FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2476   2477   2478   2479   2480   2481   2482   2483   2484   2485   2486   2487   2488   2489   2490   2491   2492   2493   2494   2495   2496   2497   2498   2499   2500  
2501   2502   2503   2504   2505   2506   2507   2508   2509   2510   2511   2512   2513   2514   2515   2516   2517   2518   2519   2520   2521   2522   2523   2524   2525   >>   >|  
r_, has lately been creeping into the language, in the application of these terms to a plurality of objects: as, '_Twenty_ ruffians broke into the house, but _neither_ of them could be recognized.' 'Here are _fifty_ pens, you will find that _either_ of them will do.'"--MATT. HARRISON, _on the English Language_, p. 199. "_Either_ and _neither_, applied to any number more than _one_ of _two_ objects, is a mere solecism, and one of late introduction."--_Ib._, p. 200. Say, "_Either_ OR _neither_," &c.--G. B. [377] Dr. Priestley censures this construction, on the ground, that the word _whole_ is an "_attribute of unity_," and therefore improperly added to a plural noun. But, in fact, this adjective is not _necessarily_ singular, nor is _all_ necessarily plural. Yet there is a difference between the words: _whole_ is equivalent to _all_ only when the noun is singular; for then only do _entireness_ and _totality_ coincide. A man may say, "_the whole thing_," when he means, "_all the thing_;" but he must not call _all things, whole things_. In the following example, _all_ is put for _whole_, and taken substantively; but the expression is a quaint one, because the article and preposition seem needless: "Which doth encompass and embrace the _all_ of things."--_The Dial_, Vol. i, p. 59. [378] This is not a mere repetition of the last example cited under Note 14th above; but it is Murray's interpretation of the text there quoted. Both forms are faulty, but not in the same way.--G. BROWN. [379] Some authors erroneously say, "A _personal_ pronoun does not always agree in person with its antecedent; as, 'John said, _I_ will do it.'"--_Goodenow's Gram._ "When I say, 'Go, and say to those children, you must come in,' you perceive that the noun children is of the _third_ person, but the pronoun you is of the _second_; yet _you_ stands for _children_,"--_Ingersoll's Gram._, p. 54. Here are different speakers, with separate speeches; and these critics are manifestly deceived by the circumstance. It is not to be supposed, that the nouns represented by one speaker's pronouns, are to be found or sought in what an other speaker utters. The pronoun _I_ does not here stand for the noun _John_ which is of the third person; it is John's own word, representing himself as the speaker. The meaning is, _"I myself, John, of the first person, will do it."_ Nor does _you_ stand for _children_ as spoken _of_ by Ingersoll; but for _children_ of the _se
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2476   2477   2478   2479   2480   2481   2482   2483   2484   2485   2486   2487   2488   2489   2490   2491   2492   2493   2494   2495   2496   2497   2498   2499   2500  
2501   2502   2503   2504   2505   2506   2507   2508   2509   2510   2511   2512   2513   2514   2515   2516   2517   2518   2519   2520   2521   2522   2523   2524   2525   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

children

 

person

 

pronoun

 

speaker

 

things

 
plural
 

Ingersoll

 

singular

 

necessarily

 

Either


objects

 

plurality

 
application
 

language

 
Twenty
 

antecedent

 

Goodenow

 
personal
 
Murray
 

ruffians


interpretation

 

quoted

 

authors

 

erroneously

 

faulty

 

creeping

 
utters
 
sought
 

pronouns

 

spoken


representing

 

meaning

 

represented

 

speakers

 
stands
 

separate

 

speeches

 
supposed
 

circumstance

 

critics


manifestly

 

deceived

 
perceive
 

adjective

 

applied

 

improperly

 

Language

 

equivalent

 

difference

 

HARRISON