CHAPTER VIII.

THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS.

s. 303. In the relative and interrogative pronouns, _who_, _what_, _whom_, _whose_, we have, expressed by a change of form, a neuter gender, _what_; a dative case, _whom_; and a genitive case, _whose_: the true power of the _s_ (_viz._ as the sign of a case) being obscured by the orthographical addition of the _e_ mute.

To these may be added, 1. the adverb _why_, originally the ablative form _hvi_ (_quo modo? qu[^a] vi[^a]?_). 2. The adverb _where_, a feminine dative, like _there_. 3. _When_, a masculine accusative (in Anglo-Saxon _hwaene_), and analogous to _then_.

s. 304. The following points in the history of the demonstrative and relative pronouns are taken from Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, vol. iii. pp. 1, 2, 3.

Throughout the Indo-European tribe the interrogative or relative idea is expressed by _k_, or by a modification of _k_; e.g., _qu_, _hv_, or _h_; as Sanskrit, _kas_, who; _kataras_, which of two; _katama_, which of many.--Lithuanic, _kas_, who; _koks_, of what sort; _kokelys_, how great; _kaip_, how.--Slavonic: _kto_, who, Russian and Polish; _kdo_, who, Bohemian; _kotory_, which, Russian; _kolik_, how great.--_Quot_, _qualis_, _quantus_, Latin.--[Greek: Kosos], [Greek: koios], [Greek: kote], Ionic Greek; in the other dialects, however, [Greek: poteros], [Greek: posos], &c.--Gothic: _hvas_, who, Moeso-Gothic; _huer_, Old High German; _hvathar_, which of two, Moeso-Gothic; _huedar_, Old High German; _hvem_, _hvad_, _huanne_, _huar_, Norse; _what_, _why_, _which_, _where_, &c., English.

Throughout the Indo-European tribe the demonstrative idea is expressed by _t_, or by a modification of it; as, Sanskrit, _tat_, that; _tata-ras_, such a one out of two.--Lithuanic, _tas_, he; _toks_, such; _tokelys_, so great; _taip_, so.--Slavonic, _t'_ or {256} _ta_, he; _taku_, such; _tako_, so.--_Tot_, _talis_, _tantum_, Latin.--[Greek: Tosos], [Greek: toios], [Greek: tote], Greek; _this_, _that_, _thus_, English, &c.

The two sounds in the Danish words _hvi_, _hvad_, &c., and the two sounds in the English, _what_, _when_ (Anglo-Saxon, _hwaet_, _hwaene_), account for the forms _why_ and _how_. In the first the _w_ alone, in the second the _h_ alone, is sounded. The Danish for why is _hvi_, pronounced _vi_; in Swedish the word is _hu_.

s. 305. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) apply to a few of the remaining pronouns. For further details, see Grimm, D. G. iii. 4.

_Same._--Wanting in Anglo-Saxon, where it was replaced by the word _ylca_, _ylce_. Probably derived from the Norse.

_Self._--In _myself_, _thyself_, _herself_, _ourselves_, _yourselves_, a substantive (or with a substantival power), and preceded by a genitive case. In _himself_ and _themselves_ an adjective (or with an adjectival power), and preceded by an accusative case. _Itself_ is equivocal, since we cannot say whether its elements are _it_ and _self_, or _its_ and _self_; the _s_ having been dropped in utterance. It is very evident that either the form like _himself_, or the form like _thyself_, is exceptionable; in other words, that the use of the word is inconsistent. As this inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxons, the history of the word gives us no elucidation. In favour of the forms like _myself_ (_self_ being a substantive), are the following facts:--

1. The plural word _selves_, a substantival, and not an adjectival form.

2. The Middle High German phrases, _m[^i]n l[^i]p_, _d[^i]n l[^i]p_, _my body_, _thy body_, equivalent in sense to _myself_, _thyself_.

3. The circumstance that if _self_ be dealt with as a substantive, such phrases as _my own self_, _his own great self_, &c., can be used; whereby the language is a gainer.

"Vox _self_, pluraliter _selves_, quamvis etiam pronomen a quibusdam censeatur (quoniam ut plurimum per Latinum _ipse_ redditur), est tamen plane nomen substantivum, cui quidem vix aliquod apud Latinos substantivum respondet; proxime tamen accedet vox _persona_ vel _propria persona_, ut _my self_, _thy self_, _our selves_, _your selves_, &c. (_ego ipse_, _tu ipse_, _nos ipsi_, {257} _vos ipsi_, &c.), ad verbum _mea persona_, _tua persona_, &c. Fateor tamen _himself_, _itself_, _themselves_ vulgo dici pro _his-self_, _its-self_, _theirselves_; at (interposito _own_) _his own self_, &c., _ipsius propria persona_, &c."--Wallis, c. vii.

4. The fact that many persons actually say _hisself_ and _theirselves_.

_Whit._--As in the phrase _not a whit_. This enters in the compound pronouns _aught_ and _naught_.

_One._--As in the phrase _one does so and so_. From the French _on_. Observe that this is from the Latin _homo_, in Old French _hom_, _om_. In the Germanic tongues _man_ is used in the same sense: _man sagt_=_one says_=_on dit_. _One_, like _self_ and _other_, is so far a substantive, that it is inflected. Gen. sing, _one's own self_: plural, _my wife and little ones are well_.

_Derived pronouns._--_Any_, in Anglo-Saxon, _aenig_. In Old High German we have _ein[^i]c_=_any_, and _einac_=_single_. In Anglo-Saxon _[^a]nega_ means _single_. In Middle High German _einec_ is always _single_. In New High German _einig_ means, 1. _a certain person_ (_quidam_), 2. _agreeing_; _einzig_, meaning _single_. In Dutch _[^e]nech_ has both meanings. This indicates the word _['a]n_, _one_, as the root of the word in question.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 9.

_Compound pronouns._--_Which_, as has been already stated more than once, is most incorrectly called the neuter of _who_. Instead of being a neuter, it is a compound word. The adjective _leiks_, _like_, is preserved in the Moeso-Gothic words _galeiks_, and _missaleiks_. In Old High German the form is _lih_, in Anglo-Saxon _lic_. Hence we have Moeso-Gothic, _hv[^e]leiks_; Old High German, _huelih_; Anglo-Saxon, _huilic_ and _hvilc_; Old Frisian, _hwelik_; Danish, _hvilk-en_; German, _welch_; Scotch, _whilk_; English, _which_. (Grimm, D. G., iii. 47). The same is the case with--

1. _Such._--Moeso-Gothic, _svaleiks_; Old High German, _s[^o]lih_; Old Saxon, _sul[^i]c_; Anglo-Saxon, _svilc_; German, _solch_; English, _such_. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 48). Rask's derivation of the Anglo-Saxon _swilc_ from _swa-ylc_, is exceptionable.

2. _Thilk._--An old English word, found in the provincial dialects, as _thick_, _thuck_, _theck_, and hastily derived by Tyrwhitt, {258} Ritson, and Weber, from _se ylca_, is found in the following forms: Moeso-Gothic, _th[^e]leiks_; Norse, _thvilikr_. (Grimm, iii. 49.)

3. _Ilk._--Found in the Scotch, and always preceded by the article; _the ilk_, or _that ilk_, meaning _the same_. In Anglo-Saxon this word is _ylca_, preceded also by the article _se ylca_, _se['o] ylce_, _thaet ylce_. In English, as seen above, the word is replaced by _same_. In no other Gothic dialect does it occur. According to Grimm, this is no simple word, but a compound one, of which some such word as _ei_ is the first, and _l[^i]c_ the second element. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 50.)

_Aught._--In Moeso-Gothic is found the particle _aiv_, _ever_, but only in negative propositions; _ni_ (_not_) preceding it. Its Old High German form is _[^e]o_, _io_; in Middle High German, _ie_ in New High German, _je_; in Old Saxon, _io_; in Anglo-Saxon, _[^a]_; in Norse, _ae_. Combined with this particle the word _whit_ (_thing_) gives the following forms: Old High German, _['e]owiht_; Anglo-Saxon, _[^a]viht_; Old Frisian, _[^a]wet_; English, _aught_. The word _naught_ is _aught_ preceded by the negative particle. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 52.)

_Each._--The particle _gi_ enters, like the particle in the composition of pronouns. Old High German, _[^e]ogal[^i]her_, every one; _[^e]ocalih_, all; Middle High German, _iegelich_; New High German, _jeglich_; Anglo-Saxon, _aelc_; English, _each_; the _l_ being dropped, as in _which_ and _such_. _Aelc_, as the original of the English _each_ and the Scotch _ilka,_[42] must by no means be confounded with the word _ylce_, _the same_. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 54.)

_Every_, in Old English, _everich_, _everech_, _everilk one_, is _aelc_, preceded by the particle _ever_. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 54.)

_Either._--Old High German, _[^e]ogahuedar_; Middle High German, _iegeweder_; Anglo-Saxon, _aeghvaedher_, _aegdher_; Old Frisian, _eider_.

_Neither._--The same, with the negative article prefixed. _Neither_ : _either_ :: _naught_ : _aught_.

_Other_, _whether_.--These words, although derived forms, being simpler than some that have preceded, might fairly {259} have been dealt with before. They make, however, a transition from the present to the succeeding chapter, and so find a place here.

A. _First_, it may be stated of them that the idea which they express is not that _of one out of many_, but that of _one out of two_.

1. In Sanskrit there are two forms, ^a) _kataras_, the same word as _whether_, meaning _which out of two_; ^b) _katamas_, _which out of many_. So also _[^e]kateras_, _one out of two_; _[^e]katamas_, _one out of many_. In Greek, the Ionic form [Greek: koteros] ([Greek: poteros]); in Latin, _uter_, _neuter_, _alter_; and in Moeso-Gothic, _hvathar_, have the same form and the same meaning.

2. In the Scandinavian language the word _anden_, Dano-Saxon _annar_, Iceland corresponds to the English word _second_, and not the German _zweite:_ e. g., _Karl den Anden_, _Charles the Second_. Now _anthar_ is the older form of _other_.

B. _Secondly_, it may be stated of them, that the termination _-er_ is the same termination that we find in the comparative degree.

1. The idea expressed by the comparative degree is the comparison, not of _many_, but of _two_ things; _this is better than that_.

2. In all the Indo-European languages where there are pronouns in _-ter_, there is also a comparative degree in _-ter_. See next chapter.

3. As the Sanskrit form _kataras_ corresponds with the comparative degree, where there is the comparison of _two things with each other_; so the word _katamas_ is a superlative form; and in the superlative degree lies the comparison of _many_ things with each other.

Hence _other_ and _whether_ (to which may be added _either_ and _neither_) are pronouns with the comparative form.

_Other_ has the additional peculiarity of possessing the plural form _others_. Hence, like _self_, it is, in the strictest sense, a substantival pronoun.

* * * * *

{260}