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

supposed writer, did not take them from some earlier author, they must have been first taught by him, about the year 1510; and it is certain that they have been copied into almost every grammar published since. The first one is faulty, because, "When there cometh no nominative case between the relative and the verb, the relative shall [not always] be the nominative case to the verb;" as may be seen by the following examples: "Many are the works of human industry, which to begin and finish are [say is] hardly granted to the same man."—Dr. Johnson's Adv. to Dict. "They aim at his removal; which there is reason to fear they will effect."—"Which to avoid, I cut them off."—Shak., Hen. IV. The second rule is faulty, because, "When there cometh a nominative case between the relative and the verb, the relative shall [not always] be such case as the verb will have after it;" as may be seen by the following examples: "The author has not advanced any instances, which he does not think are pertinent."—Murray's Gram., i, 192. "Which we have reason to think was the case with the Greek and Latin."—Ib., 112. "Is this your son, who ye say was born blind?"—John, ix, 19. The case of the relative cannot be accurately determined by any rules of mere location. It may be nominative to a verb afar off, or it may be objective with a verb immediately following; as, "Which I do not find that there ever was."—Knight, on the Greek Alphabet, p. 31. "And our chief reason for believing which is that our ancestors did so before us."—Philological Museum, i, 641. Both these particular rules are useless, because the general rules for the cases, as given in chapter third above, are applicable to relatives, sufficient to all the purpose, and not liable to any exceptions.

OBS. 21.—In syntactical parsing, each word, in general, is to be resolved by some one rule; but the parsing of a pronoun commonly requires two; one for its agreement with the noun or nouns for which it stands, and an other for its case. The rule of agreement will be one of the four which are embraced in this present chapter; and the rule for the case will be one of the seven which compose chapter third. So that the whole syntax of pronouns requires the application of eleven different rules, while that of nouns or verbs is embraced in six or seven, and that of any other part of speech, in one only. In respect to their cases, relatives and interrogatives admit of every construction common to nouns, or to the personal pronouns, except apposition. This is proved by the following examples:

1. Nominatives by Rule 2d: "I who write;—Thou who writest;—He who writes;—The animal which runs."—Dr. Adam. "He that spareth his rod, hateth his son."—Solomon. "He who does any thing which he knows is wrong, ventures on dangerous ground."—"What will become of us without religion?"—Blair. "Here I determined to wait the hand of death; which, I hope, when at last it comes, will fall lightly upon me."—Dr. Johnson. "What is sudden and unaccountable, serves to confound."—Crabb. "They only are wise, who are wise to salvation."—Goodwin.

2. Nominatives by Rule 6th: (i.e., words parsed as nominatives after the verbs, though mostly transposed:) "Who art thou?"—Bible. "What were we?"—Ib. "Do not tell them who I am."—"Let him be who he may, he is not the honest fellow that he seemed."—"The general conduct of mankind is neither what it was designed, nor what it ought to be."

3. Nominatives absolute by Rule 8th: "There are certain bounds to imprudence, which being transgressed, there remains no place for repentance in the natural course of things."—Bp. Butler. "Which being so, it need not be any wonder, why I should."—Walker's Particles, Pref., p. xiv. "He offered an apology, which not being admitted, he became submissive."—Murray's Key, p. 202. This construction of the relative is a Latinism, and very seldom used by the best English writers.

4. Possessives by Rule 4th: "The chief man of the island, whose name was Publius."—Acts. "Despair, a cruel tyrant, from whose prisons none can escape."—Dr. Johnson. "To contemplate on Him whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light."—Steele.

5. Objectives by Rule 5th: "Those whom she persuaded."—Dr. Johnson. "The cloak that I left at Troas."—St. Paul. "By the things which he suffered."—Id. "A man whom there is reason to suspect."—"What are we to do?"—Burke. "Love refuses nothing that love sends."—Gurnall. "The first thing, says he, is, to choose some maxim or point of morality; to inculcate which, is to be the design of his work."—Blair's Rhet., p. 421. "Whomsoever you please to appoint."—Lowth. "Whatsover [sic—KTH] he doeth, shall prosper."—Bible. "What we are afraid to do before men, we should be afraid to think before God."—Sibs. "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?"—Gen., xviii, 32. "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am going to do?"—"Call imperfection what thou fanciest such."—Pope.

6. Objectives by Rule 6th: (i.e., pronouns parsed as objectives after neuter verbs, though they stand before them:) "He is not the man that I took him to be."—"Whom did you suppose me to be?"—"If the lad ever become what you wish him to be."

7. Objectives by Rule 7th: "To whom shall we go?"—Bible. "The laws by which the world is governed, are general."—Bp. Butler. "Whom he looks upon as his defender."—Addison. "That secret heaviness of heart which unthinking men are subject to."—Id. "I cannot but think the loss of such talents as the man of whom I am speaking was master of, a more melancholy instance."—Steele. "Grammar is the solid foundation upon which all other science rests."—Buchanan's Eng. Synt., p. xx.

OBS. 22.—In familiar language, the relative of the objective case is frequently understood; as, "The man [whom] I trust."—Cowper. "Here is the letter [which] I received." So in the following sentences: "This is the man they hate. These are the goods they bought. Are these the Gods they worship? Is this the woman you saw?"—Ash's Gram., p. 96. This ellipsis seems allowable only in the familiar style. In grave writing, or deliberate discourse, it is much better to express this relative. The omission of it is often attended with some obscurity; as, "The next error [that] I shall mention [,] is a capital one."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 157. "It is little [that] we know of the divine perfections."—Scougal, p. 94. "The faith [which] we give to memory, may be thought, on a superficial view, to be resolvable into consciousness, as well as that [which] we give to the immediate impressions of sense."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 53. "We speak that [which] we do know, and testify that [which] we have seen."—John, iii, 11. The omission of a relative in the nominative case, is almost always inelegant; as, "This is the worst thing [that] could happen."—"There were several things [which] brought it upon me."—Pilgrim's Progress, p. 162. The latter ellipsis may occur after but or than, and it is also sometimes allowed in poetry; as, [There is] "No person of reflection but [who] must be sensible, that an incident makes a stronger impression on an eye-witness, than when heard at second hand."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 257.

"In this 'tis God directs, in that 'tis man."—Pope, on Man.

"Abuse on all he lov'd, or lov'd him, spread."—Id., to Arbuthnot.

"There's nothing blackens like the ink of fools."—Id., to Augustus.

OBS. 23.—The antecedent is sometimes suppressed, especially in poetry; as, "Who will, may be a judge."—Churchill. "How shall I curse [him or them] whom God hath not cursed?"—Numbers, xxiii, 8. "There are, indeed, [some persons] who seem disposed to extend her authority much farther."—Campbell's Philosophy of Rhet., p. 187.

    [He] "Who lives to nature, rarely can be poor;
    [He] Who lives to fancy, never can be rich."—Young.

    "Serious should be an author's final views;
    [They] Who write for pure amusement, ne'er amuse."—Id.

OBS. 24.—Which, as well as who, was formerly applied to persons; as, "Our Father which art in heaven."—Bible. "Pray for them which despitefully use you."—Luke, vi, 28. And, as to the former example here cited, some British critics, still preferring the archaism, have accused "The Americans" of "poor criticism," in that they "have changed which into who, as being more consonant to the rules of Grammar." Falsely imagining, that which and who, with the same antecedent, can be of different genders, they allege, that, "The use of the neuter pronoun carried with it a certain vagueness and sublimity, not inappropriate in reminding us that our worship is addressed to a Being, infinite, and superior to all distinctions applicable to material objects."—Men and Manners in America: quoted and endorsed by the REV. MATT. HARRISON, in his treatise on the English Language, p. 191. This is all fancy; and, in my opinion, absurd. It is just like the religious prejudice which could discern "a singular propriety" in "the double superlative most highest."—Lowth's Gram., p. 28. But which may still be applied to a young child, if sex and intelligence be disregarded; as, "The child which died." Or even to adults, when they are spoken of without regard to a distinct personality or identity; as, "Which of you will go?"—"Crabb knoweth not which is which, himself or his parodist."—Leigh Hunt.

OBS. 25.—A proper name taken merely as a name, or an appellative taken in any sense not strictly personal, must be represented by which, and not by who; as, "Herod—which is but an other name for cruelty."—"In every prescription of duty, God proposeth himself as a rewarder; which he is only to those that please him."—Dr. J. Owen. Which would perhaps be more proper than whom, in the following passage: "They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the Lord commanded them."—Psalms, cvi, 34. Dr. Blair has preferred it in the following instance: "My lion and my pillar are sufficiently interpreted by the mention of Achilles and the minister, which I join to them."—Lectures, p. 151. He meant, "whose names I connect with theirs;" and not, that he joined the person of Achilles to a lion, or that of a minister to a pillar.

OBS. 26.—When two or more relative clauses pertain to the same antecedent, if they are connected by a conjunction, the same relative ought to be employed in each, agreeably to the doctrine of the seventh note below; but if no conjunction is expressed or understood between them, the pronouns ought rather to be different; as, "There are many things that you can speak of, which cannot be seen."—R W. Green's Gram., p. 11. This distinction is noticed in the fifth chapter of Etymology, Obs. 29th, on the Classes of Pronouns. Dr. Priestley says, "Whatever relative be used, in a series of clauses, relating to the same antecedent, the same ought to be used in them all. 'It is remarkable, that Holland, against which the war was undertaken, and that, in the very beginning, was reduced to the brink of destruction, lost nothing.'—Universal History, Vol. 25, p. 117. It ought to have been, and which in the very beginning."—Priestley's Gram., p. 102. L. Murray, (as I have shown in the Introduction, Ch. x, ¶ 22,) assumes all this, without references; adding as a salvo the word "generally," which merely impairs the certainty of the rule:—"the same relative ought generally to be used in them all."—Octavo Gram., p. 155. And, of who and that, Cobbett says: "Either may do; but both never ought to be relatives of the same antecedent in the same sentence."—Gram., ¶ 202. The inaccuracy of these rules is as great as that of the phraseology which is corrected under them. In the following sentence, the first relative only is restrictive, and consequently the other may be different: "These were the officers that were called Homotimoi, and who signalized themselves afterwards so gloriously upon all occasions."—Rollin's Hist., ii, 62. See also in Rev., x, 6th, a similar example without the conjunction.

OBS. 27.—In conversation, the possessive pronoun your is sometimes used in a droll way, being shortened into your in pronunciation, and nothing more being meant by it, than might be expressed by the article an or a: as, "Rich honesty dwells, like your miser, sir, in a poor house; as, your pearl in your foul oyster."—Shakspeare.

NOTES TO RULE X.

NOTE 1.—A pronoun should not be introduced in connexion with words that belong more properly to the antecedent, or to an other pronoun; as, "And then there is good use for Pallas her glass."—Bacon's Wisdom, p. 22. Say—"for Pallas's glass."

   "My banks they are furnish'd with bees,
    Whose murmur invites one to sleep."—Shenstone, p. 284.

This last instance, however, is only an example of pleonasm; which is allowable and frequent in animated discourse, but inelegant in any other. Our grammarians have condemned it too positively. It occurs sundry times in the Bible; as, "Know ye that the