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

"You sulphurous and thought executed fires, Vaunt couriers to oak cleaving thunderbolts, Singe my white head! And thou, all shaking thunder Strike flat the thick rotundity o' the world!"—Beauties of Shak., p. 264.

The rules for the agreement of Pronouns with their antecedents are four; hence this chapter extends from the tenth rule to the thirteenth, inclusively. The cases of Pronouns are embraced with those of nouns, in the seven rules of the third chapter.

A Pronoun must agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in person, number, and gender:[379] as, "This is the friend of whom I spoke; he has just arrived."—"This is the book which I bought; it is an excellent work."—"Ye, therefore, who love mercy, teach your sons to love it too."—Cowper.

   "Speak thou, whose thoughts at humble peace repine,
    Shall Wolsey's wealth with Wolsey's end be thine?"—Dr. Johnson.

When a pronoun stands for some person or thing indefinite, or unknown to the speaker, this rule is not strictly applicable; because the person, number, and gender, are rather assumed in the pronoun, than regulated by an antecedent: as, "I do not care who knows it."—Steele. "Who touched me? Tell me who it was."—"We have no knowledge how, or by whom, it is inhabited."—ABBOT: Joh. Dict.

The neuter pronoun it may be applied to a young child, or to other creatures masculine or feminine by nature, when they are not obviously distinguishable with regard to sex; as, "Which is the real friend to the child, the person who gives it the sweetmeats, or the person who, considering only its health, resists its importunities?"—Opis. "He loads the animal he is showing me, with so many trappings and collars, that I cannot distinctly view it"—Murray's Gram., p. 301. "The nightingale sings most sweetly when it sings in the night."—Bucke's Gram., p. 52.

The pronoun it is often used without a definite reference to any antecedent, and is sometimes a mere expletive, and sometimes the representative of an action expressed afterwards by a verb; as, "Whether she grapple it with the pride of philosophy."—Chalmers. "Seeking to lord it over God's heritage."—The Friend, vii, 253. "It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes strong drink."—Prov., xxxi, 4. "Having no temptation to it, God cannot act unjustly without defiling his nature."—Brown's Divinity, p. 11.

"Come, and trip it as you go, On the light fantastic toe."—Milton.

A singular antecedent with the adjective many, sometimes admits a plural pronoun, but never in the same clause; as, "Hard has been the fate of many a great genius, that while they have conferred immortality on others, they have wanted themselves some friend to embalm their names to posterity."—Welwood's Pref. to Rowe's Lucan.

   "In Hawick twinkled many a light,
    Behind him soon they set in night."—W. Scott.

When a plural pronoun is put by enallagè for the singular, it does not agree with its noun in number, because it still requires a plural verb; as, "We [Lindley Murray] have followed those authors, who appear to have given them the most natural and intelligible distribution."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 29. "We shall close our remarks on this subject, by introducing the sentiments of Dr. Johnson respecting it."—Ib. "My lord, you know I love you"—Shakspeare.

The pronoun sometimes disagrees with its antecedent in one sense, because it takes it in an other; as, "I have perused Mr. Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries, and find it[380] a very laborious, learned, and useful Work."—Tho. Knipe, D. D. "Lamps is of the plural number, because it means more than one."—Smith's New Gram., p. 8. "Man is of the masculine gender, because it is the name of a male."—Ib. "The Utica Sentinel says it has not heard whether the wounds are dangerous."—Evening Post. (Better: "The editor of the Utica Sentinel says, he has not heard," &c.) "There is little Benjamin with their ruler."—Psalms, lxviii, 27.

"Her end when emulation misses, She turns to envy, stings, and hisses."—Swift's Poems, p. 415.

OBS. 1.—Respecting a pronoun, the main thing is, that the reader perceive clearly for what it stands; and next, that he do not misapprehend its relation of case. For the sake of completeness and uniformity in parsing, it is, I think, expedient to apply the foregoing rule not only to those pronouns which have obvious antecedents expressed, but also to such as are not accompanied by the nouns for which they stand. Even those which are put for persons or things unknown or indefinite, may be said to agree with whatever is meant by them; that is, with such nouns as their own properties indicate. For the reader will naturally understand something by every pronoun, unless it be a mere expletive, and without any antecedent. For example: "It would depend upon who the forty were."—Trial at Steubenville, p. 50. Here who is an indefinite relative, equivalent to what persons; of the third person, plural, masculine; and is in the nominative case after were, by Rule 6th. For the full construction seems to be this: "It would depend upon the persons who the forty were." So which, for which person, or which thing, (if we call it a pronoun rather than an adjective,) may be said to have the properties of the noun person or thing understood; as,

   "His notions fitted things so well,
    That which was which he could not tell."—Hudibras.

OBS. 2.—The pronoun we is used by the speaker or writer to represent himself and others, and is therefore plural. But it is sometimes used, by a sort of fiction, in stead of the singular, to intimate that the speaker or writer is not alone in his opinions; or, perhaps more frequently, to evade the charge of egotism; for this modest assumption of plurality seems most common with those who have something else to assume: as, "And so lately as 1809, Pope Pius VII, in excommunicating his 'own dear son,' Napoleon, whom he crowned and blessed, says: 'We, unworthy as we are, represent the God of peace.'"—Dr. Brownlee. "The coat fits us as well as if we had been melted and poured into it."—Prentice. Monarchs sometimes prefer we to I, in immediate connexion with a singular noun; as, "We Alexander, Autocrat of all the Russias."—"We the Emperor of China," &c.—Economy of Human Life, p. vi. They also employ the anomalous compound ourself, which is not often used by other people; as, "Witness ourself at Westminster, 28 day of April, in the tenth year of our reign. CHARLES."

"Cæs. What touches us ourself, shall be last serv'd." —Shak., J. C., Act iii, Sc. 1.

"Ourself to hoary Nestor will repair." —Pope, Iliad, B. x, l. 65.

OBS. 3.—The pronoun you, though originally and properly plural, is now generally applied alike to one person or to more. Several observations upon this fashionable substitution of the plural number for the singular, will be found in the fifth and sixth chapters of Etymology. This usage, however it may seem to involve a solecism, is established by that authority against which the mere grammarian has scarcely a right to remonstrate. Alexander Murray, the schoolmaster, observes, "When language was plain and simple, the English always said thou, when speaking to a single person. But when an affected politeness, and a fondness for continental manners and customs began to take place, persons of rank and fashion said you in stead of thou. The innovation gained ground, and custom gave sanction to the change, and stamped it with the authority of law."—English Gram., Third Edition, 1793, p. 107. This respectable grammarian acknowledged both thou and you to be of the second person singular. I do not, however, think it necessary or advisable to do this, or to encumber the conjugations, as some have done, by introducing the latter pronoun, and the corresponding form of the verb, as singular.[381] It is manifestly better to say, that the plural is used for the singular, by the figure Enallagè. For if you has literally become singular by virtue of this substitution, we also is singular for the same reason, as often as it is substituted for I; else the authority of innumerable authors, editors, compilers, and crowned, heads, is insufficient to make it so. And again, if you and the corresponding form of the verb are literally of the second person singular, (as Wells contends, with an array of more than sixty names of English grammarians to prove it,) then, by their own rule of concord, since thou and its verb are still generally retained in the same place by these grammarians, a verb that agrees with one of these nominatives, must also agree with the other; so that you hast and thou have, you seest and thou see, may be, so far as appears from their instructions, as good a concord as can be made of these words!

OBS. 4.—The putting of you for thou has introduced the anomalous compound yourself, which is now very generally used in stead of thyself. In this instance, as in the less frequent adoption of ourself for myself, Fashion so tramples upon the laws of grammar, that it is scarcely possible to frame an intelligible exception in her favour. These pronouns are essentially singular, both in form and meaning; and yet they cannot be used with I or thou, with me or thee, or with any verb that is literally singular; as, "I ourself am." but, on the contrary, they must be connected only with such plural terms as are put for the singular; as, "We ourself are king."—"Undoubtedly you yourself become an innovator."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 364; Campbell's Rhet., 167.

   "Try touch, or sight, or smell; try what you will,
    You strangely find nought but yourself alone."
        —Pollok, C. of T., B. i, l. 162.

OBS. 5.—Such terms of address, as your Majesty, your Highness, your Lordship, your Honour, are sometimes followed by verbs and pronouns of the second person plural, substituted for the singular; and sometimes by words literally singular, and of the third person, with no other figure than a substitution of who for which: as, "Wherein your Lordship, who shines with so much distinction in the noblest assembly in the world, peculiarly excels"—Dedication of Sale's Koran. "We have good cause to give your Highness the first place; who, by a continued series of favours have obliged us, not only while you moved in a lower orb, but since the Lord hath called your Highness to supreme authority."—Massachusetts to Cromwell, in 1654.

OBS. 6.—The general usage of the French is like that of the English, you for thou; but Spanish, Portuguese, or German politeness requires that the third person be substituted for the second. And when they would be very courteous, the Germans use also the plural for the singular, as they for thou. Thus they have a fourfold method of addressing a person: as, they, denoting the highest degree of respect; he, a less degree; you, a degree still less; and thou, none at all, or absolute reproach. Yet, even among them, the last is used as a term of endearment to children, and of veneration to God! Thou, in English, still retains its place firmly, and without dispute, in all addresses to the Supreme Being; but in respect to the first person, an observant clergyman has suggested the following dilemma: "Some men will be pained, if a minister says we in the pulpit; and others will quarrel with him, if he says I."—Abbott's Young Christian, p. 268.

OBS. 7.—Any extensive perversion of the common words of a language from their original and proper use, is doubtless a matter of considerable moment. These changes in the use of the pronouns, being some of them evidently a sort of complimentary fictions, some religious people have made it a matter of conscience to abstain from them, and have published their reasons for so doing. But the moral objections which may lie against such or any other applications of words, do not come within the grammarian's province. Let every one consider for himself the moral bearing of what he utters: not forgetting the text, "But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement: for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy