man you spoke of;" that is, "I saw the man of whom you spoke." "The horses I bought are dead;" that is, "The horses which I bought, are dead." "The life he spent was a bad one;" that is, "The life which he spent was a bad one."

2. The relative sometimes has respect not to a noun as antecedent, but to some other word, frequently a pronominal adjective; in which case the concord of the relative is determined by the sense: thus-"In the same year was published my Inquiry, which, in my own opinion, who ought not to judge on that subject, is, of all my writings, incomparably the best."-Hume.

"For my own part, who must confess it to my shame, that I never read anything but for pleasure."-Dryden. "In the general warfare of the age, the advantage was on their side who were most commonly the assailants."Gibbon.

NOTE. The classical scholar is not to be reminded that this is a principle so universally acknowledged as to be embodied in a distinct rule in the Latin grammars. The following is an example thereof from Terence "Omnes laudare fortunas meas qui filium haberem."

3. "Aristides was a man than whom no one ever was more just." This is a very common sort of expression, and yet it is grammatically incorrect. In the example as given there are two propositions "Aristides was a man; no one was ever more just than Aristides." It is evident that the relative whom is intended as a substitute for Aristides, and therefore must be in the case in which Aristides would be, if expressed; this case is in the nominative, as will appear from concluding the sense-"No one ever was more just than Aristides was;" hence the expression should be than who. It is difficult to account for the prevalence of the form, than whom; unless it be that it arose in the disposition of classical scholars to imitate the usage of the classical languages-justior quo-wherein there is no Latin for the particle than, and the relative is in a case not the nominative.

4. That, as a relative, is substituted for who and which :— (i.) After adjectives in the superlative degree; as, "Solomon was the wisest man that ever lived."

(ii.) When the antecedent consists of two words, one requiring the relative who; the other, which; as, "The man and the dog that were found in the snow, are recognised." (iii.) After the pronoun who used interrogatively; as, "Who that regards his character can act so?"

(iv.) As the relative of same; as, "The same individual that we met yesterday."

(v.) After expressions relating to time; as, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

is equivalent to in which.

Here that

NOTE. In such expressions as the last, that is frequently omitted; as, "From the moment he arrived till he de

parted."

5. What is often vulgarly used for that; as, "They did not understand but what they would be sent for." In this expression, however, and similar ones, the word that is rather a conjunction than a pronoun.

6. Which is often questionably used for that: as, "After which time;" this should be, "that or this time." (See Observation 11. on the etymology of the Adjective.)

7. It is further to be remarked, with regard to that used relatively, that it seldom, if ever, follows a verb or preposition. We say "The man to whom (not to that) I wrote yesterday." "There met us a robber, having vanquished whom (not that) we went on our way.'

8. From what has been said it is manifest that certain relatives may be used as substitutes for others; care must be taken, however, that in complex sentences (should a necessity arise to introduce the relative more than once) the same relative be used. Mob is a noun; to represent which we use who or which indiscriminately. We say"The mob, who now amounted to 500 individuals, and whom (not which) the force in the barracks was insufficient to resist;" or, "The mob, which now amounted to 500 individuals, and which (not whom) the force in the barracks was insufficient to resist."

9. The infinitive mood is often used absolutely, to express a purpose, after the relative pronoun: thus "Everything has been done by which to induce him to alter his mind." The infinitive so used depends on some word or words understood, by which it was possible to induce," &c. &c.

10. An adverb of place frequently stands in the position of the relative: thus-"He now entered the chamber, where he found the letter"=" in which."

11. In the introductory remarks on Syntax, it was laid down that the relative should follow its antecedent as closely as possible. Of this principle the following will serve as an illustration: "Philip, the father of Alexander, who founded the Macedonian Empire." Here it is impossible to discover grammatically which noun-Alexander or Philip -is the antecedent to who. Latham defends such phraseology, by supposing such an expression as "Philip, the father of Alexander," a single many-worded name, serving as the antecedent of who. To this defence it may be objected, Who is to determine when the writer intends such an expression to be so understood? There are many ways of avoiding such obscurities-" Philip, who was the father of Alexander, and who founded the Macedonian Empire," will serve as a specimen.

12. The words that ask and answer a question should be in the same case. As

(i.) Who is there?—I (not me).

(ii) Whom do you seek?-Him (not he).

(iii.) Whose book is this?-His (not he or him). (iv.) Who do men say that I am?—He (not him). NOTE. The answers to the foregoing questions are supplied by pronouns, in order that the case of the answering word may the more easily be discerned; the same principle guides as to the case of the noun used to answer a ques

tion.

13. "Somebody, I don't know who told me." In such expression, who, not whom, is correct. Whom must not be used as though it were the object of the transitive verb know the object of this verb is understood; and the sentence, when fully expressed, would read thus:- "Somebody, I don't know the person who told me, told me." Or more euphoniously-"Somebody told me; I don't know the person who told me."

14. "He threatened death to whoever would oppose him." Here the word governed by the preposition to is omitted; and whoever, its relative, is the nominative to the verb would oppose. This formula is a strong one, and used

when there is intended no exception to the general statement made thereby. The sentence fully expressed is equal in meaning to the following: :- "He threatened death to the man, whoever he should be, that would oppose him."(See Observation 11. on the etymology of the Relative Pronoun.)

"The

15. Pleonasms of pronouns should be avoided. ship that sailed yesterday, she is reported as lost." Here she is pleonastic; as it and ship are both the subject of the same verb, is reported.

NOTE.-On some occasions, for the sake of emphasis, in highly impassioned language, such pleonasms are allowable, and even beautiful. "The Lord, he is the God," (1 Kings xviii. 39,) is a well-known example. The foregoing observations, in addition to those previously made on the etymology of Pronouns, will, it is hoped, be sufficient to illustrate practically the usage of this important class of words. Should the student have any difficulty in determining the grammatical position of any pronoun in a sentence which he may desire either to analyze or construct, by seeking out the noun for which such pronoun is intended to be a substitute, and treating the latter in all respects as he would the noun itself, his difficulty will vanish.

RULE IX.-ON THE PARTICIPLES.

Participles govern the same case as the verbs from which they are derived: as, "I was weary with hearing him;" wherein him is in the objective case, governed by the participle hearing; the verb to hear being transitive, and, as such, governing the objective case.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE PARTICIPLES.

1. The Present Participle is capable of being treated as a noun in all respects. As, "By the learning of languages the intellectual faculties are strengthened;" here learning, which is a participle, is treated as a noun; and, as such,

placed in a state of government under the preposition by; it has also the prepositional complement " of languages," as if it were a noun.

NOTE. The present participle, when so used, requires the before it, and of after it; as, "By the observing of these laws, you will be able to decide for yourself."

2. The same idea is expressible by the simple participle, as by the participle with the foregoing construction: thus we say, "The judge is engaged with the hearing of a case:" or, "The judge is engaged with (or in) hearing a case."

NOTE. In many instances, however, the ideas expressed by the two participles with the foregoing constructions are wholly different, and great care should be employed in order that the form used should express adequately the idea intended; thus, "He made his statement in the hearing of three persons;" and, "They occupied an hour in hearing him," express ideas, as far as the agent of the act of hearing is considered, wholly different.

3. The present participle, when a possessive case of a pronoun precedes it, sometimes is, and sometimes is not, followed by of. Thus, "His observing of the rules proved his safety;" "By his neglecting his duties he displeased his employers."

4. When a preposition, or the infinitive mood, follows the present participle used as a noun, of is not allowable. Thus, "Their leaning too much on the help of friends, destroys all self-reliance;" "Their refusing to ratify the treaty brought on war.'

5. The present participle is not only passively governed as a noun, but has an active government similar to that which the noun has. Thus, "Great good will result from the student's reflecting seriously;" wherein student's is the possessive complement of, and governed by, reflecting,

as a noun.

NOTE. In some instances a confusion of ideas might result from such use of the participle without sufficient care. "What is your opinion as to my servant leaving to-morrow?" "What is your opinion as to my servant's leaving to-day ?" Herein are expressed two ideas, very widely different. In the first expression, the meaning is, "Do you think it is advisable or not that my servant should leave?" In the second, there is an admission that the ser