CHAPTER IX.

THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS.

§ 473. THE word that, although originally, when a demonstrative pronoun, a neuter singular, is now used as a relative for all genders, and both numbers.

1. He that spoke.-Masculine gender.
2. She that spoke.-Feminine gender.
3. They that fought.-Plural number.

4. The man that I struck:-Objective case.

§ 474. Etymologically, which is no true neuter of who, but a compound word. It is used, however, with less latitude than that. The beginning of the Lord's Prayer exhibits it in combination with a masculine noun. Generally, however, it is confined to the neuter gender; in which it is common to both numbers.

1. The dagger which stabbed Cæsar.—Nominative singular.
2. The daggers which stabbed Cæsar.-Nominative plural.
3. The dagger which I grasp.-Objective singular.

4. The daggers which I grasp.—Objective Plural.

Which has so nearly replaced what that the general use of this last word with its proper power, as a neuter relative, is, in the present English, vulgar, e. g.—

1. The dagger what stabbed Cæsar.

2. The dagger what I grasp.

In one case, however, what is used as a true relative, viz. when the antecedent is either this or that.

This is what I mean; not, this is which I mean.
That is what I mean; not, that is which I mean.

§ 475. The word as, properly a conjunction, is occasionally

used as a relative—the man as rides to market.

This expression is not to be imitated. It ought, however, to be explained. As is a conjunction denoting comparison. The ideas of comparison and equivalence are allied. The relative is, ex vi termini, the equivalent, in one part of a sentence, to the antecedent in another.

(1) The man—(2) who speaks.

Here who man.

Here snow

(1) As white-(2) as snow.

white.

§ 476. It is necessary that the relative be in the same gender as the antecedent-the man who-the woman who-the thing which.

It is necessary that the relative be in the same number with

the antecedent.

It is not necessary for the relative to be in the same case with its antecedent.

1. John, who trusts me, comes here.
2. John, whom I trust, comes here.

3. John, whose confidence I possess, comes here.

4. I trust John, who trusts me.

The reason why the relative must agree with its antecedent in both number and gender, whilst it need not agree with it in case, is found in the following observations.

1. All sentences containing a relative contain two verbs— John who (1) trusts me (2) comes here.

2. Two verbs express two actions—(1) trust, (2) come.

3. Whilst, however, the actions are two in number, the person or thing which does, or suffers them is singleJohn.

4. He (she or it) is singular, ex vi termini. The relative expresses the identity between the subjects (or objects) of the two actions. Thus who John, or is another name for John.

5. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of

one and the same gender. The John who trusts is necessarily of the same gender with the John who comes.

6. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same number. The number of Johns who trust, is the same as the number of Johns who come. Both these elements of concord are immutable.

7. But a third element of concord is not immutable. The person or thing that is an agent in the one part of the sentence, may be the object of an action in the other. The John whom I trust may trust me also. Hence

a. I trust John-John the object.

b. John trusts me-John the agent.

As the relative is only the antecedent in another form, it may change its case according to the construction.

1. I trust John—(2) John trusts me.
2. I trust John-(2) He trusts me.
3. I trust John-(2) Who trusts me.
4. John trusts me-(
-(2) I trust John.
5. John trusts me-(
-(2) I trust him.
6. John trusts me-( (2) I trust whom.
7. John trusts me-( (2) Whom I trust.
8. John-(2) Whom I trust trusts me.

§ 477. The books I want are here. This is a specimen of a true ellipsis. In all such phrases in full, there are three essential elements.

1. The first proposition; as the books are here.

2. The second proposition; as I want.

3. The word which connects the two propositions, and without which they naturally make separate, independent, unconnected statements.

Now, although true and unequivocal ellipses are scarce, the preceding is one of the most unequivocal kind-the word which connects the two propositions being wanting.

§ 478. One or two points connected with the construction of those sentences wherein relative pronouns occur, are necessary to be familiarly understood in order for us to see our way clearly to certain real and apparent anomalies in the syntax of this class of words.

1. Every sentence wherein a relative occurs, is complex, i. e. it consists of two propositions-the man who rides is come = (1) the man is come; (2) who rides. Here the relative who has no meaning in itself, but takes a meaning from the noun of the preceding clause.

2. The relative is the demonstrative or personal pronoun under another form.-The two propositions (1) the man is come; (2) who rides = (1) the man is come; (2) he rides.

3. The demonstrative or personal pronoun is the substantive in another form.-The two propositions (1) the man is come; (2) he rides (1) the man is come; (2) the man rides.

4. Hence the relative is the equivalent to a demonstrative pronoun, or to a substantive, indifferently.

5. But the relative is the equivalent to the pronoun and substantive, and something more. In sentences like

The man is come-he rides

The man is come-the man rides.

The identity between the person mentioned in the two propositions is implied, not expressed. This the relative expresses; and hence its use in languages.

6. From these observations we get a practical rule for determining doubful constructions.

a. Reduce the sentence to the several propositions (which are never less than two) which it contains.

b. Replace the relative by its equivalent personal or demonstrative pronoun, or by its equivalent substantive.

c. The case of the demonstrative or substantive, is the case of the relative also.

By applying this rule to such expressions as

Satan, than whom

None higher sat, thus spake,

we find them, according to the current etymology, incor

rect

Satan spake-none sat higher than he sat.
Satan spake-none sat higher than Satan sat.

Hence the expression should be

Satan than who

None higher sat.

Observe. The words, according to the current etymology, indicate an explanation which, rightly or wrongly, has been urged in favour of expressions like the one in question, and which will be noticed in a future chapter.

Observe. That three circumstances complicate the syntax of the relative pronoun.

1. The elliptic form of the generality of the sentences wherein it follows the word than.

2. The influence of the oblique interrogation.

3. The influence of an omitted relative.

This last finds place in the present chapter.

When the relative and antecedent are in different cases, and the relative is omitted, the antecedent is sometimes put in the case of the relative.

He whom I accuse has entered.

Contracted according to § 477

He I accuse has entered.

Changed, according to the present section—

Him I accuse has entered.

And so (as shown by Mr. Guest, Philological Transactions), Shakspere has really written,

Him I accuse,

The city gates by this has entered.

Coriolanus, v. 5.

Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire
Too high a fame, when him we serve's away.

Antony and Cleopatra, iii. 1.

The reason of this is clear. The verb that determines the case of the relative is brought in contact with the antecedent, and the case of the antecedent is accommodated to the case of the relative.

The Greek phrase, χρῶμαι βιβλίοις οἷς ἔχω, is an instance of the converse process.

§ 479. When there are two words in a clause, each capable of being an antecedent, the relative refers to the latter.