The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (read books for money TXT) 📖

improper nominative thee, ordinarily inflect with st or est the preterits or the auxiliaries of the accompanying verbs, as is done in the solemn style. Indeed, to use the solemn style familiarly, would be, to turn it into burlesque; as when Peter Pindar "telleth what he troweth." [213] And let those who think with Murray, that our present version of the Scriptures is the best standard of English grammar,[214] remember that in it they have no warrant for substituting s or es for the old termination eth, any more than for ceasing to use the solemn style of the second person familiarly. That version was good in its day, yet it shows but very imperfectly what the English language now is. Can we consistently take for our present standard, a style which does not allow us to use you in the nominative case, or its for the possessive? And again, is not a simplification of the verb as necessary and proper in the familiar use of the second person singular, as in that of the third? This latter question I shall discuss in a future chapter.

OBS. 22.—The use of the pronoun ye in the nominative case, is now mostly confined to the solemn style;[215] but the use of it in the objective, which is disallowed in the solemn style, and nowhere approved by our grammarians, is nevertheless common when no emphasis falls upon the word: as,

   "When you're unmarried, never load ye
    With jewels; they may incommode ye."—Dr. King, p. 384.

Upon this point, Dr. Lowth observes, "Some writers have used ye as the objective case plural of the pronoun of the second person, very improperly and ungrammatically; [as,]

'The more shame for ye; holy men I thought ye.' Shak. Hen. VIII.

    'But tyrants dread ye, lest your just decree
    Transfer the pow'r, and set the people free.' Prior.

'His wrath, which one day will destroy ye both.' Milt. P. L. ii. 734.

Milton uses the same manner of expression in a few other places of his Paradise Lost, and more frequently in his [smaller] poems, It may, perhaps, be allowed in the comic and burlesque style, which often imitates a vulgar and incorrect pronunciation; but in the serious and solemn style, no authority is sufficient to justify so manifest a solecism."—Lowth's Gram., p. 22. Churchill copies this remark, and adds; "Dryden has you as the nominative, and ye as the objective, in the same passage:[216]

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

Was this from a notion, that you and ye, thus employed, were more analogous to thou and thee in the singular number?"—Churchill's Gram., p. 25. I answer, No; but, more probably, from a notion, that the two words, being now confessedly equivalent in the one case, might as well be made so in the other: just as the Friends, in using thee for you, are carelessly converting the former word into a nominative, to the exclusion of thou; because the latter has generally been made so, to the exclusion of ye. When the confounding of such distinctions is begun, who knows where it will end? With like ignorance, some writers suppose, that the fashion of using the plural for the singular is a sufficient warrant for putting the singular for the plural: as,

   "The joys of love, are they not doubly thine,
    Ye poor! whose health, whose spirits ne'er decline?"
        —Southwick's Pleas. of Poverty.

    "But, Neatherds, go look to the kine,
      Their cribs with fresh fodder supply;
    The task of compassion be thine,
      For herbage the pastures deny."—Perfect's Poems, p. 5.

OBS. 23.—When used in a burlesque or ludicrous manner, the pronoun ye is sometimes a mere expletive; or, perhaps, intended rather as an objective governed by a preposition understood. But, in such a construction, I see no reason to prefer it to the regular objective you; as,

   "He'll laugh ye, dance ye, sing ye, vault, look gay,
    And ruffle all the ladies in his play."—King, p. 574.

Some grammarians, who will have you to be singular as well as plural, ignorantly tell us, that "ye always means more than one." But the fact is, that when ye was in common use, it was as frequently applied to one person as you: thus,

   "Farewell my doughter lady Margarete,
    God wotte full oft it grieued hath my mynde,
    That ye should go where we should seldome mete:
    Now am I gone, and haue left you behynde."—Sir T. More, 1503.

In the following example, ye is used for thee, the objective singular; and that by one whose knowledge of the English language, is said to have been unsurpassed:—

   "Proud Baronet of Nova Scotia!
    The Dean and Spaniard must reproach ye."—Swift.

So in the story of the Chameleon:—

"'Tis green, 'tis green, Sir, I assure ye."—Merrick.

Thus we have ye not only for the nominative in both numbers, but at length for the objective in both; ye and you being made everywhere equivalent, by very many writers. Indeed this pronoun has been so frequently used for the objective case, that one may well doubt any grammarian's authority to condemn it in that construction. Yet I cannot but think it ill-chosen in the third line below, though right in the first:—

   "Ye! who have traced the Pilgrim to the scene
    Which is his last, if in your memories dwell
    A thought which once was his, if on ye swell
    A single recollection, not in vain
    He wore his sandal-shoon, and scallop-shell."—Byron.

OBS. 24.—The three pronouns of the third person, he, she, and it, have always formed their plural number after one and the same manner, they, their or theirs, them. Or, rather, these plural words, which appear not to be regular derivatives from any of the singulars, have ever been applied alike to them all. But it, the neuter pronoun singular, had formerly no variation of cases, and is still alike in the nominative and the objective. The possessive its is of comparatively recent origin. In our common Bible, the word is not found, except by misprint; nor do other writings of the same age contain it. The phrase, of it, was often used as an equivalent; as, "And it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it."—Dan., vii, 5. That is—"in its mouth, between its teeth." But, as a possessive case was sometimes necessary, our ancestors used to borrow one; commonly from the masculine, though sometimes from the feminine. This produced what now appears a strange confusion of the genders: as, "Learning hath his infancy, when it is but beginning, and almost childish; then his youth, when it is luxuriant and juvenile; then his strength of years, when it is solid and reduced; and lastly his old age, when it waxeth dry and exhaust."—Bacon's Essays, p. 58. "Of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same."—Exodus, xxv, 31. "They came and emptied the chest, and took it and carried it to his place again."—2 Chron., xxiv, 11. "Look not thou upon the wine, when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright."—Prov., xxiii, 31. "The tree is known by his fruit."—Matt., xii, 33. "When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength."—Gen., iv, 12. "He that pricketh the heart, maketh it to show her knowledge."—Eccl., xxii, 19. Shakspeare rarely, if ever, used its; and his style is sometimes obscure for the want of it: as,

   "There is no vice so simple, but assumes
    Some mark of virtue on his outward parts."
        —Merch. of Venice.

    "The name of Cassius honours this corruption,
    And chastisement doth therefore hide his head."
        —Jul. Cæs., Act iv.

OBS. 25.—The possessive case of pronouns should never be written with an apostrophe. A few pronominal adjectives taken substantively receive it; but the construction which it gives them, seems to make them nouns: as, one's, other's, and, according to Murray, former's and latter's. The real pronouns that end in s, as his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, though true possessives after their kind, have no occasion for this mark, nor does good usage admit it. Churchill, with equal disregard of consistency and authority, gives it to one of them, and denies it to the rest. Referring to the classification of these words as possessives, and of my, thy, her, our, your, their, as adjectives, he says: "It seems as if the termination in s had led to the distinction: but no one will contend, that ours is the possessive case of our, or theirs of their; though ours, yours, hers, and theirs, are often very improperly spelt with an apostrophe, a fault not always imputable to the printer; while in it's, which is unquestionably the possessive case of it, the apostrophe, by a strange perverseness, is almost always omitted."—Churchill Gram., p. 222. The charge of strange perverseness may, in this instance, I think, be retorted upon the critic; and that, to the fair exculpation of those who choose to conform to the general usage which offends him.

OBS. 26.—Of the compound personal pronouns, this author gives the following account: "Self, in the plural selves, a noun, is often combined with the personal pronouns, in order to express emphasis, or opposition, or the identity of the subject and [the] object of a verb; and thus forms a pronoun relative: as, 'I did it myself;' 'he was not himself, when he said so;' 'the envious torment themselves more than others.' Formerly self and selves were used simply as nouns, and governed the pronoun, which was kept distinct from it [them] in the possessive case: but since they [the pronoun and the noun] have coalesced into one word, they [the compounds] are used only in the following forms: for the first person, myself, ourselves; for the second, thyself, or yourself, yourselves; for the third, himself, herself, itself, themselves: except in the regal style, in which, as generally in the second person, the singular noun is added to the plural pronoun, [making] ourself. Each of these is the same in all three cases."—Churchill's Gram., p. 75. In a note referring to the close of this explanation, he adds: "Own also is often employed with the possessive cases of the personal pronouns by way of emphasis, or opposition; but separately, as an adjective, and not combining with them to form a relative: as, 'I did it of my own free will:' 'Did he do it with his own hand?'"—Ib., p. 227.

OBS. 27.—The preceding instructions, faulty and ungrammatical as they are, seem to be the best that our writers have furnished upon this point. To detect falsities and blunders, is half the grammarian's duty. The pronouns of which the term self or selves forms a part, are used, not for the connecting of different clauses of a sentence, but for the purpose of emphatic distinction in the sense. In calling them "relatives," Churchill is wrong, even by his own showing. They have not the characteristics which he himself ascribes to relatives; but are compound personal pronouns, and nothing else. He is also manifestly wrong in asserting, that they are severally "the same in all three cases." From the very nature of their composition, the possessive case is alike impossible to them all. To express ownership with emphasis or distinction, we employ neither these compounds nor any others; but always use the simple possessives with the separate adjective own: as, "With my own eyes,"—"By thy own confession,"—"To his own house,"—"For her own father,"—"By its own weight,"—"To save our own lives,"—"For your own sake,"—"In their own cause."

OBS. 28.—The phrases, my own, thy own, his own, and so forth, Dr. Perley, in his little Grammar, has improperly converted by the hyphen into compound words: calling them the possessive forms of myself, thyself, himself, and so forth; as if one set of compounds could constitute the possessive case of an other! And again, as if the making of eight new pronouns for two great nations, were as slight a feat, as the inserting of so many hyphens! The word own, anciently written owen, is an adjective; from an old form of the perfect participle of the verb to owe; which verb, according to Lowth and others, once signified to possess. It is equivalent to due, proper, or peculiar; and, in its present use as an adjective, it stands nowhere else than between the possessive case and the name of the thing possessed; as, "The Boy's Own Book,"—"Christ's own words,"—"Solomon's own and only son." Dr. Johnson, while he acknowledges the abovementioned derivation, very strangely calls own a noun substantive; and, with not more accuracy, says: "This is a word of no other use than as it is added to the possessive pronouns, my, thy, his, our, your, their."—Quarto