which, when comparison is intended, expresses a different degree of the quality or attribute in the things compared: thus, if we compare wood, stone, and iron, with regard to their weight, we would say, "wood is heavy, stone is heavier, and iron is the hcaviest." Each of these forms of the adjective in this comparison expresses a different degree of weight in the things compared : the positive heavy expresses one degree; the comparative heavier, another; and the superlative heaviest, a third; and of these, the first is as essential an element in the comparison as the second or the third. Indeed there never can be comparison without the statement of at least two degrees; and of these, the positive form of the adjective, either expressed or implied, always expresses one. When we say wisdom is more precious than rubies," two degrees of value are compared, the one expressed by the comparative more precious," the other necessarily implied: the meaning is, "rubies are precious, wisdom is more precious." Though, therefore, it is true that the simple form of the adjective does not always, nor even commonly denote comparison; yet as it always does indicate one of the degrees compared whenever comparison exists, it seems proper to rank it with the other forms, as a degree of com parison. This involves no impropriety, it produces no confusion. it leads to no error, it has a positive foundation in the nature of comparison, and it furnishes an appropriate and convenient appellation for this form of the adjective, by which to distinguish it in speech from the other forms.

66

The term pronoun (Lat. pronomen) strictly means a word used for, or instead of a noun. In English, pronouns are usually divided into four general classes, personal, relative, interrogative, and adjective. The first or personal, includes also compound pronouns, which in the nominative are emphatic or definite, and in the objective, reflexive, § 15, Obs. 2. The second or relative (except "that"), without any change of form, becomes interrogative in asking questions, § 17. All the words in these three classes, both in sense and construction, are used as nouns, and instead of

nouns.

XI. THE PRONOUN YOU.

You, the common plural of thou, is now used also to denote one person; but, even when it does so, it always takes a plural verb This usage has become so fixed and uniform, that some eminent grammarians contend for its being regarded as singular. No advantage, however, would be gained by adopting this proposal; and it seems to accord much more with simplicity, as well as with fact, to regard it as a plural which has come by use to be applied in this manner. In certain kinds of writing (243), we is used in the same way; and so also is the corresponding pronoun in French, and

some other modern languages, in which, however, it is always regarded as a plural form.*

XII. AS, NOT A RELATIVE.

The word As, is by some grammarians considered as a relative. That it should not be considered a relative in any circumstances, I think is plain from the following considerations:

1. It has neither the meaning, nor the use of a relative. Its office is simply to connect things compared, and, together with its antecedent word, to express the idea of equality, likeness, &c. between them; thus, "James is as tall as his father." "Your hat

is such as mine."

2. It does not, like a relative, relate to a noun or pronoun before it, called the antecedent, nor stand instead of it, or of any other word, but is related only to the comparative word, as, such, so, etc., in the preceding clause. Thus, in the sentence, "As many as received him," the second as relates to the first, and the two convey the idea of equality. Again, "Send such books as you have." Here, as refers not to books, but to such. Take away such, and as can not be used.

3. As can never be used as a substitute for another relative pronoun, nor another relative pronoun as a substitute for it. If, then, it is a relative pronoun, it is, to say the least, a very unaccommodating one.

66

As

4. In sentences in which as is said to be a relative, it evidently has the same meaning and use as in those in which it is allowed to be only a conjunction. Compare the following examples: many as five men received a reward." "As many as received him." "As many as they can give." In all these, the phrase as many as" means, and is felt to mean, the same thing; equality of number. There surely, then, can be no propriety in calling the second as a conjunction in the first sentence, and a relative in the other two. The same thing will be evident if we change the antecedent word; 66 thus, Such books as these are useful." "Such books as are useful." Such books as you can give."

66

5. If the word as in the preceding sentences and clauses is a relative pronoun, for the same reasons alleged for this, the word than must be a relative in those which follow. The construction is precisely the same: "More than five books were wanted." "More books than are useful." "More books than you can give." Now, if, in the second of these examples, than is not a relative in

"The pronoun you, though originally and properly plural, is now generally applied alike to one person or to more. This usage, however it may seem to involve a solecism, is established by that authority against which the mere gram. marian has scarcely a right to remonstrate. We do not, however, think it neces sary or advisable to encumber the conjugations, as some have done, by introdu. cing this pronoun and the corresponding form of the verb, as singular. It is manifestly better to say that the plural is used for the singular, by the figure enal lage."-Goold Brown, p. 137.

the nominative case before are, nor in the third a relative in the objective case after can give, what need for considering as a relative in the same position, in the same construction, and for the same purpose. to denote comparison? There is the same ellipsis in both, and the same words necessary to be supplied, in the one case, as in the other; thus, "More books than [those which] were wanted." "More books than [those which] are useful," etc. So, "Such books as those which] were wanted." "As many books as [those which] are necessary," etc.

XIII. THE RELATIVE WHAT.

"Various opinions have been entertained about the nature of the relative what. It is said to be a compound relative pronoun, including both the antecedent and the relative, and equivalent to that which, or, the thing which.' Though this may seem plausible, yet we shall find, on examination, that what is nothing more than a relative, and includes nothing else. Compare these two sen

tences:

"I saw whom I wanted to see'

"I saw what I wanted to see.'

"If what, in the latter, is equivalent to that which, or the thing which; whom, in the former, is equivalent to him whom, or the person whom. Who steals my purse steals trash' is equivalent to he who, or the man who.

And on the same principle, when the relative is omitted, the antecedent should be represented as equivalent to the relative and the antecedent. Thus, 'I saw the man I wanted to see.' Here, man should be represented as equivalent to the man whom.

"The cause of the error in respect to what, is, that the antecedent is never expressed with it. It is not like the word who, which is used both when the antecedent is expressed, and when it is omitted. The relative that, however, was formerly used in many cases where we use what, that is, with the antecedent omitted. A few examples of this will help us to ascertain the nature of what: 'We speak that we do know.'-English Bible.'I am that I am.'-Ib.

"Who had been seen imagine mote thereby,

That whylome of Hercules hath been told.'-Spenser. "Eschewe that wicked is.'-Gower.

“Is it possible he should not know what he is, and be that he is.'-Shaks.

"Gather the sequel by that went before.'-Ib.

"In these examples, that is a relative, and is exactly synonymous with what. No one would contend, that that stands for itself and its antecedent at the same time. The antecedent is omitted because it is indefinite, or easily supplied."-Butler's Grammar, p. 48.

These remarks appear to me just and conclusive on this point.

XIV.

ADJECTIVE PRONOUNS.

The fourth class, called adjective pronouns, and sometimes pronominal adjectives, is usually subdivided into possessive, distributive, demonstrative, and indefinite. Of these, the first or possessive are derived from the personal, and in meaning are strictly pronouns, being always the representative or substitute of a noun; but in construction they are adjectives, and are always joined with a noun, and hence are appropriately denominated adjective pronouns, i. e. pronouns used adjectively. By some, they are less appropriately classed with adjectives, and called pronominal adjectives.

In many grammars the possessives my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, their, are set down as the possessive case of the personal pronouns, with mine, thine, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, making two forms of the possessive case; thus, my or mine, thy or thine, etc. In the use of these forms this difference is to be observed, viz. that the first is always followed by a noun denoting the thing possessed; as, this is my book :" the latter never has the noun following it, but seems as it were to include it, as well as to be governed by it; as, "this book is not mine," equivalent to "this book is not my book." The possessive case of the noun is used both ways; as, this is John's book," or, "this book

66

σε

is John's." Which of these methods is adopted in teaching or studying grammar, is a matter of no practical moment: some grammarians adopt the one, and some the other, merely as a matter of taste, without any controversy on the subject. The classification in the text is preferred as being on the whole more simple, because the possessives my, thy, etc., like the adjective, can never stand alone, as the possessive case does, but must be supported by a noun following them; thus, we say, It is the king's;" "It is yours;" but we can not say, It is your," the presence of a noun being necessary to the last expression; and because if these words are ranked as the possessive case of the personal pronoun, it unnecessarily leaves the English language without a class of words corresponding to the possessive pronouns of other languages. They have precisely the same meaning as the Latin Meus, mea, meum; or the French Mon, ma; or the German Mein (or meiner), meine, mein; or the Anglo-Saxon (which is the mother of the English language), Min, mine, min; and they are used in precisely the same way. There seems, therefore, to be no good reason for giving them a different classification. Indeed, the only circumstance which renders it possible to regard them as a possessive case in English, is that like the English adjective they are indeclinable. Had they been declinable, like the Latin or French, etc., they never could have been used as a possessive case.

Some, again, regard my, thy, etc. as the only forms of the possessive case; and mine, thine, etc. not as a possessive case at all, but as a substitute for the possessive case of the pronoun, and the noun referred to, together; and that it is in the nominative or objective cas?

according as the noun referred to would be, in the full expression; thus, "Your book is old, mine is new," is equivalent to “Your book is old, my book is new." Hence it is inferred that mine is not a possessive case, but a substitute for my book, and the nominative to is. This, though plausible, is obviously incorrect. If, instead of the pronoun mine, we substitute a noun, that noun will have to be in the possessive case; thus, "Your book is old, John's is new." The construction in these two sentences being identical, if "John's” is the possessive case, so also is "mine;" and if in the possessive, it can not be the nominative to "is." The mistake lies in considering mine a substitute for my book, whereas it really is a substitute only for my, including such a reference to the word book in the preceding part of the sentence, as renders its repetition in the second part not only unnecessary, but, according to the usage of the language, improper. The difference between the construction of the noun and the pronoun, in such sentences, is simply this: the possessive mine, thine, etc., according to usage, are never used before a noun, but the possessive of the noun is used both before a noun and after it. When it is deemed proper to express the noun after the pronoun, the form mine, etc. must be changed for my, etc. Thus, we can not say, "Mine book," but "My book;" but we can with equal propriety say, "John's book," or, "The book is John's."

66

In the same manner may be explained the use of the possessive after transitive verbs in the active voice, and after prepositions; thus, "James lost his books, and I gave him mine," meaning my books; A picture of the king's," is a picture of (i. e. from) the king's pictures. So, "A book of mine," is a book of [from] my books. "A friend of yours," is a friend of [from] your friends. It is worthy of notice, that though this use of the possessive after of, originally and strictly implies selection, or a part only, it has insensibly come to be used when no such selection is, or even can be, intended. Thus we may say, "That house of yours, "that farm of yours," without intending to imply that any other houses or farms belong to you; and when we say, "That head of yours." selection is obviously excluded by the sense.

The words belonging to the other three divisions, have been found more difficult to arrange in a satisfactory manner. They seem to occupy a sort of middle ground between adjectives and pronouns, and are sometimes used as the one, and sometimes as the other, without the strict and appropriate character of either. They are not adjectives in sense as, already shewn (App. VIII); but they are generally adjectives in construction, having a noun expressed or understood, which they serve to limit or restrict in various ways. On the other hand, with few exceptions, they are so often used without a noun, or as its substitute, that they are not improperly regarded as pronouns, though in a sense less strict than the others; thus, "Let each esteem others better than themselves." "Among men, some are good, others bad, none perfect.' "All things come alike to all," etc.

From this equivocal or rather double character of these words,