Page images
PDF
EPUB

Definition.

Distinctions.

Pronouns personal.

66

CHAPTER VIII.

OF PRONOUNS.

[ocr errors]

66

231. A PRONOUN is a part of speech so called from the Latin Pro-
nomen, and the Greek 'AvTwvvμía; and agreeably to this derivation, it
is defined by the generality of grammarians, a sign or representative
of a noun;" for things (and persons), as Vossius observes, are con-
sidered in grammar as named by nouns. When, therefore, a pronoun,
such as he or it, is used to signify a person, for instance “
Cæsar," or a
thing, for instance, "a crown,' the pronoun he is a sign or repre-
sentative of the noun Cæsar ;" and the pronoun it is a sign or repre-
sentative of the noun crown;" and so forth. Aristotle, indeed, in
his treatise περὶ Ερμηνείας comprehends the pronoun under the title
Noun. By subsequent writers, the term pronoun has been applied to
several classes of words, very distinguishable from each other; and it
may be doubted, whether it would not originally have been better to
restrict its signification within narrower limits than those which were
adopted. Upon the whole, however, as the meaning has been so long
settled, I deem it advisable to follow the established usage.

66

232. Of the many distinctions which have been made in this part of speech, that which first demands attention, as essential, is into substantive and adjective, answering to the like division of primary nouns, which has been already explained. Thus he is a substantive pronoun, which may, standing alone, represent the primary noun substantive, Socrates understood, and they is a substantive pronoun, which, standing alone, may represent the primary noun substantive, Men, or Ships, understood; whereas, in the expressions every person, any nation, every and any are pronouns adjective, which cannot stand alone, but agree, as adjectives, with the substantives "person,” and “nation,' expressed. Some of the adjective pronouns, however, may be used substantively, by a sort of ellipsis, which will presently be explained. 233. I consider as pronouns substantive all those which are commonly called personal, and distinguished as of the first, second, and third person. Of this distinction the common account is, that the first person is the speaker, the second the person spoken to, and the third the person or thing spoken of. But this is not quite correct; for though the first person be in fact the speaker, and the second, the person spoken to, yet, unless they are also spoken of, they do not enter into the grammatical construction of a sentence. And again, as

to the third person's being spoken of, this is a character which it shares in common with both the other persons, and which can never, therefore, be called a peculiarity of its own. To explain by an instance

or two.

When Æneas begins the narrative of his adventures, the second person immediately appears; because he at once makes Dido, whom he addresses the subject of his discourse.

Infandum, Regina, jubes renovare dolorem.

From henceforward for 1500 verses, (though she is all that time the person spoken to) we hear nothing further of this second person, a variety of other subjects filling up the narrative. In the meantime, the first person may be seen everywhere; because the speaker is everywhere himself the subject: the events were, indeed, as he says, those

Quæ ipse miserrima vidi,

Et quorum pars magna fui.

Not that the second person does not often occur in the course of this narrative; but then it is always by a figure of speech, when those who, by their absence, constitute, in fact, so many third persons, are converted into second persons, by being introduced as present. On the other hand, when we read Euclid, we find neither first person nor second in any part of the whole work. The reason is, that neither the speaker nor the party addressed (in which light we may always view the writer and his reader) can possibly become the subject of pure mathematics.

explanation

234. The clearest explanation of the different persons is that given by Priscian's PRISCIAN, who took it from APOLLONIUS: Personæ pronominum sunt tres, prima, secunda, tertia. Prima est cum ipsa, quæ loquitur, de se pronuntiat; secunda, cum de eâ pronuntiat ad quam directo sermone loquitur; tertia, cum de ea quæ nec loquitur, nec ad se directum accipit sermonem, 1. xii. p. 940. THEODORE GAZA gives the same distinctions: Πρῶτον (πρόσωπον, sc.) ᾧ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ φράζεῖ ὁ λέγων· δεύτερον, ᾧ περὶ τοῦ, πρὸς ὃν ὁ λόγος. τρίτον, ᾧ περὶ ἑτέρου. Gaz. Gram. 1. iv. p. 152: and this explanation is stated more at large by Harris, whose words therefore, I shall, with a slight correction, adopt.

Here,

235. "Suppose the parties conversing," says he, "to be wholly First person. unacquainted, neither name nor countenance on either side known; and the subject of the conversation to be the speaker himself. to supply the place of pointing, by a word of equal power, the speaker uses the pronoun I. I write, I say, I desire,' &c.: and as the speaker is always principal with respect to his own discourse, this is called, for that reason, the pronoun of the first person.

person.

236. "Again, suppose the subject of the conversation to be the Second party addressed. Here, for similar reasons, the pronoun thou is employed. 'Thou writest,' 'thou walkest,' &c.; and as the party addressed is next in dignity to the speaker, or at least comes next to him, with reference to the discourse, this pronoun is therefore called the pronoun of the second person.

237. "

Lastly, suppose the subject of the conversation neither the Third person. speaker, nor the party addressed, but some third object, different from

How differing from the two former.

How coalescing.

both; here another pronoun is provided, viz.: he, she, or it, which, in distinction from the two former, is called the pronoun of the third person." "And thus it is that pronouns come to be distinguished by their respective persons." But plain and intelligible, as this explanation is, of the grammatical distinction of persons, it must not be under'stood to imply that the actual conception of a person is subsequent, in the human mind, to that of the noun which the pronoun represents; for, as has been observed, the notion of our own personal identity, which is expressed by the pronoun, "I," is essentially necessary to all consciousness; and by an innate sympathy, we cannot but believe other Persons to possess, like ourselves, each his own identity; which notion of identity we even transfer to Things, if they appear to us under all circumstances to retain the same qualities.

238. It will not fail, however, to be observed, that there is a marked difference between the third person, and the two former. The first and second are strictly personal, the speaker must be a person, and the party addressed must be at least personified, as when Satan addresses the sun,

O thou, that with surpassing glory crown'd,
Look'st from thy sole dominion!

But the pronoun of the third person may represent either a person,
or a thing; and that by the same word or a different one, according to
the idiom of the language employed. Hence, some grammarians dis-
tinguish pronouns in general into personal and demonstrative, including
in the former class only those of the first and second person, and re-
ferring those of the third person, together with all other pronouns, to
the latter class. This arrangement, in so far as it confounds sub-
stantive pronouns with adjective, I cannot approve. He or she may
stand as much alone in a sentence, as Peter or Jane, and may regu-
larly be made the subject of a proposition, and connected with an ad-
jective as its predicate. We may say indifferently "he is wise," or
Peter is wise,"
66 she is handsome," or "Jane is handsome." Nor
does the pronoun of the third person necessarily represent a noun un-
known, or a person or thing absent, any more than a pronoun of the
first or second person does. The name of the speaker (that is the
noun represented by the pronoun I) may be as little or less known to
the person addressed, as the name of the person or thing spoken of;
and, in point of fact, the speaker, the person spoken to, and the person
or thing spoken of, may be all present, and may as little need to be
demonstrated or pointed out, one as the other. Therefore, though a
pronoun substantive relating to a thing cannot in strictness be called
personal; yet the grammarian will do right, who includes it under a
common head with pronouns of the first and second persons.

239. The characteristics of the three persons are not so entirely separate, as to preclude a possible coalescence of the pronouns of different persons; but this is subject to certain restrictions. The pronoun of the first or second person may easily coalesce with the third;

but the first and second cannot coalesce with each other.

For exam

ple, we may say (and the difference of idiom in different languages
does not affect these expressions), "I am he," or,
"thou art he;" or,

[ocr errors]

as in the text, "art thou he that should come, or do we look for
another?"
But we cannot say,
I am thou," nor "thou art I;" the
reason is, that there is no absurdity in the speaker's being the subject
also of the discourse; as when we say,
"I am he;" or in the person
addressed being so, as when we say, "thou art he;" but that the
ame person, in the same circumstances, should be at once the speaker
and the party addressed would be absurd; and, consequently, so
would the coalescence be of the first and second person.
Some gram-

marians seem to have inaccurately supposed, that all but the personal
pronouns of the first and second person were to be considered as be-
longing to the third person. This, however, is inaccurate, at least
with respect to the relatives, who, which, that, as may be observed in
those lines of the old song:-

What! you, that loved!
And I, that loved!

Shall we begin to wrangle?

Where the relative that is of the second person in the first line, and of the first person in the second line: and if translated into Latin, it must be rendered, not tu quæ amabat, and ego qui amabat, but tu quæ amabas, and ego qui amabam.

adjective.

240. The pronoun adjective is distinguished from the pronoun sub- Pronoun stantive, in the same manner as the noun adjective is from the noun substantive, namely, by its inability to stand alone; because it implies some attribute or quality of a noun or pronoun substantive. It must be admitted, that to determine whether a particular word, which occurs in a speech or literary composition, should be considered as a pronoun adjective, or a noun adjective, is not always very easy; but this is rather a difficulty of idiom than of grammatical principle. Without dwelling on this point, therefore, I proceed to notice the most obvious distinctions of the pronoun adjective.

241. First, I consider that they are either positive or relative. By positive I mean those distinctions which regard the word as a member of a single sentence; and by relative, those which relate to another sentence preceding or subsequent. The positive either depend on the personal pronoun, and are commonly called possessive, or else serve to limit general nouns, and may be called definitive. Some possessive pronouns must be necessarily expressed or understood in all languages; for if it be necessary to have a pronoun personal, which is a word representing a whole class of nouns substantive, it is equally necessary to indicate (in some manner or other), the quality which consists in belonging to that class. If every speaker must indicate himself by the word 1, or me, he must indicate what belongs to himself by some such expression as mine or of me. Whether this be done by the former of these two modes of expression, or the latter, is immaterial to the sense,

Possessive.

Definitive.

Subjunctive.

and must depend on the construction permitted by the idiom of the particular language; but if such a word as mine or my be employed, it must be regarded as a pronoun adjective, and indeed is treated in many languages exactly as any other adjective is, at least in the positive degree. For instance, meus, mea, meum, is declined in Latin exactly as bonus, bona, bonum, is. Under the head of possessive pronouns may be classed those which Vossius calls gentilia, such as nostrates, meaning individuals of our race, family, or party; as military officers in this country often mention a comrade, as "of ours," meaning, "of our regiment."

say,

66

99 66

[ocr errors]

242. The definitive pronouns serve to limit general nouns, with reference either to an individual simply, as when I say "this man," or "that man;" or else with reference to other individuals of the same class, as when I the other man,' every man." How far such distinctions may be carried in practice, depends on the degree of cultivation which particular languages may receive; but some degree of definition seems necessary to the formation of every language: and from pronouns of this class is derived the definite Article, which will be considered hereafter. The pronouns which limit with reference to an individual simply may be called demonstrative, as they show the individual intended, by reference to his own particular position, situation, or the like. Thus, the words "this man usually indicate a person near, or present; the words "that man," a person more distant, or perhaps absent. The pronouns which limit a conception with reference to several individuals of a like class are distinguished by Vossius into partitives, such as "either," neither," 99.66 other;" and distributives, such as "any,' 'some," "every." The distributives again might be distinguished into general and numeral; but these latter form an important class, which I shall have occasion to consider apart.

9966

99.66

99.66

دو

243. Of the relative pronouns adjective, those which relate to a preceding sentence are commonly called subjunctive; those which relate to a future sentence are called interrogative. I say those which relate to a sentence, and not those which relate to a person or thing; because in truth all but the pronouns of the first and second person must refer to some person or thing previously indicated. When we say, 66 he reigned," or "she lived," we presume that the persons intended by he and she are previously known. These pronouns, however, may introduce or lead sentences which do not depend on any previous sentence in point of construction. But it is not so with the subjunctives. They cannot introduce an original sentence, but only serve to subjoin one to some other which has preceded it. The principal subjunctive pronouns in English are who and which, and sometimes that. It does not seem essential to the constitution of a language, however convenient, that there should be such pronouns as these; for they may be resolved into another pronoun and a conjunction; and consequently by such other pronoun and conjunction their place may always be supplied. Let us

« PreviousContinue »