-- 536. Nevertheless, such expressions as _whom do they say that it is?_ are common, especially in oblique questions. The following examples are Mr.
Guest"s.--_Philological Transactions._
"And he axed hem 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.
{429}
"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.
Two circ.u.mstances encourage this confusion. 1. The presence of a second verb, which takes the appearance of a governing verb. 2. The omission of a really oblique antecedent or relative. 3. The use of accusative for nominative forms in the case of personal p.r.o.nouns.
-- 537. _The presence of a second verb_, &c.--_Tell_ me _whom_ she _is_.
Here _tell_ is made to govern _whom_, instead of _whom_ being left, as _who_, to agree with _she_.
-- 538. _The omission_, &c.--Tell me _whom_ she is you _love_. Here the full construction requires a second p.r.o.noun--tell me _who_ she is _whom_ you _love_; or else, tell me _her whom_ you love.
-- 539. To the question, _who is_ this? many would answer not _I_, but _me_.
This confusion of the case in the answer favours a confusion of case in the question.
It is clear that much of this reasoning applies to the relative powers of _who_, as well as to the interrogative.
But, it is possible that there may be no incorrectness at all: insomuch as _whom_ may have become a true nominative. Mr. Guest has truly remarked that such is the case in the Scandinavian language, where _hve-m_=_who_=_qui_.
This view, if true, justifies the use of _whom_ after the conjunctions _than_ and _as_; so that the expression,--
Satan than _whom_ None higher sat,
may be right.
Nevertheless, it does not justify such expressions as--
None sit higher than _me_.
None sit higher than _thee_.
None sit higher than _us_.
None sit higher than _her_.
{430}
The reason of this is clear. _Whom_ is supposed to be admissible, not because the sentence admits an accusative case; but because custom has converted it into a nominative. For my own part, I doubt the application of the Danish rule to the English language. Things may be going that way, but they have not, as yet, gone far enough.
{431}
CHAPTER XI.
THE RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION.
-- 540. 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. The first is without the object, the second without the verb. That the verb must be in the plural (or dual) number, that one of the nouns must be in the nominative case, and that the other must be objective, is self-evident from the structure of the sentence; such being the conditions of the expression of the idea. An aposiopesis takes place after a plural verb, and then there follows a clause wherein the verb is supplied from what went before.
-- 541. 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 {432} 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.
1. French.--_Ils_ (_i.e._, A. and B.) _se battaient--l"un l"autre_. _Ils_ (A. B. C.) _se battaient--les uns les autres_. In Spanish, _uno otro_=_l"un l"autre_, and _unos otros_=_les uns les autres_.
2. Danish.--_Hin_ander=the French _l"un l"autre_; whilst _hverandre_=_les uns les autres_.
The Lapplandic, and, probably other languages, have the same elements of perspicuity.
{433}
CHAPTER XII.
THE INDETERMINATE p.r.o.nOUNS.
-- 542. Different nations have different methods of expressing indeterminate propositions.
Sometimes it is by the use of the pa.s.sive voice. This is the common method in Latin and Greek, and is also current in English--_dicitur_, [Greek: legetai], _it is said_.
Sometimes the verb is reflective--_si dice_=_it says itself_, Italian.
Sometimes the plural p.r.o.noun of the third person is used. This also is an English locution--_they say_=_the world at large says_.
Finally, the use of some word=_man_ is a common indeterminate expression.
The word _man_ has an indeterminate sense in the Modern German; as, _man sagt_=_they say_.
The word _man_ was also used indeterminately in the Old English, although it is not so used in the Modern.--Deutsche Grammatik.
In the Old English, the form _man_ often lost the _-n_, and became _me_.--Deutsche Grammatik. This form is also extinct.
The present indeterminate p.r.o.noun is _one_; as, _one says_=_they say_=_it is said_=_man sagt_, German=_on dit_, French=_si dice_, Italian.
It has been stated in p. 257, that the indeterminate p.r.o.noun _one_ has no etymological connection with the numeral _one_; but that it is derived from the French _on_=_homme_=_h.o.m.o_=_man_; and that it has replaced the Old English, _man_ or _me_.
-- 543. Two other p.r.o.nouns, or, to speak more in accordance with the present habit of the English language, one {434} p.r.o.noun, and one adverb of p.r.o.nominal origin are also used indeterminately viz., _it_ and _there_.
-- 544. _It_ can be either the subject or the predicate of a sentence,--_it is this_, _this is it_, _I am it_, _it is I_. When _it_ is the subject of a proposition, the verb necessarily agrees with it, and can be of the singular number only; no matter what be the number of the predicate--_it is this_, _it is these_.