The Grammar of English Grammars

by Goold Brown

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.

OBS. 8.—Any considerable error in the classing of words, does not stand alone; it naturally brings others in its train. Murray's "Adjective Pronouns," (which he now subdivides into four little classes, possessive, distributive, demonstrative, and indefinite,) being all of them misnamed and misplaced in his etymology, have led both him and many others into strange errors in syntax. The possessives only are "pronouns;" and these are pronouns of the possessive case. As such, they agree with the antecedent nouns for which they stand, in person, number, and gender; and are governed, like all other possessives, by the nouns which follow them. The rest are not pronouns, but pronominal adjectives; and, as such, they relate to nouns expressed or understood after them. Accordingly, they have none of the above-mentioned qualities, except that the words this and that form the plurals these and those. Or, if we choose to ascribe to a pronominal adjective all the properties of the noun understood, it is merely for the sake of brevity in parsing. The difference, then, between a "pronominal adjective" and an "adjective pronoun," should seem to be this; that the one is an adjective, and the other a pronoun: it is like the difference between a horserace and a racehorse. What can be hoped from the grammarian who cannot discern it? And what can be made of rules and examples like the following? "Adjective pronouns must agree, in number, with their substantives: as, 'This book, these books; that sort, those sorts; another road, other roads.'"—Murray's Gram., Rule viii, Late Editions; Alger's Murray, p. 56; Alden's, 85; Bacon's, 48; Maltby's, 59; Miller's, 66; Merchant's, 81; S. Putnam's, 10; and others. "Pronominal adjectives must agree with their nouns in gender, number, and person; thus, 'My son, hear the instructions of thy father.' 'Call the labourers, and give them their hire.'"—Maunder's Gram., Rule xvii. Here Murray gives a rule for pronouns, and illustrates it by adjectives; and Maunder, as ingeniously blunders in reverse: he gives a rule for adjectives, and illustrates it by pronouns. But what do they mean by "their substantives," or "their nouns?" As applicable to pronouns, the phrase should mean nouns antecedent; as applicable to adjectives, it should mean nouns subsequent. Both these rules are therefore false, and fit only to bewilder; and the examples to both are totally inapplicable. Murray's was once essentially right, but he afterwards corrupted it, and a multitude of his admirers have since copied the perversion. It formerly stood thus: "The pronominal adjectives this and that, &c. and the numbers[209] one, two, &c., must agree in number with their substantives: as, 'This book, these books; that sort, those sorts; one girl, ten girls; another road, other roads.' "—Murray's Gram., Rule viii, 2d Ed., 1796.

OBS. 9.—Among our grammarians, some of considerable note have contended, that the personal pronouns have but two cases, the nominative and the objective. Of this class, may be reckoned Brightland, Dr. Johnson, Fisher, Mennye, Cardell, Cooper, Dr. Jas. P. Wilson, W. B. Fowle. and, according to his late grammars, Dr. Webster. But, in contriving what to make of my or mine, our or ours, thy or thine, your or yours, his, her or hers, its, and their or theirs, they are as far from any agreement, or even from self-consistency, as the cleverest of them could ever imagine. To the person, the number, the gender, and the case, of each of these words, they either profess themselves to be total strangers, or else prove themselves so, by the absurdities they teach. Brightland calls them "Possessive Qualities, or Qualities of Possession;" in which class he also embraces all nouns of the possessive case. Johnson calls them pronouns; and then says of them, "The possessive pronouns, like other adjectives, are without cases or change of termination."—Gram., p. 6. Fisher calls them "Personal Possessive Qualities;" admits the person of my, our, &c.; but supposes mine, ours, &c. to supply the place of the nouns which govern them! Mennye makes them one of his three classes of pronouns, "personal, possessive, and relative;" giving to both forms the rank which Murray once gave, and which Allen now gives, to the first form only. Cardell places them among his "defining adjectives." With Fowle, these, and all other possessives, are "possessive adjectives." Cooper, in his grammar of 1828. copies the last scheme of Murray: in that of 1831, he avers that the personal pronouns "want the possessive case." Now, like Webster and Wilson, he will have mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, and theirs, to be pronouns of the nominative or the objective case. Dividing the pronouns into six general classes, he makes these the fifth; calling them "Possessive Pronouns," but preferring in a note the monstrous name, "Possessive Pronouns Substitute." His sixth class are what he calls, "The Possessive Pronominal Adjectives;" namely, "my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, its, own, and sometimes mine and thine."—Cooper's Pl. and Pr. Gram., p. 43. But all these he has, unquestionably, either misplaced or misnamed; while he tells us, that, "Simplicity of arrangement should be the object of every compiler."—Ib., p. 33. Dr. Perley, (in whose scheme of grammar all the pronouns are nouns,) will have my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, and their, to be in the possessive case; but of mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, and theirs, he says, "These may be called Desiderative Personal Pronouns."—Perley's Gram., p. 15.

OBS. 10.—Kirkham, though he professes to follow Murray, declines the simple personal pronouns as I have declined them; and argues admirably, that my, thy, his, &c., are pronouns of the possessive case, because, "They always stand for nouns in the possessive case." But he afterwards contradicts both himself and the common opinion of all former grammarians, in referring mine, thine, hers, &c., to the class of "Compound Personal Pronouns." Nay, as if to outdo even himself in absurdity, he first makes mine, thine, hers, ours, &c., to be compounds, by assuming that, "These pluralizing adjuncts, ne and s, were, no doubt, formerly detached from the pronouns with which they now coalesce;" and then, because he finds in each of his supposed compounds the signification of a pronoun and its governing noun, reassumes, in parsing them, the very principle of error, on which he condemns their common classification. He says, "They should be parsed as two words." He also supposes them to represent the nouns which govern them—nouns with which they do not agree in any respect! Thus is he wrong in almost every thing he says about them. See Kirkham's Gram., p. 99, p. 101, and p. 104. Goodenow, too, a still later writer, adopts the major part of all this absurdity. He will have my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, their, for the possessive case of his personal pronouns; but mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs, he calls "compound possessive pronouns, in the subjective or [the] objective case."—Text-Book of E. Gram., p. 33. Thus he introduces a new class, unknown to his primary division of the pronouns, and not included in his scheme of their declension. Fuller, too, in a grammar produced at Plymouth, Mass., in 1822, did nearly the same thing. He called I, thou, he, she, and it, with their plurals, "antecedent pronouns;" took my, thy, his, her, &c., for their only possessive forms in his declension; and, having passed from them by the space of just half his book, added: "Sometimes, to prevent the repetition of the same word, an antecedent pronoun in the possessive case, is made to represent, both the pronoun and a noun; as, 'That book is mine'—i. e. 'my book.' MINE is a compound antecedent pronoun, and is equivalent to my book. Then parse my, and book, as though they were both expressed."—Fuller's Gram., p. 71.

OBS. 11.—Amidst all this diversity of doctrine at the very centre of grammar, who shall so fix its principles that our schoolmasters and schoolmistresses may know what to believe and teach? Not he that speculates without regard to other men's views; nor yet he that makes it a merit to follow implicitly "the footsteps of" one only. The true principles of grammar are with the learned; and that man is in the wrong, with whom the most learned will not, in general, coincide. Contradiction of falsities, is necessary to the maintenance of truth; correction of errors, to the success of science. But not every man's errors can be so considerable as to deserve correction from other hands than his own. Misinstruction in grammar has for this reason generally escaped censure. I do not wish any one to coincide with me merely through ignorance of what others inculcate. If doctors of divinity and doctors of laws will contradict themselves in teaching grammar, so far as they do so, the lovers of consistency will find it necessary to deviate from their track. Respecting these pronouns, I learned in childhood, from Webster, a doctrine which he now declares to be false. This was nearly the same as Lowth's, which is quoted in the sixth observation above. But, in stead of correcting its faults, this zealous reformer has but run into others still greater. Now, with equal reproach to his etymology, his syntax, and his logic, he denies that our pronouns have any form of the possessive case at all. But grant the obvious fact, that substitution is one thing, and ellipsis an other, and his whole argument is easily overthrown; for it is only by confounding these, that he reaches his absurd conclusion.

OBS. 12.—Dr. Webster's doctrine now is, that none of the English pronouns have more than two cases. He says, "mine, thine, his, hers, yours, and theirs, are usually considered as [being of] the possessive case. But the three first are either attributes, and used with nouns, or they are substitutes. The three last are always substitutes, used in the place of names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD."—"That mine, thine, his, [ours,] yours, hers, and theirs, do not constitute a possessive case, is demonstrable; for they are constantly used as the nominatives to verbs and as the objectives after verbs and prepositions, as in the following passages. 'Whether it could perform its operations of thinking and memory out of a body organized as ours is.'—Locke. 'The reason is, that his subject is generally things; theirs, on the contrary, is persons.'—Camp. Rhet. 'Therefore leave your forest of beasts for ours of brutes, called men.'—Wycherley to Pope. It is needless to multiply proofs. We observe these pretended possessives uniformly used as nominatives or objectives.[210] Should it be said that a noun is understood; I reply, this cannot be true," &c.—Philosophical Gram., p. 35; Improved Gram., p. 26. Now, whether it be true or not, this very position is expressly affirmed by the Doctor himself, in the citation above; though he is, unquestionably, wrong in suggesting that the pronouns are "used in the place of [those] names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD." They are used in the place of other names—the names of the possessors; and are governed by those which he here both admits and denies to be "understood."

OBS. 13.—The other arguments of Dr. Webster against the possessive case of pronouns, may perhaps be more easily answered than some readers imagine. The first is drawn from the fact that conjunctions connect like cases. "Besides, in three passages just quoted, the word yours is joined by a connective to a name in the same case; 'To ensure yours and their immortality.' 'The easiest part of yours and my design.' 'My sword and yours are kin.' Will any person pretend that the connective here joins different cases?"—Improved Gram., p. 28; Philosophical Gram., p. 36. I answer, No. But it is falsely assumed that yours is here connected by and to immortality, to design, or to sword; because these words are again severally understood after yours: or, if otherwise, the two pronouns alone are connected by and, so that the proof is rather, that their and my are in the possessive case. The second argument is drawn from the use of the preposition of before the possessive. "For we say correctly, 'an acquaintance of yours, ours, or theirs'—of being the sign of the possessive; but if the words in themselves are possessives, then there must be two signs of the same case, which is absurd."—Improved Gram., p. 28; Phil. Gr., 36. I deny that of is here the sign of the possessive, and affirm that it is taken partitively, in all examples of this sort. "I know my sheep, and am known of mine," is not of this kind; because of here means by—a sense in which the word is antiquated. In recurring afterwards to this argument, the Doctor misquotes the following texts, and avers that they "are evidently meant to include the whole number: 'Sing to the Lord, all ye saints of his.'—Ps. 30, 4. 'He that heareth these sayings of mine.'—Matt. 7."—Improved Gram., p. 29; Phil. Gr., 38. If he is right about the meaning, however, the passages are mistranslated, as well as misquoted: they ought to be, "Sing unto the Lord, O ye his Saints."—"Every one that heareth these my sayings." But when a definitive particle precedes the noun, it is very common with us, to introduce the possessive elliptically after it; and what Dr. Wilson means by suggesting that it is erroneous, I know not: "When the preposition of precedes mine, ours, yours, &c. the errour lies, not in this, that there are double possessive cases, but in forming an implication of a noun, which the substitute already denotes, together with the persons."—Essay on Gram., p. 110.

OBS. 14.—In his Syllabus of English Grammar, Dr. Wilson teaches thus: "My, our, thy, your, his, her, its, their, whose, and whosesoever are possessive pronominal adjectives. Ours, yours, hers, and theirs are pronoun substantives, used either as subjects, or [as] objects; as singulars, or [as] plurals; and are substituted both for [the names of] the possessors, and [for those of the] things possessed. His, its, whose, mine, and thine, are sometimes used as such substantives; but also are at other times pronominal possessive adjectives."—Wilson's Syllabus, p. X. Now compare with these three positions, the following three from the same learned author. "In Hebrew, the adjective generally agrees with its noun in gender and number, but pronouns follow the gender of their antecedents, and not of the nouns with which they stand. So in English, my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, and their, agree with the nouns they represent, in number, gender, and person. But adjectives, having no change expressive of number, gender, or case, cannot accord with their nouns."—Wilson's Essay on Gram., p. 192. "Ours, yours, hers, and theirs, are most usually considered possessive cases of personal pronouns; but they are, more probably, possessive substitutes, not adjectives, but nouns."—Ib., p. 109. "Nor can mine or thine, with any more propriety than ours, yours, &c. be joined to any noun, as possessive adjectives and possessive cases may."—Ib., p. 110. Whoever understands these instructions, cannot but see their inconsistency.

OBS. 15.—Murray argues at some length, without naming his opponents, that the words which he assumes to be such, are really personal pronouns standing rightfully in the possessive case; and that, "they should not, on the slight pretence of their differing from nouns, be dispossessed of the right and privilege, which, from time immemorial they have enjoyed."—Octavo Gram., p. 53. Churchill as ably shows, that the corresponding terms, which Lowth calls pronominal adjectives, and which Murray and others will have to be pronouns of no case, are justly entitled to the same rank. "If mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs, be the possessive case; my, thy, her, our, your, their, must be the same. Whether we say, 'It is John's book,' or, 'The book is John's;' John's is not less the possessive case in one instance, than it is in the other. If we say, 'It is his book,' or, 'The book is his;' 'It is her book,' or, 'The book is hers;' 'It is my book,' or, 'The book is mine;' 'It is your book,' or, 'The book is yours;' are not these parallel instances? Custom has established it as a law, that this case of the pronoun shall drop its original termination, for the sake of euphony, when it precedes the noun that governs it; retaining it only where the noun is understood: but this certainly makes no alteration in the nature of the word; so that either my is as much a possessive case as mine; or mine and my are equally pronominal adjectives."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 221. "Mr. Murray considers the phrases, 'our desire,' 'your intention,' 'their resignation,' as instances of plural adjectives agreeing with singular nouns; and consequently exceptions to the general (may we not say universal?) rule: but if they [the words our, your, their,] be, as is attempted to be proved above, the possessive cases of pronouns, no rule is here violated."—Ib., p. 224.

OBS. 16.—One strong argument, touching this much-disputed point of grammar, was incidentally noticed in the observations upon antecedents: an adjective cannot give person, number, and gender, to a relative pronoun; because, in our language, adjectives do not possess these qualities; nor indeed in any other, except as they take them by immediate agreement with nouns or pronouns in the same clause. But it is undeniable, that my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, do sometimes stand as antecedents, and give person, number, and gender to relatives, which head other clauses. For the learner should remember, that, "When a relative pronoun is used, the sentence is divided into two parts; viz. the antecedent sentence, or that which contains the antecedent; and the relative sentence, containing the relative."—Nixon's Parser, p. 123. We need not here deny, that Terence's Latin, as quoted in the grammars, "Omnes laudare fortunas meas, qui haberem gnatum tali ingeuio præditum," is quite as intelligible syntax, as can literally be made of it in English—"That all would praise my fortunes, who had a son endued with such a genius." For, whether the Latin be good or not, it affords no argument against us, except that of a supposed analogy; nor does the literality of the version prove, at all points, either the accuracy or the sameness of the construction.

OBS. 17.—Surely, without some imperative reason, we ought not, in English, to resort to such an assumption as is contained in the following Rule: "Sometimes the relative agrees in person with that pronoun substantive, from which the possessive pronoun adjective is derived; as, Pity my condition, who am so destitute. I rejoice at thy lot, who art so fortunate. We lament his fate, who is so unwary. Beware of her cunning, who is so deceitful. Commiserate our condition, who are so poor. Tremble at your negligence, who are so careless. It shall be their property, who are so diligent. We are rejoicing at thy lot, who hast been so fortunate."—Nixon's Parser, p. 142. In his explanation of the last of these sentences, the author says, "Who is a relative pronoun; in the masculine gender, singular number, second person, and agrees with thee, implied in the adjective thy. RULE.—Sometimes the relative agrees in person, &c. And it is the nominative to the verb hast been. RULE.—When no nominative comes between the relative and the verb, the relative is the nominative to the verb."—Ib., p. 143. A pupil of G. Brown's would have said, "Who is a relative pronoun, representing 'thy,' or the person addressed, in the second person, singular number, and masculine gender; according to the rule which says, 'A pronoun must agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in person, number, and gender:' and is in the nominative case, being the subject of hast been; according to the rule which says, 'A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.' Because the meaning is—who hast been; that is, thy lot, or the lot of thee, who hast been."

OBS. 18.—Because the possessive case of a noun or pronoun is usually equivalent in meaning to the preposition of and the objective case, some grammarians, mistaking this equivalence of meaning for sameness of case, have asserted that all our possessives have a double form. Thus Nixon: "When the particle of comes between two substantives signifying different things, it is not to be considered a preposition, but the sign of the substantive's being in the possessive case, equally as if the apostrophic s had been affixed to it; as, 'The skill of Cæsar,' or Cæsar's skill.'"—English Parser, p. 38. "When the apostrophic s is used, the genitive is the former of the two substantives; as, 'John's house:' but when the particle of is used, it is the latter; as, 'The house of John.'"—Ib., p. 46. The work here quoted is adapted to two different grammars; namely, Murray's and Allen's. These the author doubtless conceived to be the best English grammars extant. And it is not a little remarkable, that both of these authors, as well as many others, teach in such a faulty manner, that their intentions upon this point may be matter of dispute. "When Murray, Allen, and others, say, 'we make use of the particle of to express the relation of the genitive,' the ambiguity of their assertion leaves it in doubt whether or not they considered the substantive which is preceded by of and an other substantive, as in the genitive case."—Nixon's English Parser, p. 38. Resolving this doubt according to his own fancy, Nixon makes the possessive case of our personal pronouns to be as follows: "mine or of me, ours or of us; thine or of thee, yours or of you; his or of him, theirs or of them; hers or of her, theirs or of them; its or of it, theirs or of them."—English Parser, p. 43. This doctrine gives us a form of declension that is both complex and deficient. It is therefore more objectionable than almost any of those which are criticised above. The arguments and authorities on which the author rests his position, are not thought likely to gain many converts; for which reason, I dismiss the subject, without citing or answering them.

OBS. 19.—In old books, we sometimes find the word I written for the adverb ay, yes: as, "To dye, to sleepe; To sleepe, perchance to dreame; I, there's the rub."—Shakspeare, Old Copies. The British Grammar, printed in 1784, and the Grammar of Murray the schoolmaster, published some years earlier than Lindley Murray's, say: "We use I as an Answer, in a familiar, careless, or merry Way; as, 'I, I, Sir, I, I;' but to use ay, is accounted rude, especially to our Betters." See Brit. Gram., p. 198. The age of this rudeness, or incivility, if it ever existed, has long passed away; and the fashion seems to be so changed, that to write or utter I for ay, would now in its turn be "accounted rude"—the rudeness of ignorance—a false orthography, or a false pronunciation. In the word ay, the two sounds of ah-ee are plainly heard; in the sound of I, the same elements are more quickly blended. (See a note at the foot of page 162.) When this sound is suddenly repeated, some writers make a new word of it, which must be called an interjection: as, "'Pray, answer me a question or two.' 'Ey, ey, as many as you please, cousin Bridget, an they be not too hard.'"—Burgh's Speaker, p. 99. "Ey, ey, 'tis so; she's out of her head, poor thing."—Ib., p. 100. This is probably a corruption of ay, which is often doubled in the same manner: thus,

"Ay, ay, Antipholus, look strange, and frown."—Shakspeare.

OBS. 20.—The common fashion of address being nowadays altogether in the plural form, the pronouns thou, thy, thine, thee, and thyself, have become unfamiliar to most people, especially to the vulgar and uneducated. These words are now confined almost exclusively to the writings of the poets, to the language of the Friends, to the Holy Scriptures, and to the solemn services of religion. They are, however, the only genuine representatives of the second person singular, in English; and to displace them from that rank in grammar, or to present you, your, and yours, as being literally singular, though countenanced by several late writers, is a useless and pernicious innovation. It is sufficient for the information of the learner, and far more consistent with learning and taste, to say, that the plural is fashionably used for the singular, by a figure of syntax; for, in all correct usage of this sort, the verb is plural, as well as the pronoun—Dr. Webster's fourteen authorities to the contrary notwithstanding. For, surely, "You was" cannot be considered good English, merely because that number of respectable writers have happened, on some particular occasions, to adopt the phrase; and even if we must needs concede this point, and grant to the Doctor and his converts, that "You was is primitive and correct," the example no more proves that you is singular, than that was is plural. And what is one singular irregular preterit, compared with all the verbs in the language?

OBS. 21.—In our present authorized version of the Bible, the numbers and cases of the second person are kept remarkably distinct,[211] the pronouns being always used in the following manner: thou for the nominative, thy or thine for the possessive, and thee for the objective, singular; ye for the nominative, your or yours for the possessive, and you for the objective, plural. Yet, before that version was made, fashionable usage had commonly substituted you for ye, making the former word nominative as well as objective, and applying it to one hearer as well as to more. And subsequently, as it appears, the religious sect that entertained a scruple about applying you to an individual, fell for the most part into an ungrammatical practice of putting thee for thou; making, in like manner, the objective pronoun to be both nominative and objective; or, at least, using it very commonly so in their conversation. Their manner of speaking, however, was not—or, certainly, with the present generation of their successors, is not—as some grammarians represent it to be, that formal and antique phraseology which we call the solemn style.[212] They make no more use of the pronoun ye, or of the verbal termination eth, than do people of fashion; nor do they, in using the pronoun thou, or their improper nominative thee, ordinarily inflect with st or est the preterits or the auxiliaries of the accompanying verbs, as is done in the solemn style. Indeed, to use the solemn style familiarly, would be, to turn it into burlesque; as when Peter Pindar "telleth what he troweth." [213] And let those who think with Murray, that our present version of the Scriptures is the best standard of English grammar,[214] remember that in it they have no warrant for substituting s or es for the old termination eth, any more than for ceasing to use the solemn style of the second person familiarly. That version was good in its day, yet it shows but very imperfectly what the English language now is. Can we consistently take for our present standard, a style which does not allow us to use you in the nominative case, or its for the possessive? And again, is not a simplification of the verb as necessary and proper in the familiar use of the second person singular, as in that of the third? This latter question I shall discuss in a future chapter.

OBS. 22.—The use of the pronoun ye in the nominative case, is now mostly confined to the solemn style;[215] but the use of it in the objective, which is disallowed in the solemn style, and nowhere approved by our grammarians, is nevertheless common when no emphasis falls upon the word: as,

"When you're unmarried, never load ye
With jewels; they may incommode ye."—Dr. King, p. 384.

Upon this point, Dr. Lowth observes, "Some writers have used ye as the objective case plural of the pronoun of the second person, very improperly and ungrammatically; [as,]

'The more shame for ye; holy men I thought ye.' Shak. Hen. VIII.

'But tyrants dread ye, lest your just decree
Transfer the pow'r, and set the people free.' Prior.

'His wrath, which one day will destroy ye both.' Milt. P. L. ii. 734.

Milton uses the same manner of expression in a few other places of his Paradise Lost, and more frequently in his [smaller] poems, It may, perhaps, be allowed in the comic and burlesque style, which often imitates a vulgar and incorrect pronunciation; but in the serious and solemn style, no authority is sufficient to justify so manifest a solecism."—Lowth's Gram., p. 22. Churchill copies this remark, and adds; "Dryden has you as the nominative, and ye as the objective, in the same passage:[216]

'What gain you, by forbidding it to tease ye?
It now can neither trouble ye, nor please ye.'

Was this from a notion, that you and ye, thus employed, were more analogous to thou and thee in the singular number?"—Churchill's Gram., p. 25. I answer, No; but, more probably, from a notion, that the two words, being now confessedly equivalent in the one case, might as well be made so in the other: just as the Friends, in using thee for you, are carelessly converting the former word into a nominative, to the exclusion of thou; because the latter has generally been made so, to the exclusion of ye. When the confounding of such distinctions is begun, who knows where it will end? With like ignorance, some writers suppose, that the fashion of using the plural for the singular is a sufficient warrant for putting the singular for the plural: as,

"The joys of love, are they not doubly thine,
Ye poor! whose health, whose spirits ne'er decline?"
—Southwick's Pleas. of Poverty.

"But, Neatherds, go look to the kine,
Their cribs with fresh fodder supply;
The task of compassion be thine,
For herbage the pastures deny."—Perfect's Poems, p. 5.

OBS. 23.—When used in a burlesque or ludicrous manner, the pronoun ye is sometimes a mere expletive; or, perhaps, intended rather as an objective governed by a preposition understood. But, in such a construction, I see no reason to prefer it to the regular objective you; as,

"He'll laugh ye, dance ye, sing ye, vault, look gay,
And ruffle all the ladies in his play."—King, p. 574.

Some grammarians, who will have you to be singular as well as plural, ignorantly tell us, that "ye always means more than one." But the fact is, that when ye was in common use, it was as frequently applied to one person as you: thus,

"Farewell my doughter lady Margarete,
God wotte full oft it grieued hath my mynde,
That ye should go where we should seldome mete:
Now am I gone, and haue left you behynde."—Sir T. More, 1503.

In the following example, ye is used for thee, the objective singular; and that by one whose knowledge of the English language, is said to have been unsurpassed:—

"Proud Baronet of Nova Scotia!
The Dean and Spaniard must reproach ye."—Swift.

So in the story of the Chameleon:—

"'Tis green, 'tis green, Sir, I assure ye."—Merrick.

Thus we have ye not only for the nominative in both numbers, but at length for the objective in both; ye and you being made everywhere equivalent, by very many writers. Indeed this pronoun has been so frequently used for the objective case, that one may well doubt any grammarian's authority to condemn it in that construction. Yet I cannot but think it ill-chosen in the third line below, though right in the first:—

"Ye! who have traced the Pilgrim to the scene
Which is his last, if in your memories dwell
A thought which once was his, if on ye swell
A single recollection, not in vain
He wore his sandal-shoon, and scallop-shell."—Byron.

OBS. 24.—The three pronouns of the third person, he, she, and it, have always formed their plural number after one and the same manner, they, their or theirs, them. Or, rather, these plural words, which appear not to be regular derivatives from any of the singulars, have ever been applied alike to them all. But it, the neuter pronoun singular, had formerly no variation of cases, and is still alike in the nominative and the objective. The possessive its is of comparatively recent origin. In our common Bible, the word is not found, except by misprint; nor do other writings of the same age contain it. The phrase, of it, was often used as an equivalent; as, "And it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it."—Dan., vii, 5. That is—"in its mouth, between its teeth." But, as a possessive case was sometimes necessary, our ancestors used to borrow one; commonly from the masculine, though sometimes from the feminine. This produced what now appears a strange confusion of the genders: as, "Learning hath his infancy, when it is but beginning, and almost childish; then his youth, when it is luxuriant and juvenile; then his strength of years, when it is solid and reduced; and lastly his old age, when it waxeth dry and exhaust."—Bacon's Essays, p. 58. "Of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same."—Exodus, xxv, 31. "They came and emptied the chest, and took it and carried it to his place again."—2 Chron., xxiv, 11. "Look not thou upon the wine, when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright."—Prov., xxiii, 31. "The tree is known by his fruit."—Matt., xii, 33. "When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength."—Gen., iv, 12. "He that pricketh the heart, maketh it to show her knowledge."—Eccl., xxii, 19. Shakspeare rarely, if ever, used its; and his style is sometimes obscure for the want of it: as,

"There is no vice so simple, but assumes
Some mark of virtue on his outward parts."
—Merch. of Venice.

"The name of Cassius honours this corruption,
And chastisement doth therefore hide his head."
—Jul. Cæs., Act iv.

OBS. 25.—The possessive case of pronouns should never be written with an apostrophe. A few pronominal adjectives taken substantively receive it; but the construction which it gives them, seems to make them nouns: as, one's, other's, and, according to Murray, former's and latter's. The real pronouns that end in s, as his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, though true possessives after their kind, have no occasion for this mark, nor does good usage admit it. Churchill, with equal disregard of consistency and authority, gives it to one of them, and denies it to the rest. Referring to the classification of these words as possessives, and of my, thy, her, our, your, their, as adjectives, he says: "It seems as if the termination in s had led to the distinction: but no one will contend, that ours is the possessive case of our, or theirs of their; though ours, yours, hers, and theirs, are often very improperly spelt with an apostrophe, a fault not always imputable to the printer; while in it's, which is unquestionably the possessive case of it, the apostrophe, by a strange perverseness, is almost always omitted."—Churchill Gram., p. 222. The charge of strange perverseness may, in this instance, I think, be retorted upon the critic; and that, to the fair exculpation of those who choose to conform to the general usage which offends him.

OBS. 26.—Of the compound personal pronouns, this author gives the following account: "Self, in the plural selves, a noun, is often combined with the personal pronouns, in order to express emphasis, or opposition, or the identity of the subject and [the] object of a verb; and thus forms a pronoun relative: as, 'I did it myself;' 'he was not himself, when he said so;' 'the envious torment themselves more than others.' Formerly self and selves were used simply as nouns, and governed the pronoun, which was kept distinct from it [them] in the possessive case: but since they [the pronoun and the noun] have coalesced into one word, they [the compounds] are used only in the following forms: for the first person, myself, ourselves; for the second, thyself, or yourself, yourselves; for the third, himself, herself, itself, themselves: except in the regal style, in which, as generally in the second person, the singular noun is added to the plural pronoun, [making] ourself. Each of these is the same in all three cases."—Churchill's Gram., p. 75. In a note referring to the close of this explanation, he adds: "Own also is often employed with the possessive cases of the personal pronouns by way of emphasis, or opposition; but separately, as an adjective, and not combining with them to form a relative: as, 'I did it of my own free will:' 'Did he do it with his own hand?'"—Ib., p. 227.

OBS. 27.—The preceding instructions, faulty and ungrammatical as they are, seem to be the best that our writers have furnished upon this point. To detect falsities and blunders, is half the grammarian's duty. The pronouns of which the term self or selves forms a part, are used, not for the connecting of different clauses of a sentence, but for the purpose of emphatic distinction in the sense. In calling them "relatives," Churchill is wrong, even by his own showing. They have not the characteristics which he himself ascribes to relatives; but are compound personal pronouns, and nothing else. He is also manifestly wrong in asserting, that they are severally "the same in all three cases." From the very nature of their composition, the possessive case is alike impossible to them all. To express ownership with emphasis or distinction, we employ neither these compounds nor any others; but always use the simple possessives with the separate adjective own: as, "With my own eyes,"—"By thy own confession,"—"To his own house,"—"For her own father,"—"By its own weight,"—"To save our own lives,"—"For your own sake,"—"In their own cause."

OBS. 28.—The phrases, my own, thy own, his own, and so forth, Dr. Perley, in his little Grammar, has improperly converted by the hyphen into compound words: calling them the possessive forms of myself, thyself, himself, and so forth; as if one set of compounds could constitute the possessive case of an other! And again, as if the making of eight new pronouns for two great nations, were as slight a feat, as the inserting of so many hyphens! The word own, anciently written owen, is an adjective; from an old form of the perfect participle of the verb to owe; which verb, according to Lowth and others, once signified to possess. It is equivalent to due, proper, or peculiar; and, in its present use as an adjective, it stands nowhere else than between the possessive case and the name of the thing possessed; as, "The Boy's Own Book,"—"Christ's own words,"—"Solomon's own and only son." Dr. Johnson, while he acknowledges the abovementioned derivation, very strangely calls own a noun substantive; and, with not more accuracy, says: "This is a word of no other use than as it is added to the possessive pronouns, my, thy, his, our, your, their."—Quarto Dict., w. Own. O. B. Peirce, with obvious untruth, says, "Own is used in combination with a name or substitute, and as a part of it, to constitute it emphatic."—Gram., p. 63. He writes it separately, but parses it as a part of the possessive noun or pronoun which precedes it!

OBS. 29.—The word self was originally an adjective, signifying same, very, or particular; but, when used alone, it is now generally a noun. This may have occasioned the diversity which appears in the formation of the compound personal pronouns. Dr. Johnson, in his great Dictionary, calls self a pronoun; but he explains it as being both adjective and substantive, admitting that, "Its primary signification seems to be that of an adjective."—Again he observes, "Myself, himself, themselves, and the rest, may, contrary to the analogy of my, him, them, be used as nominatives." Hisself, itsself, and theirselves, would be more analogical than himself, itself, themselves; but custom has rejected the former, and established the latter. When an adjective qualifies the term self, the pronouns are written separately in the possessive case; as, My single self,—My own self,—His own self,—Their own selves. So, anciently, without an adjective: as, "A man shall have diffused his life, his self, and his whole concernments so far, that he can weep his sorrows with an other's eyes."—South. "Something valuable for its self without view to anything farther."—Harris's Hermes, p. 293. "That they would willingly, and of their selves endeavour to keep a perpetual chastity."—Stat. Ed. VI. in Lowth's Gram., p. 26. "Why I should either imploy my self in that study or put others upon it."—Walker's English Particles, p. xiv. "It is no matter whether you do it by your proctor, or by your self."—Ib., p. 96. The compound oneself is sometimes written in stead of the phrase one's self; but the latter is preferable, and more common. Even his self, when written as two words, may possibly be right in some instances; as,

"Scorn'd be the wretch that quits his genial bowl,
His loves, his friendships, ev'n his self, resigns;
Perverts the sacred instinct of his soul,
And to a ducat's dirty sphere confines."
—SHENSTONE: Brit. Poets, Vol. vii, p. 107.

OBS. 30.—In poetry, and even in some compositions not woven into regular numbers, the simple personal pronouns are not unfrequently used, for brevity's sake, in a reciprocal sense; that is, in stead of the compound personal pronouns, which are the proper reciprocals: as, "Wash you, make you clean."—Isaiah, i, 16. "I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards; I made me gardens and orchards."—Ecclesiastes, ii, 4. "Thou shalt surely clothe thee with them all as with an ornament, and bind them on thee as a bride doeth."—Isaiah, xlix, 18. Compare with these the more regular expression: "As a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with jewels."—Isaiah, lxi, 10. This phraseology is almost always preferable in prose; the other is a poetical license, or peculiarity: as,

"I turn me from the martial roar."—Scott's L. L., p. 97.

"Hush thee, poor maiden, and be still."—Ib., p. 110.

"Firmer he roots him the ruder it blow."—Ib., p. 49.

OBS. 31.—To accommodate the writers of verse, the word ever is frequently contracted into e'er, pronounced like the monosyllable air. An easy extension of this license, gives us similar contractions of all the compound relative pronouns; as, whoe'er or whosoe'er, whose'er or whosesoe'er, whome'er or whomsoe'er, whiche'er or whichsoe'er, whate'er or whatsoe'er. The character and properties of these compounds are explained, perhaps sufficiently, in the observations upon the classes of pronouns. Some of them are commonly parsed as representing two cases at once; there being, in fact, an ellipsis of the noun, before or after them: as,

"Each art he prompts, each charm he can create, Whate'er he gives, are given for you to hate."—Pope's Dunciad.

OBS. 32.—For a form of parsing the double relative what, or its compound whatever or whatsoever, it is the custom of some teachers, to suggest equivalent words, and then proceed to explain these, in lieu of the word in question. This is the method of Russell's Gram., p. 99; of Merchants, p. 110; of Kirkham's, p. 111; of Gilbert's, p. 92. But it should be remembered that equivalence of meaning is not sameness of grammatical construction; and, even if the construction be the same, to parse other equivalent words, is not really to parse the text that is given. A good parser, with the liberty to supply obvious ellipses, should know how to explain all good English as it stands; and for a teacher to pervert good English into false doctrine, must needs seem the very worst kind of ignorance. What can be more fantastical than the following etymology, or more absurd than the following directions for parsing? "What is compounded of which that. These words have been contracted and made to coalesce, a part of the orthography of both being still retained: what—wh[ich—t]hat; (which-that.) Anciently it appeared in the varying forms, tha qua, qua tha, qu'tha, quthat, quhat, hwat, and finally what."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 111. This bald pedantry of "tha qua, qua tha," was secretly borrowed from the grammatical speculations of William S. Cardell:[217] the "which-that" notion contradicts it, and is partly of the borrower's own invention. If what is a compound, it was compounded more than a thousand years ago; and, of course, long before any part of the English language existed as such. King Alfred used it, as he found it, in the Saxon form of hwæt. The Scotch afterwards spelled it quhat. Our English grammarians have improperly called it a compound; and Kirkham, still more absurdly, calls the word others a compound, and mine, thine, ours, yours, &e. compounds.[218]

OBS. 33.—According to this gentleman's notion of things, there is, within the little circle of the word what, a very curious play of antecedent parts and parts relative—a dodging contra-dance of which that and that which, with things which, and so forth. Thus: "When what is a compound relative you must always parse it as two words; that is, you must parse the antecedent part as a noun, and give it case; the relative part you may analyze like any other relative, giving it a case likewise. Example: 'I will try what (that which) can be found in female delicacy.' Here that, the antecedent part of what, is in the obj. case, governed by the verb 'will try;' which, the relative part, is in the nom. case to 'can be found.' 'I have heard what (i.e. that which, or the thing which) has been alleged.' "—Kirkham's Gram., p. 111. Here, we sec, the author's "which-that" becomes that which, or something else. But this is not a full view of his method. The following vile rigmarole is a further sample of that "New Systematick Order of Parsing," by virtue of which he so very complacently and successfully sets himself above all other grammarians: "'From what is recorded, he appears, &c.' What is a comp. rel. pron. including both the antecedent and the relative, and is equivalent to that which, or the thing which.—Thing, the antecedent part of what, is a noun, the name of a thing—com. the name of a species—neuter gender, it has no sex—third person, spoken of—sing. number, it implies but one—and in the obj. case, it is the object of the relation expressed by the prep. 'from,' and gov. by it: RULE 31. (Repeat the Rule, and every other Rule to which I refer.) Which, the relative part of what, is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun—relative, it relates to 'thing' for its antecedent—neut. gender, third person, sing, number, because the antecedent is with which it agrees, according to RULE 14. Rel. pron. &c. Which is in the nom. case to the verb 'is recorded,' agreeably to RULE 15. The relative is the nominative case to the verb, when no nominative comes between it and the verb."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 113.

OBS. 34.—The distinction which has been made by Murray and others, between etymological parsing and syntactical—or, between that exercise which simply classifies and describes the words of a sentence, and that which adds to this the principles of their construction—is rejected by Kirkham, and also by Ingersoll, Fuller, Smith, Sanborn, Mack, and some others, it being altogether irreconcilable with their several modes of confounding the two main parts of grammar. If such a distinction is serviceable, the want of it is one of the inherent faults of the schemes which they have adopted. But, since "grammar is the art of speaking and writing with propriety" who that really values clearness and accuracy of expression, can think the want of them excusable in models prescribed for the exercise of parsing? And is it not better to maintain the distinction above named, than to interlace our syntactical parsing with broken allusions to the definitions which pertain to etymology? If it is, this new mode of parsing, which Kirkham claims to have invented, and Smith pretends to have got from Germany, whatever boast may be made of it, is essentially defective and very immethodical.[219] This remark applies not merely to the forms above cited, respecting the pronoun what, but to the whole method of parsing adopted by the author of "English Grammar in Familiar Lectures."

OBS. 35.—The forms of etymological parsing which I have adopted, being designed to train the pupil, in the first place, by a succession of easy steps, to a rapid and accurate description of the several species of words, and a ready habit of fully defining the technical terms employed in such descriptions, will be found to differ more from the forms of syntactical parsing, than do those of perhaps any other grammarian. The definitions, which constitute so large a portion of the former, being omitted as soon as they are thoroughly learned, give place in the latter, to the facts and principles of syntax. Thus have we fullness in the one part, conciseness in the other, order and distinctness in both. The separation of etymology from syntax, however, though judiciously adopted by almost all grammarians, is in itself a mere matter of convenience. No one will pretend that these two parts of grammar are in their nature totally distinct and independent. Hence, though a due regard to method demands the maintenance of this ancient and still usual division of the subject, we not unfrequently, in treating of the classes and modifications of words, exhibit contingently some of the principles of their construction. This, however, is very different from a purposed blending of the two parts, than which nothing can be more unwise.

OBS. 36.—The great peculiarity of the pronoun what, or of its compound whatever or whatsoever, is a peculiarity of construction, rather than of etymology. Hence, in etymological parsing, it may be sufficient to notice it only as a relative, though the construction be double. It is in fact a relative; but it is one that reverses the order of the antecedent, whenever the noun is inserted with it. But as the noun is usually suppressed, and as the supplying of it is attended with an obvious difficulty, arising from the transposition, we cut the matter short, by declaring the word to have, as it appears to have, a double syntactical relation. Of the foregoing example, therefore—viz., "From what is recorded," &c.,—a pupil of mine, in parsing etymologically, would say thus: "What is a relative pronoun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which denotes the subject of a verb." In parsing syntactically, he would say thus: "What is a double relative, including both antecedent and relative, being equivalent to that which. As antecedent, it is of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case; being governed by from; according to the rule which says, 'A Noun or a Pronoun made the object of a preposition, is goverved [sic—KTH] by it in the objective case.' Because the meaning is—from what. As relative, it is of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case; being the subject of is recorded; according to the rule which says, 'A Noun or a Pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.' Because the meaning is—what is recorded."

OBS. 37.—The word what, when uttered independently as a mark of surprise, or as the prelude to an emphatic question which it does not ask, becomes an interjection; and, as such, is to be parsed merely as other interjections are parsed: as, "What! came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?"—1 Cor., xiv, 36. "What! know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God?"—1 Cor., vi, 19. "But what! is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?"—2 Kings, viii, 13. "What! are you so ambitious of a man's good word, who perhaps in an hour's time shall curse himself to the pit of hell?"—Collier's Antoninus, p. 152.

"What! up and down, carv'd like an apple-tart?"—Shakspeare.

"What! can you lull the winged winds asleep?"—Campbell.