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? Such Ons. 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. impressions, which ought not to be cherished, are a sufficient reason for excluding stories of that kind from the theatro."—Kimes, 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. 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. "Such as 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 sanctificth 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, cach 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. Adams, 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. Seo 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 interroga tive" 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 theso 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, interroga tive, 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 serse 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 : "Misera hoc tamen unum Exequere, Anna, mihi: solum nam perfidus ille 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 carly editions. 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. Elso 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," 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 fixel 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. O3s. 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 bɔ quist?''—Jeremiah, xlvií, 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. 66 "Where thy true treasure? Gold says, 'Not in me;' THE DECLENSION OF PRONOUNS. The declension of a pronoun is a regular arrangement of its numbers and cases. The latter part of this awkward and complex rule was copied from Lowth's Grammar, p. 101. Dr. Ash's rule is, "Pronouns must always agree with the nouns for which they stand, or to which they refer, in Number, person, and gender."—Grammatical Institutes, p. 54. I quote this exactly as it stands in the book: the Italics are his, not mine. Roswell C. Smith appears to be ignorant of the change which Murray made in his fifth rule: for he still publishes as Murray's a principle of concord which the latter rejected as early as 1806: "RULE V. Corresponding with Murray's Grammar, RULE V. Pronouns must agree with the nouns for which they stand, in gender, number, AND PERSON."-Smith's New Gram., p. 130. So Allen Fisk, in his "Murray's English Grammar Simplified," p. 111; Aaron M. Merchant, in his "Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar, Revised, Enlarged and Improved," p. 79; and the Rev. J. G. Cooper, in his "Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar," p. 113; where, from the titles, every reader would expect to find the latest doctrines of Murray, and not what he had so long ago renounced or changed. L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 51; 12mo, 51; 18mo, 22; D. Adams's, 37; Alger's, 21; Bacon's, 19; Fisk's, 20; Kirkham's, 97; Merchant's Murray, 35; Merchant's American Gram., 40; T. H. Miller's Gram., 26; Pond's, 28; S. Putnam's, 22; Russell's, 16; Rev. T. Smith's, 22. 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, any of the genders. * Dr. Crombie, and some others, represent I and thou, with their inflections, as being "masculine and feminine." Lennie, M'Culloch, and others, represent them as being "masculine or feminine." But, if either of them can have an antecedent that is neuter, neither of these views is strictly correct. (See Obs. 5th, above.) Mackintosh says, We use our, your, their, in speaking of a thing or things belonging to plural nouns of any gender."-Essay on English Gram., p. 149. So William Barnes says, "I, thou, we, ye or you, and they, are of all genders."-Philosophical Gram., p. 196. "It is perfectly plain, then, that my and mine are but different forms of the same word, as are a and an. Mine, for the sake of euphony, or from custom, stands for the possessive case without a noun; but must be changed for my when the noun is expressed: and my, for a similar reason, stands before a noun, but must be changed for mine when the noun is dropped. Mine and my, thine and thy, will, therefore, be considered in this book, as different forms of the possessive case from I and Thou. And the same rule will be extended to her and hers, our and ours, your and yours, their and theirs."-Barnard's Analytic Grammar, p. 142. It has long been fashionable, in the ordinary intercourse of the world, to substitute the plural form of this pronoun for the singular through all the cases. Thus, by the figure ENALLAGE, "you are," for instance, is commonly put for "thou art." See Observations 20th and 21st, below; also Figures of Syntax, in Part IV. The original nominative was ye, which is still the only nominative of the solemn style; and the original objective was you, which is still the only objective that our grammarians in general acknowledge. But, whether grammatical or not, ye is now very often used, in a familiar way, for the objective case. (See Observations 22d and 23d, upon the declensions of pronouns.) T. Dilworth gave both cases alike: "Nom. Ye or you;" "Acc. [or Obj.] Ye or you."-His New Guide, p. 98. Latham gives these forms: "Nom. ye or you; Obj. you or ye.' -Elementary Gram., p. 99. Dr. Campbell says, "I am inclined to prefer that use which makes ye invariably the nominative plural of the personal pronoun thou, and you the accusative, when applied to an actual plurality."-Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 174. Professor Fowler touches the case, rather blindly, thus: "Instead of the true nominative YE, we use, with few exceptions, the objective case; as, 'You speak; You two are speaking. In this we substitute one case for another."-Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, § 478. No other grammarian, however, discards you as a nominative of "actual plurality:" and the present casual practice of putting ye in the objective, has prevailed to some extent for at least two centuries: as, "Your change approaches, when all these delights Dr. Young has, in one instance, and with very doubtful propriety, converted this pronoun into the second person, by addressing himself thus: "O thou, myself! abroad our counsels roam And, like ill husbands, take no care at home."-Love of Fame, Sat. II, 1. 271. III. RELATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES. The relative and the interrogative pronouns are thus declined :— WHO, literally applied to persons only. The fashion of using the plural number for the singular, or you for thou, has also substituted yourself for thyself, in common discourse. In poetry, in prayer, in Scripture, and in the familiar language of the Friends, the original compound is still retained; but the poets use either term, according to the gravity or the lightness of their style. But yourself, like the regal comp und ourself, though apparently of the singular number, and always applied to one person only, is, in its very nature, an anomalous and ungrammatical word; for it can neither mean more than one, nor agree with a pronoun or a verb that is singular. Swift indeed wrote: "Conversation is but carving; carve for all, yourself is starving." But he wrote erroneously, and his meaning is doubtful: probably he meant, "To carve for all, is, to starve yourself." The compound personals, when they are nominatives before the verb, are commonly associated with the simple; as, "I myself also am a man."Acts, x, 16. "That thou thyself art a guide."-Rom., ii, 19. "If it stand, as you yourself still do."—Shak speare. "That you yourself are much condemned."-Id. And, if the simple pronoun be omitted, the com pound still requires the same form of the verb; as, "Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell."-Milton. The following example is different: "I love mankind; and in a monarchy myself is all that I can love."—Life of Schiller, Follen's Pref., p. x. Dr. Follen objects to the British version, "Myself were all that I could love:" and, if his own is good English, the verb is agrees with all, and not with myself. Is is of the third person: hence, myself is," or, "yourself is," cannot be good syntax; nor does any one say, "yourself art,” or, “ourself am," but rather, yourself are:" as, "Captain, yourself are the fittest."-Dryden. But to call this a “con cord," is to turn a third part of the language upsidedown; because, by analogy, it confounds, to such extent at least, the plural number with the singular through all our verbs; that is, if ourself and yourself are singulars, and not rather plurals put for singulars by a figure of syntax. But the words are, in some few instances, writ ten separately; and then both the meaning and the construction are different; as, “Your self is sacred, profane it not."-The Dial, Vol. i, p. 86. Perhaps the word myself above ought rather to have been two words; thus, "And, in a monarchy, my self is all that I can love." The two words here differ in person and case, perhaps also in gender; and, in the preceding instance, they differ in person, number, gender, and case. But the compound always follows the person, number, and gender of its first part, and only the case of its last. The notion of some grammarians, (to wit, of Wells, and the sixty-eight others whom he cites for it,) that you and your are actually made singular by usage, is demonstrably untrue. Do we, our, and us, become actually singular, as often as a king or a critic applies them to himself? No: for nothing can be worse syntax than, we am, we was, or you was, though some contend for this last construction. 66 Whose is sometimes used as the possessive case of which; as, “A religion whose origin is divine."—Blair. See Observations 4th and 5th, on the Classes of Pronouns. After but, as in the following sentence, the double relative what is sometimes applied to persons; and it is here equivalent to the friend who: "Lorenzo, pride repress; nor hope to find A friend, but what has found a friend in thee."-Young. |