RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
Function of the relative
pronoun.
104. Relative
pronouns differ from both personal and interrogative pronouns in referring
to an antecedent, and also in having a conjunctive use. The advantage in using
them is to unite short statements into longer sentences, and so to make
smoother discourse. Thus we may say, "The last of all the Bards was he. These
bards sang of Border chivalry." Or, it may be shortened into,—
"The last of all the Bards was
he,
Who sung of Border chivalry."
In the latter sentence, who evidently refers to
Bards, which is called the antecedent of the relative.
The antecedent.
105. The antecedent
of a pronoun is the noun, pronoun, or other word or expression, for which the
pronoun stands. It usually precedes the pronoun.
Personal pronouns of the third person may have antecedents
also, as they take the place usually of a word already used; as,—
The priest hath his fee who comes and shrives
us.—Lowell
In this, both his and who have the
antecedent priest.
The pronoun
which may have its antecedent following, and the antecedent may be a
word or a group of words, as will be shown in the remarks on which
below.
Two kinds.
106. Relatives may be
SIMPLE or INDEFINITE.
When the word relative is used, a simple relative
is meant. Indefinite relatives, and the indefinite use of simple relatives,
will be discussed further on.
The SIMPLE RELATIVES are who, which,
that, what.
Who and its forms.
107. Examples of the
relative who and its forms:—
1. Has a man gained anything who has received a
hundred favors and rendered none?—Emerson.
2. That man is little to be envied whose
patriotism would not gain force upon the plain of Marathon.—Dr Johnson.
3.
For her enchanting
son,
Whom universal nature did lament.
—Milton.
4. The nurse came to us, who were sitting in an
adjoining apartment.—Thackeray.
5.
Ye mariners of
England,
That guard our native seas;
Whose flag has braved, a thousand years,
The battle and the breeze!
—Campbell.
6. The men whom men respect, the women
whom women approve, are the men and women who bless their
species.—Parton
Which and its forms.
108. Examples of the
relative which and its forms:—
1. They had not their own luster, but the look
which is not of the earth.—Byron.
2.
The embattled portal arch he
pass'd,
Whose ponderous grate and massy bar
Had oft roll'd back the tide of war.
—Scott.
3. Generally speaking, the dogs which stray
around the butcher shops restrain their
appetites.—Cox.
4. The origin of language is divine, in the same sense
in which man's nature, with all its capabilities ..., is a divine
creation.—W. D. Whitney. 5.
(a) This gradation ... ought to be kept in
view; else this description will seem exaggerated, which it certainly is
not.—Burke.
(b) The snow was three inches deep and still
falling, which prevented him from taking his usual ride.—Irving.
That.
109. Examples of the
relative that:—
1.
The man that hath no
music in himself,...
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and
spoils.
—Shakespeare
2. The judge ... bought up all the pigs that
could be had.—Lamb
3. Nature and books belong to the eyes that see
them.—Emerson.
4. For the sake of country a man is told to yield
everything that makes the land honorable.—H.
W. Beecher
5. Reader, that do not pretend to have leisure
for very much scholarship, you will not be angry with me for telling you.—De Quincey.
6. The Tree Igdrasil, that has its roots down in
the kingdoms of Hela and Death, and whose boughs overspread the highest
heaven!—Carlyle.
What.
110. Examples of the use of
the relative what:—
1. Its net to entangle the enemy seems to be what
it chiefly trusts to, and what it takes most pains to render as complete
as possible.—Goldsmith.
2. For what he sought below is passed above,
Already done is all that he would do.—Margaret
Fuller.
3. Some of our readers may have seen in India a crowd of
crows picking a sick vulture to death, no bad type of what often happens
in that country.—Macaulay
[To the Teacher.—If pupils work over the
above sentences carefully, and test every remark in the following paragraphs,
they will get a much better understanding of the relatives.]
REMARKS ON THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
Who.
111. By reading carefully
the sentences in Sec. 107, the following facts will be noticed about the
relative who:—
(1) It usually refers to persons: thus, in the first
sentence, Sec. 107, a man...who; in the second, that man...whose;
in the third, son, whom; and so on.
(2) It has three case forms,—who,
whose, whom.
(3) The forms do not change for person or number of the
antecedent. In sentence 4, who is first person; in 5, whose is
second person; the others are all third person. In 1, 2, and 3, the relatives
are singular; in 4, 5, and 6, they are plural.
Who referring to animals.
112. Though in most cases
who refers to persons there are instances found where it refers to
animals. It has been seen (Sec. 24) that animals are referred to by personal
pronouns when their characteristics or habits are such as to render them
important or interesting to man. Probably on the same principle the personal
relative who is used not infrequently in literature, referring to
animals.
Witness the following examples:—
And you, warm little housekeeper [the cricket],
who class With those who think the candles come too soon.—Leigh Hunt.
The robins...have succeeded in driving off the bluejays
who used to build in our pines.—Lowell.
The little gorilla, whose wound I had dressed,
flung its arms around my neck.—Thackeray.
A lake frequented by every fowl whom Nature has
taught to dip the wing in water.—Dr.
Johnson.
While we had such plenty of domestic insects who
infinitely excelled the former, because they understood how to weave as well as
to spin.—Swift.
My horse, who, under his former rider had hunted
the buffalo, seemed as much excited as myself.—Irving.
Other examples might be quoted from Burke, Kingsley,
Smollett, Scott, Cooper, Gibbon, and others.
Which.
113. The sentences in Sec.
108 show that—
(1) Which refers to animals, things, or ideas, not
persons.
(2) It is not inflected for gender or number.
(3) It is nearly always third person, rarely second (an
example of its use as second person is given in sentence 32, p. 96).
(4) It has two case forms,—which for the
nominative and objective, whose for the possessive.
Examples of whose, possessive
case of which.
114. Grammarians sometimes
object to the statement that whose is the possessive of which,
saying that the phrase of which should always be used instead; yet a
search in literature shows that the possessive form whose is quite
common in prose as well as in poetry: for example,—
I swept the horizon, and saw at one glance the glorious
elevations, on whose tops the sun kindled all the melodies and harmonies
of light.—Beecher.
Men may be ready to fight to the death, and to persecute
without pity, for a religion whose creed they do not understand, and
whose precepts they habitually disobey.—Macaulay
Beneath these sluggish waves lay the once proud cities
of the plain, whose grave was dug by the thunder of the heavens.—Scott.
Many great and opulent cities whose population
now exceeds that of Virginia during the Revolution, and whose names are
spoken in the remotest corner of the civilized world.—Mcmaster.
Through the heavy door whose bronze network
closes the place of his rest, let us enter the church itself.—Ruskin.
This moribund '61, whose career of life is just
coming to its terminus.—Thackeray.
So in Matthew Arnold, Kingsley, Burke, and numerous
others.
Which and its antecedents.
115. The last two sentences
in Sec. 108 show that which may have other antecedents than nouns and
pronouns. In 5 (a) there is a participial adjective used as the
antecedent; in 5 (b) there is a complete clause employed as antecedent.
This often occurs.
Sometimes, too, the antecedent follows which;
thus,—
And, which is worse, all you
have done
Hath been but for a wayward
son.
—Shakespeare.
Primarily, which is very notable and curious, I observe
that men of business rarely know the meaning of the word "rich."—Ruskin.
I demurred to this honorary title upon two
grounds,—first, as being one toward which I had no natural aptitudes or
predisposing advantages; secondly (which made her stare), as carrying with
it no real or enviable distinction.—De
Quincey.
That.
116. In the sentences of
Sec. 109, we notice that—
(1) That refers to persons, animals, and
things.
(2) It has only one case form, no possessive.
(3) It is the same form for first, second, and third
persons.
(4) It has the same form for singular and plural.
It sometimes borrows
the possessive whose, as in sentence 6, Sec. 109, but this is not
sanctioned as good usage.
What.
117. The sentences of Sec.
110 show that—
(1) What always refers to things; is always
neuter.
(2) It is used almost entirely in the singular.
(3) Its antecedent is hardly ever expressed. When
expressed, it usually follows, and is emphatic; as, for example,—
What I would, that do I not; but what I hate,
that do I.—Bible
What fates impose, that men must needs
abide.—Shakespeare.
What a man does, that he has.—Emerson.
Compare this:—
Alas! is it not too true, what we said?—Carlyle.
DECLENSION OF RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
118. These are the forms of
the simple relatives:—
|
SINGULAR AND PLURAL. |
| Nom. |
who |
which |
that |
what |
| Poss. |
whose |
whose |
— |
— |
| Obj. |
whom |
which |
that |
what |
HOW TO PARSE RELATIVES.
119. The gender,
number, and person of the relatives who, which, and
that must be determined by those of the antecedent; the case
depends upon the function of the relative in its own clause.
For example, consider the following sentence:
"He uttered truths that wrought upon and molded
the lives of those who heard him."
Since the relatives hold the sentence together, we can, by
taking them out, let the sentence fall apart into three divisions: (1) "He
uttered truths;" (2) "The truths wrought upon and molded the lives of the
people;" (3) "These people heard him."
That evidently refers to truths,
consequently is neuter, third person, plural number. Who plainly stands
for those or the people, either of which would be neuter, third
person, plural number. Here the relative agrees with its antecedent.
We cannot say the relative agrees with its antecedent in
case. Truths in sentence (2), above, is subject of wrought
upon and molded; in (1), it is object of uttered. In (2),
people is the object of the preposition of; in (3), it is subject
of the verb heard. Now, that takes the case of the truths
in (2), not of truths which is expressed in the sentence: consequently
that is in the nominative case. In the same way who, standing for
the people understood, subject of heard, is in the nominative
case.
Exercise.
First find the antecedents, then parse the relatives, in
the following sentences:—
1. How superior it is in these respects to the pear,
whose blossoms are neither colored nor fragrant!
2. Some gnarly apple which I pick up in the road reminds
me by its fragrance of all the wealth of Pomona.
3. Perhaps I talk with one who is selecting some choice
barrels for filling an order.
4. Ill blows the wind
that profits nobody.
5. Alas! it is we ourselves that are getting buried
alive under this avalanche of earthly impertinences.
6. This method also forces upon us the necessity of
thinking, which is, after all, the highest result of all education.
7. I know that there are many excellent people who
object to the reading of novels as a waste of time.
8. I think they are trying to outwit nature, who is sure
to be cunninger than they.
Parsing what, the simple
relative.
120. The relative
what is handled differently, because it has usually no antecedent, but
is singular, neuter, third person. Its case is determined exactly as that of
other relatives. In the sentence, "What can't be cured must be endured," the
verb must be endured is the predicate of something. What must be
endured? Answer, What can't be cured. The whole expression is its
subject. The word what, however, is subject of the verb can't be
cured, and hence is in the nominative case.
"What we call nature is a certain self-regulated motion or
change." Here the subject of is, etc., is what we call nature;
but of this, we is the subject, and what is the direct object of
the verb call, so is in the objective case.
Another way.
Some prefer another method of treatment. As shown by the
following sentences, what is equivalent to that which:—
It has been said that "common souls pay with what
they do, nobler souls with that which they are."—Emerson.
That which is pleasant often appears under the
name of evil; and what is disagreeable to nature is called good and
virtuous.—Burke.
Hence some take what as a double relative, and
parse that in the first clause, and which in the second clause; that is, "common souls pay with
that [singular, object of with] which [singular, object of
do] they do."
INDEFINITE RELATIVES.
List and examples.
121. INDEFINITE RELATIVES
are, by meaning and use, not as direct as the simple relatives.
They are whoever, whichever,
whatever, whatsoever; less common are whoso,
whosoever, whichsoever, whatsoever. The simple relatives
who, which, and what may also be used as indefinite
relatives. Examples of indefinite relatives (from Emerson):—
1. Whoever has flattered his friend successfully
must at once think himself a knave, and his friend a fool.
2. It is no proof of a man's understanding, to be able
to affirm whatever he pleases.
3. They sit in a chair or sprawl with children on the
floor, or stand on their head, or what else soever, in a new and
original way.
4. Whoso is heroic will always find crises to try
his edge.
5. Only itself can inspire whom it will.
6. God offers to every mind its choice between truth and
repose. Take which you please,—you cannot have both.
7. Do what we can, summer will have its
flies.
Meaning and use.
122. The fitness of the
term indefinite here cannot be shown better than by examining the
following sentences:—
1. There is something so overruling in whatever
inspires us with awe, in all things which belong ever so remotely to
terror, that nothing else can stand in their presence.—Burke.
2. Death is there associated, not with everything
that is most endearing in social and domestic charities, but with
whatever is darkest in human nature and in human destiny.—Macaulay.
It is clear that in 1,
whatever is equivalent to all things which, and in 2, to
everything that; no certain antecedent, no particular thing, being
referred to. So with the other indefinites.
What simple relative and what
indefinite relative.
123. The above helps us to
discriminate between what as a simple and what as an indefinite
relative.
As shown in Sec. 120, the simple relative what is
equivalent to that which or the thing which,—some
particular thing; as shown by the last sentence in Sec. 121, what means
anything that, everything that (or everything which). The
difference must be seen by the meaning of the sentence, as what hardly
ever has an antecedent.
The examples in sentences 5 and 6, Sec. 121, show that
who and which have no antecedent expressed, but mean any one
whom, either one that, etc.
OTHER WORDS USED AS RELATIVES.
But and as.
124. Two words, but
and as, are used with the force of relative pronouns in some
expressions; for example,—
1. There is not a leaf rotting on the highway but
has force in it: how else could it rot?—Carlyle.
2. This, amongst such other troubles as most men
meet with in this life, has been my heaviest affliction.—De Quincey.
Proof that they have the force of
relatives.
Compare with these the two following sentences:—
3. There is nothing but is related to us, nothing
that does not interest us.—Emerson.
4. There were articles of comfort and luxury such
as Hester never ceased to use, but which only wealth could have
purchased.—Hawthorne.
Sentence 3 shows that
but is equivalent to the relative that with not, and that
as after such is equivalent to which.
For as after same see "Syntax" (Sec.
417).
Former use of as.
125. In early modern
English, as was used just as we use that or which, not
following the word such; thus,—
I have not from your eyes that
gentleness
And show of love as I was wont to
have.
—Shakespeare
This still survives in vulgar English in England; for
example,—
"Don't you mind Lucy Passmore, as charmed your
warts for you when you was a boy? "—Kingsley
This is frequently illustrated in Dickens's works.
Other substitutes.
126. Instead of the phrases
in which, upon which, by which, etc., the conjunctions
wherein, whereupon, whereby, etc., are used.
A man is the facade of a temple wherein all
wisdom and good abide.—Emerson.
The sovereignty of this nature whereof we
speak.—Id.
The dear home faces
whereupon
That fitful firelight paled and
shone.
—Whittier.
PRONOUNS IN INDIRECT QUESTIONS.
Special caution needed
here.
127. It is sometimes hard
for the student to tell a relative from an interrogative pronoun. In the
regular direct question the interrogative is easily recognized; so is the
relative when an antecedent is close by. But compare the following in
pairs:—
1.
(a) Like a gentleman of leisure who is
strolling out for pleasure.
(b) Well we knew who stood behind,
though the earthwork hid them.
2.
(a) But what you gain in time is perhaps
lost in power.
(b) But what had become of them they
knew not.
3.
(a) These are the lines which
heaven-commanded Toil shows on his deed.
(b) And since that time I thought it not amiss
To judge which were the best of all these three.
In sentences 1 (a), 2 (a) and 3 (a)
the regular relative use is seen; who having the antecedent
gentleman, what having the double use of pronoun and antecedent,
which having the antecedent lines.
But in 1 (b), 2 (b), and 3 (b), there
are two points of difference from the others considered: first, no antecedent
is expressed, which would indicate that they are not relatives; second, a
question is disguised in each sentence, although each sentence as a whole is
declarative in form. Thus, 1 (b), if expanded, would be, "Who stood
behind? We knew," etc., showing that who is plainly interrogative. So in
2 (b), what is interrogative, the full expression being, "But
what had become of them? They knew not." Likewise with which in 3
(b).
How to decide.
In studying such sentences, (1) see whether there is an
antecedent of who or which, and whether what = that
+ which (if so, it is a simple relative; if not, it is either an
indefinite relative or an interrogative pronoun); (2) see if the pronoun
introduces an indirect question (if it does, it is an interrogative; if not, it
is an indefinite relative).
Another caution.
128. On the other hand,
care must be taken to see whether the pronoun is the word that really
asks the question in an interrogative
sentence. Examine the following:—
1.
Sweet rose! whence is this
hue
Which doth all hues excel?
—Drummond
2.
And then what wonders shall you
do
Whose dawning beauty warms us so?
—Walker
3.
Is this a romance? Or is it a faithful picture of
what has lately been in a neighboring land?—Macaulay
These are interrogative sentences, but in none of them
does the pronoun ask the question. In the first, whence is the
interrogative word, which has the antecedent hue. In the second,
whose has the antecedent you, and asks no question. In the third,
the question is asked by the verb.
OMISSION OF THE RELATIVES.
Relative omitted when
object.
129. The relative is
frequently omitted in spoken and in literary English when it would be the
object of a preposition or a verb. Hardly a writer can be found who does not
leave out relatives in this way when they can be readily supplied in the mind
of the reader. Thus,—
These are the sounds we feed upon.—Fletcher.
I visited many other apartments, but shall not trouble
my reader with all the curiosities I observed.—Swift.
Exercise.
Put in the relatives who, which, or
that where they are omitted from the following sentences, and see
whether the sentences are any smoother or clearer:—
1. The insect I am now describing lived three
years,—Goldsmith.
2. They will go to
Sunday schools through storms their brothers are afraid of.—Holmes.
3. He opened the volume he first took from the
shelf.—G. Eliot.
4. He could give the coals in that queer coal scuttle we
read of to his poor neighbor.—Thackeray.
5. When Goldsmith died, half the unpaid bill he owed to
Mr. William Filby was for clothes supplied to his nephew.—Forster
6. The thing I want to see is not Redbook Lists, and
Court Calendars, but the life of man in England.—Carlyle.
7. The material they had to work upon was already
democratical by instinct and habitude.—Lowell.
Relative omitted when
subject.
130. We often hear in
spoken English expressions like these:—
There isn't one here ‸ knows how to play ball.
There was such a crowd ‸ went, the house was
full.
Here the omitted relative would be in the nominative case.
Also in literary English we find the same omission. It is rare in prose, and
comparatively so in poetry. Examples are,—
The silent truth that it was she was superior.—Thackeray
I have a mind presages me such thrift.—Shakespeare.
There is a nun in Dryburgh
bower,
Ne'er looks upon the sun.
—Scott.
And you may gather garlands
there
Would grace a summer queen.
—Id.
'Tis distance lends enchantment to the view.—Campbell. |
