GRAMMA R. 



Tliis dofiuitive is in our tongue vaiioM fly applied ; and the ob- 

 jofts of its application arc to dilliuCt <ind diflorent, that it has 

 been tiioii-rlit to cliaiijTO itsnatiir.;. and to bf long to different 

 parts of f|eecli. And Mr. Took.- lias the merit ol being the 

 tirll to lliew that in all circumftances, ihat retains one and the 

 fame charaAer. Let us briefly conllder its various applica- 

 tions. And fuJI, it is nfed to bring under the eye of the 

 mind, /'. e. to deline individual objects ; as that book. In 

 this fenfe it is oppofed to this, ani'wering to ilte as oppofed to 

 lik in Latin. Ille, that, denotes therenioterof two objects; hie, 

 //j;x,the nearer. "Alexander and .luliusC.efarvvere great com- 

 manders, that (ille) conquered Afia; this (hie) fubdued the 

 Gauls — ih.it, meaning Alexander as the farthell olF; this, 

 Julius C;tfar, as the neareft.'' In fi:ch a fentence it would be 

 more ufual to fay the former and the latter. Secondly, that 

 is fre<juently ui'ed to characterize a ivhole claufe, which is the 

 objeA of a tranfuive verb, thus fi;rving to fix tlie attention on 

 what is going to be faid, and by that means to render it empha- 

 tic and prominent. Thus, "Iwiihyou to beheve /Z>i!< (that 

 thing which I am going to fay, namely,) I will not hurt a fly ;" 

 which Mr. Tooke thus relolves, " I would not willingly 

 hurt a fly ; I wifii you to believe //j^/ aflertinn.'' In this ap- 

 plication it anfwers to quod in Latin. Thirdly, thnfk an index 

 to point (Hit the end or purpo/e which a perion has in view, 

 and as fuch precedes a verb in the fubjunctivc mood, ex- 

 prefiing that end thus : " Tiiieves rife in the night thai they 

 may Ileal." — " Thieves rife in the night, that being their 

 purpofe, namely, they might Ileal.'' In this fenfe it cor- 

 refponds to the Latin conjunftion ;/.', which, perhaps, led to 

 the error of conlidering that as a conjunction in the fccond 

 and third fenfes. Fourthly, it is an index pointing to a noun 

 in tlie preceding claufe, and is a fubflitute for that noun, or 

 rather it agrees with that noun implied, though never ex- 

 prciTed. " The man, that hatli not mufic in himfelf, is fit for 

 treaion.'' Here the firil claufe, the man, is reprefented as 

 definite, while the reader as yet is not able to recognife it as 

 fuch. Wiiat man is fit for treafon ? To preclude the necef- 

 lity of this queition, a claufe is introduced, that man, namely, 

 he who hatli not mufic in himfelf. In this fentence that is 

 thought to be a relative equivalent to avho, which may 

 be fubftituted for it. But in reality it is Hill a definitive, 

 ufed to afcertain the preceding fpecified noun, which has the 

 form of being definite without being really fo ; and the pre- 

 ceding noun is to be repeated, or, as that is deferiptive, a ge- 

 neric or i'pecific noun of the fame import is underilood to be 

 introduced. Thus the man, namely, that fort of man, who 

 hath not mufic in himfelf, is fit for treafon. The fubjcft of 

 difcourfe may be plural, and yet the fingular form of that 

 may, on this fuppofition, be ufed. " The men that have not 

 mufic in themfelvcs, are fit for treafon," i.e. the men, //v(< 

 fort of men, namely, who have not mufic in themlelves, are 

 fit for treafon : and this is the folution of the apparent ano- 

 maly of that being ufed in both numbers, without variation, 

 w hen taken relatively. 



We come next to fpeak of the relative pronoun, which Mr. 

 Harris thus explains, p. 77. " But befides thofe there is an- 

 other pronoun (in Greek c.;, i,!,-, in Lathi qui, in Englilh ivho, 

 twhich, that), a pronoun having a charadter peculiar to itfelf, 

 the nature of which may be explained as follows. Suppofe 

 I was to fay light is a body, — light moves with great celerity. 

 Thefe would apparently be two diilinC\ fenteuces. Sup- 

 pofe, inl^.'-ad of the fecond light, I were to place tiie prepo- 

 fitive pronoun it : Light is a body ; /'/ moves with great 

 celerity ; the fentence would be ftill dillinct and two. But 

 if I add a connective (as for example an and) faying light is 

 a body, and it moves with great celerity ; I then by connec- 



tion make the two into one, as, by cementing many ftones 

 1 make one wall. 



" Now it is in the united powers of a conneftive and 

 another pronoun, that we may fee the force and charadter 

 of the pronoun here treated. Thus, therefore, if in the 

 place of anr/ it we fr.olUtute that ov '-.uhich, faying light h 

 a body, ivhich moves with great celerity ; the fentence Hill 

 retains its unity and perfection, and becomes, if poifible, mor,- 

 compact than before. ^Ve may with jult reafon, therefore, 

 call this pronoun the fidijumlive, bccaufe it cannot, like the 

 prepofitive, introduce an original fentence ; but only lerves, 

 to fubjoin one to fome other wliich is previous." 



This account, though elegant and fpecious, we neverthe-- 

 lefs deem erroneous ; becaule the relative pronouns in all Ian-, 

 guages are the fame in their origin and ufe with the articles 

 or definitive pronouns. In Greek c.- is only the article u with. 

 ; annexed after the analogy of that termination in Greek 

 nouns. Hence the reafon why i and cs are, by the more an^ 

 cieiit writers, luch as Homer and Herodotus, ufed for one 

 another, "either as demonllrative or relative pronouns. The 

 Latin hie is alio the article c. with a guttural annexed — hoc; 

 while qui, which Scaliger, and after him Mr. Tooke, derive 

 from Kai I, is no other tium the Perllan ke or che, tvho, which. 

 Moreover, qnis is the Oriental Lis, who or tvhat ; and it is re-, 

 markable that in Hindooflan Lis is redoubled Lis Lis, and 

 this has been imported into Latin quifquis. Finally, our who is 

 the Greek I, having the labial iv fublHtutcd for the afpirate,- 

 which is a broad and general analogy, by which words in 

 Latin and the Anglo-Saxon are formed from Greek or from 

 the Oriental tongues. IVhirh is the neuter termination of 

 c, formed 011 the fame principle as hoc in Latin, that is, a 

 guttural is annexed to ivho, luhoc, which. And this is the 

 reafon that, wliile who is applied to perfons, which is made 

 to Hand for inanimate things. 



As the relative and definitive pronouns have the fame ori-. 

 gin, they are alfo the fame in ufe. For in Latin the relative 

 always fuppofes the antecedent to be repeated, and is 

 repeated v.-lien obfcufe or doubtful. In our own tongue, 

 indeed, who never coalefces witli the antecedent noun, and is ' 

 therefore ?i fuhjlitute for it, and this pecuharity in our own 

 tongue has cauled who, with its other cafes whofe, whom, to. 

 drop its nature as a definitive, and to become really a pronoun, 

 ('. f. a fubflitute for a noun. Tliis peculiarity has alfo ob-, 

 tained in regard to he, which was the Hebrew and Greek . 

 article n, ha, or 0. And this is the reafon why the ai'ticle in 

 Homer may be often rendered by he in our own tongue. Dr. 

 Middl'ton, not perceiving this circumilance, was led, in a vo- 

 lumiiK.us work publifhed on the Greek article, to fuppofe 

 that the Greek article is in its nature a perfonal pronoun, and 

 may be always refolved into a pronoun. The foundation 

 being thus fallacious, the whole fuper-ftrutture, liuwever 

 learned and elaborate, is frivolous and ufelefs. 



We obferve farther that hie, ille, and ;".', which are really, 

 definitives, often refer, like qui, to a preceding noun, and 

 for this reafon have a claim equally juft to be called relative 

 pronouns. Thus, " Deus nobis 1i:ec otia fecit ; namque 

 erit ille mihi temper Deus ; illius aram fjepe tener nollris ab 

 ovilibus imbuet agnus." Here the firil i/le is ille homo, or 

 ille juvenis, meaning Augujlus, elegantly kept out of fight, 

 the reader being left to conceive of him only as a god; while 

 illius is illius dei, of that god. " Tres littore cervos profpicit 

 errantes, hos tota armeuta fequantur^ i. e. hos cervos." 

 " Cognofciinus Deus ex operibus ejus,'" we know God 

 from the works of the lame — ejus dei. 



Becaufe the relative qui is thus a definitive, the defined, 

 noun, when not antecedent, is made to fuccced it in Latia 



and 



