The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1880-07-16
EDUCATIONAL.
D. "A. MAHONEY, EDITOR.
QUESTION BOZ.

QUESTION BOZ.
Mr.. EDITOR:
What kind of a a0b0t is that aObGt
Why is the study of grammar almosi
universally uninteresting and not I'M
frequently disgusting to pupils? An
sWer one, and you answer both.
! We are forced to differ from Y. Y. z
in regard to that word eOh0t. We dc
not believe it is an interrogative. He
| Cor she) staggered us when he cited us
to our fayorite authority, viz, the
Great Grammar of Common Sense.
She insinuated that that grammar
placed it in the interrogative class, but
made no quotations to sustain the
opinion; but, on the contrary, refers
us to Mr.. Soaring, and to definition
taken from some grammar. Now Mr..
Soaring and this grammar may be
good authority-may be good expound-
ers of common sense. Yet their sense
is so much superior to ours that we
can hardly consider it common to us,
and in this state Of affairs we may
use our own common sense for our
purpose, and they may use theirs for
their purpose.
] hold that 9 the world IA. E. boys and
girlsl would be the better for it if
every other teacher do the same. IF
teachers would discard grammars, par
TALLY at least, in schools "the world
would be the better for it." Reason
with your pupils first, refer to gram
mars afterWard. Use grammars for
geoieaOi9ag only.
Take the following sentences: /.
saw the book which was on the desk /;
2. saw what was on the desk, and 8.
What book was on the desk? Here
we have the pure relative, the pure
interr0gative, and the doubtful { p one.
We seem to be obliged to place the
doubtful one in either class. Now in
which class shall we place it? Why,
of course, in the one that it most re-
sembles. In the word sChtch stands
for noun, hence it is a pronoun; it
also connects with the noun book an
adjective element. In 8 achot stands
for noun, and so far it is similar to
Il. 1t asks a question, but does not
connect anything; hence it is entirely
different from /.
In 2 .sCbGt stands for noun the
same as /. So far no reason why it
should not belong to both classes. 1t
lis equivalent to that aOhich, and if
equivalent to it, it must be equivalent
to all that that aDhich is equivalent.
That stands for a noun, hence aChGt
must. Which stands for noun, hence
9OlaGt must. Which also connects
with that an Gdjecti0e element, there
fore what must do the same. Now by
looking over the uses of these words
we find that aOla0t does all that aOhich
does in the first sentence, and besides
stands for another noun. We also
find that it has two properties which
the G0hGt in has not; and the aOhGt
in has the interrogative quality
which aohGt in 2 has not; hence in our
opinion it is an entirely different
word.
1t is also different from aohich in /,
inasmuch as it stands for another
name; but as it is precisely the same
as e0hicb in all other respects, we place
it in the same class.
If we call a0hicb in / relative pro-
noun, we must call what in 2 a rela-
tive also. If we call the word book in
| the antecedent of which, "Where is
your antecedent" for a0hat in 2? We
answer that the word that stands for
the G3atecedent performs the Office of
it, and we call that word the antece-
dent.
We found by looking at the sentence
that a0hGt stood for the antecedent
and also performed the office of a rel
alive. Then why not say that what is
a double rezati0e representing both the
lantecedent and relative? It certainly
has two offices, and one of them is
that of pure relative.
What does iq1te2YogGti0e mean?
Where is your question, x. w?
| We have shown our antecedent
please show the i11terYogati0e nature
Of II know what he did," "A. B. G.