The Grammar of English Grammars Part 51

OBS. 3.--The p.r.o.noun _it_, as it carries in itself no such idea as that of personality, or s.e.x, or life, is chiefly used with reference to things inanimate; yet the word is, in a certain way, applicable to animals, or even to persons; though it does not, in itself, present them as such. Thus we say, "_It_ is _I_;"--"_It_ was _they_;"--"_It_ was _you_;"--"_It_ was your _agent_;"--"_It_ is your _bull_ that has killed one of my oxen." In examples of this kind, the word _it_ is simply demonstrative; meaning, _the thing or subject spoken of_. That subject, whatever it be in itself, may be introduced again after the verb, in any person, number, or gender, that suits it. But, as the verb agrees with the p.r.o.noun _it_, the word which follows, can in no sense be made, as Dr. Priestley will have it to be, the _antecedent_ to that p.r.o.noun. Besides, it is contrary to the nature of what is primarily demonstrative, to represent a preceding word of any kind. The Doctor absurdly says, "Not only things, but persons, may be the _antecedent_ to this p.r.o.noun; as, _Who is it_? _Is it not Thomas_? i. e.

_Who is the person_? _Is not he Thomas?_"--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 85. In these examples, the terms are transposed by interrogation; but that circ.u.mstance, though it may have helped to deceive this author and his copiers, affects not my a.s.sertion.

OBS. 4.--The p.r.o.noun _who_ is usually applied only to persons. Its application to brutes or to things is improper, unless we mean to personify them. But _whose_, the possessive case of this relative, is sometimes used to supply the place of the possessive case, otherwise wanting, to the relative _which_. Examples: "The mutes are those consonants _whose_ sounds cannot be protracted."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 9. "Philosophy, _whose_ end is, to instruct us in the knowledge of nature."--_Ib._, p. 54; _Campbell's Rhet._, 421. "Those adverbs are compared _whose_ primitives are obsolete."--_Adam's Latin Gram._, p. 150. "After a sentence _whose_ sense is complete in itself, a period is used."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 124. "We remember best those things _whose_ parts are methodically disposed, and mutually connected."--_Beattie's Moral Science_, i, 59. "Is there any other doctrine _whose_ followers are punished?"--ADDISON: _Murray's Gram._, p.

54; _Lowth's_, p. 25.

"The question, _whose_ solution I require, Is, what the s.e.x of women most desire."--DRYDEN: _Lowth_, p. 25.

OBS. 5.--Buchanan, as well as Lowth, condemns the foregoing use of _whose_, except in grave poetry: saying, "This manner of _personification_ adds an air of dignity to the higher and more solemn kind of poetry, but it is highly improper in the lower kind, or in prose."--_Buchanan's English Syntax_, p. 73. And, of the last two examples above quoted, he says, "It ought to be _of which_, in both places: i. e. The followers _of which_; the solution _of which_."--_Ib._, p. 73. The truth is, that no personification is here intended. Hence it may be better to avoid, if we can, this use of _whose_, as seeming to imply what we do not mean. But Buchanan himself (stealing the text of an older author) has furnished at least one example as objectionable as any of the foregoing: "Prepositions are naturally placed betwixt the Words _whose_ Relation and Dependence each of them is to express."--_English Syntax_, p. 90; _British Gram._, p. 201. I dislike this construction, and yet sometimes adopt it, for want of another as good. It is too much, to say with Churchill, that "this practice is now discountenanced by all correct writers."--_New Gram._, p. 226. Grammarians would perhaps differ less, if they would read more. Dr. Campbell commends the use of _whose_ for _of which_, as an improvement suggested by good taste, and established by abundant authority. See _Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 420. "WHOSE, the possessive or genitive case of _who_ or _which_; applied to persons or things."--_Webster's Octavo Dict._ "_Whose_ is well authorized by good usage, as the possessive of _which_."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 69. "Nor is any language complete, _whose_ verbs have not tenses."--_Harris's Hermes_.

"--------'Past and future, are the wings On _whose_ support, harmoniously conjoined, Moves the great spirit of human knowledge.'--MS."

_Wordsworth's Preface to his Poems_, p. xviii.

OBS. 6.--The relative _which_, though formerly applied to persons and made equivalent to _who_, is now confined to brute animals and inanimate things.

Thus, "Our Father _which_ art in heaven," is not now reckoned good English; it should be, "Our Father _who_ art in heaven." In this, as well as in many other things, the custom of speech has changed; so that what was once right, is now ungrammatical. The use of _which_ for _who_ is very common in the Bible, and in other books of the seventeenth century; but all good writers now avoid the construction. It occurs seventy-five times in the third chapter of Luke; as, "Joseph, _which_ was the son of Heli, _which_ was the son of Matthat," etc. etc. After a personal term taken by metonymy for a thing, _which_ is not improper; as, "Of the particular _author which_ he is studying."--_Gallaudet_. And as an interrogative or a demonstrative p.r.o.noun or adjective, the word _which_ is still applicable to persons, as formerly; as, "_Which_ of you all?"--"_Which_ man of you all?"--"There arose a reasoning among them, _which_ of them should be the greatest."--_Luke_, ix, 46. "Two fair twins--the puzzled Strangers, _which_ is _which_, inquire."--_Tickell_.

OBS. 7.--If _which_, as a direct relative, is inapplicable to persons, _who_ ought to be preferred to it in all personifications: as,

"The seal is set. Now welcome thou dread power, Nameless, yet thus omnipotent, _which_ here Walk'st in the shadow of the midnight hour."

BYRON: _Childe Harold's Pilgrimage_, Cant, iv, st. 138.

What sort of personage is here imagined and addressed, I will not pretend to say; but it should seem, that _who_ would be more proper than _which_, though less agreeable in sound before the word _here_. In one of his notes on this word, Churchill has fallen into a strange error. He will have _who_ to represent a _horse!_ and that, in such a sense, as would require _which_ and not _who_, even for a person. As he prints the masculine p.r.o.noun in Italics, perhaps he thought, with Murray and Webster, that _which_ must needs be "of the _neuter gender_." [189] He says, "In the following pa.s.sage, _which_ seems to be used _instead_ of _who_:--

'Between two horses, _which_ doth bear him best; I have, perhaps, some shallow spirit of judgment'

SHAKS., 1 Hen. VI."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 226.

OBS. 8.--The p.r.o.noun _what_ is usually applied to things only. It has a twofold relation, and is often used (by ellipsis of the noun) both as antecedent and as relative, in the form of a single word; being equivalent to _that which_, or _the thing which,--those which_, or _the things which_.

In this double relation, _what_ represents two cases at the same time: as, "He is ashamed of _what_ he has done;" that is, "of what [_thing_ or _action_] he has done;"--or, "of _that_ [thing or action] _which_ he has done." Here are two objectives. The two cases are sometimes alike, sometimes different; for either of them may be the nominative, and either, the objective. Examples: "The dread of censure ought not to prevail _over what is_ proper."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. i, p. 252. "The public ear will not easily _bear what is_ slovenly and incorrect."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 12. "He who buys _what_ he does not need, will often need _what_ he cannot buy."--_Student's Manual_, p. 290. "_What_ is just, is honest; and again, _what_ is honest, is just."--_Cicero_. "He that hath an ear, let him hear _what_ the Spirit saith unto the churches."--_Rev._, ii, 7, 11, 17, 29; iii, 6, 13, 22.

OBS. 9.--This p.r.o.noun, _what_, is usually of the singular number, though sometimes plural: as, "I must turn to the faults, or _what appear_ such to me."--_Byron_. "All distortions and mimicries, as such, are _what raise_ aversion instead of pleasure."--_Steele_. "Purified indeed from _what appear_ to be its real defects."--_Wordsworth's Pref._, p. xix. "Every single impression, made even by the same object, is distinguishable from _what_ have gone before, and from _what_ succeed."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. i, p. 107. "Sensible people express no thoughts but _what_ make some figure."--_Ib._, Vol. i, p. 399. The following example, which makes _what_ both singular and plural at once, is a manifest solecism: "_What has_ since followed _are_ but natural consequences."--J. C. CALHOUN, _Speech in U. S.

Senate_, March 4, 1850. Here _has_ should be _have_; or else the form should be this: "What has since followed, _is_ but _a_ natural _consequence_."

OBS. 10.--The common import of this remarkable p.r.o.noun, _what_, is, as we see in the foregoing examples, twofold; but some instances occur, in which it does not appear to have this double construction, but to be simply declaratory; and many, in which the word is simply an adjective: as, "_What_ a strange run of luck I have had to-day!"--_Columbian Orator_, p.

293. Here _what_ is a mere adjective; and, in the following examples, a p.r.o.noun indefinite:--

"I tell thee _what_, corporal, I could tear her."--_Shak._

"He knows _what's what_, and that's as high As metaphysic wit can fly."--_Hudibras_.

OBS. 11.--_What_ is sometimes used both as an adjective and as a relative at the same time, and is placed before the noun which it represents; being equivalent to the adjective _any_ or _all_, and the simple relative _who, which_[190] or _that_: as, "_What_ money we had, was taken away." That is, "_All the_ money _that_ we had, was taken away." "_What_ man but enters, dies." That is, "_Any_ man _who_ enters, dies." "It was agreed that _what_ goods were aboard his vessels, should be landed."--_Mickle's India_, p. 89.

"_What_ appearances of worth afterwards succeeded, were drawn from thence."--_Internal Policy of Great Britain_, p. 196. That is, "_All the_ appearances of worth, _which_ afterwards succeeded."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 93. Indeed, this p.r.o.noun does not admit of being construed after a noun, as a simple relative: none but the most illiterate ever seriously use it so. _What_ put for _who_ or _which_, is therefore a ludicrous vulgarism; as, "The aspiring youth _what_ fired the Ephesian dome."--_Jester_. The word used as above, however, does not always preclude the introduction of a personal p.r.o.noun before the subsequent verb; as,[191]

"_What_ G.o.d but enters yon forbidden field, Who yields a.s.sistance, or but wills to yield, Back to the skies with shame _he_ shall be driven, Gash'd with dishonest wounds, the scorn of heaven."--_Pope's Homer_.

OBS. 12.--The compound _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ has the same peculiarities of construction as has the simpler word _what_: as, "Whatever word expresses an affirmation, or a.s.sertion, is a verb; or thus, _Whatever_ word, with a noun or p.r.o.noun before or after it, makes full sense, is a verb."--_Adam's Latin Gram._, p. 78. That is, "_Any_ word _which_ expresses," &c. "We will certainly do _whatsoever_ thing goeth forth out of our own mouth."--_Jeremiah_, xliv, 17. That is--"_any_ thing, or _every_ thing, _which_." "_Whatever_ sounds are difficult in p.r.o.nunciation, are, in the same proportion, harsh and painful to the ear."--_Blair's Rhet._, p.

121; _Murray's Gram._, p. 325. "_Whatsoever_ things were written aforetime, were written for our learning."--_Romans_, xv, 4. In all these examples, the word _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ appears to be used both adjectively and relatively. There are instances, however, in which the relation of this term is not twofold, but simple: as, "_Whatever_ useful or engaging endowments we possess, virtue is requisite in order to their s.h.i.+ning with proper l.u.s.tre."--_English Reader_, p. 23. Here _whatever_ is simply an adjective. "The declarations contained in them [the Scriptures] rest on the authority of G.o.d _himself_; and there can be no appeal from them to any other authority _whatsoever_."--_London Epistle_, 1836. Here _whatsoever_ may be pa.r.s.ed either as an adjective relating to _authority_, or as an emphatic p.r.o.noun in apposition with its noun, like _himself_ in the preceding clause. In this general explanatory sense, _whatsoever_ may be applied to persons as well as to things; as, "I should be sorry if it entered into the imagination _of any person whatsoever_, that I was preferred to all other patrons."--_Duncan's Cicero_, p. 11. Here the word _whomsoever_ might have been used.

OBS. 13.--But there is an other construction to be here explained, in which _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ appears to be a _double relative_, or a term which includes both antecedent and relative; as, "_Whatever_ purifies, fortifies also the heart."--_English Reader_, p. 23. That is. "_All that purifies_--or, _Everything which_ purifies--fortifies also the heart."

"_Whatsoever_ he doeth, shall prosper."--_Psal._, i, 3. That is, "_All that_ he doeth--or, _All the things which he doeth_--shall prosper." This construction, however, may be supposed elliptical. The Latin expression is, "_Omnia quaec.u.mque faciet prosperabuntur_."--_Vulgate_. The Greek is similar: [Greek: "Kai panta hosa an poiaei kateuodothaesetai."]-- _Septuagint_. It is doubtless by some sort of ellipsis which familiarity of use inclines us to overlook, that _what, whatever_, and _whatsoever_, which are essentially adjectives, have become susceptible of this double construction as p.r.o.nouns. But it is questionable what particular ellipsis we ought here to suppose, or whether any; and certainly, we ought always to avoid the supposing of an ellipsis, if we can.[192] Now if we say the meaning is, "Whatsoever _things_ he doeth, shall prosper;" this, though a.n.a.logous to other expressions, does not simplify the construction. If we will have it to be, "Whatsoever _things_ he doeth, _they_ shall prosper;"

the p.r.o.noun _they_ appears to be pleonastic. So is the word _it_, in the text, "_Whatsoever_ he saith unto you, do _it_."--_John_, ii, 5. If we say the full phrase is, "_All things_ whatsoever he doeth, shall prosper;" this presents, to an English ear, a still more obvious pleonasm. It may be, too, _a borrowed idiom_, found nowhere but in translations; as, "_All things whatsoever_ ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."--_Matt._, xxi, 22. From these views, there seems to be some objection to any and every method of parsing the above-mentioned construction as _elliptical_.

The learner may therefore say, in such instances, that _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ is a double relative, including both antecedent and relative; and pa.r.s.e it, first as antecedent, in connexion with the latter verb, and then as relative, in connexion with the former. But let him observe that the order of the verbs may be the reverse of the foregoing; as, "Ye are my friends, if ye _do_ whatsoever I _command_ you."--_John_, xv, 14. That is, according to the Greek, "If ye do whatsoever I command _to_ you;" Though it would be better English to say, "If ye do whatsoever I command you _to do_." In the following example, however, it seems proper to recognize an ellipsis; nay, the omissions in the construction of the last line, are as many as three or four;--

"Expatiate with glad step, and choose at will Whate'er bright spoils the florid earth contains, Whate'er the waters, or the liquid air."--_Akenside_.

OBS. 14.--As the simple word _who_ differs from _which_ and _what_, in being always a declinable p.r.o.noun; so its compounds differ from theirs, in being incapable of either of the double constructions above described. Yet _whoever_ and _whoso_ or _whosoever_, as well as _whichever_ and _whichsoever, whatever_ and _whatsoever_, derive, from the affix which is added, or from the peculiarity of their syntax, an unlimited signification--or a signification which is limited only by the following verb; and, as some general term, such as _any person_, or _all persons_, is implied as the antecedent, they are commonly connected with other words as if they stood for two cases at once: as, "_Whoever_ seeks, shall find."

That is, "_Any person who_ seeks, shall find." But as the case of this compound, like that of the simple word _who, whose_, or _whom_, is known and determined by its form, it is necessary, in parsing, to treat this phraseology as being elliptical. The compounds of _who_ do not, therefore, actually stand for two cases, though some grammarians affirm that they do.[193] Example: "The soldiers made proclamation, that they would sell the empire to _whoever_ would purchase it at the highest price."--_Goldsmith's Rome_, p. 231. That is--"to _any man who_ would purchase it." The affix _ever_ or _soever_ becomes unnecessary when the ellipsis is supplied; and this fact, it must be confessed, is a plausible argument against the supposition of an ellipsis. But the supposing of an antecedent understood, is here unavoidable; because the preposition _to_ cannot govern the nominative case, and the word _whoever_ cannot be an objective. And so in all other instances in which the two cases are different: as, "He bids _whoever_ is athirst, to come."--_Jenks's Devotions_, p. 151. "Elizabeth publicly threatened, that she would have the head of _whoever_ had advised it."--HUME: _in Priestley's Gram._, p. 104.

OBS. 15.--If it is necessary in parsing to supply the antecedent to _whoever_ or _whosoever_, when two _different_ cases are represented, it is but a.n.a.logous and reasonable to supply it also when two similar cases occur: as, "_Whoever_ borrows money, _is bound_ in conscience to repay it."--_Paley_. "_Whoever_ is eager to find excuses for vice and folly, _will find_ his own backwardness to practise them much diminished."-- _Chapone_. "_Whoever_ examines his own imperfections, _will cease_ to be fastidious; _whoever_ restrains humour and caprice, _will cease_ to be squeamish."--_Crabb's Synonymes_. In all these examples, we have the word in the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. And here it is most commonly found. It is always of the third person; and, though its number _may_ be plural; its gender, feminine; its case, possessive or objective; we do not often use it in any of these ways. In some instances, the latter verb is attended with an other p.r.o.noun, which represents the same person or persons; as, "And _whosoever_ will, let _him_ take of the water of life freely."--_Rev._, xxii, 17. The case of this compound relative always depends upon what follows it, and not upon what precedes; as, "Or ask of _whomsoever_ he has taught."--_Cowper_. That is--"of _any person whom_ he has taught." In the following text, we have the possessive plural: "_Whosesoever_ sins ye remit, they are remitted unto _them_."--_John_, xx, 23. That is, "_Whatever persons'_ sins."

OBS. 16.--In such phraseology as the following, there is a stiffness which ought to be avoided: "For _whomever_ G.o.d loves, he loves _them_ in Christ, and no otherways."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. iii, p. 215. Better: "For _all whom_ G.o.d loves, he loves in Christ, and no _otherwise_." "When the Father draws, _whomever_ he draws, may come."--_Penington_. Better: "When the Father draws, _all whom_ he draws, (or, _every one whom_ he draws.) may come." A modern critic of immense promise cites the following clause as being found in the Bible: "But he loveth _whomsoever_ followeth after righteousness."--_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p. 72. It is lamentable to see the unfaithfulness of this gentleman's quotations. About half of them are spurious; and I am confident that this one is neither Scripture nor good English. The compound relative, being the subject of _followeth_, should be in the nominative case; for the object of the verb _loveth_ is the antecedent _every one_, understood. But the idea may be better expressed, without any ellipsis, thus: "He loveth _every one who_ followeth after righteousness." The following example from the same hand is also wrong, and the author's rule and reasoning connected with it, are utterly fallacious: "I will give the reward to _whomsoever_ will apprehend the rogue."--_Ib._, p. 256. Much better say, "_to any one who_;" but, if you choose the compound word, by all a.n.a.logy, and all good authority, it must here be _whoever_ or _whosoever_. The shorter compound _whoso_, which occurs very frequently in the Bible, is now almost obsolete in prose, but still sometimes used by the poets. It has the same meaning as _whosoever_, but appears to have been confined to the nominative singular; and _whatso_ is still more rare: as, "_Whoso_ diggeth a pit, shall fall therein."--_Prov._, xxvi, 27.

"Which _whoso_ tastes, can be enslaved no more."--_Cowper_.

"On their intended journey to proceed, And over night _whatso_ thereto did need."--_Hubbard_.

OBS. 17.--The relative _that_ is applied indifferently to persons, to brute animals, and to inanimate things. But the word _that_ is not always a relative p.r.o.noun. It is sometimes a p.r.o.noun, sometimes an adjective, and sometimes a conjunction. I call it not a demonstrative p.r.o.noun and also a relative; because, in the sense in which Murray and others have styled it a "demonstrative adjective _p.r.o.noun_," it is a p.r.o.nominal _adjective_, and it is better to call it so. (1.) It is a _relative p.r.o.noun_ whenever it is equivalent to _who, whom_, or _which_: as, "There is not a _just man_ upon earth, _that_ doeth good, and sinneth not"--_Eccl._, vii, 20. "It was diverse from all the _beasts that_ were before it."--_Dan._, vii, 7. "And he had a _name_ written, _that_ no man knew but he himself."--_Rev._, xix, 12. (2.) It is a _p.r.o.nominal adjective_ whenever it relates to a noun expressed or understood after it: as, "Thus with violence shall _that_ great _city_, Babylon, be thrown down."--_Rev._, xviii, 21. "Behold _that_ [thing] which I have seen."--_Eccl._, v, 18. "And they said, 'What is _that_[194] [matter] to us? See thou to _that_' [matter]."--_Matt._, xxvii, 4. (3.) In its other uses, it is a _conjunction_, and, as such, it most commonly makes what follows it, the purpose, object, or final cause, of what precedes it: as, "I read _that_ I may learn."--_Dr. Adam._ "Ye men of Athens, I perceive _that_ in all things ye are too superst.i.tious."--_St.

Paul._ "Live well, _that_ you may die well."--_Anon._ "Take heed _that_ thou speak not to Jacob."--_Genesis._ "Judge not, _that_ ye be not judged."--_Matthew._

OBS. 18.--The word _that_, or indeed any other word, should never be so used as to leave the part of speech uncertain; as, "For in the day _that_ thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."--_Gen._, ii, 17. Here _that_ seems to be a relative _p.r.o.noun_, representing _day_, in the third person, singular, neuter; yet, in other respects, it seems to be a _conjunction_, because there is nothing to determine its case. Better: "For in the day _on which_ thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." This mongrel construction of the word _that_, were its justification possible, is common enough in our language to be made good English. But it must needs be condemned, because it renders the character of the term ambiguous, and is such a grammatical difficulty as puts the pa.r.s.er at a dead nonplus.

Examples: (1.) "But _at the same time_ THAT men are giving their orders, G.o.d on his part is likewise giving his."--_Rollin's Hist._, ii, 106. Here the phrase, "_at the same time that_," is only equivalent to the adverb _while_; and yet it is incomplete, because it means, "_at the same time at which_," or, "_at the very time at which._" (2.) "The author of this work, _at the same time_ THAT he has endeavoured to avoid a plan, _which may be_ too concise or too extensive, defective in its parts or irregular in the disposition of them, has studied to render his _subject_ sufficiently easy, intelligible, and _comprehensive._"--_Murray's Gram., Introd._, p. 1. This sentence, which is no unfair specimen of its author's original style, needs three corrections: 1. For "_at the same time that_," say _while_: 2. Drop the phrase, "_which may be_," because it is at least useless: 3. For "_subject_," read _treatise_, or _compilation._ You will thus have tolerable diction. Again: (3.) "The participles of active verbs _act upon objects_ and govern them in the objective case, in the same manner _that_ the verbs _do_, from which they are derived. _A participle_ in the nature of an adjective, belongs or refers to _nouns_ or _p.r.o.nouns_ in the same manner _that_ adjectives do; and _when it will admit_ the degrees of comparison, _it is called_ a participial _adjective_."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 38. This is the style of a gentleman of no ordinary pretensions, one who thinks he has produced the best grammar that has ever appeared in our language. To me, however, his work suggests an abundance of questions like these; each of which would palpably involve him in a dilemma: What is here meant by "_objects_," the _words_, or the _things?_ if the former, how are they acted upon? if the latter, how are they governed? If "a _participle_ is called an _adjective_," which is it, an adjective, or a participle? If "_a_ participle refers to _nouns_ or _p.r.o.nouns_," _how many_ of these are required by the relation? When does a _participle_ "admit the degrees of comparison?" How shall we pa.r.s.e the word _that_ in the foregoing sentences?

OBS. 19.--The word _as_, though usually a conjunction or an adverb, has sometimes the construction of a relative p.r.o.noun, especially after _such, so many_, or _as many_; and, whatever the antecedent _noun_ may be, this is the _only fit relative_ to follow any of these terms in a restrictive sense. Examples: "We have been accustomed to repose on its veracity with _such_ humble confidence _as_ suppresses curiosity."--_Johnson's Life of Cowley._ "The malcontents made _such_ demands _as_ none but a tyrant could refuse."--_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, Let. 7. "The Lord added to the church daily _such_ [persons] _as_ should be saved."--_Acts_, ii, 47. "And _as many as_ were ordained to eternal life, believed."--_Acts_, xiii, 48. "_As many as_ I love, I rebuke and chasten."--_Rev._, iii, 19. "Know ye not, that _so many_ of us _as_ were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?"--_Rom._, vi, 3. "For _as many_ of you _as_ have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."--_Gal._, iii, 27. "A syllable is _so many_ letters _as_ are spoken with one motion of the voice."--_Perley's Gram._, p. 8. "The compound tenses are _such as_ cannot be formed without an auxiliary verb."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 91. "Send him _such_ books _as_ will please him."--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 37. "In referring to _such_ a division of the day _as_ is past, we use the imperfect."-- _Murray's Gram._, p. 70. "Participles have _the same_ government _as_ the verbs from which they are derived."--_Ib._, Rule xiv. "Participles have _the same_ government _as_ the verbs _have_ from which they are derived."-- _Sanborn's Gram._, p. 94. In some of these examples, _as_ is in the nominative case, and in others, in the objective; in some, it is of the masculine gender, and in others, it is neuter; in some, it is of the plural number, and in others, it is singular: but in all, it is of the third person; and in all, its person, number, gender, and case, are as obvious as those of any invariable p.r.o.noun can be.

OBS. 20.--Some writers--(the most popular are Webster, Bullions, Wells, and Chandler--) imagine that _as_, in such sentences as the foregoing, can be made a conjunction, and not a p.r.o.noun, if we will allow them to consider the phraseology elliptical. Of the example for which I am indebted to him, Dr.

Webster says, "_As_ must be considered as the nominative to _will please_, or we must suppose an ellipsis of several words: as, 'Send him such books as _the books which_ will please him, or as _those which_ will please him.'"--_Improved Gram._, p. 37. This pretended explanation must be rejected as an absurdity. In either form of it, _two_ nominatives are idly imagined between _as_ and its verb; and, I ask, of what is the first one the subject? If you say, "Of _are_ understood," making the phrase, "such books _as the books are_;" does not _as_ bear the same relation to this new verb _are_, that is found in the p.r.o.noun _who_, when one says, "Tell him _who_ you _are?_" If so, _as_ is a p.r.o.noun still; so that, thus far, you gain nothing. And if you will have the whole explanation to be, "Send him such books _as the books are books which_ will please him;" you multiply words, and finally arrive at nothing, but tautology and nonsense. Wells, not condescending to show his pupils what he would supply after this _as_, thinks it sufficient to say, the word is "followed by an ellipsis of one or more words required to complete the construction; as, 'He was the father of all such as [] handle the harp and organ.'--_Gen._ 4: 21."--_Wells's School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 164; 3d Ed., p. 172.

OBS. 21.--Chandler exhibits the sentence, "_These are not such as are worn_;" and, in parsing it, expounds the words _as_ and _are_, thus; the crotchets being his, not mine: "_as_.... is an _adverb, connecting_ the two sentences in comparing them, [_It is a fault_ of some, that they make _as_ a p.r.o.noun, when, in a comparative sentence, it corresponds with _such_, and is immediately followed by a verb, as in the sentence now given. This is probably done _from an ignorance_ of the real nominative to the verb. The sentence _should stand thus_: 'These (_perhaps_ bonnets) are not such (bonnets) _as_ (those bonnets) are (which are) worn.' Then] _are_ .... is the substantive verb, third person, plural number, indicative mood, present tense, and agrees with the noun _bonnets_, understood."--_Chandler's Common School Gram._, p. 162. All this bears the marks of shallow flippancy. No part of it is accurate. "_Are worn_," which the critic unwarrantably divides by his misplaced curves and uncouth impletions, is a pa.s.sive verb, agreeing with the p.r.o.noun _as_. But the text itself is faulty, being unintelligible through lack of a noun; for, of things that _may be_ "_worn_," there are a thousand different sorts. Is it not ridiculous, for a great grammarian to offer, as a model for parsing, what he himself, "_from an ignorance_ of the real nominative," can only interpret with a "_perhaps?_" But the noun which this author supplies, the meaning which he guesses that he had, he here very improperly stows away within a pair of _crotchets_. Nor is it true, that "the sentence _should stand_" as above exhibited; for the tautological correction not only has the very extreme of awkwardness, but still makes _as_ a p.r.o.noun, a nominative, belonging after _are_: so that the phrase, "_as are worn_," is only enc.u.mbered and perverted by the verbose addition made. So of an other example given by this expounder, in which _as_ is an objective: "He is exactly such a man _as_ I saw."--_Chandler's Com. Sch. Gram._, p. 163. Here _as_ is the object of _saw_. But the author says, "The sentence, however, _should stand_ thus: 'He is exactly such a man _as_ that person _was_ whom I saw.'"--_Ibid._ This inelegant alteration makes _as_ a nominative dependent on _was._

OBS. 22.--The use of _as_ for a relative p.r.o.noun, is almost entirely confined to those connexions in which no other relative would be proper; hence few instances occur, of its absolute equivalence to _who, which_, or _that_, by which to establish its claim to the same rank. Examples like the following, however, go far to prove it, if proof be necessary; because _who_ and _which_ are here employed, where _as_ is certainly now required by all good usage: "It is not only convenient, but absolutely needful, that there be certain meetings at certain places and times, _as_ may best suit the convenience of _such, who_ may be most particularly concerned in them."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 495. "Which, no doubt, will be found obligatory upon all _such, who_ have a sense and feeling of the mind of the Spirit."--_Ib._, i, p. 578. "Condemning or removing _such_ things, _which_ in themselves are evil."--_Ib._, i, p. 511. In these citations, not only are _who_ and _which_ improperly used for _as_, but the _commas_ before them are also improper, because the relatives are intended to be taken in a restrictive sense. "If there be _such that_ walk disorderly now."--_Ib._, i, p. 488. Here _that_ ought to be _as_; or else _such_ ought to be _persons_, or _those._ "When such virtues, _as which_ still accompany the truth, are necessarily supposed to be wanting."--_Ib._, i, p. 502. Here _which_, and the comma before _as_, should both be expunged. "I shall raise in their minds the same course of thought _as_ has taken possession of my own."--_Duncan's Logic_, p. 61. "The p.r.o.noun must be in the same case _as_ the antecedent would be _in_, if subst.i.tuted for it."--_Murray's Gram._, p.

181. "The verb must therefore have the same construction _as_ it has in the following sentence."--_Murray's Key_, p. 190. Here _as_ is exactly equivalent to the relative _that_, and either may be used with equal propriety. We cannot avoid the conclusion, therefore, that, as the latter word is sometimes a conjunction and sometimes a p.r.o.noun, so is the former.

OBS. 23.--The relatives _that_ and _as_ have this peculiarity; that, unlike _whom_ and _which_, they never follow the word on which their case depends; nor indeed can any simple relative be so placed, except it be governed by a preposition or an infinitive. Thus, it is said, (John, xiii, 29th,) "Buy those things _that_ we have need _of_;" so we may say, "Buy such things _as_ we have need of." But we cannot say, "Buy those things _of that_ we have need;" or, "Buy such things _of as_ we have need." Though we may say, "Buy those things _of which_ we have need," as well as, "Buy those things _which_ we have need _of_;" or, "Admit those persons of whom we have need,"

as well as, "Admit those persons _whom_ we have need _of._" By this it appears that _that_ and _as_ have a closer connexion with their antecedents than the other relatives require: a circ.u.mstance worthy to have been better remembered by some critics. "Again, _that_ and _as_ are used rather differently. When _that_ is used, the verb must be repeated; as, 'Participles _require_ the same government, _that_ their verbs _require_.'--'James _showed_ the same credulity, _that_ his minister _showed_.' But when _as_ is used, the verb generally may, or may not be repeated; as, 'Participles _require_ the same government _as_ their verbs;'

or, '_as_ their verbs _require_.'--'James _showed_ the same credulity as his minister;' or, '_as_ his minister _showed_:' the second nominative _minister_ being pa.r.s.ed as the nominative to the same verb _showed_ understood."--_Nixon's Pa.r.s.er_, p. 140.[195]

OBS. 24.--The terminating of a sentence with a preposition, or other small particle, is in general undignified, though perhaps not otherwise improper.

Hence the above-named inflexibility in the construction of _that_ and _as_, sometimes induces an ellipsis of the governing word designed; and is occasionally attended with some difficulty respecting the choice of our terms. Examples: "The answer is always in the same case _that_ the interrogative word _is_."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 70. Here is a faulty termination; and with it a more faulty ellipsis. In stead of ending the sentence with _is in_, say, "The answer always _agrees in case with_ the interrogative word." Again: "The relative is of the same person _with_ the antecedent."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 101. This sentence is wrong, because the person of the relative is not really _identical with_ the antecedent. "The relative is of the same person _as_ the antecedent."--_Murray's Gram._, p.

154. Here the writer means--"_as_ the antecedent _is of_." "A neuter verb becomes active, when followed by a noun of the same signification _with_ its own."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 127. Here same is wrong, or else the last three words are useless. It would therefore be improper to say--"of _the same_ signification _as_ its own." The expression ought to be--"of a signification _similar to_ its own." "Ode is, _in Greek_, the same _with_ song or hymn."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 396. _Song_ being no Greek word, I cannot think the foregoing expression accurate, though one might say, "Ode is _identical with_ song or hymn." Would it not be better to say, "Ode is the same _as_ song or hymn?" That is, "Ode is, _literally_, the same _thing that_ song or hymn _is_?" "Treatises of philosophy, ought not to be composed in the same style _with_ orations."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 175. Here neither _with_ nor _as_ can be proper; because _orations_ are not _a style_. Expunge _same_; and say--"in the style _of_ orations."

OBS. 25.--Few writers are sufficiently careful in their choice and management of relatives. In the following instance, Murray and others violate a special rule of their own grammars, by using _whom_ for _that_ "after an adjective of the superlative degree:" "Modifying them according to the genius of that tongue, and the established practice of _the best_ speakers and writers _by whom_ it is used."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 1; _Fisk's_, p. 11; _et al._ According to Priestley and himself, the great Compiler is here in an error. The rule is perhaps too stringent; but whoever teaches it, should keep it. If he did not like to say, "_the best_ speakers and writers _that_ it is used _by_;" he ought to have said, "_the best_ speakers and writers _that use it_." Or, rather, he ought to have said _nothing_ after the word "writers;" because the whole relative clause is here weak and useless. Yet how many of the amenders of this grammar have not had perspicacity enough, either to omit the expression, or to correct it according to the author's own rule!

OBS. 26.--Relative p.r.o.nouns are capable of being taken in two very different senses: the one, restrictive of the general idea suggested by the antecedent; the other, _resumptive_ of that idea, in the full import of the term--or, in whatever extent the previous definitives allow. The distinction between these two senses, important as it is, is frequently made to depend solely upon the insertion or the omission of _a comma_.

Thus, if I say, "Men who grasp after riches, are never satisfied;" the relative _who_ is taken restrictively, and I am understood to speak _only of the avaricious_. But, if I say, "Men, who grasp after riches, are never satisfied;" by separating the terms _men_ and _who_, I declare _all men_ to be covetous and unsatisfied. For the former sense, the relative _that_ is preferable to _who_; and I shall presently show why. This example, in the latter form, is found in Sanborn's Grammar, page 142d; but whether the author meant what he says, or not, I doubt. Like many other unskillful writers, he has paid little regard to the above-mentioned distinction; and, in some instances, his meaning cannot have been what his words declare: as, "A prism is a solid, whose sides are all parallelograms."--_a.n.a.lytical Gram._, p. 142. This, as it stands, is no definition of a prism, but an a.s.sertion of two things; that a prism is a solid, and that all the sides of a solid are parallelograms. Erase the comma, and the words will describe the prism as a peculiar kind of solid; because _whose_ will then be taken in the restrictive sense. This sense, however, may be conveyed even with a comma before the relative; as, "Some fict.i.tious histories yet remain, _that_ were composed during the decline of the Roman empire."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 374. This does not suggest that there are no other fict.i.tious histories now extant, than such as were composed during the decline of the Roman empire; but I submit it to the reader, whether the word _which_, if here put for _that_, would not convey this idea.

OBS. 27.--Upon this point, many philologists are open to criticism; and none more so, than the recent author above cited. By his own plain showing, this grammarian has no conception of the difference of meaning, upon which the foregoing distinction is founded. What marvel, then, that he falls into errors, both of doctrine and of practice? But, if no such difference exists, or none that is worthy of a critic's notice; then the error is mine, and it is vain to distinguish between the restrictive and the resumptive sense of relative p.r.o.nouns. For example: "The boy that desires to a.s.sist his companions, deserves respect."--_G. Brown._ "That boy, who desires to a.s.sist his companions, deserves respect."--_D. H. Sanborn._ According to my notion, these two sentences clearly convey two very different meanings; the relative, in the former, being restrictive, but, in the latter, resumptive of the sense of the antecedent. But of the latter example this author says, "The clause, 'who desires to a.s.sist his companions,' with the relative who at its head, _explains or tells what boy deserves respect_; and, like a conjunction, connects this clause to the noun _boy_."--_a.n.a.lytical Gram._, p. 69. He therefore takes it in a restrictive sense, as if this sentence were exactly equivalent to the former. But he adds, "A relative p.r.o.noun is resolvable into a personal p.r.o.noun and a conjunction. The sentence would then read, 'That boy desires to a.s.sist his companions, _and_ he deserves respect.' The relative p.r.o.noun governs the nearer verb, and the antecedent the more distant one."--_Ib._, p. 69. Now, concerning the restrictive relative, this doctrine of equivalence does not hold good; and, besides, the explanation here given, not only contradicts his former declaration of the sense he intended, but, with other seeming contradiction, joins the antecedent to the nearer verb, and the subst.i.tuted p.r.o.noun to the more distant.

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

OBS. 29.--Murray's rule for the punctuation of relatives, (a rule which he chiefly copied from Lowth,) recognizes virtually the distinction which I have made above; but, in a.s.suming that relatives "_generally_" require a comma before them, it erroneously suggests that the resumptive sense is more common than the restrictive. Churchill, on the contrary, as wrongly makes it an essential characteristic of _all_ relatives, "to limit or explain the words to which they refer." See his _New Gram._, p. 74. The fact is, that relatives are so generally restrictive, that not one half of them are thus pointed; though some that do restrict their antecedent, nevertheless admit the point. This may be seen by the first example given us by Murray: "Relative p.r.o.nouns are connective words, and _generally admit_ a comma before them: as, 'He preaches sublimely, who lives a sober, righteous, and pious life.' But when two members, or _phrases_, [say _clauses_,] are closely connected by a relative, restraining the general notion of the antecedent to a particular sense, _the comma should be omitted_: as, '_Self-denial_ is the _sacrifice which_ virtue must make;' 'A _man who_ is of a detracting spirit, will misconstrue the most innocent _words that_ can be put together.' In the latter example, the a.s.sertion is not of 'a man in general,' but of 'a man who is of a detracting spirit;'