[190] The word which also, when taken in its discriminative sense (i.e. to distinguish some persons or things from others) may have a construction of this sort; and, by ellipsis of the noun after it, it may likewise bear a resemblance to the double relative what:  as, “I shall now give you two passages; and request you to point out which words are mono-syllables, which dis-syllables, which tris-syllables, and which poly-syllables.”—­Bucke’s Gram., p. 16.  Here, indeed, the word what might be substituted for which; because that also has a discriminative sense.  Either would be right; but the author might have presented the same words and thoughts rather more accurately, thus:  “I shall now give you two passages; and request you to point out which words are monosyllables; which, dissyllables; which, trissyllables; and which, polysyllables.”

[191] The relative what, being equivalent to that which, sometimes has the demonstrative word that set after it, by way of pleonasm; as, “What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light, and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops.”—­Matt., x, 27.  In Covell’s Digest, this text is presented as “false syntax,” under the new and needless rule, “Double relatives always supply two cases.”—­Digest of E. Gram., p. 143.  In my opinion, to strike out the word that, would greatly weaken the expression:  and so thought our translators; for no equivalent term is used in the original.

[192] As for Butler’s method of parsing these words by always recognizing a noun as being “UNDERSTOOD” before them,—­a method by which, according to his publishers notice, “The ordinary unphilosophical explanation of this class of words is discarded, and a simple, intelligible, common-sense view of the matter now for the first time substituted,”—­I know not what novelty there is in it, that is not also just so much error.  “Compare,” says he, “these two sentences:  ‘I saw whom I wanted to see;’ ’I saw what I wanted to see.  If what in the latter is equivalent to that which or the thing which, whom, in the former is equivalent to him whom, or the person whom.”—­Butler’s Practical Gram., p. 51.  The former example being simply elliptical of the antecedent, he judges the latter to be so too; and infers, “that what is nothing more than a relative pronoun, and includes nothing else.”—­Ib. This conclusion is not well drawn, because the two examples are not analogous; and whoever thus finds “that what is nothing more than a relative,” ought also to find it is something less,—­a mere adjective.  “I saw the person whom I wanted to see,” is a sentence that can scarcely spare the antecedent and retain the sense; “I saw what I wanted