Chapter 130

SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.

§ 436. _Pleonasm in the syntax of pronouns._--In the following sentences the words in italics are pleonastic:

1. The king _he_ is just. 2. I saw _her_, the queen. 3. The _men_, they were there. 4. The king, _his_ crown.

Of these forms, the first is more common than the second and third, and the fourth more common than the first.

§ 437. The fourth has another element of importance. It has given rise to the absurd notion that the genitive case in -'s (_father-'s_) is a contraction from _his_ (_father his_).

To say nothing about the inapplicability of this rule to feminine genders, and plural numbers, the whole history of the Indo-Germanic languages is against it.

1. We cannot reduce _the queen's majesty_ to _the queen his majesty_.

2. We cannot reduce _the children's bread_ to _the children his bread_.

3. The Anglo-Saxon forms are in -es, not in _his_.

4. The word _his_ itself must be accounted for; and that cannot be done by assuming it to be _he_ + _his_.

5. The -s in _father's_ is the -is in _patris_, and the [Greek: -os] in [Greek: pateros].

§ 438. The preceding examples illustrate an apparent paradox, viz., the fact of pleonasm and ellipsis being closely allied. _The king he is just_, dealt with as a _single_ sentence, is undoubtedly pleonastic. But it is not necessary to be considered as a mere simple sentence. _The king_--may represent a first sentence incomplete, whilst _he is just_ represents a second sentence in full. What is pleonasm in a single sentence is ellipsis in a double one.

* * * * *