A Handbook of the English Language

The reflective pronoun often becomes reciprocal.

§ 395. These statements are made for the sake of illustrating, not of exhausting, the subject. It follows, however, as an inference from them, that the classification of pronouns is complicated. Even if we knew the original power and derivation of every form of every pronoun in a language, it would be far from an easy matter to determine therefrom the paradigm that they should take in grammar. To place a word according to its power in a late stage of language might confuse the study of an early stage. To say that because a word was once in a given class, it should always be so, would be to deny that in the present English they, these, and she are personal pronouns at all.

The two tests, then, of the grammatical place of a pronoun, its present power and its original power, are often conflicting.

§ 396. In the English language the point of most importance in this department of grammar is the place of forms like mine and thine; in other words, of the forms in -n.

Now, if we take up the common grammars of the English language as it is, we find, that, whilst my and thy are dealt with as genitive cases, mine and thine are considered adjectives. In the Anglo-Saxon grammars, however, min and þin, the older forms of mine and thine, are treated as genitives or possessives.

§ 397. This gives us two views of the words my and thy.

a. They may be genitives or possessives, which were originally datives or accusatives; in which case they are deduced from the Anglo-Saxon mec and þec.

b. They may be the Anglo-Saxon min and þin, minus the final -n.

Each of these views has respectable supporters. The former is decidedly preferred by the present writer.

§ 398. What, however, are thine and mine? Are they adjectives like meus, tuus, and suus, or cases like mei, tui, sui, in Latin, and hi-s in English?

It is no answer to say that sometimes they are one and sometimes the other. They were not so originally. They did not begin with meaning two things at once; on the contrary, they were either possessive cases, of which the power became subsequently adjectival, or adjectives, of which the power became subsequently possessive.

§ 399. In Anglo-Saxon and in Old Saxon there is but one form to express the Latin mei (or tui), on the one side, and meus, mea, meum (or tuus, &c.), on the other. In several other Gothic tongues, however, there was the following difference of form:

In these differences of form lie the best reasons for the assumption of a genitive case, as the origin of an adjectival form; and, undoubtedly, in those languages where both forms occur, it is convenient to consider one as a case and one as an adjective.

§ 400. But this is not the present question. In Anglo-Saxon there is but one form, min and þin = mei and meus, tui and tuus, indifferently. Is this form an oblique case or an adjective?

This involves two sorts of evidence.

§ 401. Etymological evidence.—Assuming two powers for the words min and þin, one genitive, and one adjectival, which is the original one? Or, going beyond the Anglo-Saxon, assuming that of two forms like meina and meins, the one has been derived from the other, which is the primitive, radical, primary, or original one?

Men, from whom it is generally unsafe to differ, consider that the adjectival form is the derived one; and, as far as forms like mîner, as opposed to mîn, are concerned, the evidence of the foregoing list is in their favour. But what is the case with the Middle Dutch? The genitive mîns is evidently the derivative of mîn.

The reason why the forms like mîner seem derived is because they are longer and more complex than the others. Nevertheless, it is by no means an absolute rule in philology that the least compound form is the oldest. A word may be adapted to a secondary meaning by a change in its parts in the way of omission, as well as by a change in the way of addition.

§ 402. As to the question whether it is most likely for an adjective to be derived from a case, or a case from an adjective, it may be said, that philology furnishes instances both ways. Ours is a case derived, in syntax at least, from an adjective. Cujum (as in cujum pecus) and sestertium are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one.

§ 403. Syntactic evidence.—If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions as dœl min = pars mei, hœlf þin = dimidium tui, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a true genitive. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted.

§ 404. Again—as min and þin are declined like adjectives, even as meus and tuus are so declined, we have means of ascertaining their nature from the form they take in certain constructions; thus, minra = meorum, and minre = meæ, are the genitive plural and the dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for of thy eyes should be eagena þinra, and the Anglo-Saxon for to my widow, should be wuduwan minre; just as in Latin, they would be oculorum tuorum, and viduæ meæ.

If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as eagena þin, or wuduwan min, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words þin and min must be construed as the Latin forms tui and mei would be in oculorum mei, and viduæ mei; viz.: as genitive cases. Now, whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward.

Such instances, even if quoted, would not be conclusive.

§ 405. Why would they not be conclusive? Because even of the adjective there are uninflected forms.

As early as the Mœso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of this omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the neuter singular sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms, nim thata badi theinata = ᾆρόν σου τὸν κράββατον (Mark ii. 9), opposed to nim thata badi thein, two verses afterwards. So also with mein and meinata. It is remarkable that this omission should begin with forms so marked as those of the neuter (-ata). It has, perhaps, its origin in the adverbial character of that gender.

Old High German.—Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it—thin dohter, sîn quenâ, min dohter, sinaz lîb. In a few cases, when the pronoun comes after, even the oblique cases drop the inflection.

Middle High German.—Preceding the noun, the nominative of all genders is destitute of inflection; sîn lîb, mîn ere, dîn lîb, &c. Following the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; ine herse sîn. The influence of position should here be noticed. Undoubtedly a place after the substantive influences the omission of the inflection. This appears in its maximum in the Middle High German. In Mœso-Gothic we have mein leik and leik meinata.

§ 406. Now by assuming the extension of the Middle High German omission of the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and by supposing it to affect the words in question in all positions (i.e., both before and after their nouns), we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as already stated, no instances of them have been quoted.

To suppose two adjectival forms, one inflected (min, minre, &c.), and one uninflected, or common to all genders and both numbers (min), is to suppose no more than is the case with the uninflected þe, as compared with the inflected þæt.

§ 407. Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance of min or þin, the necessary equivalents to mei and tui, rather than to meus and tuus, must consist in the quotation from the Anglo-Saxon of some text, wherein min or þin occurs with a feminine substantive, in an oblique case, the pronoun preceding the noun. When this has been done, it will be time enough to treat mine and thine as the equivalents to mei and tui, rather than as those to meus and tuus.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRÆTERITE.

§ 408. The remote origin of the weak præterite in -d or -t, has been considered by Grimm. He maintains that it is the d in d-d, the reduplicate præterite of do. In all the Gothic languages the termination of the past tense is either -da, -ta, -de, -ði, -d, -t, or -ed, for the singular, and -don, -ton, -tûmês, or -ðum, for the plural; in other words, d, or an allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In the plural præterite of the Mœso-Gothic, however, we have something more, viz., the termination -dêdum; as nas-idêdum, nas-idêduþ, nas-idedun, from nas-ja; sôk-idêdum, sôk-idêduþ, sôk-idêdun, from sôk-ja; salb-ôdedum, salb-ôdêduþ, salb-ôdêdun, from salbô. Here there is a second d. The same takes place with the dual form salb-ôdêduts, and with the subjunctive forms, salb-ôdêdjan, salb-ôdêduts, salb-ôdedi, salb-ôdêdeits, salb-ôdêdeima, salb-ôdedeiþ, salb-ôdedina. The English phrase, we did salve, as compared with salb-ôdedum, is confirmatory of this.

§ 409. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic præterite, in the "Transactions of the Philological Society," induce me to prefer a different doctrine, and to identify the -d in words like moved, &c., with the -t of the passive participles of the Latin language; as found in mon-it-us, voc-at-us, rap-t-us, and probably in Greek forms like τυφ-θ-είς.

1. The Slavonic præterite is commonly said to possess genders: in other words, there is one form for speaking of a past action when done by a male, and another for speaking of a past action when done by a female.

2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine or feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the præterite is a participle. If, instead of saying ille amavit, the Latins said ille amatus, whilst, instead of saying illa amavit, they said illa amata, they would exactly use the grammar of the Slavonians.

3. Hence, as one class of languages, at least, gives us the undoubted fact of an active præterite being identical with a passive participle, and as the participle and præterite in question are nearly identical, we have a fair reason for believing that the d, in the English active præterite, is the d of the participle, which in its turn, is the t of the Latin passive participle.

§ 410. The following extract gives Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic verb in his own words:—

"A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish languages, consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an active sense, for the purpose of expressing the præterite. This participle generally ends in l; and much uncertainty prevails both as to its origin and its relations, though the termination has been compared by various philologists with similar affixes in the Sanscrit, and the classical languages.

"In the Old Slavish, or the language of the church, there are three methods of expressing the past tense: one of them consists in the union of the verb substantive with the participle; as,

Rek esm'	chital esmi'
Rek esi'	chital esi'
Rek est'	chital est'.

"In the corresponding tense of the Slavonic dialect we have the verb substantive placed before the participle:

Ya sam imao	mi' smo imali
Ti si imao	vi' ste imali
On ye imao	omi su imali.

"In the Polish it appears as a suffix:

Czytalem	czytalismy
Czytales	czytaliscie
Czytal	czytalie.

"And in the Servian it follows the participle:

Igrao sam	igrali smo
Igrao si	igrali ste
Igrao ye	igrali su.

"The ending -ao, of igrao and imao, stands for the Russian al, as in some English dialects a' is used for all."

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 circumlocution equivalent to I have a father. In the English language the circumlocution 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 substituted 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, God 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,

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,—Cæsar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain.—-Here the words Roman emperor explain, or define, the word Cæsar; and the sentence, filled up, might stand, Cæsar, 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 Cæsar. They constitute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original one. They are, as it were, laid alongside (appositi) of the word Cæsar. 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 multitude pursue pleasure, meeting and multitude 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 mass of iron is easier to bear than a man without understanding.—Let sand and salt and a mass 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. Substitute 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 illustration, viz., the-king-of-Saxony's army.—Here the assertion 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 sprécan, a simple infinitive; to speak, or speak + to = the Anglo-Saxon to sprécanne, 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 association of ideas unimpeded.

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

CHAPTER II.

SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES.

§ 428. The phenomena of convertibility have been already explained.

The remaining points connected with the syntax of substantives, are chiefly points of ellipsis.

Ellipsis of substantives.—The historical view of phrases, like Rundell and Bridge's, St. Paul's, &c., shows that this ellipsis is common to the English and the other Gothic languages. Furthermore, it shows that it is met with in languages not of the Gothic stock; and, finally, that the class of words to which it applies, is, there or thereabouts, the same generally.

§ 429. The following phrases are referable to a different class of relations—

1. Right and left—supply hand. This is, probably, a real ellipsis. The words right and left, have not yet become true substantives; inasmuch as they have no plural forms. In this respect they stand in contrast with bitter and sweet; inasmuch as we can say he has tasted both the bitters and sweets of life. Nevertheless, the expression can be refined on.

2. All fours. To go on all fours. No ellipsis. The word fours is a true substantive, as proved by its existence as a plural.

CHAPTER III.

SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES.

§ 430. Pleonasm.—Pleonasm can take place with adjectives only in the expression of the degrees of comparison. Over and above the etymological signs of the comparative and superlative degrees, there may be used the superlative words more and most.

And this pleonasm really occurs—

These are instances of pleonasm in the strictest sense of the term.

§ 431. Collocation.—As a general rule, the adjective precedes the substantive—a good man, not a man good.

When, however, the adjective is qualified by either the expression of its degree, or accompanied by another adjective, it may follow the substantive—

Single simple adjectives thus placed after their substantive, belong to the poetry of England, and especially to the ballad poetry—sighs profound—the leaves green.

§ 432. Government.—The only adjective that governs a case, is the word like. In the expression, this is like him, &c., the original power of the dative remains. This we infer—

1. From the fact that in most languages which have inflections to a sufficient extent, the word meaning like governs a dative case.

2. That if ever we use in English any preposition at all to express similitude, it is the preposition to—like to me, like to death, &c.

Expressions like full of meat, good for John, are by no means instances of the government of adjectives; the really governing words being the prepositions to and for respectively.

§ 433. The positive degree preceded by the adjective more, is equivalent to the comparative form—e.g., more wise = wiser.

The reasons for employing one expression in preference to the other, depend upon the nature of the particular word used.

When the word is at one and the same time of Anglo-Saxon origin and monosyllabic, there is no doubt about the preference to be given to the form in -er. Thus, wis-er is preferable to more wise.

When, however, the word is compound, or trisyllabic, the combination with the word more, is preferable.

Between these two extremes there are several intermediate forms, wherein the use of one rather than another will depend upon the taste of the writer. The question, however, is a question of euphony, rather than of aught else. It is also illustrated by the principle of not multiplying secondary elements. In such a word as fruit-full-er, there are two additions to the root. The same is the case with the superlative, fruit-full-est.

§ 434. In the Chapter on the Comparative Degree is indicated a refinement upon the current notions as to the power of the comparative degree, and reasons are given for believing that the fundamental notion expressed by the comparative inflexion is the idea of comparison or contrast between two objects.

In this case, it is better in speaking of only two objects to use the comparative degree rather than the superlative—even when we use the definite article the. Thus—

This is the better of the two

is preferable to

This is the best of the two.

This principle is capable of an application more extensive than our habits of speaking and writing will verify. Thus to go to other parts of speech, we should logically say—

Whether of the two,

rather than

Which of the two.

Either the father or the son,

but not

Either the father, the son, or the daughter.

This statement may be refined on. It is chiefly made for the sake of giving fresh prominence to the idea of duality, expressed by the terminations -er and -ter.

§ 435. The absence of inflection simplifies the syntax of adjectives. Violations of concord are impossible. We could not make an adjective disagree with its substantive if we wished.

CHAPTER IV.

SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.

§ 436. Pleonasm in the syntax of pronouns.—In the following sentences the words in italics are pleonastic:

Of these forms, the first is more common than the second and third, and the fourth more common than the first.

§ 437. The fourth has another element of importance. It has given rise to the absurd notion that the genitive case in -'s (father-'s) is a contraction from his (father his).

To say nothing about the inapplicability of this rule to feminine genders, and plural numbers, the whole history of the Indo-Germanic languages is against it.

1. We cannot reduce the queen's majesty to the queen his majesty.

2. We cannot reduce the children's bread to the children his bread.

3. The Anglo-Saxon forms are in -es, not in his.

4. The word his itself must be accounted for; and that cannot be done by assuming it to be he + his.

5. The -s in father's is the -is in patris, and the -ος in πατέρος.

§ 438. The preceding examples illustrate an apparent paradox, viz., the fact of pleonasm and ellipsis being closely allied. The king he is just, dealt with as a single sentence, is undoubtedly pleonastic. But it is not necessary to be considered as a mere simple sentence. The king—may represent a first sentence incomplete, whilst he is just represents a second sentence in full. What is pleonasm in a single sentence is ellipsis in a double one.

CHAPTER V.

THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

§ 439. Personal pronouns.—The use of the second person plural instead of the second singular has been noticed already. This use of one number for another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used is conveniently called the pronomen reverentiæ.

§ 440. Dativus ethicus.—In the phrase

the me is expletive, and is equivalent to for me. This expletive use of the dative is conveniently called the dativus ethicus.

§ 441. The reflected personal pronoun.—In the English language there is no equivalent to the Latin se, the German sich, and the Scandinavian sik, and sig.

It follows from this that the word self is used to a greater extent than would otherwise be the case.

I strike me is awkward, but not ambiguous.

Thou strikest thee is awkward, but not ambiguous.

He strikes him is ambiguous; inasmuch as him may mean either the person who strikes or some one else. In order to be clear we add the word self when the idea is reflective. He strikes himself is, at once idiomatic and unequivocal.

So it is with the plural persons.

We strike us is awkward, but not ambiguous.

Ye strike you is the same.

They strike them is ambiguous.

This shows the value of a reflective pronoun for the third person.

As a general rule, therefore, whenever we use a verb reflectively we use the word self in combination with the personal pronoun.

Yet this was not always the case. The use of the simple personal pronoun was current in Anglo-Saxon, and that, not only for the first two persons, but for the third as well.

The exceptions to this rule are either poetical expressions, or imperative moods.