The Grammar of English Grammars Part 118

--POPE: _Iliad_, xv, 400.

OBS. 14.--A p.r.o.noun sometimes represents a _phrase_ or a _sentence_; and in this case the p.r.o.noun is always in the third person singular neuter: as, "Surely the Lord is in this place, and I knew _it_ not."--_Gen._, xxviii, 10. "Yet men can go on to vilify or disregard Christianity; _which_ is to talk and act as if they had a demonstration of its falsehood."--_Butler's a.n.a.logy_, p. 269. "When _it_ is asked wherein personal ident.i.ty consists, the answer should be the same as if _it_ were asked, wherein consists similitude or equality."--_Ib._, p. 270. "Also, that the soul be without knowledge, _it_ is not good."--_Prov._, xix, 2. In this last example, the p.r.o.noun is not really necessary. "That the soul be without knowledge, _is_ not good."--_Jenks's Prayers_, p. 144. Sometimes an infinitive verb is taken as an antecedent; as, "He will not be able _to think_, without _which it_ is impertinent _to read_; nor _to act_, without _which it_ is impertinent _to think_."--_Bolingbroke, on History_, p. 103.

OBS. 15.--When a p.r.o.noun follows two words, having a neuter verb between them, and both referring to the same thing, it may represent either of them, but not often with the same meaning: as, 1. "I am the man, who command." Here, _who command_ belongs to the subject _I_, and the meaning is, "I who command, am the man." (The latter expression places the relative nearer to its antecedent, and is therefore preferable.) 2. "I am the man who commands." Here, _who commands_ belongs to the predicate _man_, and the meaning is, "I am the commander." Again: "I perceive thou art a pupil, _who possessest_ good talents."--_Cooper's Pl. and Pract. Gram._, p. 136. Here the construction corresponds not to the perception, which is, of the pupil's talents. Say, therefore, "I perceive thou art a _pupil possessing_ (or, _who possesses_) good talents."

OBS. 16.--After the expletive _it_, which may be employed to introduce a noun or a p.r.o.noun of any person, number, or gender, the above-mentioned distinction is generally disregarded; and the relative is most commonly made to agree with the latter word, especially if this word be of the first or the second person: as, "_It_ is no more _I that do it_."--_Rom._, vii, 20. "For _it_ is not _ye that speak_."--_Matt._, x, 20. The propriety of this construction is questionable. In the following examples, the relative agrees with the _it_, and not with the subsequent nouns: "_It_ is the combined _excellencies_ of all the denominations _that_ gives to her her winning beauty and her powerful charms."--_Bible Society's Report_, 1838, p. 89. "_It_ is _purity and neatness_ of expression _which is_ chiefly to be studied."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 271. "_It_ is _not the difficulty_ of the language, but on the contrary the _simplicity and facility_ of it, _that occasions_ this neglect."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. vi. "_It_ is _a wise head and a good heart that const.i.tutes_ a great man."--_Child's Instructor_, p.

22.

OBS. 17.--The p.r.o.noun _it_ very frequently refers to something mentioned subsequently in the sentence; as, "_It_ is useless _to complain_ of what is irremediable." This p.r.o.noun is a necessary expletive at the commencement of any sentence in which the verb is followed by a phrase or a clause which, by transposition, might be made the subject of the verb; as, "_It is impossible_ _to please every one_."--_W. Allen's Gram._ "_It_ was requisite _that the papers should be_ sent."--_Ib._ The following example is censured by the Rev. Matt. Harrison: "_It is really curious, the course_ which b.a.l.l.s will sometimes take."--_Abernethy's Lectures_. "This awkward expression,"

says the critic, "might have been avoided by saying, 'The course which b.a.l.l.s will sometimes take is really curious.'"--_Harrison, on the English Language_, p. 147. If the construction is objectionable, it may, in this instance, be altered thus: "It is really curious, _to observe_ the course which b.a.l.l.s will sometimes take!" So, it appears, we may avoid a _pleonasm_ by an _addition_. But he finds a worse example: saying, "Again, in an article _from_ the 'New Monthly,' No. 103, we meet with the same form of expression, _but with an aggravated aspect_:--'It is incredible, the number of apothecaries' shops, presenting themselves.' It would be quite as easy to say, 'The number of apothecaries' shops, presenting themselves, is incredible.' "--_Ib._, p. 147. This, too, may take an infinitive, "_to tell_," or "_to behold_;" for there is no more extravagance in doubting one's eyes, than in declaring one's own statement "incredible." But I am not sure that the original form is not allowable. In the following line, we seem to have something like it:

"It curled not Tweed alone, that breeze."--_Sir W. Scott_.

OBS. 18.--_Relative_ and _interrogative_ p.r.o.nouns are placed at or near the beginning of their own clauses; and the learner must observe that, through all their cases, they almost invariably retain this situation in the sentence, and are found before their verbs even when the order of the construction would reverse this arrangement: as, "He _who_ preserves me, to _whom_ I owe my being, _whose_ I am, and _whom_ I serve, is eternal."--_Murray_, p. 159. "He _whom_ you seek."--_Lowth_.

"The good must merit G.o.d's peculiar care; But _who_, but G.o.d, can tell us _who_ they are?"--_Pope_.

OBS. 19.--A _relative_ p.r.o.noun, being the representative of some antecedent word or phrase, derives from this relation its person, number, and gender, but not its case. By taking an other relation of case, it helps to form an other clause; and, by retaining the essential meaning of its antecedent, serves to connect this clause to that in which the antecedent is found. No relative, therefore, can ever be used in an independent simple sentence, or be made the subject of a subjunctive verb, or be put in apposition with any noun or p.r.o.noun; but, like other connectives, this p.r.o.noun belongs at the head of a clause in a compound sentence, and excludes conjunctions, except when two such clauses are to be joined together, as in the following example: "I should be glad, at least, of an easy companion, _who_ may tell me his thoughts, _and_ to _whom_ I may communicate mine."--_Goldsmith's Essays_, p. 196.

OBS. 20.--The two _special_ rules commonly given by the grammarians, for the construction of relatives, are not only unnecessary,[382] but faulty. I shall notice them only to show my reasons for discarding them. With whom they originated, it is difficult to say. Paul's Accidence has them, and if Dean Colet, the supposed writer, did not take them from some earlier author, they must have been first taught by _him_, about the year 1510; and it is certain that they have been copied into almost every grammar published since. The first one is faulty, because, "_When there cometh no nominative case between the relative and the verb, the relative shall_ [not always] _be the nominative case to the verb_;" as may be seen by the following examples: "Many are the works of human industry, _which_ to begin and finish are [say _is_] hardly granted to the same man."--_Dr. Johnson's Adv. to Dict._ "They aim at his removal; _which_ there is reason to fear they will effect."--"_Which_ to avoid, I cut them off."--_Shak., Hen. IV_.

The second rule is faulty, because, "_When there cometh a nominative case between the relative and the verb, the relative shall_ [not always] _be such case as the verb will have after it_;" as may be seen by the following examples: "The author has not advanced any instances, _which_ he does not think _are_ pertinent."--_Murray's Gram._, i, 192. "_Which_ we have reason to think _was_ the case with the Greek and Latin."--_Ib._, 112. "Is this your son, _who_ ye say _was born_ blind?"--_John_, ix, 19. The case of the relative cannot be accurately determined by any rules of mere location. It may be nominative to a verb afar off, or it may be objective with a verb immediately following; as, "_Which_ I do not find that there ever _was_."--_Knight, on the Greek Alphabet_, p. 31. "And our chief reason for believing _which_ is that our ancestors did so before us."--_Philological Museum_, i, 641. Both these particular rules are useless, because the general rules for the cases, as given in chapter third above, are applicable to relatives, sufficient to all the purpose, and not liable to any exceptions.

OBS. 21.--In syntactical parsing, each word, in general, is to be resolved by some _one_ rule; but the parsing of a p.r.o.noun commonly requires _two_; one for its agreement with the noun or nouns for which it stands, and an other for its case. The rule of agreement will be one of the four which are embraced in this present chapter; and the rule for the case will be one of the seven which compose chapter third. So that the whole syntax of p.r.o.nouns requires the application of eleven different rules, while that of nouns or verbs is embraced in six or seven, and that of any other part of speech, in one only. In respect to their cases, relatives and interrogatives admit of every construction common to nouns, or to the personal p.r.o.nouns, except apposition. This is proved by the following examples:

1. Nominatives by Rule 2d: "I _who_ write;--Thou _who_ writest;--He _who_ writes;--The animal _which_ runs."--_Dr. Adam_. "He _that spareth_ his rod, hateth his son."--_Solomon_. "He _who_ does any thing _which_ he knows is wrong, ventures on dangerous ground."--"_What_ will become of us without religion?"--_Blair_. "Here I determined to wait the hand of death; _which_, I hope, when at last it comes, _will fall_ lightly upon me."--_Dr.

Johnson_. "_What is_ sudden and unaccountable, _serves_ to confound."--_Crabb_. "They only are wise, _who are_ wise to salvation."--_Goodwin_.

2. Nominatives by Rule 6th: (i.e., words pa.r.s.ed as nominatives after the verbs, though mostly transposed:) "_Who_ art thou?"--_Bible_. "_What_ were we?"--_Ib._ "Do not tell them _who_ I am."--"Let him be _who_ he may, he is not the honest fellow _that_ he seemed."--"The general conduct of mankind is neither _what_ it was designed, nor _what_ it ought to be."

3. Nominatives absolute by Rule 8th: "There are certain bounds to imprudence, _which being transgressed_, there remains no place for repentance in the natural course of things."--_Bp. Butler_. "_Which being so_, it need not be any wonder, why I should."--_Walker's Particles, Pref._, p. xiv. "He offered an apology, _which not being admitted_, he became submissive."--_Murray's Key_, p. 202. This construction of the relative is a Latinism, and very seldom used by the best _English_ writers.

4. Possessives by Rule 4th: "The chief man of the island, _whose_ name was Publius."--_Acts_. "Despair, a cruel tyrant, from _whose_ prisons none can escape."--_Dr. Johnson_. "To contemplate on Him _whose_ yoke is easy and _whose_ burden is light."--_Steele_.

5. Objectives by Rule 5th: "Those _whom_ she persuaded."--_Dr. Johnson_.

"The cloak _that_ I left at Troas."--_St. Paul_. "By the things _which_ he suffered."--_Id._ "A man _whom_ there is reason to suspect."--"_What_ are we to do?"--_Burke_. "Love refuses nothing _that_ love sends."--_Gurnall_.

"The first thing, says he, is, to choose some maxim or point of morality; to inculcate _which_, is to be the design of his work."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 421. "_Whomsoever_ you please to appoint."--_Lowth_. "_Whatsover_ [sic--KTH] he doeth, shall prosper."--_Bible_. "_What_ we are afraid to do before men, we should be afraid to think before G.o.d."--_Sibs_. "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing _which_ I do?"--_Gen._, xviii, 32. "Shall I hide from Abraham _what_ I am going to do?"--"Call imperfection _what_ thou fanciest such."--_Pope_.

6. Objectives by Rule 6th: (i.e., p.r.o.nouns pa.r.s.ed as objectives after neuter verbs, though they stand before them:) "He is not the man _that_ I took him to be."--"_Whom_ did you suppose me to be?"--"If the lad ever become _what_ you wish him to be."

7. Objectives by Rule 7th: "To _whom_ shall we go?"--_Bible_. "The laws by _which_ the world is governed, are general."--_Bp. Butler_. "_Whom_ he looks upon as his defender."--_Addison_. "That secret heaviness of heart _which_ unthinking men are subject to."--_Id._ "I cannot but think the loss of such talents as the man of _whom_ I am speaking was master of, a more melancholy instance."--_Steele_. "Grammar is the solid foundation upon _which_ all other science rests."--_Buchanan's Eng. Synt._, p. xx.

OBS. 22.--In familiar language, the relative of the objective case is frequently understood; as, "The man [_whom_] I trust."--_Cowper_. "Here is the letter [_which_] I received." So in the following sentences: "This is the man they hate. These are the goods they bought. Are these the G.o.ds they wors.h.i.+p? Is this the woman you saw?"--_Ash's Gram._, p. 96. This ellipsis seems allowable only in the familiar style. In grave writing, or deliberate discourse, it is much better to express this relative. The omission of it is often attended with some obscurity; as, "The next error [_that_] I shall mention [,] is a capital one."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 157. "It is little [_that_] we know of the divine perfections."--_Scougal_, p. 94. "The faith [_which_] we give to memory, may be thought, on a superficial view, to be resolvable into consciousness, as well as that [_which_] we give to the immediate impressions of sense."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 53. "We speak that [_which_] we do know, and testify that [_which_] we have seen."--_John_, iii, 11. The omission of a relative in the nominative case, is almost always inelegant; as, "This is the worst thing [_that_] could happen."--"There were several things [_which_] brought it upon me."--_Pilgrim's Progress_, p. 162. The latter ellipsis may occur after _but_ or _than_, and it is also sometimes allowed in poetry; as, [There is]

"No person of reflection but [who] must be sensible, that an incident makes a stronger impression on an eye-witness, than when heard at second hand."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 257.

"In this 'tis G.o.d directs, in that 'tis man."--_Pope, on Man_.

"Abuse on all he lov'd, or lov'd him, spread."--_Id., to Arbuthnot_.

"There's nothing blackens like the ink of fools."--_Id., to Augustus_.

OBS. 23.--The _antecedent_ is sometimes suppressed, especially in poetry; as, "Who will, may be a judge."--_Churchill_. "How shall I curse [_him_ or _them_] whom G.o.d hath not cursed?"--_Numbers_, xxiii, 8. "There are, indeed, [some persons] who seem disposed to extend her authority much farther."--_Campbell's Philosophy of Rhet._, p. 187.

[He] "Who lives to nature, rarely can be poor; [He] Who lives to fancy, never can be rich."--_Young_.

"Serious should be an author's final views; [They] Who write for pure amus.e.m.e.nt, ne'er amuse."--_Id._

OBS. 24.--_Which_, as well as _who_, was formerly applied to persons; as, "Our _Father which_ art in heaven."--_Bible_. "Pray for _them which_ despitefully use you."--_Luke_, vi, 28. And, as to the former example here cited, some British critics, still preferring the archaism, have accused "The Americans" of "poor criticism," in that they "have changed _which_ into _who_, as being more consonant to the rules of Grammar." Falsely imagining, that _which_ and _who_, with the same antecedent, can be of different _genders_, they allege, that, "The use of the _neuter_ p.r.o.noun carried with it a certain vagueness and sublimity, not inappropriate in reminding us that our wors.h.i.+p is addressed to a Being, infinite, and superior to all distinctions applicable to material objects."--_Men and Manners in America_: quoted and endorsed by the REV. MATT. HARRISON, in his treatise on the English Language, p. 191. This is all fancy; and, in my opinion, absurd. It is just like the religious prejudice which could discern "a singular propriety" in "the double superlative _most highest_."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 28. But _which_ may still be applied to a young child, if s.e.x and intelligence be disregarded; as, "The _child which_ died." Or even to adults, when they are spoken of without regard to a distinct personality or ident.i.ty; as, "_Which_ of you will go?"--"Crabb knoweth not _which_ is _which_, himself or his parodist."--_Leigh Hunt_.

OBS. 25.--A proper name taken merely as a name, or an appellative taken in any sense not strictly personal, must be represented by _which_, and not by _who_; as, "Herod--_which_ is but an other name for cruelty."--"In every prescription of duty, G.o.d proposeth himself as a rewarder; _which_ he is only to those that please him."--_Dr. J. Owen_. _Which_ would perhaps be more proper than _whom_, in the following pa.s.sage: "They did not destroy the _nations_, concerning _whom_ the Lord commanded them."--_Psalms_, cvi, 34. Dr. Blair has preferred it in the following instance: "My lion and my pillar are sufficiently interpreted by the mention of _Achilles_ and the _minister, which_ I join to them."--_Lectures_, p. 151. He meant, "_whose names I connect with theirs_;" and not, that he joined the _person_ of Achilles to a lion, or that of a minister to a pillar.

OBS. 26.--When two or more relative clauses pertain to the same antecedent, if they are connected by a conjunction, the same relative ought to be employed in each, agreeably to the doctrine of the seventh note below; but if no conjunction is expressed or understood between them, the p.r.o.nouns ought rather to be different; as, "There are many things _that_ you can speak of, _which_ cannot be seen."--_R W. Green's Gram._, p. 11. This distinction is noticed in the fifth chapter of Etymology, Obs. 29th, on the Cla.s.ses of p.r.o.nouns. Dr. Priestley says, "Whatever relative _be_ used, in a _series_ of clauses, relating to the same antecedent, the same ought to be used in them all. 'It is remarkable, that _Holland_, against _which_ the war was undertaken, _and that_, in the very beginning, was reduced to the brink of destruction, lost nothing.'--_Universal History_, Vol. 25, p. 117.

It ought to have been, _and which in the very beginning_."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 102. L. Murray, (as I have shown in the Introduction, Ch. x, -- 22,) a.s.sumes all this, without references; adding as a salvo the word "_generally_," which merely impairs the certainty of the rule:--"the same relative ought _generally_ to be used in them all."--_Octavo Gram._, p.

155. And, of _who_ and _that_, Cobbett says: "Either may do; but both _never_ ought to be relatives of the same antecedent in the same sentence."--_Gram._, -- 202. The inaccuracy of these rules is as great as that of the phraseology which is corrected under them. In the following sentence, the first relative only is restrictive, and consequently the other may be different: "These were the officers _that_ were called _h.o.m.otimoi_, and _who_ signalized themselves afterwards so gloriously upon all occasions."--_Rollin's Hist._, ii, 62. See also in _Rev._, x, 6th, a similar example without the conjunction.

OBS. 27.--In conversation, the possessive p.r.o.noun _your_ is sometimes used in a droll way, being shortened into _your_ in p.r.o.nunciation, and nothing more being meant by it, than might be expressed by the article _an_ or _a_: as, "Rich honesty dwells, like _your_ miser, sir, in a poor house; as, _your_ pearl in _your_ foul oyster."--_Shakspeare_.

NOTES TO RULE X.

NOTE 1.--A p.r.o.noun should not be introduced in connexion with words that belong more properly to the antecedent, or to an other p.r.o.noun; as, "And then there is good use for _Pallas her_ gla.s.s."--_Bacon's Wisdom_, p. 22.

Say--"for _Pallas's_ gla.s.s."

"My _banks they_ are furnish'd with bees, Whose murmur invites one to sleep."--_Shenstone_, p. 284.

This last instance, however, is only an example of _pleonasm_; which is allowable and frequent in _animated discourse_, but inelegant in any other.

Our grammarians have condemned it too positively. It occurs sundry times in the Bible; as, "Know ye that the LORD _he_ is G.o.d."--_Psalms_, c, 3.

NOTE II.--A change of number in the second person, or even a promiscuous use of _ye_ and _you_ in the same case and the same style, is inelegant, and ought to be avoided; as, "_You_ wept, and I for _thee_"--"Harry, said my lord, don't cry; I'll give _you_ something towards _thy_ loss."--_Swift's Poems_, p. 267. "_Ye_ sons of sloth, _you_ offspring of darkness, awake from your sleep."--_Brown's Metaphors_, p. 96. Our poets have very often adopted the former solecism, to accommodate their measure, or to avoid the harshness of the old verb in the second person singular: as, "_Thy_ heart is yet blameless, O fly while _you may_!"--_Queen's Wake_, p. 46.

"Oh! Peggy, Peggy, when _thou_ goest to brew, Consider well what _you're_ about to do."--_King's Poems_, p. 594.

"As in that lov'd Athenian bower, You _learn'd_ an all-commanding power, Thy mimic soul, O nymph endear'd!

Can well recall what then it heard."--_Collins, Ode to Music._

NOTE III.--The relative _who_ is applied only to persons, and to animals or things personified; and _which_, to brute animals and inanimate things spoken of literally: as, "The _judge who_ presided;"--"The old _crab who_ advised the young one;"--"The _horse which_ ran away;"--"The _book which_ was given me."

NOTE IV.--Nouns of mult.i.tude, unless they express persons directly as such, should not be represented by the relative _who_: to say, "The _family whom_ I visited," would hardly be proper; _that_ would here be better. When such nouns are strictly of the neuter gender, _which_ may represent them; as, "The _committees which_ were appointed." But where the idea of rationality is predominant, _who_ or _whom_ seems not to be improper; as, "The conclusion of the Iliad is like the exit of a great man out of _company whom_ he has entertained magnificently."--_Cowper._ "A law is only the expression of the desire of a _mult.i.tude who_ have power to punish."--_Brown's Philosophy of the Mind._

NOTE V.--In general, the p.r.o.noun must so agree with its antecedent as to present the same idea, and never in such a manner as to confound the name with the thing signified, or any two things with each other. Examples: "_Jane_ is in the nominative case, because _it_ leads the sentence."--_Infant School Gram._, p. 30. Here _it_ represents _the word "Jane"_ and not _the person Jane._ "What mark or sign is put after _master_ to show that _he_ is in the possessive case? Spell _it_"--_Ib._, p. 32.

Here _the word "master"_ is most absurdly confounded with _the man_; and that to accommodate grammar to a child's comprehension!

NOTE VI.--The relative _that_ may be applied either to persons or to things. In the following cases, it is more appropriate than _who, whom_, or _which_; and ought to be preferred, unless it be necessary to use a preposition before the relative:--(1.) After an adjective of the superlative degree, when the relative clause is restrictive;[383] as, "He was the _first that_ came."--"He was the _fittest_ person _that_ could then be found."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 422. "The Greeks were the _greatest_ reasoners _that_ ever appeared in the world."--BEATTIE: _Murray's Gram._, p. 127. (2.) After the adjective _same_, when the relative clause is restrictive; as, "He is the _same_ man _that_ you saw before."-- _Priestley's Gram._, p. 101; _Murray's_, 156; _Campbell's Rhet._, 422. (3.) After the antecedent _who_; as, "Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"--_Was.h.i.+ngton._ (4.) After two or more antecedents that demand a relative adapted both to persons and to things; as, "He spoke largely of the _men and things that_ he had seen."--"When some particular _person_ or _thing_ is spoken of, _that_ ought to be more distinctly marked."-- _Murray's Gram._, p. 51. (5.) After an unlimited antecedent which the relative clause is designed to restrict; as, "_Thoughts that_ breathe, and _words that_ burn."--_Gray_. "Music _that accords_ with the present tone of mind, is, on that account, doubly agreeable."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 311. "For Theocritus descends sometimes into _ideas that_ are gross and mean."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 393. (6.) After any antecedent introduced by the expletive _it_; as, "_It_ is _you that_ suffer."--"It was I, and not he, _that_ did it."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 142. "It was not he[384]

_that_ they were so angry with."--_Murray's Exercises_, R. 17. "_It_ was not _Gavius_ alone _that_ Verres meant to insult."--_Blair's Rhet._, p.

325. (7.) And, in general, wherever the propriety of _who_ or _which_ is doubtful; as, "The little _child that_ was placed in the midst."

NOTE VII.--When two or more relative clauses connected by a conjunction have a similar dependence in respect to the antecedent, the same p.r.o.noun must be employed in each; as, "O thou, _who_ art, and _who_ wast, and _who_ art to come!"--"And they shall spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, _whom_ they have loved, and _whom_ they have served, and after _whom_ they have walked, and _whom_ they have sought, and _whom_ they have wors.h.i.+ped."--_Jer._, viii, 2. NOTE VIII.--The relative, and the preposition governing it, should not be omitted, when they are necessary to the sense intended, or to a proper connexion of the parts of the sentence; as, "He is still in the situation you saw him." Better thus: "He is still in the situation in _which_ you saw him."

NOTE IX.--After certain nouns, of time, place, manner, or cause, the conjunctive adverbs _when, where, whither, whence, how_, and _why_, are a sort of special relatives; but no such adverb should be used where a preposition and a relative p.r.o.noun would better express the relation of the terms: as, "A cause _where_ justice is so much concerned." Say, "A cause _in which_." See Etymology, Obs. 6th, 7th, and 8th, on the Cla.s.ses of Adverbs.