American Language (86 page)

The following paradigm shows the usual inflections of the personal pronoun in the American vulgate:

These inflections are often disregarded in use, but nevertheless it may be profitable to glance at them as they stand. The only variations that they show from Standard English are the substitution of
n
for
s
as the distinguishing mark of the absolute form of the possessive, and the attempt to differentiate between the logical and the merely polite plurals in the second person by adding the usual sign of the plural to the former. The use of
n
in place of
s
is not an American innovation. It is found in many of the dialects of English, and is, in fact, historically quite as sound as the use of
s
. In John Wycliffe’s translation of the Bible (
c
. 1380) the first sentence of the Sermon on the Mount (Mark v, 3) is made: “Blessed be the pore in spirit, for the kyngdam in hevenes is
heren.
” And in his version of Luke xxiv, 24, is this: “And some of
ouren
wentin to the grave.” Here
heren
(or
herun
) represents, of course, not the modern
hers
, but
theirs
. In Old English the word was
heora
, and down to Chaucer’s day a modified form of it,
here
, was still used in the possessive plural in place of the modern
their
, though
they
had already displaced
hie
in the nominative.
¹⁰⁷
But in John Purvey’s revision of the Wycliffe Bible, made a few years later,
hern
actually occurs in II Kings vii, 6, thus: “Restore thou to hir alle things that ben
hern.
” In Old English
there had been no distinction between the conjoint and absolute forms of the possessive pronoun; the simple genitive sufficed for both uses. But with the decay of that language the surviving remnants of its grammar began to be put to service somewhat recklessly, and there arose a genitive inflection of this genitive — a true double inflection. In the Northern dialects of English that inflection was made by simply adding
s
, the sign of the possessive. In the Southern dialects the old n-declension was applied, and there appeared such forms as
minum
and
eowrum
(
mine
and
yours
), from
min
and
eower
(
my
and
your
).
¹⁰⁸
Meanwhile, the original simple genitive, now become
youre
, also survived, and the literature of the Fourteenth Century shows the three forms flourishing side by side:
youre, youres
and
youren
. All of them are in Chaucer.

As for the addition of
s to you
in the nominative and objective of the second person plural, it exhibits no more than an effort to give clarity to the logical difference between the pure plural and the merely polite plural. Another device to the same end is the familiar dual,
you-two
, which also appears in the first and second persons, as in
we-two, us-two
and
them-two
.
¹⁰⁹
Yet another, confined to the South, is
you-all
or
y’all
, which simply means
you-jointly
as opposed to the
you
that means
thou
.
¹¹⁰
The substitution of the plural
you
for the singular
thou
began in England in the Thirteenth Century, and at the same time analogous substitutions occurred in the other Western European languages. In these languages the true singular survives alongside the debased plural, but English has dropped it entirely, save for poetical and liturgical uses and in a few dialects. It had passed out of ordinary polite speech by Elizabeth’s day. By that time, indeed, its use had acquired an air of the offensive, such as it has today, save between intimates or to children, in Germany. Thus, at the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh in 1603, Sir Edward Coke, then Attorney-General, displayed his animosity to Raleigh by addressing him as
thou
, and finally burst into the contemptuous “I
thou
thee,
thou
traitor!” And in “Twelfth Night” Sir Toby Belch urges Sir Andrew Aguecheek to provoke the disguised Viola to combat by
thouing
her.
¹¹¹
In our own time, with
thou
passed out entirely,
even as a pronoun of contempt, the confusion between
you
in the plural and
you
in the singular presents plain difficulties to a man of limited linguistic resources. He gets around them by setting up a distinction that is well supported by logic and analogy. “I seen
yous
” is clearly separated from “I seen
you
” And in the conjoint position “
yous
guys” is separated from “
you
liar.”

Of demonstrative pronouns, there are but two in Standard English,
this
and
that
, with their plural forms,
these
and
those
. To them, vulgar American adds a third,
them
, which is also the personal pronoun of the third person, objective case.
¹¹²
In addition it has adopted certain adverbial pronouns,
this-here, these-here, that-there, those-there
and
them-there
, and set up inflections of the original demonstratives by analogy with
mine, hisn
and
yourn
, to wit,
thisn, thesen, thatn
and
thosen
. I present some examples of everyday use:

The demonstratives of the
thisn
-group seem to be composition forms of
this-one, that-one
, etc., just as
none
is a composition form of
no
(
t
)
-one
. In every case of their use that I have observed the simple demonstratives might have been set free and
one
actually substituted for the terminal
n
. But it must be equally obvious that they have been reinforced very greatly by the absolutes of the
hisn-
group, for in their relation to the original demonstratives they play the part of just such absolutes and are never used conjointly. Thus, one says, in American, “I take
thisn
” or “
Thisn
is mine,” but one never says “I take
thisn
hat” or “
Thisn
dog is mine.” In this conjoint
situation plain
this
is always used, and the same rule applies to
these, those
and
that. Them
, being a newcomer among the demonstratives, has not yet acquired an inflection in the absolute. I have never heard
them’n
, and it will probably never come in, for it is forbiddingly clumsy. One says, in American, both
“Them
are mine” and “
Them
collars are mine.”

This-here, these-here, that-there, those-there
and
them-there
are plainly combinations of pronouns and adverbs, and their function is to support the distinction between proximity, as embodied in
this
and
these
, and remoteness, as embodied in
that, those
and
them
. “
This-here
coat is mine” simply means “This coat
here
, or this
present
coat is mine.”
¹¹³
But the adverb promises to coalesce with the pronoun so completely as to obliterate all sense of its distinct existence, even as a false noun or adjective. As commonly pronounced,
this-here
becomes a single word, somewhat like
thish-yur
, and
these-here
becomes
these-yur
, and
that-there
and
them-there
become
that-ere
and
them-ere. Those-there
, if I observe accurately, is still pronounced more distinctly, but it, too, may succumb to composition in time. The adverb will then sink to the estate of a mere inflectional particle, as
one
has done in the absolutes of the
thisn
-group.
Them
, as a personal pronoun in the absolute, of course, is commonly pronounced
em
, as in “I seen
em
,” and sometimes its vowel is almost lost, but this is also the case in all save the most exact spoken English. Sweet and Lounsbury, following certain German grammarians, argue that this
em
is not really a debased form of
them
, but the offspring of
hem
, which survived as the regular plural of the third person in the objective case down to the beginning of the Fifteenth Century. But in American
them
is clearly pronounced as a demonstrative. I have never heard “
em men
” or “
Em
are the kind I like,” but always “
them
men” and “
Them
are the kind I like.” It is possible that
them
, in this situation, may be a descendant of the Old English
thaem
(those).

The relative pronouns are declined in the vulgate as follows:

Two things will be noted in this paradigm. First there is the disappearance of
whom
as the objective form of
who
, and secondly there is the appearance of an inflected form of
whose
in the absolute, by analogy with
mine, hisn
and
hern. Whom
is fast vanishing from Standard American;
¹¹⁴
in the vulgar language it is virtually extinct. Not only is
who
used instead in situations where good usage has begun to tolerate it; it is also used in such constructions as “The man
who
I saw” and “Them
who
I trust in.” George Philip Krapp explains this use of
who
on the ground that there is a “general feeling,” due to the normal word-order in English, that “the word which precedes the verb is the subject word, or at least the subject form.
¹¹⁵
But this explanation is probably fanciful. Among the plain people no such “general feeling” for case exists. Their only “general feeling” is a prejudice against case inflections in any form whatsoever. They use
who
in place of
whom
simply because they can discern no logical difference between the significance of the one and the significance of the other.

“The relative
whose
,” says R. J. Menner, “is a rare word in popular speech. One may listen to conversations for weeks without hearing it.”
¹¹⁶
Not infrequently
that
and a genitive pronoun are substituted for it, as in “He’s a fellow
that
I don’t know
his
name,” and sometimes
that
is omitted, as in “He was a man I never trusted his word.” But sometimes
whose
is used in place of the forbidding
whom
, especially when a genitive sense is apprehended,
e.g.
, “Bless those
whose
it’s our duty to pray for.” In the absolute
whosen
is sometimes used, as in “If it ain’t hisn, then
whosen
is it?”, obviously under the influence of the other absolutes in
-n
. There is an analogous
form of
which
, to wit,
whichn
, resting heavily on
which one
. Thus “
Whichn
do you like?” and “I didn’t say
whichn
” are plainly variations of “
Which one
do you like?” and “I didn’t say
which one.” That
, as we have seen, has a like form,
thatn
, but never, of course, in the relative situation. “I like
thatn
” is familiar, but “The one
thatn
I like” is never heard. If
that
, as a relative, could be used absolutely, I have no doubt that it would change to
thatn
, as it does as a demonstrative. So with
what
. As things stand,
what
is sometimes substituted for
that
, as in “Them’s the kind
what
I like.” Joined to
but
it can also take the place of
that
in other situations, as in “I don’t know
but what.
”