'er or whomsoe'er, whiche'er or whichsoe'er, whate'er or whatsoe'er. The character and properties of these compounds are explained, perhaps sufficiently, in the observations upon the classes of pronouns. Some of them are commonly parsed as representing two cases at once; there being, in fact, an ellipsis of the noun, before or after them: as,
"Each art he prompts, each charm he can create, Whate'er he gives, are given for you to hate."--Pope's Dunciad.
OBS. 32.--For a form of parsing the double relative what, or its compound whatever or whatsoever, it is the custom of some teachers, to suggest equivalent words, and then proceed to explain these, in lieu of the word in question. This is the method of Russell's Gram., p. 99; of Merchants, p. 110; of Kirkham's, p. 111; of Gilbert's, p. 92. But it should be remembered that equivalence of meaning is not sameness of grammatical construction; and, even if the construction be the same, to parse other equivalent words, is not really to parse the text that is given. A good parser, with the liberty to supply obvious ellipses, should know how to explain all good English as it stands; and for a teacher to pervert good English into false doctrine, must needs seem the very worst kind of ignorance. What can be more fantastical than the following etymology, or more absurd than the following directions for parsing? "What is compounded of which that. These words have been contracted and made to coalesce, a part of the orthography of both being still retained: what--wh[ich--t]hat; (which-that.) Anciently it appeared in the varying forms, tha qua, qua tha, qu'tha, quthat, quhat, hwat, and finally what."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 111. This bald pedantry of "tha qua, qua tha," was secretly borrowed from the grammatical speculations of William S. Cardell:[217] the "which-that" notion contradicts it, and is partly of the borrower's own invention. If what is a compound, it was compounded more than a thousand years ago; and, of course, long before any part of the English language existed as such. King Alfred used it, as he found it, in the Saxon form of hwæt. The Scotch afterwards spelled it quhat. Our English grammarians have improperly called it a compound; and Kirkham, still more absurdly, calls the word others a compound, and mine, thine, ours, yours, &e. compounds.[218]
OBS. 33.--According to this gentleman's notion of things, there is, within the little circle of the word what, a very curious play of antecedent parts and parts relative--a dodging contra-dance of which that and that which, with things which, and so forth. Thus: "When what is a compound relative you must always parse it as two words; that is, you must parse the antecedent part as a noun, and give it case; the relative part you may analyze like any other relative, giving it a case likewise. Example: 'I will try what (that which) can be found in female delicacy.' Here that, the antecedent part of what, is in the obj. case, governed by the verb 'will try;' which, the relative part, is in the nom. case to 'can be found.' 'I have heard what (i.e. that which, or the thing which) has been alleged.' "--Kirkham's Gram., p. 111. Here, we sec, the author's "which-that" becomes that which, or something else. But this is not a full view of his method. The following vile rigmarole is a further sample of that "New Systematick Order of Parsing," by virtue of which he so very complacently and successfully sets himself above all other grammarians: "'From what is recorded, he appears, &c.' What is a comp. rel. pron. including both the antecedent and the relative, and is equivalent to that which, or the thing which.--Thing, the antecedent part of what, is a noun, the name of a thing--com. the name of a species--neuter gender, it has no sex--third person, spoken of--sing. number, it implies but one--and in the obj. case, it is the object of the relation expressed by the prep. 'from,' and gov. by it: RULE 31. (Repeat the Rule, and every other Rule to which I refer.) Which, the relative part of what, is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun--relative, it relates to 'thing' for its antecedent--neut. gender, third person, sing, number, because the antecedent is with which it agrees, according to RULE 14. Rel. pron. &c. Which is in the nom. case to the verb 'is recorded,' agreeably to RULE 15. The relative is the nominative case to the verb, when no nominative comes between it and the verb."--Kirkham's Gram., p. 113.
