-- 455. The reason why the relative must agree with its antecedent in both number and gender, whilst it need not agree with it in case, is found in the following observations.
1. All sentences containing a relative contain two verbs--_John who_ (1) _trusts me_ (2) _comes here_.
2. Two verbs express two actions--(1) _trust_ (2) _come_.
3. Whilst, however, the actions are two in number, the person or thing which does or suffers them is single--_John_.
4. _He_ (_she_ or _it_) is single _ex vi termini_. The relative expresses the _ident.i.ty_ between the subjects (or objects) of the two actions. Thus _who_ = _John_, or is another name for John.
5. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same gender. The _John_ who _trusts_ is necessarily of the same gender with the _John_ who _comes_.
6. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same number. The number of _Johns_ who _trust_, is the same as the number of _Johns_ who _come_. Both these elements of concord are immutable.
7. But a third element of concord is not immutable. The person or thing that is an agent in the one part of the sentence, may be the object of an action in the other. The _John_ whom I _trust_ may _trust_ me also. Hence
a. I trust John--_John_ the object.
b. John trusts me--_John_ the agent.
-- 456. As the relative is only the antecedent in another form, it may change its case according to the construction.
1. I trust John--(2) _John_ trusts me.
2. I trust John--(2) _He_ trusts me.
3. I trust John--(2) _Who_ trusts me.
4. John trusts me--(2) I trust _John_.
5. John trusts me--(2) I trust _him_.
6. John trusts me--(2) I trust _whom_.
7. John trusts me--(2) _Whom_ I trust.
8. John--(2) _Whom_ I trust trusts me.
-- 457. _The books I want are here_.--This is a specimen of a true ellipsis.
In all such phrases in _full_, there are _three_ essential elements.
1. The first proposition; as _the books are here_.
2. The second proposition; as _I want_.
3. The word which connects the two propositions, and without which, they naturally make separate, independent, unconnected statements.
Now, although true and unequivocal ellipses are scarce, the preceding is one of the most unequivocal kind--the word which connects the two propositions being wanting.
-- 458. _When there are two words in a clause, each capable of being an antecedent, the relative refers to the latter._
1. _Solomon the son of David that slew Goliah_.--This is unexceptionable.
2. _Solomon the son of David who built the temple_.--This is exceptionable.
Nevertheless, it is defensible, on the supposition that _Solomon-the-son-of-David_ is a single many-worded name.
CHAPTER X.
ON THE INTERROGATIVE p.r.o.nOUN.
-- 459. Questions are of two sorts, direct and oblique.
_Direct._--Who is he?
_Oblique._--Who do you say that he is?
All difficulties about the cases of the interrogative p.r.o.noun may be determined by framing an answer, and observing the case of the word with which the interrogative coincides. Whatever be the case of this word will also be the case of the interrogative.
DIRECT.
_Qu._ _Who_ is this?--_Ans._ _I._ _Qu._ _Whose_ is this?--_Ans._ _His._ _Qu._ _Whom_ do you seek?--_Ans._ _Him._
OBLIQUE.
_Qu._ _Who_ do you say that it is?--_Ans._ _He._ _Qu._ _Whose_ do you say that it is?--_Ans._ _His._ _Qu._ _Whom_ do you say that they seek?--_Ans._ _Him._
_Note._--The answer should always be made by means of a p.r.o.noun, as by so doing we distinguish the accusative case from the nominative.
_Note._--And, if necessary, it should be made in full. Thus the full answer to _whom do you say that they seek?_ is, _I say that they seek him._
-- 460. Nevertheless, such expressions as _whom do they say that it is?_ are common, especially in oblique questions.
"And he axed him and seide, _whom_ seien the people that I am?--Thei answereden and seiden, Jon Baptist--and he seide to hem, But _whom_ seien ye that I am?"--WICLIF, _Luke_ ix.
"Tell me in sadness _whom_ she is you love."--_Romeo and Juliet_, i, 1.
"And as John fulfilled his course, he said, _whom_ think ye that I am?"--_Acts_ xiii. 25.
This confusion, however, is exceptionable.
CHAPTER XI.
THE RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION.
-- 461. In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual action there are in reality two a.s.sertions, viz., the a.s.sertion that A.
_strikes_ (or _loves_) B., and the a.s.sertion that B. _strikes_ (or _loves_) A.; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence, if the expressions exactly coincided with the fact signified, there would always be two propositions. This, however, is not the habit of language. Hence arises a more compendious form of expression, giving origin to an ellipsis of a peculiar kind. Phrases like _Eteocles and Polynices killed each other_ are elliptical, for _Eteocles and Polynices killed--each the other_. Here the second proposition expands and explains the first, whilst the first supplies the verb to the second. Each, however, is elliptic.
-- 462. This is the syntax. As to the power of the words _each_ and _one_ in the expression (_each other_ and _one another_), I am not prepared to say that in the common practice of the English language there is any distinction between them. A distinction, however, if it existed, would give strength to our language. Where two persons performed a reciprocal action on another, the expression might be _one another_; as _Eteocles and Polynices killed one another_. Where more than two persons were engaged on each side of a reciprocal action, the expression might be _each other_; as, _the ten champions praised each other_.
This amount of perspicuity is attained, by different processes, in the French, Spanish, and Scandinavian languages.