THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
s. 297. _I, we, us, me, thou, ye._--These constitute the true personal
pronouns. From _he_, _she_, and _it_, they differ in being destitute of
gender.
These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there
are in English true personal pronouns for the first two persons only.
In other languages the current pronouns of the third person are, as in
English, demonstrative rather than personal.
The usual declension of the personal pronouns is exceptionable. _I_ and
_me_, _thou_ and _ye_, stand in no etymological relations to each other.
The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but defective.
_I_ has no _oblique_, and _me_ no nominative case. And so with respect to
the rest.
_I_, in German _ich_, Icelandic _ek_, corresponds with [Greek: ego], and
_ego_ of the classical languages; _ego_ and [Greek: ego] being, like _I_,
defective in the oblique cases.
_My_, as stated above, is a form originally accusative, but now used in a
genitive sense.
_Me._--In Anglo-Saxon this was called a dative form. The fact seems to be
that both _my_ and _me_ grow out of an accusative form, _meh_, _mec_.
That the sound of _k_ originally belonged to the pronouns _me_ and _thee_,
we learn not only from the Anglo-Saxons _mec_, _thec_, _meh_, _theh_, but
from the Icelandic _mik_, _thik_, and the German _mich_, _dich_. This
accounts for the form _my_; since _y_=_ey_, and the sounds of _y_ and _g_
are allied. That both _me_ and _my_ can be evolved from _mik_, we see in
the present Scandinavian languages, where, very often even in the same
district, _mig_ is pronounced both _mey_ and _mee_. {244}
_We_ and _our_.--These words are not in the condition of _I_ and _me_.
Although the fact be obscured, they are really in an etymological relation
to each other. This we infer from the alliance between the sounds of _w_
and _ou_, and from the Danish forms _vi_ (_we_), _vor_ (_our_). It may be
doubted, however, whether _our_ be a true genitive rather than an
adjectival form. In the form _ours_ we find it playing the part, not of a
case, but of an independent word. Upon this, however, too much stress
cannot be laid. In Danish it takes a neuter form: _vor_=_noster_;
_vort_=_nostrum_. From this I conceive that it agrees, not with the Latin
genitive _nostr[^u]m_, but with the adjective _noster_.
_Us, we, our._--Even _us_ is in an etymological relation to _we_. That _we_
and _our_ are so, has just been shown. Now in Anglo-Saxon there were two
forms of _our_, _viz_., _['u]re_ (=_nostr[^u]m_), and _user_ (=_noster_).
This connects _we_ and _us_ through _our_.
From these preliminary notices we have the changes in form of the true
personal pronouns, as follows:--
1ST PERSON
_1st Term._ (_for nominative singular_).
_I._ Undeclined.
_2nd Term._ (_for the singular number_).
Acc. _Me_. Gen. _My_. Form in _n_--_Mine_.
_3rd Term._ (_for the plural number_).
Nom. _We_. Acc. _Us_. Form in _r_--_Our_, _ours_.
2ND PERSON.
_1st Term._ (_for the singular number_).
Nom. _Thou_. Acc. _Thee_. Gen. _Thy_. Form in _n_--_Thine_.
_2nd Term._ (_for the plural number_).
Nom. _Ye_. Acc. _You_. Form in _r_--_Your_, _yours_.
s. 298. _We_ and _me_ have been dealt with as distinct words. But it is
only for practical purposes that they can be considered to be thus
separate; since the sounds of _m_ and _w_ are allied, and in Sanskrit the
singular form _ma_=_I_ is looked upon as part of the same word with
_vayam_=_we_. The same is the case with the Greek [Greek: me] (_me_), and
the plural form [Greek: hemeis] (_haemeis_)=_we_.
_You._--As far as the practice of the present mode of speech {245} is
concerned, the word _you_ is a _nominative_ form; since we say _you move_,
_you are moving_, _you were speaking_.
Why should it not be treated as such? There is no absolute reason why it
should not. All that can be said is, that the historical reason and the
logical reason are at variance. The Anglo-Saxon form for _you_ was _eow_,
for _ye_, _ge_. Neither bear any sign of case at all, so that, form for
form, they are equally and indifferently nominative and accusative, as the
habit of language may make them. Hence, it, perhaps, is more logical to say
that a certain form (_you_) is used _either_ as a nominative or accusative,
than to say that the accusative case is used instead of a nominative. It is
clear that _you_ can be used instead of _ye_ only so far as it is
nominative in power.
_Ye._--As far as the evidence of such expressions as _get on with ye_ is
concerned, the word _ye_ is an accusative form. The reasons why it should
or should not be treated as such are involved in the previous paragraph.
_Me._--Carrying out the views just laid down, and admitting _you_ to be a
nominative, or _quasi_-nominative case, we may extend the reasoning to the
word _me_, and call it also a secondary nominative; inasmuch as such
phrases as _it is me_=_it is I_ are common.
Now to call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No
one says that _c'est moi_ is bad French, and that _c'est je_ is good. The
fact is, that the whole question is a question of degree. Has or has not
the custom been sufficiently prevalent to have transferred the forms _me_,
_ye_, and _you_ from one case to another, as it is admitted to have done
with the forms _him_ and _whom_, once dative, but now accusative?
_Observe._--That the expression _it is me_=_it is I_ will not justify the
use of _it is him_, _it is her_=_it is he_ and _it is she_. _Me_, _ye_,
_you_, are what may be called _indifferent_ forms, _i. e._ nominative as
much as accusative, and accusative as much as nominative. _Him_ and _her_,
on the other hand, are not indifferent. The _-m_ and _-r_ are respectively
the signs of cases other than the nominative.
Again: the reasons which allow the form _you_ to be {246} considered as a
nominative plural, on the strength of its being used for _ye_, will not
allow it to be considered a nominative singular on the strength of its
being used for _thou_. It is submitted to the reader, that in phrases like
_you are speaking_, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea
is really plural; in other words, that the courtesy consists in treating
_one_ person as _more than one_, and addressing him as such, rather than in
using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically
considered, _you_=_thou_ is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees
is plural:--_you are speaking_, not _you art speaking_.
* * * * *
{247}