also am a man.”—­Acts, x, 16.  “That thou thyself art a guide.”—­Rom., ii, 19.  “If it stand, as you yourself still do”—­Shakspeare.  “That you yourself are much condemned.”—­Id. And, if the simple pronoun be omitted, the compound still requires the same form of the verb; as, “Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell.”—­Milton.  The following example is different:  “I love mankind; and in a monarchy myself is all that I can love.”—­Life of Schiller, Follen’s Pref., p. x.  Dr. Follen objects to the British version, “Myself were all that I could love;” and, if his own is good English, the verb is agrees with all, and not with myself. Is is of the third person:  hence, “myself is” or, “yourself is,” cannot be good syntax; nor does any one say, “yourself art,” or, “ourself am,” but rather, “yourself are:”  as, “Captain, yourself are the fittest.”—­Dryden.  But to call this a “concord,” is to turn a third part of the language upsidedown; because, by analogy, it confounds, to such extent at least, the plural number with the singular through all our verbs; that is, if ourself and yourself are singulars, and not rather plurals put for singulars by a figure of syntax.  But the words are, in some few instances, written separately; and then both the meaning and the construction are different; as, “Your self is sacred, profane it not.”—­The Dial, Vol. i, p. 86.  Perhaps the word myself above ought rather to have been two words; thus, “And, in a monarchy, my self is all that I can love.”  The two words here differ in person and case, perhaps also in gender; and, in the preceding instance, they differ in person, number, gender, and case.  But the compound always follows the person, number, and gender of its first part, and only the case of its last.  The notion of some grammarians, (to wit, of Wells, and the sixty-eight others whom he cites for it,) that you and your are actually made singular by usage, is demonstrably untrue.  Do we, our, and us, become actually singular, as often as a king or a critic applies them to himself?  No:  for nothing can be worse syntax than, we am, we was, or you was, though some contend for this last construction.

[204] Whose is sometimes used as the possessive case of which; as, “A religion whose origin is divine.”—­Blair.  See Observations 4th and 5th, on the Classes of Pronouns.

[205] After but, as in the following sentence, the double relative what is sometimes applied to persons; and it is here equivalent to the friend who:—­

   “Lorenzo, pride repress; nor hope to find
    A friend, but what has found a friend in thee.”—­Young.