The English Language Part 82

The man is come--he rides-- The man is come--the man rides.

The ident.i.ty between the person mentioned in the two propositions is implied, not expressed. This the relative _expresses_; and hence its use in languages.

6. From these observations we get a practical rule for determining doubtful constructions.

_a._ Reduce the sentence to the several propositions (which are never less than two) which it contains.

_b._ Replace the relative by its equivalent personal or demonstrative p.r.o.noun, or by its equivalent substantive.

_c._ The case of the demonstrative or substantive, is the case of the relative also.

By applying this rule to such expressions as

Satan, than _whom_ None higher sat, thus spake

{426} we find them, _according to the current etymology_, incorrect--

Satan spake--none sat higher than he sat.

Satan spake--none sat higher than Satan sat.

Hence the expression should be,

Satan than _who_ None higher sat.

_Observe._--The words, _according to the current etymology_, indicate an explanation which, rightly or wrongly, has been urged in favour of expressions like the one in question, and which will be noticed in a future chapter.

-- 532. _Observe._--That three circ.u.mstances complicate the syntax of the relative p.r.o.noun.

1. The elliptic form of the generality of the sentences wherein it follows the word _than_.

2. The influence of the oblique interrogation.

3. The influence of an omitted relative.

-- 533. This last finds place in the present chapter.

_When the relative and antecedent are in different cases, and the relative is omitted, the antecedent is sometimes put in the case of the relative._

He whom I accuse has entered.

Contracted according to p. 424.

He I accuse has entered.

Changed, according to the present section,--

Him I accuse has entered.

And so (as shown by Mr. Guest, _Philological Transactions_), Shakspeare has really written,--

_Him_ I accuse, The city gates by this has entered.

_Coriola.n.u.s_, v. 5.

Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire Too high a fame, when _him_ we serve's away.

_Antony and Cleopatra_, iii. 1.

The reason of this is clear. The verb that determines {427} the case of the relative is brought in contact with the antecedent, and the case of the antecedent is accommodated to the case of the relative.

The Greek phrase, [Greek: chromai bibliois hois echo], is an instance of the converse process.

-- 534. _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 who 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.

{428}

CHAPTER X.

ON THE INTERROGATIVE p.r.o.nOUN.

-- 535. Questions are of two sorts, direct and oblique.

_Direct._--Who is he?

_Oblique._--Who do you say that he is?

All difficulties about the cases of the interrogative p.r.o.noun may be determined by framing an answer, and observing the case of the word with which the interrogative coincides. Whatever be the case of this word will also be the case of the interrogative.

DIRECT.

_Qu._ _Who_ is this?--_Ans._ _I._ _Qu._ _Whose_ is this?--_Ans._ _His._ _Qu._ _Whom_ do you seek?--_Ans._ _Him._

OBLIQUE.

_Qu._ _Who_ do you say that it is?--_Ans._ _He._ _Qu._ _Whose_ do you say that it is?--_Ans._ _His._ _Qu._ _Whom_ do you say that they seek?--_Ans._ _Him._

_Note._--The answer should always be made by means of a p.r.o.noun, as, by so doing we distinguish the accusative case from the nominative.

_Note._--And, if necessary, it should be made in full. Thus the full answer to _whom do you say that they seek?_ is, _I say that they seek him_.