V. PRONOUNS

V. PRONOUNS

A Pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun: as, The boy loves his book; he has long lessons, and he learns them well.

The pronouns in our language are twenty-four; and their variations are thirty-two: so that the number of words of this class, is fifty-six.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The word for which a pronoun stands, is called its antecedent, because it usually precedes the pronoun. But some have limited the term antecedent to the word represented by a relative pronoun. There can be no propriety in this, unless we will have every pronoun to be a relative, when it stands for a noun which precedes it; and, if so, it should be called something else, when the noun is to be found elsewhere. In the example above, his and he represent boy, and them represents lessons; and these nouns are as truly the antecedents to the pronouns, as any can be. Yet his, he, and them, in our most approved grammars, are not called relative pronouns, but personal.

OBS. 2.--Every pronoun may be explained as standing for the name of something, for the thing itself unnamed, or for a former pronoun; and, with the noun, pronoun, or thing, for which it stands, every pronoun must agree in person, number, and gender. The exceptions to this, whether apparent or real, are very few; and, as their occurrence is unfrequent, there will be little occasion to notice them till we come to syntax. But if the student will observe the use and import of pronouns, he may easily see, that some of them are put substantively, for nouns not previously introduced; some, relatively, for nouns or pronouns going before; some, adjectively, for nouns that must follow them in any explanation which can be made of the sense. These three modes of substitution, are very different, each from the others. Yet they do not serve for an accurate division of the pronouns; because it often happens, that a substitute which commonly represents the noun in one of these ways, will sometimes represent it in an other.

OBS. 3.--The pronouns I and thou, in their different modifications, stand immediately for persons that are, in general, sufficiently known without being named; (I meaning the speaker, and thou, the hearer;) their antecedents, or nouns, are therefore generally understood. The other personal pronouns, also, are sometimes taken in a general and demonstrative sense, to denote persons or things not previously mentioned; as, "He that hath knowledge, spareth his words."--Bible. Here he is equivalent to the man, or the person. "The care of posterity is most in them that have no posterity."--Bacon. Here them is equivalent to those persons. "How far do you call it to such a place?"--Priestley's Gram., p. 85. Here it, according to Priestley, is put for the distance. "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth."--Malachi, ii, 7. Here they is put indefinitely for men or people. So who and which, though called relatives, do not always relate to a noun or pronoun going before them; for who may be a direct substitute for what person; and which may mean which person, or which thing: as, "And he that was healed, wist not who it was."--John, v, 13. That is, "The man who was healed, knew not what person it was." "I care not which you take; they are so much alike, one cannot tell which is which."

OBS. 4.--A pronoun with which a question is asked, usually stands for some person or thing unknown to the speaker; the noun, therefore, cannot occur before it, but may be used after it or in place of it. Examples: "In the grave, who shall give thee thanks?"--Ps., vi, 5. Here the word who is equivalent to what person, taken interrogatively. "Which of you convinceth me of sin?"--John, viii, 46. That is, "Which man of you?" "Master, what shall we do?"--Luke, iii, 12. That is, "What act, or thing?" These solutions, however, convert which and what into adjectives: and, in fact, as they have no inflections for the numbers and cases, there is reason to think them at all times essentially such. We call them pronouns, to avoid the inconvenience of supposing and supplying an infinite multitude of ellipses. But who, though often equivalent (as above) to an adjective and a noun, is never itself used adjectively; it is always a pronoun.

OBS. 5.--In respect to who or whom, it sometimes makes little or no difference to the sense, whether we take it as a demonstrative pronoun equivalent to what person, or suppose it to relate to an antecedent understood before it: as, "Even so the Son quickeneth whom he will."--John, v, 21. That is--"what persons he will," or, "those persons whom he will;" for the Greek word for whom, is, in this instance, plural. The former is a shorter explanation of the meaning, but the latter I take to be the true account of the construction; for, by the other, we make whom a double relative, and the object of two governing words at once. So, perhaps, of the following example, which Dr. Johnson cites under the word who, to show what he calls its "disjunctive sense:"--

"There thou tellst of kings, and who aspire; Who fall, who rise, who triumph, who do moan."--Daniel.

OBS. 6.--It sometimes happens that the real antecedent, or the term which in the order of the sense must stand before the pronoun, is not placed antecedently to it, in the order given to the words: as, "It is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see; and they that have not heard, shall understand."--Romans, xv, 21. Here the sense is, "They to whom he was not spoken of, shall see." Whoever takes the passage otherwise, totally misunderstands it. And yet the same order of the words might be used to signify, "They shall see to whom (that is, to what persons) he was not spoken of." Transpositions of this kind, as well as of every other, occur most frequently in poetry. The following example is from an Essay on Satire, printed with Pope's Works, but written by one of his friends:--

"Whose is the crime, the scandal too be theirs; The knave and fool are their own libellers."--J. Brown.

OBS. 7.--The personal and the interrogative pronouns often stand in construction as the antecedents to other pronouns: as, "He also that is slothful in his work, is brother to him that is a great waster."--Prov., xviii. 9. Here he and him are each equivalent to the man, and each is taken as the antecedent to the relative which follows it. "For both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one: for which cause, he is not ashamed to call them brethren."--Heb., ii, 11. Here he and they may be considered the antecedents to that and who, of the first clause, and also to he and them, of the second. So the interrogative who may be the antecedent to the relative that; as, "Who that has any moral sense, dares tell lies?" Here who, being equivalent to what person, is the term with which the other pronoun agrees. Nay, an interrogative pronoun, (or the noun which is implied in it,) may be the antecedent to a personal pronoun; as, "Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to him again?"--Romans, xi, 35. Here the idea is, "What person hath first given any thing to the Lord, so that it ought to be repaid him?" that is, "so that the gift ought to be recompensed from Heaven to the giver?" In the following example, the first pronoun is the antecedent to all the rest:--

"And he that never doubted of his state, He may perhaps--perhaps he may--too late."--Cowper.

OBS. 8.--So the personal pronouns of the possessive case, (which some call adjectives,) are sometimes represented by relatives, though less frequently than their primitives: as, "How different, O Ortogrul, is thy condition, who art doomed to the perpetual torments of unsatisfied desire!"--Dr. Johnson. Here who is of the second person, singular, masculine; and represents the antecedent pronoun thy: for thy is a pronoun, and not (as some writers will have it) an adjective. Examples like this, disprove the doctrine of those grammarians who say that my, thy, his, her, its, and their plurals, our, your, their, are adjectives. For, if they were mere adjectives, they could not thus be made antecedents. Examples of this construction are sufficiently common, and sufficiently clear, to settle that point, unless they can be better explained in some other way. Take an instance or two more: "And they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."--1 Cor., x, 11.

"Be thou the first true merit to befriend; His praise is lost, who stays till all commend."--Pope.

CLASSES.

Pronouns are divided into three classes; personal, relative, and interrogative.

I. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person it is; as, "Whether it[187] were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed."--1 Cor., xv, 11.

The simple personal pronouns are five: namely, I, of the first person; thou, of the second person; he, she, and it, of the third person.

The compound personal pronouns are also five: namely, myself, of the first person; thyself, of the second person; himself, herself, and itself, of the third person.

II. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence; as, "No people can be great, who have ceased to be virtuous."--Dr. Johnson.

The relative pronouns are who, which, what, that, as, and the compounds whoever or whosoever, whichever or whichsoever, whatever or whatsoever.[188]

What is a kind of double relative, equivalent to that which or those which; and is to be parsed, first as antecedent, and then as relative: as, "This is what I wanted; that is to say, the thing which I wanted."--L. Murray. III. An interrogative pronoun is a pronoun with which a question is asked; as, "Who touched my clothes?"--Mark, v, 30.

The interrogative pronouns are who, which, and what; being the same in form as relatives.

Who demands a person's name; which, that a person or thing be distinguished from others; what, the name of a thing, or a person's occupation and character.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The pronouns I and myself, thou and thyself, with their inflections, are literally applicable to persons only; but, figuratively, they represent brutes, or whatever else the human imagination invests with speech and reason. The latter use of them, though literal perhaps in every thing but person, constitutes the purest kind of personification. For example: "The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them: and they said unto the olive-tree, 'Reign thou over us.' But the olive-tree said unto them, 'Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?'" See Judges, ix, from 8 to 16.

OBS. 2.--The pronouns he and himself, she and herself, with their inflections, are literally applicable to persons and to brutes, and to these only; if applied to lifeless objects, they animate them, and are figurative in gender, though literal perhaps in every other respect. For example: "A diamond of beauty and lustre, observing at his side in the same cabinet, not only many other gems, but even a loadstone, began to question the latter how he came there--he, who appeared to be no better than a mere flint, a sorry rusty-looking pebble, without the least shining quality to advance him to such honour; and concluded with desiring him to keep his distance, and to pay a proper respect to his superiors."--Kames's Art of Thinking, p. 226.

OBS. 3.--The pronoun it, as it carries in itself no such idea as that of personality, or sex, 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 pronoun it, the word which follows, can in no sense be made, as Dr. Priestley will have it to be, the antecedent to that pronoun. 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 pronoun; 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 circumstance, though it may have helped to deceive this author and his copiers, affects not my assertion.

OBS. 4.--The pronoun 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 sex 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 pronoun 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 pronoun in Italics, perhaps he thought, with Murray and Webster, that which must needs be "of the neuter gender." [189] He says, "In the following passage, 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 pronoun 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 pronoun, 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 pronoun, 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 pronoun 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 pronoun 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 pronoun before the subsequent verb; as,[191]

"What god but enters yon forbidden field, Who yields assistance, 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 assertion, is a verb; or thus, Whatever word, with a noun or pronoun 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 pronunciation, 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 shining with proper lustre."--English Reader, p. 23. Here whatever is simply an adjective. "The declarations contained in them [the Scriptures] rest on the authority of God himself; and there can be no appeal from them to any other authority whatsoever."--London Epistle, 1836. Here whatsoever may be parsed either as an adjective relating to authority, or as an emphatic pronoun 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 quæcumque faciet prosperabuntur."--Vulgate. The Greek is similar: [Greek: "Kai panta hosa an poiæi kateuodothæsetai."]-- 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 pronouns. 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 analogous to other expressions, does not simplify the construction. If we will have it to be, "Whatsoever things he doeth, they shall prosper;" the pronoun 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 parse 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 pronoun; 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 analogous 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 pronoun, 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 God loves, he loves them in Christ, and no otherways."--Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 215. Better: "For all whom God 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 analogy, 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 pronoun. It is sometimes a pronoun, sometimes an adjective, and sometimes a conjunction. I call it not a demonstrative pronoun and also a relative; because, in the sense in which Murray and others have styled it a "demonstrative adjective pronoun," it is a pronominal adjective, and it is better to call it so. (1.) It is a relative pronoun 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 pronominal 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 superstitious."--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 pronoun, 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 parser at a dead nonplus. Examples: (1.) "But at the same time THAT men are giving their orders, God 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 pronouns 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 pronouns," how many of these are required by the relation? When does a participle "admit the degrees of comparison?" How shall we parse 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 pronoun, 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 pronoun 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 pronoun, 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 pronoun who, when one says, "Tell him who you are?" If so, as is a pronoun 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 pronoun, 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 passive verb, agreeing with the pronoun 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 pronoun, a nominative, belonging after are: so that the phrase, "as are worn," is only encumbered 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 pronoun, 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 pronoun must be in the same case as the antecedent would be in, if substituted 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 pronoun, 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 circumstance 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 parsed as the nominative to the same verb showed understood."--Nixon's Parser, 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 pronouns 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."--Analytical Gram., p. 142. This, as it stands, is no definition of a prism, but an assertion 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 fictitious 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 fictitious 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 pronouns. For example: "The boy that desires to assist his companions, deserves respect."--G. Brown. "That boy, who desires to assist 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 assist 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."--Analytical 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 pronoun is resolvable into a personal pronoun and a conjunction. The sentence would then read, 'That boy desires to assist his companions, and he deserves respect.' The relative pronoun 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 substituted pronoun 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 pronouns 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 lustre 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 Analytical 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 quantity 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 assuming 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 pronouns 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 assertion is not of 'a man in general,' but of 'a man who is of a detracting spirit;' and therefore they [say the pronoun and its antecedent] should not be separated."--Murray's Gram., Octavo, p. 273; Ingersoll's, 285; Comly's, 152. This reasoning, strictly applied, would exclude the comma before who in the first example above; but, as the pronoun does not "closely" or immediately follow its antecedent, the comma is allowed, though it is not much needed. Not so, when the sense is resumptive: as, "The additions, which are very considerable, are chiefly such as are calculated to obviate objections." See Murray's Gram., p. ix. Here the comma is essential to the meaning. Without it, which would be equivalent to that; with it, which is equivalent to and they. But this latter meaning, as I imagine, cannot be expressed by the relative that.

OBS. 30.--Into the unfortunate example which Sanborn took from Murray, I have inserted the comma for him; not because it is necessary or right, but because his rule requires it: "Self-denial is the sacrifice," &c. The author of "a complete system of grammar," might better contradict even Murray, than himself. But why was this text admired? and why have Greene, Bullions, Hiley, Hart, and others, also copied it? A sacrifice is something devoted and lost, for the sake of a greater good; and, if Virtue sacrifice self-denial, what will she do, but run into indulgence? The great sacrifice which she demands of men, is rather that of their self-love. Wm. E. Russell has it, "Self defence is the sacrifice which virtue must make!"--Russell's Abridgement of Murray's Gram., p. 116. Bishop Butler tells us, "It is indeed ridiculous to assert, that self-denial is essential to virtue and piety; but it would have been nearer the truth, though not strictly the truth itself, to have said, that it is essential to discipline and improvement."--Analogy of Religion, p. 123.

OBS. 31.--The relative that, though usually reckoned equivalent to who or which, evidently differs from both, in being more generally, and perhaps more appropriately, taken in the restrictive sense. It ought therefore, for distinction's sake, to be preferred to who or which, whenever an antecedent not otherwise limited, is to be restricted by the relative clause; as, "Men that grasp after riches, are never satisfied."--"I love wisdom that is gay and civilized."--Art of Thinking, p. 34. This phraseology leaves not the limitation of the meaning to depend solely upon the absence of a pause after the antecedent; because the relative that is seldom, if ever, used by good writers in any other than a restrictive sense. Again: "A man of a polite imagination is let into a great many pleasures that the vulgar are not capable of receiving."--Addison, Spect., No. 411. Here, too, according to my notion, that is obviously preferable to which; though a great critic, very widely known, has taken some pains to establish a different opinion. The "many pleasures" here spoken of, are no otherwise defined, than as being such as "the vulgar are not capable of receiving." The writer did not mean to deny that the vulgar are capable of receiving a great many pleasures; but, certainly, if that were changed to which, this would be the meaning conveyed, unless the reader were very careful to avoid a pause where he would be apt to make one. I therefore prefer Addison's expression to that which Dr. Blair would substitute.

OBS. 32.--The style of Addison is more than once censured by Dr. Blair, for the frequency with which the relative that occurs in it, where the learned lecturer would have used which. The reasons assigned by the critic are these: "Which is a much more definitive word than that, being never employed in any other way than as a relative; whereas that is a word of many senses; sometimes a demonstrative pronoun, often a conjunction. In some cases we are indeed obliged to use that for a relative, in order to avoid the ungraceful repetition of which in the same sentence. But when we are laid under no necessity of this kind, which is always the preferable word, and certainly was so in this sentence: 'Pleasures which the vulgar are not capable of receiving,' is much better than 'pleasures that the vulgar are not capable of receiving.'"--Blair's Rhetoric, Lect. xx, p. 200. Now the facts are these: (1.) That that is the more definitive or restrictive word of the two. (2.) That the word which has as many different senses and uses as the word that. (3.) That not the repetition of which or who in a series of clauses, but a needless change of the relative, is ungraceful. (4.) That the necessity of using that rather than which or who, depends, not upon what is here supposed, but upon the different senses which these words usually convey. (5.) That as there is always some reason of choice, that is sometimes to be preferred; which, sometimes; and who, sometimes: as, "It is not the man who has merely taught, or who has taught long, or who is able to point out defects in authors, that is capable of enlightening the world in the respective sciences which have engaged his attention; but the man who has taught well."--Kirkham's Elocution, p. 7.

OBS. 33.--Blair's Rhetoric consists of forty-seven lectures; four of which are devoted to a critical examination of the style of Addison, as exhibited in four successive papers of the Spectator. The remarks of the professor are in general judicious; but, seeing his work is made a common textbook for students of "Belles Lettres," it is a pity to find it so liable to reprehension on the score of inaccuracy. Among the passages which are criticised in the twenty-first lecture, there is one in which the essayist speaks of the effects of novelty as follows:

'It is this which bestows charms on a monster, and makes even the imperfections of nature please us. It is this that recommends variety, where the mind is every instant called off to something new, and the attention not suffered to dwell too long and waste itself on any particular object. It is this, likewise, that improves what is great or beautiful, and makes it afford the mind a double entertainment.'--Spectator, No. 412.

This passage is deservedly praised by the critic, for its "perspicuity, grace, and harmony;" but, in using different relatives under like circumstances, the writer has hardly done justice to his own good taste. Blair's remark is this: "His frequent use of that, instead of which, is another peculiarity of his style; but, on this occasion in particular, [it] cannot be much commended, as, 'It is this which,' seems, in every view, to be better than, 'It is this that,' three times repeated."--Lect. xxi, p. 207. What is here meant by "every view," may, I suppose, be seen in the corresponding criticism which is noticed in my last observation above; and I am greatly deceived, if, in this instance also, the relative that is not better than which, and more agreeable to polite usage. The direct relative which corresponds to the introductory pronoun it and an other antecedent, should, I think, be that, and not who or which: as, "It is not ye that speak."--Matt., x, 20. "It is thou, Lord, who hast the hearts of all men in thy hands, that turnest the hearts of any to show me favour."--Jenks's Prayers, p. 278. Here who has reference to thou or Lord only; but that has some respect to the pronoun it, though it agrees in person and gender with thou. A similar example is cited at the close of the preceding observation; and I submit it to the reader, whether the word that, as it there occurs, is not the only fit word for the place it occupies. So in the following examples: "There are Words, which are not Verbs, that signify actions and passions, and even things transient."--Brightland's Gram., p. 100. "It is the universal taste of mankind, which is subject to no such changing modes, that alone is entitled to possess any authority."--Blair's Rhetoric, p. 286.

OBS. 34.--Sometimes the broad import of an antecedent is doubly restricted, first by one relative clause, and then by an other; as, "And all that dwell upon the earth, shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life."--Rev., xiii, 8. "And then, like true Thames-Watermen, they abuse every man that passes by, who is better dressed than themselves."--Brown's Estimate, Vol. ii, p. 10. Here and, or if he, would be as good as "who;" for the connective only serves to carry the restriction into narrower limits. Sometimes the limit fixed by one clause is extended by an other; as, "There is no evil that you may suffer, or that you may expect to suffer, which prayer is not the appointed means to alleviate."--Bickersteth, on Prayer, p. 16. Here which resumes the idea of "evil," in the extent last determined; or rather, in that which is fixed by either clause, since the limits of both are embraced in the assertion. And, in the two limiting clauses, the same pronoun was requisite, on account of their joint relation; but the clause which assumes a different relation, is rightly introduced by a different pronoun. This is also the case in the following examples: "For there is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."--Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 432. "I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns."--Rev., xvii, 7. Here the restrictive sense is well expressed by one relative, and the resumptive by an other. When neither of these senses is intended by the writer, any form of the relative must needs be improper: as, "The greatest genius which runs through the arts and sciences, takes a kind of tincture from them, and falls unavoidably into imitation."--Addison, Spect., No. 160. Here, as I suppose, which runs should be in running. What else can the author have meant?

OBS. 35.--Having now, as I imagine, clearly shown the difference between the restrictive and the resumptive sense of a relative pronoun, and the absolute necessity of making such a choice of words as will express that sense only which we intend; I hope the learner will see, by these observations, not merely that clearness requires the occasional use of each of our five relatives, who, which, what, that, and as; but that this distinction in the meaning, is a very common principle by which to determine what is, and what is not, good English. Thus that and as are appropriately our restrictive relatives, though who and which are sometimes used restrictively; but, in a resumptive sense, who or which is required, and required even after those terms which usually demand that or as: thus, "We are vexed at the unlucky chance, and go away dissatisfied. Such impressions, which ought not to be cherished, are a sufficient reason for excluding stories of that kind from the theatre."--Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 279. Here which is proper to the sense intended; but such requires as, when the latter term limits the meaning of the former. In sentences like the following, who or which may be used in lieu of that; whether with any advantage or not, the reader may judge: "You seize the critical moment that is favorable to emotion."--Bair's Rhet., p. 321. "An historian that would instruct us, must know when to be concise."--Ib., p. 359. "Seneca has been censured for the affectation that appears in his style."--Ib., p. 367. "Such as the prodigies that attended the death of Julius Cæsar."--Ib., p. 401. "By unfolding those principles that ought to govern the taste of every individual."--Kames's Dedication to El. of Crit. "But I am sure he has that that is better than an estate."--Spect., No. 475. "There are two properties, that characterize and essentially distinguish relative pronouns."--Churchill's Gram., p. 74. By these examples, it may be seen, that Dr. Blair often forgot or disregarded his own doctrine respecting the use of this relative; though he was oftener led, by the error of that doctrine, to substitute which for that improperly.

OBS. 36.--Whether was formerly used as an interrogative pronoun, in which sense it always referred to one of two things; as, "Ye fools and blind! for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?"--Matt., xxiii, 17. This usage is now obsolete; and, in stead of it, we say, "Which is greater?" But as a disjunctive conjunction, corresponding to or, the word whether is still in good repute; as, "Resolve whether you will go or not."--Webster's Dict. In this sense of the term, some choose to call whether an adverb.

OBS. 37.--In the view of some writers, interrogative pronouns differ from relatives chiefly in this; that, as the subject referred to is unknown to the speaker, they do not relate to a preceding noun, but to something which is to be expressed in the answer to the question. It is certain that their person, number, and gender, are not regulated by an antecedent noun; but by what the speaker supposes or knows of a subject which may, or may not, agree with them in these respects: as, "What lies there?" Answer, "Two men asleep." Here what, standing for what thing, is of the third person, singular number, and neuter gender; but men, which is the term that answers to it, is of the third person, plural, masculine. There is therefore no necessary agreement between the question and the answer, in any of those properties in which a pronoun usually agrees with its noun. Yet some grammarians will have interrogatives to agree with these "subsequents," as relatives agree with their antecedents. The answer, it must be granted, commonly contains a noun, corresponding in some respects to the interrogative pronoun, and agreeing with it in case; but this noun cannot be supposed to control the interrogation, nor is it, in any sense, the word for which the pronoun stands. For every pronoun must needs stand for something that is uttered or conceived by the same speaker; nor can any question be answered, until its meaning is understood. Interrogative pronouns must therefore be explained as direct substitutes for such other terms as one might use in stead of them. Thus who means what person?

"Who taught that heav'n-directed spire to rise? The Man of Ross, each lisping babe replies."--Pope.

OBS. 38.--In the classification of the pronouns, and indeed in the whole treatment of them, almost all our English grammars are miserably faulty, as well as greatly at variance. In some forty or fifty, which I have examined on this point, the few words which constitute this part of speech, have more than twenty different modes of distribution. (1.) Cardell says, "There is but one kind of pronouns"--Elements of Gram., p. 30. (2.) D. Adam's, Greenleaf, Nutting, and Weld, will have two kinds; "personal and relative." (3.) Dr. Webster's "Substitutes, or pronouns, are of two kinds:" the one, "called personal;" the other, without name or number. See his Improved Gram., p. 24. (4.) Many have fixed upon three sorts; "personal, relative, and adjective;" with a subdivision of the last. Of these is Lindley Murray, in his late editions, with his amenders, Ainsworth, Alger, Bacon, Bullions, Fisk, A. Flint, Frost, Guy, Hall, Kirkham, Lennie, Merchant, Picket, Pond, and S. Putnam. (5.) Kirkham, however, changes the order of the classes; thus, "personal, adjective, and relative;" and, with ridiculous absurdity, makes mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, and theirs to be "compounds." (6.) Churchill adopts the plan of "personal, relative, and adjective pronouns;" and then destroys it by a valid argument. (7.) Comly, Wilcox, Wells, and Perley, have these three classes; "personal, relative, and interrogative:" and this division is right. (8.) Sanborn makes the following bull: "The general divisions of pronouns are into personal, relative, interrogative, and several sub-divisions."--Analytical Gram., p. 91. (9.) Jaudon has these three kinds; "personal, relative, and distributive." (10.) Robbins, these; "simple, conjunctive, and interrogative." (11.) Lindley Murray, in his early editions, had these four; "personal, possessive, relative, and adjective." (12.) Bucke has these; "personal, relative, interrogative, and adjective." (13.) Ingersoll, these; "personal, adjective, relative, and interrogative." (14.) Buchanan; "personal, demonstrative, relative, and interrogative." (15.) Coar; "personal, possessive or pronominal adjectives, demonstrative, and relative." (16.) Bicknell; "personal, possessive, relative, and demonstrative." (17.) Cobbett; "personal, relative, demonstrative, and indefinite." (18) M'Culloch; "personal, possessive, relative, and reciprocal." (19.) Staniford has five; "personal, relative, interrogative, definitive, and distributive." (20.) Alexander, six; "personal, relative, demonstrative, interrogative, definitive, and adjective." (21.) Cooper, in 1828, had five; "personal, relative, possessive, definite, and indefinite." (22.) Cooper, in 1831, six; "personal, relative, definite, indefinite, possessive, and possessive pronominal adjectives." (23.) Dr. Crombie says: "Pronouns may be divided into Substantive, and Adjective; Personal, and Impersonal; Relative, and Interrogative." (24.) Alden has seven sorts; "personal, possessive, relative, interrogative, distributive, demonstrative, and indefinite." (25.) R. C. Smith has many kinds, and treats them so badly that nobody can count them. In respect to definitions, too, most of these writers are shamefully inaccurate, or deficient. Hence the filling up of their classes is often as bad as the arrangement. For instance, four and twenty of them will have interrogative pronouns to be relatives; but who that knows what a relative pronoun is, can coincide with them in opinion? Dr. Crombie thinks, "that interrogatives are strictly relatives;" and yet divides the two classes with his own hand!

MODIFICATIONS.

Pronouns have the same modifications as nouns; namely, Persons, Numbers, Genders, and Cases. Definitions universally applicable have already been given of all these things; it is therefore unnecessary to define them again in this place.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--In the personal pronouns, most of these properties are distinguished by the words themselves; in the relative and the interrogative pronouns, they are ascertained chiefly by means of the antecedent and the verb. Interrogative pronouns, however, as well as the relatives which, what, as, and all the compounds of who, which, and what, are always of the third person. Even in etymological parsing, some regard must be had to the syntactical relations of words. By modifications, we commonly mean actual changes in the forms of words, by which their grammatical properties are inherently distinguished; but, in all languages, the distinguishable properties of words are somewhat more numerous than their actual variations of form; there being certain principles of universal grammar, which cause the person, number, gender, or case, of some words, to be inferred from their relation to others; or, what is nearly the same thing, from the sense which is conveyed by the sentence. Hence, if in a particular instance it happen, that some, or even all, of these properties, are without any index in the form of the pronoun itself, they are still to be ascribed in parsing, because they may be easily and certainly discovered from the construction. For example: in the following text, it is just as easy to discern the genders of the pronouns, as the cases of the nouns; and both are known and asserted to be what they are, upon principles of mere inference: "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?"--1 Cor., vii, 16. Again: "Who betrayed her companion? Not I."--Murray's Key, p. 211. Here her being of the feminine gender, it is the inference of every reader, that who and I are so too; but whether the word companion is masculine or feminine, is not so obvious.

OBS. 2.--The personal pronouns of the first and second persons, are equally applicable to both sexes; and should be considered masculine or feminine, according to the known application of them. [See Levizac's French Gram., p. 73.] The speaker and the hearer, being present to each other, of course know the sex to which they respectively belong; and, whenever they appear in narrative or dialogue, we are told who they are. In Latin, an adjective or a participle relating to these pronouns, is varied to agree with them in number, gender, and case. This is a sufficient proof that ego, I, and tu, thou, are not destitute of gender, though neither the Latin words nor the English are themselves varied to express it:--

"Miseræ hoc tamen unum Exequere, Anna, mihi: solam nam perfidus ille Te colere, arcanos etiam tibi credere sensus; Sola viri molles aditus et tempora nôras."--Virgil.

OBS. 3.--Many English grammarians, and Murray at their head, deny the first person of nouns, and the gender of pronouns of the first and second persons; and at the same time teach, that, "Pronouns must always agree with their antecedents, and the nouns for which they stand, in gender, number, and person:" (Murray's Gr., 2d Ed., p. 111; Rev. T. Smith's, p. 60:) and further, with redundance of expression, that, "The relative is of the same person with the antecedent, and the verb agrees with it accordingly."--Same. These quotations form Murray's fifth rule of syntax, as it stands in his early editions.[196] In some of his revisings, the author erased the word person from the former sentence, and changed with to as in the latter. But other pronouns than relatives, agree with their nouns in person; so that his first alteration was not for the better, though Ingersoll, Kirkham, Alger, Bacon, J. Greenleaf, and some others, have been very careful to follow him in it. And why did he never discern, that the above-named principles of his etymology are both of them contradicted by this rule of his syntax, and one of them by his rule as it now stands? It is manifest, that no two words can possibly agree in any property which belongs not to both. Else what is agreement? Nay, no two things in nature, can in any wise agree, accord, or be alike, but by having some quality or accident in common. How strange a contradiction then is this! And what a compliment to learning, that it is still found in well-nigh all our grammars!

OBS. 4.--If there were truth in what Murray and others affirm, that "Gender has respect only to the third person singular of the pronouns, he, she, it," [197] no two words could ever agree in gender; because there can be no such agreement between any two of the words here mentioned, and the assertion is, that gender has respect to no others. But, admitting that neither the author nor the numerous copiers of this false sentence ever meant to deny that gender has respect to nouns, they do deny that it has respect to any other pronouns than these; whereas I affirm that it ought to be recognized as a property of all pronouns, as well as of all nouns. Not that the gender of either is in all instances invariably fixed by the forms of the particular words; but there is in general, if not in every possible case, some principle of grammar, on which the gender of any noun or pronoun in a sentence may be readily ascertained. Is it not plain, that if we know who speaks or writes, who hears or is addressed, we know also the gender of the pronouns which are applied to these persons? The poet of The Task looked upon his mother's picture, and expressed his tender recollections of a deceased parent by way of address; and will any one pretend, that the pronouns which he applied to himself and to her, are either of the same gender, or of no gender? If we take neither of these assumptions, must we not say, they are of different genders? In this instance, then, let the parser call those of the first person, masculine; and those of the second, feminine:--

"My mother! when I learned that thou wast dead, Say, wast thou conscious of the tears I shed?"--Cowper.

OBS. 5.--That the pronouns of the first and second persons are sometimes masculine and sometimes feminine, is perfectly certain; but whether they can or cannot be neuter, is a question difficult to be decided. To things inanimate they are applied only figuratively; and the question is, whether the figure always necessarily changes the gender of the antecedent noun. We assume the general principle, that the noun and its pronoun are always of the same gender; and we know that when inanimate objects are personified in the third person, they are usually represented as masculine or feminine, the gender being changed by the figure. But when a lifeless object is spoken to in the second person, or represented as speaking in the first, as the pronouns here employed are in themselves without distinction of gender, no such change can be proved by the mere words; and, if we allow that it would be needless to imagine it where the words do not prove it, the gender of these pronouns must in such cases be neuter, because we have no ground to think it otherwise. Examples: "And Jesus answered and said unto it, [the barren figtree,] No man eat fruit of thee hereafter forever."--Mark, xi, 14. "O earth, cover not thou my blood."--Job, xvi, 18. "O thou sword of the Lord, how long will it be ere thou be quiet?"--Jeremiah, xlvii, 6. In these instances, the objects addressed do not appear to be figuratively invested with the attribute of sex. So likewise with respect to the first person. If, in the following example, gold and diamond are neuter, so is the pronoun me; and, if not neuter, of what gender are they? The personification indicates or discriminates no other.

"Where thy true treasure? Gold says, 'Not in me; And, 'Not in me,' the diamond. Gold is poor."--Young.

THE DECLENSION OF PRONOUNS.

The declension of a pronoun is a regular arrangement of its numbers and cases.

I. SIMPLE PERSONALS.

The simple personal pronouns are thus declined:--

I, of the FIRST PERSON, any of the genders.[198]

Sing. Nom. I, Plur. Nom. we, Poss. my, or mine,[199] Poss. our, or ours, Obj. me; Obj. us.

THOU, of the SECOND PERSON, any of the genders.

Sing. Nom. thou,[200] Plur. Nom. ye, or you, Poss. thy, or thine, Poss. your, or yours, Obj. thee; Obj. you, or ye.[201]

HE, of the THIRD PERSON, masculine gender.

Sing. Nom. he, Plur. Nom. they, Poss. his, Poss. their, or theirs, Obj. him; Obj. them.

SHE, of the THIRD PERSON, feminine gender.

Sing. Nom. she, Plur. Nom. they, Poss. her, or hers, Poss. their, or theirs, Obj. her; Obj. them.

IT, of the THIRD PERSON, neuter gender.

Sing. Nom, it, Plur. Nom. they, Poss. its, Poss. their, or theirs, Obj. it; Obj. them.

II. COMPOUND PERSONALS.

The word self, added to the simple personal pronouns, forms the class of compound personal pronouns; which are used when an action reverts upon the agent, and also when some persons are to be distinguished from others: as, sing, myself, plur. ourselves; sing, thyself, plur. yourselves; sing, himself, plur. themselves; sing, herself, plur. themselves; sing, itself, plur. themselves. They all want the possessive case, and are alike in the nominative and objective. Thus:--

MYSELF, of the FIRST PERSON,[202] any of the genders.

Sing. Nom. myself, Plur. Nom. ourselves, Poss. ------, Poss. ---------, Obj. myself; Obj. ourselves.

THYSELF, of the SECOND PERSON, any of the genders.

Sing. Nom. thyself,[203] Plur. Nom. yourselves, Poss. -------, Poss. ----------, Obj. thyself; Obj. yourselves.

HIMSELF, of the THIRD PERSON, masculine gender.

Sing. Nom. himself, Plur. Nom. themselves, Poss. -------, Poss. ----------, Obj. himself; Obj. themselves.

HERSELF, of the THIRD PERSON, feminine gender.

Sing. Nom. herself, Plur. Nom. themselves, Poss. -------, Poss. ----------, Obj. herself; Obj. themselves.

ITSELF, of the THIRD PERSON, neuter gender.

Sing. Nom. itself, Plur. Nom. themselves, Poss. ------, Poss. ----------, Obj. itself; Obj. themselves.

III. RELATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES.

The relative and the interrogative pronouns are thus declined:--

WHO, literally applied to persons only.

Sing. Nom. who, Plur. Nom. who, Poss. whose, Poss. whose, Obj. whom; Obj. whom.

WHICH, applied to animals and things.

Sing. Nom. which, Plur. Nom. which, Poss. [204]--, Poss. -----, Obj. which; Obj. which.

WHAT, applied ordinarily to things only.[205]

Sing. Nom. what, Plur. Nom. what, Poss. ----, Poss. ----, Obj. what; Obj. what.

THAT, applied to persons, animals, and things.

Sing. Nom. that, Plur. Nom. that, Poss. ----, Poss. ----, Obj. that; Obj. that.

AS, applied to persons, animals, and things.

Sing. Nom. as, Plur. Nom. as, Poss. ----, Poss. ----, Obj. as; Obj. as.

IV. COMPOUND RELATIVES.

The compound relative pronouns, whoever or whosoever, whichever or whichsoever, and whatever or whatsoever[206] are declined in the same manner as the simples, who which, what. Thus:--

WHOEVER or WHOSOEVER, applied only to persons.

Sing. Nom. whoever, Plur. Nom. whoever, Poss. whosever, Poss. whosever, Obj. whomever; Obj. whomever.

Sing. Nom. whosoever, Plur. Nom. whosoever, Poss. whosesoever, Poss. whosesoever, Obj. whomsoever; Obj. whomsoever.

WHICHEVER or WHICHSOEVER, applied to persons, animals, and things.

Sing. Nom. whichever, Plur. Nom. whichever, Poss. ---------, Poss. --------, Obj. whichever; Obj. whichever.

Sing. Nom. whichsoever, Plur. Nom. whichsoever, Poss. ---------, Poss. --------, Obj. whichsoever; Obj. whichsoever.

WHATEVER or WHATSOEVER, applied ordinarily to things only.

Sing. Nom. whatever, Plur. Nom. whatever, Poss. --------, Poss. --------, Obj. whatever; Obj. whatever.

Sing. Nom. whatsoever, Plur. Nom. whatsoever, Poss. ---------, Poss. --------, Obj. whatsoever; Obj. whatsoever.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--Most of the personal pronouns have two forms of the possessive case, in each number: as, my or mine, our or ours; thy or thine, your or yours; her or hers, their or theirs. The former is used before a noun expressed, or when nothing but an adjective intervenes; the latter, when the governing noun is understood, or is so placed that a repetition of it is implied in or after the pronoun: as, "My powers are thine; be thine alone The glory of my song."--Montgomery. "State what mine and your principles are."--Legh Richmond, to his Daughters. Better, perhaps: "State what my principles and yours are;"--"State what your principles and mine are;"--or, "State what are my principles and your own."

"Resign'd he fell; superior to the dart That quench'd its rage in yours and Britain's heart."--J. Brown.

"Behold! to yours and my surprise, These trifles to a volume rise."--Lloyd, p. 186.

OBS. 2.--Possibly, when the same persons or things stand in a joint relation of this kind to different individuals or parties, it may be proper to connect two of the simple possessives to express it; though this construction can seldom, if ever, be necessary, because any such expression as thy and her sister, my and his duty, if not erroneous, can mean nothing but your sister, our duty, &c. But some examples occur, the propriety of which it is worth while to consider: as, "I am sure it will be a pleasure to you to hear that she proves worthy of her father, worthy of you, and of your and her ancestors."--Spectator, No. 525. This sentence is from a version of Pliny's letter to his wife's aunt; and, as the ancestors of the two individuals are here the same, the phraseology may be allowable. But had the aunt commended her niece to Pliny, she should have said, "worthy of you and of your ancestors and hers." "Is it her or his honour that is tarnished? It is not hers, but his."--Murray's Gram., p. 175. This question I take to be bad English. It ought to be, "Is it her honour or his, that is tarnished?" Her honour and his honour cannot be one and the same thing. This example was framed by Murray to illustrate that idle and puzzling distinction which he and some others make between "possessive adjective pronouns" and "the genitive case of the personal pronouns;" and, if I understand him, the author will here have her and his to be of the former class, and hers and his of the latter. It were a better use of time, to learn how to employ such words correctly. Unquestionably, they are of the same class and the same case, and would be every way equivalent, if the first form were fit to be used elliptically. For example: "The same phrenzy had hindered the Dutch from improving to their and to the common advantage the public misfortunes of France."--Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 309. Here the possessive case their appears to be governed by advantage understood, and therefore it would perhaps be better to say, theirs, or their own. But in the following instance, our may be proper, because both possessives appear to be governed by one and the same noun:--

"Although 'twas our and their opinion Each other's church was but a Rimmon."--Hudibras.

OBS. 3.--Mine and thine were formerly preferred to my and thy, before all words beginning with a vowel sound; or rather, mine and thine were the original forms,[207] and my and thy were first substituted for them before consonants, and afterwards before vowels: as, "But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance."--Psalms, lv, 13. "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God."--Acts, x, 4. When the Bible was translated, either form appears to have been used before the letter h; as, "Hath not my hand made all these things?"--Acts, vii, 50. "By stretching forth thine hand to heal."--Acts, iv, 30. According to present practice, my and thy are in general to be preferred before all nouns, without regard to the sounds of letters. The use of the other forms, in the manner here noticed, has now become obsolete; or, at least, antiquated, and peculiar to the poets. We occasionally meet with it in modern verse, though not very frequently, and only where the melody of the line seems to require it: as,

"Time writes no wrinkle on thine azure brow."--Byron.

"Deign on the passing world to turn thine eyes."--Johnson.

"Mine eyes beheld the messenger divine."--Lusiad.

"Thine ardent symphony sublime and high."--Sir W. Scott.

OBS. 4.--The possessives mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs, usually denote possession, or the relation of property, with an ellipsis of the name of the thing possessed; as, "My sword and yours are kin."--Shakspeare. Here yours means your sword. "You may imagine what kind of faith theirs was."--Bacon. Here theirs means their faith. "He ran headlong into his own ruin whilst he endeavoured to precipitate ours."--Bolingbroke. Here ours means our ruin. "Every one that heareth these saying of mine."--Matt., vii, 26. Here mine means my sayings. "Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of his."--Psalms, xxx, 4. Here his means his saints. The noun which governs the possessive, is here understood after it, being inferred from that which precedes, as it is in all the foregoing instances. "And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart."--1 Samuel, ii, 33. Here thine, in the first phrase, means thy men; but, in the subsequent parts of the sentence, both mine and thine mean neither more nor less than thy and my, because there is no ellipsis. Of before the possessive case, governs the noun which is understood after this case; and is always taken in a partitive sense, and not as the sign of the possessive relation: as, "When we say, 'a soldier of the king's', we mean, 'one of the king's soldiers.'"--Webster's Improved Gram., p. 29. There is therefore an ellipsis of the word soldiers, in the former phrase. So, in the following example, mine is used elliptically for my feet; or rather, feet is understood after mine, though mine feet is no longer good English, for reasons before stated:--

"Ere I absolve thee, stoop I that on thy neck Levelled with earth tins foot of mine may tread."--Wordsworth.

OBS. 5.--Respecting the possessive case of the simple personal pronouns, there appears among our grammarians a strange diversity of sentiment. Yet is there but one view of the matter, that has in it either truth or reason, consistency or plausibility. And, in the opinion of any judicious teacher, an erroneous classification of words so common and so important as these, may well go far to condemn any system of grammar in which it is found. A pronoun agrees in person, number, and gender, with the noun for which it is a substitute; and, if it is in the possessive case, it is usually governed by an other noun expressed or implied after it. That is, if it denotes possession, it stands for the name of the possessor, and is governed by the name of the thing possessed. Now do not my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, and mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, all equally denote possession? and do they not severally show by their forms the person, the number, and sometimes also the gender, of whomever or whatever they make to be the possessor? If they do, they are all of them pronouns, and nothing else; all found in the possessive case, and nowhere else. It is true, that in Latin, Greek, and some other languages, there are not only genitive cases corresponding to these possessives, but also certain declinable adjectives which we render in English by these same words: that is, by my or mine, our or ours; thy or thine, your or yours; &c. But this circumstance affords no valid argument for considering any of these English terms to be mere adjectives; and, say what we will, it is plain that they have not the signification of adjectives, nor can we ascribe to them the construction of adjectives, without making their grammatical agreement to be what it very manifestly is not. They never agree, in any respect, with the nouns which follow them, unless it be by mere accident. This view of the matter is sustained by the authority of many of our English grammars; as may be seen by the declensions given by Ash, C. Adams, Ainsworth, R. W. Bailey, Barnard, Buchanan, Bicknell, Blair, Burn, Butler, Comly, Churchill, Cobbett, Dalton, Davenport, Dearborn, Farnum, A. Flint, Fowler, Frost, Gilbert, S. S. Green, Greenleaf, Hamlin, Hiley, Kirkham, Merchant, Murray the schoolmaster, Parkhurst, Picket, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R. C. Smith, Wilcox.

OBS. 6.--In opposition to the classification and doctrine adopted above, many of our grammarians teach, that my, thy, this, her, our, your, their, are adjectives or "adjective pronouns;" and that mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, are personal pronouns in the possessive case. Among the supporters of this notion, are D. Adams, Alden, Alger, Allen, Bacon, Barrett, Bingham, Bucke, Bullions, Cutler, Fisk, Frost, (in his small Grammar,) Guy, Hall, Hart, Harrison, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Lennie, Lowth, Miller, L. Murray, Pond, T. Smith, Spear, Spencer, Staniford, Webber, Woodworth. The authority of all these names, however, amounts to little more than that of one man; for Murray pretended to follow Lowth, and nearly all the rest copied Murray. Dr. Lowth says, "Thy, my, her, our, your, their, are pronominal adjectives; but his, (that is, he's,) her's, our's, your's, their's, have evidently the form of the possessive case: And, by analogy, mine, thine, may be esteemed of the same rank."--Lowth's Gram., p. 23.[208] But why did he not see, that by the same analogy, and also by the sense and meaning of the words, as well as by their distinctions of person, number, and gender, all the other six are entitled to "the same rank?" Are not the forms of my, thy, her, our, your, their, as fit to denote the relation of property, and to be called the possessive case, as mine, thine, his, or any others? In grammar, all needless distinctions are reprehensible. And where shall we find a more blamable one than this? It seems to have been based merely upon the false notion, that the possessive case of pronouns ought to be formed like that of nouns; whereas custom has clearly decided that they shall always be different: the former must never be written with an apostrophe; and the latter, never without it. Contrary to all good usage, however, the Doctor here writes "her's, our's, your's, their's," each with a needless apostrophe. Perhaps he thought it would serve to strengthen his position; and help to refute what some affirmed, that all these words are adjectives.

OBS. 7.--Respecting mine, thine, and his, Lowth and L. Murray disagree. The latter will have them to be sometimes "possessive pronouns," and sometimes "possessive cases." An admirable distinction this for a great author to make! too slippery for even the inventor's own hold, and utterly unintelligible to those who do not know its history! In short, these authors disagree also concerning my, thy, her, our, your, their; and where two leaders of a party are at odds with each other, and each is in the wrong, what is to be expected from their followers? Perceiving that Lowth was wrong in calling these words "pronominal adjectives," Murray changed the term to "possessive pronouns," still retaining the class entire; and accordingly taught, in his early editions, that, "There are four kinds of pronouns, viz., the personal, the possessive, the relative, and the adjective pronouns."--Murray's Gram., 2d Edition, p. 37. "The Possessive Pronouns are such as principally relate to possession or property. There are seven of them; viz. my, thy, his, her, our, your, their. The possessives his, mine, thine, may be accounted either possessive pronouns, or the possessive cases of their respective personal pronouns."--Ib., p. 40. He next idly demonstrates that these seven words may come before nouns of any number or case, without variation; then, forgetting his own distinction, adds, "When they are separated from the noun, all of them, except his, vary their terminations; as, this hat is mine, and the other is thine; those trinkets are hers; this house is ours, and that is yours; theirs is more commodious than ours"--Ib., p. 40. Thus all his personal pronouns of the possessive case, he then made to be inflections of pronouns of a different class! What are they now? Seek the answer under the head of that gross solecism, "Adjective Pronouns." You may find it in one half of our English grammars.

OBS. 8.--Any considerable error in the classing of words, does not stand alone; it naturally brings others in its train. Murray's "Adjective Pronouns," (which he now subdivides into four little classes, possessive, distributive, demonstrative, and indefinite,) being all of them misnamed and misplaced in his etymology, have led both him and many others into strange errors in syntax. The possessives only are "pronouns;" and these are pronouns of the possessive case. As such, they agree with the antecedent nouns for which they stand, in person, number, and gender; and are governed, like all other possessives, by the nouns which follow them. The rest are not pronouns, but pronominal adjectives; and, as such, they relate to nouns expressed or understood after them. Accordingly, they have none of the above-mentioned qualities, except that the words this and that form the plurals these and those. Or, if we choose to ascribe to a pronominal adjective all the properties of the noun understood, it is merely for the sake of brevity in parsing. The difference, then, between a "pronominal adjective" and an "adjective pronoun," should seem to be this; that the one is an adjective, and the other a pronoun: it is like the difference between a horserace and a racehorse. What can be hoped from the grammarian who cannot discern it? And what can be made of rules and examples like the following? "Adjective pronouns must agree, in number, with their substantives: as, 'This book, these books; that sort, those sorts; another road, other roads.'"--Murray's Gram., Rule viii, Late Editions; Alger's Murray, p. 56; Alden's, 85; Bacon's, 48; Maltby's, 59; Miller's, 66; Merchant's, 81; S. Putnam's, 10; and others. "Pronominal adjectives must agree with their nouns in gender, number, and person; thus, 'My son, hear the instructions of thy father.' 'Call the labourers, and give them their hire.'"--Maunder's Gram., Rule xvii. Here Murray gives a rule for pronouns, and illustrates it by adjectives; and Maunder, as ingeniously blunders in reverse: he gives a rule for adjectives, and illustrates it by pronouns. But what do they mean by "their substantives," or "their nouns?" As applicable to pronouns, the phrase should mean nouns antecedent; as applicable to adjectives, it should mean nouns subsequent. Both these rules are therefore false, and fit only to bewilder; and the examples to both are totally inapplicable. Murray's was once essentially right, but he afterwards corrupted it, and a multitude of his admirers have since copied the perversion. It formerly stood thus: "The pronominal adjectives this and that, &c. and the numbers[209] one, two, &c., must agree in number with their substantives: as, 'This book, these books; that sort, those sorts; one girl, ten girls; another road, other roads.' "--Murray's Gram., Rule viii, 2d Ed., 1796.

OBS. 9.--Among our grammarians, some of considerable note have contended, that the personal pronouns have but two cases, the nominative and the objective. Of this class, may be reckoned Brightland, Dr. Johnson, Fisher, Mennye, Cardell, Cooper, Dr. Jas. P. Wilson, W. B. Fowle. and, according to his late grammars, Dr. Webster. But, in contriving what to make of my or mine, our or ours, thy or thine, your or yours, his, her or hers, its, and their or theirs, they are as far from any agreement, or even from self-consistency, as the cleverest of them could ever imagine. To the person, the number, the gender, and the case, of each of these words, they either profess themselves to be total strangers, or else prove themselves so, by the absurdities they teach. Brightland calls them "Possessive Qualities, or Qualities of Possession;" in which class he also embraces all nouns of the possessive case. Johnson calls them pronouns; and then says of them, "The possessive pronouns, like other adjectives, are without cases or change of termination."--Gram., p. 6. Fisher calls them "Personal Possessive Qualities;" admits the person of my, our, &c.; but supposes mine, ours, &c. to supply the place of the nouns which govern them! Mennye makes them one of his three classes of pronouns, "personal, possessive, and relative;" giving to both forms the rank which Murray once gave, and which Allen now gives, to the first form only. Cardell places them among his "defining adjectives." With Fowle, these, and all other possessives, are "possessive adjectives." Cooper, in his grammar of 1828. copies the last scheme of Murray: in that of 1831, he avers that the personal pronouns "want the possessive case." Now, like Webster and Wilson, he will have mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, and theirs, to be pronouns of the nominative or the objective case. Dividing the pronouns into six general classes, he makes these the fifth; calling them "Possessive Pronouns," but preferring in a note the monstrous name, "Possessive Pronouns Substitute." His sixth class are what he calls, "The Possessive Pronominal Adjectives;" namely, "my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, its, own, and sometimes mine and thine."--Cooper's Pl. and Pr. Gram., p. 43. But all these he has, unquestionably, either misplaced or misnamed; while he tells us, that, "Simplicity of arrangement should be the object of every compiler."--Ib., p. 33. Dr. Perley, (in whose scheme of grammar all the pronouns are nouns,) will have my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, and their, to be in the possessive case; but of mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, and theirs, he says, "These may be called Desiderative Personal Pronouns."--Perley's Gram., p. 15.

OBS. 10.--Kirkham, though he professes to follow Murray, declines the simple personal pronouns as I have declined them; and argues admirably, that my, thy, his, &c., are pronouns of the possessive case, because, "They always stand for nouns in the possessive case." But he afterwards contradicts both himself and the common opinion of all former grammarians, in referring mine, thine, hers, &c., to the class of "Compound Personal Pronouns." Nay, as if to outdo even himself in absurdity, he first makes mine, thine, hers, ours, &c., to be compounds, by assuming that, "These pluralizing adjuncts, ne and s, were, no doubt, formerly detached from the pronouns with which they now coalesce;" and then, because he finds in each of his supposed compounds the signification of a pronoun and its governing noun, reassumes, in parsing them, the very principle of error, on which he condemns their common classification. He says, "They should be parsed as two words." He also supposes them to represent the nouns which govern them--nouns with which they do not agree in any respect! Thus is he wrong in almost every thing he says about them. See Kirkham's Gram., p. 99, p. 101, and p. 104. Goodenow, too, a still later writer, adopts the major part of all this absurdity. He will have my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, their, for the possessive case of his personal pronouns; but mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs, he calls "compound possessive pronouns, in the subjective or [the] objective case."--Text-Book of E. Gram., p. 33. Thus he introduces a new class, unknown to his primary division of the pronouns, and not included in his scheme of their declension. Fuller, too, in a grammar produced at Plymouth, Mass., in 1822, did nearly the same thing. He called I, thou, he, she, and it, with their plurals, "antecedent pronouns;" took my, thy, his, her, &c., for their only possessive forms in his declension; and, having passed from them by the space of just half his book, added: "Sometimes, to prevent the repetition of the same word, an antecedent pronoun in the possessive case, is made to represent, both the pronoun and a noun; as, 'That book is mine'--i. e. 'my book.' MINE is a compound antecedent pronoun, and is equivalent to my book. Then parse my, and book, as though they were both expressed."--Fuller's Gram., p. 71.

OBS. 11.--Amidst all this diversity of doctrine at the very centre of grammar, who shall so fix its principles that our schoolmasters and schoolmistresses may know what to believe and teach? Not he that speculates without regard to other men's views; nor yet he that makes it a merit to follow implicitly "the footsteps of" one only. The true principles of grammar are with the learned; and that man is in the wrong, with whom the most learned will not, in general, coincide. Contradiction of falsities, is necessary to the maintenance of truth; correction of errors, to the success of science. But not every man's errors can be so considerable as to deserve correction from other hands than his own. Misinstruction in grammar has for this reason generally escaped censure. I do not wish any one to coincide with me merely through ignorance of what others inculcate. If doctors of divinity and doctors of laws will contradict themselves in teaching grammar, so far as they do so, the lovers of consistency will find it necessary to deviate from their track. Respecting these pronouns, I learned in childhood, from Webster, a doctrine which he now declares to be false. This was nearly the same as Lowth's, which is quoted in the sixth observation above. But, in stead of correcting its faults, this zealous reformer has but run into others still greater. Now, with equal reproach to his etymology, his syntax, and his logic, he denies that our pronouns have any form of the possessive case at all. But grant the obvious fact, that substitution is one thing, and ellipsis an other, and his whole argument is easily overthrown; for it is only by confounding these, that he reaches his absurd conclusion.

OBS. 12.--Dr. Webster's doctrine now is, that none of the English pronouns have more than two cases. He says, "mine, thine, his, hers, yours, and theirs, are usually considered as [being of] the possessive case. But the three first are either attributes, and used with nouns, or they are substitutes. The three last are always substitutes, used in the place of names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD."--"That mine, thine, his, [ours,] yours, hers, and theirs, do not constitute a possessive case, is demonstrable; for they are constantly used as the nominatives to verbs and as the objectives after verbs and prepositions, as in the following passages. 'Whether it could perform its operations of thinking and memory out of a body organized as ours is.'--Locke. 'The reason is, that his subject is generally things; theirs, on the contrary, is persons.'--Camp. Rhet. 'Therefore leave your forest of beasts for ours of brutes, called men.'--Wycherley to Pope. It is needless to multiply proofs. We observe these pretended possessives uniformly used as nominatives or objectives.[210] Should it be said that a noun is understood; I reply, this cannot be true," &c.--Philosophical Gram., p. 35; Improved Gram., p. 26. Now, whether it be true or not, this very position is expressly affirmed by the Doctor himself, in the citation above; though he is, unquestionably, wrong in suggesting that the pronouns are "used in the place of [those] names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD." They are used in the place of other names--the names of the possessors; and are governed by those which he here both admits and denies to be "understood."

OBS. 13.--The other arguments of Dr. Webster against the possessive case of pronouns, may perhaps be more easily answered than some readers imagine. The first is drawn from the fact that conjunctions connect like cases. "Besides, in three passages just quoted, the word yours is joined by a connective to a name in the same case; 'To ensure yours and their immortality.' 'The easiest part of yours and my design.' 'My sword and yours are kin.' Will any person pretend that the connective here joins different cases?"--Improved Gram., p. 28; Philosophical Gram., p. 36. I answer, No. But it is falsely assumed that yours is here connected by and to immortality, to design, or to sword; because these words are again severally understood after yours: or, if otherwise, the two pronouns alone are connected by and, so that the proof is rather, that their and my are in the possessive case. The second argument is drawn from the use of the preposition of before the possessive. "For we say correctly, 'an acquaintance of yours, ours, or theirs'--of being the sign of the possessive; but if the words in themselves are possessives, then there must be two signs of the same case, which is absurd."--Improved Gram., p. 28; Phil. Gr., 36. I deny that of is here the sign of the possessive, and affirm that it is taken partitively, in all examples of this sort. "I know my sheep, and am known of mine," is not of this kind; because of here means by--a sense in which the word is antiquated. In recurring afterwards to this argument, the Doctor misquotes the following texts, and avers that they "are evidently meant to include the whole number: 'Sing to the Lord, all ye saints of his.'--Ps. 30, 4. 'He that heareth these sayings of mine.'--Matt. 7."--Improved Gram., p. 29; Phil. Gr., 38. If he is right about the meaning, however, the passages are mistranslated, as well as misquoted: they ought to be, "Sing unto the Lord, O ye his Saints."--"Every one that heareth these my sayings." But when a definitive particle precedes the noun, it is very common with us, to introduce the possessive elliptically after it; and what Dr. Wilson means by suggesting that it is erroneous, I know not: "When the preposition of precedes mine, ours, yours, &c. the errour lies, not in this, that there are double possessive cases, but in forming an implication of a noun, which the substitute already denotes, together with the persons."--Essay on Gram., p. 110.

OBS. 14.--In his Syllabus of English Grammar, Dr. Wilson teaches thus: "My, our, thy, your, his, her, its, their, whose, and whosesoever are possessive pronominal adjectives. Ours, yours, hers, and theirs are pronoun substantives, used either as subjects, or [as] objects; as singulars, or [as] plurals; and are substituted both for [the names of] the possessors, and [for those of the] things possessed. His, its, whose, mine, and thine, are sometimes used as such substantives; but also are at other times pronominal possessive adjectives."--Wilson's Syllabus, p. X. Now compare with these three positions, the following three from the same learned author. "In Hebrew, the adjective generally agrees with its noun in gender and number, but pronouns follow the gender of their antecedents, and not of the nouns with which they stand. So in English, my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, and their, agree with the nouns they represent, in number, gender, and person. But adjectives, having no change expressive of number, gender, or case, cannot accord with their nouns."--Wilson's Essay on Gram., p. 192. "Ours, yours, hers, and theirs, are most usually considered possessive cases of personal pronouns; but they are, more probably, possessive substitutes, not adjectives, but nouns."--Ib., p. 109. "Nor can mine or thine, with any more propriety than ours, yours, &c. be joined to any noun, as possessive adjectives and possessive cases may."--Ib., p. 110. Whoever understands these instructions, cannot but see their inconsistency.

OBS. 15.--Murray argues at some length, without naming his opponents, that the words which he assumes to be such, are really personal pronouns standing rightfully in the possessive case; and that, "they should not, on the slight pretence of their differing from nouns, be dispossessed of the right and privilege, which, from time immemorial they have enjoyed."--Octavo Gram., p. 53. Churchill as ably shows, that the corresponding terms, which Lowth calls pronominal adjectives, and which Murray and others will have to be pronouns of no case, are justly entitled to the same rank. "If mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs, be the possessive case; my, thy, her, our, your, their, must be the same. Whether we say, 'It is John's book,' or, 'The book is John's;' John's is not less the possessive case in one instance, than it is in the other. If we say, 'It is his book,' or, 'The book is his;' 'It is her book,' or, 'The book is hers;' 'It is my book,' or, 'The book is mine;' 'It is your book,' or, 'The book is yours;' are not these parallel instances? Custom has established it as a law, that this case of the pronoun shall drop its original termination, for the sake of euphony, when it precedes the noun that governs it; retaining it only where the noun is understood: but this certainly makes no alteration in the nature of the word; so that either my is as much a possessive case as mine; or mine and my are equally pronominal adjectives."--Churchill's New Gram., p. 221. "Mr. Murray considers the phrases, 'our desire,' 'your intention,' 'their resignation,' as instances of plural adjectives agreeing with singular nouns; and consequently exceptions to the general (may we not say universal?) rule: but if they [the words our, your, their,] be, as is attempted to be proved above, the possessive cases of pronouns, no rule is here violated."--Ib., p. 224.

OBS. 16.--One strong argument, touching this much-disputed point of grammar, was incidentally noticed in the observations upon antecedents: an adjective cannot give person, number, and gender, to a relative pronoun; because, in our language, adjectives do not possess these qualities; nor indeed in any other, except as they take them by immediate agreement with nouns or pronouns in the same clause. But it is undeniable, that my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, do sometimes stand as antecedents, and give person, number, and gender to relatives, which head other clauses. For the learner should remember, that, "When a relative pronoun is used, the sentence is divided into two parts; viz. the antecedent sentence, or that which contains the antecedent; and the relative sentence, containing the relative."--Nixon's Parser, p. 123. We need not here deny, that Terence's Latin, as quoted in the grammars, "Omnes laudare fortunas meas, qui haberem gnatum tali ingeuio præditum," is quite as intelligible syntax, as can literally be made of it in English--"That all would praise my fortunes, who had a son endued with such a genius." For, whether the Latin be good or not, it affords no argument against us, except that of a supposed analogy; nor does the literality of the version prove, at all points, either the accuracy or the sameness of the construction.

OBS. 17.--Surely, without some imperative reason, we ought not, in English, to resort to such an assumption as is contained in the following Rule: "Sometimes the relative agrees in person with that pronoun substantive, from which the possessive pronoun adjective is derived; as, Pity my condition, who am so destitute. I rejoice at thy lot, who art so fortunate. We lament his fate, who is so unwary. Beware of her cunning, who is so deceitful. Commiserate our condition, who are so poor. Tremble at your negligence, who are so careless. It shall be their property, who are so diligent. We are rejoicing at thy lot, who hast been so fortunate."--Nixon's Parser, p. 142. In his explanation of the last of these sentences, the author says, "Who is a relative pronoun; in the masculine gender, singular number, second person, and agrees with thee, implied in the adjective thy. RULE.--Sometimes the relative agrees in person, &c. And it is the nominative to the verb hast been. RULE.--When no nominative comes between the relative and the verb, the relative is the nominative to the verb."--Ib., p. 143. A pupil of G. Brown's would have said, "Who is a relative pronoun, representing 'thy,' or the person addressed, in the second person, singular number, and masculine gender; according to the rule which says, 'A pronoun must agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in person, number, and gender:' and is in the nominative case, being the subject of hast been; according to the rule which says, 'A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.' Because the meaning is--who hast been; that is, thy lot, or the lot of thee, who hast been."

OBS. 18.--Because the possessive case of a noun or pronoun is usually equivalent in meaning to the preposition of and the objective case, some grammarians, mistaking this equivalence of meaning for sameness of case, have asserted that all our possessives have a double form. Thus Nixon: "When the particle of comes between two substantives signifying different things, it is not to be considered a preposition, but the sign of the substantive's being in the possessive case, equally as if the apostrophic s had been affixed to it; as, 'The skill of Cæsar,' or Cæsar's skill.'"--English Parser, p. 38. "When the apostrophic s is used, the genitive is the former of the two substantives; as, 'John's house:' but when the particle of is used, it is the latter; as, 'The house of John.'"--Ib., p. 46. The work here quoted is adapted to two different grammars; namely, Murray's and Allen's. These the author doubtless conceived to be the best English grammars extant. And it is not a little remarkable, that both of these authors, as well as many others, teach in such a faulty manner, that their intentions upon this point may be matter of dispute. "When Murray, Allen, and others, say, 'we make use of the particle of to express the relation of the genitive,' the ambiguity of their assertion leaves it in doubt whether or not they considered the substantive which is preceded by of and an other substantive, as in the genitive case."--Nixon's English Parser, p. 38. Resolving this doubt according to his own fancy, Nixon makes the possessive case of our personal pronouns to be as follows: "mine or of me, ours or of us; thine or of thee, yours or of you; his or of him, theirs or of them; hers or of her, theirs or of them; its or of it, theirs or of them."--English Parser, p. 43. This doctrine gives us a form of declension that is both complex and deficient. It is therefore more objectionable than almost any of those which are criticised above. The arguments and authorities on which the author rests his position, are not thought likely to gain many converts; for which reason, I dismiss the subject, without citing or answering them.

OBS. 19.--In old books, we sometimes find the word I written for the adverb ay, yes: as, "To dye, to sleepe; To sleepe, perchance to dreame; I, there's the rub."--Shakspeare, Old Copies. The British Grammar, printed in 1784, and the Grammar of Murray the schoolmaster, published some years earlier than Lindley Murray's, say: "We use I as an Answer, in a familiar, careless, or merry Way; as, 'I, I, Sir, I, I;' but to use ay, is accounted rude, especially to our Betters." See Brit. Gram., p. 198. The age of this rudeness, or incivility, if it ever existed, has long passed away; and the fashion seems to be so changed, that to write or utter I for ay, would now in its turn be "accounted rude"--the rudeness of ignorance--a false orthography, or a false pronunciation. In the word ay, the two sounds of ah-ee are plainly heard; in the sound of I, the same elements are more quickly blended. (See a note at the foot of page 162.) When this sound is suddenly repeated, some writers make a new word of it, which must be called an interjection: as, "'Pray, answer me a question or two.' 'Ey, ey, as many as you please, cousin Bridget, an they be not too hard.'"--Burgh's Speaker, p. 99. "Ey, ey, 'tis so; she's out of her head, poor thing."--Ib., p. 100. This is probably a corruption of ay, which is often doubled in the same manner: thus,

"Ay, ay, Antipholus, look strange, and frown."--Shakspeare.

OBS. 20.--The common fashion of address being nowadays altogether in the plural form, the pronouns thou, thy, thine, thee, and thyself, have become unfamiliar to most people, especially to the vulgar and uneducated. These words are now confined almost exclusively to the writings of the poets, to the language of the Friends, to the Holy Scriptures, and to the solemn services of religion. They are, however, the only genuine representatives of the second person singular, in English; and to displace them from that rank in grammar, or to present you, your, and yours, as being literally singular, though countenanced by several late writers, is a useless and pernicious innovation. It is sufficient for the information of the learner, and far more consistent with learning and taste, to say, that the plural is fashionably used for the singular, by a figure of syntax; for, in all correct usage of this sort, the verb is plural, as well as the pronoun--Dr. Webster's fourteen authorities to the contrary notwithstanding. For, surely, "You was" cannot be considered good English, merely because that number of respectable writers have happened, on some particular occasions, to adopt the phrase; and even if we must needs concede this point, and grant to the Doctor and his converts, that "You was is primitive and correct," the example no more proves that you is singular, than that was is plural. And what is one singular irregular preterit, compared with all the verbs in the language?

OBS. 21.--In our present authorized version of the Bible, the numbers and cases of the second person are kept remarkably distinct,[211] the pronouns being always used in the following manner: thou for the nominative, thy or thine for the possessive, and thee for the objective, singular; ye for the nominative, your or yours for the possessive, and you for the objective, plural. Yet, before that version was made, fashionable usage had commonly substituted you for ye, making the former word nominative as well as objective, and applying it to one hearer as well as to more. And subsequently, as it appears, the religious sect that entertained a scruple about applying you to an individual, fell for the most part into an ungrammatical practice of putting thee for thou; making, in like manner, the objective pronoun to be both nominative and objective; or, at least, using it very commonly so in their conversation. Their manner of speaking, however, was not--or, certainly, with the present generation of their successors, is not--as some grammarians represent it to be, that formal and antique phraseology which we call the solemn style.[212] They make no more use of the pronoun ye, or of the verbal termination eth, than do people of fashion; nor do they, in using the pronoun thou, or their improper nominative thee, ordinarily inflect with st or est the preterits or the auxiliaries of the accompanying verbs, as is done in the solemn style. Indeed, to use the solemn style familiarly, would be, to turn it into burlesque; as when Peter Pindar "telleth what he troweth." [213] And let those who think with Murray, that our present version of the Scriptures is the best standard of English grammar,[214] remember that in it they have no warrant for substituting s or es for the old termination eth, any more than for ceasing to use the solemn style of the second person familiarly. That version was good in its day, yet it shows but very imperfectly what the English language now is. Can we consistently take for our present standard, a style which does not allow us to use you in the nominative case, or its for the possessive? And again, is not a simplification of the verb as necessary and proper in the familiar use of the second person singular, as in that of the third? This latter question I shall discuss in a future chapter.

OBS. 22.--The use of the pronoun ye in the nominative case, is now mostly confined to the solemn style;[215] but the use of it in the objective, which is disallowed in the solemn style, and nowhere approved by our grammarians, is nevertheless common when no emphasis falls upon the word: as,

"When you're unmarried, never load ye With jewels; they may incommode ye."--Dr. King, p. 384.

Upon this point, Dr. Lowth observes, "Some writers have used ye as the objective case plural of the pronoun of the second person, very improperly and ungrammatically; [as,]

'The more shame for ye; holy men I thought ye.' Shak. Hen. VIII.

'But tyrants dread ye, lest your just decree Transfer the pow'r, and set the people free.' Prior.

'His wrath, which one day will destroy ye both.' Milt. P. L. ii. 734.

Milton uses the same manner of expression in a few other places of his Paradise Lost, and more frequently in his [smaller] poems, It may, perhaps, be allowed in the comic and burlesque style, which often imitates a vulgar and incorrect pronunciation; but in the serious and solemn style, no authority is sufficient to justify so manifest a solecism."--Lowth's Gram., p. 22. Churchill copies this remark, and adds; "Dryden has you as the nominative, and ye as the objective, in the same passage:[216]

'What gain you, by forbidding it to tease ye? It now can neither trouble ye, nor please ye.'

Was this from a notion, that you and ye, thus employed, were more analogous to thou and thee in the singular number?"--Churchill's Gram., p. 25. I answer, No; but, more probably, from a notion, that the two words, being now confessedly equivalent in the one case, might as well be made so in the other: just as the Friends, in using thee for you, are carelessly converting the former word into a nominative, to the exclusion of thou; because the latter has generally been made so, to the exclusion of ye. When the confounding of such distinctions is begun, who knows where it will end? With like ignorance, some writers suppose, that the fashion of using the plural for the singular is a sufficient warrant for putting the singular for the plural: as,

"The joys of love, are they not doubly _thine, Ye poor!_ whose health, whose spirits ne'er decline?" --Southwick's Pleas. of Poverty.

"But, Neatherds, go look to the kine, Their cribs with fresh fodder supply; The task of compassion be thine, For herbage the pastures deny."--Perfect's Poems, p. 5.

OBS. 23.--When used in a burlesque or ludicrous manner, the pronoun ye is sometimes a mere expletive; or, perhaps, intended rather as an objective governed by a preposition understood. But, in such a construction, I see no reason to prefer it to the regular objective you; as,

"He'll laugh ye, dance ye, sing ye, vault, look gay, And ruffle all the ladies in his play."--King, p. 574.

Some grammarians, who will have you to be singular as well as plural, ignorantly tell us, that "ye always means more than one." But the fact is, that when ye was in common use, it was as frequently applied to one person as you: thus,

"Farewell my doughter lady Margarete, God wotte full oft it grieued hath my mynde, That ye should go where we should seldome mete: Now am I gone, and haue left you behynde."--Sir T. More, 1503.

In the following example, ye is used for thee, the objective singular; and that by one whose knowledge of the English language, is said to have been unsurpassed:--

"Proud Baronet of Nova Scotia! The Dean and Spaniard must reproach ye."--Swift.

So in the story of the Chameleon:--

"'Tis green, 'tis green, Sir, I assure ye."--Merrick.

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 pronoun 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-shell."--Byron.

OBS. 24.--The three pronouns 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 pronoun 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 pricketh 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 assumes Some mark of virtue on his outward parts." --Merch. of Venice.

"The name of Cassius honours this corruption, And chastisement doth therefore hide his head." --Jul. Cæs., Act iv.

OBS. 25.--The possessive case of pronouns should never be written with an apostrophe. A few pronominal 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 pronouns 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 classification 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 pronouns, this author gives the following account: "Self, in the plural selves, a noun, is often combined with the personal pronouns, in order to express emphasis, or opposition, or the identity of the subject and [the] object of a verb; and thus forms a pronoun 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 pronoun, which was kept distinct from it [them] in the possessive case: but since they [the pronoun 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 pronoun, [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 pronouns 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 pronouns 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 pronouns, and nothing else. He is also manifestly wrong in asserting, 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 ownership 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 constitute the possessive case of an other! And again, as if the making of eight new pronouns 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 pronouns, 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 substitute, and as a part of it, to constitute it emphatic."--Gram., p. 63. He writes it separately, but parses it as a part of the possessive noun or pronoun 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 pronouns. Dr. Johnson, in his great Dictionary, calls self a pronoun; 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 analogy of my, him, them, be used as nominatives." Hisself, itsself, and theirselves, would be more analogical than himself, itself, themselves; but custom has rejected the former, and established the latter. When an adjective qualifies the term self, the pronouns 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 chastity."--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 friendships, 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 pronouns are not unfrequently used, for brevity's sake, in a reciprocal sense; that is, in stead of the compound personal pronouns, 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, pronounced like the monosyllable air. An easy extension of this license, gives us similar contractions of all the compound relative pronouns; 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 classes of pronouns. Some of them are commonly parsed 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 parse other equivalent words, is not really to parse the text that is given. A good parser, 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 hwæt. 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 parse it as two words; that is, you must parse the antecedent part as a noun, and give it case; the relative part you may analyze 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. pron. 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 sex--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 pronoun, 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. pron. &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 classifies 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 pronoun 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 constitute 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 classes 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 pronoun 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 pronoun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun 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 pronoun, 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 Pronoun 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 Pronoun 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 parsed merely as other interjections are parsed: as, "What! came the word of God 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 God?"--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 hell?"--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 classes and modifications of the ARTICLES, NOUNS, ADJECTIVES, and PRONOUNS.

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 pronoun, and one for a verb, a participle, an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition, or an interjection. Thus:--

EXAMPLE PARSED.

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? 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 class, 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 pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

Who is an interrogative pronoun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. An interrogative pronoun is a pronoun 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 pronoun 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 pronoun, of the second person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun 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 pronoun which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

That is a relative pronoun, of the second person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 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 pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

Repliest is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, or to be acted upon.

Against is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.

God is a proper noun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and objective case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known, or mentioned. 2. A proper noun is the name of some particular individual, or people, or group. 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 objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.

Shall is a verb, auxiliary to say, and may be taken with it.

The is the definite article. 1. An article is the word the, an, or a, which we put before nouns to limit their signification. 2. The definite article is the, which denotes some particular thing or things.

Thing is a common noun of the third person, singular number, neuter 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 class, of beings or things. 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 pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

Formed is a participle. 1. A participle is a word derived from a verb, participating the properties of a verb, and of an adjective or a noun; and is generally formed by adding ing, d, or ed, to the verb.

Say, or shall say, is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, or to be acted upon.

To is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.

Him is a personal pronoun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and objective case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person it is. 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 objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.

That is a relative pronoun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun 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 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 pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

Formed is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, or to be acted upon. It is a personal pronoun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person it is. 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 objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.

Why 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.

Hast is a verb, auxiliary to made, and may be taken with it.

Thou is a personal pronoun, of the second person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun 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 pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

Made, or hast made, is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, or to be acted upon.

Me is a personal pronoun, of the first person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person it is. 3. The first person is that which denotes the speaker or writer. 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 objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.

Thus 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.

LESSON I.--PARSING.

"Every man has undoubtedly an inward perception of the celestial goodness by which he is quickened. But, if to obtain some ideas of God, it be not necessary for us to go beyond ourselves, what an unpardonable indolence it is in those who will not descend into themselves that they may find him?"--Calvin's Institutes, B. i, Ch. 5.

"Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: yet ye have not known him; but I know him."--John, viii, 54.

"What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not."--1 Cor., xi, 22.

"We know not what we ought to wish for, but He who made us, knows."--Burgh's Dignity, Vol. ii, p. 20.

"And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?"--1 Peter, iii, 13.

"For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise."--2 Cor., x, 12.

"Whatever is humane, is wise; whatever is wise, is just; whatever is wise, just, and humane, will be found the true interest of states."--Dr. Rush, on Punishments, p. 19.

"But, methinks, we cannot answer it to ourselves, as-well-as to our Maker, that we should live and die ignorant of ourselves, and thereby of him, and of the obligations which we are under to him for ourselves."--William Penn.

"But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding? The depth saith, 'It is not in me;' and the sea saith, 'It is not with me.' Destruction and death say, 'We have heard the fame thereof with our ears.'"--See Job, xxviii, 12, 14, 22; and Blair's Lect., p. 417.

"I still had hopes, my latest hours to crown, Amidst these humble bow'rs to lay me down."--Goldsmith.

"Why dost thou then suggest to me distrust, Knowing who I am, as I know who thou art?"--Milton, P. R.

LESSON II.--PARSING.

"I would, methinks, have so much to say for myself, that if I fell into the hands of him who treated me ill, he should be sensible when he did so: his conscience should be on my side, whatever became of his inclination."--Steele, Spect., No. 522.

"A boy should understand his mother tongue well before he enters upon the study of a dead language; or, at any rate, he should be made perfect master of the meaning of all the words which are necessary to furnish him with a translation of the particular author which he is studying."--Gallaudet, Lit. Conv., p. 206.

"No discipline is more suitable to man, or more congruous to the dignity of his nature, than that which refines his taste, and leads him to distinguish, in every subject, what is regular, what is orderly, what is suitable, and what is fit and proper."--Kames's El. of Crit., i, 275.

"Simple thoughts are what arise naturally; what the occasion or the subject suggests unsought; and what, when once suggested, are easily apprehended by all. Refinement in writing, expresses a less natural and [less] obvious train of thought."--Blair's Rhet., p. 184.

"Where the story of an epic poem is founded on truth, no circumstances must be added, but such as connect naturally with what are known to be true: history may be supplied, but it must not be contradicted."--See Kames's El. of Crit., ii, 280.

"Others, I am told, pretend to have been once his friends. Surely they are their enemies, who say so; for nothing can be more odious than to treat a friend as they have treated him. But of this I cannot persuade myself, when I consider the constant and eternal aversion of all bad writers to a good one."--Cleland, in Defence of Pope.

"From side to side, he struts, he smiles, he prates, And seems to wonder what's become of Yates."--Churchill.

"Alas! what sorrows gloom'd that parting day, That call'd them from their native walks away!"--Goldsmith.

LESSON III.--PARSING.

"It is involved in the nature of man, that he cannot be indifferent to an event that concerns him or any of his connexions: if it be fortunate, it gives him joy; if unfortunate, it gives him sorrow."--Kames's El. of Crit., i, 62.

"I knew a man who had relinquished the sea for a country life: in the corner of his garden he reared an artificial mount with a level summit, resembling most accurately a quarter-deck, not only in shape, but in size; and here he generally walked."--Ib., p. 328.

"I mean, when we are angry with our Maker. For against whom else is it that our displeasure is pointed, when we murmur at the distribution of things here, either because our own condition is less agreeable than we would have it, or because that of others is more prosperous than we imagine they deserve?"--Archbishop Seeker.

"Things cannot charge into the soul, or force us upon any opinions about them; they stand aloof and are quiet. It is our fancy that makes them operate and gall us; it is we that rate them, and give them their bulk and value."--Collier's Antoninus, p. 212.

"What is your opinion of truth, good-nature, and sobriety? Do any of these virtues stand in need of a good word; or are they the worse for a bad one? I hope a diamond will shine ne'er the less for a man's silence about the worth of it."--Ib., p. 49.

"Those words which were formerly current and proper, have now become obsolete and barbarous. Alas! this is not all: fame tarnishes in time too; and men grow out of fashion, as well as languages."--Ib., p. 55.

"O Luxury! thou curs'd by Heaven's decree, How ill exchang'd are things like these for thee."--Goldsmith.

"O, then, how blind to all that truth requires, Who think it freedom when a part aspires!"--Id.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

ERRORS OF PRONOUNS.

LESSON I.--RELATIVES.

"At the same time that we attend to this pause, every appearance of sing-song and tone must be carefully guarded against."--Murray's English Reader, p. xx.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the word that had not clearly the construction either of a pronoun or of a conjunction. But, according to Observation 18th, on the Classes of Pronouns, "The word that, or indeed any other word, should never be so used as to leave the part of speech uncertain." Therefore, the expression should be altered: thus, "While we attend to this pause, every appearance of singsong must be carefully avoided."]

"For thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee."--Jeremiah, i, 7; Gurney's Obs., p. 223. "Ah! how happy would it have been for me, had I spent in retirement these twenty-three years that I have possessed my kingdom."--See Sanborn's Gram., p. 242. "In the same manner that relative pronouns and their antecedents are usually parsed."--Ib., p. 71. "Parse or mention all the other nouns in the parsing examples, in the same manner that you do the word in the form of parsing."--Ib., p. 8. "The passive verb will always be of the person and number that the verb be is, of which it is in part composed."--Ib., p. 53. "You have been taught that a verb must always be of the same person and number that its nominative is."--Ib., p. 68. "A relative pronoun, also, must always be of the same person, number, and even gender that its antecedent is."--Ib., p. 68. "The subsequent is always in the same case that the word is, which asks the question."--Ib., p. 95. "One sometimes represents an antecedent noun in the same definite manner that personal pronouns do."--Ib., p. 98. "The mind being carried forward to the time that an event happens, easily conceives it to be present."--Ib., p. 107. "Save and saving are parsed in the same manner that except and excepting are."--Ib., p. 123. "Adverbs describe, qualify, or modify the meaning of a verb in the same manner that adjectives do nouns."--Ib., p. 16. "The third person singular of verbs, is formed in the same manner, that the plural number of nouns is."--Ib., p. 41. "He saith further: 'that the apostles did not anew baptize such persons, that had been baptized with the baptism of John.'"--Barclay's Works, i, 292. "For we which live, are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake."--2 Cor., iv, 11. "For they, which believe in God, must be careful to maintain good works."--Barclay's Works, i, 431. "Nor yet of those which teach things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake."--Ib., i, 435. "So as to hold such bound in heaven, whom they bind on earth, and such loosed in heaven, whom they loose on earth."--Ib., i, 478. "Now, if it be an evil to do any thing out of strife; then such things that are seen so to be done, are they not to be avoided and forsaken?"--Ib., i, 522. "All such who satisfy themselves not with the superficies of religion."--Ib., ii, 23. "And he is the same in substance, what he was upon earth, both in spirit, soul and body."--Ib., iii, 98. "And those that do not thus, are such, to whom the Church of Rome can have no charity."--Ib., iii, 204. "Before his book he placeth a great list of that he accounts the blasphemous assertions of the Quakers."--Ib., iii, 257. "And this is that he should have proved."--Ib., iii, 322. "Three of which were at that time actual students of philosophy in the university."--Ib., iii, 180. "Therefore it is not lawful for any whatsoever * * * to force the consciences of others."--Ib., ii, 13. "What is the cause that the former days were better than these?"--Eccl., vii, 10. "In the same manner that the term my depends on the name books."--O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 54. "In the same manner as the term house depends on the relative near."--Ib., p. 58. "James died on the day that Henry returned."--Ib., p. 177.

LESSON II.--DECLENSIONS.

"Other makes the plural others, when it is found without it's substantive."--Priestley's Gram., p. 12.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the pronoun it's is written with an apostrophe. But, according to Observation 25th, on the Declensions of Pronouns, "The possessive case of pronouns should never be written with an apostrophe." Therefore, this apostrophe should be omitted; thus, "Other makes the plural others, when it is found without its substantive."]

"But his, her's, our's, your's, their's, have evidently the form of the possessive case."--Lowth's Gram., p. 23. "To the Saxon possessive cases, hire, ure, eower, hira, (that is, her's, our's, your's, their's,) we have added the s, the characteristic of the possessive case of nouns."--Ib., p. 23. "Upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's."--FRIENDS' BIBLE: 1 Cor., i, 2. "In this Place His Hand is clearly preferable either to Her's or It's." [220]--Harris's Hermes, p. 59. "That roguish leer of your's makes a pretty woman's heart ake."--ADDISON: in Joh. Dict. "Lest by any means this liberty of your's become a stumbling-block."--FRIENDS' BIBLE: 1 Cor., viii, 9. "First person: Sing. I, mine, me; Plur. we, our's, us."--Wilbur and Livingston's Gram., p. 16. "Second person: Sing. thou, thine, thee; Plur. ye or you, your's, you."--Ib. "Third person: Sing. she, her's, her; Plur. they, their's, them."--Ib. "So shall ye serve strangers in a land that is not your's."--SCOTT ET AL.: Jer., v, 19. "Second person, Singular: Nom. thou or you, Poss. thine or yours, Obj. thee or you."--Frost's El. of E. Gram., p. 13. "Second person, Dual: Nom. Gyt, ye two; Gen. Incer, of ye two; Dat. Inc, incrum, to ye two; Acc. Inc, ye two; Voc. Eala inc, O ye two; Abl. Inc, incrum, from ye two."--Gwill's Saxon Gram., p. 12. "Second person, Plural; Nom. Ge, ye; Gen. Eower, of ye; Dat. Eow, to ye; Acc. Eow, ye; Voc. Eala ge, O ye; Abl. Eow, from ye."--Ib. (written in 1829.) "These words are, mine, thine, his, her's, our's, your's, their's, and whose."--Cardell's Essay, p. 88. "This house is our's, and that is your's. Their's is very commodious."--Ib., p. 90. "And they shall eat up thine harvest, and thy bread: they shall eat up thy flocks and thine herds."--Jeremiah, v, 17. "Whoever and Whichever are thus declined. Sing. and Plu. nom. whoever, poss. whoseever, obj. whomever. Sing. and Plu. nom. whichever, poss. whoseever, obj. whichever."--Cooper's Plain and Practical Gram., p. 38. "The compound personal pronouns are thus declined; Sing. N. Myself, P. my-own, O. myself; Plur. N. ourselves, P. our-own, O. ourselves. Sing. N. Thyself or yourself, P. thy-own or your-own, O. thyself or yourself;" &c.--Perley's Gram., p. 16. "Every one of us, each for hisself, laboured how to recover him."--SIDNEY: in Priestley's Gram., p. 96. "Unless when ideas of their opposites manifestly suggest their selves."--Wright's Gram., p. 49. "It not only exists in time, but is time its self."--Ib., p. 75. "A position which the action its self will palpably deny."--Ib., p. 102. "A difficulty sometimes presents its self."--Ib., p. 165. "They are sometimes explanations in their selves."--Ib., p. 249. "Our's, Your's, Their's, Her's, It's."--S. Barrett's Gram., p. 24.

"Their's the wild chace of false felicities: His, the compos'd possession of the true." --Murray's E. Reader, p. 216.

LESSON III.--MIXED.

"It is the boast of Americans, without distinction of parties, that their government is the most free and perfect, which exists on the earth."--Dr. Allen's Lectures, p. 18.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the relative which is here intended to be taken in a restrictive sense. But, according to Observation 26th, on the Classes of Pronouns, (and others that follow it,) the word who or which, with a comma before it, does not usually limit the preceding term. Therefore, which should be that, and the comma should be omitted; thus,--"that their government is the most free and perfect that exists on the earth."]

"Children, who are dutiful to their parents, enjoy great prosperity."--Sanborn's Gram., p. 69. "The scholar, who improves his time, sets an example worthy of imitation."--Ib., p. 69. "Nouns and pronouns, which signify the same person, place, or thing, agree in case."--Cooper's Gram., p. 115. "An interrogative sentence is one, which asks a question."--Ib., p. 114. "In the use of words and phrases, which in point of time relate to each other, a due regard to that relation should be observed."--Ib., p. 146; see L. Murray's Rule xiii. "The same observations, which have been made respecting the effect of the article and participle, appear to be applicable to the pronoun and participle."--Murray's Gram., p. 193. "The reason that they have not the same use of them in reading, may be traced to the very defective and erroneous method, in which the art of reading is taught."--Ib., p. 252. "Since the time that reason began to exert her powers, thought, during our waking hours, has been active in every breast, without a moment's suspension or pause."--Murray's Key, p. 271; Merchant's Gram., p. 212. "In speaking of such who greatly delight in the same."--Notes to Dunciad, 177. "Except such to whom the king shall hold out the golden sceptre, that he may live."--Esther, iv, 11.--"But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all."--Luke, xvii, 29. "In the next place I will explain several cases of nouns and pronouns which have not yet come under our notice."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 129. "Three natural distinctions of time are all which can exist."--Rail's Gram., p. 15. "We have exhibited such only as are obviously distinct; and which seem to be sufficient, and not more than sufficient."--Murray's Gram., p. 68; Hall's, 14. "This point encloses a part of a sentence which may be omitted without materially injuring the connexion of the other members."--Hall's Gram., p. 39. "Consonants are letters, which cannot be sounded without the aid of a Vowel."--Bucke's Gram., p. 9. "Words are not simple sounds, but sounds, which convey a meaning to the mind."--Ib., p. 16. "Nature's postures are always easy; and which is more, nothing but your own will can put you out of them."--Collier's Antoninus, p. 197. "Therefore ought we to examine our ownselves, and prove our ownselves."--Barclay's Works, i, 426. "Certainly it had been much more natural, to have divided Active Verbs into Immanent, or such whose Action is terminated in it self, and Transient, or such whose Action is terminated in something without it self."--Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 273. "This is such an advantage which no other lexicon will afford."--DR. TAYLOR: in Pike's Lex., p. iv. "For these reasons, such liberties are taken in the Hebrew tongue with those words as are of the most general and frequent use."--Pike's Heb. Lexicon, p. 184. "At the same time that we object to the laws, which the antiquarian in language would impose upon us, we must enter our protest against those authors, who are too fond of innovations."--Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 136.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us