"The question, whose solution I require, Is, what the sex of women most desire."—DRYDEN: Lowth, p. 25.

OBS. 5.—Buchanan, as well as Lowth, condemns the foregoing use of whose, except in grave poetry: saying, "This manner of personification adds an air of dignity to the higher and more solemn kind of poetry, but it is highly improper in the lower kind, or in prose."—Buchanan's English Syntax, p. 73. And, of the last two examples above quoted, he says, "It ought to be of which, in both places: i. e. The followers of which; the solution of which."—Ib., p. 73. The truth is, that no personification is here intended. Hence it may be better to avoid, if we can, this use of whose, as seeming to imply what we do not mean. But Buchanan himself (stealing the text of an older author) has furnished at least one example as objectionable as any of the foregoing: "Prepositions are naturally placed betwixt the Words whose Relation and Dependence each of them is to express."—English Syntax, p. 90; British Gram., p. 201. I dislike this construction, and yet sometimes adopt it, for want of another as good. It is too much, to say with Churchill, that "this practice is now discountenanced by all correct writers."—New Gram., p. 226. Grammarians would perhaps differ less, if they would read more. Dr. Campbell commends the use of whose for of which, as an improvement suggested by good taste, and established by abundant authority. See Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 420. "WHOSE, the possessive or genitive case of who or which; applied to persons or things."—Webster's Octavo Dict. "Whose is well authorized by good usage, as the possessive of which."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 69. "Nor is any language complete, whose verbs have not tenses."—Harris's Hermes.

"————'Past and future, are the wings On whose support, harmoniously conjoined, Moves the great spirit of human knowledge.'—MS." Wordsworth's Preface to his Poems, p. xviii.

OBS. 6.—The relative which, though formerly applied to persons and made equivalent to who, is now confined to brute animals and inanimate things. Thus, "Our Father which art in heaven," is not now reckoned good English; it should be, "Our Father who art in heaven." In this, as well as in many other things, the custom of speech has changed; so that what was once right, is now ungrammatical. The use of which for who is very common in the Bible, and in other books of the seventeenth century; but all good writers now avoid the construction. It occurs seventy-five times in the third chapter of Luke; as, "Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat," etc. etc. After a personal term taken by metonymy for a thing, which is not improper; as, "Of the particular author which he is studying."—Gallaudet. And as an interrogative or a demonstrative pronoun or adjective, the word which is still applicable to persons, as formerly; as, "Which of you all?"—"Which man of you all?"—"There arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be the greatest."—Luke, ix, 46. "Two fair twins—the puzzled Strangers, which is which, inquire."—Tickell.

OBS. 7.—If which, as a direct relative, is inapplicable to persons, who ought to be preferred to it in all personifications: as,

"The seal is set. Now welcome thou dread power, Nameless, yet thus omnipotent, which here Walk'st in the shadow of the midnight hour." BYRON: Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, Cant, iv, st. 138.

What sort of personage is here imagined and addressed, I will not pretend to say; but it should seem, that who would be more proper than which, though less agreeable in sound before the word here. In one of his notes on this word, Churchill has fallen into a strange error. He will have who to represent a horse! and that, in such a sense, as would require which and not who, even for a person. As he prints the masculine pronoun in Italics, perhaps he thought, with Murray and Webster, that which must needs be "of the neuter gender." [189] He says, "In the following passage, which seems to be used instead of who:—

'Between two horses, which doth bear him best; I have, perhaps, some shallow spirit of judgment' SHAKS., 1 Hen. VI."—Churchill's Gram., p. 226.

OBS. 8.—The pronoun what is usually applied to things only. It has a twofold relation, and is often used (by ellipsis of the noun) both as antecedent and as relative, in the form of a single word; being equivalent to that which, or the thing which,—those which, or the things which. In this double relation, what represents two cases at the same time: as, "He is ashamed of what he has done;" that is, "of what [thing or action] he has done;"—or, "of that [thing or action] which he has done." Here are two objectives. The two cases are sometimes alike, sometimes different; for either of them may be the nominative, and either, the objective. Examples: "The dread of censure ought not to prevail over what is proper."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 252. "The public ear will not easily bear what is slovenly and incorrect."—Blair's Rhet., p. 12. "He who buys what he does not need, will often need what he cannot buy."—Student's Manual, p. 290. "What is just, is honest; and again, what is honest, is just."—Cicero. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."—Rev., ii, 7, 11, 17, 29; iii, 6, 13, 22.

OBS. 9.—This pronoun, what, is usually of the singular number, though sometimes plural: as, "I must turn to the faults, or what appear such to me."—Byron. "All distortions and mimicries, as such, are what raise aversion instead of pleasure."—Steele. "Purified indeed from what appear to be its real defects."—Wordsworth's Pref., p. xix. "Every single impression, made even by the same object, is distinguishable from what have gone before, and from what succeed."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 107. "Sensible people express no thoughts but what make some figure."—Ib., Vol. i, p. 399. The following example, which makes what both singular and plural at once, is a manifest solecism: "What has since followed are but natural consequences."—J. C. CALHOUN, Speech in U. S. Senate, March 4, 1850. Here has should be have; or else the form should be this: "What has since followed, is but a natural consequence."

OBS. 10.—The common import of this remarkable pronoun, what, is, as we see in the foregoing examples, twofold; but some instances occur, in which it does not appear to have this double construction, but to be simply declaratory; and many, in which the word is simply an adjective: as, "What a strange run of luck I have had to-day!"—Columbian Orator, p. 293. Here what is a mere adjective; and, in the following examples, a pronoun indefinite:—

"I tell thee what, corporal, I could tear her."—Shak.

"He knows what's what, and that's as high As metaphysic wit can fly."—Hudibras.

OBS. 11.—What is sometimes used both as an adjective and as a relative at the same time, and is placed before the noun which it represents; being equivalent to the adjective any or all, and the simple relative who, which[190] or that: as, "What money we had, was taken away." That is, "All the money that we had, was taken away." "What man but enters, dies." That is, "Any man who enters, dies." "It was agreed that what goods were aboard his vessels, should be landed."—Mickle's India, p. 89. "What appearances of worth afterwards succeeded, were drawn from thence."—Internal Policy of Great Britain, p. 196. That is, "All the appearances of worth, which afterwards succeeded."—Priestley's Gram., p. 93. Indeed, this pronoun does not admit of being construed after a noun, as a simple relative: none but the most illiterate ever seriously use it so. What put for who or which, is therefore a ludicrous vulgarism; as, "The aspiring youth what fired the Ephesian dome."—Jester. The word used as above, however, does not always preclude the introduction of a personal pronoun before the subsequent verb; as,[191]

"What god but enters yon forbidden field, Who yields assistance, or but wills to yield, Back to the skies with shame he shall be driven, Gash'd with dishonest wounds, the scorn of heaven."—Pope's Homer.

OBS. 12.—The compound whatever or whatsoever has the same peculiarities of construction as has the simpler word what: as, "Whatever word expresses an affirmation, or assertion, is a verb; or thus, Whatever word, with a noun or pronoun before or after it, makes full sense, is a verb."—Adam's Latin Gram., p. 78. That is, "Any word which expresses," &c. "We will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth."—Jeremiah, xliv, 17. That is—"any thing, or every thing, which." "Whatever sounds are difficult in pronunciation, are, in the same proportion, harsh and painful to the ear."—Blair's Rhet., p. 121; Murray's Gram., p. 325. "Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning."—Romans, xv, 4. In all these examples, the word whatever or whatsoever appears to be used both adjectively and relatively. There are instances, however, in which the relation of this term is not twofold, but simple: as, "Whatever useful or engaging endowments we possess, virtue is requisite in order to their shining with proper lustre."—English Reader, p. 23. Here whatever is simply an adjective. "The declarations contained in them [the Scriptures] rest on the authority of God himself; and there can be no appeal from them to any other authority whatsoever."—London Epistle, 1836. Here whatsoever may be parsed either as an adjective relating to authority, or as an emphatic pronoun in apposition with its noun, like himself in the preceding clause. In this general explanatory sense, whatsoever may be applied to persons as well as to things; as, "I should be sorry if it entered into the imagination of any person whatsoever, that I was preferred to all other patrons."—Duncan's Cicero, p. 11. Here the word whomsoever might have been used.

OBS. 13.—But there is an other construction to be here explained, in which whatever or whatsoever appears to be a double relative, or a term which includes both antecedent and relative; as, "Whatever purifies, fortifies also the heart."—English Reader, p. 23. That is. "All that purifies—or, Everything which purifies—fortifies also the heart." "Whatsoever he doeth, shall prosper."—Psal., i, 3. That is, "All that he doeth—or, All the things which he doeth—shall prosper." This construction, however, may be supposed elliptical. The Latin expression is, "Omnia quaecumque faciet prosperabuntur."—Vulgate. The Greek is similar: [Greek: "Kai panta hosa an poiaei kateuodothaesetai."]— Septuagint. It is doubtless by some sort of ellipsis which familiarity of use inclines us to overlook, that what, whatever, and whatsoever, which are essentially adjectives, have become susceptible of this double construction as pronouns. But it is questionable what particular ellipsis we ought here to suppose, or whether any; and certainly, we ought always to avoid the supposing of an ellipsis, if we can.[192] Now if we say the meaning is, "Whatsoever things he doeth, shall prosper;" this, though analogous to other expressions, does not simplify the construction. If we will have it to be, "Whatsoever things he doeth, they shall prosper;" the pronoun they appears to be pleonastic. So is the word it, in the text, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it."—John, ii, 5. If we say the full phrase is, "All things whatsoever he doeth, shall prosper;" this presents, to an English ear, a still more obvious pleonasm. It may be, too, a borrowed idiom, found nowhere but in translations; as, "All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."—Matt., xxi, 22. From these views, there seems to be some objection to any and every method of parsing the above-mentioned construction as elliptical. The learner may therefore say, in such instances, that whatever or whatsoever is a double relative, including both antecedent and relative; and parse it, first as antecedent, in connexion with the latter verb, and then as relative, in connexion with the former. But let him observe that the order of the verbs may be the reverse of the foregoing; as, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."—John, xv, 14. That is, according to the Greek, "If ye do whatsoever I command to you;" Though it would be better English to say, "If ye do whatsoever I command you to do." In the following example, however, it seems proper to recognize an ellipsis; nay, the omissions in the construction of the last line, are as many as three or four;—

"Expatiate with glad step, and choose at will Whate'er bright spoils the florid earth contains, Whate'er the waters, or the liquid air."—Akenside.

OBS. 14.—As the simple word who differs from which and what, in being always a declinable pronoun; so its compounds differ from theirs, in being incapable of either of the double constructions above described. Yet whoever and whoso or whosoever, as well as whichever and whichsoever, whatever and whatsoever, derive, from the affix which is added, or from the peculiarity of their syntax, an unlimited signification—or a signification which is limited only by the following verb; and, as some general term, such as any person, or all persons, is implied as the antecedent, they are commonly connected with other words as if they stood for two cases at once: as, "Whoever seeks, shall find." That is, "Any person who seeks, shall find." But as the case of this compound, like that of the simple word who, whose, or whom, is known and determined by its form, it is necessary, in parsing, to treat this phraseology as being elliptical. The compounds of who do not, therefore, actually stand for two cases, though some grammarians affirm that they do.[193] Example: "The soldiers made proclamation, that they would sell the empire to whoever would purchase it at the highest price."—Goldsmith's Rome, p. 231. That is—"to any man who would purchase it." The affix ever or soever becomes unnecessary when the ellipsis is supplied; and this fact, it must be confessed, is a plausible argument against the supposition of an ellipsis. But the supposing of an antecedent understood, is here unavoidable; because the preposition to cannot govern the nominative case, and the word whoever cannot be an objective. And so in all other instances in which the two cases are different: as, "He bids whoever is athirst, to come."—Jenks's Devotions, p. 151. "Elizabeth publicly threatened, that she would have the head of whoever had advised it."—HUME: in Priestley's Gram., p. 104.

OBS. 15.—If it is necessary in parsing to supply the antecedent to whoever or whosoever, when two different cases are represented, it is but analogous and reasonable to supply it also when two similar cases occur: as, "Whoever borrows money, is bound in conscience to repay it."—Paley. "Whoever is eager to find excuses for vice and folly, will find his own backwardness to practise them much diminished."— Chapone. "Whoever examines his own imperfections, will cease to be fastidious; whoever restrains humour and caprice, will cease to be squeamish."—Crabb's Synonymes. In all these examples, we have the word in the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. And here it is most commonly found. It is always of the third person; and, though its number may be plural; its gender, feminine; its case, possessive or objective; we do not often use it in any of these ways. In some instances, the latter verb is attended with an other pronoun, which represents the same person or persons; as, "And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely."—Rev., xxii, 17. The case of this compound relative always depends upon what follows it, and not upon what precedes; as, "Or ask of whomsoever he has taught."—Cowper. That is—"of any person whom he has taught." In the following text, we have the possessive plural: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them."—John, xx, 23. That is, "Whatever persons' sins."

OBS. 16.—In such phraseology as the following, there is a stiffness which ought to be avoided: "For whomever God loves, he loves them in Christ, and no otherways."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 215. Better: "For all whom God loves, he loves in Christ, and no otherwise." "When the Father draws, whomever he draws, may come."—Penington. Better: "When the Father draws, all whom he draws, (or, every one whom he draws.) may come." A modern critic of immense promise cites the following clause as being found in the Bible: "But he loveth whomsoever followeth after righteousness."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 72. It is lamentable to see the unfaithfulness of this gentleman's quotations. About half of them are spurious; and I am confident that this one is neither Scripture nor good English. The compound relative, being the subject of followeth, should be in the nominative case; for the object of the verb loveth is the antecedent every one, understood. But the idea may be better expressed, without any ellipsis, thus: "He loveth every one who followeth after righteousness." The following example from the same hand is also wrong, and the author's rule and reasoning connected with it, are utterly fallacious: "I will give the reward to whomsoever will apprehend the rogue."—Ib., p. 256. Much better say, "to any one who;" but, if you choose the compound word, by all analogy, and all good authority, it must here be whoever or whosoever. The shorter compound whoso, which occurs very frequently in the Bible, is now almost obsolete in prose, but still sometimes used by the poets. It has the same meaning as whosoever, but appears to have been confined to the nominative singular; and whatso is still more rare: as, "Whoso diggeth a pit, shall fall therein."—Prov., xxvi, 27.

"Which whoso tastes, can be enslaved no more."—Cowper.

"On their intended journey to proceed, And over night whatso thereto did need."—Hubbard.

OBS. 17.—The relative that is applied indifferently to persons, to brute animals, and to inanimate things. But the word that is not always a relative pronoun. It is sometimes a pronoun, sometimes an adjective, and sometimes a conjunction. I call it not a demonstrative pronoun and also a relative; because, in the sense in which Murray and others have styled it a "demonstrative adjective pronoun," it is a pronominal adjective, and it is better to call it so. (1.) It is a relative pronoun whenever it is equivalent to who, whom, or which: as, "There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not"—Eccl., vii, 20. "It was diverse from all the beasts that were before it."—Dan., vii, 7. "And he had a name written, that no man knew but he himself."—Rev., xix, 12. (2.) It is a pronominal adjective whenever it relates to a noun expressed or understood after it: as, "Thus with violence shall that great city, Babylon, be thrown down."—Rev., xviii, 21. "Behold that [thing] which I have seen."—Eccl., v, 18. "And they said, 'What is that[194] [matter] to us? See thou to that' [matter]."—Matt., xxvii, 4. (3.) In its other uses, it is a conjunction, and, as such, it most commonly makes what follows it, the purpose, object, or final cause, of what precedes it: as, "I read that I may learn."—Dr. Adam. "Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious."—St. Paul. "Live well, that you may die well."—Anon. "Take heed that thou speak not to Jacob."—Genesis. "Judge not, that ye be not judged."—Matthew.

OBS. 18.—The word that, or indeed any other word, should never be so used as to leave the part of speech uncertain; as, "For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."—Gen., ii, 17. Here that seems to be a relative pronoun, representing day, in the third person, singular, neuter; yet, in other respects, it seems to be a conjunction, because there is nothing to determine its case. Better: "For in the day on which thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." This mongrel construction of the word that, were its justification possible, is common enough in our language to be made good English. But it must needs be condemned, because it renders the character of the term ambiguous, and is such a grammatical difficulty as puts the parser at a dead nonplus. Examples: (1.) "But at the same time THAT men are giving their orders, God on his part is likewise giving his."—Rollin's Hist., ii, 106. Here the phrase, "at the same time that," is only equivalent to the adverb while; and yet it is incomplete, because it means, "at the same time at which," or, "at the very time at which." (2.) "The author of this work, at the same time THAT he has endeavoured to avoid a plan, which may be too concise or too extensive, defective in its parts or irregular in the disposition of them, has studied to render his subject sufficiently easy, intelligible, and comprehensive."—Murray's Gram., Introd., p. 1. This sentence, which is no unfair specimen of its author's original style, needs three corrections: 1. For "at the same time that," say while: 2. Drop the phrase, "which may be," because it is at least useless: 3. For "subject," read treatise, or compilation. You will thus have tolerable diction. Again: (3.) "The participles of active verbs act upon objects and govern them in the objective case, in the same manner that the verbs do, from which they are derived. A participle in the nature of an adjective, belongs or refers to nouns or pronouns in the same manner that adjectives do; and when it will admit the degrees of comparison, it is called a participial adjective."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 38. This is the style of a gentleman of no ordinary pretensions, one who thinks he has produced the best grammar that has ever appeared in our language. To me, however, his work suggests an abundance of questions like these; each of which would palpably involve him in a dilemma: What is here meant by "objects," the words, or the things? if the former, how are they acted upon? if the latter, how are they governed? If "a participle is called an adjective," which is it, an adjective, or a participle? If "a participle refers to nouns or pronouns," how many of these are required by the relation? When does a participle "admit the degrees of comparison?" How shall we parse the word that in the foregoing sentences?

OBS. 19.—The word as, though usually a conjunction or an adverb, has sometimes the construction of a relative pronoun, especially after such, so many, or as many; and, whatever the antecedent noun may be, this is the only fit relative to follow any of these terms in a restrictive sense. Examples: "We have been accustomed to repose on its veracity with such humble confidence as suppresses curiosity."—Johnson's Life of Cowley. "The malcontents made such demands as none but a tyrant could refuse."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., Let. 7. "The Lord added to the church daily such [persons] as should be saved."—Acts, ii, 47. "And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed."—Acts, xiii, 48. "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten."—Rev., iii, 19. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?"—Rom., vi, 3. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."—Gal., iii, 27. "A syllable is so many letters as are spoken with one motion of the voice."—Perley's Gram., p. 8. "The compound tenses are such as cannot be formed without an auxiliary verb."—Murray's Gram., p. 91. "Send him such books as will please him."—Webster's Improved Gram., p. 37. "In referring to such a division of the day as is past, we use the imperfect."— Murray's Gram., p. 70. "Participles have the same government as the verbs from which they are derived."—Ib., Rule xiv. "Participles have the same government as the verbs have from which they are derived."— Sanborn's Gram., p. 94. In some of these examples, as is in the nominative case, and in others, in the objective; in some, it is of the masculine gender, and in others, it is neuter; in some, it is of the plural number, and in others, it is singular: but in all, it is of the third person; and in all, its person, number, gender, and case, are as obvious as those of any invariable pronoun can be.

OBS. 20.—Some writers—(the most popular are Webster, Bullions, Wells, and Chandler—) imagine that as, in such sentences as the foregoing, can be made a conjunction, and not a pronoun, if we will allow them to consider the phraseology elliptical. Of the example for which I am indebted to him, Dr. Webster says, "As must be considered as the nominative to will please, or we must suppose an ellipsis of several words: as, 'Send him such books as the books which will please him, or as those which will please him.'"—Improved Gram., p. 37. This pretended explanation must be rejected as an absurdity. In either form of it, two nominatives are idly imagined between as and its verb; and, I ask, of what is the first one the subject? If you say, "Of are understood," making the phrase, "such books as the books are;" does not as bear the same relation to this new verb are, that is found in the pronoun who, when one says, "Tell him who you are?" If so, as is a pronoun still; so that, thus far, you gain nothing. And if you will have the whole explanation to be, "Send him such books as the books are books which will please him;" you multiply words, and finally arrive at nothing, but tautology and nonsense. Wells, not condescending to show his pupils what he would supply after this as, thinks it sufficient to say, the word is "followed by an ellipsis of one or more words required to complete the construction; as, 'He was the father of all such as [] handle the harp and organ.'—Gen. 4: 21."—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 164; 3d Ed., p. 172.

OBS. 21.—Chandler exhibits the sentence, "These are not such as are worn;" and, in parsing it, expounds the words as and are, thus; the crotchets being his, not mine: "as.... is an adverb, connecting the two sentences in comparing them, [It is a fault of some, that they make as a pronoun, when, in a comparative sentence, it corresponds with such, and is immediately followed by a verb, as in the sentence now given. This is probably done from an ignorance of the real nominative to the verb. The sentence should stand thus: 'These (perhaps bonnets) are not such (bonnets) as (those bonnets) are (which are) worn.' Then] are .... is the substantive verb, third person, plural number, indicative mood, present tense, and agrees with the noun bonnets, understood."—Chandler's Common School Gram., p. 162. All this bears the marks of shallow flippancy. No part of it is accurate. "Are worn," which the critic unwarrantably divides by his misplaced curves and uncouth impletions, is a passive verb, agreeing with the pronoun as. But the text itself is faulty, being unintelligible through lack of a noun; for, of things that may be "worn," there are a thousand different sorts. Is it not ridiculous, for a great grammarian to offer, as a model for parsing, what he himself, "from an ignorance of the real nominative," can only interpret with a "perhaps?" But the noun which this author supplies, the meaning which he guesses that he had, he here very improperly stows away within a pair of crotchets. Nor is it true, that "the sentence should stand" as above exhibited; for the tautological correction not only has the very extreme of awkwardness, but still makes as a pronoun, a nominative, belonging after are: so that the phrase, "as are worn," is only encumbered and perverted by the verbose addition made. So of an other example given by this expounder, in which as is an objective: "He is exactly such a man as I saw."—Chandler's Com. Sch. Gram., p. 163. Here as is the object of saw. But the author says, "The sentence, however, should stand thus: 'He is exactly such a man as that person was whom I saw.'"—Ibid. This inelegant alteration makes as a nominative dependent on was.

OBS. 22.—The use of as for a relative pronoun, is almost entirely confined to those connexions in which no other relative would be proper; hence few instances occur, of its absolute equivalence to who, which, or that, by which to establish its claim to the same rank. Examples like the following, however, go far to prove it, if proof be necessary; because who and which are here employed, where as is certainly now required by all good usage: "It is not only convenient, but absolutely needful, that there be certain meetings at certain places and times, as may best suit the convenience of such, who may be most particularly concerned in them."—Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 495. "Which, no doubt, will be found obligatory upon all such, who have a sense and feeling of the mind of the Spirit."—Ib., i, p. 578. "Condemning or removing such things, which in themselves are evil."—Ib., i, p. 511. In these citations, not only are who and which improperly used for as, but the commas before them are also improper, because the relatives are intended to be taken in a restrictive sense. "If there be such that walk disorderly now."—Ib., i, p. 488. Here that ought to be as; or else such ought to be persons, or those. "When such virtues, as which still accompany the truth, are necessarily supposed to be wanting."—Ib., i, p. 502. Here which, and the comma before as, should both be expunged. "I shall raise in their minds the same course of thought as has taken possession of my own."—Duncan's Logic, p. 61. "The pronoun must be in the same case as the antecedent would be in, if substituted for it."—Murray's Gram., p. 181. "The verb must therefore have the same construction as it has in the following sentence."—Murray's Key, p. 190. Here as is exactly equivalent to the relative that, and either may be used with equal propriety. We cannot avoid the conclusion, therefore, that, as the latter word is sometimes a conjunction and sometimes a pronoun, so is the former.

OBS. 23.—The relatives that and as have this peculiarity; that, unlike whom and which, they never follow the word on which their case depends; nor indeed can any simple relative be so placed, except it be governed by a preposition or an infinitive. Thus, it is said, (John, xiii, 29th,) "Buy those things that we have need of;" so we may say, "Buy such things as we have need of." But we cannot say, "Buy those things of that we have need;" or, "Buy such things of as we have need." Though we may say, "Buy those things of which we have need," as well as, "Buy those things which we have need of;" or, "Admit those persons of whom we have need," as well as, "Admit those persons whom we have need of." By this it appears that that and as have a closer connexion with their antecedents than the other relatives require: a circumstance worthy to have been better remembered by some critics. "Again, that and as are used rather differently. When that is used, the verb must be repeated; as, 'Participles require the same government, that their verbs require.'—'James showed the same credulity, that his minister showed.' But when as is used, the verb generally may, or may not be repeated; as, 'Participles require the same government as their verbs;' or, 'as their verbs require.'—'James showed the same credulity as his minister;' or, 'as his minister showed:' the second nominative minister being parsed as the nominative to the same verb showed understood."—Nixon's Parser, p. 140.[195]

OBS. 24.—The terminating of a sentence with a preposition, or other small particle, is in general undignified, though perhaps not otherwise improper. Hence the above-named inflexibility in the construction of that and as, sometimes induces an ellipsis of the governing word designed; and is occasionally attended with some difficulty respecting the choice of our terms. Examples: "The answer is always in the same case that the interrogative word is."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 70. Here is a faulty termination; and with it a more faulty ellipsis. In stead of ending the sentence with is in, say, "The answer always agrees in case with the interrogative word." Again: "The relative is of the same person with the antecedent."—Lowth's Gram., p. 101. This sentence is wrong, because the person of the relative is not really identical with the antecedent. "The relative is of the same person as the antecedent."—Murray's Gram., p. 154. Here the writer means—"as the antecedent is of." "A neuter verb becomes active, when followed by a noun of the same signification with its own."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 127. Here same is wrong, or else the last three words are useless. It would therefore be improper to say—"of the same signification as its own." The expression ought to be—"of a signification similar to its own." "Ode is, in Greek, the same with song or hymn."—Blair's Rhet., p. 396. Song being no Greek word, I cannot think the foregoing expression accurate, though one might say, "Ode is identical with song or hymn." Would it not be better to say, "Ode is the same as song or hymn?" That is, "Ode is, literally, the same thing that song or hymn is?" "Treatises of philosophy, ought not to be composed in the same style with orations."—Blair's Rhet., p. 175. Here neither with nor as can be proper; because orations are not a style. Expunge same; and say—"in the style of orations."

OBS. 25.—Few writers are sufficiently careful in their choice and management of relatives. In the following instance, Murray and others violate a special rule of their own grammars, by using whom for that "after an adjective of the superlative degree:" "Modifying them according to the genius of that tongue, and the established practice of the best speakers and writers by whom it is used."—Octavo Gram., p. 1; Fisk's, p. 11; et al. According to Priestley and himself, the great Compiler is here in an error. The rule is perhaps too stringent; but whoever teaches it, should keep it. If he did not like to say, "the best speakers and writers that it is used by;" he ought to have said, "the best speakers and writers that use it." Or, rather, he ought to have said nothing after the word "writers;" because the whole relative clause is here weak and useless. Yet how many of the amenders of this grammar have not had perspicacity enough, either to omit the expression, or to correct it according to the author's own rule!

OBS. 26.—Relative pronouns are capable of being taken in two very different senses: the one, restrictive of the general idea suggested by the antecedent; the other, resumptive of that idea, in the full import of the term—or, in whatever extent the previous definitives allow. The distinction between these two senses, important as it is, is frequently made to depend solely upon the insertion or the omission of a comma. Thus, if I say, "Men who grasp after riches, are never satisfied;" the relative who is taken restrictively, and I am understood to speak only of the avaricious. But, if I say, "Men, who grasp after riches, are never satisfied;" by separating the terms men and who, I declare all men to be covetous and unsatisfied. For the former sense, the relative that is preferable to who; and I shall presently show why. This example, in the latter form, is found in Sanborn's Grammar, page 142d; but whether the author meant what he says, or not, I doubt. Like many other unskillful writers, he has paid little regard to the above-mentioned distinction; and, in some instances, his meaning cannot have been what his words declare: as, "A prism is a solid, whose sides are all parallelograms."—Analytical Gram., p. 142. This, as it stands, is no definition of a prism, but an assertion of two things; that a prism is a solid, and that all the sides of a solid are parallelograms. Erase the comma, and the words will describe the prism as a peculiar kind of solid; because whose will then be taken in the restrictive sense. This sense, however, may be conveyed even with a comma before the relative; as, "Some fictitious histories yet remain, that were composed during the decline of the Roman empire."—Blair's Rhet., p. 374. This does not suggest that there are no other fictitious histories now extant, than such as were composed during the decline of the Roman empire; but I submit it to the reader, whether the word which, if here put for that, would not convey this idea.

OBS. 27.—Upon this point, many philologists are open to criticism; and none more so, than the recent author above cited. By his own plain showing, this grammarian has no conception of the difference of meaning, upon which the foregoing distinction is founded. What marvel, then, that he falls into errors, both of doctrine and of practice? But, if no such difference exists, or none that is worthy of a critic's notice; then the error is mine, and it is vain to distinguish between the restrictive and the resumptive sense of relative pronouns. For example: "The boy that desires to assist his companions, deserves respect."—G. Brown. "That boy, who desires to assist his companions, deserves respect."—D. H. Sanborn. According to my notion, these two sentences clearly convey two very different meanings; the relative, in the former, being restrictive, but, in the latter, resumptive of the sense of the antecedent. But of the latter example this author says, "The clause, 'who desires to assist his companions,' with the relative who at its head, explains or tells what boy deserves respect; and, like a conjunction, connects this clause to the noun boy."—Analytical Gram., p. 69. He therefore takes it in a restrictive sense, as if this sentence were exactly equivalent to the former. But he adds, "A relative pronoun is resolvable into a personal pronoun and a conjunction. The sentence would then read, 'That boy desires to assist his companions, and he deserves respect.' The relative pronoun governs the nearer verb, and the antecedent the more distant one."—Ib., p. 69. Now, concerning the restrictive relative, this doctrine of equivalence does not hold good; and, besides, the explanation here given, not only contradicts his former declaration of the sense he intended, but, with other seeming contradiction, joins the antecedent to the nearer verb, and the substituted pronoun to the more distant.

OBS. 28.—Again, the following principles of this author's punctuation are no less indicative of his false views of this matter: "RULE xiv.—Relative pronouns in the nominative or [the] objective case, are preceded by commas, when the clause which the relative connects [,] ends a sentence; as, 'Sweetness of temper is a quality, which reflects a lustre on every accomplishment'—B. Greenleaf.' Self [-] denial is the sacrifice [,] which virtue must make.' [—L. Murray.] The comma is omitted before the relative, when the verb which the antecedent governs, follows the relative clause; as, 'He that suffers by imposture, has too often his virtue more impaired than his fortune.'—Johnson." See Sanborn's Analytical Gram., p. 269. Such are some of our author's principles—"the essence of modern improvements." His practice, though often wrong, is none the worse for contradicting these doctrines. Nay, his proudest boast is ungrammatical, though peradventure not the less believed: "No [other] grammar in the language probably contains so great a quantity of condensed and useful matter with so little superfluity."—Sanborn's Preface, p. v.

OBS. 29.—Murray's rule for the punctuation of relatives, (a rule which he chiefly copied from Lowth,) recognizes virtually the distinction which I have made above; but, in assuming that relatives "generally" require a comma before them, it erroneously suggests that the resumptive sense is more common than the restrictive. Churchill, on the contrary, as wrongly makes it an essential characteristic of all relatives, "to limit or explain the words to which they refer." See his New Gram., p. 74. The fact is, that relatives are so generally restrictive, that not one half of them are thus pointed; though some that do restrict their antecedent, nevertheless admit the point. This may be seen by the first example given us by Murray: "Relative pronouns are connective words, and generally admit a comma before them: as, 'He preaches sublimely, who lives a sober, righteous, and pious life.' But when two members, or phrases, [say clauses,] are closely connected by a relative, restraining the general notion of the antecedent to a particular sense, the comma should be omitted: as, 'Self-denial is the sacrifice which virtue must make;' 'A man who is of a detracting spirit, will misconstrue the most innocent words that can be put together.' In the latter example, the assertion is not of 'a man in general,' but of 'a man who is of a detracting spirit;' and therefore they [say the pronoun and its antecedent] should not be separated."—Murray's Gram., Octavo, p. 273; Ingersoll's, 285; Comly's, 152. This reasoning, strictly applied, would exclude the comma before who in the first example above; but, as the pronoun does not "closely" or immediately follow its antecedent, the comma is allowed, though it is not much needed. Not so, when the sense is resumptive: as, "The additions, which are very considerable, are chiefly such as are calculated to obviate objections." See Murray's Gram., p. ix. Here the comma is essential to the meaning. Without it, which would be equivalent to that; with it, which is equivalent to and they. But this latter meaning, as I imagine, cannot be expressed by the relative that.

OBS. 30.—Into the unfortunate example which Sanborn took from Murray, I have inserted the comma for him; not because it is necessary or right, but because his rule requires it: "Self-denial is the sacrifice," &c. The author of "a complete system of grammar," might better contradict even Murray, than himself. But why was this text admired? and why have Greene, Bullions, Hiley, Hart, and others, also copied it? A sacrifice is something devoted and lost, for the sake of a greater good; and, if Virtue sacrifice self-denial, what will she do, but run into indulgence? The great sacrifice which she demands of men, is rather that of their self-love. Wm. E. Russell has it, "Self defence is the sacrifice which virtue must make!"—Russell's Abridgement of Murray's Gram., p. 116. Bishop Butler tells us, "It is indeed ridiculous to assert, that self-denial is essential to virtue and piety; but it would have been nearer the truth, though not strictly the truth itself, to have said, that it is essential to discipline and improvement."—Analogy of Religion, p. 123.

OBS. 31.—The relative that, though usually reckoned equivalent to who or which, evidently differs from both, in being more generally, and perhaps more appropriately, taken in the restrictive sense. It ought therefore, for distinction's sake, to be preferred to who or which, whenever an antecedent not otherwise limited, is to be restricted by the relative clause; as, "Men that grasp after riches, are never satisfied."—"I love wisdom that is gay and civilized."—Art of Thinking, p. 34. This phraseology leaves not the limitation of the meaning to depend solely upon the absence of a pause after the antecedent; because the relative that is seldom, if ever, used by good writers in any other than a restrictive sense. Again: "A man of a polite imagination is let into a great many pleasures that the vulgar are not capable of receiving."—Addison, Spect., No. 411. Here, too, according to my notion, that is obviously preferable to which; though a great critic, very widely known, has taken some pains to establish a different opinion. The "many pleasures" here spoken of, are no otherwise defined, than as being such as "the vulgar are not capable of receiving." The writer did not mean to deny that the vulgar are capable of receiving a great many pleasures; but, certainly, if that were changed to which, this would be the meaning conveyed, unless the reader were very careful to avoid a pause where he would be apt to make one. I therefore prefer Addison's expression to that which Dr. Blair would substitute.

OBS. 32.—The style of Addison is more than once censured by Dr. Blair, for the frequency with which the relative that occurs in it, where the learned lecturer would have used which. The reasons assigned by the critic are these: "Which is a much more definitive word than that, being never employed in any other way than as a relative; whereas that is a word of many senses; sometimes a demonstrative pronoun, often a conjunction. In some cases we are indeed obliged to use that for a relative, in order to avoid the ungraceful repetition of which in the same sentence. But when we are laid under no necessity of this kind, which is always the preferable word, and certainly was so in this sentence: 'Pleasures which the vulgar are not capable of receiving,' is much better than 'pleasures that the vulgar are not capable of receiving.'"—Blair's Rhetoric, Lect. xx, p. 200. Now the facts are these: (1.) That that is the more definitive or restrictive word of the two. (2.) That the word which has as many different senses and uses as the word that. (3.) That not the repetition of which or who in a series of clauses, but a needless change of the relative, is ungraceful. (4.) That the necessity of using that rather than which or who, depends, not upon what is here supposed, but upon the different senses which these words usually convey. (5.) That as there is always some reason of choice, that is sometimes to be preferred; which, sometimes; and who, sometimes: as, "It is not the man who has merely taught, or who has taught long, or who is able to point out defects in authors, that is capable of enlightening the world in the respective sciences which have engaged his attention; but the man who has taught well."—Kirkham's Elocution, p. 7.

OBS. 33.—Blair's Rhetoric consists of forty-seven lectures; four of which are devoted to a critical examination of the style of Addison, as exhibited in four successive papers of the Spectator. The remarks of the professor are in general judicious; but, seeing his work is made a common textbook for students of "Belles Lettres," it is a pity to find it so liable to reprehension on the score of inaccuracy. Among the passages which are criticised in the twenty-first lecture, there is one in which the essayist speaks of the effects of novelty as follows:

'It is this which bestows charms on a monster, and makes even the imperfections of nature please us. It is this that recommends variety, where the mind is every instant called off to something new, and the attention not suffered to dwell too long and waste itself on any particular object. It is this, likewise, that improves what is great or beautiful, and makes it afford the mind a double entertainment.'—Spectator, No. 412.

This passage is deservedly praised by the critic, for its "perspicuity, grace, and harmony;" but, in using different relatives under like circumstances, the writer has hardly done justice to his own good taste. Blair's remark is this: "His frequent use of that, instead of which, is another peculiarity of his style; but, on this occasion in particular, [it] cannot be much commended, as, 'It is this which,' seems, in every view, to be better than, 'It is this that,' three times repeated."—Lect. xxi, p. 207. What is here meant by "every view," may, I suppose, be seen in the corresponding criticism which is noticed in my last observation above; and I am greatly deceived, if, in this instance also, the relative that is not better than which, and more agreeable to polite usage. The direct relative which corresponds to the introductory pronoun it and an other antecedent, should, I think, be that, and not who or which: as, "It is not ye that speak."—Matt., x, 20. "It is thou, Lord, who hast the hearts of all men in thy hands, that turnest the hearts of any to show me favour."—Jenks's Prayers, p. 278. Here who has reference to thou or Lord only; but that has some respect to the pronoun it, though it agrees in person and gender with thou. A similar example is cited at the close of the preceding observation; and I submit it to the reader, whether the word that, as it there occurs, is not the only fit word for the place it occupies. So in the following examples: "There are Words, which are not Verbs, that signify actions and passions, and even things transient."—Brightland's Gram., p. 100. "It is the universal taste of mankind, which is subject to no such changing modes, that alone is entitled to possess any authority."—Blair's Rhetoric, p. 286.

OBS. 34.—Sometimes the broad import of an antecedent is doubly restricted, first by one relative clause, and then by an other; as, "And all that dwell upon the earth, shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life."—Rev., xiii, 8. "And then, like true Thames-Watermen, they abuse every man that passes by, who is better dressed than themselves."—Brown's Estimate, Vol. ii, p. 10. Here and, or if he, would be as good as "who;" for the connective only serves to carry the restriction into narrower limits. Sometimes the limit fixed by one clause is extended by an other; as, "There is no evil that you may suffer, or that you may expect to suffer, which prayer is not the appointed means to alleviate."—Bickersteth, on Prayer, p. 16. Here which resumes the idea of "evil," in the extent last determined; or rather, in that which is fixed by either clause, since the limits of both are embraced in the assertion. And, in the two limiting clauses, the same pronoun was requisite, on account of their joint relation; but the clause which assumes a different relation, is rightly introduced by a different pronoun. This is also the case in the following examples: "For there is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."—Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 432. "I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns."—Rev., xvii, 7. Here the restrictive sense is well expressed by one relative, and the resumptive by an other. When neither of these senses is intended by the writer, any form of the relative must needs be improper: as, "The greatest genius which runs through the arts and sciences, takes a kind of tincture from them, and falls unavoidably into imitation."—Addison, Spect., No. 160. Here, as I suppose, which runs should be in running. What else can the author have meant?

OBS. 35.—Having now, as I imagine, clearly shown the difference between the restrictive and the resumptive sense of a relative pronoun, and the absolute necessity of making such a choice of words as will express that sense only which we intend; I hope the learner will see, by these observations, not merely that clearness requires the occasional use of each of our five relatives, who, which, what, that, and as; but that this distinction in the meaning, is a very common principle by which to determine what is, and what is not, good English. Thus that and as are appropriately our restrictive relatives, though who and which are sometimes used restrictively; but, in a resumptive sense, who or which is required, and required even after those terms which usually demand that or as: thus, "We are vexed at the unlucky chance, and go away dissatisfied. Such impressions, which ought not to be cherished, are a sufficient reason for excluding stories of that kind from the theatre."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 279. Here which is proper to the sense 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 Caesar."—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:—

"Miserae hoc tamen unum Exequere, Anna, mihi: solam nam perfidus ille Te colere, arcanos etiam tibi credere sensus; Sola viri molles aditus et tempora noras."—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 thou conscious of the tears I shed?"—Cowper.

OBS. 5.—That the pronouns of the first and second persons are sometimes masculine and sometimes feminine, is perfectly certain; but whether they can or cannot be neuter, is a question difficult to be decided. To things inanimate they are applied only figuratively; and the question is, whether the figure always necessarily changes the gender of the antecedent noun. We assume the general principle, that the noun and its pronoun are always of the same gender; and we know that when inanimate objects are personified in the third person, they are usually represented as masculine or feminine, the gender being changed by the figure. But when a lifeless object is spoken to in the second person, or represented as speaking in the first, as the pronouns here employed are in themselves without distinction of gender, no such change can be proved by the mere words; and, if we allow that it would be needless to imagine it where the words do not prove it, the gender of these pronouns must in such cases be neuter, because we have no ground to think it otherwise. Examples: "And Jesus answered and said unto it, [the barren figtree,] No man eat fruit of thee hereafter forever."—Mark, xi, 14. "O earth, cover not thou my blood."—Job, xvi, 18. "O thou sword of the Lord, how long will it be ere thou be quiet?"—Jeremiah, xlvii, 6. In these instances, the objects addressed do not appear to be figuratively invested with the attribute of sex. So likewise with respect to the first person. If, in the following example, gold and diamond are neuter, so is the pronoun me; and, if not neuter, of what gender are they? The personification indicates or discriminates no other.

"Where thy true treasure? Gold says, 'Not in me; And, 'Not in me,' the diamond. Gold is poor."—Young.

THE DECLENSION OF PRONOUNS.

The declension of a pronoun is a regular arrangement of its numbers and cases.

I. SIMPLE PERSONALS.

The simple personal pronouns are thus declined:—

I, of the FIRST PERSON, any of the genders.[198]

Sing. Nom. I, Plur. Nom. we, Poss. my, or mine,[199] Poss. our, or ours, Obj. me; Obj. us.

THOU, of the SECOND PERSON, any of the genders.

Sing. Nom. thou,[200] Plur. Nom. ye, or you, Poss. thy, or thine, Poss. your, or yours, Obj. thee; Obj. you, or ye.[201]

HE, of the THIRD PERSON, masculine gender.

Sing. Nom. he, Plur. Nom. they, Poss. his, Poss. their, or theirs, Obj. him; Obj. them.

SHE, of the THIRD PERSON, feminine gender.

Sing. Nom. she, Plur. Nom. they, Poss. her, or hers, Poss. their, or theirs, Obj. her; Obj. them.

IT, of the THIRD PERSON, neuter gender.

Sing. Nom, it, Plur. Nom. they, Poss. its, Poss. their, or theirs, Obj. it; Obj. them.

II. COMPOUND PERSONALS.

The word self, added to the simple personal pronouns, forms the class of compound personal pronouns; which are used when an action reverts upon the agent, and also when some persons are to be distinguished from others: as, sing, myself, plur. ourselves; sing, thyself, plur. yourselves; sing, himself, plur. themselves; sing, herself, plur. themselves; sing, itself, plur. themselves. They all want the possessive case, and are alike in the nominative and objective. Thus:—

MYSELF, of the FIRST PERSON,[202] any of the genders.

Sing. Nom. myself, Plur. Nom. ourselves, Poss. ———, Poss. ————-, Obj. myself; Obj. ourselves.

THYSELF, of the SECOND PERSON, any of the genders.

Sing. Nom. thyself,[203] Plur. Nom. yourselves, Poss. ———-, Poss. —————, Obj. thyself; Obj. yourselves.

HIMSELF, of the THIRD PERSON, masculine gender.

Sing. Nom. himself, Plur. Nom. themselves, Poss. ———-, Poss. —————, Obj. himself; Obj. themselves.

HERSELF, of the THIRD PERSON, feminine gender.

Sing. Nom. herself, Plur. Nom. themselves, Poss. ———-, Poss. —————, Obj. herself; Obj. themselves.

ITSELF, of the THIRD PERSON, neuter gender.

Sing. Nom. itself, Plur. Nom. themselves, Poss. ———, Poss. —————, Obj. itself; Obj. themselves.

III. RELATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES.

The relative and the interrogative pronouns are thus declined:—

WHO, literally applied to persons only.

Sing. Nom. who, Plur. Nom. who, Poss. whose, Poss. whose, Obj. whom; Obj. whom.

WHICH, applied to animals and things.

Sing. Nom. which, Plur. Nom. which, Poss. [204]—, Poss. ——-, Obj. which; Obj. which.

WHAT, applied ordinarily to things only.[205]

Sing. Nom. what, Plur. Nom. what, Poss. ——, Poss. ——, Obj. what; Obj. what.

THAT, applied to persons, animals, and things.

Sing. Nom. that, Plur. Nom. that, Poss. ——, Poss. ——, Obj. that; Obj. that.

AS, applied to persons, animals, and things.

Sing. Nom. as, Plur. Nom. as, Poss. ——, Poss. ——, Obj. as; Obj. as.

IV. COMPOUND RELATIVES.

The compound relative pronouns, whoever or whosoever, whichever or whichsoever, and whatever or whatsoever[206] are declined in the same manner as the simples, who which, what. Thus:—

WHOEVER or WHOSOEVER, applied only to persons.

Sing. Nom. whoever, Plur. Nom. whoever, Poss. whosever, Poss. whosever, Obj. whomever; Obj. whomever.

Sing. Nom. whosoever, Plur. Nom. whosoever, Poss. whosesoever, Poss. whosesoever, Obj. whomsoever; Obj. whomsoever.

WHICHEVER or WHICHSOEVER, applied to persons, animals, and things.

Sing. Nom. whichever, Plur. Nom. whichever, Poss. ————-, Poss. ————, Obj. whichever; Obj. whichever.

Sing. Nom. whichsoever, Plur. Nom. whichsoever, Poss. ————-, Poss. ————, Obj. whichsoever; Obj. whichsoever.

WHATEVER or WHATSOEVER, applied ordinarily to things only.

Sing. Nom. whatever, Plur. Nom. whatever, Poss. ————, Poss. ————, Obj. whatever; Obj. whatever.

Sing. Nom. whatsoever, Plur. Nom. whatsoever, Poss. ————-, Poss. ————, Obj. whatsoever; Obj. whatsoever.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—Most of the personal pronouns have two forms of the possessive case, in each number: as, my or mine, our or ours; thy or thine, your or yours; her or hers, their or theirs. The former is used before a noun expressed, or when nothing but an adjective intervenes; the latter, when the governing noun is understood, or is so placed that a repetition of it is implied in or after the pronoun: as, "My powers are thine; be thine alone The glory of my song."—Montgomery. "State what mine and your principles are."—Legh Richmond, to his Daughters. Better, perhaps: "State what my principles and yours are;"—"State what your principles and mine are;"—or, "State what are my principles and your own."

"Resign'd he fell; superior to the dart That quench'd its rage in yours and Britain's heart."—J. Brown.

"Behold! to yours and my surprise, These trifles to a volume rise."—Lloyd, p. 186.

OBS. 2.—Possibly, when the same persons or things stand in a joint relation of this kind to different individuals or parties, it may be proper to connect two of the simple possessives to express it; though this construction can seldom, if ever, be necessary, because any such expression as thy and her sister, my and his duty, if not erroneous, can mean nothing but your sister, our duty, &c. But some examples occur, the propriety of which it is worth while to consider: as, "I am sure it will be a pleasure to you to hear that she proves worthy of her father, worthy of you, and of your and her ancestors."—Spectator, No. 525. This sentence is from a version of Pliny's letter to his wife's aunt; and, as the ancestors of the two individuals are here the same, the phraseology may be allowable. But had the aunt commended her niece to Pliny, she should have said, "worthy of you and of your ancestors and hers." "Is it her or his honour that is tarnished? It is not hers, but his."—Murray's Gram., p. 175. This question I take to be bad English. It ought to be, "Is it her honour or his, that is tarnished?" Her honour and his honour cannot be one and the same thing. This example was framed by Murray to illustrate that idle and puzzling distinction which he and some others make between "possessive adjective pronouns" and "the genitive case of the personal pronouns;" and, if I understand him, the author will here have her and his to be of the former class, and hers and his of the latter. It were a better use of time, to learn how to employ such words correctly. Unquestionably, they are of the same class and the same case, and would be every way equivalent, if the first form were fit to be used elliptically. For example: "The same phrenzy had hindered the Dutch from improving to their and to the common advantage the public misfortunes of France."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 309. Here the possessive case their appears to be governed by advantage understood, and therefore it would perhaps be better to say, theirs, or their own. But in the following instance, our may be proper, because both possessives appear to be governed by one and the same noun:—

"Although 'twas our and their opinion Each other's church was but a Rimmon."—Hudibras.

OBS. 3.—Mine and thine were formerly preferred to my and thy, before all words beginning with a vowel sound; or rather, mine and thine were the original forms,[207] and my and thy were first substituted for them before consonants, and afterwards before vowels: as, "But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance."—Psalms, lv, 13. "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God."—Acts, x, 4. When the Bible was translated, either form appears to have been used before the letter h; as, "Hath not my hand made all these things?"—Acts, vii, 50. "By stretching forth thine hand to heal."—Acts, iv, 30. According to present practice, my and thy are in general to be preferred before all nouns, without regard to the sounds of letters. The use of the other forms, in the manner here noticed, has now become obsolete; or, at least, antiquated, and peculiar to the poets. We occasionally meet with it in modern verse, though not very frequently, and only where the melody of the line seems to require it: as,

"Time writes no wrinkle on thine azure brow."—Byron.

"Deign on the passing world to turn thine eyes."—Johnson.

"Mine eyes beheld the messenger divine."—Lusiad.

"Thine ardent symphony sublime and high."—Sir W. Scott.

OBS. 4.—The possessives mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs, usually denote possession, or the relation of property, with an ellipsis of the name of the thing possessed; as, "My sword and yours are kin."—Shakspeare. Here yours means your sword. "You may imagine what kind of faith theirs was."—Bacon. Here theirs means their faith. "He ran headlong into his own ruin whilst he endeavoured to precipitate ours."—Bolingbroke. Here ours means our ruin. "Every one that heareth these saying of mine."—Matt., vii, 26. Here mine means my sayings. "Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of his."—Psalms, xxx, 4. Here his means his saints. The noun which governs the possessive, is here understood after it, being inferred from that which precedes, as it is in all the foregoing instances. "And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart."—1 Samuel, ii, 33. Here thine, in the first phrase, means thy men; but, in the subsequent parts of the sentence, both mine and thine mean neither more nor less than thy and my, because there is no ellipsis. Of before the possessive case, governs the noun which is understood after this case; and is always taken in a partitive sense, and not as the sign of the possessive relation: as, "When we say, 'a soldier of the king's', we mean, 'one of the king's soldiers.'"—Webster's Improved Gram., p. 29. There is therefore an ellipsis of the word soldiers, in the former phrase. So, in the following example, mine is used elliptically for my feet; or rather, feet is understood after mine, though mine feet is no longer good English, for reasons before stated:—

"Ere I absolve thee, stoop I that on thy neck Levelled with earth tins foot of mine may tread."—Wordsworth.

OBS. 5.—Respecting the possessive case of the simple personal pronouns, there appears among our grammarians a strange diversity of sentiment. Yet is there but one view of the matter, that has in it either truth or reason, consistency or plausibility. And, in the opinion of any judicious teacher, an erroneous classification of words so common and so important as these, may well go far to condemn any system of grammar in which it is found. A pronoun agrees in person, number, and gender, with the noun for which it is a substitute; and, if it is in the possessive case, it is usually governed by an other noun expressed or implied after it. That is, if it denotes possession, it stands for the name of the possessor, and is governed by the name of the thing possessed. Now do not my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, and mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, all equally denote possession? and do they not severally show by their forms the person, the number, and sometimes also the gender, of whomever or whatever they make to be the possessor? If they do, they are all of them pronouns, and nothing else; all found in the possessive case, and nowhere else. It is true, that in Latin, Greek, and some other languages, there are not only genitive cases corresponding to these possessives, but also certain declinable adjectives which we render in English by these same words: that is, by my or mine, our or ours; thy or thine, your or yours; &c. But this circumstance affords no valid argument for considering any of these English terms to be mere adjectives; and, say what we will, it is plain that they have not the signification of adjectives, nor can we ascribe to them the construction of adjectives, without making their grammatical agreement to be what it very manifestly is not. They never agree, in any respect, with the nouns which follow them, unless it be by mere accident. This view of the matter is sustained by the authority of many of our English grammars; as may be seen by the declensions given by Ash, C. Adams, Ainsworth, R. W. Bailey, Barnard, Buchanan, Bicknell, Blair, Burn, Butler, Comly, Churchill, Cobbett, Dalton, Davenport, Dearborn, Farnum, A. Flint, Fowler, Frost, Gilbert, S. S. Green, Greenleaf, Hamlin, Hiley, Kirkham, Merchant, Murray the schoolmaster, Parkhurst, Picket, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R. C. Smith, Wilcox.

OBS. 6.—In opposition to the classification and doctrine adopted above, many of our grammarians teach, that my, thy, this, her, our, your, their, are adjectives or "adjective pronouns;" and that mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, are personal pronouns in the possessive case. Among the supporters of this notion, are D. Adams, Alden, Alger, Allen, Bacon, Barrett, Bingham, Bucke, Bullions, Cutler, Fisk, Frost, (in his small Grammar,) Guy, Hall, Hart, Harrison, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Lennie, Lowth, Miller, L. Murray, Pond, T. Smith, Spear, Spencer, Staniford, Webber, Woodworth. The authority of all these names, however, amounts to little more than that of one man; for Murray pretended to follow Lowth, and nearly all the rest copied Murray. Dr. Lowth says, "Thy, my, her, our, your, their, are pronominal adjectives; but his, (that is, he's,) her's, our's, your's, their's, have evidently the form of the possessive case: And, by analogy, mine, thine, may be esteemed of the same rank."—Lowth's Gram., p. 23.[208] But why did he not see, that by the same analogy, and also by the sense and meaning of the words, as well as by their distinctions of person, number, and gender, all the other six are entitled to "the same rank?" Are not the forms of my, thy, her, our, your, their, as fit to denote the relation of property, and to be called the possessive case, as mine, thine, his, or any others? In grammar, all needless distinctions are reprehensible. And where shall we find a more blamable one than this? It seems to have been based merely upon the false notion, that the possessive case of pronouns ought to be formed like that of nouns; whereas custom has clearly decided that they shall always be different: the former must never be written with an apostrophe; and the latter, never without it. Contrary to all good usage, however, the Doctor here writes "her's, our's, your's, their's," each with a needless apostrophe. Perhaps he thought it would serve to strengthen his position; and help to refute what some affirmed, that all these words are adjectives.

OBS. 7.—Respecting mine, thine, and his, Lowth and L. Murray disagree. The latter will have them to be sometimes "possessive pronouns," and sometimes "possessive cases." An admirable distinction this for a great author to make! too slippery for even the inventor's own hold, and utterly unintelligible to those who do not know its history! In short, these authors disagree also concerning my, thy, her, our, your, their; and where two leaders of a party are at odds with each other, and each is in the wrong, what is to be expected from their followers? Perceiving that Lowth was wrong in calling these words "pronominal adjectives," Murray changed the term to "possessive pronouns," still retaining the class entire; and accordingly taught, in his early editions, that, "There are four kinds of pronouns, viz., the personal, the possessive, the relative, and the adjective pronouns."—Murray's Gram., 2d Edition, p. 37. "The Possessive Pronouns are such as principally relate to possession or property. There are seven of them; viz. my, thy, his, her, our, your, their. The possessives his, mine, thine, may be accounted either possessive pronouns, or the possessive cases of their respective personal pronouns."—Ib., p. 40. He next idly demonstrates that these seven words may come before nouns of any number or case, without variation; then, forgetting his own distinction, adds, "When they are separated from the noun, all of them, except his, vary their terminations; as, this hat is mine, and the other is thine; those trinkets are hers; this house is ours, and that is yours; theirs is more commodious than ours"—Ib., p. 40. Thus all his personal pronouns of the possessive case, he then made to be inflections of pronouns of a different class! What are they now? Seek the answer under the head of that gross solecism, "Adjective Pronouns." You may find it in one half of our English grammars.