Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

considered here are who, what, whether and which. Only who has preserved case forms, what and which make up by of and to for the lost case forms; the obsolete whether no longer forms any

cases.

Plural forms are not distinguished from singular forms, so far as these pronouns are used in the plural.

[blocks in formation]

Sing. and Plur.: Nom. what, quid? and qualis? qui? Angl. hvät, Old

Gen. of what

Dat. to what

Acc. what

Engl. what
Anglosaxon hväs
Anglos. hvam
(hväm)
Anglos. hvät

Sing. and Plur.: Nom. which, quis, quid? properly qualis, quale? Anglosaxon hvylic, hvyle, hvile, Old-English whilk, whiche. Genitive of which. Dative to which. Acc. which.

Singular: Nom. and Acc. whether, uter, utra, utrum? Anglos. hväder, Old-English wether, wheder.

Who asks after persons; its old genitive corresponds only to the possessive genitive relation: Whose shall Monimia be? No matter whose (OTWAY). Whose is the crime, but the false satrap's? (L. BrRON). The Anglosaxon Instrumental, which was common to hva and the neuter hvat, hvŷ, hvê, hû, has transformed itself into the adverbial why? and how? The form of the dative has, as with other pronouns, become that of the oblique cases.

[ocr errors]

What, properly the neuter of who, still stands disconnected as a neuter; it then asks after the What of the thing and the nature of the thing: What's the matter? What is it, my dear? (DICKENS). What are you doing? (WEBST.). Yet this disconnected what also asks er the quality of persons: What are you? as in Old-Fnglish and Anglosaxon: What is this womman, quod I, So worthili atired? (PIERS PLOUHGM. p. 29.). But what they were, nothing yit he woot CHAUCER 1705.). Anglosaxon: Hvät is pes? Quis est hic? (MATTH. 4, 41). And thus this neutral what passes from the predicative into the attributive relation and stands as an adjective with substantives, as qualis, qui? in the plural as well as in the singular: I know what book that is (WEBST). What cause withholds you then to mourn for him? (SHAKSPEARE J. C.). On the tendency of the same work, what three people will agree? (BULWER). Whereas hvät in Anglosaxon has only a genitive after it, Old-English even makes that transition: What man.. schuld of his wepynge stinte? (CHAUCER 2, p. 324.

Wright). The union of what with an a added, often in an emotional question, in use as in Highdutch for centuries, rests upon the same process: What a fair lady! and beside her What a handsome, graceful, noble rider! (LONGFELLOW). Even Old-English has which a: Either asked oother.. Which a light and a leme Lay bifore helle (PIERS PLOUGHMAN p. 376.). The für inserted in was für ein in Highdutch, to be pointed out in Germany since the sixteenth century, is so also in English: What is he for a vicar? what is he for a lad? (HALLIWELL V. for), even in Palsgrave. For here expresses originally the determination of a purpose, which touches on the idea of equality; united with the what, which asks after the quality of the thing, it makes up the question for the notion of a sort: What is he, for a vicar? What, in his purpose as a vicar, is he? For what as an indefinite pronoun see below: somewhat.

=

Which even in its Anglosaxon fundamental form, unites with the meaning qualis? the meaning quis?: Heyle is mîn môdor? (MARC. 3, 33) Who is my mother? and the French quel? and lequel? It asks partly after the quality of an object, partly after the object which is to be determined among several with regard to its outward existence, and stands, both connectedly and disconnectedly, both for persons and things: Which woman was it? Which is the house? (WEBST.). Which is the villain?.. Which of these is he? (SHAKSP. Much Ado &c.). Butler consented to perform the salute without marking for which of the two princes it was intended (MACAULAY). The spring, the summer, The childing autumn, angry winter, change Their wonted liveries; and the 'mazed world, By their increase, now knows not which is which (SHAKSP. Mids. N Dr. 2, 1.). With the last passage compare the Old-English: Sche wiste nat who was who (CHAUCER 4299.); and below: whether.

[ocr errors]

Whether which of two, which is equivalent to the conjunction utrum, an, as well as in Anglosaxon, stood in Anglosaxon both connectedly and disconnectedly, and, as being of three genders, referred to persons and things. It is now obsolete; the translation of the bible, presents it: Whether of them twain did the will of his father (MATTH. 21. 31.). Whether is greater, the gift or the altar? (23, 19.). Shew whether of these two thou hast chosen (ACTS 1, 24.). The popular language has: I can not tell whether is whether "I cannot distinguish the one from the other."

D. The Relative Pronoun.

The relative pronoun points to a preceding or supposed substantive notion. It is adapted to avoid the repetition of a preceding substantive, and, at the same time, undertakes the connecting of sentences.

We discriminate adjective and substantive pronouns of this class. Both sorts of pronouns have no peculiar forms, but are originally interrogative pronouns, or a demonstrative pronoun, whose inflection has been already glanced at.

The adjective ones, pointing back to a substantive notion, are the interrogative which and the demonstrative that; to these the originally substantive interrogative who has associated itself. Who and

Mätzner, engl. Gr. I.

20

what are substantive ones, for which, in their reference to a presupposed person or thing, a relative pronoun might be substituted. That, as originally neuter, therefore also of a substantive nature, betrays also here and there this twofold character. Moreover, relative sentences often border hard on indirect interrogative sentences, whereby many peculiar applications of pronouns originally interrogative are to be explained.

In Anglosaxon a relative pronoun was wholly wanting. To express the relation backwards it either used the indeclinable particle pe, alone or in conjunction with the demonstrative se, seó, pät, to which it was suffixed, as it was prefixed to the pronoun he, heó, hit.

Which is by its nature adapted to be referred to names both of persons and of things, and thus it was used in reference to both in Old-English, in which moreover that primarily prevailed as a relative pronoun: She whiche salle bere a chylde (TOWNEL. MYST. p. 67.). A preest. . which was so pleasant (CHAUCER 16482. Tyrwh.). It was commonly accompanied by the article the, perhaps occasioned by the Old-French liquels: That lond. . the whiche is the same lond &c. (MAUNDEV. p. 33.). The lond of Judee in the whiche is Jerusalem (p. 8.). Fro the sentence of this tretys lite After the which this litil tale I write (CHAUCER 15371.); so too in modern times: Of God the whych is permanent (SKELTON I. 199.). I could point a way, the which pursuing You shall. . give the realm much worthy cause to thank you (RowE). This is your brothers impudent doctrine; for the which I have banished him &c. (MACKLIN). 'Twas a foolish quest The which to gain and keep, he sacrificed all rest (L. BYRON). This mode of expression is, on the whole, obsolete.

Even with a particle that after it, which was also frequently given in addition to other relatives and conjunctions in Old-English, which came in: A doughter which that called was Sophie (CHAUCER II. p. 323. Wright). Thy frend, which that thou hast lorn (p. 325.); this even late: Theis yatis. . which that ye beholde (SKELTON I. 384.). The more particular discussion of this particle, which, in the dependent sentence, often appears superfluous, belongs to syntax.

Which is at present referred almost exclusively to things and irrational beings; to persons only so far as they, like children, may also be denoted by the neuter it. In the language of the Bible, as in the Lords prayer (Our father which art in Heaven), in Shakspeare and here and there afterwards the reference to persons takes place. In adjective conjunction with a repeated substantive, we find, however, no scruple: This man, which man, which very man &c. (SMART). Such repetition of a preceding substantive is familiar to Old-English: In Ebron ben alle the sepultures.. the whiche sepultures the Sarazines kepen fulle curiously (MAUNDEV. p. 66.). Upon certain points and cas: Amonges the which points &c. (CHAUCER 2973. Tyrwh.). It also takes place in Modern-English where the name of a kind takes the place of a proper name: She took the opportunity of the coach which was yoing to Bath; for which place she set out &c. (FIELDING); and so forth. As a neuter it is also referred to preceding sentences or limbs of sentences: The man was said to be innocent, which he was not (WEBST.). We are bound to obey all the Divine commands, which

we cannot do without Divine aid (ID.). In such case a substantive, comprehending the contents of a preceding sentence or limb of a sentence as the subject of the reference, is also frequently given to the relative: Douglas was then ordained to be put into the abbey of Lindores, to which sentence he submitted calmly (W. SCOTT).

That from the earliest times has been, as a relative pronoun, referred to persons as well as things. Old-English: He that wil pupplische ony thing (MAUNDEV. p. 2.). Seynt Elyne, that was modre to Constantyn (p. 12.). Thise werkmen That werchen and waken (PIERS PLOUGHм. p. 361.). For the life that thay leyd (TowNEL MYST. p. 30.). Modern-English: Are ye not he, that frights the maidens of the villagery (SHAKSP. Mids. N. Dr.). Wake, wake! all ye that sleep! (LONGFELLOW). The songs and fables that are come from father to son (ADDISON).

Since that is originally a neuter, is might be also employed substantively for what. Old-English: po he hadde pat he wolde (ROB. OF GLOUCESTER I. 166.). I wille not tyne that I have wroght (TOWNEL. MYST. p. 72.). Tak thou thi part, and that men wil the gyven (CHAUCER 7113.). Modern-English: Stand, Sir, and throw us that you have about you (SHAKSP. Two Gentlem. &c.). Do that is righteous, (SMART). This usage is obsolete.

The particle that is also found redundantly added to this pronoun. Old-English: Fro the lond of Galilee, of that that I have spoke (MAUNDEV. p. 122.). Thus perhaps is also explained the turn of Shakspeare: That that I did, I was set on to do't by Sir Toby (Tw. Night).

Who, although of substantive nature, is chiefly used in ModernEnglish as a relative pronoun in relation to substantives or substantive pronouns. It is natural that this masculine and feminine pronoun, originally referred to persons, with its cases, remains, as a relative, restricted to persons and personified objects alone. But that the genitive whose is referred both to persons and things is no less justified, the Anglosaxon hväs belonging to all three genders: Harold, who had succeeded Edward the Confessor (W. SCOTT). Many gallant knights, who were not his subjects (ID.). He who escapes from death (FIELDING). Plenty who was his first counsellor (ADDISON). Thy brown groves whose shadow the dismissed bachelor loves. (SHAKSP. Temp.).

Where the masculine and feminine who, whom are referred to collectives, the reference to persons, which the collective name includes in itself, forms the standard, whereas, in another regard, another relative may also come in: The multitude, who are more attracted by the external.. sources of interest (BULWER).

Who is seldom employed as a relative in Old-English: This clerk, whos rethorique swete Enlumynd al Ytail of philosophie (CHAUCER 7908.). More frequent is the who used substantively: Who hath no wyf, he is no cokewold (CHAUCER 3154.); where the following he does not quite degrade the who to a correlative; this emphatic, repeating he is certainly rarely wanting. The particle that is also annexed to the who: Who that janglis any more He must blaw my blak hoille bore (TOWNEL. MYST. p. 8.). A remnant of this substan

tive who is the, as who would say, still is use, French comme qui dirait. Compare Old-English: The name as yet of her Amonges the people, as who sayth, halowed is (CHAUCER Troil. and Cr. III. 268.), and often.

But in Old-English the adverb so is more common with the substantive who: whoso, also whose, quicunque, whereby the generalization of the notion is indicated, corresponding to the Anglosaxon sva hva svâ, to which a neuter what so, Anglosaxon sva hvät svâ, quodcunque, stood opposed, in which Old-English cast off the preceding sva, as the correlative of the succeeding hva, hvat. To this was added sva hvyle svâ (whichso), quicunque: Who so dothe, put them in hold (TOWNEL. MYST. p. 67.). Who so wole my juggement withseie (CHAUCER 807.). Let him say to me What so him list (6872.) &c. Modern-English has whosoever, whatsoever, whichsoever; whoever, whathever, whichever, which are employed analogously to the who, what, which. The forms with a simple so are now

rarer.

What stands in the first instance as a substantive pronoun: This is what I wanted (MURRAY), Do what you will (WEBST.). All the time that he had appeared so indifferent to what was going on (DICKENS). Yet it also stands adjectively, like the interrogative what, if the substantive of the principal sentence has been attracted into the dependent sentence: The entertainer provides what fare he pleases (FIELDING).

Where it is used alone with reference to a preceding substantive, it regularly corresponds not to the which, but at the same time takes the place of a demonstrative correlative: All fevers, except what are called nervous (MURRAY), for which those which might stand. To this substitution it is adapted by its primitive substantive nature. Solitary interchanges of what with that or which certainly occur. The details belong to syntax. Old-English also often adds the particle that to the what: Every man crieth and clatereth what that him liketh (CHAUCER II. p. 332. Wright).

E. The Indefinite Pronoun.

The class of indefinite pronouns, whose notional limitation it is hard to define, comprises words which are employed partly adjectively, partly substantively, but mostly in both modes. They denote objects and qualities in the most general and indefinite manner, mostly according to quantity, which, however appears neither as a definite unity or multiplicity, nor as a totality measured by a fixed numerical magnitude. So far as they refer to number generally they are also called indeterminate numerals. They are also partly of negative nature, with the meaning of the sublation of a determination of quantity, as; none, neither, nought. By their origin they belong primarily to the Anglosaxon, a few are taken from the Old-French. They are partly simple, partly compound. Some belong originally to other classes of nouns, as one, divers, several &c., and are weakened in their meaning. As for their declination, one, other, either and neither, and even others, may assume the s of the geni

« ZurückWeiter »