CHAPTER XVIII.

ECONOMY OF EXPRESSION.

Language, as a rule, employs no more material than is necessary to make the hearer or reader understand the meaning intended to be conveyed by the speaker or writer. This statement must be taken merely generally, for it admits of many exceptions. But, as a rule, language, like a careful housewife, husbands its resources, and tends rather to economy than to lavishness in their employment. Everywhere in language we meet with forms of expression which contain just so much as is needed to make the employer of language understood, and no more. In fact, the supply offered by language depends on the demand, and on this alone. A gesticulation may supply the place of a sentence; a nod, a frown, a smile may speak as plainly as any words. Much, too, must depend upon the situation: on the relations of the speakers to each other; their knowledge of what is passing in each other’s minds; and their common sentiments with regard to the subject discussed. If we consider a form of expression which shall convey a thought under all possible conditions to any possible hearer as the only correct standard, and measure all other forms with that standard, then all these will appear imperfect, or, as grammarians would say, elliptical.

Practically, however, ellipse should be assumed in a minimum of cases, and each form of expression should be referred to its origin. Otherwise, we must be content to regard ellipse as an essential part of language; in fact, we shall have to regard language as habitually containing less than ought rightly to be expressed, and hence we should have to regard most expressions as elliptical.

We will consider first the cases in which a word or phrase is said to be _supplied_ from what precedes or what follows. It hardly seems that we are justified in using the word _supplied_. Take such a sentence as _Is Bushy, Green, and the Earl of Wiltshire dead?_ (Rich. II., III. ii. 14). We can hardly contend that in the perfectly expressed sentence we should have to supply _dead_ after _Bushy_, _Green_, and _the Earl_, _etc._ Again, in such a sentence as _He saw me and grew pale_, it seems unnecessary to supply _he_ with _grew pale_; nor in such a combination as _in fear and hope_ need we supply _in_ before _hope_ merely because we can also say _in fear and in hope_. It seems more correct to drop the notion of _supplying_, and to think of single _positing_ with plural reference--regarding what usually is called a sentence, not as an independent self-contained integer, but as a link in a continuous series.

It is common to assume an ellipse in such cases as ‘the German and French languages,’ and still more in the form ‘the German language and the French.’ But we have really here a pair of elements standing in the same relation to a third. That this is so, we see by the fact that there are other languages in which the two elements are really treated as a unity and attached as such to the third, which then becomes strictly speaking the second. This is shown by the use of the plural. We say, for instance, in Latin--_quarta et Martia legiones_ (Brut. apud Cicero, ad Fam., ii. 19), ‘the fourth (sing.) and the Martian (sing.) legions (plur.),’ beside _legio Martia quartaque_, ‘the legion Martian and fourth’ (both in Cicero); _Falernum et Capuanum agros_, ‘the Falernian (sing.) and Capuan (sing.) fields (plur.)’ (Livy, xxii. 15): Italian--_le lingue Greca e Latina_, ‘the languages Greek (sing.) and Latin (sing.),’ besides _la lingua Greca e Latina_, ‘the language Greek and Latin:’ in French--_les langues Française et Allemande_:--so, _the fourth and fifth regiments_; _the second and third days_.

In the same way, in the case of such sentences as _John writes well, James badly_, we are prone to assume an ellipse. But that the current assumption of an ellipse cannot be always right is proved by the fact that even in English we sometimes meet with a plural predicate: as, ‘Your sister as well as myself, said Booby, _are_ greatly obliged’ (Fielding, J. Andr., iv. 7); ‘Old Sir John with half a dozen more _are_ at the door,’ (Shakespeare, 1 Henry IV. II. iv.): as against, ‘Ely, with Richmond _troubles_ me’ (Rich. III., IV. iii.); ‘Until her back, as well as sides, was like to crack’ (But., Hud., II. i. 85).[178]

In Latin, we actually find this construction with the ablative absolute: _ille Antiocho, hic Mithridate pulsis_, ‘the former when Antiochus, the latter when Mithridates WERE defeated’ (Tacitus); _quod tu aut illa queri possitis_, ‘what thou or she require could (the verb plural)’ (Tullia, ap. Cicero, ad Fam., iv. 5): cf.--

‘Not the King’s crown nor the deputed sword, The marshal’s truncheon nor the judge’s robe, Become them.’

(Shakespeare, Meas. for Meas., II. ii. 60); ‘For there nor yew nor cypress _spread_ their gloom’ (Th. Campbell, Theodoric). So in French--‘Ni l’or ni la grandeur ne nous rendent heureux’ (La Fontaine), ‘Neither gold nor grandeur _make_ us happy:’ and in Latin--‘Erant quibus nec Senatus gloriari nec princeps _possent_,’ lit. ‘There were (some) of whom neither Senate boast nor the Emperor _could_ (plur.)’ (Plin., Pan., 75).[179] This plural has originated from cases where the copulative connection could be substituted without essential alteration of meaning--as, ‘Yew and cypress spread not there their gloom,’--and has thence been extended by analogy. In fact, for the instinct of language, the predicate has been posited once and not twice.

In sentences like ‘I will come and do it,’ ‘Who steals my purse steals trash’ (Othello, III. iii. 157), ‘Who was the thane lives yet’ (Macbeth, I. iii. 109), we have instances of an element common to the principal and subordinate sentence, and also in such sentences as ‘It is thy sovereign speaks to thee,’ a variety of sentences constructed ἀπὸ κοινοῦ. Sometimes also, in German, we find such sentences as _Was ich da träumend jauchzt und litt, muss wachend nun erfahren_ (Goethe), lit. ‘What I there dreaming cheered-at and suffered must waking now experience;’ with which we may compare sentences like Milton’s ‘Thou art my son beloved: in him am pleased,’ and ‘Here’s a young maid with travel much oppressed, and _faints_ for succour’[180] (Shakespeare, As You Like It, II. iv. 75). It occurs frequently in dialogue that words of one speaker are not repeated by another, and they are ordinarily described as being _supplied_. Really, however, dialogue must be regarded as a continuous whole, so that, _e.g._, the words of one speaker (or their contents) form subject to predicate uttered by the other. Cf.--

‘O Banquo, Banquo! Our royal master’s murdered---- (_Lady Macb._) Woe! alas! What, in our house?’

If we take a sentence like ‘_my_ relatives and friends,’ the common element _my_ stands at the outset of the whole sentence; it is then nearer indeed to _relatives_, but is without difficulty referred to _friends_. But insertion in the second part of the sentence is also possible: cf. ‘It (_i.e._ love) shall be (too) sparing and too severe’ (Ven. and Adon., 1155), ‘Beggars (sitting) in their stocks refuge their shame that (_i.e._ because) many have (sat) and many must sit there’ (Rich. II., V. v. 27); ‘of such dainty and such picking grievances’ (2 Hen. IV., IV. i. 198).[181] In this case, the first portion of the sentence remains incomplete until the common element has been spoken or written; and this serves to complete the first and the second part of the sentence simultaneously.

Sometimes the common element stands in different relations to the two others with which it is connected. Then concord must be violated: and different languages try to avoid this breach of concord in different ways.

We, in English, admit the want of concord in such cases as ‘She LOVES him not less than I (LOVE him);’ ‘He thinks so: not I;’ ‘They are going to-morrow: I too.’ The case is similar in French: _Vous partez--moi aussi_ (= ‘You depart--me also’); and in German, _Du gehst--ich auch_ (= ‘Thou goest--I too’). The sequence of tenses is not observed in ‘Therefore they thought it good you hear a play’ (Tam. of Shrew, Introduc. ii. 136);[182] ‘’Twere good you do so much for charity’ (Merch. of Ven., IV. i. 261). The infinitive has to be borrowed from the finite verb in cases like ‘He has done as he was bound;’ ‘He is gone where he was told.’

It is, of course, harder to find cases of discord in _gender_ in English than in more highly inflected languages. In French, however, we find _Paul et Virginie étaient ignorants_ (B. de S. Pierre), ‘Paul and Virginia were ignorant [masc. plur.]:’ and also _Le fer, le bandeau et la flamme est toute prête_ (Racine), ‘The iron, the bandage and the flame is quite ready;’ _C’est un homme ou une femme noyée_ (Boniface), ‘It is a man or a woman drowned (sing. fem.):’ cf. Lat. _Visæ nocturno tempore faces ardorque cœli_ (Cicero, Cat., iii. 8). The case is similar in Italian and Spanish. In English, we find such sentences as ‘I am happy to hear it was his horse and not himself _who_ fell in the combat.’[183]

A single word may actually stand in relation to two or more verbs, and represent two or more cases; as, _which_ (accusative to _spit_ and nominative to _is_), _however, they pretend to spit wholly out of themselves, is improved by the same arts_ (Swift, Battle of the Books, p. 29, Cassell’s Edit.): so in Latin--_Quibus insputari solitumst atque iis profuit_ (Plaut., Captivi), ‘On whom it is customary that it should be spat, and (this) has been good for them.’

In Latin, again, we find a nominative actually representing an accusative; as, _Qui fatetur ... et ... non timeo_ (Cicero) = ‘Who confesses ... and ... (whom) I do not fear:’ and, again, a dative represents an accusative in _Cui fidem habent et bene rebus suis consulere arbitrantur_ (Cicero), ‘In whom they trust and whom they deem to manage their affairs well.’

There are, again, cases in which the two principal notions are connected by a _link_ which serves to define more closely the nature of the connection. Such links are often dispensed with, as in _Hectoris Andromache_, _Cæcilia Metelli_; or, _The Duke of Westminster’s Ormonde_. It is misleading, in such cases, to say that _uxor_, ‘wife,’ or _filia_, ‘daughter,’ or _colt_ is to be _supplied_; indeed, no definite expression of the kind could be supplied unless the hearer or reader were conversant with the situation; and even then it does not follow that any one of the three words which we have mentioned would actually be supplied. The truth is that the genitive, in these cases, denotes a connection which may be rendered more definite as our knowledge of the _situation_ becomes more intimate.

Indications of direction were no doubt originally associated with verbs of motion only; as, _I am going thither_. But they are now found attached to verbs of preparing, wishing and the like: as, _Wo wollen sie hin?_ = ‘Where will you to?’ (= ‘Whither will you?’ = ‘Whither are you going?’); _He purposeth to Athens_ (Shakespeare, Ant. and Cleo., III. i. 35); _I must to Coventry_ (Rich. II., I. ii. 56); _To Cabin! silence_, (Temp., I. i.); _To horse! to horse!_ (Rich. II., II. i.); _Back to thy punishment, false fugitive_; _Forward, brave champions, to the fight_ (Scott, Lay of Last Minstrel, v. 20); _And thou shalt back to France_ (Marlowe, Edward II., I. i.); _Let us across the country to Terracina_ (Bulwer, Rienzi, iii. 1).[184] Similarly, the common Scottish phrase _to want in_, for _to wish to enter_. In these cases, we must suppose that the notions of preparing, wishing, etc., and of the _terminus ad quem_ present themselves at once to our consciousness, and that they are directly connected as psychological subject and predicate. Then the ordinary construction in such cases, as, _They are going home_, or _to Rome_, occurred to the recollection, and the analogy of this form of expression co-operated to produce the form in question. The form has now become so usual that it cannot fairly be described as elliptical. Other similar phrases are _I never let him from home_; _I will not let you out_; _Let me in_; and, again, such as _He is away_, or _He is off to Paris_; in which case _away_ and _off to Paris_ are to be taken as predicates, and _is_ as copula. With this construction may be classed the so-called _constructio prægnans_, like _conditus in nubem_ (Vergil, Georgics, I. 442) = ‘Hidden into a cloud,’ _i.e._ ‘Having passed into a cloud and hidden itself.’

In Latin, a nominative case standing as subject is sometimes followed by an accusative standing without a verb; as, _Cicero Cassio salutem_, ‘Cicero to Cassius greeting:’ similarly, _Unde mihi tam fortem?_ (Horace, Sat., II. v. 102); _sus Minervam_; _fortes fortuna_; _dii meliora_ (Cicero, Phil., viii. 3); _Di vostram fidem_ (Plaut., Captivi, 591).

In these cases, two notions are combined in the form of nominative and accusative because they stand in the same relation to each other as, in a more complete sentence, obtains between subject and predicate.

Similarly, in French, we find expressions like _Vite un flambeau!_ (Racine), ‘Quick! a torch;’ _Citoyens, trève à cette dispute!_ (Ponsard), ‘Citizens, enough of this dispute.’

Sometimes, again, a nominative standing as subject is connected with an adverb; as, _hæc hactenus_, ‘this so far;’ _an tu id melius?_ ‘or (do you know) this better?’ _ne quid temere_, ‘nothing rash;’ _ne quid nimis_, ‘nothing too-much;’ ταῦτα μὲν οὖν δὲ ὁὗτως (= ‘that thou therefore thus’) (Plato). Similarly, we find in English, _one step enough for me_ (Newman’s hymn, ‘Lead Kindly Light’). Many instances of such constructions may be found in Pepys’ Diary; as, _I to bed_, etc.

Sometimes we meet with sentences like _I will give you an example how to do the thing_. In this case, the subordinate sentence is combined with a principal sentence without some element of the sentence like, _of how_ or _as how you should do it_. Thus we find sentences like the following:[185] _To talk to a man in a state of moral corruption to elevate himself_. Then sentences like _You look what is the matter_; where the sentence, if fully expressed, would be _Look to see what is the matter_. Similarly, in Greek, Ὅρη δίφρον, Εὐνόα, αὐτᾷ (Theoc., Idyll., xv. 2), ‘Look (for) a chair for her.’ Similarly, we have such phrases as _As far as that goes_; _As far as I know_; _To be plain_: and, again, such compressed sentences as _in short_; _quant à cela_ (‘as for that’), etc.

In cases like _to the right_, _to the left_, the situation again stands instead of a substantive. Just so, in Latin, _calida frigida (aqua)_,[186] ‘warm, cold (_i.e._ water):’ _Hot or cold?_ (with reference to refreshments); _Burgundy_, _Champagne_; _agnina_, _caprina_ (_caro_), ‘lamb, goat (_i.e._ flesh);’ _Appia (via)_, ‘Appian (road);’ _Martia (aqua)_, ‘Martian (water);’ _une première représentation_, ‘a first performance;’ _a tenth_; _the Russian_, _French (language)_; _la Marseillaise_. In these cases, if we speak of ellipse at all, we must remember that we could not in many cases supply the ellipse without the situation. If we were to say, _Bring the old instead of the new_, this would be meaningless unless we had the wine before us: unless, indeed, we had something else, as _clothes_, for instance, in which case likewise the situation would supply the sense required. The more ‘usual’ such ways of speech become, the less do they depend on the situation. When we speak of _Champagne_, _Bordeaux_, _Gruyère_, etc., the word has passed from the position of an epithet into that of a true substantive.

In the case of genitive determinants, we meet with a similar development. An Oxford student would have no difficulty in understanding what was meant by _We were beaten by St. John’s (College)_, nor a medical man by _I am house surgeon at St. George’s_. Similarly, we find in French _la Saint Pierre (fête)_, ‘S. Peter’s (day);’ and, in Latin, _ad Vestæ (templum)_, ‘to Vesta’s (temple);’ and in German, _Heut ist Simon und Juda’s_, ‘To-day is Simon and Juda’s (feast)’ (Sch.). In these cases, no ellipse can be assumed, for it is evident that the words are already apprehended as simple substantives.

In such forms as _No further!_ the psychological predicate alone is expressed, the unexpressed subject being the person to whom the words are addressed. We may gather that these words are apprehended as in the accusative case from parallel instances in other languages; as _Cotta finem_, ‘Cotta (made) an end;’ _Keinen schritt weiter_, _No step further!_ It is the same with sentences like _Good day_, _My best thanks_, _Bon voyage_ (‘Pleasant trip!’), etc. In sentences like _Christianos ad leones_ (‘The Christians to the lions’) or _Manum de tabula_ (‘Hand from table’), we might certainly take _Christianos_ and _manum_ as the psychological subject, and _ad leones_ or _de tabula_ as the predicate; but the accusative in _Christianos_ and _manum_ shows that a subject is really conceived of as taken from the situation, and that _manum_, _Christianos_, are regarded as the object of such subject. It is the same with cases: as, _Ultro istum a me_ (Plautus), ‘Spontaneously him from me;’ _Ex pede Herculem_, ‘From foot Hercules;’ _Ex ungue leonem_, ‘From claw the lion;’ _Malam illi pestem_, ‘To him the plague’ (Cicero); _Tiberium in Tiberim_ (Suet., Tib., 75), ‘Tiberius into the Tiber.’ In German we have cases like _Den kopf in die höhe_ = ‘(The) head into the height’ = ‘Heads up!’ and, in English, probably such cases as _Heads up! Hands down!_ are conceived of as in the accusative case. Other cases also, as well as adverbs, can be thus used: as, _Sed de hoc alio loco pluribus_ = ‘But more of this hereafter;’ _Hæc nimis iracunde_ = ‘This too angrily.’ Similarly, _So Gareth to him_ (Tennyson, Gareth and Lynette, p. 47); _Whereat the maiden petulant_ (ibid., p. 77).

Sometimes, as in the rhetorical figure which we call aposiopesis, the psychological predicate as well is taken from the situation; in this case gesticulation and the tone of the speaker may do much to promote the clearness of the situation. Thus we have suppressed threats, like the well-known Vergilian, _Quos ego_ (Æn., i. 135), ‘Whom I!’[187]

Again, we find such expressions as, _To be thus is nothing, but to be safely thus (is something)_.[188] Again, take such expressions as _the wretch! A maid and be so martial!_ (Shakespeare, 1 Hen. VI., I. iv.); and, again, exclamations such as _So young and so depraved! To sleep so long!_ and, _To throw me plumply aside!_ (Coleridge, Picc., i. 2). Under this head will come the so-called Infinitive of exclamation in Latin. _Hunccine solem tam nigrum surrexe mihi_ (Horace, Sat., I. ix. 72), ‘Oh that this wretched day (black sun) has risen for me!’ This use is also very common in French; as, _Enfoncer ce couteau moi-même, chose horrible_ (Ponsard),[189] ‘To plunge this knife (into him) myself, horrible notion!’

Similarly, dependent sentences may become by us independent; as, ‘O _that_ this too too solid flesh would melt!’ _If I only knew! O had we some bright little isle of our own!_ (T. Moore). This use is similar in Anglo-Saxon.[190]

It is similar when conditional sentences are used as threats; as, _If you only dare! Verbum si Addideris!_ (Terence), ‘If you say another word!’--or when such are set down and left uncompleted; as, _But if he doesn’t come after all!_ French is full of parallels: cf. _Et quand je pense que j’ai été plusieurs fois demander des messes à ce magicien d’Urbain_ (De Vigny), ‘And if I consider that I have several times asked this conjurer Urbain for masses!’ _Puisque je suis là, si nous liquidions un peu ce vieux compte_ (Daudet), ‘As I am here (what) if we settled this old account?’ _C’est à peine si ma tête entre dans ce chapeau_ (Acad.), ‘It is (only) with difficulty if my head gets into this hat;’ _Passez votre chemin, mon ami. Que je passe mon chemin? Oui, qui, qui le pourrait_ (Regnard) = ‘Go on, my friend!--I, go on?--Yes, yes, if it were possible.’ These sentences with _that_ are originally predicates; or, speaking from a grammatical point of view, objects. _That I might be there to see!_ if fully expressed, would be _I wish that I could be there to see_. Cf. _I am the best of them that speak this speech, Were I but where ’tis spoken_ (Shakespeare, Tempest, I. ii.); _Those other two equalled with me in fate, so were I equalled with them in renown_ (Milton, Par. Lost, iii. 33); _Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord_ (Exod. xvi. 3).