2. _Who_ should not be applied to children. It is incorrect to say, "The _child whom_ we have just seen," &c. It should be, "The child _that_ we have just seen."
3. _Which_ may be applied to persons when we wish to distinguish one person of two, or a particular person among a number of others; as, "_Which_ of the two? _Which_ of them is he?"
4. _That_, in preference to _who_ or _which_, is applied to persons when they are qualified by an adjective in the superlative degree, or by the p.r.o.nominal adjective _same_; as, "Charles XII., king of Sweden, was one of the _greatest_ madmen _that_ the world ever saw;--He is the _same_ man _that_ we saw before."
5. _That_ is employed after the interrogative _who_, in cases like the following; "Who _that_ has any sense of religion, would have argued thus?"
When the word _ever_ or _soever_ is annexed to a relative p.r.o.noun, the combination is called a _compound p.r.o.noun_; as, _whoever_ or _whosoever, whichever_ or _whichsoever, whatever_ or _whatsoever_.
DECLENSION OF THE RELATIVE p.r.o.nOUNS.
SINGULAR AND PLURAL.
_Nom._ who, _Poss._ whose, _Obj._ whom.
" whoever, " whosever, " whomever.
" whosoever, " whosesoever, " whomsoever.
_Which_ and _that_ are indeclinable, except that _whose_ is sometimes used as the possessive case of _which_; as, "Is there any other doctrine _whose_ followers are punished;" that is, the followers _of which_ are punished. The use of this license has obtained among our best writers; but the construction is not to be recommended, for it is a departure from a plain principle of grammar, namely, who, whose, whom, in their applications, should be confined to rational beings.
_That_ may be used as a p.r.o.noun, an adjective, and a conjunction, depending on the office which it performs in the sentence.
_That_ is a relative only when it can be changed to _who_ or _which_ without destroying the sense; as, "They _that_ (who) reprove us, may be our best friends; From every thing _that_ (which) you see, derive instruction." _That_ is a demonstrative adjective, when it belongs to, or points out, some particular noun, either expressed or implied; as, "Return _that_ book; _That_ belongs to me; Give me _that_." When _that_ is neither a relative nor an adjective p.r.o.noun, it is a conjunction; as, "Take care _that_ every day be well employed." The word _that_, in this last sentence, cannot be changed to _who_ or _which_ without destroying the sense, therefore you know it is not a relative p.r.o.noun; neither does it point out any particular noun, for which reason you know it is not an adjective p.r.o.noun; but it connects the sentence, therefore it is a conjunction.
If you pay particular attention to this elucidation of the word _that_, you will find no difficulty in parsing it. When it is a relative or an adjective p.r.o.noun, it may be known by the signs given; and whenever these signs will not apply to it, you know it is a conjunction.
Some writers are apt to make too free use of this word. I will give you one example of affronted _that_, which may serve as a caution. The tutor said, in speaking of the word that, that that that that that lady pa.r.s.ed, was not the that that that gentleman requested her to a.n.a.lyze.
This sentence, though rendered inelegant by a bad choice of words, is strictly grammatical. The first _that_ is a noun; the second, a conjunction; the third, an adjective p.r.o.noun; the fourth, a noun; the fifth, a relative p.r.o.noun; the sixth, an adjective p.r.o.noun; the seventh, a noun; the eighth, a relative p.r.o.noun; the ninth, an adjective p.r.o.noun.
The meaning of the sentence will be more obvious, if rendered thus; The tutor said, in speaking of the word that, that that that _which_ that lady pa.r.s.ed, was not the that _which_ that gentleman requested her to a.n.a.lyze.
WHAT.
_What_ is generally a compound relative, including both the antecedent and the relative, and is equivalent to _that which_; as, "This is _what_ I wanted;" that is, _that which_, or, _the thing which_ I wanted.
_What_ is compounded of _which that_. These words have been contracted and made to coalesce, a part of the orthography of both being still retained: _what--wh[ich--t]hat_; (_which-that_.) Anciently it appeared in the varying forms, _tha qua, qua tha, qu"tha, quthat, quhat, hwat_, and finally, _what_.
_What_ may be used as three kinds of a p.r.o.noun, and as an interjection.
When it is equivalent to _that which, the thing which_, or _those things which_, it is a compound relative, because it includes both the antecedent and the relative; as, "I will try _what_ (that which) can be found in female delicacy; _What_ you recollect with most pleasure, are the virtuous actions of your past life;" that is, _those things which_ you recollect, &c.
When _what_ is a compound relative, you must always pa.r.s.e it as two words; that is, you must pa.r.s.e the antecedent part as a noun, and give it a case; the relative part you may a.n.a.lyze like any other relative, giving it a case likewise. In the first of the preceding examples, _that_, the antecedent part of _what_, is in the obj. case, governed by the verb "will try;" _which_, the relative part, is in the nom. case to "can be found." "I have heard _what_ (i.e. _that which_, or _the thing which_) has been alleged."
_Whoever_ and _whosoever_ are also compound relatives, and should be pa.r.s.ed like the compound _what_; as, "_Whoever_ takes that oath, is bound to enforce the laws." In this sentence, _whoever_ is equivalent to _he who_, or, _the man who_; thus, "_He who_ takes that oath, is bound,"
&c.
_Who, which_, and _what_, when used in asking questions, are called interrogative p.r.o.nouns, or relatives of the interrogative kind; as, _"Who_ is he? _Which_ is the person? _What_ are you doing?"
Interrogative p.r.o.nouns have no antecedent; but they relate to the word or phrase which is the answer to the question, for their subsequent; as, "_Whom_ did you see? The _preceptor. What_ have you done? _Nothing_."
Antecedent and subsequent are opposed to each other in signification.
Antecedent means preceding, or going before; and subsequent means following, or coming after. _What_, when used as an interrogative, is never compound.
_What, which_, and _that_, when joined to nouns, are specifying adjectives, or adjective p.r.o.nouns, in which situation they have no case, but are pa.r.s.ed like adjective p.r.o.nouns of the demonstrative or indefinite kind; as, "Unto _which_ promise our twelve tribes hope to come;" "_What_ misery the vicious endure! _What_ havock hast thou made, foul monster, sin!"
_What_ and _which_, when joined to nouns in asking questions, are denominated interrogative p.r.o.nominal adjectives; as, "_What man_ is that? _Which road_ did he take?"
_What, whatever_, and _whatsoever, which, whichever_, and _whichsoever_, in constructions like the following, are compound p.r.o.nouns, but not compound relatives; as, "In _what_ character Butler was admitted, is unknown; Give him _what_ name you choose; Nature"s care largely endows _whatever_ happy man will deign to use her treasures; Let him take _which_ course, or, _whichever_ course he will." These sentences may be rendered thus; "_That_ character, or, _the_ character in _which_ Butler was admitted, is unknown; Give him _that_ name, or, _the_ name _which_ you choose; Nature"s care endows _that_ happy man _who_ will deign, &c.; Let him take _that_ course, or _the_ course _which_ he will." A compound relative necessarily includes both an antecedent and a relative. These compounds, you will notice, do not include antecedents, the first part of each word being the article _the_, or the adjective p.r.o.noun, _that_; therefore they cannot properly be denominated compound relatives.--With regard to the word _ever_ annexed to these p.r.o.nouns, it is a singular fact, that, as soon as we a.n.a.lyze the word to which it is subjoined, _ever_ is entirely excluded from the sentence.
_What_ is sometimes used as an interjection; as, "But _what!_ is thy servant a dog, that he should do this? _What!_ rob us of our right of suffrage, and then shut us up in dungeons!"
You have now come to the most formidable obstacle, or, if I may so speak, to the most rugged eminence in the path of grammatical science; but be not disheartened, for, if you can get safely over this, your future course will be interrupted with only here and there a gentle elevation. It will require close application, and a great deal of sober thinking, to gain a clear conception of the nature of the relative p.r.o.nouns, particularly the compound relatives, which are not easily comprehended by the young learner. As this eighth lecture is a very important one, it becomes necessary for you to read it carefully four or five times over before you proceed to commit the following order.
Whenever you pa.r.s.e, you may spread the Compendium before you, if you please.
SYSTEMATIC ORDER OF PARSING.
_The order of parsing a_ RELATIVE p.r.o.nOUN, is--a p.r.o.noun, and why?--relative, and why?--gender, person, and number, and why?--RULE:--case, and why?--RULE.--Decline it.
"This is the man _whom_ we saw."
_Whom_ is a p.r.o.noun, a word used instead of a noun--relative, it relates to "man" for its antecedent--mas. gend. third pers. sing. num. because the antecedent "man" is with which it agrees, according to
RULE 14. _Relative p.r.o.nouns agree with their antecedents in gender, person, and number. Whom_ is in the objective case, the object of the action expressed by the active-transitive verb "saw," and governed by it, agreeably to
RULE 16. _When a nominative comes between the relative and the verb, the relative is governed by the following verb, or some other word in its own member of the sentence_.
_Whom_, in the objective case, is placed before the verb that governs it, according to NOTE 1, under Rule 16. (Repeat the Note, and decline _who_.)
"From _what_ is recorded, he appears," &c.
_What_ is a comp. rel. p.r.o.n. including both the antecedent and the relative, and is equivalent to _that which_, or the _thing which_--_Thing_, the antecedent part of _what_, is a noun, the name of a thing--com. the name of a species--neuter gender, it has no s.e.x--third person, spoken of--sing. number, it implies but one--and in the obj.
case, it is the object of the relation expressed by the prep. "from,"
and gov. by it: RULE 31. (Repeat the Rule, and every other Rule to which I refer.) _Which_, the relative part of _what_, is a p.r.o.noun, a word used instead of a noun--relative, it relates to "thing" for its antecedent--neut. gender, third person, sing. number, because the antecedent "thing" is with which it agrees, according to RULE 14. _Rel p.r.o.n_. &c. _Which_ is in the nom. case to the verb "is recorded,"
agreeably to
RULE 15. _The relative is the nominative case to the verb, when no nominative comes between it and the verb_.
"_What_ have you learned? Nothing."
_What_ is a p.r.o.n. a word used, &c.--relative of the interrogative kind, because it is used in asking a question--it refers to the word "nothing"
for its _subsequent_, according to
RULE 17. _When the rel. p.r.o.n. is of the interrog. kind, it refers to the word or phrase containing the answer to the question, for its subsequent, which subsequent must agree in case with the interrogative.
What_ is of the neut. gend. third pers. sing. because the subsequent "nothing" is with which it agrees; RULE 14. _Rel. p.r.o.n. agree_, &c.--It is in the obj. case, the object of the action, of the active-transitive verb "have learned," and gov. by it, agreeably to RULE 16. _When a nom_.
&c. See NOTE 1, under the Rule.
NOTE. 1. You need not apply gend. pers. and numb, to the interrogative when the answer to the question is _not_ expressed.
WHO, WHICH, WHAT.
Truth and simplicity are twin sisters, and generally go hand in hand.
The foregoing exposition of the "relative p.r.o.nouns," is in accordance with the usual method of treating them; but if they were unfolded according to their true character, they would be found to be very simple, and, _doubtless_, much labor and perplexity, on the part of the learner, would thereby be saved.