FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231  
232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   >>   >|  
re of complex subjects of the kind in question, combined with a rule concerning the position of the subject, which will soon be laid down, I believe that, for all single propositions, the foregoing rule is absolute. _Rule._--In all single propositions the verb agrees in person with the noun (whether substantive or pronoun) which comes first. s. 477. But the expression _it is I your master, who command_ (or _commands_) you, is not a single proposition. It is a sentence containing two propositions. 1. _It is I._ 2. _Who commands you._ Here the word _master_ is, so to say, undistributed. It may belong to either clause of the sentence, i.e., the whole sentence may be divided into Either--_it is I your master_-- Or--_your master who commands you_. This is the first point to observe. The next is that the verb in the second clause (_command_ or _commands_) is governed, not by either the personal pronoun or the substantive, but by the relative, i.e., in the particular case before us, not by either _I_ or _master_, but by _who_. And this brings us to the following question--with which of the two antecedents does the _relative_ agree? with _I_ or with _master_? This may be answered by the two following rules;-- _Rule 1._--When the two antecedents are in the same proposition, the relative agrees with the first. Thus-- 1. It is _I_ your _master_-- 2. Who _command_ you. _Rule 2._--When the two antecedents are in different propositions, the relative agrees with the second. Thus-- 1. It is _I_-- 2. Your _master_ who _commands_ you. This, however, is not all. What determines whether the two antecedents shall be in the same or in different propositions? I believe that the following rules for what may be called _the distribution of the substantive antecedent_ will bear criticism. _Rule 1._ That when there is any natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the second clause. Thus, in the expression just quoted, the word _master_ is logically connected with the word _command_; and this fact makes the expression, _It is I your master who commands you_ the better of the two. _Rule 2._ That when there is no natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the first clause. _It is I, John, who command_ (not _commands_) _you_. To recapitulate, the tr
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231  
232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
master
 

commands

 

relative

 

antecedent

 

substantive

 

propositions

 

command

 

clause


antecedents

 
sentence
 

expression

 

governed

 

single

 

agrees

 

connection

 

belongs


natural

 
question
 
pronoun
 
proposition
 

determines

 

answered

 

called

 

recapitulate


connected

 

logically

 

criticism

 

foregoing

 
quoted
 

distribution

 
combined
 
undistributed

belong

 
position
 
subject
 
divided
 

subjects

 

personal

 
complex
 
brings

absolute
 

Either

 

person

 
observe