The Grammar of English Grammars Part 52

and therefore _they_ [say _the p.r.o.noun and its antecedent_] should not be separated."--_Murray's Gram., Octavo_, p. 273; _Ingersoll's_, 285; _Comly's_, 152. This reasoning, strictly applied, would exclude the comma before _who_ in the first example above; but, as the p.r.o.noun does not "closely" or immediately follow its antecedent, the comma is allowed, though it is not much needed. Not so, when the sense is resumptive: as, "The _additions, which_ are very considerable, are chiefly _such as_ are calculated to obviate objections." See _Murray's Gram._, p. ix. Here the comma is essential to the meaning. Without it, _which_ would be equivalent to _that_; with it, which is equivalent to _and they_. But this latter meaning, as I imagine, cannot be expressed by the relative _that_.

OBS. 30.--Into the unfortunate example which Sanborn took from Murray, I have inserted the comma for him; not because it is necessary or right, but because his rule requires it: "_Self-denial_ is the _sacrifice_," &c. The author of "a complete system of grammar," might better contradict even Murray, than himself. But why was this text admired? and why have _Greene, Bullions, Hiley, Hart_, and others, also copied it? A _sacrifice_ is something devoted and lost, for the sake of a greater good; and, _if Virtue sacrifice self-denial_, what will she do, but run into indulgence? The great sacrifice which she demands of men, is rather that of their _self-love_. Wm. E. Russell has it, "_Self defence_ is the sacrifice which virtue must make!"--_Russell's Abridgement of Murray's Gram._, p. 116.

Bishop Butler tells us, "It is indeed _ridiculous_ to a.s.sert, that _self-denial is essential to virtue and piety_; but it would have been nearer the truth, though not strictly the truth itself, to have said, that it is essential to discipline and improvement."--_a.n.a.logy of Religion_, p.

123.

OBS. 31.--The relative _that_, though usually reckoned equivalent to _who_ or _which_, evidently differs from both, in being more generally, and perhaps more appropriately, taken in the restrictive sense. It ought therefore, for distinction's sake, to be preferred to _who_ or _which_, whenever an antecedent not otherwise limited, is to be restricted by the relative clause; as, "_Men that_ grasp after riches, are never satisfied."--"I love _wisdom that_ is gay and civilized."--_Art of Thinking_, p. 34. This phraseology leaves not the limitation of the meaning to depend solely upon the absence of a pause after the antecedent; because the relative _that_ is seldom, if ever, used by good writers in any other than a restrictive sense. Again: "A man of a polite imagination is let into a great many pleasures _that_ the vulgar are not capable of receiving."--_Addison, Spect._, No. 411. Here, too, according to my notion, _that_ is obviously preferable to _which_; though a great critic, very widely known, has taken some pains to establish a different opinion. The "many pleasures" here spoken of, are no otherwise defined, than as being such as "the vulgar are not capable of receiving." The writer did not mean to deny that the vulgar are capable of receiving a great many pleasures; but, certainly, if _that_ were changed to _which_, this would be the meaning conveyed, unless the reader were very careful to avoid a pause where he would be apt to make one. I therefore prefer Addison's expression to that which Dr. Blair would subst.i.tute.

OBS. 32.--The style of Addison is more than once censured by Dr. Blair, for the frequency with which the relative _that_ occurs in it, where the learned lecturer would have used which. The reasons a.s.signed by the critic are these: "_Which_ is a much more definitive word than that, being never employed in any other way than as a relative; whereas _that_ is a word of many senses; sometimes a demonstrative p.r.o.noun, often a conjunction. In some cases we are indeed obliged to use _that_ for a relative, in order to avoid the ungraceful repet.i.tion of _which_ in the same sentence. But when we are laid under no necessity of this kind, _which_ is always the preferable word, and certainly was so in this sentence: '_Pleasures which_ the vulgar are not capable of receiving,' is much better than '_pleasures that_ the vulgar are not capable of receiving.'"--_Blair's Rhetoric_, Lect.

xx, p. 200. Now the facts are these: (1.) That _that_ is the more definitive or restrictive word of the two. (2.) That the word _which_ has as many different senses and uses as the word _that_. (3.) That not the repet.i.tion of _which_ or _who_ in a series of clauses, but a _needless change_ of the relative, is ungraceful. (4.) That the necessity of using _that_ rather than _which_ or _who_, depends, not upon what is here supposed, but upon the different senses which these words usually convey.

(5.) That as there is always some reason of choice, _that_ is sometimes to be preferred; _which_, sometimes; and _who_, sometimes: as, "It is not the man _who_ has merely taught, or _who_ has taught long, or _who_ is able to point out defects in authors, _that_ is capable of enlightening the world in the respective sciences _which_ have engaged his attention; but the man _who_ has taught well."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 7.

OBS. 33.--Blair's Rhetoric consists of forty-seven lectures; four of which are devoted to a critical examination of the style of Addison, as exhibited in four successive papers of the Spectator. The remarks of the professor are in general judicious; but, seeing his work is made a common textbook for students of "Belles Lettres," it is a pity to find it so liable to reprehension on the score of inaccuracy. Among the pa.s.sages which are criticised in the twenty-first lecture, there is one in which the essayist speaks of the effects of _novelty_ as follows:

'It is this _which_ bestows charms on a monster, and makes even the imperfections of nature please us. It is this _that_ recommends variety, where the mind is every instant called off to something new, and the attention not suffered to dwell too long and waste itself on any particular object. It is this, likewise, _that_ improves what is great or beautiful, and makes it afford the mind a double entertainment.'--_Spectator_, No.

412.

This pa.s.sage is deservedly praised by the critic, for its "perspicuity, grace, and harmony;" but, in using different relatives under like circ.u.mstances, the writer has hardly done justice to his own good taste.

Blair's remark is this: "His frequent use of _that_, instead of _which_, is another peculiarity of his style; but, on this occasion in particular, [it]

cannot be much commended, as, 'It is this _which_,' seems, in every view, to be better than, 'It is this _that_,' three times repeated."--_Lect._ xxi, p. 207. What is here meant by "_every view_," may, I suppose, be seen in the corresponding criticism which is noticed in my last observation above; and I am greatly deceived, if, in this instance also, the relative _that_ is not better than _which_, and more agreeable to polite usage. The direct relative which corresponds to the introductory p.r.o.noun _it_ and _an other antecedent_, should, I think, be _that_, and not _who_ or _which_: as, "It is not ye _that_ speak."--_Matt._, x, 20. "It is thou, Lord, _who_ hast the hearts of all men in thy hands, _that_ turnest the hearts of any to show me favour."--_Jenks's Prayers_, p. 278. Here _who_ has reference to _thou_ or _Lord_ only; but _that_ has some respect to the p.r.o.noun _it_, though it agrees in person and gender with _thou_. A similar example is cited at the close of the preceding observation; and I submit it to the reader, whether the word _that_, as it there occurs, is not the _only fit_ word for the place it occupies. So in the following examples: "There are _Words, which_ are _not Verbs, that_ signify actions and pa.s.sions, and even things transient."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. 100. "It is the universal taste of mankind, which is subject to no such changing modes, _that_ alone is ent.i.tled to possess any authority."--_Blair's Rhetoric_, p. 286.

OBS. 34.--Sometimes the broad import of an antecedent is _doubly restricted_, first by one relative clause, and then by an other; as, "And all _that dwell upon the earth_, shall wors.h.i.+p him, _whose names are not written in the book of life_."--_Rev._, xiii, 8. "And then, like true Thames-Watermen, they abuse every man _that_ pa.s.ses by, _who_ is better dressed than themselves."--_Brown's Estimate_, Vol. ii, p. 10. Here _and_, or _if he_, would be as good as "_who_;" for the connective only serves to carry the restriction into narrower limits. Sometimes the limit fixed by one clause is _extended_ by an other; as, "There is no evil _that you may suffer_, or _that you may expect to suffer, which_ prayer is not the appointed means to alleviate."--_Bickersteth, on Prayer_, p. 16. Here _which_ resumes the idea of "_evil_," in the extent last determined; or rather, in that which is fixed by either clause, since the limits of both are embraced in the a.s.sertion. And, in the two limiting clauses, the same p.r.o.noun was requisite, on account of their joint relation; but the clause which a.s.sumes a different relation, is rightly introduced by a different p.r.o.noun. This is also the case in the following examples: "For there is no condemnation to those _that_ are in Christ Jesus, _who_ walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 432. "I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast _that_ carrieth her, _which_ hath the seven heads and ten horns."--_Rev._, xvii, 7. Here the restrictive sense is well expressed by one relative, and the resumptive by an other. When neither of these senses is intended by the writer, _any_ form of the relative must needs be improper: as, "The greatest genius _which runs_ through the arts and sciences, takes a kind of tincture from them, and falls unavoidably into imitation."--_Addison, Spect._, No. 160.

Here, as I suppose, _which runs_ should be _in running_. What else can the author have meant?

OBS. 35.--Having now, as I imagine, clearly shown the difference between the restrictive and the resumptive sense of a relative p.r.o.noun, and the absolute necessity of making such a choice of words as will express that sense only which we intend; I hope the learner will see, by these observations, not merely that clearness requires the occasional use of each of our five relatives, _who, which, what, that_, and _as_; but that this distinction in the meaning, is a very common principle by which to determine what is, and what is not, good English. Thus _that_ and _as_ are appropriately our _restrictive_ relatives, though _who_ and _which_ are sometimes used restrictively; but, in a _resumptive_ sense, _who_ or _which_ is required, and required even after those terms which usually demand _that_ or _as_: thus, "We are vexed at the unlucky chance, and go away dissatisfied. _Such_ impressions, _which_ ought not to be cherished, are a sufficient reason for excluding stories of that kind from the theatre."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 279. Here _which_ is proper to the sense intended; but _such_ requires _as_, when the latter term limits the meaning of the former. In sentences like the following, _who_ or _which_ may be used in lieu of _that_; whether with any advantage or not, the reader may judge: "You seize the critical moment _that_ is favorable to emotion."--_Bair's Rhet._, p. 321. "_An_ historian _that_ would instruct us, must know when to be concise."--_Ib._, p. 359. "Seneca has been censured for the affectation _that_ appears in his style."--_Ib._, p. 367.

"Such as the prodigies _that_ attended the death of Julius Caesar."--_Ib._, p. 401. "By unfolding those principles _that_ ought to govern the taste of every individual."--_Kames's Dedication to El. of Crit._ "But I am sure he has that _that_ is better than an estate."--_Spect._, No. 475. "There are two properties, _that_ characterize and essentially distinguish relative p.r.o.nouns."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 74. By these examples, it may be seen, that Dr. Blair often forgot or disregarded his own doctrine respecting the use of this relative; though he was oftener led, by the error of that doctrine, to subst.i.tute _which_ for _that_ improperly.

OBS. 36.--_Whether_ was formerly used as an interrogative p.r.o.noun, in which sense it always referred to one of two things; as, "Ye fools and blind! for _whether_ is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?"--_Matt._, xxiii, 17. This usage is now obsolete; and, in stead of it, we say, "_Which_ is greater?" But as a disjunctive conjunction, corresponding to _or_, the word _whether_ is still in good repute; as, "Resolve _whether_ you will go _or_ not."--_Webster's Dict._ In this sense of the term, some choose to call _whether_ an _adverb_.

OBS. 37.--In the view of some writers, interrogative p.r.o.nouns differ from relatives chiefly in this; that, as the subject referred to is unknown to the speaker, they do not relate to a _preceding_ noun, but to something which is to be expressed in the answer to the question. It is certain that their _person, number_, and _gender_, are not regulated by an antecedent noun; but by what the speaker supposes or knows of a subject which may, or may not, agree with them in these respects: as, "_What_ lies there?"

Answer, "Two _men_ asleep." Here _what_, standing for _what thing_, is of the third person, singular number, and neuter gender; but _men_, which is the term that answers to it, is of the third person, plural, masculine.

There is therefore no necessary agreement between the question and the answer, in any of those properties in which a p.r.o.noun usually agrees with its noun. Yet some grammarians will have interrogatives to agree with these "_subsequents_," as relatives agree with their _antecedents_. The answer, it must be granted, commonly contains a noun, corresponding in some respects to the interrogative p.r.o.noun, and agreeing with it _in case_; but this noun cannot be supposed to control the interrogation, nor is it, in any sense, the word for which the p.r.o.noun stands. For every p.r.o.noun must needs stand for something that is uttered or conceived by the same speaker; nor can any question be answered, until its meaning is understood.

Interrogative p.r.o.nouns must therefore be explained as direct subst.i.tutes for such other terms as one might use in stead of them. Thus _who_ means _what person_?

"_Who_ taught that heav'n-directed spire to rise?

_The Man of Ross_, each lisping babe replies."--_Pope_.

OBS. 38.--In the cla.s.sification of the p.r.o.nouns, and indeed in the whole treatment of them, almost all our English grammars are miserably faulty, as well as greatly at variance. In some forty or fifty, which I have examined on this point, the few words which const.i.tute this part of speech, have more than twenty different modes of distribution. (1.) Cardell says, "There is but one kind of p.r.o.nouns"--_Elements of Gram._, p. 30. (2.) D. Adam's, Greenleaf, Nutting, and Weld, will have two kinds; "_personal_ and _relative_." (3.) Dr. Webster's "Subst.i.tutes, or p.r.o.nouns, are of two kinds:" the one, "called _personal_;" the other, without name or number.

See his _Improved Gram._, p. 24. (4.) Many have fixed upon three sorts; "_personal, relative_, and _adjective_;" with a subdivision of the last. Of these is Lindley Murray, in his late editions, with his amenders, Ainsworth, Alger, Bacon, Bullions, Fisk, A. Flint, Frost, Guy, Hall, Kirkham, Lennie, Merchant, Picket, Pond, and S. Putnam. (5.) Kirkham, however, changes the order of the cla.s.ses; thus, "_personal, adjective_, and _relative_;" and, with ridiculous absurdity, makes _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_ to be "_compounds_." (6.) Churchill adopts the plan of "_personal, relative_, and _adjective_ p.r.o.nouns;" and then destroys it by a valid argument. (7.) Comly, Wilc.o.x, Wells, and Perley, have these three cla.s.ses; "_personal, relative_, and _interrogative_:" and this division is right. (8.) Sanborn makes the following bull: "The _general_ divisions of p.r.o.nouns are _into personal, relative, interrogative_, and _several sub-divisions_."--_a.n.a.lytical Gram._, p. 91. (9.) Jaudon has these three kinds; "_personal, relative_, and _distributive_." (10.) Robbins, these; "_simple, conjunctive_, and _interrogative_." (11.) Lindley Murray, in his early editions, had these four; "_personal, possessive, relative_, and _adjective_." (12.) Bucke has these; "_personal, relative, interrogative_, and _adjective_." (13.) Ingersoll, these; "_personal, adjective, relative_, and _interrogative_." (14.) Buchanan; "_personal, demonstrative, relative_, and _interrogative_." (15.) Coar; "_personal, possessive_ or _p.r.o.nominal adjectives, demonstrative_, and _relative_."

(16.) Bicknell; "_personal, possessive, relative_, and _demonstrative_."

(17.) Cobbett; "_personal, relative, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_."

(18) M'Culloch; "_personal, possessive, relative_, and _reciprocal_." (19.) Staniford has five; "_personal, relative, interrogative, definitive_, and _distributive_." (20.) Alexander, six; "_personal, relative, demonstrative, interrogative, definitive_, and _adjective_." (21.) Cooper, in 1828, had five; "_personal, relative, possessive, definite_, and _indefinite_." (22.) Cooper, in 1831, six; "_personal, relative, definite, indefinite, possessive_, and _possessive p.r.o.nominal adjectives_." (23.) Dr. Crombie says: "p.r.o.nouns may be divided into _Substantive_, and _Adjective; Personal_, and _Impersonal; Relative_, and _Interrogative_." (24.) Alden has seven sorts; "_personal, possessive, relative, interrogative, distributive, demonstrative_, and _indefinite_." (25.) R. C. Smith has many kinds, and treats them so badly that n.o.body can count them. In respect to definitions, too, most of these writers are shamefully inaccurate, or deficient. Hence the filling up of their cla.s.ses is often as bad as the arrangement. For instance, four and twenty of them will have interrogative p.r.o.nouns to be relatives; but who that knows what a relative p.r.o.noun is, can coincide with them in opinion? Dr. Crombie thinks, "that interrogatives are strictly relatives;" and yet divides the two cla.s.ses with his own hand!

MODIFICATIONS.

p.r.o.nouns have the same modifications as nouns; namely, _Persons, Numbers, Genders_, and _Cases_. Definitions universally applicable have already been given of all these things; it is therefore unnecessary to define them again in this place.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--In the personal p.r.o.nouns, most of these properties are distinguished by the words themselves; in the relative and the interrogative p.r.o.nouns, they are ascertained chiefly by means of the antecedent and the verb. Interrogative p.r.o.nouns, however, as well as the relatives _which, what, as_, and all the compounds of _who, which_, and _what_, are always of the third person. Even in etymological parsing, some regard must be had to the syntactical relations of words. By _modifications_, we commonly mean actual changes in the forms of words, by which their grammatical properties are inherently distinguished; but, in all languages, the distinguishable properties of words are somewhat more numerous than their actual variations of form; there being certain principles of universal grammar, which cause the person, number, gender, or case, of some words, to be inferred from their relation to others; or, what is nearly the same thing, from the sense which is conveyed by the sentence.

Hence, if in a particular instance it happen, that some, or even all, of these properties, are without any index in the form of the p.r.o.noun itself, they are still to be ascribed in parsing, because they may be easily and certainly discovered from the construction. For example: in the following text, it is just as easy to discern the _genders_ of the p.r.o.nouns, as the _cases_ of the nouns; and both are known and a.s.serted to be what they are, upon principles of mere inference: "For what knowest _thou_, O _wife_, whether _thou_ shalt save _thy husband_? or how knowest _thou_, O _man_, whether _thou_ shalt save _thy wife_?"--_1 Cor._, vii, 16. Again: "_Who_ betrayed _her_ companion? Not _I_."--_Murray's Key_, p. 211. Here _her_ being of the feminine gender, it is the inference of every reader, that _who_ and _I_ are so too; but whether the word _companion_ is masculine or feminine, is not so obvious.

OBS. 2.--The personal p.r.o.nouns of the first and second persons, are equally applicable to both s.e.xes; and should be considered masculine or feminine, according to the known application of them. [See _Levizac's French Gram._, p. 73.] The speaker and the hearer, being present to each other, of course know the s.e.x to which they respectively belong; and, whenever they appear in narrative or dialogue, we are told who they are. In _Latin_, an adjective or a participle relating to these p.r.o.nouns, is varied _to agree_ with them in _number, gender_, and _case_. This is a sufficient proof that _ego, I_, and _tu, thou_, are not dest.i.tute of gender, though neither the Latin words nor the English are themselves varied to express it:--

"_Miserae_ hoc tamen unum Exequere, Anna, _mihi: solam_ nam perfidus ille _Te_ colere, arcanos etiam tibi credere sensus; _Sola_ viri molles aditus et tempora noras."--_Virgil_.

OBS. 3.--Many English grammarians, and Murray at their head, deny the first person of nouns, and the gender of p.r.o.nouns of the first and second persons; and at the same time teach, that, "p.r.o.nouns must always agree with their antecedents, _and_ the nouns for which they stand, in _gender, number_, and _person_:" (_Murray's Gr., 2d Ed._, p. 111; _Rev. T. Smith's_, p. 60:) and further, with redundance of expression, that, "The relative is of the same person _with_ the antecedent, and the verb agrees with it accordingly."--_Same_. These quotations form Murray's fifth rule of syntax, as it stands in his early editions.[196] In some of his revisings, the author erased the word _person_ from the former sentence, and changed _with_ to _as_ in the latter. But other p.r.o.nouns than relatives, agree with their nouns in person; so that his first alteration was not for the better, though Ingersoll, Kirkham, Alger, Bacon, J. Greenleaf, and some others, have been very careful to follow him in it. And why did he never discern, that the above-named principles of his etymology are both of them contradicted by this rule of his syntax, and one of them by his rule as it now stands? It is manifest, that no two words can possibly _agree_ in any property which belongs not to both. Else what _is_ agreement? Nay, no two things in nature, can in any wise agree, accord, or be alike, but by having some quality or accident in common. How strange a contradiction then is this! And what a compliment to learning, that it is still found in well-nigh all our grammars!

OBS. 4.--If there were truth in what Murray and others affirm, that "Gender has respect only to the third person singular of the p.r.o.nouns, _he, she, it_," [197] no two words could ever agree in gender; because there can be no such agreement between any two of the words here mentioned, and the a.s.sertion is, that gender has respect to no others. But, admitting that neither the author nor the numerous copiers of this false sentence ever meant to deny that gender has respect to _nouns_, they do deny that it has respect to any other _p.r.o.nouns_ than these; whereas I affirm that it ought to be recognized as a property of _all_ p.r.o.nouns, as well as of all nouns.

Not that the gender of either is in all instances invariably fixed by the _forms_ of the particular words; but there is in general, if not in every possible case, some principle of grammar, on which the gender of any noun or p.r.o.noun in a sentence may be readily ascertained. Is it not plain, that if we know who speaks or writes, who hears or is addressed, we know also the gender of the p.r.o.nouns which are applied to these persons? The poet of The Task looked upon his mother's picture, and expressed his tender recollections of a deceased parent by way of _address_; and will any one pretend, that the p.r.o.nouns which he applied to himself and to her, are either of the same gender, or of no gender? If we take neither of these a.s.sumptions, must we not say, they are of different genders? In this instance, then, let the pa.r.s.er call those of the first person, masculine; and those of the second, feminine:--

"_My_ mother! when _I_ learned that _thou_ wast dead, Say, wast _thou_ conscious of the tears _I_ shed?"--_Cowper_.

OBS. 5.--That the p.r.o.nouns of the first and second persons are sometimes masculine and sometimes feminine, is perfectly certain; but whether they can or cannot be neuter, is a question difficult to be decided. To things inanimate they are applied only _figuratively_; and the question is, whether the figure always necessarily changes the gender of the antecedent noun. We a.s.sume the general principle, that the noun and its p.r.o.noun are always of the same gender; and we know that when inanimate objects are personified in the third person, they are usually represented as masculine or feminine, the gender being changed by the figure. But when a lifeless object is spoken to in the second person, or represented as speaking in the first, as the p.r.o.nouns here employed are in themselves without distinction of gender, no such change can be proved by the mere words; and, if we allow that it would be needless to _imagine_ it where the words do not prove it, the gender of these p.r.o.nouns must in such cases be neuter, because we have no ground to think it otherwise. Examples: "And Jesus answered and said unto _it_, [the barren _figtree_,] No man eat fruit of _thee_ hereafter forever."--_Mark_, xi, 14. "O _earth_, cover not _thou_ my blood."--_Job_, xvi, 18. "O _thou sword_ of the Lord, how long will it be ere _thou_ be quiet?"--_Jeremiah_, xlvii, 6. In these instances, the objects addressed do not appear to be figuratively invested with the attribute of s.e.x. So likewise with respect to the first person. If, in the following example, _gold_ and _diamond_ are neuter, so is the p.r.o.noun _me_; and, if not neuter, of what gender are they? The personification indicates or discriminates no other.

"Where thy true treasure? Gold says, 'Not in _me_; And, 'Not in _me_,' the diamond. Gold is poor."--_Young_.

THE DECLENSION OF p.r.o.nOUNS.

The declension of a p.r.o.noun is a regular arrangement of its numbers and cases.

I. SIMPLE PERSONALS.

The simple personal p.r.o.nouns are thus declined:--

I, _of the_ FIRST PERSON, _any of the genders_.[198]

Sing. Nom. I, Plur. Nom. we, Poss. my, _or_ mine,[199] Poss. our, _or_ ours, Obj. me; Obj. us.

THOU, _of the_ SECOND PERSON, _any of the genders_.

Sing. Nom. thou,[200] Plur. Nom. ye, or you, Poss. thy, _or_ thine, Poss. your, _or_ yours, Obj. thee; Obj. you, or ye.[201]

HE, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _masculine gender_.

Sing. Nom. he, Plur. Nom. they, Poss. his, Poss. their, _or_ theirs, Obj. him; Obj. them.

SHE, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _feminine gender_.

Sing. Nom. she, Plur. Nom. they, Poss. her, _or_ hers, Poss. their, _or_ theirs, Obj. her; Obj. them.

IT, _of the_ THIRD PERSON, _neuter gender_.

Sing. Nom, it, Plur. Nom. they, Poss. its, Poss. their, _or_ theirs, Obj. it; Obj. them.

II. COMPOUND PERSONALS.