to see,” is one which cannot receive an antecedent, without changing both the sense and the construction.  One may say, “I saw what things I wanted to see;” but this, in stead of giving what an antecedent, makes it an adjective, while it retains the force of a relative.  Or he may insert a noun before what, agreeably to the solution of Butler; as, “I saw the things, what I wanted to see:”  or, if he please, both before and after; as, “I saw the things, what things I wanted to see.”  But still, in either case, what is no “simple relative;” for it here seems equivalent to the phrase, so many as.  Or, again, he may omit the comma, and say, “I saw the thing what I wanted to see;” but this, if it be not a vulgarism, will only mean, “I saw the thing to be what I wanted to see.”  So that this method of parsing the pronoun what, is manifestly no improvement, but rather a perversion and misinterpretation.

But, for further proof of his position, Butler adduces instances of what he calls “the relative THAT with the antecedent omitted.  A few examples of this,” he says, “will help us to ascertain the nature of what.  ’We speak that we do know,’ Bible. [John, iii, 11.] ‘I am that I am.’ Bible. [Exod., iii, 14.] ‘Eschewe that wicked is.’ Gower.  ’Is it possible he should know what he is, and be that he is?’ Shakespeare.  ‘Gather the sequel by that went before.’ Id. In these examples,” continues he, “that is a relative; and is exactly synonymous with what.  No one would contend that that stands for itself and its antecedent at the same time.  The antecedent is omitted, because it is indefinite, OR EASILY SUPPLIED.”—­Butler’s Practical Gram., p. 52; Bullions’s Analytical and Practical Gram., p. 233.  Converted at his wisest age, by these false arguments, so as to renounce and gainsay the doctrine taught almost universally, and hitherto spread industriously by himself, in the words of Lennie, that, “What is a compound relative, including both the relative and the antecedent,” Dr. Bullions now most absurdly urges, that, “The truth is, what is a simple relative, having, wherever used, like all other relatives, BUT ONE CASE; but * * * that it always refers to a general antecedent, omitted, BUT EASILY SUPPLIED by the mind,” though “not UNDERSTOOD, in the ordinary sense of that expression.”—­Analyt. and Pract.  Gram. of 1849, p. 51.  Accordingly, though he differs from Butler about this matter of “the ordinary sense,” he cites the foregoing suggestions of this author, with the following compliment:  “These remarks appear to me just, and conclusive on this point.”—­Ib., p. 233.  But there must, I think, be many to whon they will appear far otherwise.  These elliptical