ページの画像
PDF
ePub

CHAPTER IV.

SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.

§ 462. THE syntax of substantives is, in English, simple, from the paucity of its inflections, a condition which is unfavourable towards the evolution of constructional complexities; the most remarkable exception being the phenomenon of convertibility noticed above.

The same is the case with adjectives. The want of inflection simplifies their syntax equally with that of the sub

stantives.

But with the pronouns this is not the case. have

Here we

1. Signs of gender; 2. Signs of case; 3. Signs of number, to a greater extent, and with more peculiarities, than elsewhere.

Furthermore, the pronouns exhibit in a great degree the phenomena of conversion indicated in § 454.

Pleonasm in the syntax of pronouns.-In the following sentences the words in italics are pleonastic.

1. The king, he is just.

2. I saw her, the queen.
3. The men, they were there.
4. The king, his crown.

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

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 language 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 his to be he + his.

5. The -s in father's is the -is in patris, and the -os in πατέρας.

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 necessarily 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.

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

In English, however, there is a second change over and above the change of number, viz. that of case. We not only say ye instead of thou, but you instead of ye.

Mr. Guest remarks, "that at one time the two forms ye and you seemed to have been nearly changing place in our language.

As I have made ye one, Lords, one remain;
So I grow stronger you more honour gain.

Henry VIII. iv. 2.

What gain you by forbidding it to teaze ye,
It now can neither trouble you nor please ye.

DRYDEN."

In German and the Danish the pronomen reverentiæ is got at by a change, not of number, but of person-in other words, the pronoun of the third person is used instead of that of the second; just as if, in the English, we said will they walk = will you walk, will ye walk, wilt thou walk.

464. Dativus ethicus.-In the phrase

Rob me the exchequer.—Henry IV.

the me is expletive, and is equivalent to for me.

This ex

pletive use of the dative is conveniently called the dativus

ethicus. It occurs more frequently in the Latin than in the English, and more frequently in the Greek than in the

Latin.

§ 465. 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 two first persons, but for the third as well. The exceptions to this rule are either poetical expressions, or impérative modes.

He sat him down at a pillar's base.-BYRON.

Sit thee down.

Reflective neuters.—In the phrase I strike me the verb strike is transitive; in other words, the word me expresses the object of an action, and the meaning is different from the meaning of the simple expression I strike.

In the phrase I fear me (used by Lord Campbell in his "Lives of the Chancellors"), the verb fear is intransitive or neuter; in other words, the word me (unless, indeed, fear mean

terrify) expresses no object of any action at all; whilst the meaning is the same as in the simple expression I fear.

Here the reflective pronoun appears out of place, i. e. after a neuter or intransitive verb.

Such a use, however, is but the fragment of an extensive system of reflective verbs thus formed, developed in different degrees in the different Gothic languages; but in all more than in the English.

Equivocal reflectives. The proper place of the reflective is after the verb.

The proper place of the governing pronoun is, in the indicative and subjunctive moods, before the verb.

Hence in expressions like the preceding there is no doubt as to the power of the pronoun.

The imperative mood, however, sometimes presents a complication. Here the governing person may follow the verb. Mount ye either be mounted or mount yourselves. In phrases like this, and in phrases

Busk ye, busk ye, my bonny, bonny bride,

Busk ye, busk ye, my winsome marrow,

the construction is ambiguous. Ye may either be a nominative case governing the verb busk, or an accusative case governed by it.

This is an instance of what may be called the equivocal reflective.

« 前へ次へ »