however, should be done by a pronoun; as by so doing, we distinguish the accusative case from the nominative. If necessary, it should be made in full. Thus the full answer to whom do you say that they seek? is, I say that they seek him. DIRECT. Qu. Who is this ?—Ans. I. Qu. Whose is this?-Ans. His. Qu. Whom do you seek?-Ans. Him. OBLIQUE. Qu. Who do you say that it is?—Ans. He. Qu. Whose do you say that it is?—Ans. His. Qu. Whom do you say that they seek ?-Ans. Him. § 615. Nevertheless, such expressions as whom do they say that it is? are common, especially in oblique questions. And he axed hem and seide, whom seien the people that I am? Thei answereden and seiden, Jon Baptist-and he seide to hem, But whom seien ye that I am?-WYCLIFFE, Luke ix.`, Tell me in sadness whom she is you love. Romeo and Juliet, i. 1. And as John fulfilled his course, he said, whom think ye that I am ?— Acts xiii. 25. This confusion, however, is exceptionable. § 616. When the Copula precedes the Predicate, the question is Categorical, and its answer is Yes or No.Question. Is John at home? Answer. Yes or no as the case may be. When the Predicate precedes the Copula the question is Indefinite, and the answer may be anything whatever. To where is John? we may answer at home, abroad, in the garden, in London, I do not know, &c., &c. CHAPTER XXIV. THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 1 § 617. Ir is necessary that the relative be in the same gender as the antecedent. It is necessary that the relative be in the same number as the antecedent. It is not necessary that the relative be in the same case with the antecedent. 1. John, who trusts me, comes here. 2. John, whom I trust, comes here. 3. John, whose confidence I possess, comes here. 4. I trust John, who trusts me. The reason why the relative must agree with its antecedent in both number and gender, whilst it need not agree with it in case, is found in the following observations. 1. All sentences containing a relative contain two verbs —John who (1) trusts me (2) comes here. 2. Two verbs express two actions-(1) trust, (2) come. 3. Whilst, however, the actions are two in number, the person or thing which does, or suffers, them is single -John. 4. He (she or it) is singular, ex vi termini. The relative expresses the identity between the subjects (or objects) of the two actions. Thus who John, or is another name for John. = 5. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same gender. The John who trusts is necessarily of the same gender with the John who comes. 6. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same number. The number of Johns who trust, is the same as the number of Johns who come. Both these elements of concord are immutable. 7. But a third element of concord is not immutable. The person or thing that is an agent in the one part of the sentence, may be the object of an action in the other. The John whom I trust may trust me also. Hence— (a) I trust John-John the object. (b) John trusts me-John the agent. As the relative is only the antecedent in another form, it may change its case according to the construction. (1) I trust John-(2) John trusts me. (1) I trust John-(2) He trusts me. (1) John-(2) Whom I trust―(1) trusts me. 618. (1.) The books I want are here.-This is a specimen of a true ellipsis. In all such phrases in full, there are three essential elements; (1.) the first proposition; as the books are here; (2.) the second proposition; as I want; (3.) the connecting link-here wanting. § 619. When there are two words in a clause, each of which is capable of being an antecedent, the relative refers to the latter.-Solomon the son of David who slew Goliath is unexceptionable. Not so, however, Solomon the son of David who built the temple. So far as the latter expression is defensible it is defensible on the ground that Solomon-the-son-of-David is a single many-worded name. § 620. Should we say it is I, your master, who command, or it is I, your master, who commands you ?—The sentence contains two propositions. It is I. Who commands you. where 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 is governed not by either the personal pronoun or the substantive, but by the relative 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 saying that: 1. When two antecedents are in the same proposition, the relative agrees with the first. Thus It is I your master Who command you. 2. When 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 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. 1. 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. 2. 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 train of reasoning has been as follows: 1. The person of the second verb is the person of the relative. 2. The person of the relative is that of one of two antecedents. 3. Of such two antecedents the relative agrees with the one which stands in the same proposition with itself. 4. Which position is determined by the connection or want of connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative. The relations of the Relative Pronoun to the Subjunctive will be considered after the Syntax of the Conjunctions has been exhibited. NOTE. I am not sure that this is the true doctrine. I let it stand, however, because it gives a true distinction. It may be better, however, to hold that ordinary substantives like master and John, instead of being, as is generally held, of the third person, are of the person of the pronoun with which they stand in apposition, and that they are only of the third person when they stand alone, or with he, she, or it before them. They are, however, so often in this predicament that it not only seems as if they were so essentially; but it is somewhat difficult to conceive them otherwise. However, if the doctrine of this note be true, master, as long as it is in apposition with I, is of the same person as I. And so is John. If so, expressions like it is I, your master, who commands you, are only excusable excusable on the ground of the apposition being, to some extent, concealed. CHAPTER XXV. THE SYNTAX OF CONJUNCTIONS. § 621. NOTWITHSTANDING their apparent unimportance, few parts of speech require closer consideration than the Conjunctions. The logical view of their character is instructive. Their history is equally interesting and clear. Finally, above all other parts of speech, they exhibit the phenomenon of convertibility. Nor is this doctrine as to their importance new; although, in the present work, |