Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Э.Сепир Язык.docx
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
01.05.2025
Размер:
438.38 Кб
Скачать

It. We could hold to such a view if it were possible to say _the dog

sees he_ or _him sees the dog_. It was once possible to say such things,

but we have lost the power. In other words, at least part of the case

feeling in _he_ and _him_ is to be credited to their position before or

after the verb. May it not be, then, that _he_ and _him_, _we_ and _us_,

are not so much subjective and objective forms as pre-verbal and

post-verbal[142] forms, very much as _my_ and _mine_ are now pre-nominal

and post-nominal forms of the possessive (_my father_ but _father mine_;

_it is my book_ but _the book is mine_)? That this interpretation

corresponds to the actual drift of the English language is again

indicated by the language of the folk. The folk says _it is me_, not _it

is I_, which is "correct" but just as falsely so as the _whom did you

see_? that we have analyzed. _I'm the one_, _it's me_; _we're the ones_,

_it's us that will win out_--such are the live parallelisms in English

to-day. There is little doubt that _it is I_ will one day be as

impossible in English as _c'est je_, for _c'est moi_, is now in French.

[Footnote 142: Aside from the interrogative: _am I?_ _is he?_ Emphasis

counts for something. There is a strong tendency for the old "objective"

forms to bear a stronger stress than the "subjective" forms. This is why

the stress in locutions like _He didn't go, did he?_ and _isn't he?_ is

thrown back on the verb; it is not a matter of logical emphasis.]

How differently our _I_: _me_ feels than in Chaucer's day is shown by

the Chaucerian _it am I_. Here the distinctively subjective aspect of

the _I_ was enough to influence the form of the preceding verb in spite

of the introductory _it_; Chaucer's locution clearly felt more like a

Latin _sum ego_ than a modern _it is I_ or colloquial _it is me_. We

have a curious bit of further evidence to prove that the English

personal pronouns have lost some share of their original syntactic

force. Were _he_ and _she_ subjective forms pure and simple, were they

not striving, so to speak, to become caseless absolutives, like _man_ or

any other noun, we should not have been able to coin such compounds as

_he-goat_ and _she-goat_, words that are psychologically analogous to

_bull-moose_ and _mother-bear_. Again, in inquiring about a new-born

baby, we ask _Is it a he or a she?_ quite as though _he_ and _she_ were

the equivalents of _male_ and _female_ or _boy_ and _girl_. All in all,

we may conclude that our English case system is weaker than it looks and

that, in one way or another, it is destined to get itself reduced to an

absolutive (caseless) form for all nouns and pronouns but those that are

animate. Animate nouns and pronouns are sure to have distinctive

possessive forms for an indefinitely long period.

Meanwhile observe that the old alignment of case forms is being invaded

by two new categories--a positional category (pre-verbal, post-verbal)

and a classificatory category (animate, inanimate). The facts that in

the possessive animate nouns and pronouns are destined to be more and

more sharply distinguished from inanimate nouns and pronouns (_the

man's_, but _of the house_; _his_, but _of it_) and that, on the whole,