any person, number, or gender, the above-mentioned distinction is generally disregarded; and the relative is most commonly made to agree with the latter word, especially if this word be of the first or the second person: as, "It is no more I that do it."--Rom., vii, 20. "For it is not ye that speak."--Matt., x, 20. The propriety of this construction is questionable. In the following examples, the relative agrees with the it, and not with the subsequent nouns: "It is the combined excellencies of all the denominations that gives to her her winning beauty and her powerful charms."--Bible Society's Report, 1838, p. 89. "It is purity and neatness of expression which is chiefly to be studied."--Blair's Rhet., p. 271. "It is not the difficulty of the language, but on the contrary the simplicity and facility of it, that occasions this neglect."--Lowth's Gram., p. vi. "It is a wise head and a good heart that constitutes a great man."--Child's Instructor, p. 22.
OBS. 17.--The pronoun it very frequently refers to something mentioned subsequently in the sentence; as, "It is useless to complain of what is irremediable." This pronoun is a necessary expletive at the commencement of any sentence in which the verb is followed by a phrase or a clause which, by transposition, might be made the subject of the verb; as, "It is impossible to please every one."--W. Allen's Gram. "It was requisite that the papers should be sent."--Ib. The following example is censured by the Rev. Matt. Harrison: "It is really curious, the course which balls will sometimes take."--Abernethy's Lectures. "This awkward expression," says the critic, "might have been avoided by saying, 'The course which balls will sometimes take is really curious.'"--Harrison, on the English Language, p. 147. If the construction is objectionable, it may, in this instance, be altered thus: "It is really curious, to observe the course which balls will sometimes take!" So, it appears, we may avoid a pleonasm by an addition. But he finds a worse example: saying, "Again, in an article from the 'New Monthly,' No. 103, we meet with the same form of expression, but with an aggravated aspect:--'It is incredible, the number of apothecaries' shops, presenting themselves.' It would be quite as easy to say, 'The number of apothecaries' shops, presenting themselves, is incredible.' "--Ib., p. 147. This, too, may take an infinitive, "to tell," or "to behold;" for there is no more extravagance in doubting one's eyes, than in declaring one's own statement "incredible." But I am not sure that the original form is not allowable. In the following line, we seem to have something like it:
"It curled not Tweed alone, that breeze."--Sir W. Scott.
OBS. 18.--Relative and interrogative pronouns are placed at or near the beginning of their own clauses; and the learner must observe that, through all their cases, they almost invariably retain this situation in the sentence, and are found before their verbs even when the order of the construction would reverse this arrangement: as, "He who preserves me, to whom I owe my being, whose I am, and whom I serve, is eternal."--Murray, p. 159. "He whom you seek."--Lowth.
"The good must merit God's peculiar care;
But who, but God, can tell us who they are?"--Pope.
OBS. 19.--A relative pronoun, being the representative of some antecedent word or phrase, derives from this relation its person, number, and gender, but not its case. By taking an other relation of case, it helps to form an other clause; and, by retaining the essential meaning of its antecedent, serves to connect this clause to that in which the antecedent is found. No relative, therefore, can ever be used in an independent simple sentence, or be made the subject of a subjunctive verb, or be put in apposition with any noun or pronoun; but, like other connectives, this pronoun belongs at the head of a clause in a compound sentence, and excludes conjunctions, except when two such clauses are to be joined together, as in the following example: "I should be glad, at least, of an easy companion, who may tell me his thoughts, and to whom I may communicate mine."--Goldsmith's Essays, p. 196.
OBS. 20.--The two special rules commonly given by the grammarians, for the construction of relatives, are not only unnecessary,[382] but faulty. I shall notice them only to show my reasons for discarding them. With whom they originated, it is difficult to say. Paul's Accidence has them, and if Dean Colet, the supposed writer, did not take them from some earlier author, they must have been first taught by him, about the year 1510; and it is certain that they have been copied into almost every grammar published since. The first one is faulty, because, "When there cometh no nominative case between the relative and the verb, the relative shall [not always] be the nominative case to the verb;" as may be seen by the following examples: "Many are the works of human industry, which to begin and finish are [say is] hardly granted to the same man."--Dr. Johnson's Adv. to Dict. "They aim at his removal; which there is reason to fear they will effect."--"Which to avoid, I cut them off."--Shak., Hen. IV. The second rule is faulty, because, "When there cometh a nominative case between the relative and the verb, the relative shall [not always] be such case as the verb will have after it;" as may be seen by the following examples: "The author has not advanced any instances, which he does not think are pertinent."--Murray's Gram., i, 192. "Which we have reason to think was the case with the Greek and Latin."--Ib., 112. "Is this your son, who ye say was born blind?"--John, ix, 19. The case of the relative cannot be accurately determined by any rules of mere location. It may be nominative to a verb afar off, or it may be objective with a verb immediately following; as, "Which I do not find that there ever was."--Knight, on the Greek Alphabet, p. 31. "And our chief reason for believing which is that
