CHAPTER VI.

ON THE SYNTAX OF THE

DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND

THE PRONOUNS OF THE THIRD PERSON.

§ 466. REASONS have been given in § 366, for considering the so-called pronouns of the third person (he, she, it, they) demonstrative rather than truly personal.

As his, and her, are genitive cases (and not adjectives), there is no need of explaining such combinations as his mother, her father, inasmuch as no concord of gender is expected. The expressions are respectively equivalent to

From § 366, it may be seen that its is a secondary genitive, and it may be added, that it is of late origin in the language. The Anglo-Saxon form was his, the genitive of he for the neuter and masculine equally. Hence, when, in the old writers, we meet his, where we expect its, we must not suppose that any personification takes place, but simply that the old genitive common to the two genders is used in preference to the modern one limited to the neuter, and irregularly formed. This has been illustrated by Mr. Guest.

The following instances are the latest specimens of its

use:

"The apoplexy is, as I take it, a kind of lethargy. I have read the cause of his effects in Galen; it is a kind of deafness."-2 Henry IV. i. 2.

If the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? It is neither fit for the land nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out."-Luke xiv. 34, 35.

"Some affirm that every plant has his particular fly or caterpillar, which it breeds and feeds."-WALTON's Angler.

"This rule is not so general, but that it admitteth of his exceptions."-CAREW.

"The genitive its is of late introduction into our language. Though used by our dramatists and many of their contemporaries, it does not occur in the versions of our Bible, the substitute being his or the compound term thereof."-Phil. Trans. No. 25.

For the archaic and provincial use of him and he for it see ibid.; remembering that the two cases are different. His for its is an old form retained: him and he for it are really changes of gender.

§ 467. Take them things away.-Here we have them for those. The expression, although not to be imitated, is explained by the originally demonstrative power of them.

Sometimes the expression is still more anomalous, and we hear the so-called nominative case used instead of the accusative. In the expression take they things away, the use of they for them (itself for those) is similarly capable of being, down to a certain period of our language, explained as an archaism. The original accusative was pa, and po: the form in -m being dative.

§ 468. This and that.-The remarks upon the use of these words in certain expressions is brought at once to the Latin scholar by the quotation of the two following lines from Ovid, and the suggestion of a well-known rule in the Eton Latin Grammar:

Quocunque aspicies nihil est nisi pontus et aer;

Nubibus hic tumidus, fluctibus ille minax.

Here hic ( (this or the one) refers to the antecedent last named (the air); whilst ille (= that or the other) refers to the antecedent first named (the sea).

Now on the strength of this example, combined with others, it is laid down as a rule in Latin that hic (this) refers to the last-named antecedent, ille to the first-named.

What is the rule in English?

Suppose we say John's is a good sword and so is Charles's;

this cut through a thick rope, the other cut through an iron rod. Or, instead of saying this and that, we may say the one and the other. It is clear that, in determining to which of the two swords the respective demonstratives refer, the meaning will not help us at all, so that our only recourse is to the rules of grammar; and it is the opinion of the present writer that the rules of grammar will help us just as little. The Latin rule is adopted by scholars, but still it is a Latin rule rather than an English one.

The truth is, that it is a question which no authority can settle; and all that grammar can tell us is (what we know without it), that this refers to the name of the idea which is logically the most close at hand, and that to the idea which is logically the most distant.

What constitutes nearness or distance of ideas-in other words, what determines the sequence of ideas-is another question. That the idea, however, of sequence, and, consequently, of logical proximity and logical distance, is the fundamental idea in regard to the expressions in question, is evident from the very use of the words this and that.

Now the sequence of ideas is capable of being determined by

two tests.

1. The idea to which the name was last given, or (changing the expression) the name of the last idea, may be the nearest idea in the order of sequence, and, consequently, the idea referred to by the pronoun of proximity. In this case the idea closest at hand to the writer of the second line of the couplet quoted above was the idea of the atmosphere (aer), and it was, consequently, expressed by this (hic).

2. Or the idea to which the name was first given, or (changing the expression) the name of the first idea, may be the nearest idea in the order of sequence, and consequently the idea referred to it by the pronoun of proximity; inasmuch as the idea which occurs first is the most prominent one, and what is prominent appears near. In this case, the idea closest at hand to the writer of the second line of the couplet quoted above would have been the idea of the sea (pontus), and it would, consequently, have been the idea expressed by this (hic).

As Ovid, however, considered the idea at the end of the last half of one sentence to be the idea nearest to the beginning of the next, we have him expressing himself as he does. On the other hand, it is easy to conceive a writer with whom the nearest idea is the idea that led the way to the others.

As I believe that one and the same individual may measure the sequence of his ideas sometimes according to one of these principles, and sometimes according to another, I believe that all rules about the relations of this and that are arbitrary.

It is just a matter of chance whether a thinker take up his line of ideas by the end or by the beginning. The analogies of such expressions as the following are in favour of this, in English, applying to the first subject, that to the second; since the word attorney takes the place of this, and applies to the first name of the two, i. e. to Thurlow :—

"It was a proud day for the bar when Lord North made Thurlow (1) and (2) Wedderburn (1) Attorney (2) and Solicitor General."Mathias, from LORD CAMPBELL's Lives of the Chancellors.

CHAPTER VII.

ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF.

$469. THE undoubted constructions of the word self, in the present state of the cultivated English, are threefold.

1. Government.-In my-self, thy-self, our-selves, and yourselves, the construction is that of a common substantive with an adjective or genitive case. My-self my individuality, and is similarly construed-mea individualitas (or persona), or mei individualitas (or persona).

2. Apposition. In him-self and them-selves, when accusative, the construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a pronoun. Him-self him, the individual.

3. Composition. It is only, however, when himself and themselves are in the accusative case, that the construction is appositional. When they are used as nominatives, it must be explained on another principle. In phrases like

He himself was present,

They themselves were present,

there is neither apposition nor government; him and them, being neither related to my and thy, so as to be governed, nor yet to he and they, so as to form an apposition. In order to come under one of these conditions, the phrases should be either he his self (they their selves), or else he he self (they they selves). In this difficulty, the only logical view that can be taken of the matter, is to consider the words himself and themselves, not as two words, but as a single word compounded; and even then, the compound will be of an irregular kind; inasmuch as the inflectional element -m, is dealt with as part and parcel of the root.

Her-self.—The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of