[Sidenote: That.]

116. In the sentences of Sec. 109, we notice that--

(1) _That_ refers to persons, animals, and things.

(2) It has only one case form, no possessive.

(3) It is the same form for first, second, and third persons.

(4) It has the same form for singular and plural.

It sometimes borrows the possessive _whose_, as in sentence 6, Sec.

109, but this is not sanctioned as good usage.

[Sidenote: What.]

117. The sentences of Sec. 110 show that--

(1) _What_ always refers to things; is always neuter.

(2) It is used almost entirely in the singular.

1. The man _that_ hath no music in himself,...

Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils.

--SHAKESPEARE (3) Its antecedent is hardly ever expressed. When expressed, it usually follows, and is emphatic; as, for example,--

What I would, _that_ do I not; but what I hate, _that_ do I.--_Bible_

What fates impose, _that_ men must needs abide.--SHAKESPEARE.

What a man does, _that_ he has.--EMERSON.

Compare this:--

Alas! is _it_ not too true, what we said?--CARLYLE.

DECLENSION OF RELATIVE p.r.o.nOUNS.

118. These are the forms of the simple relatives:--

SINGULAR AND PLURAL.

_Nom._ who which that what _Poss._ whose whose -- -- _Obj._ whom which that what

HOW TO Pa.r.s.e RELATIVES.

119. The _gender_, _number_, and _person_ of the relatives _who_, _which_, and _that_ must be determined by those of the antecedent; the _case_ depends upon the function of the relative in its own clause.

For example, consider the following sentence:

"He uttered truths _that_ wrought upon and molded the lives of those _who_ heard him."

Since the relatives hold the sentence together, we can, by taking them out, let the sentence fall apart into three divisions: (1) "He uttered truths;" (2) "The truths wrought upon and molded the lives of the people;" (3) "These people heard him."

_That_ evidently refers to _truths_, consequently is neuter, third person, plural number. _Who_ plainly stands for _those_ or _the people_, either of which would be neuter, third person, plural number.

Here the relative agrees with its antecedent.

We cannot say the relative agrees with its antecedent in _case_.

_Truths_ in sentence (2), above, is subject of _wrought upon and molded_; in (1), it is object of _uttered_. In (2), _people_ is the object of the preposition _of_; in (3), it is subject of the verb _heard_. Now, _that_ takes the case of _the truths_ in (2), not of _truths_ which is expressed in the sentence: consequently _that_ is in the nominative case. In the same way _who_, standing for _the people_ understood, subject of _heard_, is in the nominative case.

Exercise.

First find the antecedents, then pa.r.s.e the relatives, in the following sentences:--

1. How superior it is in these respects to the pear, whose blossoms are neither colored nor fragrant!

2. Some gnarly apple which I pick up in the road reminds me by its fragrance of all the wealth of Pomona.

3. Perhaps I talk with one who is selecting some choice barrels for filling an order.

4. Ill blows the wind that profits n.o.body.

5. Alas! it is we ourselves that are getting buried alive under this avalanche of earthly impertinences.

6. This method also forces upon us the necessity of thinking, which is, after all, the highest result of all education.

7. I know that there are many excellent people who object to the reading of novels as a waste of time.

8. I think they are trying to outwit nature, who is sure to be cunninger than they.

[Sidenote: _Parsing_ what, _the simple relative_.]

120. The relative _what_ is handled differently, because it has usually no antecedent, but is singular, neuter, third person. Its case is determined exactly as that of other relatives. In the sentence, "What can't be cured must be endured," the verb _must be endured_ is the predicate of something. What must be endured? Answer, _What can't be cured_. The whole expression is its subject. The word _what_, however, is subject of the verb _can't be cured_, and hence is in the nominative case.

"What we call nature is a certain self-regulated motion or change."

Here the subject of _is_, etc., is _what we call nature_; but of this, _we_ is the subject, and _what_ is the direct object of the verb _call_, so is in the objective case.

[Sidenote: _Another way._]

Some prefer another method of treatment. As shown by the following sentences, _what_ is equivalent to _that which_:--

It has been said that "common souls pay with _what_ they do, n.o.bler souls with _that which_ they are."--EMERSON.

_That which_ is pleasant often appears under the name of evil; and _what_ is disagreeable to nature is called good and virtuous.--BURKE.