A Handbook of the English Language by Robert Gordon Latham (cat reading book txt) 📕
CHAPTER II.
SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES.
428. Rundell and Bridge's 301 429. Right and left 301
CHAPTER III.
SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES.
430. Pleonasm 302 431. Collocation 302 432. Government 302 433. More wise, wiser 303 434. The better of the two 304 435. Syntax of adjectives simple 304
CHAPTER IV.
SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.
436. Pleonasm 305 437. Father's, not father his 305 438. Pleonasm and
Read free book «A Handbook of the English Language by Robert Gordon Latham (cat reading book txt) 📕» - read online or download for free at americanlibrarybooks.com
- Author: Robert Gordon Latham
- Performer: -
Read book online «A Handbook of the English Language by Robert Gordon Latham (cat reading book txt) 📕». Author - Robert Gordon Latham
In this case, it is better in speaking of only two objects to use the comparative degree rather than the superlative—even when we use the definite article the. Thus—
This is the better of the two
is preferable to
This is the best of the two.
This principle is capable of an application more extensive than our habits of speaking and writing will verify. Thus to go to other parts of speech, we should logically say—
Whether of the two,
rather than
Which of the two.
Either the father or the son,
but not
Either the father, the son, or the daughter.
This statement may be refined on. It is chiefly made for the sake of giving fresh prominence to the idea of duality, expressed by the terminations -er and -ter.
§ 435. The absence of inflection simplifies the syntax of adjectives. Violations of concord are impossible. We could not make an adjective disagree with its substantive if we wished.
CHAPTER IV.SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.
§ 436. Pleonasm in the syntax of pronouns.—In the following sentences the words in italics are pleonastic:
1. The king he is just.
2. I saw her, the queen.
3. The men, they were there.
4. The king, his crown.
Of these forms, the first is more common than the second and third, and the fourth more common than the first.
§ 437. The fourth has another element of importance. It has given rise to the absurd notion that the genitive case in -'s (father-'s) is a contraction from his (father his).
To say nothing about the inapplicability of this rule to feminine genders, and plural numbers, the whole history of the Indo-Germanic languages is against it.
1. We cannot reduce the queen's majesty to the queen his majesty.
2. We cannot reduce the children's bread to the children his bread.
3. The Anglo-Saxon forms are in -es, not in his.
4. The word his itself must be accounted for; and that cannot be done by assuming it to be he + his.
5. The -s in father's is the -is in patris, and the -ος in πατέρος.
§ 438. The preceding examples illustrate an apparent paradox, viz., the fact of pleonasm and ellipsis being closely allied. The king he is just, dealt with as a single sentence, is undoubtedly pleonastic. But it is not necessary to be considered as a mere simple sentence. The king—may represent a first sentence incomplete, whilst he is just represents a second sentence in full. What is pleonasm in a single sentence is ellipsis in a double one.
CHAPTER V.THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
§ 439. Personal pronouns.—The use of the second person plural instead of the second singular has been noticed already. This use of one number for another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used is conveniently called the pronomen reverentiæ.
§ 440. Dativus ethicus.—In the phrase
Rob me the exchequer,—Henry IV.,
the me is expletive, and is equivalent to for me. This expletive use of the dative is conveniently called the dativus ethicus.
§ 441. The reflected personal pronoun.—In the English language there is no equivalent to the Latin se, the German sich, and the Scandinavian sik, and sig.
It follows from this that the word self is used to a greater extent than would otherwise be the case.
I strike me is awkward, but not ambiguous.
Thou strikest thee is awkward, but not ambiguous.
He strikes him is ambiguous; inasmuch as him may mean either the person who strikes or some one else. In order to be clear we add the word self when the idea is reflective. He strikes himself is, at once idiomatic and unequivocal.
So it is with the plural persons.
We strike us is awkward, but not ambiguous.
Ye strike you is the same.
They strike them is ambiguous.
This shows the value of a reflective pronoun for the third person.
As a general rule, therefore, whenever we use a verb reflectively we use the word self in combination with the personal pronoun.
Yet this was not always the case. The use of the simple personal pronoun was current in Anglo-Saxon, and that, not only for the first two persons, but for the third as well.
The exceptions to this rule are either poetical expressions, or imperative moods.
He sat him down at a pillar's base.—Byron.
Sit thee down.
§ 442. Reflective neuters.—In the phrase I strike me, the verb strike is transitive; in other words, the word me expresses the object of an action, and the meaning is different from the meaning of the simple expression I strike.
In the phrase I fear me (used by Lord Campbell in his lives of the Chancellors), the verb fear is intransitive or neuter; in other words, the word me (unless, indeed, fear mean terrify), expresses no object of any action at all; whilst the meaning is the same as in the simple expression I fear.
Here the reflective pronoun appears out of place, i.e., after a neuter or intransitive verb.
Such a use, however, is but the fragment of an extensive system of reflective verbs thus formed, developed in different degrees in the different Gothic languages; but in all more than in the English.
§ 443. Equivocal reflectives.—The proper place of the reflective is after the verb.
The proper place of the governing pronoun is, in the indicative and subjunctive moods, before the verb.
Hence in expressions like the preceding there is no doubt as to the power of the pronoun.
The imperative mood, however, sometimes presents a complication. Here the governing person may follow the verb.
Mount ye = either be mounted, or mount yourselves. In phrases like this, and in phrases
Busk ye, busk ye, my bonny, bonny bride,
Busk ye, busk ye, my winsome marrow,
the construction is ambiguous. Ye may either be a nominative case governing the verb busk, or an accusative case governed by it.
This is an instance of what may be called the equivocal reflective.
CHAPTER VI.ON THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND THE PRONOUNS OF THE THIRD PERSON.
§ 444. As his and her are genitive cases (and not adjectives), there is no need of explaining such combinations as his mother, her father, inasmuch as no concord of gender is expected. The expressions are respectively equivalent to
mater ejus, not mater sua;
pater ejus, — pater suus.
§ 445. It has been stated that its is a secondary genitive, and it may be added, that it is of late origin in the language. The Anglo-Saxon form was his, the genitive of he for the neuter and masculine equally. Hence, when, in the old writers, we meet his, where we expect its, we must not suppose that any personification takes place, but simply that the old genitive common to the two genders is used in preference to the modern one limited to the neuter, and irregularly formed.
The following instances are the latest specimens of its use:
"The apoplexy is, as I take it, a kind of lethargy. I have read the cause of his effects in Galen; it is a kind of deafness."—2 Henry IV. i. 2.
"If the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out."—Luke xiv. 35.
"Some affirm that every plant has his particular fly or caterpillar, which it breeds and feeds."—Walton's Angler.
"This rule is not so general, but that it admitteth of his exceptions."—Carew.
CHAPTER VII.ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF.
§ 446. The undoubted constructions of the word self, in the present state of the cultivated English, are threefold.
1. Government.—In my-self, thy-self, our-selves, and your-selves, the construction is that of a common substantive with an adjective or genitive case. My-self = my individuality, and is similarly construed—mea individualitas (or persona), or mei individualitas (or persona).
2. Apposition.—In him-self and them-selves, when accusative, the construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a pronoun. Himself = him, the individual.
3. Composition.—It is only, however, when himself and themselves, are in the accusative case, that the construction is appositional. When they are used as nominatives, it must be explained on another principle. In phrases like
He himself was present
They themselves were present,
there is neither apposition nor government; him and them, being neither related to my and thy, so as to be governed, nor yet to he and they, so as to form an apposition. In order to come under one of these conditions, the phrases should be either he his self (they their selves), or else he he self (they they selves). In this difficulty, the only logical view that can be taken of the matter, is to consider the words himself and themselves, not as two words, but as a single word compounded; and even then, the compound will be of an irregular kind; inasmuch as the inflectional element -m is dealt with as part and parcel of the root.
§ 447. Her-self.—The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of the preceding constructions. Which, however it is, is uncertain; since her may be either a so-called genitive, like my, or an accusative like him.
Itself—is also ambiguous. The s may represent the -s in its, as well as the s- in self.
This inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxon stage of the English language.
CHAPTER VIII.ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
§ 448. The possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first contains the forms like my and thy, &c.; the second, those like mine and thine, &c.
My, thy, his (as in his book), her, its (as in its book), our, your, their, are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms mei, tui, ejus, nostrum, vestrum, eorum.
Mine, thine, his (as in the book is his), hers, ours, yours, theirs are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms meus, mea, meum; tuus, tua, tuum; suus, sua, suum; noster, nostra, nostrum; vester, vestra, vestrum.
§ 449. There is a difference between the construction of my and mine. We cannot say this is mine hat, and we cannot say this hat is my. Nevertheless, this difference is not explained by any change of construction from that of adjectives to that of cases. As far as the syntax is concerned the construction of my and mine is equally that of an adjective agreeing with a substantive, and of a genitive (or possessive) case governed by a substantive.
Now a common genitive case can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term (i.e., absolutely).—1. As part of a term—this is John's hat. 2. As a whole term—this hat is John's.
And a common adjective can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term (i.e. absolutely).—1. As part of a term—these are good hats. 2. As a whole term—these hats are good.
Now whether we consider my, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess only one of the properties just illustrated, i.e., they can only be used as part of a term—this is my hat; not this hat is my.
And whether we consider mine, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess only one of the properties just illustrated, i.e., they can only be used as whole terms, or absolutely—this hat is mine; not this is mine hat.
For a full and perfect construction whether of an adjective or a genitive case, the possessive pronouns present the phenomenon of being, singly, incomplete, but, nevertheless, complementary to each other when
Comments (0)