A Handbook of the English Language Part 47

PART V.

SYNTAX.

CHAPTER I.

ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL.

-- 411. The word _syntax_ is derived from the Greek _syn_ (_with_ or _together_) and _taxis_ (_arrangement_). It relates to the arrangement, or putting together, of words. Two or more words must be used before there can be any application of syntax.

_There is to me a father._--Here we have a circ.u.mlocution equivalent to _I have a father_. In the English language the circ.u.mlocution is unnatural. In the Latin it is common. To determine this, is a matter of idiom rather than of syntax.

-- 412. In the English, as in all other languages, it is convenient to notice certain so-called figures of speech. They always furnish convenient modes of expression, and sometimes, as in the case of the one immediately about to be noticed, _account_ for facts.

-- 413. _Personification._--The ideas of apposition and collectiveness account for the apparent violations of the concord of number. The idea of personification applies to the concord of gender. A masculine or feminine gender, characteristic of persons, may be subst.i.tuted for the neuter gender, characteristic of things. In this case the term is said to be personified.

_The cities who aspired to liberty._--A personification of the idea expressed by cities is here necessary to justify the expression.

_It_, the sign of the neuter gender, as applied to a male or female _child_, is the reverse of the process.

-- 414. _Ellipsis_ (from the Greek _elleipein_ = _to fall short_), or a _falling short_, occurs in sentences like _I sent to the bookseller's_.

Here the word _shop_ or _house_ is understood. Expressions like _to go on all fours_, and _to eat of the fruit of the tree_, are reducible to ellipses.

-- 415. _Pleonasm_ (from the Greek _pleoazein_ = _to be in excess_) occurs in sentences like _the king, he reigns_. Here the word _he_ is superabundant.

_My banks, they are furnished_,--_the most straitest sect_,--these are pleonastic expressions. In _the king, he reigns_, the word _king_ is in the same predicament as in _the king, G.o.d bless him_.

The double negative, allowed in Greek and Anglo-Saxon, but not admissible in English, is pleonastic.

The verb _do_, in _I do speak_, is _not_ pleonastic. In respect to the sense it adds intensity. In respect to the construction it is not in apposition, but in the same predicament with verbs like _must_ and _should_, as in _I must go_, &c.; i.e., it is a verb followed by an infinitive. This we know from its power in those languages where the infinitive has a characteristic sign; as, in German,

Die Augen _thaten_ ihm winken.--GOETHE.

Besides this, _make_ is similarly used in Old English,--_But men make draw the branch thereof, and beren him to be graffed at Babyloyne._--Sir J.

Mandeville.

-- 416. _The figure zeugma._--_They wear a garment like that of the Scythians, but a language peculiar to themselves._--The verb, naturally applying to _garment_ only, is here used to govern _language_. This is called in Greek, _zeugma_ (junction).

-- 417. _My paternal home was made desolate, and he himself was sacrificed._--The sense of this is plain; _he_ means _my father_. Yet no such substantive as _father_ has gone before. It is supplied, however, from the word _paternal_. The sense indicated by _paternal_ gives us a subject to which he can refer. In other words, the word _he_ is understood, according to what is indicated, rather than according to what is expressed.

This figure in Greek is called _pros to semainomenon_ (_according to the thing indicated_).

-- 418.--_Apposition,_--_Caesar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain._---Here the words _Roman emperor_ explain, or define, the word _Caesar_; and the sentence, filled up, might stand, _Caesar, that is, the Roman emperor_, &c.

Again, the words _Roman emperor_ might be wholly ejected; or, if not ejected, they might be thrown into a parenthesis. The practical bearing of this fact is exhibited by changing the form of the sentence, and inserting the conjunction _and_. In this case, instead of one person, two are spoken of, and the verb _invades_ must be changed from the singular to the plural.

Now the words _Roman emperor_ are said to be in apposition to _Caesar_. They const.i.tute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original one.

They are, as it were, _laid alongside_ (_appositi_) of the word _Caesar_.

Cases of doubtful number, wherein two substantives precede a verb, and wherein it is uncertain whether the verb should be singular or plural, are decided by determining whether the substantives be in apposition or the contrary. No matter how many nouns there may be, as long as it can be shown that they are in apposition, the verb is in the singular number.

-- 419. _Collectiveness as opposed to plurality._--In sentences like _the meeting _was_ large_, _the mult.i.tude _pursue_ pleasure_, _meeting_ and _mult.i.tude_ are each collective nouns; that is, although they present the idea of a single object, that object consists of a plurality of individuals. Hence, _pursue_ is put in the plural number. To say, however, _the meeting were large_ would sound improper. The number of the verb that shall accompany a collective noun depends upon whether the idea of the multiplicity of individuals, or that of the unity of the aggregate, shall predominate.

_Sand and salt and a ma.s.s of iron _is_ easier to bear than a man without understanding._--Let _sand and salt and a ma.s.s of iron_ be dealt with as a series of things the aggregate of which forms a mixture, and the expression is allowable.

_The king and the lords and commons _forms_ an excellent frame of government._--Here the expression is doubtful. Subst.i.tute _with_ for the first _and_, and there is no doubt as to the propriety of the singular form _is_.

-- 420. _The reduction of complex forms to simple ones._--Take, for instance, the current ill.u.s.tration, viz., _the-king-of-Saxony's army_.--Here the a.s.sertion is, not that the army belongs to _Saxony_, but that it belongs to the _king of Saxony_; which words must, for the sake of taking a true view of the construction, be dealt with as a single word in the possessive case. Here two cases are dealt with as one; and a complex term is treated as a single word.

The same reason applies to phrases like _the two king Williams_. If we say the _two kings William_, we must account for the phrase by apposition.

-- 421. _True notion of the part of speech in use._--In _he is gone_, the word _gone_ must be considered as equivalent to _absent_; that is, as an adjective. Otherwise the expression is as incorrect as the expression _she is eloped_. Strong participles are adjectival oftener than weak ones: their form being common to many adjectives.

_True notion of the original form._--In the phrase _I must speak_, the word _speak_ is an infinitive. In the phrase _I am forced to speak_, the word _speak_ is (in the present English) an infinitive also. In one case, however, it is preceded by _to_; whilst in the other, the particle _to_ is absent. The reason for this lies in the original difference of form.

_Speak_ - _to_ = the Anglo-Saxon _sprecan_, a simple infinitive; _to speak_, or _speak_ + _to_ = the Anglo-Saxon _to sprecanne_, an infinitive in the dative case.

-- 422. _Convertibility._--In the English language, the greater part of the words may, as far as their form is concerned, be one part of speech as well as another. Thus the combinations _s-a-n-th_, or _f-r-e-n-k_, if they existed at all, might exist as either nouns or verbs, as either substantives or adjectives, as conjunctions, adverbs, or prepositions. This is not the case in the Greek languages. There, if a word be a substantive, it will probably end in -s; if an infinitive verb, in -ein, &c. The bearings of this difference between languages like the English and languages like the Greek will soon appear.

At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, originally one part of speech (e.g., a noun), may become another (e.g., a verb). This may be called the convertibility of words.

There is an etymological convertibility, and a syntactic convertibility; and although, in some cases, the line of demarcation is not easily drawn between them, the distinction is intelligible and convenient.

-- 423. _Etymological convertibility._--The words _then_ and _than_, now adverbs or conjunctions, were once cases: in other words, they have been converted from one part of speech to another. Or, they may even be said to be cases, at the present moment; although only in an historical point of view. For the practice of language, they are not only adverbs or conjunctions, but they are adverbs or conjunctions exclusively.

-- 424. _Syntactic convertibility._--The combination _to err_, is at this moment an infinitive verb. Nevertheless it can be used as the equivalent to the substantive _error_.

_To err is human_ = _error is human_. Now this is an instance of syntactic conversion. Of the two meanings, there is no doubt as to which is the primary one; which primary meaning is part and parcel of the language at this moment.

The infinitive, when used as a substantive, can be used in a singular form only.

_To err_ = _error_; but we have no such form as _to errs_ = _errors_. Nor is it wanted. The infinitive, in a substantival sense, always conveys a general statement, so that even when singular, it has a plural power; just as _man is mortal_ = _men are mortal_.

-- 425. _The adjective used as a substantive._--Of these, we have examples in expressions like the _blacks of Africa_--_the bitters and sweets of life_--_all fours were put to the ground_. These are true instances of conversion, and are proved to be so by the fact of their taking a plural form.

_Let the blind lead the blind_ is not an instance of conversion. The word _blind_ in both instances remains an adjective, and is shown to remain so by its being uninflected.

-- 426. _Uninflected parts of speech, used as substantive._--When King Richard III. says, _none of your ifs_, he uses the word _if_ as a substantive = _expressions of doubt_.

So in the expression _one long now_, the word _now_ = _present time_.

-- 427. The convertibility of words in English is very great; and it is so because the structure of the language favours it. As few words have any peculiar signs expressive of their being particular parts of speech, interchange is easy, and conversion follows the logical a.s.sociation of ideas unimpeded.

_The convertibility of words is in the inverse ratio to the amount of their inflection._

CHAPTER II.