CHAPTER IX.
THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
[§ 452]. It is necessary that the relative be in the same gender as the antecedent—the man who—the woman who—the thing which.
[§ 453]. It is necessary that the relative be in the same number with the antecedent.
[§ 454]. It is not necessary for the relative to be in the same case with its antecedent.
1. John, who trusts me, comes here.
2. John, whom I trust, comes here.
3. John, whose confidence I possess, comes here.
4. I trust John who trusts me.
[§ 455]. The reason why the relative must agree with its antecedent in both number and gender, whilst it need not agree with it in case, is found in the following observations.
1. All sentences containing a relative contain two verbs—John who (1) trusts me (2) comes here.
2. Two verbs express two actions—(1) trust (2) come.
3. Whilst, however, the actions are two in number, the person or thing which does or suffers them is single—John.
4. He (she or it) is single ex vi termini. The relative expresses the identity between the subjects (or objects)
of the two actions. Thus who = John, or is another name for John.
5. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same gender. The John who trusts is necessarily of the same gender with the John who comes.
6. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same number. The number of Johns who trust, is the same as the number of Johns who come. Both these elements of concord are immutable.
7. But a third element of concord is not immutable. The person or thing that is an agent in the one part of the sentence, may be the object of an action in the other. The John whom I trust may trust me also. Hence
a. I trust John—John the object.
b. John trusts me—John the agent.
[§ 456]. As the relative is only the antecedent in another form, it may change its case according to the construction.
1. I trust John—(2) John trusts me.
2. I trust John—(2) He trusts me.
3. I trust John—(2) Who trusts me.
4. John trusts me—(2) I trust John.
5. John trusts me—(2) I trust him.
6. John trusts me—(2) I trust whom.
7. John trusts me—(2) Whom I trust.
8. John—(2) Whom I trust trusts me.
[§ 457]. The books I want are here.—This is a specimen of a true ellipsis. In all such phrases in full, there are three essential elements.
1. The first proposition; as the books are here.
2. The second proposition; as I want.
3. The word which connects the two propositions, and without which, they naturally make separate, independent, unconnected statements.
Now, although true and unequivocal ellipses are scarce, the preceding is one of the most unequivocal kind—the word which connects the two propositions being wanting.
[§ 458]. When there are two words in a clause, each capable of being an antecedent, the relative refers to the latter.
1. Solomon the son of David that slew Goliah.—This is unexceptionable.
2. Solomon the son of David who built the temple.—This is exceptionable.
Nevertheless, it is defensible, on the supposition that Solomon-the-son-of-David is a single many-worded name.