[ Footnote 133: ] Psychoanalysts will recognize the mechanism. The mechanisms of “repression of impulse” and of its symptomatic symbolization can be illustrated in the most unexpected corners of individual and group psychology. A more general psychology than Freud’s will eventually prove them to be as applicable to the groping for abstract form, the logical or esthetic ordering of experience, as to the life of the fundamental instincts.
[ Footnote 134: ] Note that it is different with whose. This has not the support of analogous possessive forms in its own functional group, but the analogical power of the great body of possessives of nouns (man’s, boy’s) as well as of certain personal pronouns (his, its; as predicated possessive also hers, yours, theirs) is sufficient to give it vitality.
[ Footnote 135: ] Aside from certain idiomatic usages, as when You saw whom? is equivalent to You saw so and so and that so and so is who? In such sentences whom is pronounced high and lingeringly to emphasize the fact that the person just referred to by the listener is not known or recognized.
[ Footnote 136: ] Students of language cannot be entirely normal in their attitude towards their own speech. Perhaps it would be better to say “naïve” than “normal.”
[ Footnote 137: ] It is probably this variability of value in the significant compounds of a general linguistic drift that is responsible for the rise of dialectic variations. Each dialect continues the general drift of the common parent, but has not been able to hold fast to constant values for each component of the drift. Deviations as to the drift itself, at first slight, later cumulative, are therefore unavoidable.
[ Footnote 138: ] Most sentences beginning with interrogative whom are likely to be followed by did or does, do. Yet not all.
[ Footnote 139: ] Better, indeed, than in our oldest Latin and Greek records. The old Indo-Iranian languages alone (Sanskrit, Avestan) show an equally or more archaic status of the Indo-European parent tongue as regards case forms.
[ Footnote 140: ] Should its eventually drop out, it will have had a curious history. It will have played the rôle of a stop-gap between his in its non-personal use (see [footnote 11], [page 167]) and the later analytic of it. Transcriber's Note: This footnote has been renumbered as Footnote 132.
[ Footnote 141: ] Except in so far as that has absorbed other functions than such as originally belonged to it. It was only a nominative-accusative neuter to begin with.
[ Footnote 142: ] Aside from the interrogative: am I? is he? Emphasis counts for something. There is a strong tendency for the old “objective” forms to bear a stronger stress than the “subjective” forms. This is why the stress in locutions like He didn’t go, did he? and isn’t he? is thrown back on the verb; it is not a matter of logical emphasis.