The anticipatory It is used however of masculine and of feminine nouns, and of nouns both singular and plural: 'It is the prince and princess.' You, the pronoun of ordinary address, though applied to single individuals, is followed by a verb in the plural: 'You are old, father William.'

257. Great care is needed in the employment of pronouns: the promiscuous use of them is frequently a source of obscurity'. The historian Clarendon is a notorious transgressor against clearness in the use of the pronouns. In the following extract from Goldsmith's History of Greece, the numbers 1, 2, 3, inserted after the pronouns of the Third Person, refer respectively to Philip, Aristotle, and Alexander:

'He [1] wrote to that distinguished philosopher...begging of him [2] to undertake his [3] education, and to bestow upon him [3] those useful lessons which his [1] numerous avocations would not allow him [1] to bestow.'

In Indirect Narrative the dangers of ambiguity from this cause are naturally great.

Thus—

'A father who brought his boy to the police court complained that he got up and ran away before he was out of bed.'

'He told his friend that, if he did not feel better in half-an-hour, he thought that he had better go home.'

258. Construction of the Relative Pronoun. How far is it correct to say that there is agreement of the relative with its antecedent in gender in English? Who is used only of persons, which (in modern English) of other animals and inanimate things. That is used in reference to antecedents of all kinds. The concord of the relative with the antecedent in number and person can be seen only in the inflexion of the verb which agrees with the relative. Thus, in the following sentences—

1 See Angus' Handbook of the English Tongue, p. 289, and Salmon's School Composition, pp. 181-3.

'I, who am here, see this,'

'Thou, who art here, seest this,'

'He, who is here, sees this,'

'We, you, they, who are here, see this,'

the change in the person or number of the relative who is seen in the change in the verb which agrees with it. Am, art, is, are not in agreement with I, thou, he; they are in agreement with who. I, thou, he, are nominatives to see, seest, sees, respectively: who is the nominative to am, art, is, and the person of who is determined according as it refers to I, thou, he.

The following sentence is wrong. Probably most students would correct it, but only a few would give the right reason.

'Thou art he who hast commanded us.' Hast should be has. Why? Not, as five people out of six would say, "Because it must agree with its subject he," for he is not its subject; but because it must agree with its subject who, and who is here of the 3rd person, since it refers to an antecedent he, which is the pronoun of the 3rd person.

Ought we to say 'It is I, your master, who command you,' or 'It is I, your master, who commands you'?

Either construction admits of defence. In the former case who refers to as its antecedent; in the latter to master, the noun in apposition with 1.

The following examples are wrong because the relative does not agree with its antecedent in number: the mistake is due to attraction of one.

'It is one of the most valuable books that has appeared in any language.'

Has should be have, because its subject that refers to a plural antecedent, books.

'Johnson's Lives of the Poets are now published in six octavo volumes, forming one of the most elegant editions that was ever offered to the public.'

Here (1) are should be is: (2) was should be plural, as that, its nominative, refers to a plural antecedent, editions; (3) was should be have been, as the statement covers all editions up to the time of writing the notice.

The case of the relative is determined by its construction in its own clause. Thus in the sentences 'This is the man who lost his money,' 'This is the man

whose money was lost,' 'This is the man whom they robbed,' the antecedent man is in the nominative case, but the case of the relative varies according to the requirements of the clause in which it occurs.

Errors in the case of the relative occur in the following

sentences:

'He picked up the man who he had knocked down.' Who should be whom, object of knocked down.

'I offer a prize of six pairs of gloves to whomsoever will tell me what thought is passing through my mind.' Whomsoever cannot stand as subject of will tell. The error arises from the suppression of the antecedent, which would be in the objective case, governed by to. The full expression is 'to him whosoever will tell.' Whosoever is wrongly attracted to agree in case with the antecedent, which is omitted.

259. Government. Errors of case sometimes occur in the use of the personal and relative pronouns. Such expressions as the following are often to be heard: 'Ask him to let you and I go,' 'Between you and I it stands in this way,' 'You are taller than me,' 'Whom do men say that I am?' Two common forms of faulty construction of the interrogative pronoun are commented on in the following paragraphs.

'Who did you ask to come?'

What are we to say about the grammar of this sentence? Clearly the who is indefensible on formal grounds, as we see by throwing the sentence into the shape of an assertion, 'You asked him (not he) to come.' And in deliberate or dignified speech or writing, whom is the word which we should employ. But in ordinary conversation who is often used in sentences of this sort by people who are quite aware that whom is grammatically the correct form. Expressions of this type have indeed been defended on the assumption that there is an ellipsis of the words is it that after Who:- Who is it that you did ask to come?' in which expanded sentence the relative pronoun that is the object required. But this ingenious assumption rests on no valid foundation, and the slovenly constructions in question must be avoided by those who wish to speak correct English.

'Who do you believe he is?'

To test this construction, let us once more change the form from that of a question to that of a statement. We may say (1) 'I believe

(that) it is he,' or (2) 'I believe it to be him.' Both are right. In (1) we have a subordinate noun clause, 'It is he ': in (2) we have a construction which corresponds to the Latin accusative and infinitive. Restoring the parallel interrogative forms, we get (1) 'Do you believe (that) he is who?' i.e. 'Who do you believe (that) he is?' and (2) 'Do you believe it to be whom?' i.e. 'Whom do you believe it to be?'

But the two constructions must not be confused in the same sentence. To say, 'Whom did you suppose was going?' is as wrong as it would be to say, 'Did you suppose him was going?' We may correct the error by saying (1) ‘Who did you suppose was going?' or (2) ‘Whom did you suppose to be going?'

QUESTIONS.

I. Distinguish between the meaning of 'He had few followers,' and He had a few followers'; 'I got little credit for it,' and 'I got a little credit for it'; 'She has a black and white pony,' and 'She has a black and a white pony.'

2. Correct and give reasons for your corrections:

'He pays no regard to those kind of things.'

'He is good-looking and good-mannered, but one of those impulsive men that says just what he thinks.'

'The son walks exactly like the father did.'

'I had more rather he be neither a soldier or lawyer.'

'Neither of these persons consider themselves competent.'

'The master told every boy to do their work and said he would punish whoever he saw idle.'

3.

Write short notes explaining the use of the words in italics:

(1) I could a tale unfold whose lightest word...

(2) As who should say...

(3) Smite me him quickly.

[These sentences contain no grammatical error.

(1) Whose was originally of all genders and served as the possessive case of both who and its neuter what. Its use as a neuter possessive is now confined to the diction of poetry: this is rather a drawback, as of which is a more cumbrous expression.

(2) Who is here an indefinite pronoun meaning 'any one,' 'some one,' not the relative who with antecedent one suppressed. The neuter what survives as an indefinite pronoun in the expression 'I can tell you what,' that is, 'I can tell you something.' 'As who should say' is archaic, but Dickens frequently employs it, e.g. in Our Mutual Friend. (3) The me is the Indirect object, and the construction corresponds with the Latin Dativus Commodi: see p. 238. Me signifies 'for me.']

4. What is to be noticed in this passage from Coriolanus? 'Him I accuse

The city ports by this hath entered.'

[Complete the construction by supplying the suppressed antecedent. The sentence then reads 'He whom I accuse...hath entered.' Now we may omit the antecedent and say 'Whom I accuse,' or omit the relative and say 'He I accuse'; but Shakespeare omits the relative and allows the antecedent to be attracted to the objective case of the relative.]

5. State the laws which determine the use of the words 'who' and 'that' in a relative sentence. Give a sentence showing how the sense is affected according as the one or the other of these two words is used.

[Respecting the first part of the question, see p. 128. If who and which were used purely as co-ordinating relatives, and that as the restrictive or limiting relative, ambiguity would sometimes be avoided. Thus 'His friends who lived in London missed him greatly,' in the mouth of the ordinary speaker, may signify either (1) His friends missed him greatly and his friends lived in London, or (2) Those particular friends living in London missed him though his friends in other towns may not have done so. In this latter sense the use of the restrictive that instead of who is recommended, but the distinction is not carried out in modern practice. Similarly, 'I will give you my books which are at my lodgings' may signify either all my books, and my books are at my lodgings,' or 'those particular books at my lodgings out of my entire stock.' If that were reserved for the latter meaning, the expression would be free from risk of a wrong interpretation.]

6. Explain the term Attribute, and give instances of five different ways of enlarging or qualifying the subject of a sentence.

[An attribute is a quality attributed to a thing: when we say 'The horse is white,' we explicitly assert the presence of the attribute or quality whiteness. When we speak of 'the white horse,' we implicitly affirm the presence of the attribute. See p. 104. As the adjective marks the presence of the attribute or quality in a thing, the adjective attached to a noun is sometimes called the attribute of the noun, but this misuse of terms should be avoided.

For the enlargement of the subject, see p. 213.]

7. State the rule for the agreement of the relative with its antecedent. When may the relative be omitted? Give an example. Correct:-'Let him and I settle who we will invite.'

8.

When the words either, such, one, as, are used as pronouns, to what classes do they severally belong?

Write down one example of the pronominal use of as.

Parse the italicised words in :-' Go, get you to your house;' 'He did it himself;' 'Such a lovely day !'