The Grammar of English Grammars Part 54

OBS. 5.--Respecting the _possessive case_ of the simple personal p.r.o.nouns, there appears among our grammarians a strange diversity of sentiment. Yet is there but one view of the matter, that has in it either truth or reason, consistency or plausibility. And, in the opinion of any judicious teacher, an erroneous cla.s.sification of words so common and so important as these, may well go far to condemn any system of grammar in which it is found. A p.r.o.noun agrees in person, number, and gender, with the noun _for which it is a subst.i.tute_; and, if it is in the possessive case, it is usually governed by _an other noun_ expressed or implied after it. That is, if it denotes possession, it stands for the name of the possessor, and is governed by the name of the thing possessed. Now do not _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_, and _mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, all equally denote possession? and do they not severally show by their forms the person, the number, and sometimes also the gender, of whomever or whatever they make to be the possessor? If they do, they are all of them _p.r.o.nouns_, and nothing else; all found in the _possessive case_, and nowhere else. It is true, that in Latin, Greek, and some other languages, there are not only genitive cases corresponding to these possessives, but also certain declinable adjectives which we render in English by these same words: that is, by _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours; thy_ or _thine, your_ or _yours_; &c. But this circ.u.mstance affords no valid argument for considering any of these English terms to be mere adjectives; and, say what we will, it is plain that they have not the signification of adjectives, nor can we ascribe to them the construction of adjectives, without making their grammatical agreement to be what it very manifestly is not. They never agree, in any respect, with the nouns which _follow_ them, unless it be by mere accident. This view of the matter is sustained by the authority of many of our English grammars; as may be seen by the declensions given by Ash, C. Adams, Ainsworth, R. W. Bailey, Barnard, Buchanan, Bicknell, Blair, Burn, Butler, Comly, Churchill, Cobbett, Dalton, Davenport, Dearborn, Farnum, A. Flint, Fowler, Frost, Gilbert, S. S. Green, Greenleaf, Hamlin, Hiley, Kirkham, Merchant, Murray the schoolmaster, Parkhurst, Picket, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R. C. Smith, Wilc.o.x.

OBS. 6.--In opposition to the cla.s.sification and doctrine adopted above, many of our grammarians teach, that _my, thy, this, her, our, your, their_, are adjectives or "adjective p.r.o.nouns;" and that _mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, are personal p.r.o.nouns in the possessive case. Among the supporters of this notion, are D. Adams, Alden, Alger, Allen, Bacon, Barrett, Bingham, Bucke, Bullions, Cutler, Fisk, Frost, (in his small Grammar,) Guy, Hall, Hart, Harrison, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Lennie, Lowth, Miller, L. Murray, Pond, T. Smith, Spear, Spencer, Staniford, Webber, Woodworth. The authority of all these names, however, amounts to little more than that of one man; for Murray pretended to follow Lowth, and nearly all the rest copied Murray. Dr. Lowth says, "_Thy, my, her, our, your, their_, are p.r.o.nominal adjectives; but _his_, (that is, _he's_,) _her's, our's, your's, their's_, have evidently the form of the possessive case: And, by a.n.a.logy, _mine, thine_, may be esteemed of the same rank."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 23.[208] But why did he not see, that by the same a.n.a.logy, and also by the sense and meaning of the words, as well as by their distinctions of person, number, and gender, all the other six are ent.i.tled to "the same rank?" Are not the forms of _my, thy, her, our, your, their_, as fit to denote the relation of property, and to be called the possessive case, as _mine, thine, his_, or any others? In grammar, all needless distinctions are reprehensible. And where shall we find a more blamable one than this? It seems to have been based merely upon the false notion, that the possessive case of p.r.o.nouns ought to be formed like that of nouns; whereas custom has clearly decided that they shall always be different: the former must never be written with an apostrophe; and the latter, never without it. Contrary to all good usage, however, the Doctor here writes "_her's, our's, your's, their's_," each with a needless apostrophe. Perhaps he thought it would serve to strengthen his position; and help to refute what some affirmed, that all these words are adjectives.

OBS. 7.--Respecting _mine, thine_, and _his_, Lowth and L. Murray disagree.

The latter will have them to be sometimes "_possessive p.r.o.nouns_," and sometimes "_possessive cases_." An admirable distinction this for a great author to make! too slippery for even the inventor's own hold, and utterly unintelligible to those who do not know its history! In short, these authors disagree also concerning _my, thy, her, our, your, their_; and where two leaders of a party are at odds with each other, and each is in the wrong, what is to be expected from their followers? Perceiving that Lowth was wrong in calling these words "_p.r.o.nominal adjectives_," Murray changed the term to "_possessive p.r.o.nouns_," still retaining the cla.s.s entire; and accordingly taught, in his early editions, that, "There are _four kinds_ of p.r.o.nouns, viz., the personal, _the possessive, the_ relative, and _the_ adjective p.r.o.nouns."--_Murray's Gram._, 2d Edition, p.

37. "The Possessive p.r.o.nouns are such as princ.i.p.ally relate to possession or property. There are seven of them; viz. _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_. The possessives _his, mine, thine_, may be accounted either _possessive p.r.o.nouns_, or the _possessive cases_ of their respective personal p.r.o.nouns."--_Ib._, p. 40. He next idly demonstrates that these seven words may come before nouns of any number or case, without variation; then, forgetting his own distinction, adds, "When they are separated from the noun, all of them, except _his_, vary _their terminations_; as, this hat is _mine_, and the other is _thine_; those trinkets are _hers_; this house is _ours_, and that is _yours; theirs_ is more commodious than _ours_"--_Ib._, p. 40. Thus all his personal p.r.o.nouns of the possessive case, he then made to be inflections of p.r.o.nouns of _a different cla.s.s!_ What are they now? Seek the answer under the head of that gross solecism, "_Adjective p.r.o.nouns_." You may find it in one half of our English grammars.

OBS. 8.--Any considerable error in the cla.s.sing of words, does not stand alone; it naturally brings others in its train. Murray's "_Adjective p.r.o.nouns_," (which he now subdivides into four little cla.s.ses, _possessive, distributive, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_,) being all of them misnamed and misplaced in his etymology, have led both him and many others into strange errors in syntax. The _possessives only_ are "p.r.o.nouns;" and these are p.r.o.nouns of the possessive _case_. As such, they agree with the _antecedent_ nouns for which they stand, in _person, number_, and _gender_; and are governed, like all other possessives, by the nouns which follow them. The rest are _not p.r.o.nouns_, but p.r.o.nominal _adjectives_; and, as such, they relate to nouns expressed or understood _after them_.

Accordingly, they have none of the above-mentioned qualities, except that the words _this_ and _that_ form the plurals _these_ and _those_. Or, if we choose to ascribe to a p.r.o.nominal adjective all the properties of the noun understood, it is merely for the sake of brevity in parsing. The difference, then, between a "p.r.o.nominal adjective" and an "adjective p.r.o.noun," should seem to be this; that the one is _an adjective_, and the other _a p.r.o.noun_: it is like the difference between a _horserace_ and a _racehorse_. What can be hoped from the grammarian who cannot discern it?

And what can be made of rules and examples like the following? "Adjective _p.r.o.nouns_ must agree, in number, with _their substantives_: as, '_This_ book, _these_ books; _that_ sort, _those_ sorts; _another_ road, _other_ roads.'"--_Murray's Gram._, Rule viii, _Late Editions; Alger's Murray_, p.

56; _Alden's, 85; Bacon's, 48; Maltby's, 59; Miller's, 66; Merchant's, 81; S. Putnam's, 10; and others_. "p.r.o.nominal _adjectives_ must agree with _their nouns_ in gender, number, and person; thus, '_My son_, hear the instructions of _thy_ father.' 'Call the _labourers_, and give them _their_ hire.'"--_Maunder's Gram._, Rule xvii. Here Murray gives a rule for _p.r.o.nouns_, and ill.u.s.trates it by _adjectives_; and Maunder, as ingeniously blunders in reverse: he gives a rule for _adjectives_, and ill.u.s.trates it by _p.r.o.nouns_. But what do they mean by "_their substantives_," or "_their nouns_?" As applicable to _p.r.o.nouns_, the phrase should mean _nouns antecedent_; as applicable to _adjectives_, it should mean _nouns subsequent_. Both these rules are therefore false, and fit only to bewilder; and the examples to both are totally inapplicable. Murray's was once essentially right, but he afterwards corrupted it, and a mult.i.tude of his admirers have since copied the perversion. It formerly stood thus: "The p.r.o.nominal adjectives _this_ and _that, &c_. and the numbers[209] _one, two_, &c., must agree in number with their substantives: as, 'This book, these books; that sort, those sorts; one girl, ten girls; another road, other roads.' "--_Murray's Gram._, Rule viii, 2d Ed., 1796.

OBS. 9.--Among our grammarians, some of considerable note have contended, that the personal p.r.o.nouns have but _two cases_, the nominative and the objective. Of this cla.s.s, may be reckoned Brightland, Dr. Johnson, Fisher, Mennye, Cardell, Cooper, Dr. Jas. P. Wilson, W. B. Fowle. and, according to his late grammars, Dr. Webster. But, in contriving what to make of _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours, thy_ or _thine, your_ or _yours, his, her_ or _hers, its_, and _their_ or _theirs_, they are as far from any agreement, or even from self-consistency, as the cleverest of them could ever imagine. To the person, the number, the gender, and the case, of each of these words, they either profess themselves to be total strangers, or else prove themselves so, by the absurdities they teach. Brightland calls them "Possessive Qualities, or Qualities of Possession;" in which cla.s.s he also embraces all _nouns_ of the possessive case. Johnson calls them p.r.o.nouns; and then says of them, "The possessive _p.r.o.nouns_, like _other adjectives_, are without _cases_ or change of termination."--_Gram._, p. 6. Fisher calls them "Personal Possessive Qualities;" admits the person of _my, our_, &c.; but supposes _mine, ours_, &c. to supply the place of the _nouns which govern them!_ Mennye makes them one of his three cla.s.ses of p.r.o.nouns, "_personal, possessive_, and _relative_;" giving to both forms the rank which Murray once gave, and which Allen now gives, to the first form only. Cardell places them among his "defining adjectives." With Fowle, these, and all other possessives, are "possessive adjectives." Cooper, in his grammar of 1828. copies the last scheme of Murray: in that of 1831, he avers that the personal p.r.o.nouns "want the possessive case." Now, like Webster and Wilson, he will have _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, to be p.r.o.nouns of the nominative or the objective case. Dividing the p.r.o.nouns into six general cla.s.ses, he makes these the fifth; calling them "Possessive p.r.o.nouns," but preferring in a note the monstrous name, "_Possessive p.r.o.nouns Subst.i.tute_." His sixth cla.s.s are what he calls, "The Possessive p.r.o.nominal _Adjectives_;" namely, "_my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, its, own_, and sometimes _mine_ and _thine_."--_Cooper's Pl. and Pr.

Gram._, p. 43. But all these he has, unquestionably, either misplaced or misnamed; while he tells us, that, "Simplicity of arrangement should be the object of every compiler."--_Ib._, p. 33. Dr. Perley, (in whose scheme of grammar all the p.r.o.nouns are _nouns_,) will have _my, thy, his, her, its, our, your_, and _their_, to be in the possessive case; but of _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, he says, "These may be called _Desiderative Personal p.r.o.nouns_."--_Perley's Gram._, p. 15.

OBS. 10.--Kirkham, though he professes to follow Murray, declines the simple personal p.r.o.nouns as I have declined them; and argues admirably, that _my, thy, his, &c._, are p.r.o.nouns of the possessive case, because, "They always _stand for nouns in the possessive case_." But he afterwards contradicts both himself and the common opinion of all former grammarians, in referring _mine, thine, hers_, &c., to the cla.s.s of "_Compound Personal p.r.o.nouns._" Nay, as if to outdo even himself in absurdity, he first makes _mine, thine, hers, ours_, &c., to be compounds, by a.s.suming that, "These _pluralizing adjuncts, ne_ and _s_, were, no doubt, formerly detached from the p.r.o.nouns with which they now coalesce;" and then, because he finds in each of his supposed compounds the signification of a p.r.o.noun and its governing noun, rea.s.sumes, in parsing them, the very principle of error, on which he condemns their common cla.s.sification. He says, "They should be pa.r.s.ed _as two words_." He also supposes them to represent the nouns _which govern them_--nouns with which they do not agree in any respect! Thus is he wrong in almost every thing he says about them. See _Kirkham's Gram._, p.

99, p. 101, and p. 104. Goodenow, too, a still later writer, adopts the major part of all this absurdity. He will have _my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, their_, for the possessive case of his personal p.r.o.nouns; but _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, he calls "_compound possessive p.r.o.nouns_, in the subjective or [the] objective case."--_Text-Book of E.

Gram._, p. 33. Thus he introduces a new cla.s.s, unknown to his primary division of the p.r.o.nouns, and not included in his scheme of their declension. Fuller, too, in a grammar produced at Plymouth, Ma.s.s., in 1822, did nearly the same thing. He called _I, thou, he, she_, and _it_, with their plurals, "_antecedent_ p.r.o.nouns;" took _my, thy, his, her_, &c., for their _only_ possessive forms in his declension; and, having pa.s.sed from them by the s.p.a.ce of just half his book, added: "Sometimes, to prevent the repet.i.tion of the same word, an _antecedent p.r.o.noun in the possessive case_, is made to represent, both the p.r.o.noun and a noun; as, 'That book is _mine_'--i. e. '_my book_.' MINE is a _compound antecedent p.r.o.noun_, and is equivalent to _my_ book. Then pa.r.s.e _my_, and _book_, as though they were both expressed."--_Fuller's Gram._, p. 71.

OBS. 11.--Amidst all this diversity of doctrine at the very centre of grammar, who shall so fix its principles that our schoolmasters and schoolmistresses may know _what to believe and teach_? Not he that speculates without regard to other men's views; nor yet he that makes it a merit to follow implicitly "the footsteps of" _one only_. The true principles of grammar are with the learned; and that man is in the wrong, with whom the _most_ learned will not, in general, coincide. Contradiction of falsities, is necessary to the maintenance of truth; correction of errors, to the success of science. But not every man's errors can be so considerable as to deserve correction from other hands than his own.

Misinstruction in grammar has for this reason generally escaped censure. I do not wish any one to coincide with me merely through ignorance of what others inculcate. If doctors of divinity and doctors of laws will contradict themselves in teaching grammar, so far as they do so, the lovers of consistency will find it necessary to deviate from their track.

Respecting these p.r.o.nouns, I learned in childhood, from Webster, a doctrine which he now declares to be false. This was nearly the same as Lowth's, which is quoted in the sixth observation above. But, in stead of correcting its faults, this zealous reformer has but run into others still greater.

Now, with equal reproach to his etymology, his syntax, and his logic, he denies that our p.r.o.nouns have any form of the possessive case at all. But grant the obvious fact, that _subst.i.tution_ is one thing, and _ellipsis_ an other, and his whole argument is easily overthrown; for it is only by confounding these, that he reaches his absurd conclusion.

OBS. 12.--Dr. Webster's doctrine now is, that none of the English p.r.o.nouns have more than two cases. He says, "_mine, thine, his, hers, yours_, and _theirs_, are _usually considered_ as [being of] the possessive case. But the _three first_ are either attributes, and used with nouns, or they are subst.i.tutes. The _three last_ are always subst.i.tutes, used in the place of names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD."--"That _mine, thine, his_, [_ours_,] _yours, hers_, and _theirs_, do not const.i.tute a possessive case, is demonstrable; for they are constantly used as the nominatives to verbs and as the objectives after verbs and prepositions, as in the following pa.s.sages.

'Whether it could perform its operations of thinking and memory out of a body organized as _ours is_.'--_Locke_. 'The reason is, that his subject is generally things; _theirs_, on the contrary, _is_ persons.'--_Camp. Rhet._ 'Therefore leave your forest of beasts for _ours_ of brutes, called men.'--_Wycherley to Pope_. It is needless to multiply proofs. We observe these _pretended possessives_ uniformly used as nominatives or objectives.[210] Should it be said that _a noun is understood_; I reply, _this cannot be true_," &c.--_Philosophical Gram._, p. 35; _Improved Gram._, p. 26. Now, whether it be true or not, this very position is expressly affirmed by the Doctor himself, in the citation above; though he is, unquestionably, wrong in suggesting that the p.r.o.nouns are "used _in the place_ of [those] names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD." They are used in the place of other names--the names of _the possessors_; and are governed by those which he here both admits and denies to be "understood."

OBS. 13.--The other arguments of Dr. Webster against the possessive case of p.r.o.nouns, may perhaps be more easily answered than some readers imagine.

The first is drawn from the fact that conjunctions connect like cases.

"Besides, in three pa.s.sages just quoted, the word _yours_ is joined by a connective _to a name_ in the same case; 'To ensure _yours_ and _their immortality_.' 'The easiest part of _yours_ and _my design_.' '_My sword_ and _yours_ are kin.' Will any person pretend that the connective here joins different cases?"--_Improved Gram._, p. 28; _Philosophical Gram._, p.

36. I answer, No. But it is falsely a.s.sumed that _yours_ is here connected by _and_ to _immortality_, to _design_, or to _sword_; because these words are again severally understood after _yours_: or, if otherwise, the two p.r.o.nouns alone are connected by _and_, so that the proof is rather, that _their_ and _my_ are in the possessive case. The second argument is drawn from the use of the preposition _of_ before the possessive. "For we say correctly, 'an acquaintance _of yours, ours_, or _theirs_'--_of_ being the sign of the possessive; but if the words in themselves are possessives, then there must be two signs of the same case, which is absurd."--_Improved Gram._, p. 28; _Phil. Gr._, 36. I deny that _of_ is here the sign of the possessive, and affirm that it is taken part.i.tively, in all examples of this sort. "I know my sheep, and am known _of mine_," is not of this kind; because _of_ here means _by_--a sense in which the word is antiquated. In recurring afterwards to this argument, the Doctor misquotes the following texts, and avers that they "are evidently meant to include the _whole number_: 'Sing _to_ the Lord, _all_ ye saints of _his_.'--_Ps._ 30, 4.

'_He_ that heareth these sayings _of mine_.'--_Matt._ 7."--_Improved Gram._, p. 29; _Phil. Gr._, 38. If he is right about the meaning, however, the pa.s.sages are mistranslated, as well as misquoted: they ought to be, "Sing _unto_ the Lord, _O ye his Saints_."--"_Every one_ that heareth _these my sayings_." But when a definitive particle precedes the noun, it is very common with us, to introduce the possessive elliptically after it; and what Dr. Wilson means by suggesting that it is erroneous, I know not: "When the preposition _of_ precedes _mine, ours, yours_, &c. the _errour_ lies, not in this, that there are double possessive cases, but in forming an implication of a noun, which the subst.i.tute already denotes, together with the persons."--_Essay on Gram._, p. 110.

OBS. 14.--In his Syllabus of English Grammar, Dr. Wilson teaches thus: "_My, our, thy, your, his, her, its, their, whose_, and _whosesoever_ are possessive p.r.o.nominal _adjectives. Ours, yours, hers_, and _theirs_ are _p.r.o.noun substantives_, used either as subjects, or [as] objects; as singulars, or [as] plurals; and are subst.i.tuted both for [the names of] the possessors, and [for those of the] things possessed. _His, its, whose, mine_, and _thine_, are sometimes used as _such substantives_; but also are at other times _p.r.o.nominal possessive_ adjectives."--_Wilson's Syllabus_, p. X. Now compare with these three positions, the following three from the same learned author. "In Hebrew, the _adjective_ generally agrees with its noun in gender and number, but _p.r.o.nouns_ follow the gender of their antecedents, and not of the nouns with which they stand. So in English, _my, thy, his, her, its, our, your_, and _their_, agree with the nouns they represent, in number, gender, and person. But _adjectives_, having no change expressive of number, gender, or case, cannot accord with their nouns."--_Wilson's Essay on Gram._, p. 192. "_Ours, yours, hers_, and _theirs_, are most usually considered possessive cases of personal p.r.o.nouns; but they are, more probably, possessive subst.i.tutes, not adjectives, but _nouns_."--_Ib._, p. 109. "Nor can _mine_ or _thine_, with any more propriety than _ours, yours_, &c. be joined to any noun, as possessive adjectives and possessive cases may."--_Ib._, p. 110. Whoever understands these instructions, cannot but see their inconsistency.

OBS. 15.--Murray argues at some length, without naming his opponents, that the words which he a.s.sumes to be such, are really personal p.r.o.nouns standing rightfully in the possessive case; and that, "they should not, on the slight pretence of their differing from nouns, be dispossessed of the right and privilege, which, from time immemorial they have enjoyed."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 53. Churchill as ably shows, that the corresponding terms, which Lowth calls _p.r.o.nominal adjectives_, and which Murray and others will have to be _p.r.o.nouns of no case_, are justly ent.i.tled to the same rank. "If _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, be the possessive case; _my, thy, her, our, your, their_, must be the same.

Whether we say, 'It is _John's_ book,' or, 'The book is _John's_;' _John's_ is not less the possessive case in one instance, than it is in the other.

If we say, 'It is _his_ book,' or, 'The book is _his_;' 'It is _her_ book,'

or, 'The book is _hers_;' 'It is _my_ book,' or, 'The book is _mine_;' 'It is _your_ book,' or, 'The book is _yours_;' are not these parallel instances? Custom has established it as a law, that this case of the p.r.o.noun shall drop its original termination, for the sake of euphony, when it precedes the noun that governs it; retaining it only where the noun is understood: but this certainly makes no alteration in the nature of the word; so that either _my_ is as much a possessive case as _mine_; or _mine_ and _my_ are equally p.r.o.nominal adjectives."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p.

221. "Mr. Murray considers the phrases, '_our desire_,' '_your intention_,' '_their resignation_,' as instances of plural adjectives _agreeing_ with singular nouns; and consequently exceptions to the general (may we not say _universal_?) rule: but if they [the words _our, your, their_,] be, as is attempted to be proved above, the possessive cases of p.r.o.nouns, no rule is here violated."--_Ib._, p. 224.

OBS. 16.--One strong argument, touching this much-disputed point of grammar, was incidentally noticed in the observations upon antecedents: an adjective cannot give person, number, and gender, to a relative p.r.o.noun; because, in our language, adjectives do not possess these qualities; nor indeed in any other, except as they take them by immediate agreement with nouns or p.r.o.nouns in the same clause. But it is undeniable, that _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_, do sometimes stand as antecedents, and give person, number, and gender to relatives, which head other clauses. For the learner should remember, that, "When a relative p.r.o.noun is used, the sentence is divided into two parts; viz. the _antecedent_ sentence, or that which contains the _antecedent_; and the _relative_ sentence, containing the _relative_."--_Nixon's Pa.r.s.er_, p. 123. We need not here deny, that Terence's Latin, as quoted in the grammars, "Omnes laudare fortunas _meas, qui_ haberem gnatum tali ingeuio praeditum," is quite as intelligible syntax, as can literally be made of it in English--"That all would praise _my_ fortunes, _who had_ a son endued with such a genius." For, whether the Latin be good or not, it affords no argument against us, except that of a supposed a.n.a.logy; nor does the literality of the version prove, at all points, either the accuracy or the sameness of the construction.

OBS. 17.--Surely, without some imperative reason, we ought not, in English, to resort to such an a.s.sumption as is contained in the following Rule: "Sometimes the relative agrees in person with that p.r.o.noun substantive, from which the possessive p.r.o.noun adjective is derived; as, Pity _my_ condition, _who am_ so dest.i.tute. I rejoice at _thy_ lot, _who art_ so fortunate. We lament _his_ fate, _who is_ so unwary. Beware of _her_ cunning, _who is_ so deceitful. Commiserate _our_ condition, _who are_ so poor. Tremble at _your_ negligence, _who are_ so careless. It shall be _their_ property, _who are_ so diligent. We are rejoicing at _thy_ lot, _who hast_ been so fortunate."--_Nixon's Pa.r.s.er_, p. 142. In his explanation of the last of these sentences, the author says, "_Who_ is a relative p.r.o.noun; in the masculine gender, singular number, second person, and agrees with _thee_, implied in the adjective _thy_. RULE.--Sometimes the relative agrees in person, &c. And it is the nominative to the verb _hast been_. RULE.--When no nominative comes between the relative and the verb, the relative is the nominative to the verb."--_Ib._, p. 143. A pupil of G. Brown's would have said, "_Who_ is a relative p.r.o.noun, representing '_thy_,' or the person addressed, in the second person, singular number, and masculine gender; according to the rule which says, 'A p.r.o.noun must agree with its antecedent, or the noun or p.r.o.noun which it represents, in person, number, and gender:' and is in the nominative case, being the subject of _hast been_; according to the rule which says, 'A noun or a p.r.o.noun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.' Because the meaning is--_who hast been_; that is, _thy lot_, or the lot _of thee, who hast been_."

OBS. 18.--Because the possessive case of a noun or p.r.o.noun is usually equivalent in meaning to the preposition _of_ and the objective case, some grammarians, mistaking this equivalence of meaning for sameness of case, have a.s.serted that all our possessives have a double form. Thus Nixon: "When the particle _of_ comes between two substantives signifying different things, it is not to be considered a preposition, but _the sign of the substantive's being in the possessive case_, equally as if the apostrophic _s_ had been affixed to it; as, 'The skill _of Caesar_,' or _Caesar's_ skill.'"--_English Pa.r.s.er_, p. 38. "When the apostrophic _s_ is used, the genitive is the former of the two substantives; as, '_John's_ house:' but when the particle _of_ is used, it is the latter; as, 'The house _of John_.'"--_Ib._, p. 46. The work here quoted is adapted to two different grammars; namely, Murray's and Allen's. These the author doubtless conceived to be the best English grammars extant. And it is not a little remarkable, that both of these authors, as well as many others, teach in such a faulty manner, that their intentions upon this point may be matter of dispute. "When Murray, Allen, and others, say, 'we make use of the particle _of_ to express the _relation_ of the genitive,' the ambiguity of their a.s.sertion leaves it in doubt whether or not they considered the substantive which is preceded by _of_ and an other substantive, as in the _genitive_ case."--_Nixon's English Pa.r.s.er_, p. 38. Resolving this doubt according to his own fancy, Nixon makes the possessive case of our personal p.r.o.nouns to be as follows: "_mine_ or _of me, ours_ or _of us; thine_ or _of thee, yours_ or _of you; his_ or _of him, theirs_ or _of them; hers_ or _of her, theirs_ or _of them; its_ or _of it, theirs_ or _of them_."--_English Pa.r.s.er_, p. 43. This doctrine gives us a form of declension that is both complex and deficient. It is therefore more objectionable than almost any of those which are criticised above. The arguments and authorities on which the author rests his position, are not thought likely to gain many converts; for which reason, I dismiss the subject, without citing or answering them.

OBS. 19.--In old books, we sometimes find the word _I_ written for the adverb _ay_, yes: as, "To dye, to sleepe; To sleepe, perchance to dreame; _I_, there's the rub."--_Shakspeare, Old Copies_. The British Grammar, printed in 1784, and the Grammar of Murray the schoolmaster, published some years earlier than Lindley Murray's, say: "We use _I_ as an Answer, in a familiar, careless, or merry Way; as, 'I, I, Sir, I, I;' but to use _ay_, is accounted rude, especially to our Betters." See _Brit. Gram._, p. 198.

The age of this rudeness, or incivility, if it ever existed, has long pa.s.sed away; and the fashion seems to be so changed, that to write or utter _I_ for _ay_, would now in its turn be "accounted _rude_"--the rudeness of ignorance--a false orthography, or a false p.r.o.nunciation. In the word _ay_, the two sounds of _ah-ee_ are plainly heard; in the sound of _I_, the same elements are more quickly blended. (See a note at the foot of page 162.) When this sound is suddenly repeated, some writers make a new word of it, which must be called an _interjection_: as, "'Pray, answer me a question or two.' '_Ey, ey_, as many as you please, cousin Bridget, an they be not too hard.'"--_Burgh's Speaker_, p. 99. "_Ey, ey_, 'tis so; she's out of her head, poor thing."--_Ib._, p. 100. This is probably a corruption of _ay_, which is often doubled in the same manner: thus,

"_Ay, ay_, Antipholus, look strange, and frown."--_Shakspeare_.

OBS. 20.--The common fashion of address being nowadays altogether in the plural form, the p.r.o.nouns _thou, thy, thine, thee_, and _thyself_, have become unfamiliar to most people, especially to the vulgar and uneducated.

These words are now confined almost exclusively to the writings of the poets, to the language of the Friends, to the Holy Scriptures, and to the solemn services of religion. They are, however, the _only genuine_ representatives of the second person singular, in English; and to displace them from that rank in grammar, or to present _you, your_, and _yours_, as being literally singular, though countenanced by several late writers, is a useless and pernicious innovation. It is sufficient for the information of the learner, and far more consistent with learning and taste, to say, that the plural is fashionably used _for the singular_, by a figure of syntax; for, in all correct usage of this sort, the _verb_ is plural, as well as the p.r.o.noun--Dr. Webster's fourteen authorities to the contrary notwithstanding. For, surely, "_You was_" cannot be considered good English, merely because that number of respectable writers have happened, on some particular occasions, to adopt the phrase; and even if we must needs concede this point, and grant to the Doctor and his converts, that "_You was_ is _primitive_ and _correct_," the example no more proves that _you_ is singular, than that _was_ is plural. And what is one singular irregular preterit, compared with all the verbs in the language?

OBS. 21.--In our present authorized version of the Bible, the numbers and cases of the second person are kept remarkably distinct,[211] the p.r.o.nouns being always used in the following manner: _thou_ for the nominative, _thy_ or _thine_ for the possessive, and _thee_ for the objective, singular; _ye_ for the nominative, _your_ or _yours_ for the possessive, and _you_ for the objective, plural. Yet, before that version was made, fashionable usage had commonly subst.i.tuted _you_ for _ye_, making the former word nominative as well as objective, and applying it to one hearer as well as to more. And subsequently, as it appears, the religious sect that entertained a scruple about applying _you_ to an individual, fell for the most part into an ungrammatical practice of putting _thee_ for _thou_; making, in like manner, the objective p.r.o.noun to be both nominative and objective; or, at least, using it very commonly so in their conversation. Their manner of speaking, however, was not--or, certainly, with the present generation of their successors, _is_ not--as some grammarians represent it to be, that formal and antique phraseology which we call _the solemn style_.[212] They make no more use of the p.r.o.noun _ye_, or of the verbal termination _eth_, than do people of fashion; nor do they, in using the p.r.o.noun _thou_, or their improper nominative _thee_, ordinarily inflect with _st_ or _est_ the preterits or the auxiliaries of the accompanying verbs, as is done in the solemn style. Indeed, to use the solemn style familiarly, would be, to turn it into burlesque; as when Peter Pindar "_telleth what he troweth._" [213]

And let those who think with Murray, that our present version of the Scriptures _is the best standard_ of English grammar,[214] remember that in it they have no warrant for subst.i.tuting _s_ or _es_ for the old termination _eth_, any more than for ceasing to use the solemn style of the second person familiarly. That version was good in its day, yet it shows but very imperfectly what the English language now is. Can we consistently take for our present standard, a style which does not allow us to use _you_ in the nominative case, or _its_ for the possessive? And again, is not a simplification of the verb as necessary and proper in the familiar use of the second person singular, as in that of the third? This latter question I shall discuss in a future chapter.

OBS. 22.--The use of the p.r.o.noun _ye_ in the nominative case, is now mostly confined to the solemn style;[215] but the use of it in the objective, which is disallowed in the solemn style, and nowhere approved by our grammarians, is nevertheless _common_ when no emphasis falls upon the word: as,

"When you're unmarried, never load _ye_ With jewels; they may incommode _ye_."--_Dr. King_, p. 384.

Upon this point, Dr. Lowth observes, "Some writers have used _ye_ as the objective case plural of the p.r.o.noun of the second person, very improperly and ungrammatically; [as,]

'The more shame for _ye_; holy men I thought _ye_.' Shak. Hen. VIII.

'But tyrants dread _ye_, lest your just decree Transfer the pow'r, and set the people free.' Prior.

'His wrath, which one day will destroy _ye_ both.' Milt. P. L. ii. 734.

Milton uses the same manner of expression in a few other places of his Paradise Lost, and more frequently in his [smaller] poems, _It may, perhaps, be allowed in the comic and burlesque style_, which often imitates a vulgar and incorrect p.r.o.nunciation; but in the serious and solemn style, _no authority is sufficient_ to justify so manifest a solecism."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 22. Churchill copies this remark, and adds; "Dryden has _you_ as the nominative, and _ye_ as the objective, in the same pa.s.sage:[216]

'What gain _you_, by forbidding it to tease _ye_?

It now can neither trouble _ye_, nor please _ye_.'

Was this from a notion, that _you_ and _ye_, thus employed, were more a.n.a.logous to _thou_ and _thee_ in the singular number?"--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 25. I answer, No; but, more probably, from a notion, that the two words, being now confessedly equivalent in the one case, might as well be made so in the other: just as the Friends, in using _thee_ for _you_, are carelessly converting the former word into a nominative, to the exclusion of _thou_; because the latter has generally been made so, to the exclusion of _ye_. When the confounding of such distinctions is begun, who knows where it will end? With like ignorance, some writers suppose, that the fashion of using the plural for the singular is a sufficient warrant for putting the singular for the plural: as,

"The joys of love, are they not doubly _thine, Ye poor!_ whose health, whose spirits ne'er decline?"

--_Southwick's Pleas. of Poverty._

"But, _Neatherds_, go look to the kine, Their cribs with fresh fodder supply; The task of compa.s.sion be _thine_, For herbage the pastures deny."--_Perfect's Poems_, p. 5.

OBS. 23.--When used in a burlesque or ludicrous manner, the p.r.o.noun _ye_ is sometimes a mere expletive; or, perhaps, intended rather as an objective governed by a preposition understood. But, in such a construction, I see no reason to prefer it to the regular objective _you_; as,

"He'll laugh _ye_, dance _ye_, sing _ye_, vault, look gay, And ruffle all the ladies in his play."--_King_, p. 574.

Some grammarians, who will have _you_ to be singular as well as plural, ignorantly tell us, that "_ye_ always means more than one." But the fact is, that when _ye_ was in common use, it was as frequently applied to one person as _you_: thus,

"Farewell my doughter lady Margarete, G.o.d wotte full oft it grieued hath my mynde, That _ye_ should go where we should seldome mete: Now am I gone, and haue left _you_ behynde."--_Sir T. More_, 1503.

In the following example, _ye_ is used for _thee_, the objective singular; and that by one whose knowledge of the English language, is said to have been unsurpa.s.sed:--

"Proud Baronet of Nova Scotia!

The Dean and Spaniard must reproach _ye_."--_Swift_.

So in the story of the Chameleon:--

"'Tis green, 'tis green, Sir, I a.s.sure _ye_."--_Merrick_.