CHAPTER I.
ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL.
[§ 411]. The word syntax is derived from the Greek syn (with or together) and taxis (arrangement). It relates to the arrangement, or putting together, of words. Two or more words must be used before there can be any application of syntax.
There is to me a father.—Here we have a circumlocution equivalent to I have a father. In the English language the circumlocution is unnatural. In the Latin it is common. To determine this, is a matter of idiom rather than of syntax.
[§ 412]. In the English, as in all other languages, it is convenient to notice certain so-called figures of speech. They always furnish convenient modes of expression, and sometimes, as in the case of the one immediately about to be noticed, account for facts.
[§ 413]. Personification.—The ideas of apposition and collectiveness account for the apparent violations of the concord of number. The idea of personification applies to the concord of gender. A masculine or feminine
gender, characteristic of persons, may be substituted for the neuter gender, characteristic of things. In this case the term is said to be personified.
The cities who aspired to liberty.—A personification of the idea expressed by cities is here necessary to justify the expression.
It, the sign of the neuter gender, as applied to a male or female child, is the reverse of the process.
[§ 414]. Ellipsis (from the Greek elleipein = to fall short), or a falling short, occurs in sentences like I sent to the bookseller's. Here the word shop or house is understood. Expressions like to go on all fours, and to eat of the fruit of the tree, are reducible to ellipses.
[§ 415]. Pleonasm (from the Greek pleoazein = to be in excess) occurs in sentences like the king, he reigns. Here the word he is superabundant.
My banks, they are furnished,—the most straitest sect,—these are pleonastic expressions. In the king, he reigns, the word king is in the same predicament as in the king, God bless him.
The double negative, allowed in Greek and Anglo-Saxon, but not admissible in English, is pleonastic.
The verb do, in I do speak, is not pleonastic. In respect to the sense it adds intensity. In respect to the construction it is not in apposition, but in the same predicament with verbs like must and should, as in I must go, &c.; i.e., it is a verb followed by an infinitive. This we know from its power in those languages where the infinitive has a characteristic sign; as, in German,
Die Augen thaten ihm winken.—Goethe.
Besides this, make is similarly used in Old English,—But men make draw the branch thereof, and beren him to be graffed at Babyloyne.—Sir J. Mandeville.
[§ 416]. The figure zeugma.—They wear a garment
like that of the Scythians, but a language peculiar to themselves.—The verb, naturally applying to garment only, is here used to govern language. This is called in Greek, zeugma (junction).
[§ 417]. My paternal home was made desolate, and he himself was sacrificed.—The sense of this is plain; he means my father. Yet no such substantive as father has gone before. It is supplied, however, from the word paternal. The sense indicated by paternal gives us a subject to which he can refer. In other words, the word he is understood, according to what is indicated, rather than according to what is expressed. This figure in Greek is called pros to semainomenon (according to the thing indicated).
[§ 418].—Apposition,—Cæsar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain.—-Here the words Roman emperor explain, or define, the word Cæsar; and the sentence, filled up, might stand, Cæsar, that is, the Roman emperor, &c. Again, the words Roman emperor might be wholly ejected; or, if not ejected, they might be thrown into a parenthesis. The practical bearing of this fact is exhibited by changing the form of the sentence, and inserting the conjunction and. In this case, instead of one person, two are spoken of, and the verb invades must be changed from the singular to the plural.
Now the words Roman emperor are said to be in apposition to Cæsar. They constitute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original one. They are, as it were, laid alongside (appositi) of the word Cæsar. Cases of doubtful number, wherein two substantives precede a verb, and wherein it is uncertain whether the verb should be singular or plural, are decided by determining whether the substantives be in apposition or the contrary. No matter how many nouns there may be, as long as it
can be shown that they are in apposition, the verb is in the singular number.
[§ 419]. Collectiveness as opposed to plurality.—In sentences like the meeting was large, the multitude pursue pleasure, meeting and multitude are each collective nouns; that is, although they present the idea of a single object, that object consists of a plurality of individuals. Hence, pursue is put in the plural number. To say, however, the meeting were large would sound improper. The number of the verb that shall accompany a collective noun depends upon whether the idea of the multiplicity of individuals, or that of the unity of the aggregate, shall predominate.
Sand and salt and a mass of iron is easier to bear than a man without understanding.—Let sand and salt and a mass of iron be dealt with as a series of things the aggregate of which forms a mixture, and the expression is allowable.
The king and the lords and commons forms an excellent frame of government.—Here the expression is doubtful. Substitute with for the first and, and there is no doubt as to the propriety of the singular form is.
[§ 420]. The reduction of complex forms to simple ones.—Take, for instance, the current illustration, viz., the-king-of-Saxony's army.—Here the assertion is, not that the army belongs to Saxony, but that it belongs to the king of Saxony; which words must, for the sake of taking a true view of the construction, be dealt with as a single word in the possessive case. Here two cases are dealt with as one; and a complex term is treated as a single word.
The same reason applies to phrases like the two king Williams. If we say the two kings William, we must account for the phrase by apposition.
[§ 421]. True notion of the part of speech in use.—In he is gone, the word gone must be considered as equivalent to absent; that is, as an adjective. Otherwise the expression is as incorrect as the expression she is eloped. Strong participles are adjectival oftener than weak ones: their form being common to many adjectives.
True notion of the original form.—In the phrase I must speak, the word speak is an infinitive. In the phrase I am forced to speak, the word speak is (in the present English) an infinitive also. In one case, however, it is preceded by to; whilst in the other, the particle to is absent. The reason for this lies in the original difference of form. Speak - to = the Anglo-Saxon sprécan, a simple infinitive; to speak, or speak + to = the Anglo-Saxon to sprécanne, an infinitive in the dative case.
[§ 422]. Convertibility.—In the English language, the greater part of the words may, as far as their form is concerned, be one part of speech as well as another. Thus the combinations s-a-n-th, or f-r-e-n-k, if they existed at all, might exist as either nouns or verbs, as either substantives or adjectives, as conjunctions, adverbs, or prepositions. This is not the case in the Greek languages. There, if a word be a substantive, it will probably end in -s; if an infinitive verb, in -ein, &c. The bearings of this difference between languages like the English and languages like the Greek will soon appear.
At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, originally one part of speech (e.g., a noun), may become another (e.g., a verb). This may be called the convertibility of words.
There is an etymological convertibility, and a syntactic convertibility; and although, in some cases, the
line of demarcation is not easily drawn between them, the distinction is intelligible and convenient.
[§ 423]. Etymological convertibility.—The words then and than, now adverbs or conjunctions, were once cases: in other words, they have been converted from one part of speech to another. Or, they may even be said to be cases, at the present moment; although only in an historical point of view. For the practice of language, they are not only adverbs or conjunctions, but they are adverbs or conjunctions exclusively.
[§ 424]. Syntactic convertibility.—The combination to err, is at this moment an infinitive verb. Nevertheless it can be used as the equivalent to the substantive error.
To err is human = error is human. Now this is an instance of syntactic conversion. Of the two meanings, there is no doubt as to which is the primary one; which primary meaning is part and parcel of the language at this moment.
The infinitive, when used as a substantive, can be used in a singular form only.
To err = error; but we have no such form as to errs = errors. Nor is it wanted. The infinitive, in a substantival sense, always conveys a general statement, so that even when singular, it has a plural power; just as man is mortal = men are mortal.
[§ 425]. The adjective used as a substantive.—Of these, we have examples in expressions like the blacks of Africa—the bitters and sweets of life—all fours were put to the ground. These are true instances of conversion, and are proved to be so by the fact of their taking a plural form.
Let the blind lead the blind is not an instance of conversion. The word blind in both instances remains
an adjective, and is shown to remain so by its being uninflected.
[§ 426]. Uninflected parts of speech, used as substantive.—When King Richard III. says, none of your ifs, he uses the word if as a substantive = expressions of doubt.
So in the expression one long now, the word now = present time.
[§ 427]. The convertibility of words in English is very great; and it is so because the structure of the language favours it. As few words have any peculiar signs expressive of their being particular parts of speech, interchange is easy, and conversion follows the logical association of ideas unimpeded.
The convertibility of words is in the inverse ratio to the amount of their inflection.