A Handbook of the English Language by Robert Gordon Latham (cat reading book txt) đź“•
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
§ 450. In the absolute construction of a genitive case, the term is formed by the single word, only so far as the expression is concerned. A substantive is always understood from what has preceded.—This discovery is Newton's = this discovery is Newton's discovery.
The same with adjectives.—This weather is fine = this weather is fine weather.
And the same with absolute pronouns.—This hat is mine = this hat is my hat; and this is a hat of mine = this is a hat of my hats.
§ 451. In respect to all matters of syntax considered exclusively, it is so thoroughly a matter of indifference whether a word be an adjective or a genitive case that Wallis considers the forms in -'s, like father's, not as genitive cases but as adjectives. Looking to the logic of the question alone he is right, and looking to the practical syntax of the question he is right also. He is only wrong on the etymological side of the question.
"Nomina substantiva apud nos nullum vel generum vel casuum discrimen sortiuntur."—p. 76.
"Duo sunt adjectivorum genera, a substantivis immediate descendentia, quæ semper substantivis suis præponuntur. Primum quidem adjectivum possessivum libet appellare. Fit autem a quovis substantivo, sive singulari sive plurali, addito -s.—Ut man's nature, the nature of man, natura humana vel hominis; men's nature, natura humana vel hominum; Virgil's poems, the poems of Virgil, poemata Virgilii vel Virgiliana."—p. 89.
CHAPTER IX.THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
§ 452. It is necessary that the relative be in the same gender as the antecedent—the man who—the woman who—the thing which.
§ 453. It is necessary that the relative be in the same number with the antecedent.
§ 454. It is not necessary for the relative to be in the same case with its antecedent.
1. John, who trusts me, comes here.
2. John, whom I trust, comes here.
3. John, whose confidence I possess, comes here.
4. I trust John who trusts me.
§ 455. The reason why the relative must agree with its antecedent in both number and gender, whilst it need not agree with it in case, is found in the following observations.
1. All sentences containing a relative contain two verbs—John who (1) trusts me (2) comes here.
2. Two verbs express two actions—(1) trust (2) come.
3. Whilst, however, the actions are two in number, the person or thing which does or suffers them is single—John.
4. He (she or it) is single ex vi termini. The relative expresses the identity between the subjects (or objects) of the two actions. Thus who = John, or is another name for John.
5. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same gender. The John who trusts is necessarily of the same gender with the John who comes.
6. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same number. The number of Johns who trust, is the same as the number of Johns who come. Both these elements of concord are immutable.
7. But a third element of concord is not immutable. The person or thing that is an agent in the one part of the sentence, may be the object of an action in the other. The John whom I trust may trust me also. Hence
a. I trust John—John the object.
b. John trusts me—John the agent.
§ 456. As the relative is only the antecedent in another form, it may change its case according to the construction.
1. I trust John—(2) John trusts me.
2. I trust John—(2) He trusts me.
3. I trust John—(2) Who trusts me.
4. John trusts me—(2) I trust John.
5. John trusts me—(2) I trust him.
6. John trusts me—(2) I trust whom.
7. John trusts me—(2) Whom I trust.
8. John—(2) Whom I trust trusts me.
§ 457. The books I want are here.—This is a specimen of a true ellipsis. In all such phrases in full, there are three essential elements.
1. The first proposition; as the books are here.
2. The second proposition; as I want.
3. The word which connects the two propositions, and without which, they naturally make separate, independent, unconnected statements.
Now, although true and unequivocal ellipses are scarce, the preceding is one of the most unequivocal kind—the word which connects the two propositions being wanting.
§ 458. When there are two words in a clause, each capable of being an antecedent, the relative refers to the latter.
1. Solomon the son of David that slew Goliah.—This is unexceptionable.
2. Solomon the son of David who built the temple.—This is exceptionable.
Nevertheless, it is defensible, on the supposition that Solomon-the-son-of-David is a single many-worded name.
CHAPTER X.ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN.
§ 459. Questions are of two sorts, direct and oblique.
Direct.—Who is he?
Oblique.—Who do you say that he is?
All difficulties about the cases of the interrogative pronoun may be determined by framing an answer, and observing the case of the word with which the interrogative coincides. Whatever be the case of this word will also be the case of the interrogative.
DIRECT.
Qu. Who is this?—Ans. I.
Qu. Whose is this?—Ans. His.
Qu. Whom do you seek?—Ans. Him.
OBLIQUE.
Qu. Who do you say that it is?—Ans. He.
Qu. Whose do you say that it is?—Ans. His.
Qu. Whom do you say that they seek?—Ans. Him.
Note.—The answer should always be made by means of a pronoun, as by so doing we distinguish the accusative case from the nominative.
Note.—And, if necessary, it should be made in full. Thus the full answer to whom do you say that they seek? is, I say that they seek him.
§ 460. Nevertheless, such expressions as whom do they say that it is? are common, especially in oblique questions.
"And he axed him and seide, whom seien the people that I am?—Thei answereden and seiden, Jon Baptist—and he seide to hem, But whom seien ye that I am?"—Wiclif, Luke ix.
"Tell me in sadness whom she is you love."—Romeo and Juliet, i, 1.
"And as John fulfilled his course, he said, whom think ye that I am?"—Acts xiii. 25.
This confusion, however, is exceptionable.
CHAPTER XI.THE RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION.
§ 461. In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual action there are in reality two assertions, viz., the assertion that A. strikes (or loves) B., and the assertion that B. strikes (or loves) A.; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence, if the expressions exactly coincided with the fact signified, there would always be two propositions. This, however, is not the habit of language. Hence arises a more compendious form of expression, giving origin to an ellipsis of a peculiar kind. Phrases like Eteocles and Polynices killed each other are elliptical, for Eteocles and Polynices killed—each the other. Here the second proposition expands and explains the first, whilst the first supplies the verb to the second. Each, however, is elliptic.
§ 462. This is the syntax. As to the power of the words each and one in the expression (each other and one another), I am not prepared to say that in the common practice of the English language there is any distinction between them. A distinction, however, if it existed, would give strength to our language. Where two persons performed a reciprocal action on another, the expression might be one another; as Eteocles and Polynices killed one another. Where more than two persons were engaged on each side of a reciprocal action, the expression might be each other; as, the ten champions praised each other.
This amount of perspicuity is attained, by different processes, in the French, Spanish, and Scandinavian languages.
1. French.—Ils (i.e., A. and B.) se battaient—l'un l'autre. Ils (A. B. C.) se battaient—les uns les autres. In Spanish, uno otro = l'un l'autre, and unos otros = les uns les autres.
2. Danish.—Hinander = the French l'un l'autre; whilst hverandre = les uns les autres.
CHAPTER XII.THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS.
§ 463. Different nations have different methods of expressing indeterminate propositions.
Sometimes it is by the use of the passive voice. This is the common method in Latin and Greek, and is also current in English—dicitur, λέγεται, it is said.
Sometimes the verb is reflective—si dice = it says itself, Italian.
Sometimes the plural pronoun of the third person is used. This also is an English locution—they say = the world at large says.
Finally, the use of some word = man is a common indeterminate expression.
The word man has an indeterminate sense in the Modern German; as man sagt = they say.
The word man was also used indeterminately in the Old English, although it is not so used in the Modern.
In the Old English, the form man often lost the -n, and became me.—"Deutsche Grammatik." This form is also extinct.
§ 464. The present indeterminate pronoun is one; as one says = they say = it is said = man sagt, German = on dit, French = si dice, Italian.
It has been stated, that the indeterminate pronoun one has no etymological connection with the numeral one; but that it is derived from the French on = homme = homo = man; and that it has replaced the Old English man or me.
§ 465. Two other pronouns, or, to speak more in accordance with the present habit of the English language, one pronoun, and one adverb of pronominal origin, are also used indeterminately, viz., it and there.
§ 466. It can be either the subject or the predicate of a sentence,—it is this, this is it, I am it, it is I. When it is the subject of a proposition, the verb necessarily agrees with it, and can be of the singular number only; no matter what be the number of the predicate—it is this, it is these.
When it is the predicate of a proposition, the number of the verb depends upon the number of the subject. These points of universal syntax are mentioned here for the sake of illustrating some anomalous forms.
§ 467. There can only be the predicate of a subject. It differs from it in this respect. It follows also that it must differ from it in never affecting the number of the verb. This is determined by the nature of the subject—there is this, there are these.
When we say there is these, the analogy between the words these and it misleads us; the expression being illogical.
Furthermore, although a predicate, there always stands in the beginning of propositions, i.e., in the place of the subject. This also misleads.
§ 468. Although it, when the subject, being itself singular, absolutely requires that its verb should be singular also, there is a tendency to use it incorrectly, and to treat it as a plural. Thus, in German, when the predicate is plural, the verb joined to the singular form es ( = it) is plural—es sind menschen, literally translated = it are men; which, though bad English, is good German.
CHAPTER XIII.THE ARTICLES.
§ 469. The rule of most practical importance about the articles is the rule that determines when the article shall be repeated as often as there is a fresh substantive, and when it shall not.
When two or more substantives following each other denote the same object, the article precedes the first only. We say, the secretary and treasurer (or, a secretary and treasurer), when the two offices are held by one person.
When two or more substantives following each other denote different objects, the article is repeated, and precedes each. We say, the (or a) secretary and the (or a)
Comments (0)