The Grammar of English Grammars, Goold Brown [ebook reader for manga txt] 📗

forming an implication of a noun, which the substitute 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 pronominal adjectives. Ours, yours, hers, and theirs are pronoun substantives, used either as subjects, or [as] objects; as singulars, or [as] plurals; and are substituted 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 pronominal 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 pronouns 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 pronouns; but they are, more probably, possessive substitutes, 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 assumes to be such, are really personal pronouns 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 pronominal adjectives, and which Murray and others will have to be pronouns of no case, are justly entitled 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 pronoun 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 pronominal 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 pronouns, 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 pronoun; 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 pronouns 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 pronoun 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 Parser, 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 præditum," 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 analogy; 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 assumption as is contained in the following Rule: "Sometimes the relative agrees in person with that pronoun substantive, from which the possessive pronoun adjective is derived; as, Pity my condition, who am so destitute. 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 Parser, p. 142. In his explanation of the last of these sentences, the author says, "Who is a relative pronoun; 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 pronoun, representing 'thy,' or the person addressed, in the second person, singular number, and masculine gender; according to the rule which says, 'A pronoun must agree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun 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 pronoun 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 pronoun 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 asserted 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 Cæsar,' or Cæsar's skill.'"—English Parser, 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 assertion 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 Parser, p. 38. Resolving this doubt according to his own fancy, Nixon makes the possessive case of our personal pronouns 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 Parser, 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 passed 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 pronunciation. 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 pronouns 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 pronoun—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 pronouns 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 substituted 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 pronoun 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 pronoun ye, or of the verbal termination eth, than do people of fashion; nor do they, in using the pronoun thou, or their