The Etymology and Syntax of the English Language Explained and Illustrated

by Alexander Crombie

Note 1.—This rule is transgressed in the following examples: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing.” “The fruit tree bearing fruit after his kind.” “There was indeed in our destinies such a conformity, as seldom is found in that of two persons in the same age.” Here that, referring to destinies, is put for those. “The crown had it in their power to give such rewards as they thought proper.”—Parliamentary Debates.

Note 2.—The relative should be placed as near as possible to the antecedent, otherwise ambiguity is sometimes occasioned.

Note 3.—In the earlier editions of Murray’s Grammar, we find the following rule: “When the relative is preceded by two nominatives of different persons, it may agree in person with either, as, ‘I am the man who commands you,’ or ‘I am the man who command you.’” The rule here given is erroneous. The construction is by no means arbitrary. If we say, “I am the man who commands you,” the relative clause, with the antecedent man, form the predicate; and the sentence is equivalent to “I am your commander.” If we say, “I am the man who command you,” the man simply is the predicate, and I who command you the subject; thus, “I who command you,” or “I your commander am the man.” This error, sufficiently obvious to every discerning reader, I pointed out in the former edition of this Treatise. Murray’s rule, as it stood, is clearly repugnant to perspicuity, and syntactical correctness.

In the last edition of his Grammar, and, I believe, in every edition posterior to the publication of the “Etymology and Syntax,” the rule is altered; but whether from a disinclination to expunge a rule, which he had once delivered—a disinclination perhaps accompanied with a belief, that it might be corrected with little prejudice to its original form, or from what other motive he has left it in its present state, I will not presume to determine; but in the alteration, which he has introduced, he appears to me to have consulted neither usefulness nor perspicuity. He says, “When the relative is preceded by two nominatives of different persons, it may agree in person with either.” So far he has transcribed the former rule; but he adds, “according to the sense.” Now it cannot be questioned, and the learner needs not to be informed, that the relative may agree with either. If after having taught the learner, that a Latin adjective must agree with its substantive, we were to add, as a distinct rule, that it may agree with either of the two substantives, according to the sense, I apprehend, we should be chargeable with vain repetition, or with extreme inattention to correctness and precision. For what would our rule imply? Clearly nothing more, than that the adjective is capable of agreeing with the substantive to which it belongs; and of this capacity no scholar, who had learned to decline an adjective, could possibly be ignorant; or it might convey some idea, that the concord is optional. Now, is it not certain, that the adjective must agree with its proper substantive, namely, that whose meaning it is intended to modify, and no other? The relative, in like manner, must agree with that antecedent, and that only, whose representative it is in the relative clause. There is nothing arbitrary in either the one case, or the other.

Perhaps it may be answered that, though the former part of the altered rule leaves the concord as it first stood, discretionary, the latter confines the agreement of the relative to its proper antecedent. But why this apparent contrariety? Why is that represented as arbitrary, which is determined by the sense? This, however, is not the only objection; for it may be affirmed, without hesitation, that the rule, thus considered, is completely superfluous. For the learner has been already told, that the relative agrees with the antecedent in gender, number, and person. And can the antecedent be any other, than that which the sense indicates? And what does this rule teach? Precisely the same thing. The rule, therefore, is either calculated to mislead by representing as arbitrary what is fixed and determinate, or it is purely a rule of supererogation. As it stood originally, it gave some new information; but that information was erroneous: as it stands now, it is either indefinite, or it is useless.

The scholar may require an admonition, when there are two antecedents of different persons, to be careful in referring the relative to its proper antecedent; but to tell him that it may agree with the one, or the other, according to the sense, is to tell him nothing, or tell him that, which he already knows. In the examples just now adduced, the termination of the verb, by indicating the person of the relative, clearly shows the antecedent; but, where the substantives are of the same person, and the verb cannot therefore by its termination indicate the antecedent, ambiguity should be precluded by the mode of arrangement. Thus, “He is the hero who did it,” and “He who did it is the hero.” In the former, he is the subject, and the hero who did it the predicate; and in the latter, he who did it is the subject, and the hero the predicate.

Note 4.—The relative, instead of referring to any particular word as its antecedent, sometimes refers to a whole clause, thus, “the bill was rejected by the lords, which excited no small degree of jealousy and discontent,” that is, “which thing,” namely, the rejection of the bill.

Note 5.—The antecedent pronoun of the third person is often suppressed, when no particular emphasis is implied; as, “Who steals my purse, steals trash,” i.e. “he,” or “the man, who.” “Whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive,” Bible; i.e. “Those whom he would.” “Whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin.” In this example the antecedent he, and nominative to the principal verb, is understood.

Priestley has remarked that the pronouns whoever and whosoever have sometimes a double construction. He gives the two following examples. “Elizabeth publicly threatened that she would have the head of whoever had advised it.”—Hume. “He offered a great recompense to whomsoever would help him to a sight of him.”—Hume. Though the learned author seems to admit both these modes of construction, we apprehend that only one of them is grammatical. It has been just now observed that the antecedent is often understood to the relative who, and to the compounds whoever and whosoever. If the antecedent be supplied, it will be found that the construction is not arbitrary, as Priestley supposes, but definite and fixed. The first sentence is correct. “She would have the head of him, or them, whoever had advised,” the relative being the nominative to the verb. “He offered a great recompense to him, or them, whosoever should help him.” Whomsoever is a solecism: though close to the preposition to, it is not under its government. (See the following rules.)