CHAPTER X.

ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN.

s. 535. Questions are of two sorts, direct and oblique.

_Direct._--Who is he?

_Oblique._--Who do you say that he is?

All difficulties about the cases of the interrogative pronoun may be determined by framing an answer, and observing the case of the word with which the interrogative coincides. Whatever be the case of this word will also be the case of the interrogative.

DIRECT.

_Qu._ _Who_ is this?--_Ans._ _I._ _Qu._ _Whose_ is this?--_Ans._ _His._ _Qu._ _Whom_ do you seek?--_Ans._ _Him._

OBLIQUE.

_Qu._ _Who_ do you say that it is?--_Ans._ _He._ _Qu._ _Whose_ do you say that it is?--_Ans._ _His._ _Qu._ _Whom_ do you say that they seek?--_Ans._ _Him._

_Note._--The answer should always be made by means of a pronoun, as, by so doing we distinguish the accusative case from the nominative.

_Note._--And, if necessary, it should be made in full. Thus the full answer to _whom do you say that they seek?_ is, _I say that they seek him_.

s. 536. Nevertheless, such expressions as _whom do they say that it is?_ are common, especially in oblique questions. The following examples are Mr. Guest's.--_Philological Transactions._

"And he axed hem and seide, _whom_ seien the people that I am? Thei answereden and seiden, Jon Baptist--and he seide to hem, But _whom_ seien ye that I am?"--WICLIF, _Luke_ ix.

{429}

"Tell me in sadness _whom_ she is you love."

_Romeo and Juliet_, i. 1.

"And as John fulfilled his course, he said, _whom_ think ye that I am?"--_Acts_ xiii. 25.

Two circumstances encourage this confusion. 1. The presence of a second verb, which takes the appearance of a governing verb. 2. The omission of a really oblique antecedent or relative. 3. The use of accusative for nominative forms in the case of personal pronouns.

s. 537. _The presence of a second verb_, &c.--_Tell_ me _whom_ she _is_. Here _tell_ is made to govern _whom_, instead of _whom_ being left, as _who_, to agree with _she_.

s. 538. _The omission_, &c.--Tell me _whom_ she is you _love_. Here the full construction requires a second pronoun--tell me _who_ she is _whom_ you _love_; or else, tell me _her whom_ you love.

s. 539. To the question, _who is_ this? many would answer not _I_, but _me_. This confusion of the case in the answer favours a confusion of case in the question.

It is clear that much of this reasoning applies to the relative powers of _who_, as well as to the interrogative.

But, it is possible that there may be no incorrectness at all: insomuch as _whom_ may have become a true nominative. Mr. Guest has truly remarked that such is the case in the Scandinavian language, where _hve-m_=_who_=_qui_.

This view, if true, justifies the use of _whom_ after the conjunctions _than_ and _as_; so that the expression,--

Satan than _whom_ None higher sat,

may be right.

Nevertheless, it does not justify such expressions as--

None sit higher than _me_. None sit higher than _thee_. None sit higher than _us_. None sit higher than _her_.

{430}

The reason of this is clear. _Whom_ is supposed to be admissible, not because the sentence admits an accusative case; but because custom has converted it into a nominative. For my own part, I doubt the application of the Danish rule to the English language. Things may be going that way, but they have not, as yet, gone far enough.

* * * * *

{431}