A Handbook of the English Language, Robert Gordon Latham [some good books to read txt] 📗

him, give it them, remnants of the old dative sense. To say give it to him, to them, is unnecessary and pedantic: neither do I object to the expression, whom shall I give it? If ever the formal test become generally recognised and consistently adhered to, him, them, and whom will be called datives with a latitude of meaning; and then the only true and unequivocal accusatives in the English language will be the forms you, thee, us, me, and twain.

§ 217. Analysis of cases.—In the word children's we are enabled to separate the word into three parts. 1. The root child. 2. The plural signs r and en. 3. The sign of the genitive case, s. In this case the word is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought always to be attempted.

§ 218. The true nature of the genitive form in 's.—It is a common notion that the genitive form father's is contracted from father his. The expression in our liturgy, for Jesus Christ his sake, which is merely a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea, however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake of contradiction to it.

1. The expression the Queen's Majesty is not capable of being reduced to the Queen his Majesty.

2. In the form his itself, the s has precisely the power that it has in father's, &c. Now his cannot be said to arise out of he + his.

3. In the Slavonic, Lithuanic, and classical tongues, the genitive ends in s, just as it does in English; so that even if the words father his would account for the English word father's, it would not account for the Sanskrit genitive pad-as, of a foot; the Zend dughdhar-s, of a daughter; the Lithuanic dugter-s; the Greek ὀδόντ-ος; the Latin dent-is, &c.

CHAPTER V.

THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

§ 219. I, we, us, me, thou, ye.—These constitute the true personal pronouns. From he, she, and it, they differ in being destitute of gender.

These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there are in English true personal pronouns for the first two persons only.

§ 220. The usual declension of the personal pronouns is exceptionable. I and me, thou and ye, stand in no etymological relations to each other. The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but defective. I has no oblique, and me no nominative case. And so it is with the rest.

§ 221. You.—As far as the practice of the present mode of speech is concerned, the word you is a nominative form; since we say you move, you are moving, you were speaking.

Why should it not be treated as such? There is no absolute reason why it should not. The Anglo-Saxon form for you was eow, for ye, ge. Neither bears any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are equally and indifferently nominative and accusative. Hence, it, perhaps, is more logical to say that a certain form (you), is used either as a nominative or accusative, than to say that the accusative case is used instead of a nominative. It is clear that you can be used instead of ye only so far as it is nominative in power.

Ye.—As far as the evidence of such expressions as get on with ye is concerned, the word ye is an accusative form. The reasons why it should or should not be treated as such are involved in the previous paragraph.

§ 222. Me.—carrying out the views just laid down, and admitting you to be a nominative, or quasi-nominative case, we may extend the reasoning to the word me, and call it also a secondary or equivocal nominative; inasmuch as such phrases as it is me = it is I are common.

Now to call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No one says that c'est moi is bad French, and that c'est je is good.

§ 223. Caution.—Observe, however, that the expression it is me = it is I will not justify the use of it is him, it is her = it is he and it is she. Me, ye, you, are what may be called indifferent forms, i.e., nominative as much as accusative, and accusative as much as nominative. Him and her, on the other hand, are not indifferent. The -m and -r are respectively the signs of cases other than the nominative.

§ 224. Again: the reasons which allow the form you to be considered as a nominative plural, on the strength of its being used for ye, will not allow it to be considered a nominative singular on the strength of its being used for thou.

§ 225. In phrases like you are speaking, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, the courtesy consists in treating one person as more than one, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered, you = thou is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural:—you are speaking, not you art speaking.

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH.

§ 226. A true reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words, there are no equivalents to the Latin forms sui, sibi, se.

Nor yet are there any equivalents to the forms suus, sua, suum: since his and her are the equivalents to ejus and illius, and are not adjectives but genitive cases.

At the first view, this last sentence seems unnecessary. It might seem superfluous to state, that, if there were no such primitive form as se, there could be no such secondary form as suus.

Such, however, is not the case. Suus might exist in the language, and yet se be absent; in other words, the derivative form might have continued whilst the original one had become extinct.

Such is really the case with the Old Frisian. The reflective personal form, the equivalent to se, is lost, whilst the reflective possessive form, the equivalent to suus, is found. In the Modern Frisian, however, both forms are lost.

CHAPTER VII.

THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, &c.

§ 227. The demonstrative pronouns are, 1. He, it. 2. She. 3. This, that. 4. The.

He, she, and it, generally looked on as personal, are here treated as demonstrative pronouns, for the following reasons.

1. The personal pronouns form an extremely natural class, if the pronouns of the two first persons be taken by themselves. This is not the case if they be taken along with he, it, and she.

2. The idea expressed by he, it, and she is naturally that of demonstrativeness. In the Latin language is, ea, id; ille, illa, illud; hic, hæc, hoc, are demonstrative pronouns in sense, as well as in declension.

3. The plural forms they, them, in the present English, are the plural forms of the root of that, a true demonstrative pronoun; so that even if he, she, and it could be treated as personal pronouns, they could not.

4. The word she has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon seó. Now seó was in Anglo-Saxon the feminine form of the definite article; the definite article itself being originally a demonstrative pronoun.

§ 228. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as follows:—

She.—The Anglo-Saxon form heó, being lost to the language, is replaced by the feminine article seó.

§ 229. Her.—This is a case, not of the present she, but of the Anglo-Saxon heó: so that she may be said to be defective in the oblique cases, and her to be defective in the nominative.

Him.—A dative form, which has replaced the Anglo-Saxon hine. When used as a dative, it was neuter as well as masculine.

His.—Originally neuter as well as masculine. Now as a neuter, replaced by its—"et quidem ipsa vox his, ut et interrogativum whose, nihil aliud sunt quam hee's, who's, ubi s omnino idem præstat quod in aliis possessivis. Similiter autem his pro hee's eodem errore quo nonnunquam bin pro been; item whose pro who's eodem errore quo done, gone, knowne, growne, &c., pro doen, goen, knowen, vel do'n, go'n, know'n, grow'n; utrobique contra analogiam linguæ; sed usu defenditur."—Wallis, c.v.

It.—Changed from the Anglo-Saxon hit, by the ejection of h. The t is no part of the original word, but a sign of the neuter gender, forming it regularly from he. The same neuter sign is preserved in the Latin id and illud.

Its.—In the course of time the nature of the neuter sign t, in it, the form being found in but a few words, became misunderstood. Instead of being looked on as an affix, it passed for part of the original word. Hence was formed from it the anomalous genitive its superseding the Saxon his. The same was the case with—

Hers.—The r is no part of the original word, but the sign of the dative case. These formations are of value in the history of cases.

§ 230. Theirs.—In the same predicament with hers and its; either the case of an adjective, or a case formed from a case.

Than or then, and there.—Although now adverbs, they were once demonstrative pronouns, in a certain case and in a certain gender, viz., than and then masculine accusative and singular, there feminine dative and singular.

§ 231. An exhibition of the Anglo-Saxon declension is the best explanation of the English. Be it observed, that the cases marked in italics are found in the present language.

I.

Se, seó ( = she).

Of this word we meet two forms only, both of the singular number, and both in the nominative case; viz., masc., se; fem. seó ( = the). The neuter gender and the other cases of the article were taken from the pronoun þæt ( = that).

II.

  þæt ( = that, the), and þis ( = this).   Neut. Masc. Fem. Neut. Masc. Fem. Sing. Nom. þæt — — þis þes þeós. Acc. þæt þone þâ þis þisne þás. Abl. þy þy þǽre. þise þise þisse. Dat. þám þám þǽre. þisum þisum þisse. Gen. þæs þæs þǽre. þises þises þisse.   Plur. Nom. Acc. þá. þás. Abl. Dat. þám. þisum. Gen. þára. þissa.

III.

Hit ( = it), (he = he), heó ( = she). Sing. Nom. hit he heó. Acc. hit hine hí. Dat. him him hire. Gen. his his hire.       Plur. Nom. Acc. hi Dat. him (heom).