The Grammar of English Grammars Part 290

Besides, if we say _subjective_ and _objective_, in stead of _nominative_ and _objective_, we shall inevitably change the accent of both, and give them a p.r.o.nunciation hitherto unknown to the words.--G. BROWN.

[165] The authorities cited by Felch, for his doctrine of "_possessive adnouns_," amount to nothing. They are ostensibly two. The first is a remark of Dr. Adam's: "'_John's book_ was formerly written _Johnis book_.

Some have thought the _'s_ a contraction of _his_, but improperly. Others have imagined, with more justness, that, by the addition of the _'s_, the substantive is changed into a possessive adjective.'--_Adam's Latin and English Grammar_, p. 7."--_Felch's Comp. Gram._, p. 26. Here Dr. Adam by no means concurs with what these "_others have imagined_;" for, in the very same place, he declares the possessive case of nouns to be their _only_ case. The second is a dogmatical and inconsistent remark of some anonymous writer in some part of the "_American Journal of Education_," a work respectable indeed, but, on the subject of grammar, too often fantastical and heterodox. Felch thinks it not improper, to use the possessive case before participles; in which situation, it denotes, not the owner of something, but the agent, subject, or recipient, of the action, being, or change. And what a jumble does he make, where he attempts to resolve this ungrammatical construction!--telling us, in almost the same breath, that, "The agent of a _nounal_ verb [i. e. participle] is never expressed," but that, "Sometimes it [the _nounal_ or _gerundial_ verb] is _qualified_, in its _nounal capacity_, by a possessive _adnoun_ indicative _of its agent_ as a verb; as, there is _nothing like one's_ BEING useful he doubted _their_ HAVING it:" and then concluding, "_Hence it appears_, that the _present participle_ may be used _as agent or object_, and yet retain its character as a verb."--_Felch's Comprehensive Gram._, p. 81. Alas for the schools, if the wise men of the East receive for grammar such utter confusion, and palpable self-contradiction, as this!

[166] A critic's accuracy is sometimes liable to be brought into doubt, by subsequent alterations of the texts which, he quotes. Many an error cited in this volume of criticism, may possibly not be found in some future edition of the book referred to; as several of those which were pointed out by Lowth, have disappeared from the places named for them. Churchill also cites this line as above; (_New Gram._, p. 214;) but, in my edition of the Odyssey, by Pope, the reading is this: "By _lov'd Telemachus's_ blooming years!"--Book xi, L 84.

[167] _Corpse_ forms the plural regularly, _corpses_; as in _2 Kings_, xix, 35: "In the morning, behold, they were all dead _corpses_."

[168] Murray says, "An _adjective_ put without a substantive, with the definite article before it, _becomes a substantive in sense and meaning_, and is _written as a substantive_: as, 'Providence rewards _the good_, and punishes _the bad_.'" If I understand this, it is very erroneous, and plainly contrary to the fact. I suppose the author to speak of _good persons_ and _bad persons_; and, if he does, is there not an ellipsis in his language? How can it be said, that _good_ and _bad_ are here substantives, since they have a plural meaning and refuse the plural form?

A word "_written as a substantive_," unquestionably _is_ a substantive; but neither of these is here ent.i.tled to that name. Yet Smith, and other satellites of Murray, endorse his doctrine; and say, that _good_ and _bad_ in this example, and all adjectives similarly circ.u.mstanced, "may be considered _nouns_ in parsing."--_Smith's New Gram._, p. 52. "An adjective with the definite article before it, becomes a _noun_, (of the third person, plural number,) and _must be pa.r.s.ed_ as such."--_R. G. Greene's Grammatical Text-Book_, p. 55.

[169] Here the word _English_ appears to be used substantively, not by reason of the article, but rather because _it has no article_; for, when the definite article is used before such a word taken in the singular number, it seems to show that the noun _language_ is understood. And it is remarkable, that before the names or epithets by which we distinguish the languages, this article may, in many instances, be either used or not used, repeated or not repeated, without any apparent impropriety: as, "This is the case with _the_ Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish."--_Murray's Gram._, i, p. 38. Better, perhaps: "This is the case with _the_ Hebrew, _the_ French, _the_ Italian, and _the_ Spanish." But we may say: "This is the case with Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish." In the first of these forms, there appears to be an ellipsis of the plural noun _languages_, at the end of the sentence; in the second, an ellipsis of the singular noun _language_, after each of the national epithets; in the last, no ellipsis, but rather a substantive use of the words in question.

[170] The Doctor may, for aught I know, have taken his notion of this "_noun_," from the language "of Dugald Dalgetty, boasting of his '5000 _Irishes_' in the prison of Argyle." See _Letter of Wendell Phillips, in the Liberator_, Vol. xi, p. 211.

[171] Lindley Murray, or some ignorant printer of his octavo Grammar, has omitted this _s_; and thereby spoiled the prosody, if not the sense, of the line:

"Of Sericana, where _Chinese_ drive," &c.

--_Fourth American Ed._, p. 345.

If there was a design to correct the error of Milton's word, something should have been inserted. The common phrase, "_the Chinese_," would give the sense, and the right number of syllables, but not the right accent. It would be sufficiently a.n.a.logous with our mode of forming the words, _Englishmen, Frenchmen, Scotchmen, Dutchmen_, and _Irishmen_, and perhaps not unpoetical, to say:

"Of Sericana, where _Chinese-men_ drive, With sails and wind, their cany _wagons_ light."

[172] The last six words are perhaps more frequently p.r.o.nouns; and some writers will have well-nigh all the rest to be p.r.o.nouns also. "In like manner, in _the_ English, there have been _rescued_ from the adjectives, and cla.s.sed with the p.r.o.nouns, any, aught, each, every, many, none, one, other, some, such, that, those, this, these; and by other writers, all, another, both, either, few, first, last, neither, and several."--_Wilson's Essay on Gram._, p. 106. Had the author said _wrested_, in stead of "_rescued_," he would have taught a much better doctrine. These words are what Dr. Lowth correctly called "_p.r.o.nominal Adjectives_."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 24. This cla.s.s of adjectives includes most of the words which Murray, Lennie, Bullions, Kirkham, and others, so absurdly denominate "_Adjective p.r.o.nouns_." Their "Distributive Adjective p.r.o.nouns, _each, every, either, neither_;" their "Demonstrative Adjective p.r.o.nouns, _this, that, these, those_;" and their "Indefinite Adjective p.r.o.nouns, _some, other, any, one, all, such_, &c.," are every one of them here; for they all are _Adjectives_, and not _p.r.o.nouns_. And it is obvious, that the corresponding words in Latin, Greek, or French, are adjectives likewise, and are, for the most part, so called; so that, from General Grammar, or "the usages of other languages," arises an argument for ranking them as adjectives, rather than as p.r.o.nouns. But the learned Dr. Bullions, after improperly a.s.suming that every adjective must "express _the quality of a noun_," and thence arguing that no such definitives can rightly be called _adjectives_, most absurdly suggests, that "_other languages_," or "_the usages of_ other languages," generally a.s.sign to these _English words_ the place of _subst.i.tutes_! But so remarkable for self-contradiction, as well as other errors, is this gentleman's short note upon the cla.s.sification of these words, that I shall present the whole of it for the reader's consideration.

"NOTE. The distributives, demonstratives, and indefinites, cannot strictly be called _p.r.o.nouns_; since they never stand _instead_ of nouns, but always _agree_ with _a noun_ expressed or understood: _Neither can they be properly_ called _adjectives_, since they never express _the quality of a noun_. They are here cla.s.sed _with p.r.o.nouns_, in accordance with _the usages of other languages_, which _generally a.s.sign them this place_. All these, together with the _possessives_, in parsing, may _with sufficient propriety_ be termed _adjectives_, being _uniformly regarded as such_ in syntax."--_Bullions's Principles of English Gram._, p. 27. (See also his _Appendix_ III, E. Gram., p. 199.)

What a sample of grammatical instruction is here! The p.r.o.nominal adjectives "cannot properly _be called adjectives_," but "they may with sufficient propriety be _termed adjectives_!" And so may "_the possessives_," or _the personal p.r.o.nouns in the possessive case_! "Here," i.e., in _Etymology_, they are all "_cla.s.sed with p.r.o.nouns_;" but, "in _Syntax_," they are "uniformly _regarded as adjectives_!" Precious MODEL for the "Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek, all on THE SAME PLAN!"

[173] _Some_, for _somewhat_, or _in some degree_, appears to me a vulgarism; as, "This pause is generally _some_ longer than that of a period."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 271. The word _what_ seems to have been used adverbially in several different senses; in none of which is it much to be commended: as, "Though I forbear, _what_ am I eased?"--_Job_, xvi, 6.

"_What_ advantageth it me?"--_1 Cor._, xv, 32. Here _what_, means _in what degree? how much?_ or _wherein?_ "For _what_ knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?"--_1 Cor._, vii, 16. Here _how_ would have been better. "The enemy, having his country wasted, _what_ by himself and _what_ by the soldiers, findeth succour in no place."--_Spenser_. Here _what_ means _partly_;--"wasted _partly_ by himself and _partly_ by the soldiers." This use of _what_ was formerly very common, but is now, I think, obsolete. _What_ before an adjective seems sometimes to denote with admiration the degree of the quality; and is called, by some, an adverb; as, "_What partial_ judges are our love and hate!"--_Dryden_. But here I take _what_ to be an _adjective_; as when we say, _such_ partial judges, _some_ partial judges, &c. "_What_ need I be forward with Death, that calls not on me?"--_Shakspeare_. Here _what_ seems to be improperly put in place of _why_.

[174] Dr. Blair, in his Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres, often uses the phrase "_this much_;" but it is, I think, more common to say "_thus much_," even when the term is used substantively.

[175] There seems to be no good reason for joining _an_ and _other_: on the contrary, the phrase _an other_ is always as properly two words, as the phrase _the other_, and more so. The latter, being long ago vulgarly contracted into _t'other_, probably gave rise to the apparent contraction _another_; which many people nowadays are ignorant enough to divide wrong, and misp.r.o.nounce. See _"a-no-ther"_ in _Murray's Spelling-Book_, p. 71; and _"a-noth-er"_ in _Emerson's_, p. 76. _An_ here excludes any other article; and both a.n.a.logy and consistency require that the words be separated. Their union, like that of the words _the_ and _other_, has led sometimes to an improper repet.i.tion of the article: as, "_Another_ such _a_ man," for, "An other such man."--"Bind my hair up. An 'twas yesterday? No, nor _the t'other_ day."--BEN JONSON: _in Joh. Dict._ "He can not tell when he should take _the tone_, and when _the tother_."--SIR T. MOORE: Tooke's D. P., Vol.

15, p. 448. That is--"when he should take _the one_ and when _the other_."

Besides, the word _other_ is declined, like a noun, and has the plural _others_; but the compounding of _another_ constrains our grammarians to say, that this word "has no plural." All these difficulties will be removed by writing _an other_ as two words. The printers chiefly rule this matter.

To them, therefore, I refer it; with directions, not to unite these words for me, except where it has been done in the ma.n.u.script, for the sake of exactness in quotation.--G. BROWN.

[176] This is a misapplication of the word _between_, which cannot have reference to more than two things or parties: the term should have been _among_.--G. BROWN.

[177] I suppose that, in a comparison of _two_, any of the degrees may be accurately employed. The common usage is, to construe the positive with _as_, the comparative with _than_, and the superlative with _of_. But here custom allows us also to use the comparative with _of_, after the manner of the superlative; as, "This is _the better of_ the two." It was but an odd whim of some old pedant, to find in this a reason for declaring it ungrammatical to say "This is _the best of_ the two." In one grammar, I find the former construction _condemned_, and the latter approved, thus: "This is the better book of the two. Not correct, because the comparative state of the adjective, (_better_,) can not correspond with the preposition, _of_. The definite article, _the_, is likewise improperly applied to the comparative state; the sentence should stand thus, This is the _best_ book of the two."--_Chandler's Gram._, Ed. of 1821, p. 130; Ed.

of 1847, p. 151.

[178] This example appears to have been borrowed from Campbell; who, however, teaches a different doctrine from Murray, and clearly sustains my position; "Both degrees are in such cases used _indiscriminately_. We say _rightly_, either 'This is the weaker of the two,' or--'the weakest of the two.'"--_Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 202. How positively do some other men contradict this! "In comparing _two_ persons or things, by means of an adjective, care must be taken, that the superlative state be not employed: We properly say, 'John is the _taller_ of the two;' but we _should not say_, 'John is the _tallest_ of the two.' The reason is plain: we compare but _two_ persons, and must _therefore_ use the comparative state."--_Wright's Philosophical Gram._, p. 143. Rev. Matt. Harrison, too, insists on it, that the superlative must "have reference to more than two,"

and censures _Dr. Johnson_ for not observing the rule. See _Harrison's English Language_, p. 255.

[179] L. Murray copied this pa.s.sage literally, (though anonymously,) as far as the colon; and of course his book teaches us to account "_the termination ish_, in some sort, _a degree of comparison_."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 47. But what is more absurd, than to think of accounting this, or any other suffix, "_a degree of comparison?_" The inaccuracy of the language is a sufficient proof of the haste with which Johnson adopted this notion, and of the blindness with which he has been followed. The pa.s.sage is now found in most of our English grammars. Sanborn expresses the doctrine thus: "Adjectives terminating with _ish_, denote a degree of comparison less than the positive; as, _saltish, whitish, blackish_."--_a.n.a.lytical Gram._, p.

87. But who does not know, that most adjectives of this ending are derived from _nouns_, and are compared only by adverbs, as _childish, foolish_, and so forth? Wilc.o.x says, "Words ending in _ish_, generally express a slight degree; as, _reddish, bookish_."--_Practical Gram._, p. 17. But who will suppose that _foolish_ denotes but a slight degree of folly, or _bookish_ but a slight fondness for books? And, with such an interpretation, what must be the meaning of _more bookish_ or _most foolish_?

[180] "'A rodde shall come _furth_ of the stocke of Jesse.' _Primer, Hen.

VIII_."--_Craven Glossary_.

[181] _Midst_ is a contraction of the regular superlative _middest_, used by Spenser, but now obsolete. _Midst_, also, seems to be obsolete as an adjective, though still frequently used as a noun; as, "In the _midst_."--_Webster_. It is often a poetic contraction for the preposition _amidst_. In some cases it appears to be an adverb. In the following example it is equivalent to _middlemost_, and therefore an adjective: "Still greatest he _the midst_, Now dragon grown."--_Paradise Lost_, B. x, l. 528.

[182] What I here say, accords with the teaching of all our lexicographers and grammarians, except one dauntless critic, who has taken particular pains to put me, and some three or four others, on the defensive. This gentleman not only supposes _less_ and _fewer, least_ and _fewest_, to be sometimes equivalent in meaning, but actually exhibits them as being also etymologically of the same stock. _Less_ and _least_, however, he refers to three different positives, and _more_ and _most_, to four. And since, in once instance, he traces _less_ and _more, least_ and _most_, to the same primitive word, it follows of course, if he is right, that _more_ is there equivalent to _less_ and _most_ is equivalent to _least_! The following is a copy of this remarkable "DECLENSION ON INDEFINITE SPECIFYING ADNAMES,"

and just one half of the table is wrong: "_Some, more, most; Some, less, least_; Little, less, least; Few, fewer _or less_, fewest _or least; Several, more, most_; Much, more, most; Many, more most."--_Oliver B Peirce's Gram._, p. 144.

[183] Murray himself had the same false notion concerning six of these adjectives, and perhaps all the rest; for his indefinite _andsoforths_ may embrace just what the reader pleases to imagine. Let the following paragraph be compared with the observations and proofs which I shall offer: "Adjectives that have in themselves a superlative signification, do not properly admit of the superlative or [the] comparative form superadded: such as, 'Chief, extreme, perfect, right, universal, supreme,' &c.; which are sometimes improperly written, 'Chiefest, extremest, perfectest, rightest, most universal, most supreme,' &c. The following expressions are therefore improper. 'He sometimes claims admission to the _chiefest_ offices;' 'The quarrel became _so universal_ and national;' 'A method of attaining the _rightest_ and greatest happiness.' The phrases, so perfect, so right, so extreme, so universal, &c., are incorrect; because they imply that one thing is less perfect, less extreme, &c. than another, which is not possible."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, Vol. i, p. 167. For himself, a man may do as he pleases about comparing these adjectives; but whoever corrects others, on such principles as the foregoing, will have work enough on his hands. But the writer who seems to exceed all others, in error on this point, is _Joseph W. Wright_. In his "Philosophical Grammar," p. 51st, this author gives a list of seventy-two adjectives, which, he says, "admit of _no variation of state_;" i. e., are not compared. Among them are _round, flat, wet, dry, clear, pure, odd, free, plain, fair, chaste, blind_, and more than forty others, which are compared about as often as any words in the language. Dr. Blair is hypercritically censured by him, for saying "_most excellent_," "_more false_," "the _chastest_ kind," "_more perfect_"

"_fuller, more full, fullest, most full, truest_ and _most true_;" Murray, for using "_quite wrong_;" and Cobbett, for the phrase, "_perfect correctness_." "Correctness," says the critic, "does not admit of _degrees of perfection_."--_Ib._, pp. 143 and 151. But what does such a thinker know about correctness? If this excellent quality cannot be _perfect_, surely nothing can. The words which Dr. Bullions thinks it "improper to compare,"

because he judges them to have "an absolute or superlative signification,"

are "_true, perfect, universal, chief, extreme, supreme_, &c."--no body knows how many. See _Principles of E. Gram._, p. 19 and p. 115.

[184] The regular comparison of this word, (_like, liker, likest_,) seems to be obsolete, or nearly so. It is seldom met with, except in old books: yet we say, _more like_, or _most like, less like_, or _least like_. "To say the flock with whom he is, is _likest_ to Christ."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 180. "Of G.o.dlike pow'r? for _likest_ G.o.ds they seem'd."--_Milton, P. L._ B. vi, l. 301.

[185] This example, and several others that follow it, are no ordinary solecisms; they are downright Irish bulls, making actions or relations reciprocal, where reciprocity is _utterly_ unimaginable. Two words can no more be "_derived from each other_," than two living creatures can have received their existence from each other. So, two things can never "_succeed each other_," except they alternate or move in a circle; and a greater number in train can "_follow one an other_" only in some imperfect sense, not at all reciprocal. In some instances, therefore, the best form of correction will be, to reject the reciprocal terms altogether--G. BROWN.

[186] This doctrine of punctuation, if not absolutely false in itself, is here very badly taught. When _only two words_, of any sort, occur in the same construction, they seldom require the comma; and never can they need _more than one_, whereas these grammarians, by their plural word "_commas_," suggest a constant demand for two or more.--G. BROWN.

[187] Some grammarians exclude the word _it_ from the list of personal p.r.o.nouns, because it does not convey the idea of that personality which consists in _individual intelligence_. On the other hand, they will have _who_ to be a personal p.r.o.noun, because it is literally applied to _persons only_, or intelligent beings. But I judge them to be wrong in respect to both; and, had they given _definitions_ of their several cla.s.ses of p.r.o.nouns, they might perhaps have found out that the word _it_ is always personal, in a grammatical sense, and _who_, either relative or interrogative.

[188] "_Whoso_ and _whatso_ are found in old authors, but are now out of use."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 76. These antiquated words are equivalent in import to _whosoever_ and _whatsoever_. The former, _whoso_, being used many times in the Bible, and occasionally also by the poets, as by Cowper, Whittier, and others, can hardly be said to be obsolete; though Wells, like Churchill, p.r.o.nounced it so, in his first edition.

[189] "'The man is prudent which speaks little.' This sentence is incorrect, because _which_ is a p.r.o.noun of the neuter gender."--_Murray's Exercises_, p. 18. "_Which_ is also a relative, but it is of [the] neuter gender. It is also interrogative."--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 26. For oversights like these, I cannot account. The relative _which_ is of all the genders, as every body ought to know, who has ever heard of the _horse which_ Alexander rode, of the _a.s.s which_ spoke to Balaam, or of any of the _animals_ and _things_ which Noah had with him in the ark.

[190] The word _which_ also, when taken in its _discriminative_ sense (i.e.

to distinguish some persons or things from others) may have a construction of this sort; and, by ellipsis of the noun after it, it may likewise bear a resemblance to the double relative _what_: as, "I shall now give you two pa.s.sages; and request you to point out _which_ words are mono-syllables, _which_ dis-syllables, _which_ tris-syllables, and _which_ poly-syllables."--_Bucke's Gram._, p. 16. Here, indeed, the word _what_ might be subst.i.tuted for _which_; because that also has a discriminative sense. Either would be right; but the author might have presented the same words and thoughts rather more accurately, thus: "I shall now give you two pa.s.sages; and request you to point out which words are monosyllables; which, dissyllables; which, trissyllables; and which, polysyllables."

[191] The relative _what_, being equivalent to _that which_, sometimes has the demonstrative word _that_ set after it, by way of pleonasm; as, "_What_ I tell you in darkness, _that_ speak ye in light, and _what_ ye hear in the ear, _that_ preach ye upon the house-tops."--_Matt._, x, 27. In _Covell's Digest_, this text is presented as "_false syntax_," under the new and needless rule, "Double relatives always supply two cases."--_Digest of E.

Gram._, p. 143. In my opinion, to strike out the word _that_, would greatly weaken the expression: and so thought our translators; for no equivalent term is used in the original.

[192] As for Butler's method of parsing these words by _always recognizing a noun as being_ "UNDERSTOOD" _before them_,--a method by which, according to his publishers notice, "The ordinary unphilosophical explanation of this cla.s.s of words is discarded, and a simple, intelligible, common-sense view of the matter now _for the first time_ subst.i.tuted,"--I know not what novelty there is in it, that is not also just so much _error_. "Compare,"

says he, "these two sentences: 'I saw _whom_ I wanted to see;' 'I saw what I wanted to see. If _what_ in the latter is equivalent to _that which_ or _the thing which, whom_, in the former is equivalent to _him whom_, or _the person whom_."--_Butler's Practical Gram._, p. 51. The former example being simply elliptical of the antecedent, he judges the latter to be so too; and infers, "that _what_ is nothing more than a relative p.r.o.noun, and includes nothing else."--_Ib._ This conclusion is not well drawn, because the two examples are _not a.n.a.logous_; and whoever thus finds "that _what_ is nothing more than a relative," ought also to find it is something less,--a mere adjective. "I saw _the person whom_ I wanted to see," is a sentence that _can scarcely spare_ the antecedent and retain the sense; "I saw _what_ I wanted to see," is one which _cannot receive_ an antecedent, without changing both the sense and the construction. One may say, "I saw what _things_ I wanted to see;" but this, in stead of giving _what_ an _antecedent_, makes it an _adjective_, while it _retains the force of a relative_. Or he _may insert_ a noun before _what_, agreeably to the solution of Butler; as, "I saw _the things_, what I wanted to see:" or, if he please, both before and after; as, "I saw _the things_, what _things_ I wanted to see." But still, in either case, _what_ is no "simple relative;"

for it here seems equivalent to the phrase, _so many as_. Or, again, he may omit the comma, and say, "I saw _the thing_ what I wanted to see;" but this, if it be not a vulgarism, will only mean, "I saw _the thing to be_ what I wanted to see." So that this method of parsing the p.r.o.noun what, is manifestly no improvement, but rather a perversion and misinterpretation.

But, for further proof of his position, Butler adduces instances of what he calls "_the relative_ THAT _with the antecedent omitted_. A few examples of this," he says, "will help us to ascertain the nature of _what_. 'We speak _that_ we do know,' _Bible_. [_John_, iii, 11.] 'I am _that_ I am.'

_Bible_. [_Exod._, iii, 14.] 'Eschewe _that_ wicked is.' _Gower_. 'Is it possible he should know what he is, and be _that_ he is?' Shakespeare.

'Gather the sequel by _that_ went before.' _Id._ In these examples,"

continues he, "_that_ is a relative; and is _exactly synonymous_ with _what_. No one would contend that _that_ stands for itself and its antecedent at the same time. The antecedent is omitted, _because it is indefinite_, OR EASILY SUPPLIED."--_Butler's Practical Gram._, p. 52; _Bullions's a.n.a.lytical and Practical Gram._, p. 233. Converted at his wisest age, by these false arguments, so as to renounce and gainsay the doctrine taught almost universally, and hitherto spread industriously by himself, in the words of Lennie, that, "_What_ is a compound relative, including both the relative and the antecedent," Dr. Bullions now most absurdly urges, that, "The truth is, _what_ is a _simple_ relative, having, wherever used, _like all other relatives_, BUT ONE CASE; but * * * that it always refers to a _general antecedent, omitted_, BUT EASILY SUPPLIED _by the mind_," though "_not_ UNDERSTOOD, _in the ordinary sense_ of that expression."--_a.n.a.lyt. and Pract. Gram._ of 1849, p. 51. Accordingly, though he differs from Butler about this matter of "_the ordinary sense_,"

he cites the foregoing suggestions of this author, with the following compliment: "These remarks appear to me _just_, and _conclusive on this point_."--_Ib._, p. 233. But there must, I think, be many to whon they will appear far otherwise. These elliptical uses of _that_ are all of them bad or questionable English; because, the ellipsis being such as may be supplied in two or three different ways, the true construction is doubtful, the true meaning not exactly determined by the words. It is quite as easy and natural to take "_that_" to be here a demonstrative term, having the relative _which_ understood after it, as to suppose it "a relative," with an antecedent to be supplied before it. Since there would not be the same uncertainty, if _what_ were in these cases subst.i.tuted for _that_, it is evident that the terms are _not_ "_exactly synonymous_;" but, even if they were so, exact synonymy would not evince a sameness of construction.

[193] See this erroneous doctrine in Kirkham's Grammar, p. 112; in Wells's, p. 74; in Sanborn's, p. 71, p. 96, and p. 177; in Cooper's, p. 38; in O. B.

Peirce's, p. 70. These writers show a great fondness for this complex mode of parsing. But, in fact, no p.r.o.noun, not even the word _what_, has any double construction of cases from a real or absolute necessity; but merely because, the noun being suppressed, yet having a representative, we choose rather to understand and pa.r.s.e its representative doubly, than to supply the ellipsis. No p.r.o.noun includes "both the antecedent and the relative,"

by virtue of its own _composition_, or of its own derivation, as a word. No p.r.o.noun can properly be called "_compound_" merely because it has a double construction, and is equivalent to two other words. These positions, if true, as I am sure they are, will refute sundry a.s.sertions that are contained in the above-named grammars.

[194] Here the demonstrative word _that_, as well as the phrase _that matter_, which I form to explain its construction, unquestionably refers back to Judas's confession, that he had sinned; but still, as the word has not the connecting power of a relative p.r.o.noun, its true character is _that_ of an adjective, and not _that_ of a p.r.o.noun. This p.r.o.nominal adjective is very often mixed with some such ellipsis, and _that_ to repeat the import of various kinds of words and phrases: as, "G.o.d shall help her, and _that_ right early."--_Psal._, xlvi, 5. "Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and _that_ your brethren."--l Cor., vi, 8. "I'll know your business, _that_ I will."--_Shakespeare._

[195] Dr. Bullions has undertaken to prove, "That the word AS should not be considered a relative in any circ.u.mstances." The force of his five great arguments to this end, the reader may well conceive of, when he has compared the following one with what is shown in the 22d and 23d observations above: "3. As _can never be used as a subst.i.tute for another relative p.r.o.noun, nor another relative p.r.o.noun as a subst.i.tute for it_. If, then, it is a relative p.r.o.noun, it is, to say the least, a very unaccommodating one."--_Bullions's a.n.a.lytical and Practical Gram. of_ 1849, p. 233.