If the subject of a sentence is itself rendered prominent by circumlocution, an adjective sentence comes in after it, in which the relative pronoun agrees, not with the grammatical, but with the logical subject, which has taken the place of a predicative determination, and to which its predicate is given by the adjective sentence. The verb of the principal sentence arising by circumlocution agrees on the other hand with the grammatical subject.

---

"

It is I That all the abhorred things o' the earth amend By being worse than they (SHAKSP., Cymb. 5, 5.). Villain 't is thou that robb'st me of my lord." „Madam, 't is you that rob me of my lord" (MARLOWE, Edw. II. 1, 1.). It is God that girdeth me with strength (Ps. 18, 32.). It was not England that declared war first (CARLYLE, French Revol. 3, 2, 8.). He it was, whose guile deceiv'd The mother of mankind (MILT., P. L. 1, 34.). It is not every young poet who can be so easily discouraged (LEWES, G 1. 52.). But is it only the plebeians who will rise? (BULW, Rienzi 1, 5.). It is this which in later years perplexed his judges (LEWES, G. I. 52.). Also sentences like: T is not thy wealth but her that I esteem (MARLOWE, Jew of M. 2, 2.); or with the relative conjunction: 'T was men I lack'd, and you will give them me (SHAKSP., II Henry VI. 3, 1.). T is thee I fear (4, 1). Say is it me thou hat'st and fearest? (BYR., Bride 1, 11.) belong to this sort of circumlocution, in which her, thee me are employed as nominatives.

This circumlocution is not quite foreign to the older English tongue: Is it ought I that shuld do that dede? (Town. M. p. 180.). It is I that dede hym kylle (Cov. MYST. p. 291). It is pe spirit pat quykenep (WICLYFFE, Joh. 6, 36.). It is foreign to Anglosaxon so far as the leaning of the verb on the grammatical subject is unfamiliar. He ys pe äfter me toveard ys, se väs gevorden beforan me (Jon. 1, 27.). Gâst is se pe geliffäst (6, 63). Min fäder is pe me vuldrað (A.-S. HOMIL. II. 234.). A construction like hit is ic is unknown to Anglosaxon and rather transforms itself into ic hit eom. The English manner is analogous to the Modern-French, but not based in Old-French. See Mätzner's Syntax of the Modern-French tongue I. 160.

The grammatical subject may also enter into other sentences, as into the indirect question: It might, indeed, well be doubted, whether the firmest union among all the orders of the state could avert the common danger (MACAUL., Hist. of E. 1, 60.). To the king of France it mattered little which of the two English parties triumphed at the elections (II. 128.). In like manner we must regard the case in which it comprises the substance of conditional and concessive sentences: It is no matter if I do halt (SHAKSP., II Henry IV. 1, 2.). If angels tremble, 't is at such a sight (YOUNG, N. Th. 4, 791.). If I please you in this affair, 't is as I desire (SHERID., Riv. 3, 1.) It is no wonder if Goethe has on this account been accused of sensibility (LEWES, G. I. 13.). What recks it, though that corse shall lie Within a living grave? (BYR., Bride 2, 26.). Even temporal sentences are found with the grammatical subject it: 'T is seldom, When the bee doth leave her comb In the dead carrion (SHAKSP., II

Henry IV. 4, 4.). 'T is much, when sceptres are in children's hands; But more, When envy breeds unkind division (I HENRY VI. 4, 2.). Sentences of such a sort may also be accompanied by it, as sentences of the object: I should now take it as a greater favour, if you hasten the horses (GOLDSM, G. Nat. M. 5.).

The older tongue exhibits the like: It were my deth, If Jacob weddeth in kynd of Hethe (Tows. M. p. 44.). If he longe leve, it wyl be straunge (Cov. MYST. 224.); before the sentence of the object: Dame, thynk it not ylle Thy knave if I kylle (Town. M. p. 148.). Halfsax.: Nu hit is muchel leod-scome if hit scal pus a-ligge (LA3AM. III. 45.). Anglos. Nis hit nân vundor peah pu sy god and ic yfel (Ps. 50, 6.); and with pät or pis instead of hit: pät väs vide cûo hù he his dagas geendode (SAX. CHR. 946.). pâ pis cûo väs. . hû pâ ôore gefêrdon (1009.).

The Anacoluthic subject.

When a nominative comes to the front of the sentence and appears the subject of the predicate, while the speech repeats it by a pronoun in another case (also as a possessive) and involves it in the construction, an anacoluthon is present. The reason of this anacoluthon is that the object first named chiefly engages the speaker, so that he elevates it into being the bearer of an unfinished sentence, whose predicate is disguised under the form of a new sentence. That apparent subject often stands before a relative sentence, the nominative of which seems to cooperate as the cause of an attraction of the noun preceding it.

Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host That he which hath not stomach to this fight, Let him depart; his passport shall be made (SHAKSP., Henry V. 4, 1.). He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death (MATTH. 15, 4.). My lord constable, the armour, that I saw in your tent to-night, are those stars, or suns, upon it? (SHAKSP, Henrz V. 3, 7.). 'T is certain, that every man that dies ill, the ill is upon his own head (JOHN 4, 1.). Religion, virtue, truth, Whate'er we call a blessing freedom is the pledge of all (Cowp. p. 9.). His young and open soul dissimulation Is foreign to its habits (COLERIDGE, Picc. 1, 3.). But he, the chieftain of them all, His sword hangs rusting on the wall (SCOTT, Last Minstr. 1, 7.). Where the nominative is not distinguished in form from the case of the object, it is equivocal whether we are to assume the reduplication of the oblique case or the anacoluthon: My noble father, Three times to-day I holp him to his horse (SHAKSP., II Henry VI. 5, 3.). Now all the people that came out were circumcised; but all the people that were born in the wilderness.. them they had not circumcised (JOSH. 5, 5.). In cases like these, we shall incline to assume the anacoluthon.

This anacoluthon, particularly after a relative sentence, belongs to all periods of the language: He that berethe the diamond upon him, it zevethe hym hardynesse and manhode (Maundev. p. 159.). He that can his time abyde, Al his wille him schal bytyde (ALIS. 462.). Anglos.: pâ pe God sêceað, ne âspringes him nan gôd (Ps. 33, 10.). Cyninges horsvealh, se pe him mæge geærendjan, päs vergyld bio två hund scill. (LEGG. INAE 33.). Værleás mon and vonhŷdig, ætren-môd and ungetreóv, päs ne gymeð God (Cod. Exon. 243, 24.). Bolder anacolutha, in which the sentence following the nominative does

not again admit the apparent subject are not rare in Old-English: For he that sloys yong or old, It shalle be punyshid sevenfold (Tows. M. p. 16.). We that were barreyn God hath sent a childe (Cov. MYST. p. 80.); as in Anglosaxon: Se man pe ät päm fyrdunge tôforan his hlâforde fealle. . beon pâ heregeata forgyvene (LEGG. CNUT. I. B. 75 ). Se pe útlages veorc gevyrce, vealde se cyning päs frides (ib. 12.). Sentences of this sort are often equal in value to a conditional member of a sentence.

Omission of the Subject.

Since every sentence would be devoid of support without a subject, the image of one can never be absent. Therefore whenever an ellipsis occurs here, the predicate must be readily completed by a wellknown subject. But the reference of a verb to a preceding, although remoter subject is not to be regarded as an ellipsis. Properly the not depoting the subject by a personal pronoun should not be regarded as an omission of it, the verbal inflection originally including the pronoun. But since the wearing off of the inflective term has rendered the personal forms in part quite unrecognistable, and the universal usage of language uses pronouns as relative subjects, the omission of them, unless, as with the imperative, it has remained popular, appears more or less as an ellipsis.

1. The imperative, in spite of the obliteration of its inflective forms, does not need the support of the pronoun. Its reference to the second person singular becomes clear only from other determinations of the sentence.

Cast off your armour, put on scarlet robes (MARLOWE, I Tamburlaine 5, 2.). Drink, gentlemen, make free (SHERID. Knowles, Hunchback 1, 1.). Repine not at thy lot (BYR., p. 308.).

The combination of the imperative with the second person of the pronoun is, however, not unfamiliar, even if no stress is laid upon the pronoun.

Then sit thou down, divine Zenocrate (MARLOWE, I Tamburl. 5, 2.). Vex not thou the poet's mind with thy shallow wit (TENNYS. p. 41.). Sing ye the Lord (ExOD. 15, 21.).

The interchange of both modes of expressions it not unusual. Praise ye the Lord. O give thanks unto the Lord (Ps. 106, 1.). Bring roses, pour ye wine (MRS. HEMANS p. 12.).

These twofold modes of expression and their interchange also pervade the Old-English, where the singular is still in part distinguished from the plural of the imperative: His hit thi wille, comme and site (WRIGHT, Anecd. p. 3.). Lystneth, lordynges (WRIGHT, Polit. S. p. 212.). 3e that wolen abide, listneth (p. 324.). Play thou not but with thy peres. Ny tel thou not al that thou heres (HALLIW., Freemas. 769). Mourne noght, Mede, Ne make thow no sorwe (P. PLOUGHм. p. 44). With the Sowdan thou mal thy pes! Take trewes (RICH. C. DE L. 6895.). Even in Anglosaxon both forms are in use: Lûfa pîne nêxtan, and hata pîne feónd . . Lûfjað eóvre fŷnd, and doo vel pâm pe eóv yfel doo (MATH. 5, 45). The combination of the singular with pu is very common: Ne sleá pu. Ne stala pu. Ne säge pu lease gevitnesse við þínum nêhstan (LEGG ELFR. 5.). Hâl väs pu (MATH. 27, 29). In the plural it is the forms in -on, -e, used for the imperative, which particularly take ge: Nellon ge vesan svylce leáse licceteras (MATH.

る

6, 16.). Nellen ge eornostlice beón ymb-hydige (6, 31.). Näbbe ge gold ne seolfer (10, 9.).

2. In personal sentences the subject is sometimes wanting, especially in the more negligent conversational language, but chiefly with the singular of the verb.

The first person is introduced without I.

"Can not sing." - Prithee, Hermogenes." Can not sing (BEN JONS., Poetast. 2, 1.). Can't guess at the person (GOLDSM., G. Nat. M. 4.). Pray thee, Roman (BEN JONS., Poetast. 1, 1.). Pr'ythee what art, what rhetoric didst thou use To gain this mighty boon? (ADDIS., Cato 3, 3.). Beseech you, father! (SHAKSP., Temp. 1, 2.). Would to God we had died (ExOD. 16, 3.). O would that she loved me! (SHERID. KNOWLES, Hunchb. 4, 1.). Thank ye, George! I ask no more (GOLDSM., She Stoops 4.). Thank you, Sir (DICKENS, Ol. Twist 5.). Give you thanks! (SHERID. KNOWLES, Hunchb. 3, 2.). Am therefore forced 'T insist thereon (COLERIDGE, Picc. 4, 5.). Have you indeed found miss Julia, and how?" Simply saw her at a house window" (OXENFORD, Twice Killed 1, 1.). Had seen thee soouer, lad, but had to see the hounds kennelled first (SCOTT, R. Roy 6.). "How came you so?“ Outran the constable; lived fast, you know." (PLANCHÉ, Fortunio 1, 2). Typography occasionally employs the mark of elision, as in 'Beseech &c. Forms like pr'ythee have almost sunk down into particles, The rejection of the I is due to the glibness of the speech of common life.

This negligence of speech is not to be further pursued historically, however explicable it may be The most ancient tongue, especially the Anglosaxon, seems not to know it at all.

The casting off of the pronoun thou with the second person of the verb, although the second person of the singular is limited in use, rests upon ancient usage and is, on account of the preservation of the inflective form, at least unambiguous. It especially occurs in interrogative sentences.

Dost hear? (SHAKSP., Temp. 1, 2.). Dost court abundance for the sake of peace? (YOUNG, N. Th. 6, 494.). Why dost stare so? (MRS. CENTLIVRE, Wonder 2, 1.). How dost? And where hast heen these eighteen months? (LEIGH HUNT, Legend of Florence 1, 1.). Why, where hast been? (COLERIDGE, Picc. 2, 8.). Hast honestly confess'd it to thyself? (4, 4.). Art not afeard? (SHAKSP., Cymb. 4, 2.). Art not ashamed (I Henry IV. 1, 3.). What art? (BUTL, Hud. 3, 1, 1400.). Art gone! All 's chance All 's care All 's darkness (SHERID. KNOWLES, Hunchb, 4, 2.). Wilt take thy chance with me? (SHAKSP.. Cymb. 4, 2.). Wilt write it? (SHERID. KNOWLES, Hunchb. 4, 2.). Wilt let me take thy hand? (LOVE-CHASE 1. 2.). Would'st have it present? (BYR., Cain 2, 2.). Would'st question Whence? (BRIDE 2, 15.). Bashaw, in brief, shalt have no tribute here (MARLOWE, Jew of M. 4, 4). What say'st, my lady? (SHAKSP., I Henry IV. 1, 3.). And know'st for whom? (MILT., P. L. 2, 730.). Know'st not What with these nuptials comes? SHERID. KNOWLES, Hunchb. 5, 2.). Can'st wonder? (ibid.).

Old-Engl.: Sire, no darst nought tarye (ALIS 2010). And yf be sensualyté Synnyst dedly, thou xalt not therfore dyspeyre (Cov. MYST. p. 244.). We trewly the bowth. Therfore now art oure (p 294); so often in indicative sentences, as in the question: What seyst now, Jhesus? Why answerist not? Heryst not what is seyd ajens the? (p. 295). Knowest him no more? (RoмM. OF THE ROSE 466.). Even in Anglosaxon pu is occasionally cast off: Bist tô vuldre full hâlgan hyhtes (COD. Exos. 4, 24.). Eart nu tid-fara tô þam hâlgan hâm (10%, 18.)

A substantive subject is sometimes wanting to the third person of the verb in the singular. It is commonly the name of god or of the devil, which the language of common life, partly from a certain fear, partly for the sake of the emphasis belonging to the predicate, first accents more feebly, then wholly casts off. Sometimes we cannot with certainty distinguish the imperative from the third or first person of the present.

"

Save his majesty (SHAKSP., Temp. 2, 1.). Save you, fair lady (RowE, J. Shore 1, 2.). „Save us!" said the old lady, with tears in her eyes, What a little dear it is." (DICKENS, OI. Twist 12.). Bless you, sir (SHAKSP., Merry W. 2, 2.). Do you give the children Daffy, Mrs. Mann?" Ah, bless 'em, that I do, dear as it is." (DICKENS, Ol. Twist 2.). Bless me! so late! (BULW., Money 1, 2.). Bless me, Mr. Corks! anything happened? (DOUGL. JERROLD, Bubbles 1, 1.). Beshrew me, but you have a quick wit (SHAKSP., Two Gentlem. 1, 1.) Damn her, lewd minx! O damn her! (OTHELLO 3, 2.). „Damn it!" said the general (BULW., Disowned 27.). Think upon me? hang 'em! (SHAKSP., Coriol. 2, 3.), Curse it.. hang it (GOLDSM., G. Nat. M. 4.). Thou art a generous fellow, strike me dumb, but thou hast an impertinent wife, stap my vitals! (SHERID., Trip ty Scarb. 2, 1.). Confound the cormorant, he'd breed a famine (PLANCHE, Fortunio 2, 1.) and the like.

The forms cited, partly used as mere exclamations of various hues or expressions of indignation and of imprecation might have had one and the same origin, although it has been effaced. But that accostings may be found even here is proved by passages like: Hang the trifle, woman; take the honour (SHAKSP., Merry W. 2, 1.). More complete forms seem to confirm our assumption, as in Shakspeare: God save the king (MACB. 1, 2) God bless thee, lady (TWELFTH N. 1, 5.). God bless the mark! (MERCH. OF V. 2, 2.). Say, God damn me! (COM. OF ERR 4, 3.. Compare the curse: God damn! alongside of: The devil damn thee! (MACB. 5, 3.). In the more ancient tongue we hardly find abbreviations. Comp.: Ay, besherewe you, be my fay, This wanton clarkes be nyse all way (SKELTON I. 28.). This might perhaps be the first person of the present, as in: Peter, I schrewe yow but ye love it wel (CHAUC. C. T. 6028.). On the other hand we find more complete forms like: The deville hang him up to dry (Town. M. p. 8.). Cristes curs mot he have (GAMELYN in Wright ed. Chauc. v. 106. 116.). The trace of these sentences without a subject is moreover lost in OldEnglish.

Ömissions of the subject with the plural could hardly occur elsewhere than in the language of the lowest layers of the people. English no longer admits freer references back, such as still occur in Halfsaxon: Blisse wes on hirede, custen & clupten & cuðliche speken (LazAM. II. 439.). In the singular we find the same. Old-Engl.: Hyr madgnhede with hir shalle dwelle, As dyd beforne (Town. M. p. 129.). Anglos.: pâ veard pam cyninge gekŷd and sende tô Raab (Josн. 2, 2.).