The Grammar of English Grammars Part 55

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

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

OBS. 24.--The three p.r.o.nouns of the third person, _he, she_, and _it_, have always formed their plural number after one and the same manner, _they, their_ or _theirs, them_. Or, rather, these plural words, which appear not to be regular derivatives from any of the singulars, have ever been applied alike to them all. But _it_, the neuter p.r.o.noun singular, had formerly no variation of cases, and is still alike in the nominative and the objective.

The possessive _its_ is of comparatively recent origin. In our common Bible, the word is not found, except by misprint; nor do other writings of the same age contain it. The phrase, _of it_, was often used as an equivalent; as, "And it had three ribs in the mouth _of it_ between the teeth _of it_."--_Dan._, vii, 5. That is--"in _its_ mouth, between _its_ teeth." But, as a possessive case was sometimes necessary, our ancestors used to borrow one; commonly from the masculine, though sometimes from the feminine. This produced what now appears a strange confusion of the genders: as, "_Learning_ hath _his_ infancy, when _it_ is but beginning, and almost childish; then _his_ youth, when _it_ is luxuriant and juvenile; then _his_ strength of years, when _it_ is solid and reduced; and lastly _his_ old age, when _it_ waxeth dry and exhaust."--_Bacon's Essays_, p. 58.

"Of beaten work shall the _candlestick_ be made: _his_ shaft, and _his_ branches, _his_ bowls, _his_ knops, and _his_ flowers, shall be of the same."--_Exodus_, xxv, 31. "They came and emptied the _chest_, and took _it_ and carried _it_ to _his_ place again."--_2 Chron._, xxiv, 11. "Look not thou upon the _wine, when_ it is red, when _it_ giveth _his_ colour in the cup, when _it_ moveth _itself_ aright."--_Prov._, xxiii, 31. "The _tree_ is known by _his_ fruit."--_Matt._, xii, 33. "When thou tillest the ground, _it_ shall not henceforth yield unto thee _her_ strength."--_Gen._, iv, 12. "He that p.r.i.c.keth the heart, maketh _it_ to show _her_ knowledge."--_Eccl._, xxii, 19. Shakspeare rarely, if ever, used _its_; and his style is sometimes obscure for the want of it: as,

"There is no _vice_ so simple, but a.s.sumes Some mark of virtue on _his_ outward parts."

--_Merch. of Venice_.

"The name of Ca.s.sius honours this corruption, And _chastis.e.m.e.nt_ doth therefore hide _his_ head."

--_Jul. Caes._, Act iv.

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

OBS. 26.--Of the compound personal p.r.o.nouns, this author gives the following account: "_Self_, in the plural _selves_, a noun, is often combined with the personal p.r.o.nouns, in order to express emphasis, or opposition, or the ident.i.ty of the subject and [the] object of a verb; and thus forms a p.r.o.noun _relative_: as, 'I did it _myself_;' 'he was not _himself_, when he said so;' 'the envious torment _themselves_ more than others.' Formerly _self_ and _selves_ were used simply as nouns, and governed the p.r.o.noun, which was kept distinct from _it_ [them] in the possessive case: but since _they_ [the p.r.o.noun and the noun] have coalesced into one word, _they_ [the compounds] are used only in the following forms: for the first person, _myself, ourselves_; for the second, _thyself_, or _yourself, yourselves_; for the third, _himself, herself, itself, themselves_: except in the regal style, in which, as generally in the second person, the singular noun is added to the plural p.r.o.noun, [making]

_ourself_. Each of these is _the same in all three cases._"--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 75. In a note referring to the close of this explanation, he adds: "_Own_ also is often employed with the possessive cases of the personal p.r.o.nouns by way of emphasis, or opposition; but separately, as an adjective, and not combining with them to form _a relative_: as, 'I did it of _my own_ free will:' 'Did he do it with _his own_ hand?'"--_Ib._, p.

227.

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

OBS. 28.--The phrases, _my own, thy own, his own_, and so forth, Dr.

Perley, in his little Grammar, has improperly converted by the hyphen into compound words: calling them the possessive forms of _myself, thyself, himself_, and so forth; as if one set of compounds could const.i.tute the possessive case of an other! And again, as if the making of eight new p.r.o.nouns for two great nations, were as slight a feat, as the inserting of so many hyphens! The word _own_, anciently written _owen_, is an _adjective_; from an old form of the perfect participle of the verb _to owe_; which verb, according to Lowth and others, once signified _to possess_. It is equivalent to _due, proper_, or _peculiar_; and, in its present use as an adjective, it stands nowhere else than between the possessive case and the name of the thing possessed; as, "The Boy's _Own_ Book,"--"Christ's _own_ words,"--"Solomon's _own_ and only son." Dr.

Johnson, while he acknowledges the abovementioned derivation, very strangely calls own a noun substantive; and, with not more accuracy, says: "This is a word of no other use than as it is added to the possessive p.r.o.nouns, _my, thy, his, our, your, their_."--_Quarto Dict., w. Own_. O. B.

Peirce, with obvious untruth, says, "_Own_ is used in combination with a name or subst.i.tute, and as a part of it, to const.i.tute it emphatic."--_Gram._, p. 63. He writes it separately, but pa.r.s.es it as a part of the possessive noun or p.r.o.noun which precedes it!

OBS. 29.--The word _self_ was originally _an adjective_, signifying _same, very_, or _particular_; but, when used alone, it is now generally _a noun_.

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

"Scorn'd be the wretch that quits his genial bowl, His loves, his friends.h.i.+ps, ev'n _his self_, resigns; Perverts the sacred instinct of his soul, And to a ducat's dirty sphere confines."

--SHENSTONE: _Brit. Poets_, Vol. vii, p. 107.

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

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

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

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

OBS. 31.--To accommodate the writers of verse, the word _ever_ is frequently contracted into _e'er_, p.r.o.nounced like the monosyllable _air_.

An easy extension of this license, gives us similar contractions of all the compound relative p.r.o.nouns; as, _whoe'er_ or _whosoe'er, whose'er_ or _whosesoe'er, whome'er_ or _whomsoe'er, whiche'er_ or _whichsoe'er, whate'er_ or _whatsoe'er_. The character and properties of these compounds are explained, perhaps sufficiently, in the observations upon the _cla.s.ses_ of p.r.o.nouns. Some of them are commonly pa.r.s.ed as representing two cases at once; there being, in fact, an ellipsis of the noun, before or after them: as,

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

OBS. 32.--For a form of parsing the double relative _what_, or its compound _whatever_ or _whatsoever_, it is the custom of some teachers, to suggest equivalent words, and then proceed to explain these, in lieu of the word in question. This is the method of _Russell's Gram._, p. 99; of _Merchants_, p. 110; of _Kirkham's_, p. 111; of _Gilbert's_, p. 92. But it should be remembered that equivalence of meaning is not sameness of grammatical construction; and, even if the construction be the same, to pa.r.s.e other equivalent words, is not really to pa.r.s.e the text that is given. A good pa.r.s.er, with the liberty to supply obvious ellipses, should know how to explain all good English _as it stands_; and for a teacher to pervert good English into false doctrine, must needs seem the very worst kind of ignorance. What can be more fantastical than the following etymology, or more absurd than the following directions for parsing?

"_What_ is compounded of _which that_. These words have been contracted and made to coalesce, a part of the orthography of both being still retained: _what--wh[ich--t]hat_; (_which-that_.) Anciently it appeared in the varying forms, _tha qua, qua tha, qu'tha, quthat, quhat, hwat_, and finally _what_."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 111. This bald pedantry of "_tha qua, qua tha_," was secretly borrowed from the grammatical speculations of William S. Cardell:[217] the "_which-that_" notion contradicts it, and is partly of the borrower's own invention. If _what_ is a compound, it was compounded more than a thousand years ago; and, of course, long before any part of the English language existed as such. King Alfred used it, as he found it, in the Saxon form of _hwaet_. The Scotch afterwards spelled it _quhat_. Our English grammarians have _improperly_ called it a compound; and _Kirkham_, still more absurdly, calls the word _others_ a compound, and _mine, thine, ours, yours_, &e. compounds.[218]

OBS. 33.--According to this gentleman's notion of things, there is, within the little circle of the word _what_, a very curious play of antecedent parts and parts relative--a dodging contra-dance of _which that_ and _that which_, with _things which_, and so forth. Thus: "When _what_ is a _compound relative_ you must always pa.r.s.e it as _two words_; that is, you must pa.r.s.e the antecedent part _as a noun_, and give it case; the relative part you may _a.n.a.lyze_ like any other relative, giving it a case likewise.

Example: 'I will try _what_ (that which) can be found in female delicacy.'

Here _that_, the antecedent part of _what_, is in the obj. case, governed by the verb 'will try;' _which_, the relative part, is in the nom. case to 'can be found.' 'I have heard _what_ (i.e. _that which_, or _the thing which_) has been alleged.' "--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 111. Here, we sec, the author's "_which-that_" becomes _that which_, or something else. But this is not a full view of his method. The following vile rigmarole is a further sample of that "_New Systematick Order of Parsing_," by virtue of which he so very complacently and successfully sets himself above all other grammarians: "'From _what_ is recorded, he appears, &c.' _What_ is a comp.

rel. p.r.o.n. including both the antecedent and the relative, and is equivalent to _that which_, or the _thing which.--Thing_, the antecedent part of _what_, is a noun, the name of a thing--com. the name of a species--neuter gender, it has no s.e.x--third person, spoken of--sing.

number, it implies but one--and in the obj. case, it is the object of the relation expressed by the prep. 'from,' and gov. by it: RULE 31. (Repeat the Rule, and _every other Rule_ to which I refer.) _Which_, the relative part of _what_, is a p.r.o.noun, a word used instead of a noun--relative, it relates to 'thing' for its antecedent--neut. gender, third person, sing, number, because the antecedent is with which it agrees, according to RULE 14. _Rel. p.r.o.n_. &c. _Which_ is _in_ the nom. case to the verb 'is recorded,' agreeably to RULE 15. _The relative is the nominative case to the verb, when no nominative comes between it and the verb._"--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 113.

OBS. 34.--The distinction which has been made by Murray and others, between etymological parsing and syntactical--or, between that exercise which simply cla.s.sifies and describes the words of a sentence, and that which adds to this the principles of their construction--is rejected by Kirkham, and also by Ingersoll, Fuller, Smith, Sanborn, Mack, and some others, it being altogether irreconcilable with their several modes of confounding the two main parts of grammar. If such a distinction is serviceable, the want of it is one of the inherent faults of the schemes which they have adopted.

But, since "grammar is the art of speaking and writing with _propriety_"

who that really values clearness and accuracy of expression, can think the want of them excusable in _models_ prescribed for the exercise of parsing?

And is it not better to maintain the distinction above named, than to interlace our syntactical parsing with broken allusions to the definitions which pertain to etymology? If it is, this new mode of parsing, which Kirkham claims to have invented, and Smith pretends to have got from Germany, whatever boast may be made of it, is essentially defective and very immethodical.[219] This remark applies not merely to the forms above cited, respecting the p.r.o.noun _what_, but to the whole method of parsing adopted by the author of "_English Grammar in Familiar Lectures_."

OBS. 35.--The forms of etymological parsing which I have adopted, being designed to train the pupil, in the first place, by a succession of easy steps, to a rapid and accurate description of the several species of words, and a ready habit of fully defining the technical terms employed in such descriptions, will be found to differ more from the forms of syntactical parsing, than do those of perhaps any other grammarian. The definitions, which const.i.tute so large a portion of the former, being omitted as soon as they are thoroughly learned, give place in the latter, to the facts and principles of syntax. Thus have we fullness in the one part, conciseness in the other, order and distinctness in both. The separation of etymology from syntax, however, though judiciously adopted by almost all grammarians, is in itself a mere matter of convenience. No one will pretend that these two parts of grammar are in their nature _totally_ distinct and independent.

Hence, though a due regard to method demands the maintenance of this ancient and still usual division of the subject, we not unfrequently, in treating of the cla.s.ses and modifications of words, exhibit contingently some of the principles of their construction. This, however, is very different from a purposed blending of the two parts, than which nothing can be more unwise.

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

OBS. 37.--The word _what_, when uttered independently as a mark of surprise, or as the prelude to an emphatic question which it does not ask, becomes an interjection; and, as such, is to be pa.r.s.ed merely as other interjections are pa.r.s.ed: as, "_What!_ came the word of G.o.d out from you?

or came it unto you only?"--_1 Cor._, xiv, 36. "_What!_ know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of G.o.d?"--_1 Cor._, vi, 19. "But _what!_ is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?"--_2 Kings_, viii, 13. "_What!_ are you so ambitious of a man's good word, who perhaps in an hour's time shall curse himself to the pit of h.e.l.l?"--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 152.

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

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

EXAMPLES FOR PARSING.

PRAXIS V.--ETYMOLOGICAL.

_In the Fifth Praxis, it is required of the pupil--to distinguish and define the different parts of speech, and the cla.s.ses and modifications of the_ ARTICLES, NOUNS, ADJECTIVES, and p.r.o.nOUNS.

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

EXAMPLE Pa.r.s.eD.

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

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

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

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

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

_Who_ is an interrogative p.r.o.noun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A p.r.o.noun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. An interrogative p.r.o.noun is a p.r.o.noun with which a question is asked. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5.

The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or p.r.o.noun which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

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

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