supposed analogy; nor does the literality of the version prove, at all points, either the accuracy or the sameness of the construction.

OBS. 17.--Surely, without some imperative reason, we ought not, in English, to resort to such an assumption as is contained in the following Rule: "Sometimes the relative agrees in person with that pronoun substantive, from which the possessive pronoun adjective is derived; as, Pity _my_ condition, _who am_ so destitute. I rejoice at _thy_ lot, _who art_ so fortunate. We lament _his_ fate, _who is_ so unwary. Beware of _her_ cunning, _who is_ so deceitful. Commiserate _our_ condition, _who are_ so poor. Tremble at _your_ negligence, _who are_ so careless. It shall be _their_ property, _who are_ so diligent. We are rejoicing at _thy_ lot, _who hast_ been so fortunate."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 142. In his explanation of the last of these sentences, the author says, "_Who_ is a relative pronoun; in the masculine gender, singular number, second person, and agrees with _thee_, implied in the adjective _thy_. RULE.--Sometimes the relative agrees in person, &c. And it is the nominative to the verb _hast been_. RULE.--When no nominative comes between the relative and the verb, the relative is the nominative to the verb."--_Ib._, p. 143. A pupil of G. Brown's would have said, "_Who_ is a relative pronoun, representing '_thy_,' or the person addressed, in the second person, singular number, and masculine gender; according to the rule which says, 'A pronoun must agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in person, number, and gender:' and is in the nominative case, being the subject of _hast been_; according to the rule which says, 'A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.' Because the meaning is--_who hast been_; that is, _thy lot_, or the lot _of thee, who hast been_."

OBS. 18.--Because the possessive case of a noun or pronoun is usually equivalent in meaning to the preposition _of_ and the objective case, some grammarians, mistaking this equivalence of meaning for sameness of case, have asserted that all our possessives have a double form. Thus Nixon: "When the particle _of_ comes between two substantives signifying different things, it is not to be considered a preposition, but _the sign of the substantive's being in the possessive case_, equally as if the apostrophic _s_ had been affixed to it; as, 'The skill _of Cæsar_,' or _Cæsar's_ skill.'"--_English Parser_, p. 38. "When the apostrophic _s_ is used, the genitive is the former of the two substantives; as, '_John's_ house:' but when the particle _of_ is used, it is the latter; as, 'The house _of John_.'"--_Ib._, p. 46. The work here quoted is adapted to two different grammars; namely, Murray's and Allen's. These the author doubtless conceived to be the best English grammars extant. And it is not a little remarkable, that both of these authors, as well as many others, teach in such a faulty manner, that their intentions upon this point may be matter of dispute. "When Murray, Allen, and others, say, 'we make use of the particle _of_ to express the _relation_ of the genitive,' the ambiguity of their assertion leaves it in doubt whether or not they considered the substantive which is preceded by _of_ and an other substantive, as in the _genitive_ case."--_Nixon's English Parser_, p. 38. Resolving this doubt according to his own fancy, Nixon makes the possessive case of our personal pronouns to be as follows: "_mine_ or _of me, ours_ or _of us; thine_ or _of thee, yours_ or _of you; his_ or _of him, theirs_ or _of them; hers_ or _of her, theirs_ or _of them; its_ or _of it, theirs_ or _of them_."--_English Parser_, p. 43. This doctrine gives us a form of declension that is both complex and deficient. It is therefore more objectionable than almost any of those which are criticised above. The arguments and authorities on which the author rests his position, are not thought likely to gain many converts; for which reason, I dismiss the subject, without citing or answering them.

OBS. 19.--In old books, we sometimes find the word _I_ written for the adverb _ay_, yes: as, "To dye, to sleepe; To sleepe, perchance to dreame; _I_, there's the rub."--_Shakspeare, Old Copies_. The British Grammar, printed in 1784, and the Grammar of Murray the schoolmaster, published some years earlier than Lindley Murray's, say: "We use _I_ as an Answer, in a familiar, careless, or merry Way; as, 'I, I, Sir, I, I;' but to use _ay_, is accounted rude, especially to our Betters." See _Brit. Gram._, p. 198. The age of this rudeness, or incivility, if it ever existed, has long passed away; and the fashion seems to be so changed, that to write or utter _I_ for _ay_, would now in its turn be "accounted _rude_"--the rudeness of ignorance--a false orthography, or a false pronunciation. In the word _ay_, the two sounds of _ah-ee_ are plainly heard; in the sound of _I_, the same elements are more quickly blended. (See a note at the foot of page 162.) When this sound is suddenly repeated, some writers make a new word of it, which must be called an _interjection_: as, "'Pray, answer me a question or two.' '_Ey, ey_, as many as you please, cousin Bridget, an they be not too hard.'"--_Burgh's Speaker_, p. 99. "_Ey, ey_, 'tis so; she's out of her head, poor thing."--_Ib._, p. 100. This is probably a corruption of _ay_, which is often doubled in the same manner: thus,

"_Ay, ay_, Antipholus, look strange, and frown."--_Shakspeare_.

OBS. 20.--The common fashion of address being nowadays altogether in the plural form, the pronouns _thou, thy, thine, thee_, and _thyself_, have become unfamiliar to most people, especially to the vulgar and uneducated. These words are now confined almost exclusively to the writings of the poets, to the language of the Friends, to the Holy Scriptures, and to the solemn services of religion. They are, however, the _only genuine_ representatives of the second person singular, in English; and to displace them from that rank in grammar, or to present _you, your_, and _yours_, as being literally singular, though countenanced by several late writers, is a useless and pernicious innovation. It is sufficient for the information of the learner, and far more consistent with learning and taste, to say, that the plural is fashionably used _for the singular_, by a figure of syntax; for, in all correct usage of this sort, the _verb_ is plural, as well as the pronoun--Dr. Webster's fourteen authorities to the contrary notwithstanding. For, surely, "_You was_" cannot be considered good English, merely because that number of respectable writers have happened, on some particular occasions, to adopt the phrase; and even if we must needs concede this point, and grant to the Doctor and his converts, that "_You was_ is _primitive_ and _correct_," the example no more proves that _you_ is singular, than that _was_ is plural. And what is one singular irregular preterit, compared with all the verbs in the language?

OBS. 21.--In our present authorized version of the Bible, the numbers and cases of the second person are kept remarkably distinct,[211] the pronouns being always used in the following manner: _thou_ for the nominative, _thy_ or _thine_ for the possessive, and _thee_ for the objective, singular; _ye_ for the nominative, _your_ or _yours_ for the possessive, and _you_ for the objective, plural. Yet, before that version was made, fashionable usage had commonly substituted _you_ for _ye_, making the former word nominative as well as objective, and applying it to one hearer as well as to more. And subsequently, as it appears, the religious sect that entertained a scruple about applying _you_ to an individual, fell for the most part into an ungrammatical practice of putting _thee_ for _thou_; making, in like manner, the objective pronoun to be both nominative and objective; or, at least, using it very commonly so in their conversation. Their manner of speaking, however, was not--or, certainly, with the present generation of their successors, _is_ not--as some grammarians represent it to be, that formal and antique phraseology which we call _the solemn style_.[212] They make no more use of the pronoun _ye_, or of the verbal termination _eth_, than do people of fashion; nor do they, in using the pronoun _thou_, or their improper nominative _thee_, ordinarily inflect with _st_ or _est_ the preterits or the auxiliaries of the accompanying verbs, as is done in the solemn style. Indeed, to use the solemn style familiarly, would be, to turn it into burlesque; as when Peter Pindar "_telleth what he troweth._" [213] And let those who think with Murray, that our present version of the Scriptures _is the best standard_ of English grammar,[214] remember that in it they have no warrant for substituting _s_ or _es_ for the old termination _eth_, any more than for ceasing to use the solemn style of the second person familiarly. That version was good in its day, yet it shows but very imperfectly what the English language now is. Can we consistently take for our present standard, a style which does not allow us to use _you_ in the nominative case, or _its_ for the possessive? And again, is not a simplification of the verb as necessary and proper in the familiar use of the second person singular, as in that of the third? This latter question I shall discuss in a future chapter.

OBS. 22.--The use of the pronoun _ye_ in the nominative case, is now mostly confined to the solemn style;[215] but the use of it in the objective, which is disallowed in the solemn style, and nowhere approved by our grammarians, is nevertheless _common_ when no emphasis falls upon the word: as,

"When you're unmarried, never load _ye_
With jewels; they may incommode _ye_."--_Dr. King_, p. 384.

Upon this point, Dr. Lowth observes, "Some writers have used _ye_ as the objective case plural of the pronoun of the second person, very improperly and ungrammatically; [as,]

'The more shame for _ye_; holy men I thought _ye_.' Shak. Hen. VIII.

'But tyrants dread _ye_, lest your just decree
Transfer the pow'r, and set the people free.' Prior.

'His wrath, which one day will destroy _ye_ both.' Milt. P. L. ii. 734.

Milton uses the same manner of expression in a few other places of his Paradise Lost, and more frequently in his [smaller] poems, _It may, perhaps, be allowed in the comic and burlesque style_, which often imitates a vulgar and incorrect pronunciation; but in the serious and solemn style, _no authority is sufficient_ to justify so manifest a solecism."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 22. Churchill copies this remark, and adds; "Dryden has _you_ as the nominative, and _ye_ as the objective, in the same passage:[216]

'What gain _you_, by forbidding it to tease _ye_?
It now can neither trouble _ye_, nor please _ye_.'

Was this from a notion, that _you_ and _ye_, thus employed, were more analogous to _thou_ and _thee_ in the singular number?"--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 25. I answer, No; but, more probably, from a notion, that the two words, being now confessedly equivalent in the one case, might as well be made so in the other: just as the Friends, in using _thee_ for _you_, are carelessly converting the former word into a nominative, to the exclusion of _thou_; because the latter has generally been made so, to the exclusion of _ye_. When the confounding of such distinctions is begun, who knows where it will end? With like ignorance, some writers suppose, that the fashion of using the plural for the singular is a sufficient warrant for putting the singular for the plural: as,

"The joys of love, are they not doubly _thine,
Ye poor!_ whose health, whose spirits ne'er decline?"
--_Southwick's Pleas. of Poverty._

"But, _Neatherds_, go look to the kine,
Their cribs with fresh fodder supply;
The task of compassion be _thine_,
For herbage the pastures deny."--_Perfect's Poems_, p. 5.

OBS. 23.--When used in a burlesque or ludicrous manner, the pronoun _ye_ is sometimes a mere expletive; or, perhaps, intended rather as an objective governed by a preposition understood. But, in such a construction, I see no reason to prefer it to the regular objective _you_; as,

"He'll laugh _ye_, dance _ye_, sing _ye_, vault, look gay,
And ruffle all the ladies in his play."--_King_, p. 574.

Some grammarians, who will have _you_ to be singular as well as plural, ignorantly tell us, that "_ye_ always means more than one." But the fact is, that when _ye_ was in common use, it was as frequently applied to one person as _you_: thus,

"Farewell my doughter lady Margarete,
God wotte full oft it grieued hath my mynde,
That _ye_ should go where we should seldome mete:
Now am I gone, and haue left _you_ behynde."--_Sir T. More_, 1503.

In the following example, _ye_ is used for _thee_, the objective singular; and that by one whose knowledge of the English language, is said to have been unsurpassed:--

"Proud Baronet of Nova Scotia!
The Dean and Spaniard must reproach _ye_."--_Swift_.

So in the story of the Chameleon:--

"'Tis green, 'tis green, Sir, I assure _ye_."--_Merrick_.

Thus we have _ye_ not only for the nominative in both numbers, but at length for the objective in both; _ye_ and _you_ being made everywhere equivalent, by very many writers. Indeed this pronoun has been so frequently used for the objective case, that one may well doubt any grammarian's authority to condemn it in that construction. Yet I cannot but think it ill-chosen in the third line below, though right in the first:--

"_Ye_! who have traced the Pilgrim to the scene
Which is his last, if in your memories dwell
A thought which once was his, if on _ye_ swell
A single recollection, not in vain
He wore his sandal-shoon, and scallop-shell."--_Byron_.

OBS. 24.--The three pronouns of the third person, _he, she_, and _it_, have always formed their plural number after one and the same manner, _they, their_ or _theirs, them_. Or, rather, these plural words, which appear not to be regular derivatives from any of the singulars, have ever been applied alike to them all. But _it_, the neuter pronoun singular, had formerly no variation of cases, and is still alike in the nominative and the objective. The possessive _its_ is of comparatively recent origin. In our common Bible, the word is not found, except by misprint; nor do other writings of the same age contain it. The phrase, _of it_, was often used as an equivalent; as, "And it had three ribs in the mouth _of it_ between the teeth _of it_."--_Dan._, vii, 5. That is--"in _its_ mouth, between _its_ teeth." But, as a possessive case was sometimes necessary, our ancestors used to borrow one; commonly from the masculine, though sometimes from the feminine. This produced what now appears a strange confusion of the genders: as, "_Learning_ hath _his_ infancy, when _it_ is but beginning, and almost childish; then _his_ youth, when _it_ is luxuriant and juvenile; then _his_ strength of years, when _it_ is solid and reduced; and lastly _his_ old age, when _it_ waxeth dry and exhaust."--_Bacon's Essays_, p. 58. "Of beaten work shall the _candlestick_ be made: _his_ shaft, and _his_ branches, _his_ bowls, _his_ knops, and _his_ flowers, shall be of the same."--_Exodus_, xxv, 31. "They came and emptied the _chest_, and took _it_ and carried _it_ to _his_ place again."--_2 Chron._, xxiv, 11. "Look not thou upon the _wine, when_ it is red, when _it_ giveth _his_ colour in the cup, when _it_ moveth _itself_ aright."--_Prov._, xxiii, 31. "The _tree_ is known by _his_ fruit."--_Matt._, xii, 33. "When thou tillest the ground, _it_ shall not henceforth yield unto thee _her_ strength."--_Gen._, iv, 12. "He that pricketh the heart, maketh _it_ to show _her_ knowledge."--_Eccl._, xxii, 19. Shakspeare rarely, if ever, used _its_; and his style is sometimes obscure for the want of it: as,

"There is no _vice_ so simple, but assumes
Some mark of virtue on _his_ outward parts."
--_Merch. of Venice_.

"The name of Cassius honours this corruption,
And _chastisement_ doth therefore hide _his_ head."
--_Jul. Cæs._, Act iv.

OBS. 25.--The possessive case of pronouns should never be written with an apostrophe. A few pronominal adjectives taken substantively receive it; but the construction which it gives them, seems to make them nouns: as, _one's, other's_, and, according to Murray, _former's_ and _latter's_. The real pronouns that end in _s_, as _his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, though true possessives after their kind, have no occasion for this mark, nor does good usage admit it. Churchill, with equal disregard of consistency and authority, gives it to one of them, and denies it to the rest. Referring to the classification of these words as possessives, and of _my, thy, her, our, your, their_, as adjectives, he says: "It seems as if the termination in _s_ had led to the distinction: but no one will contend, that _ours_ is the possessive case of _our_, or _theirs_ of _their_; though _ours, yours, hers_, and _theirs_, are often very improperly spelt with an apostrophe, a fault not always imputable to the printer; while in _it's_, which is unquestionably the possessive case of _it_, the apostrophe, by a strange perverseness, is almost always omitted."--_Churchill Gram._, p. 222. The charge of strange perverseness may, in this instance, I think, be retorted upon the critic; and that, to the fair exculpation of those who choose to conform to the general usage which offends him.

OBS. 26.--Of the compound personal pronouns, this author gives the following account: "_Self_, in the plural _selves_, a noun, is often combined with the personal pronouns, in order to express emphasis, or opposition, or the identity of the subject and [the] object of a verb; and thus forms a pronoun _relative_: as, 'I did it _myself_;' 'he was not _himself_, when he said so;' 'the envious torment _themselves_ more than others.' Formerly _self_ and _selves_ were used simply as nouns, and governed the pronoun, which was kept distinct from _it_ [them] in the possessive case: but since _they_ [the pronoun and the noun] have coalesced into one word, _they_ [the compounds] are used only in the following forms: for the first person, _myself, ourselves_; for the second, _thyself_, or _yourself, yourselves_; for the third, _himself, herself, itself, themselves_: except in the regal style, in which, as generally in the second person, the singular noun is added to the plural pronoun, [making] _ourself_. Each of these is _the same in all three cases._"--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 75. In a note referring to the close of this explanation, he adds: "_Own_ also is often employed with the possessive cases of the personal pronouns by way of emphasis, or opposition; but separately, as an adjective, and not combining with them to form _a relative_: as, 'I did it of _my own_ free will:' 'Did he do it with _his own_ hand?'"--_Ib._, p. 227.

OBS. 27.--The preceding instructions, faulty and ungrammatical as they are, seem to be the best that our writers have furnished upon this point. To detect falsities and blunders, is half the grammarian's duty. The pronouns of which the term _self_ or _selves_ forms a part, are used, not for the connecting of different clauses of a sentence, but for the purpose of emphatic distinction in the sense. In calling them "_relatives_," Churchill is wrong, even by his own showing. They have not the characteristics which he himself ascribes to relatives; but are compound personal pronouns, and nothing else. He is also manifestly wrong in asserting, that they are severally "the same in all three cases." From the very nature of their composition, the possessive case is alike impossible to them all. To express ownership with emphasis or distinction, we employ neither these compounds nor any others; but always use the simple possessives with the separate adjective _own_: as, "With _my own_ eyes,"--"By _thy own_ confession,"--"To _his own_ house,"--"For _her own_ father,"--"By _its own_ weight,"--"To save _our own_ lives,"--"For _your own_ sake,"--"In _their own_ cause."

OBS. 28.--The phrases, _my own, thy own, his own_, and so forth, Dr. Perley, in his little Grammar, has improperly converted by the hyphen into compound words: calling them the possessive forms of _myself, thyself, himself_, and so forth; as if one set of compounds could constitute the possessive case of an other! And again, as if the making of eight new pronouns for two great nations, were as slight a feat, as the inserting of so many hyphens! The word _own_, anciently written _owen_, is an _adjective_; from an old form of the perfect participle of the verb _to owe_; which verb, according to Lowth and others, once signified _to possess_. It is equivalent to _due, proper_, or _peculiar_; and, in its present use as an adjective, it stands nowhere else than between the possessive case and the name of the thing possessed; as, "The Boy's _Own_ Book,"--"Christ's _own_ words,"--"Solomon's _own_ and only son." Dr. Johnson, while he acknowledges the abovementioned derivation, very strangely calls own a noun substantive; and, with not more accuracy, says: "This is a word of no other use than as it is added to the possessive pronouns, _my, thy, his, our, your, their_."--_Quarto Dict., w. Own_. O. B. Peirce, with obvious untruth, says, "_Own_ is used in combination with a name or substitute, and as a part of it, to constitute it emphatic."--_Gram._, p. 63. He writes it separately, but parses it as a part of the possessive noun or pronoun which precedes it!

OBS. 29.--The word _self_ was originally _an adjective_, signifying _same, very_, or _particular_; but, when used alone, it is now generally _a noun_. This may have occasioned the diversity which appears in the formation of the compound personal pronouns. Dr. Johnson, in his great Dictionary, calls _self_ a pronoun; but he explains it as being both adjective and substantive, admitting that, "Its primary signification seems to be that of an adjective."--Again he observes, "_Myself, himself, themselves_, and the rest, may, contrary to the analogy of _my, him, them_, be used as nominatives." _Hisself, itsself_, and _theirselves_, would be more analogical than _himself, itself, themselves_; but custom has rejected the former, and established the latter. When an adjective qualifies the term _self_, the pronouns are written separately in the possessive case; as, _My single self,--My own self,--His own self,--Their own selves_. So, anciently, without an adjective: as, "A man shall have diffused his life, _his self_, and his whole concernments so far, that he can weep his sorrows with an other's eyes."--_South_. "Something valuable for _its self_ without view to anything farther."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 293. "That they would willingly, and of _their selves_ endeavour to keep a perpetual chastity."--_Stat. Ed. VI. in Lowth's Gram._, p. 26. "Why I should either _imploy my self_ in that study or put others upon it."--_Walker's English Particles_, p. xiv. "It is no matter whether you do it by your proctor, or by _your self_."--_Ib._, p. 96. The compound _oneself_ is sometimes written in stead of the phrase _one's self_; but the latter is preferable, and more common. Even _his self_, when written as two words, may possibly be right in some instances; as,

"Scorn'd be the wretch that quits his genial bowl,
His loves, his friendships, ev'n _his self_, resigns;
Perverts the sacred instinct of his soul,
And to a ducat's dirty sphere confines."
--SHENSTONE: _Brit. Poets_, Vol. vii, p. 107.

OBS. 30.--In poetry, and even in some compositions not woven into regular numbers, the simple personal pronouns are not unfrequently used, for brevity's sake, in a reciprocal sense; that is, in stead of the compound personal pronouns, which are the proper reciprocals: as, "Wash _you_, make _you_ clean."--_Isaiah_, i, 16. "I made me great works; I builded _me_ houses; I planted _me_ vineyards; I made _me_ gardens and orchards."--_Ecclesiastes_, ii, 4. "Thou shalt surely clothe _thee_ with them all as with an ornament, and bind them on _thee_ as a bride doeth."--_Isaiah_, xlix, 18. Compare with these the more regular expression: "As a bridegroom decketh _himself_ with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth _herself_ with jewels."--_Isaiah_, lxi, 10. This phraseology is almost always preferable in prose; the other is a poetical license, or peculiarity: as,

"I turn _me_ from the martial roar."--_Scott's L. L._, p. 97.

"Hush _thee_, poor maiden, and be still."--_Ib._, p. 110.

"Firmer he roots _him_ the ruder it blow."--_Ib._, p. 49.

OBS. 31.--To accommodate the writers of verse, the word _ever_ is frequently contracted into _e'er_, pronounced like the monosyllable _air_. An easy extension of this license, gives us similar contractions of all the compound relative pronouns; as, _whoe'er_ or _whosoe'er, whose'er_ or _whosesoe'er, whome'er_ or _whomsoe'er, whiche'er_ or _whichsoe'er, whate'er_ or _whatsoe'er_. The character and properties of these compounds are explained, perhaps sufficiently, in the observations upon the _classes_ of pronouns. Some of them are commonly parsed as representing two cases at once; there being, in fact, an ellipsis of the noun, before or after them: as,

"Each art he prompts, each charm he can create,
_Whate'er_ he gives, _are given_ for you to hate."--_Pope's Dunciad_.

OBS. 32.--For a form of parsing the double relative _what_, or its compound _whatever_ or _whatsoever_, it is the custom of some teachers, to suggest equivalent words, and then proceed to explain these, in lieu of the word in question. This is the method of _Russell's Gram._, p. 99; of _Merchants_, p. 110; of _Kirkham's_, p. 111; of _Gilbert's_, p. 92. But it should be remembered that equivalence of meaning is not sameness of grammatical construction; and, even if the construction be the same, to parse other equivalent words, is not really to parse the text that is given. A good parser, with the liberty to supply obvious ellipses, should know how to explain all good English _as it stands_; and for a teacher to pervert good English into false doctrine, must needs seem the very worst kind of ignorance. What can be more fantastical than the following etymology, or more absurd than the following directions for parsing? "_What_ is compounded of _which that_. These words have been contracted and made to coalesce, a part of the orthography of both being still retained: _what--wh[ich--t]hat_; (_which-that_.) Anciently it appeared in the varying forms, _tha qua, qua tha, qu'tha, quthat, quhat, hwat_, and finally _what_."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 111. This bald pedantry of "_tha qua, qua tha_," was secretly borrowed from the grammatical speculations of William S. Cardell:[217] the "_which-that_" notion contradicts it, and is partly of the borrower's own invention. If _what_ is a compound, it was compounded more than a thousand years ago; and, of course, long before any part of the English language existed as such. King Alfred used it, as he found it, in the Saxon form of _hwæt_. The Scotch afterwards spelled it _quhat_. Our English grammarians have _improperly_ called it a compound; and _Kirkham_, still more absurdly, calls the word _others_ a compound, and _mine, thine, ours, yours_, &e. compounds.[218]

OBS. 33.--According to this gentleman's notion of things, there is, within the little circle of the word _what_, a very curious play of antecedent parts and parts relative--a dodging contra-dance of _which that_ and _that which_, with _things which_, and so forth. Thus: "When _what_ is a _compound relative_ you must always parse it as _two words_; that is, you must parse the antecedent part _as a noun_, and give it case; the relative part you may _analyze_ like any other relative, giving it a case likewise. Example: 'I will try _what_ (that which) can be found in female delicacy.' Here _that_, the antecedent part of _what_, is in the obj. case, governed by the verb 'will try;' _which_, the relative part, is in the nom. case to 'can be found.' 'I have heard _what_ (i.e. _that which_, or _the thing which_) has been alleged.' "--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 111. Here, we sec, the author's "_which-that_" becomes _that which_, or something else. But this is not a full view of his method. The following vile rigmarole is a further sample of that "_New Systematick Order of Parsing_," by virtue of which he so very complacently and successfully sets himself above all other grammarians: "'From _what_ is recorded, he appears, &c.' _What_ is a comp. rel. pron. including both the antecedent and the relative, and is equivalent to _that which_, or the _thing which.--Thing_, the antecedent part of _what_, is a noun, the name of a thing--com. the name of a species--neuter gender, it has no sex--third person, spoken of--sing. number, it implies but one--and in the obj. case, it is the object of the relation expressed by the prep. 'from,' and gov. by it: RULE 31. (Repeat the Rule, and _every other Rule_ to which I refer.) _Which_, the relative part of _what_, is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun--relative, it relates to 'thing' for its antecedent--neut. gender, third person, sing, number, because the antecedent is with which it agrees, according to RULE 14. _Rel. pron_. &c. _Which_ is _in_ the nom. case to the verb 'is recorded,' agreeably to RULE 15. _The relative is the nominative case to the verb, when no nominative comes between it and the verb._"--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 113.

OBS. 34.--The distinction which has been made by Murray and others, between etymological parsing and syntactical--or, between that exercise which simply classifies and describes the words of a sentence, and that which adds to this the principles of their construction--is rejected by Kirkham, and also by Ingersoll, Fuller, Smith, Sanborn, Mack, and some others, it being altogether irreconcilable with their several modes of confounding the two main parts of grammar. If such a distinction is serviceable, the want of it is one of the inherent faults of the schemes which they have adopted. But, since "grammar is the art of speaking and writing with _propriety_" who that really values clearness and accuracy of expression, can think the want of them excusable in _models_ prescribed for the exercise of parsing? And is it not better to maintain the distinction above named, than to interlace our syntactical parsing with broken allusions to the definitions which pertain to etymology? If it is, this new mode of parsing, which Kirkham claims to have invented, and Smith pretends to have got from Germany, whatever boast may be made of it, is essentially defective and very immethodical.[219] This remark applies not merely to the forms above cited, respecting the pronoun _what_, but to the whole method of parsing adopted by the author of "_English Grammar in Familiar Lectures_."

OBS. 35.--The forms of etymological parsing which I have adopted, being designed to train the pupil, in the first place, by a succession of easy steps, to a rapid and accurate description of the several species of words, and a ready habit of fully defining the technical terms employed in such descriptions, will be found to differ more from the forms of syntactical parsing, than do those of perhaps any other grammarian. The definitions, which constitute so large a portion of the former, being omitted as soon as they are thoroughly learned, give place in the latter, to the facts and principles of syntax. Thus have we fullness in the one part, conciseness in the other, order and distinctness in both. The separation of etymology from syntax, however, though judiciously adopted by almost all grammarians, is in itself a mere matter of convenience. No one will pretend that these two parts of grammar are in their nature _totally_ distinct and independent. Hence, though a due regard to method demands the maintenance of this ancient and still usual division of the subject, we not unfrequently, in treating of the classes and modifications of words, exhibit contingently some of the principles of their construction. This, however, is very different from a purposed blending of the two parts, than which nothing can be more unwise.

OBS. 36.--The great peculiarity of the pronoun _what_, or of its compound _whatever_ or _whatsoever_, is a peculiarity of construction, rather than of etymology. Hence, in etymological parsing, it may be sufficient to notice it only as a relative, though the construction be double. It is in fact a relative; but it is one that reverses the order of the antecedent, whenever the noun is inserted with it. But as the noun is usually suppressed, and as the supplying of it is attended with an obvious difficulty, arising from the transposition, we cut the matter short, by declaring the word to have, as it appears to have, a double syntactical relation. Of the foregoing example, therefore--viz., "From _what_ is recorded," &c.,--a pupil of mine, in parsing _etymologically_, would say thus: "_What_ is a relative pronoun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which denotes the subject of a verb." In parsing _syntactically_, he would say thus: "_What_ is a double relative, including both antecedent and relative, being equivalent to _that which_. As _antecedent_, it is of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case; being governed by _from_; according to the rule which says, 'A Noun or a Pronoun made the object of a preposition, is goverved [sic--KTH] by it in the objective case.' Because the meaning is--_from what_. As _relative_, it is of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case; being the subject of _is recorded_; according to the rule which says, 'A Noun or a Pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.' Because the meaning is--_what is recorded_."

OBS. 37.--The word _what_, when uttered independently as a mark of surprise, or as the prelude to an emphatic question which it does not ask, becomes an interjection; and, as such, is to be parsed merely as other interjections are parsed: as, "_What!_ came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?"--_1 Cor._, xiv, 36. "_What!_ know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God?"--_1 Cor._, vi, 19. "But _what!_ is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?"--_2 Kings_, viii, 13. "_What!_ are you so ambitious of a man's good word, who perhaps in an hour's time shall curse himself to the pit of hell?"--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 152.

"_What!_ up and down, carv'd like an apple-tart?"--_Shakspeare_.

"_What!_ can you lull the winged winds asleep?"--_Campbell_.

EXAMPLES FOR PARSING.

PRAXIS V.--ETYMOLOGICAL.

_In the Fifth Praxis, it is required of the pupil--to distinguish and define the different parts of speech, and the classes and modifications of the_ ARTICLES, NOUNS, ADJECTIVES, and PRONOUNS.

_The definitions to be given in the Fifth Praxis, are two for an article, six for a noun, three for an adjective, six for a pronoun, and one for a verb, a participle, an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition, or an interjection. Thus_:--

EXAMPLE PARSED.

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus."--_Rom._, ix, 20.

_Nay_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place, degree, or manner.

_But_ is a conjunction. 1. A conjunction is a word used to connect words or sentences in construction, and to show the dependence of the terms so connected.

_O_ is an interjection. 1. An interjection is a word that is uttered merely to indicate some strong or sudden emotion of the mind.

_Man_ is a common noun, of the second person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The second person is that which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

_Who_ is an interrogative pronoun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. An interrogative pronoun is a pronoun with which a question is asked. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

_Art_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_.

_Thou_ is a personal pronoun, of the second person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person it is. 3. The second person is that which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

_That_ is a relative pronoun, of the second person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 3. The second person is that which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

_Repliest_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_.

_Against_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.

_God_ is a proper noun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and objective case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known, or mentioned. 2. A proper noun is the name of some particular individual, or people, or group. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.

_Shall_ is a verb, auxiliary to _say_, and may be taken with it.

_The_ is the definite article. 1. An article is the word _the, an_, or _a_, which we put before nouns to limit their signification. 2. The definite article is _the_, which denotes some particular thing or things.

_Thing_ is a common noun of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

_Formed_ is a participle. 1. A participle is a word derived from a verb, participating the properties of a verb, and of an adjective or a noun; and is generally formed by adding _ing, d_, or _ed_, to the verb.

_Say_, or _shall say_, is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_.

_To_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.

_Him_ is a personal pronoun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and objective case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person it is. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.

_That_ is a relative pronoun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.