who have been described? Agreeably to this notion, we say, "which of the two," not "who of the two," was guilty of this crime?

If I say, "who is the man that will dare to affirm ?" it implies that I am entirely a stranger to him, and that I even doubt his existence. "Which is the man?" not only implies his existence, but also that the aggregate of individuals, whence the selection is made, is known to me.

What is also used interrogatively, and is employed in introducing questions, whether the subject be persons or things, as, "What man is that?" "What book is this?" When no substantive is subjoined, it is then wholly indefinite, as "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" When we inquire, therefore, into the character of any person, and not for the individual himself, it is to be remembered, that we employ this pronoun, and not who or which.

There seems to be the same difference between who and what definite, as between who and which. If I say, "what man will dare to affirm this?" and "which man will dare?" &c., it is obvious that the former interrogatory is more indefinite than the latter, the one implying a total ignorance of the individual, and some doubt of his existence; the other, that he is one of a number in some degree known to the inquirer.

When any defining clause is subjoined, either may be used, as "What, or which man among you, having a hundred sheep, and losing one, would not leave the ninety and nine ?"

The pronoun whether is equivalent to "which of the two." It is the Teutonic word wether, bearing the same relation to wer, "who" or "which," as either does to ein, "one," and neither, newether, to nie or nehein, "none."

This word, though now generally employed or considered as a conjunction, is in truth reducible to the class of words which we are now examining, and is precisely synonymous with uter, tra, trum, of the Latins. "Whether is easier to say?"-Bible.

Here whether is truly a pronoun, and is the nominative to the following verb.

"Whether is greater, the gold or the temple?"

Ibid.

In these examples, whether is precisely the same with "which of the two." It seems now to be giving place to the word which, as the comparative, when two things are compared, is often supplanted by the superlative. Thus we often say, when speaking of two, "which is the best," instead of "whether is better." The Latins almost uniformly observed the distinction: "Uter dignior, quis dignissimus."-Quint.

The pronoun it is used indefinitely, and applied to persons or things.

Dr. Johnson has objected to the use of this pronoun in those examples, wherein the pronouns of the first or second persons are employed; and Dr. Lowth has censured it, when referring to a plural number, as in the following example :

"Tis these, that give the great Atrides spoils." -Pope...

I concur, however, with the learned author of the Philosophy of Rhetoric, who regards the objections of these critics as, in this instance, of no weight. For when a question is asked, the subject of which is totally unknown, there must be some indefinite word employed to denote the subject of the interrogation. The word which we use for this purpose is it, as, "Who is it?" "What is it?" This phraseology is established by universal usage, and is therefore unexceptionable. This being the case, there can be no impropriety in repeating in the answer the indefinite term employed in the question. We may therefore reply, "It is I," "It is he," " It is she."

Now, if the term be admitted in questions and answers where the subject may be either male or female, and of the first, second, or third person, it surely is admissible in those cases also where the subject is in the plural number. Nay, to use in the answer any other word to express the subject than that, by which it is signified in the question, would be in all cases, if not productive of ambiguity, at least less precise. "Who is it?" says a master to his servant, hearing a voice in the hall. " It is the gentlemen who called yesterday," replies the servant. Who sees not that "they are the gentlemen" would be an answer less accordant with the terms of the question, and would less clearly show that "the gentlemen," and "the subject of inquiry," both being denoted by one term, are one and the same? Had the master known, that it was the voice of a gentleman, and that there were more than one, and had he accordingly said, "Who are they?" the answer would have properly been "They are the gentlemen." But when the question is "Who is it?" I apprehend the only apposite answer is, "It is the gentlemen," the identity of the terms (it being repeated) clearly evincing an identity of subject in the question and in the answer; in other words, that the subject of the inquiry, and the subject of the answer, are one and the same.

I conclude with observing, that, though I have here considered the word that as a pronoun, there can be no question, that in its import it is precisely the same with the demonstrative that, which has been already explained. "The house that you built is burned," is resolvable thus, "The house is burned, you built that."

CHAPTER IV.

OF THE ADJECTIVE.

An adjective has been defined by most grammarians to be "that part of speech which signifies an accident, quality, or property of a thing." This definition appears to me to be somewhat defective and incorrect: for the adjective does not express the quality simply, but the quality, or property, as conjoined with a substance; or, as grammarians have termed it, in concreto. Thus, when we say "good man," goodness is the name of the quality, and good is the adjective expressing that quality, as conjoined with the subject man. Accordingly, every adjective is resolvable into the name of the thing implied, and any term of reference or conjunction, as of, with. Thus "a prudent man" is equivalent to "a man with" or "join prudence," or to "a man of prudence." An adjective, therefore, is that part of speech which denotes any substance or attribute, not by itself, but as conjoined with a subject, or pertaining to its character. This conjunction is generally marked by changing the termination of the simple name of the substantive or attribute, as, fool, foolish, wax, waхеп. Sometimes no change is made; and the simple name of the substance, or attribute, is