A Handbook of the English Language Part 28

_Gen._ His -- Her.

_Secondary Gen._ -- Its Hers.

No plural form.

C.

I.

_That_.

_Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Sing. Nom._ That -- -- _Acc._ That Than, then[49] -- _Dat._ -- -- There.[49]

_Instrumental_ _Thence._ _Plur. Nom._ They.[50]

_Acc._ Them.[50]

_Gen._ Their.[50]

_Secondary Gen._ Theirs.[50]

II.

_Singular_, This. _Plural_, These.

III.

_Those_.

IV.

_The_--Undeclined.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER p.r.o.nOUNS.

-- 234. In the relative and interrogative p.r.o.nouns, _who_, _what_, _whom_, _whose_, we have, expressed by a change of form, a neuter gender, _what_; a dative case _whom_; and a genitive case, _whose_: the true power of the s (viz., as the sign of a case) being obscured by the orthographical addition of the e mute.

To these may be added, 1. the adverb _why_, originally the ablative form _hvi_ (_quo modo?_ _qua via?_). 2. The adverb _where_, a feminine dative, like _there_. 3. _When_, a masculine accusative (in Anglo-Saxon _hwaene_), and a.n.a.logous to _then_.

The two sounds in the Danish words _hvi_, _hvad_, &c., and the two sounds in the English, _what_, _when_ (Anglo-Saxon, _hwaet_, _hwaene_) account for the forms _why_ and _how_. In the first the w alone, in the second the h alone, is sounded. The Danish for _why_ is _hvi_, p.r.o.nounced _vi_.

-- 235. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) apply to a few of the remaining p.r.o.nouns.

_Same_.--Wanting in Anglo-Saxon, where it was replaced by the word _ylca_, _ylce_. Probably derived from the Norse.

_Self_.--In _myself_, _thyself_, _herself_, _ourselves_, _yourselves_, a substantive (or with a substantival power), and preceded by a genitive case. In _himself_ and _themselves_ an adjective (or with an adjectival power), and preceded by an accusative case. _Itself_ is equivocal, since we cannot say whether its elements are _it_ and _self_, or _its_ and _self_; the s having been dropped in utterance. It is very evident that either the form like _himself_, or the form like _thyself_, is exceptionable; in other words, that the use of the word is inconsistent. As this inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxons, the history of the word gives us no elucidation. In favour of the forms like _myself_ (_self_ being a substantive), are the following facts:--

1. The plural word _selves_, a substantival, and not an adjectival form.

2. The Middle High German phrases _min lip_, _din lip_, _my body_, _thy body_, equivalent in sense to _myself_, _thyself_.

3. The circ.u.mstance that if _self_ be dealt with as a substantive, such phrases as _my own self_, _his own great self_, &c., can be used; whereby the language is a gainer.

"Vox _self_, pluraliter _selves_, quamvis etiam p.r.o.nomen a quibusdam censeatur (quoniam ut plurimum per Latinum _ipse_ redditur), est tamen plane nomen substantivum, cui quidem vix aliquod apud Latinos substantivum respondet; proxime tamen accedet vox _persona_ vel _propria persona_ ut _my self_, _thy self_, _our selves_, _your selves_, &c. (_ego ipse_, _tu ipse_, _nos ipsi_, _vos ipsi_, &c.), ad verb.u.m _mea persona_, _tua persona_, &c.

Fateor tamen _himself_, _itself_, _themselves_, vulgo dici pro _his-self_, _its-self_, _theirselves_; at (interposito _own_) _his own self_, &c., _ipsius propria persona_, &c."--Wallis. c. vii.

4. The fact that many persons actually say _hisself_ and _theirselves_.

_Whit_.--As in the phrase _not a whit_. This enters in the compound p.r.o.nouns _aught_ and _naught_.

_One_.--As in the phrase _one does so and so_. From the French _on_.

Observe that this is from the Latin _h.o.m.o_, in Old French _hom_, _om_. In the Germanic tongues _man_ is used in the same sense: _man sagt_ = _one says_ = _on dit_. _One_, like _self_ and _other_, is so far a substantive, that it is inflected. Gen. sing, _one's own self_: plural, _my wife and little ones are well_.

_Derived p.r.o.nouns._--_Any_, in Anglo-Saxon, _aenig_. In Old High German we have _einic_ = _any_, and _einac_ = _single_. In Anglo-Saxon _anega_ means _single_. In Middle High German _einec_ is always single. In New High German _einig_ means, 1. _a certain person_ (_quidam_), 2. _agreeing_; _einzig_, meaning _single_. In Dutch _enech_ has both meanings. This indicates the word _an_, _one_, as the root of the word in question.

_Compound p.r.o.nouns._--_Which_, as has been already stated more than once, is most incorrectly called the neuter of _who_. Instead of being a neuter, it is a compound word. The adjective _leiks_, _like_, is preserved in the Mso-Gothic words _galeiks_ and _missaleiks_. In Old High German the form is _lih_, in Anglo-Saxon _lic_. Hence we have Mso-Gothic _hveleiks_; Old High German, _huelih_; Anglo-Saxon, _huilic_ and _hvilc_; Old Frisian, _hwelik_; Danish, _hvilk-en_; German, _welch_; Scotch, _whilk_; English, _which_. The same is the case with--

1. _Such_.--Mso-Gothic, _svaleiks_; Old High German, _solih_; Old Saxon, _sulic_; Anglo-Saxon, _svilc_; German, _solch_; English, _such_. Rask's derivation of the Anglo-Saxon _swilc_ from _swa-ylc_, is exceptionable.

2. _Thilk_.--An old English word, found in the provincial dialects, as _thick_, _thuck_, _theck_, and hastily derived by Tyrwhitt, Ritson, and Weber, from _se ylca_, is found in the following forms: Mso-Gothic, _eleiks_; Norse, _vilikr_.

3. _Ilk_.--Found in the Scotch, and always preceded by the article; _the ilk_, or _that ilk_, meaning _the same_. In Anglo-Saxon this word is _ycla_, preceded also by the article _se ylca_, _seo ylce_, _aet ylce_. In English, as seen above, the word is replaced by _same_. In no other Gothic dialect does it occur. According to Grimm, this is no simple word, but a compound one, of which some such word as _ei_ is the first, and _lic_ the second element.

_Aught_.--In Mso-Gothic is found the particle, _aiv_, _ever_, but only in negative propositions; _ni_ (_not_) preceding it. Its Old High German form is _eo_, _io_; in Middle High German, _ie_; in New High German, _je_; in Old Saxon, _io_; in Anglo-Saxon, a; in Norse, ae. Combined with this particle the word _whit_ (_thing_) gives the following forms: Old High German, _eowiht_; Anglo-Saxon, _aviht_; Old Frisian, _awet_; English _aught_. The word _naught_ is _aught_ preceded by the negative particle.

_Each_.--The particle _gi_ enters, like the particle in the composition of p.r.o.nouns. Old High German, _eogaliher_, every one; _eocalih_, all; Middle High German, _iegelich_; New High German, _jeglich_; Anglo-Saxon, _aelc_; English, _each_; the l being dropped, as in _which_ and _such_. _aelc_, as the original of the English _each_ and the Scotch _ilka_,[51] must by no means be confounded with the word _ylce_, _the same_.

_Every_ in Old English, _everich_, _everech_, _everilk one_, is _aelc_, preceded by the particle _ever_. (Grimm. D. G. iii. 54.)

_Either_.--Old High German, _eogahuedar_; Middle High German, _iegeweder_; Anglo-Saxon, _aeghvaer_, _aeger_; Old Frisian, _eider_.

_Neither_.--The same with the negative article prefixed. _Neither_ : _either_ :: _naught_ : _aught_.

-- 236. _Other_, _whether_.--These words, although derived forms, being simpler than some that have preceded, might fairly have been dealt with before. They make, however, a transition from the present to the succeeding chapter, and so find a place here.

A. _First_, it may be stated of them that the idea which they express is not that of _one out of many_, but that of _one out of two_.

1. In Sanscrit there are two forms, a) _kataras_, the same word as _whether_, meaning _which out of two_; b) _katamas, which out of many_. So also _ekateras, one out of two_; _ekatamas, one out of many_. In Greek the Ionic form ??te??? (p?te???); in Latin, _uter_, _neuter_, _alter_; and in Mso-Gothic, _hvathar_, have the same form and the same meaning.

2. In the Scandinavian language the word _anden_, Dano-Saxon, _annar_, Iceland. corresponds to the English word _second_, and not the German _zweite_: e.g., _Karl den Anden, Charles the Second_. Now _anthar_ is the older form of _other_.

B. _Secondly_, it may be stated of them, that the termination -er is the same termination that we find in the comparative degree.

1. The idea expressed by the comparative degree is the comparison, not of _many_ but of _two_ things; _this is better than that_.

2. In all the Indo-European languages where there are p.r.o.nouns in -ter, there is also a comparative degree in -ter. See next chapter.

3. As the Sanscrit form _kataras_ corresponds with the comparative degree, where there is the comparison of _two things with each other_; so the word _katamas_ is a superlative form; and in the superlative degree lies the comparison of _many_ things with each other.