CHAPTER IV.
SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.
[§ 436]. Pleonasm in the syntax of pronouns.—In the following sentences the words in italics are pleonastic:
1. The king he is just.
2. I saw her, the queen.
3. The men, they were there.
4. The king, his crown.
Of these forms, the first is more common than the second and third, and the fourth more common than the first.
[§ 437]. The fourth has another element of importance. It has given rise to the absurd notion that the genitive case in -'s (father-'s) is a contraction from his (father his).
To say nothing about the inapplicability of this rule to feminine genders, and plural numbers, the whole history of the Indo-Germanic languages is against it.
1. We cannot reduce the queen's majesty to the queen his majesty.
2. We cannot reduce the children's bread to the children his bread.
3. The Anglo-Saxon forms are in -es, not in his.
4. The word his itself must be accounted for; and that cannot be done by assuming it to be he + his.
5. The -s in father's is the -is in patris, and the -ος in πατέρος.
[§ 438]. The preceding examples illustrate an apparent paradox, viz., the fact of pleonasm and ellipsis being closely allied. The king he is just, dealt with as a single sentence, is undoubtedly pleonastic. But it is not necessary to be considered as a mere simple sentence. The king—may represent a first sentence incomplete, whilst he is just represents a second sentence in full. What is pleonasm in a single sentence is ellipsis in a double one.