« PreviousContinue »
was in alliance with Sweden.' "The court, who,' &c.
The cavalry who,' &c. "The cities who aspired at liberty.' "That party among us who,' &c. The family whom they consider as usurpers.'
We hardly consider little children to be person's, because that term gives us the idea of reason and reflection: and therefore the application of the personal relative who, in this case, seems to be harsh: A child who.' It, though neuter, is generally applied, when we speak of an infant or child; as, It is a lovely infant:' It is a healthy child.' The personal pronoun is still more improperly applied to animals: A lake frequented by that fowl, whom nature has taught to dip the wing in water'
When the name of a person is used merely as a name, and it does not refer to the person, the pronoun who ought not to be applied. It is no wonder if such a man did not shine at the court of Queen Elizabeth, who was but another name for prudence and economy.' Better thus; ' Whose name was but another word for prudence, &c.
The word whose begins likewise to be restricted to persons; yet it is not done so generally, but that good writers, even in prose, use it when speaking of things.
The construction is not, however, always pleasing, as we may see in the following instances: 'Pleasure, whose nature,' &c. “Call every production, whose parts and whose nature,'&c.
in one case, however, custom authorizes us to use which with respect to persons; and that is when we want to distinguish one person of two, or a particular person among a number of others. We should then say, Which of the two, or,“ Which of them is he or she?' '
As the pronoun relative has no distinction of number, we sometimes find an ambiguity in the use of it: as, when we say, 'The disciples of Christ, whom we imitate;' we may mean the imitation either of Christ, or of his disciples. The accuracy and clearness of the sentence, depend very much upon the proper and determinate use of the relative, so that it may readily present its antecedent to the mind of the hearer or reader, without any obscurity or ambiguity.'
When the relative is preceded by two nominatives of
different persons, it may agree in person with either, ac. cording to the sense; as, I am the man who command you;' or 'I am the man who commands you.' But when the relative and the verb have been determined to agrec with either of the preceding nominatives, that agree. ment must be preserved throughout the sentence.
Of Rule XI.-When both the antecedent and the relative become nominatives, each to different verbs, the relative is the nominative to the former, and the antecedent to the latter verb; as “ True philosophy, which is the ornament of our nature, consists chiefly in the love and practice of virtue.'
When the pronoun is of the interrogative kind, the noun or pronoun, containing the answer, must be in the same case as that which contains the question; as ' Whose books are these? John's. Who gave them to him? I, Of whom did you buy them? Of him who keeps at the Bible and crown. Whom did you see there? Him and his clerk.'
OF RULE XII.-It is the nature of both the articles to determine or limit the thing spoken of. A determines it to be one single thing of the kind, leaving it still uncertain which: the determines which it is, or of many, which they are.
The following passage will serve as an example of the different uses of a and the, and of the force of the substantive without any article. "Man was made for soci. ety, and ought to extend his good will to all men: but (6 man will naturally entertain a more particular kindness for the men, with whom he has the most frequent intercourse; and enters into a still closer union with the man whose temper and disposition suit best with his own.'
There is in some instances, a peculiar delicacy in the application or omission of the indefinite article. This will be seen in the following instances. We commonly say; I do not intend to turn critic on this occasion;' not turn a critic.' On the other hand, we properly add the article in this phrase; 'I do not intend to become a critic in this business;' not to become critic. It is correct to say, with the article, 'He is in a great hurry;' but not, in great hurry. And yet, in this expression, 'He is in great haste,' the article should be omitted: it would be improper to say, 'He is in a great haste.' A
nice discernment, and accurate attention to ti , best usage, are necessary to direct us on these occasions.
As the articles are sometimes misapplied, it may be of some use to exhibit a few instances: 'And I persecuted this way unto the death.' The apostle does not mean any particular sort of death, but death in general: the definite article therefore is improperly used: it ought to be 'unto death, without any article.
When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth;' that is, according to this translation,
into all truth whatsoever, into truth of all kinds;' very different from the meaning of the evangelist, and from the original, into all the truth;' that is, into all evangelical truth; all truth necessary for you to know.'
Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?' it ought to be the wheel;' meaning an instrument for the particular purpose of torturing animals. "The Almighty hath given reason to a man to be a light unto him:' it should rather be, 'to man,' in general. "This day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he is also the son of Abraham:' it ought to be, 'a son of Abraham. )
These remarks may serve to show the great importance of the proper use of the article, and the excellence of the English language in this respect; which, by. means of its two articles, does most precisely determine the extent of signification of common names.
I A nice distinction of the sense is sometimes made by the use or omission of the article a. If I say, 'He behayed with a little reverence;' my meaning is positive. If I say, 'He behaved with little reverence;' my meaning is negative. And these two are by no means the same, or to be used in the same cases. By the former, I rather praise a person; by the latter, I dispraise him. For the sake of this distinction, which is a very useful one, we may better bear the seeming impropriety of the article a before nouns of number. When I say, 'There were few men with him;' I speak diminutively, and mean to represent them as inconsiderable; whereas, when I say, 'There were a few men with him;' I evidently intend to make the most of them.
In general, it may be sufficient to prefix the article to the former of two words in the same construction; thorgh
the French never fail to repeat it in this case. "There were many hours, both of the night and day, which he would spend, without suspicion, in solitary thought. It might have been of the night and of the day.' And, for the sake of emphasis, we often repeat the article in a series of epithets. He hoped that this title would secure him an ample and an independent authority.
In common conversation, and in familiar style, we frequently omit the articles, which might be inserted with propriety in writing, especially in a grave style.
At worst, time might be gained by this expedient.' At the worst,' would have been better in this place. Give me here John Baptist's head.' There would have been more dignity in saying, 'John the Baptist's head;' or, "The head of John the Baptist.
The article the has sometimes a different effect, in distinguishing a person, by an epithet. In the history of Henry the IVth, by Father Daniel, we are surprised at not finding him the great man,' 'I own I am often surprised that he should have treated so coldly, a man so much the gentleman.'
This article is often elegantly put, after the manner of the French, for the possessive adjective pronoun: as, "He looks him full in the face;' that is, 'in his face."
In his presence they were to strike the forehead on the ground; that is their foreheads."
We sometimes, according to the French manner, repeat the same article, when the adjective, on account of any clause depending upon it, is put after the substantive. Of all the considerable governments among the Alps, a commonwealth is a constitution the most adapted of any to the poverty of those countries,' Witha such a specious title as that of blood, which with the multitude is always a claim, the strongest, and the most easily comprehended.' "They are not the men in the nation the most difficult to be replaced.'
The indefinite article has, sometimes, the ineaning of every or each: as, “They cost five shillings a dozen;' that is, ' every dozen.'
• A man he was to all the country dear, .
And passing rich with forty pounds a year.'-Goldsmith That is, ' every year.'
OF Rule XIII.--The adjective pronouns this, that, these, and those, with the numeral adjectives, must agree in number with the nouns to which they belong. The nouns means and amends are an exception to this remark. Thus we say,' By this means, or that means,' as well as * By these means.". He gained the approbation of his country, and with this amends he was content.?
The possessive adjective pronouns are not required to agree with their nouns in number; as, ' Our child, our children; your house, their houses.' The distributive adjeca tive pronouns belong to nouns in the singular number only, except where the plural noun conveys a collective idea; as 'Every tree is known by its fruit; each man departed to his home, every six months,' &c.
Persons are apt, in conversation, to use the personal pronoun thein instead of the adjective pronouns these or those; as 'Give me them apples'-a very gross impropriety.
Adjectives are sometimes improperly applied as adverbs: as, 'Indifferent honest; excellent well; miserable poor,' instead of Indifferently honest; excellently well; miserably poor.' He behaved himself conformable to that great example;' (conformably.' 'Endeavour to live hereafter suitable to persons in your station;' 'suitably.'
I can never think so very mean of him;' meanly.' " He describes this river agreeable to the common reading;' agreeably.' Agreeable to my promise, I now write;' agreeably.' Thy exceeding great reward:' When united to an adjective, or adverb not ending in ly, the word exceeding has ly added to it; as, 'exceedingly dreadful, exceedingly great;' exceedingly well, exceedingly more active;' but when it is joined to an adverb or adjective, having that termination, the ly is omitted: as, 'Some men think exceeding clearly, and reason exceeding forcibly:' 'She appeared on this occasion, exceeding lovely:' " He acted in this business bolder than was expected: They behaved the noblest, because they were disinterested.' They should have been, more boldly; most nobly.' --The adjective pronoun such is often misapplied: as, 'He was such an extravagant young man, that he spent his whole patrimony in a few years:' it should be, so extravagant a young man.' I never before saw such large trees:' isang