Part 51 (1/2)
OBS 3--The pronoun _it_, as it carries in itself no such idea as that of personality, or sex, or life, is chiefly used with reference to things inanimate; yet the word is, in a certain way, applicable to anih it does not, in itself, present them as such Thus we say, ”_It_ is _I_;”--”_It_ was _they_;”--”_It_ was _you_;”--”_It_ was your _agent_;”--”_It_ is your _bull_ that has killed one of my oxen” In examples of this kind, the word _it_ is si or subject spoken of_ That subject, whatever it be in itself, ain after the verb, in any person, nurees with the pronoun _it_, the hich follows, can in no sense be made, as Dr Priestley will have it to be, the _antecedent_ to that pronoun Besides, it is contrary to the nature of what is pri word of any kind The Doctor absurdly says, ”Not only things, but persons, may be the _antecedent_ to this pronoun; as, _Who is it_? _Is it not Thomas_? i e
_Who is the person_? _Is not he Thomas?_”--_Priestley's Gram_, p 85 In these exaation; but that circuh it may have helped to deceive this author and his copiers, affects not my assertion
OBS 4--The pronoun _who_ is usually applied only to persons Its application to brutes or to things is improper, unless we mean to personify them But _whose_, the possessive case of this relative, is sometimes used to supply the place of the possessive case, otheranting, to the relative _which_ Examples: ”The mutes are those consonants _whose_ sounds cannot be protracted”--_Murray's Gram_, p 9 ”Philosophy, _whose_ end is, to instruct us in the knowledge of nature”--_Ib_, p 54; _Campbell's Rhet_, 421 ”Those adverbs are compared _whose_ primitives are obsolete”--_Adam's Latin Gram_, p 150 ”After a sentence _whose_ sense is co's Gras _whose_ parts are methodically disposed, and mutually connected”--_Beattie's Moral Science_, i, 59 ”Is there any other doctrine _whose_ followers are punished?”--ADDISON: _Murray's Gram_, p
54; _Lowth's_, p 25
”The question, _whose_ solution I require, Is, what the sex of women most desire”--DRYDEN: _Lowth_, p 25
OBS 5--Buchanan, as well as Lowth, conderave poetry: saying, ”This her and hly ilish Syntax_, p 73 And, of the last two exaht to be _of which_, in both places: i e The followers _of which_; the solution _of which_”--_Ib_, p 73 The truth is, that no personification is here intended Hence it may be better to avoid, if we can, this use of _whose_, as see to i the text of an older author) has furnished at least one exa: ”Prepositions are naturally placed betwixt the Words _whose_ Relation and Dependence each of thelish Syntax_, p 90; _British Gram_, p 201 I dislike this construction, and yet soood It is too much, to say with Churchill, that ”this practice is now discountenanced by all correct writers”--_New Gram_, p 226 Grammarians would perhaps differ less, if they would read more Dr Campbell comgested by good taste, and established by abundant authority See _Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p 420 ”WHOSE, the possessive or genitive case of _who_ or _which_; applied to persons or things”--_Webster's Octavo Dict_ ”_Whose_ is well authorized by good usage, as the possessive of _which_”--_Sanborn's Grae complete, _whose_ verbs have not tenses”--_Harris's Hers On _whose_ support, hare'--MS”
_Wordsworth's Preface to his Poeh formerly applied to persons and made equivalent to _who_, is now confined to brute anis
Thus, ”Our Father _which_ art in heaven,” is not now reckoned good English; it should be, ”Our Father _who_ art in heaven” In this, as well as in ed; so that as once right, is now ungrammatical The use of _which_ for _who_ is very common in the Bible, and in other books of the seventeenth century; but all good writers now avoid the construction It occurs seventy-five times in the third chapter of Luke; as, ”Joseph, _which_ was the son of Heli, _which_ was the son of Matthat,” etc etc After a personal ter, _which_ is not i”--_Gallaudet_ And as an interrogative or a demonstrative pronoun or adjective, the word _which_ is still applicable to persons, as formerly; as, ”_Which_ of you all?”--”_Which_thereatest”--_Luke_, ix, 46 ”Two fair twins--the puzzled Strangers, _which_ is _which_, inquire”--_Tickell_
OBS 7--If _which_, as a direct relative, is inapplicable to persons, _who_ ought to be preferred to it in all personifications: as,
”The seal is set Noelcome thou dread power, Nameless, yet thus oht hour”
BYRON: _Childe Harold's Pilgrie is here iined and addressed, I will not pretend to say; but it should seeh less agreeable in sound before the word _here_ In one of his notes on this word, Churchill has fallen into a strange error He will have _who_ to represent a _horse!_ and that, in such a sense, as would require _which_ and not _who_, even for a person As he prints the ht, with Murray and Webster, that _which_ ender_” [189] He says, ”In the following passage, _which_ seems to be used _instead_ of _who_:--
'Between two horses, _which_ doth bear himent'
SHAKS, 1 Hen VI”--_Churchill's Gram_, p 226
OBS 8--The pronoun _what_ is usually applied to things only It has a twofold relation, and is often used (by ellipsis of the noun) both as antecedent and as relative, in the for equivalent to _that which_, or _the thing which,--those which_, or _the things which_
In this double relation, _what_ represents two cases at the same time: as, ”He is asha_ or _action_] he has done;”--or, ”of _that_ [thing or action] _which_ he has done” Here are two objectives The two cases are sometimes alike, sometimes different; for either of them may be the nominative, and either, the objective Exaht not to prevail _over what is_ proper”--_Kames, El of Crit_, Vol i, p 252 ”The public ear will not easily _bear what is_ slovenly and incorrect”--_Blair's Rhet_, p 12 ”He who buys _what_ he does not need, will often need _what_ he cannot buy”--_Student's Manual_, p 290 ”_What_ is just, is honest; and again, _what_ is honest, is just”--_Cicero_ ”He that hath an ear, let him hear _what_ the Spirit saith unto the churches”--_Rev_, ii, 7, 11, 17, 29; iii, 6, 13, 22
OBS 9--This pronoun, _what_, is usually of the singular nuh sometimes plural: as, ”I must turn to the faults, or _what appear_ such to me”--_Byron_ ”All distortions and mimicries, as such, are _what raise_ aversion instead of pleasure”--_Steele_ ”Purified indeed from _what appear_ to be its real defects”--_Wordsworth's Pref_, p xix ”Every single iuishable froone before, and from _what_ succeed”--_Kames, El of Crit_, Vol i, p 107 ”Sensible people express no thoughts but _what_exaular and plural at once, is a manifest solecism: ”_What has_ since followed _are_ but natural consequences”--J C CALHOUN, _Speech in U S
Senate_, March 4, 1850 Here _has_ should be _have_; or else the form should be this: ”What has since followed, _is_ but _a_ natural _consequence_”
OBS 10--The common import of this re examples, twofold; but some instances occur, in which it does not appear to have this double construction, but to be simply declaratory; and many, in which the word is sie run of luck I have had to-day!”--_Columbian Orator_, p
293 Here _what_ is aexamples, a pronoun indefinite:--
”I tell thee _what_, corporal, I could tear her”--_Shak_
”He knohat's what_, and that's as high As metaphysic wit can fly”--_Hudibras_
OBS 11--_What_ is sometimes used both as an adjective and as a relative at the same ti equivalent to the adjective _any_ or _all_, and the simple relative _hich_[190] or _that_: as, ”_What_ money we had, was taken away” That is, ”_All the_ money _that_ we had, was taken away” ”_What_ man but enters, dies” That is, ”_Any_ oods were aboard his vessels, should be landed”--_Mickle's India_, p 89
”_What_ appearances of worth afterwards succeeded, were drawn from thence”--_Internal Policy of Great Britain_, p 196 That is, ”_All the_ appearances of worth, _which_ afterwards succeeded”--_Priestley's Gra construed after a noun, as a simple relative: none but the most illiterate ever seriously use it so _What_ put for _who_ or _which_, is therefore a ludicrous vulgaris youth _what_ fired the Ephesian dome”--_Jester_ The word used as above, however, does not always preclude the introduction of a personal pronoun before the subsequent verb; as,[191]
”_What_ God but enters yon forbidden field, Who yields assistance, or but wills to yield, Back to the skies with shame _he_ shall be driven, Gash'd with dishonest wounds, the scorn of heaven”--_Pope's Homer_
OBS 12--The compound _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ has the same peculiarities of construction as has the simpler word _what_: as, ”Whatever word expresses an affirmation, or assertion, is a verb; or thus, _Whatever_ word, with a noun or pronoun before or after it, makes full sense, is a verb”--_Adam's Latin Gram_, p 78 That is, ”_Any_ word _which_ expresses,” &c ”We will certainly do _whatsoever_ thing goeth forth out of our own , or _every_ thing, _which_” ”_Whatever_ sounds are difficult in pronunciation, are, in the same proportion, harsh and painful to the ear”--_Blair's Rhet_, p
121; _Murray's Gras ritten aforeti”--_Romans_, xv, 4 In all these examples, the word _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ appears to be used both adjectively and relatively There are instances, however, in which the relation of this tering endowments we possess, virtue is requisite in order to their shi+ning with proper lustre”--_English Reader_, p 23 Here _whatever_ is simply an adjective ”The declarations contained in them [the Scriptures] rest on the authority of God _himself_; and there can be no appeal from them to any other authority _whatsoever_”--_London Epistle_, 1836 Here _whatsoever_to _authority_, or as an emphatic pronoun in apposition with its noun, like _hieneral explanatory sense, _whatsoever_ s; as, ”I should be sorry if it entered into the iination _of any person whatsoever_, that I was preferred to all other patrons”--_Duncan's Cicero_, p 11 Here the word _whoht have been used
OBS 13--But there is an other construction to be here explained, in which _whatever_ or _whatsoever_ appears to be a _double relative_, or a term which includes both antecedent and relative; as, ”_Whatever_ purifies, fortifies also the heart”--_English Reader_, p 23 That is ”_All that purifies_--or, _Everything which_ purifies--fortifies also the heart”
”_Whatsoever_ he doeth, shall prosper”--_Psal_, i, 3 That is, ”_All that_ he doeth--or, _All the things which he doeth_--shall prosper” This construction, however, may be supposed elliptical The Latin expression is, ”_Oate_ The Greek is similar: [Greek: ”Kai panta hosa an poiaei kateuodothaesetai”]-- _Septuagint_ It is doubtless by some sort of ellipsis which familiarity of use inclines us to overlook, that _what, whatever_, and _whatsoever_, which are essentially adjectives, have become susceptible of this double construction as pronouns But it is questionable what particular ellipsis we ought here to suppose, or whether any; and certainly, we ought always to avoid the supposing of an ellipsis, if we can[192] Noe say the s_ he doeth, shall prosper;” this, though analogous to other expressions, does not simplify the construction If ill have it to be, ”Whatsoever _things_ he doeth, _they_ shall prosper;”