In English, however, where these distinctive signs are rare, it is by no means easy, in all cases, to separate them. Take, for instance, the word black. It is, doubtless, in its origin, adjectival. As such, we can give it the degrees of comparison, and say (for instance) this ink is black, this is blacker, and that is the blackest of all. But what when we use such an expression as the blacks of Africa or the blacks are falling, where there is the sign of the plural number, a phenomenon wholly unknown to the English Adjective? Surely, we must say that black means black man, or black thing, and that the word is no longer an Adjective but a Substantive. But this is not all. The word may be used as a Verb and a Participle, and the man who has had his shoes blacked may say that the little boy at the corner of the street blacked them. Speaking roughly, we may say that in the English language, the greater part of the words may, as far as their form is concerned, be one part of speech as well as another. Thus the combinations s-a-n-th, or f-r-a-n-k, if they existed at all, might exist as either nouns or verbs, as either substantives or adjectives, as conjunctions, adverbs, or prepositions. This is not the case with the Greek language. There, if a word be a substantive, it will probably end in -s, if an infinitive verb, in -ein, &c. The bearings of this difference between languages like the English and languages like the Greek will soon appear. At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, originally one part of speech (e. g. a noun), may become another (e. g. a verb). This may be called the convertibility of words.

(1.) Adjectives used as substantives. Of these, we have examples in expressions like the blacks of Africathe bitters and sweets of life-all fours were put to the ground; which are true instances of conversion, and are proved to be so by the fact of their taking a plural form.

On the other hand, however, let the blind lead the blind is not an instance of conversion. The word blind in both instances remains an adjective, and is shown to remain so by its being uninflected.

(2.) Particles used as substantives. When King Richard says none of your ifs he uses the word if as a substantive expression of doubt. Again-one long now one long present time.

=

§ 515. Some sentences consist of a single proposition, as-the sun shines; others, of two propositions combined, as-the sun shines, therefore, the day will be fine. This is made plainer by writing the words thus:

The sun shines,
therefore,

The day will be fine.

The Syntax of Single Propositions, being the simplest, comes first under notice.

CHAPTER II.

SYNTAX OF THE PRONOUN-THIS, THAT.

§ 516. A PRONOUN is a variable name which can, by itself, form either the subject or the predicate of a proposition as I am he, that is it. With words like who, what, this, these, that, those, I, thou, we, and the like, this power, on the part of the pronoun, is plain and clear. All such words comport themselves as substantives; from which they differ, not in respect to the place which they can take in a proposition, but in respect to the principle upon which they do so. The substantive is a fixed, permanent, and inconvertible name: the pronoun, on

the other hand, is convertible or variable. But the aforesaid words which so decidedly share the nature of substantives, are not the only pronouns. There are, besides, such words as some, any, many, of which the character is adjectival rather than substantival. Still, they can form terms; and that by themselves. At the same time they are often accompanied by a substantive, and, in some cases, almost require one. In expressions like some are here, any will do, many are called, &c., the substantive, to which they are the equivalent, can generally be inserted with advantage; so that we may say, some men, any instrument, many individuals. All the pronouns of this class are undeclined. The nearest approaches to an exception to the foregoing statement are supplied by the word same, and the ordinals; which, instead of standing quite alone, are generally preceded by the definite article, so that we say the same, the first, &c. Here, however, the article is to be looked on as part of the pronoun. For a further elucidation of this, as well as for the nature of the article itself, see below. The etymology of the pronoun preceded that of the substantive, on account of the pronominal inflection being the fuller. For the same reason, the syntax of the pronoun comes first. That, however, of the relatives and interrogatives finds no place for the present. It belongs to the syntax of compound propositions. That of the demonstratives, so long as they keep their original demonstrative power, is simple, being limited to this, these, that, those, and yon. The simple demonstrative power, however, often passes into something else: a fact which gives us the syntax of the pronoun of the third person, along with that of the indeterminate pronoun, and that of the definite article; all of which will be illustrated as we proceed. In origin, however, all these are demonstratives.

§ 517. This and that.-The chief point of syntax con

nected with the pure demonstrative is one that is suggested by the following well-known quotation :—

Quocunque aspicies nihil est nisi pontus et aer;

Nubibus hic tumidus, fluctibus ille minax.

Here hic (this or the one) refers to the antecedent last named (the air); whilst ille (that or the other) refers to the antecedent first named (the sea). On the strength of this example, combined with others, it is laid down as a rule in Latin that this refers to the last, and that to the first, antecedent. What is the rule in English? Suppose we say John's is a good sword and so is Charles's; this cut through a thick rope, that cut through an iron rod. In determining to which of the two swords the respective demonstratives refer, the meaning will not help us at all, so that our only recourse is to the rules of grammar; and it is the opinion of the present writer that the rules of grammar will help us just as little. The Latin rule is adopted by scholars, but still it is a Latin rule rather than an English one. It is, probably, a question which no authority can settle; and all that grammar can tell us is, that this refers to the name of the idea which is logically the most close at hand, and that to the idea which is logically the most distant. What constitutes nearness or distance of ideas-in other words, what determines their sequence-is another question.

CHAPTER III.

SYNTAX OF THE PRONOUN.-YOU.-1.-HIS AND HER.ITS.

518. You. As far as the practice of the present mode of speech is concerned, the word you is a nominative form; since we say you move, you are moving, you were speaking. Why should it not be treated as such?

There is no absolute reason why it should not. The Anglo-Saxon form for you was eow; for ye, gi. Neither word bears any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are equally and indifferently nominative and accusative, as the habit of language may make them. Hence it, perhaps, is more logical to say that a certain form (you) is used either as a nominative or accusative, than to say that the accusative case is used instead of a nominative; for it is clear that you can be used instead of ye only so far as it is nominative in power.

§ 519. Dr. Guest has remarked that at one time the two forms were nearly changing place; in evidence of which he gives the following examples :

As I have made ye one, lords, one remain;

So I go stronger you more honour gain.

Henry VIII. iv. 2.

What gain you by forbidding it to teaze ye,

It now can neither trouble you nor please ye.-Dryden.

§ 520. Me.-Carrying out the views just laid down, and admitting you to be a nominative, or quasi-nominative case, we may extend the reasoning to the word me, and call it a secondary nominative; inasmuch as such phrases as it is me it is I, are common. To call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No one says that c'est moi is bad French and that c'est je is good. The fact is, that, with us, the whole question is a question of degree. Has or has not the custom been sufficiently prevalent to have transferred the forms me, ye, and you from one case to another? Or, perhaps, we may say, is there any real custom at all in favour of I except so far as the grammarians have made one? It is clear that the French analogy is against it. It is also clear that the personal pronoun as a Predicate may be in a different category from the personal pronoun as a Subject. See § 533.