THE RELATIVE p.r.o.nOUNS.
-- 522. The word _that_, although originally, when a demonstrative p.r.o.noun, a neuter singular, is now used as a relative for all genders, and both numbers.
1. He _that_ spoke.--_Masculine gender._ 2. She _that_ spoke.--_Feminine gender._ 3. They _that_ fought.--_Plural number._ 4. The man _that_ I struck.--_Objective case._
-- 523. Etymologically, _which_ is no true neuter of _who_, but a compound word. It is used, however, with less lat.i.tude than _that_. The beginning of the Lord"s Prayer exhibits it in combination with a masculine noun.
Generally, however, it is confined to the neuter gender; in which it is common to both numbers.
1. The dagger _which_ stabbed Caesar.--_Nominative singular._ 2. The daggers _which_ stabbed Caesar.--_Nominative plural._ 3. The dagger _which_ I grasp.--_Objective singular._ 4. The daggers _which_ I grasp.--_Objective plural._
-- 524. _Which_ has so nearly replaced _what_ that the general use of this last word with its proper power, as a neuter relative, is, in the present English, vulgar, _e.g._,
1. The dagger _what_ stabbed Caesar.
2. The dagger _what_ I grasp.
In one case, however, _what_ is used as a true relative, _viz._, when the antecedent is either _this_ or _that_.
This is _what_ I mean; _not_, this is _which_ I mean.
That is _what_ I mean; _not_, that is _which_ I mean.
{423}
-- 525. The word _as_, properly a conjunction, is occasionally used as a relative--_the man_ as _rides to market_.
This expression is not to be imitated. It ought, however, to be explained.
_As_ is a conjunction denoting comparison. The ideas of comparison and equivalence are allied. The relative is _ex vi termini_ the equivalent, in one part of a sentence, to the antecedent in another.
(1) The man--(2) who speaks.
Here _who_=_man_.
(1) As white--(2) as snow.
Here _snow_=_white_.
-- 526. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _gender_ as the antecedent--_the man who_--_the woman who_--_the thing which_.
-- 527. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _number_ with the antecedent. As, however, _who_, _which_, _whom_, are equally singular and plural, and as _what_, which is really singular, is not used as a relative, the application of this law is limited to the word _whose_. Now _whose_ is, etymologically, a genitive case, and a genitive case of the singular number. Hence the expression _the men whose daggers stabbed Caesar_ can only be justified by considering that the word _whose_ is plural as well as singular. Such is the case. If not the expression is as illogical as _homines_ cujus _sicae_, &c. would be in Latin.
-- 528. It is _not_ necessary for the relative to be in the same case with its antecedent.
1. John, _who_ trusts me, comes here.
2. John, _whom_ I trust, comes here.
3. John, _whose_ confidence I possess, comes here.
4. I trust John _who_ trusts me.
-- 529. 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 {424} 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.
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.
-- 530. _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, {425} the preceding is one of the most unequivocal kind--the word which connects the two propositions being wanting.
-- 531. One or two points connected with the construction of those sentences wherein relative p.r.o.nouns occur, are necessary to be familiarly understood in order for us to see our way clearly to certain real and apparent anomalies in the syntax of this cla.s.s of words.
1. Every sentence wherein a relative occurs, is complex, _i.e._, it consists of two propositions--_the man who rides is come_=(1) _the man is come_; (2) _who rides_. Here the relative _who_ has no meaning in itself, but takes a meaning from the noun of the preceding clause.
2. _The relative is the demonstrative or personal p.r.o.noun under another form._--The two propositions (1) _the man is come_; (2) _who rides_=(1) _the man is come_; (2) _he rides_.
3. _The demonstrative or personal p.r.o.noun is the substantive in another form._--The two propositions (1) _the man is come_; (2) _he rides_=(1) _the man is come_; (2) _the man rides_.
4. Hence the relative is the equivalent to a demonstrative p.r.o.noun, or to a substantive, indifferently.
5. But the relative is the equivalent to the p.r.o.noun and substantive, and _something more_. In sentences like