FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2399   2400   2401   2402   2403   2404   2405   2406   2407   2408   2409   2410   2411   2412   2413   2414   2415   2416   2417   2418   2419   2420   2421   2422   2423  
2424   2425   2426   2427   2428   2429   2430   2431   2432   2433   2434   2435   2436   2437   2438   2439   2440   2441   2442   2443   2444   2445   2446   2447   2448   >>   >|  
though some contend for this last construction. [204] _Whose_ is sometimes used as the possessive case of _which_; as, "A religion _whose_ origin is divine."--_Blair_. See Observations 4th and 5th, on the Classes of Pronouns. [205] After _but_, as in the following sentence, the double relative _what_ is sometimes applied to persons; and it is here equivalent _to the friend who_:-- "Lorenzo, pride repress; nor hope to find A friend, but _what_ has found a friend in thee."--_Young_. [206] Of all these compounds. L. Murray very improperly says, "They are _seldom used_, in modern style."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 54; also _Fisk's_, p. 65. None of them are yet obsolete, though the shorter forms seem to be now generally preferred. The following suggestion of Cobbett's is erroneous; because it implies that the shorter forms are innovations and faults; and because the author carelessly speaks of them as _one thing only_: "We _sometimes_ omit the _so_, and say, _whoever, whomever, whatever_, and even _whosever_. _It is_ a mere _abbreviation_. The _so_ is understood: and, it is best not to omit to write it."--_Eng. Gram._, 209. R. C. Smith dismisses the compound relatives with three lines; and these he closes with the following notion: "_They are not often used!_"--_New Gram._, p. 61. [207] Sanborn, with strange ignorance of the history of those words, teaches thus: "_Mine_ and _thine_ appear to have been formed from _my_ and _thy_ by changing _y_ into _i_ and adding _n_, and then subjoining _e_ to retain the long sound of the vowel."--_Analytical Gram._, p. 92. This false notion, as we learn from his guillemets and a remark in his preface, he borrowed from "Parkhurst's Systematic Introduction." Dr. Lowth says, "The Saxon _Ic_ hath the possessive case _Min; Thu_, possessive _Thin; He_, possessive _His_: From which our possessive cases of the same pronouns are taken _without alteration_."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 23. [208] Latham, with a singularity quite remarkable, reverses this doctrine in respect to the two classes, and says, "_My, thy, our, your, her_, and _their_ signify possession, because they are possessive cases. * * * _Mine, thine, ours, yours, hers, theirs_, signify possession for a different reason. They partake of the nature of _adjectives_, and in all the allied languages are declined as such."--_Latham's Elementary E. Gram._, p. 94. Weld, like Wells, with a few more whose doctrine will be criticised by-a
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2399   2400   2401   2402   2403   2404   2405   2406   2407   2408   2409   2410   2411   2412   2413   2414   2415   2416   2417   2418   2419   2420   2421   2422   2423  
2424   2425   2426   2427   2428   2429   2430   2431   2432   2433   2434   2435   2436   2437   2438   2439   2440   2441   2442   2443   2444   2445   2446   2447   2448   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

possessive

 

friend

 

signify

 

possession

 

doctrine

 
Latham
 

shorter

 

notion

 

Analytical

 

Systematic


Introduction

 

borrowed

 
Parkhurst
 

remark

 
preface
 

guillemets

 

formed

 
criticised
 
history
 

teaches


changing

 

retain

 

subjoining

 

adding

 

respect

 

classes

 
declined
 
languages
 

Elementary

 

allied


adjectives

 

reason

 

partake

 

nature

 
reverses
 

remarkable

 

pronouns

 
singularity
 

alteration

 

ignorance


Lorenzo

 

repress

 
modern
 

Octavo

 

seldom

 

improperly

 

compounds

 

Murray

 

equivalent

 

origin