ON THE CASES.
s. 289. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases,
depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the sentence _a
house of a father_, the idea expressed by the words _of a father_, is an
idea of relation between them and the word _house_. This idea is an idea of
property or possession. The relation between the words _father_ and _house_
may be called the possessive relation. This relation, or connexion, between
the two words is expressed by the preposition _of_.
In _a fathers house_ the idea is, there or thereabouts, the same; the
relation or connexion between the two words being the same. The expression,
however, differs. In _a father's house_ the relation, or connexion, is
expressed, not by a preposition, but by a change of form, _father_ becoming
_father's_.
_He gave the house to a father._--Here the words _father_ and _house_ stand
in another sort of relationship; the relationship being expressed by the
preposition _to_. The idea _to a father_ differs from the idea _of a
father_, in being expressed in one way only; _viz._, by the preposition.
There is no second mode of expressing it by a change of form, as was done
with _father's_.
_The father taught the child._--Here there is neither preposition nor
change of form. The connexion between the words _father_ and _child_ is
expressed by the arrangement only.
Now if the relation alone between two words constitutes a case, the words
or sentences, _child_; _to a father_; _of a father_; and _father's_, are
all equally cases; of which one may be {235} called the accusative, another
the dative, a third the genitive, and so on.
Perhaps, however, the relationship alone does not constitute a case.
Perhaps there is a necessity of either the addition of a preposition (as in
_of a father_), or of a change in form (as in _father's_). In this case
(although _child_ be not so) _father's_, _of a father_, and _to a father_,
are all equally cases.
Now it is a remark, at least as old as Dr. Beattie,[39] that if the use of
a preposition constitute a case, there must be as many cases in a language
as there are prepositions, and that "_above a man_, _beneath a man_,
_beyond a man_, _round about a man_, _within a man_, _without a man_, shall
be cases, as well as _of a man_, _to a man_, and _with a man_."
For etymological purposes it is necessary to limit the meaning of the word
case; and, as a sort of definition, it may be laid down that _where there
is no change of form there is no case_. With this remark, the English
language may be compared with the Latin.
_Latin._ _English._
_Sing. Nom._ _Pater_ _a father._
_Gen._ _Patris_ _a father's._
_Dat._ _Patri_ _to a father._
_Acc._ _Patrem_ _a father._
_Abl._ _Patre_ _from a father._
Here, since in the Latin language there are five changes of form, whilst in
English there are but _two_, there are (as far, at least, as the word
_pater_ and _father_ are concerned) three more cases in Latin than in
English. It does not, however, follow that because in _father_ we have but
two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two.
_In order to constitute a case there must be a change of form._--This
statement is a matter of definition. A second question, however, arises out
of it; _viz._, whether _every change of form constitute a case_? In the
Greek language there are the words [Greek: erin] (_erin_), and [Greek:
erida] (_erida_). Unlike the words _father_ and _father's_ these two words
have precisely the same meaning. Each is called an accusative; and each,
{236} consequently, is said to be in the same case with the other. This
indicates the statement, that in order to constitute a case there must be
not _only a change of form_, _but also a change of meaning_. Whether such a
limitation of the word be convenient, is a question for the general
grammarian. At present we merely state that there _is no change of case
unless there be a change of form_. Hence, in respect to the word _patribus_
(and others like it), which is sometimes translated _from fathers_, and at
other times _to fathers_, we must say, not that in the one case the word is
ablative and in the other dative, but that a certain case is used with a
certain latitude of meaning. This remark bears on the word _her_ in
English. In _her book_ the sense is that of the case currently called
genitive. In _it moved her_, the sense is that of the case currently called
the accusative. If we adhere, however, to what we have laid down, we must
take exceptions to this mode of speaking. It is not that out of the single
form _her_ we can get two cases, but that a certain form has two powers;
one that of the Latin genitive, and another that of the Latin accusative.
s. 290. This leads to an interesting question, _viz._, what notions are
sufficiently allied to be expressed _by_ the same form, and _in_ the same
case? The word _her_, in its two senses, may, perhaps, be dealt with as a
single case, because the notions conveyed by the genitive and accusative
are, perhaps, sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same word. Are the
notions, however, _of a mistress_, and _mistresses_, so allied? I think
not; and yet in the Latin language the same form, _dominae_, expresses
both. Of _dominae_=_of a mistress_, and of _dominae_=_mistresses_, we
cannot say that there is one and the same case with a latitude of meaning.
The words were, perhaps, once different. And this leads to the distinction
between _a real and an accidental identity of form_.
In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words _smith_
(_smidh_), _end_ (_ende_), and _day_ (_daeg_), were, respectively,
_smithes_ (_smidhes_), _endes_, and _dayes_ (_daeges_); whilst the
nominative plurals were, respectively, _smithas_ (_smidhas_), _endas_, and
_dayas_ (_daegas_). A process of change took place, by which the vowel of
the last syllable in each {237} word was ejected. The result was, that the
forms of the genitive singular and the nominative plural, originally
different, became one and the same; so that the identity of the two cases
is an accident.
This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative
plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England,
identical; the apostrophe in _father's_ being a mere matter of orthography.
However, there was _once_ a difference. This modifies the previous
statement, which may now stand thus:--_for a change of case there must be a
change of form existing or presumed_.
s. 291. _The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they
spread._--In the English language there is undoubtedly a _nominative_ case.
This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and pronouns (_father_, _good_,
_he_) equally. It is found in both numbers.
_Accusative._--Some call this the objective case. The words _him_
(singular) and _them_ (plural) (whatever they may have been originally) are
now true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only.
_Thee_, _me_, _us_, and _you_ are, to a certain extent, true accusatives.
They are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case.
2. They are distinguished from the forms _I_, _my_, &c. 3. Their meaning is
accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no
sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only.
One word of English is probably a true accusative in the strict sense of
the term, _viz._, the word _twain_=_two_. The _-n_ in _twai-n_ is the _-n_
in _hine_=_him_ and _hwone_=_whom_. This we see from the following
inflection:--
_Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._
_N. and Ac._ Tw['a], Tw['e]gen, Tw['a].
\------\/-------/
_Abl. and Dat._ Tw['a]m, Tw['ae]m.
_Gen._ Twegra, Twega.
Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the
original character of _tw['e]gen_ being accusative. The {238} _-n_ is by no
means radical; besides which, it _is_ the sign of an accusative case, and
is _not_ the sign of a nominative.
_Note._--The words _him_ and _them_ are true accusatives in even a less
degree than _thee_, _me_, _us_, and _you_. The Anglo-Saxon equivalents to
the Latin words _eos_ and _illos_ were _hi_ (or _hig_) and _th['a]_ (or
_thaege_); in other words, the sign of the accusative was other than the
sound of _-m_. The case which _really_ ended in _-m_ was the so-called
dative; so that the Anglo-Saxon forms _him_ (or _heom_) and _th['a]m_=the
Latin _iis_ and _illis_.
This fact explains the meaning of the words, _whatever they may have been
originally_, in a preceding sentence. It also indicates a fresh element in
the criticism and nomenclature of the grammarian; _viz._, the extent to
which the _history_ of a form regulates its position as an inflection.
_Dative._--In the antiquated word _whilom_ (_at times_), we have a remnant
of the old dative in _-m_. The _sense_ of the word is adverbial; its form,
however, is that of a dative case.
_Genitive._--Some call this the possessive case. It is found in
substantives and pronouns (_father's_, _his_), but not in adjectives. It is
formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant
(_father_, _fathers_; _buck_, _bucks_); or if the word end in _s_, by that
of _es_ (_boxes_, _judges_, &c.) It is found in both numbers: _the men's
hearts_; _the children's bread_. In the plural number, however, it is rare;
so rare, indeed, that wherever the plural ends in _s_ (as it almost always
does), there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words
as _fatherses_, _foxeses_, _princesseses_, &c.
_Instrumental._--The following extracts from Rask's Anglo-Saxon Grammar,
teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the word
spelt _t-h-e_, or of the so-called definite article.
"The demonstrative pronouns are _thaet_, _se_, _se['o]_ (_id_, _is_, _ea_),
which are also used for the article; and _this_, _thes_, _the['o]s_ (_hoc_,
_hic_, _haec_). They are thus declined:-- {239}
_Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._
_Sing. N._ thaet se se['o] this thes the['o]s.
_A._ thaet thone th['a] this thisne th['a]s.
\----\/----/ \-----\/-----/
_Abl._ th['y] th['ae]re thise thisse.
_D._ th['a]m th['ae]re thisum thisse.
_G._ thaes th['ae]re thises thisse.
\--------\/-------/ \--------\/--------/
_Plur. N. and A._ th['a] th['a]s.
_Abl. and D._ th['a]m thisum.
_G._ th['a]ra thissa.
"The indeclinable _the_ is often used instead of _thaet_, _se_, _seo_, in
all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later
times, as an article. Hence the English article _the_.
"_thy_ seems justly to be received as a proper _ablativus instrumenti_, as
it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, _mid
thy ['a]the_=_with that oath_ (Inae Reges, 53). And in the same place in
the dative, _on th['ae]m ['a]the_=_in that oath_."--Pp. 56, 57.
Hence the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon _th['y]_ is one
word; the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon _the_, another.
The latter is the common article: the former the _the_ in expressions like
_all the more_, _all the better_=_more by all that_, _better by all that_,
and the Latin phrases _eo majus_, _eo melius_.
That _why_ is in the same case with the instrumental _the_ (=_thy_) may be
seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflection of the interrogative
pronoun:--
_Neut._ _Masc._
_N._ Hwaet Hw['a].
_A._ Hwaet Hwone (hwaene).
\------\/------/
_Abl._ _Hwi_
_D._ Hw['a]m (hwae'm)
_G._ Hwaes.
Hence, then, in _the_ and _why_ we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply,
_instrumentals_.
s. 292. _The determination of cases._--How do we determine cases? In other
words, why do we call _him_ and _them_ {240} accusatives rather than
datives or genitives? By one of two means; _viz._, either by the sense or
the form.
Suppose that in the English language there were ten thousand dative cases
and as many accusatives. Suppose, also, that all the dative cases ended in
_-m_, and all the accusatives in some other letter. It is very evident
that, whatever might be the meaning of the words _him_ and _them_ their
form would be dative. In this case the meaning being accusative, and the
form dative, we should doubt which test to take.
My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to determine cases by the
_form_ of the word _alone_; so that, even if a word had a dative sense only
once, where it had an accusative sense ten thousand times, such a word
should be said to be in the dative case. Now, as stated above, the words
_him_ and _them_ (to which we may add _whom_) were once dative cases; _-m_
in Anglo-Saxon being the sign of the dative case. In the time of the
Anglo-Saxons their sense coincided with their form. At present they are
dative forms with an accusative meaning. Still, as the word _give_ takes
after it a dative case, we have, even now, in the sentence, _give it him_,
_give it them_, remnants of the old dative sense. To say _give it to him_,
_to them_, is unnecessary and pedantic: neither do I object to the
expression, _whom shall I give it_? If ever the _formal_ test become
generally recognised and consistently adhered to, _him_, _them_, and _whom_
will be called datives with a latitude of meaning; and then the only true
and unequivocal accusatives in the English language will be the forms
_you_, _thee_, _us_, _me_, and _twain_.
_My_, an accusative form (_meh_, _me_, _mec_), has now a genitive sense.
The same may be said of _thy_.
_Me_, originally an accusative form (both _me_ and _my_ can grow out of
_mec_ and _meh_), had, even with the Anglo-Saxons, a dative sense. _Give it
me_ is correct English. The same may be said of _thee_.
_Him_, a dative form, has now an accusative sense.
_Her._--For this word, as well as for further details on _me_ and _my_, see
the Chapters on the Personal and Demonstrative Pronouns. {241}
s. 293. When all traces of the original dative signification are effaced,
and when all the dative cases in a language are similarly affected, an
accusative case may be said to have originated out of a dative.
s. 294. Thus far the question has been concerning the immediate origin of
cases: their remote origin is a different matter.
The word _um_ occurs in Icelandic. In Danish and Swedish it is _om_; in the
Germanic languages _omme_, _umbi_, _umpi_, _ymbe_, and also _um_. Its
meaning is _at_, _on_, _about_. The word _whilom_ is the substantive
_while_=_a time_ or _pause_ (Dan. _hvile_=_to rest_), with the addition of
the preposition _om_. That the particular dative form in _om_ has arisen
out of the noun _plus_ the preposition is a safe assertion. I am not
prepared, however, to account for the formation of all the cases in this
manner.
s. 295. _Analysis of cases._--In the word _children's_ we are enabled to
separate the word into three parts. 1. The root _child_. 2. The plural
signs _r_ and _en_. 3. The sign of the genitive case, _s_. In this case the
word is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also
give the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes
the case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the
analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought
always to be attempted.
s. 296. _The true nature of the genitive form in s._--It is a common notion
that the genitive form _father's_ is contracted from _father his_. The
expression in our liturgy, _for Jesus Christ his sake_, which is merely a
pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea,
however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest
errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake
of contradiction to it.
1. The expression the _Queen's Majesty_ is not capable of being reduced to
the _Queen his Majesty_.
2. In the form _his_ itself, the _s_ has precisely the power that it has in
_father's_, &c. Now _his_ cannot be said to arise out of _he_ + _his_.
3. In all the languages of the vast Indo-European tribe, except the Celtic,
the genitive ends in _s_, just as it does in {242} English; so that even if
the words _father his_ would account for the English word _father's_, it
would not account for the Sanskrit genitive _pad-as_, of a foot; the Zend
_dughdhar-s_, of a daughter; the Lithuanic _dugter-s_; the Greek [Greek:
odont-os]; the Latin _dent-is_, &c.
For further remarks upon the English genitive, see the Cambridge
Philological Museum, vol. ii. p. 246.
* * * * *
{243}