contempt, as is the case with tu in French and du in German to-day. The plural you is now used exclusively, whether we are addressing several individuals or only one. Sovereigns adopt this plural style in their manifestoes when speaking of themselves and say 'We' for 'I.' Editors of newspapers express their opinions in the same fashion, frequently with effects which are droll rather than impressive.

In an older stage of our language, ye was reserved for the nominative and you for the objective: 'Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.' Ye occurs now only in the diction of poetry.

(6) The dative me survives in methinks, meseems, ‘woe is me,' and as the indirect object, e.g. 'do me a service'; here me is equivalent to 'for me' or 'to me.'

125. II.

Demonstrative Pronouns.

This and that are employed to denote the latter and the former, like the Latin hic and ille,-this the one nearer to us, that the one farther away.

That is by origin the neuter of the definite article or demonstrative adjective: the t is a sign of gender as in it and what.

Those is used as the plural of that, these as the plural of this: these and those are really forms of the plural of this.

126. III. Reflexive Pronouns.

Myself, ourselves, yourself, yourselves, himself, herself, itself, themselves, oneself.

(1) Take care of yourself,' 'They killed themselves.' In such sentences we have the reflexive use of these pronouns: the action performed by the doer passes back to him, so both the subject and the object of the sentence stand for the same person.

(2) Take care yourself,' 'They themselves killed it.' In such sentences we have the emphatic use of these pronouns: there is nothing reflexive in their meaning here.

127. The compounds of self present difficult problems which are rendered still more obscure by research into their forms at earlier stages of the language. Let us take the words myself, ourselves, himself, and themselves, and see if, keeping our heads clear of historical details, we can give a satisfactory account of the words as they exist to-day. In the first place, what part of speech is self?

A noun: we speak of 'love of self'; 'a sacrifice of self'; we say 'Self makes demands on one's time.' Nouns take inflexions to mark the plural; self becomes selves. Nouns are limited in application by adjectives: my and our are possessive adjectives. There is no particular difficulty in understanding how the word myself came to be used both for reflexive and for emphatic purposes. If self means 'one's own person,' 'I myself did it' is a way of saying 'I did it of my own person': ‘I hurt myself' is a way of saying 'I hurt my own person.' Thus far all is fairly simple.

But then by analogy we should expect the forms hisself and theirselves. Is there any way of explaining the forms himself and themselves?

In the first place, self must still be regarded as a noun, for it forms a plural selves. In the second place, him and them are pronouns, or the equivalents of nouns, in the objective case. Now the relation of the nouns him and self, them and selves, not being one of dependence, (for if it were, one of the words would be in the possessive case, which it is not), must be one of apposition. Therefore the entire words must be composed of two nouns in the objective case standing in apposition. And this explanation fits in very well with the reflexive use of himself, themselves, 'He struck himself,' 'They hurt themselves,' where nouns in the objective case are required. But then we can also say emphatically 'He himself did it,' 'They themselves said so,' using himself and themselves as subjects. Here the explanation breaks down. We can assume, if we like, that people lost sight of the original objective force of these words and came to use them as nominatives, just as we use me as a nominative, when we say 'It's me.'

Applying these conclusions to the forms one's self and oneself we may say that both can be justified: the former shows us one's in a relation of dependence on the noun self, and therefore in the possessive case; the latter exhibits the two words one and self in apposition.

This is the simplest explanation which we can offer of these compounds of self, as we find them existing now. The reader must not suppose however that the earlier history of these obscure forms affords any foundation for this mode of treating them.

128. IV. Relative Pronouns.

The characteristic feature of the Relative Pronouns is this: they have the force of conjunctions. Thus, the sentence 'I met the policeman who said there was a disturbance' contains two sentences rolled into one: 'I met the policeman. He told me there was a disturbance.' 'This is the book that you lent me' may be resolved into 'This is the book. You lent it me.' The name relative is not a happy one, as it does not call attention to this connective function. These pronouns might more appropriately be called conjunctive or connective pronouns. Several other pronouns might with equal reason be called relative in this sense, that they relate or refer to an antecedent: thus, in the sentences 'I saw John: he was looking very well,' 'Here are your pens: they are all broken,' he refers to John, and they refers to pens, but he and they have no power to unite the sentences in which they occur with the sentences which precede them: this power belongs to the so-called Relative Pronouns alone. If we substitute who and which for he and they, the two sentences become in each case a single sentence: 'I saw John who was looking well,' 'Here are your pens which are all broken'. The name Relative Pronoun is established too securely among grammatical terms, however, to allow us to replace it by another more suitable word: the student must therefore pay particular attention to the concluding part of the definition of a Relative Pronoun as one which refers to some other noun or pronoun and has the force of a conjunction.

The noun or pronoun to which the Relative refers is called the antecedent, i.e. that which goes before. The relative usually comes after the noun or pronoun to which it refers, but the order of the clauses containing the relative and antecedent is sometimes inverted. Thus 'Whom I honour, him I trust' is equivalent to 'I trust him whom

I honour' him is the antecedent, though the relative whom precedes it.

The relative is often omitted when, if expressed, it would be in the objective case. Thus 'The man I met told me so' is an elliptical form of expression for 'The man whom I met;' 'I have lost the book you lent me' is elliptical for 'the book which you lent me.' Similarly, 'the man you gave it to' is a condensed way of saying 'the man whom you gave it to', or 'the man to whom you gave it'; 'the book I asked for' represents 'the book which I asked for', or 'the book for which I asked'; 'the day I came' stands for the day which I came on', or 'the day on which I came'. But this omission of the relative can occur only when the relative is in the objective case: we cannot suppress the relative, if it is in the nominative or possessive. Thus from the sentence "The man who met me told me so' we cannot leave out who, nor from the sentence 'The man whose horse ran away was thrown off' can we leave out whose.

The antecedent is sometimes omitted. Thus we may say 'Who breaks, pays.' When what is used as a relative, the antecedent is always omitted: 'I understand what you mean.' It is contrary to modern idiom to insert that in such a sentence before what.

The Relative Pronouns are that, who, what, which, as. As a relative, that is always used as a noun. Beginners who find it puzzling to determine whether, in any sentence, that is a Demonstrative or a Relative, may find help in applying tests such as these: (1) Try who, whom, and which, and notice whether by the use of any of these words the sense is preserved. If so, that is a Relative. Thus 'The man

that met me,' 'The man that I met,' 'The man that I spoke to,' might be expressed with who in the first sentence, whom in the second and third. (2) Try this instead of that: if sense is made, though not precisely the same sense, that is a Demonstrative. Thus in the sentence Lend me that

book: that is the only one that I haven't read,' the reader will be able to identify the first that as a demonstrative adjective limiting the noun book; the second that as a demonstrative pronoun; and the third that as a relative. It is true that the substitution of which for the second that would still make sense, and the application of the first of our two tests might therefore lead to the mistaken description of this word as a relative. But this error will be corrected by the use of the second test which shows that this can replace that. The difficulty of identifying that is increased by the fact that it is also a conjunction. If we meet with that in a context where who, whom, and this, will none of them make sense as its substitute, the word must be a conjunction. The reader can experiment upon the sentences 'He said that you were here,' 'I work that I may live.'

129. V. The following are both Relative and Interrogative Pronouns.

Who is used only as a noun: we cannot say who man. It has three cases, who, whom, whose, in singular and plural. What is the neuter of who and can be used both as noun and adjective. What is used as an Interrogative in 'What did he say?' Here it has the force of a noun. 'What remark did he make?' Here it is adjectival. It is used as a Relative in 'I don't know what he said.' Here it has the force of a noun. 'I don't know what remark he made.' Here it is adjectival.

What is not declined. When used as a noun it is neuter, but as an interrogative adjective it can be used with names of persons: 'What man, what woman, what child would believe this statement?'

Which is a compound equivalent to whom+like, as such is a compound of so+like. It can be used as noun or adjective, both as Interrogative and as Relative. 'Which will you