The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

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