ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE.
s. 446. The inflection of pronouns has its natural peculiarities in
language; it has also its natural difficulties in philology. These occur
not in one language in particular, but in all generally. The most common
peculiarity in the grammar of pronouns is the fact of what may be called
their _convertibility_. Of this _convertibility_ the following statements
serve as illustration:--
1. _Of case._--In our own language the words _my_ and _thy_, although at
present possessives, were previously datives, and, earlier still,
accusatives. Again, the accusative _you_ replaces the nominative _ye_, and
_vice vers[^a]_.
2. _Of number._--The words _thou_ and _thee_ are, except in the mouths of
Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, _ye_ and _you_, have replaced them.
3. _Of person._--Laying aside the habit of the Germans and other nations,
of using the third person plural for the second singular (as in expressions
like _wie befinden sie sich_ = _how do they find themselves?_ instead of
_how do you find yourself?_) the Greek language gives us examples of
interchange in the way of persons in the promiscuous use of [Greek: nin,
min, sphe], and [Greek: heautou]; whilst _sich_ and _sik_ are used with a
similar latitude in the Middle High German and Scandinavian.
4. _Of class._--The demonstrative pronouns become
_a._ Personal pronouns.
_b._ Relative pronouns.
_c._ Articles.
The reflective pronoun often becomes reciprocal. {381}
These statements are made for the sake of illustrating, not of exhausting,
the subject. It follows, however, as an inference from them, that the
classification of pronouns is complicated. Even if we knew the original
power and derivation of every form of every pronoun in a language, it would
be far from an easy matter to determine therefrom the paradigm that they
should take in grammar. To place a word according to its power in a late
stage of language might confuse the study of an early stage. To say that
because a word was once in a given class, it should always be so, would be
to deny that in the present English _they_, _these_, and _she_ are personal
pronouns at all.
The two tests, then, of the grammatical place of a pronoun, its _present
power_ and its _original power_, are often conflicting.
In the English language the point of most importance in this department of
grammar is the place of forms like _mine_ and _thine_; in other words, of
the forms in _-n_. Are they genitive cases of a personal pronoun, as _mei_
and _tui_ are supposed to be in Latin, or are they possessive pronouns like
_meus_ and _tuus_?
Now, if we take up the common grammars of the English language _as it is_,
we find, that, whilst _my_ and _thy_ are dealt with as genitive cases,
_mine_ and _thine_ are considered adjectives. In the Anglo-Saxon grammars,
however, _min_ and _thin_, the older forms of _mine_ and _thine_, are
treated as genitives; of which _my_ and _thy_ have been dealt with as
abbreviated forms, and that by respectable scholars.
Now, to prove from the syntax of the older English that in many cases the
two forms were convertible, and to answer that the words in question are
_either_ genitive cases or adjectives, is lax philology; since the real
question is, _which of the two is the primary, and which the secondary
meaning?_
s. 447. The _[`a] priori_ view of the likelihood of words like _mine_ and
_thine_ being genitive cases, must be determined by the comparison of three
series of facts.
1. The ideas expressed by the genitive case, with particular reference to
the two preponderating notions of possession and partition. {382}
2. The circumstance of the particular notion of possession being, in the
case of the personal pronouns of the two first persons singular, generally
expressed by a form undoubtedly adjectival.
3. The extent to which the idea of partition becomes merged in that of
possession, and _vice vers[^a]_.
s. 448. _The ideas of possession and partition as expressed by genitive
forms._--If we take a hundred genitive cases, and observe their
construction, we shall find, that, with a vast majority of them, the
meaning is reducible to one of two heads; _viz._, the idea of possession or
the idea of partition.
Compared with these two powers all the others are inconsiderable, both in
number and importance; and if, as in the Greek and Latin languages, they
take up a large space in the grammars, it is from their exceptional
character rather than from their normal genitival signification.
Again, if both the ideas of possession and partition may, and in many cases
must be, reduced to the more general idea of relation, this is a point of
grammatical phraseology by no means affecting the practical and special
bearings of the present division.
s. 449. _The adjectival expression of the idea of possession._--All the
world over, a property is a possession; and _persons_, at least, may be
said to be the owners of their attributes. Whatever may be the nature of
words like _mine_ and _thine_, the adjectival character of their Latin
equivalents, _meus_ and _tuus_, is undoubted.
_The ideas of partition and possession merge into one another._--_A man's
spade is the_ possession _of a man; a man's hand is the_ part _of a man._
Nevertheless, when a man uses his hand as the instrument of his will, the
idea which arises from the fact of its being _part_ of his body is merged
in the idea of the possessorship which arises from the feeling of ownership
or mastery which is evinced in its subservience and application. Without
following the refinements to which the further investigation of these
questions would lead us, it is sufficient to suggest that the preponderance
of the two allied ideas of partition and possession is often determined by
the {383} personality or the non-personality of the subject, and that, when
the subject is a person, the idea is chiefly possessive; when a thing,
partitive--_caput fluvii_=_the head, which is a part, of a river_; _caput
Toli_=_the head, which is the possession, of Tolus_.
But as persons may be degraded to the rank of things, and as things may, by
personification, be elevated to the level of persons, this distinction,
although real, may become apparently invalid. In phrases like a _tributary
to the Tiber_--_the criminal lost his eye_--_this field belongs to that
parish_--the ideas of possessorship and partition, as allied ideas
subordinate to the idea of relationship in general, verify the interchange.
s. 450. These observations should bring us to the fact that there are two
ideas which, more than any other, determine the evolution of a genitive
case--the idea of partition and the idea of possession; _and that genitive
cases are likely to be evolved just in proportion as there is a necessity
for the expression of these two ideas_.--Let this be applied to the
question of the [`a] priori probability of the evolution of a genitive case
to the pronouns of the first and second persons of the singular number.
s. 451. _The idea of _possession_, and its likelihood of determining the
evolution of a genitive form to the pronouns of the first and second person
singular._ --It is less likely to do so with such pronouns than with other
words, inasmuch as it is less necessary. It has been before observed, that
the practice of most languages shows a tendency to express the relation by
adjectival forms--_meus_, _tuus_.
An objection against the conclusiveness of this argument will be mentioned
in the sequel.
s. 452. _The idea of _partition_, and its likelihood of determining the
evolution of a genitive form, &c._--Less than with other words.
A personal pronoun of the _singular_ number is the name of a unity, and, as
such, the name of an object far less likely to be separated into parts than
the name of a collection. Phrases like, _some of them_, _one of you_, _many
of us_, _any of them_, _few of us_, &c., have no analogues in the singular
number, such as _one of me_, _a few of thee_, &c. The partitive words that
can {384} combine with singular pronouns are comparatively few; _viz._,
_half_, _quarter_, _part_, &c.: and they can all combine equally with
plurals--_half of us_, _a quarter of them_, _a part of you_, _a portion of
us_. The partition of a singular object with a pronominal name is of rare
occurrence in language.
This last statement proves something more than appears at first sight. It
proves that no argument in favour of the so-called _singular_ genitives,
like _mine_ and _thine_, can be drawn from the admission (if made) of the
existence of the true plural genitives _ou-r_, _you-r_, _thei-r_. The two
ideas are not in the same predicament. We can say, _one of ten_, or _ten of
twenty_; but we cannot say _one of one_--_Waes hira Matheus sum_=_Matthew
was one of them_; Andreas--_Your noither_=_neither of you_; Amis and
Ameloun--from Mr. Guest: _Her eyder_=_either of them_; Octavian.--Besides
this, the form of the two numbers are neither identical, nor equally
genitival; as may be seen by contrasting _mi-n_ and _thi-n_ with _ou-r_ and
_you-r_.
s. 453. Such are the chief _[`a] priori_ arguments against the genitival
character of words like _mine_ and _thine_.
Akin to these, and a point which precedes the _[`a] posteriori_ evidence as
to the nature of the words in question, is the determination of the side on
which lies the _onus probandi_. This question is material; inasmuch as,
although the present writer believes, for his own part, that the forms
under discussion are adjectival rather than genitival, this is not the
point upon which he insists. What he insists upon is the fact of the
genitival character of _mine_ and _thine_ requiring a particular proof;
which particular proof no one has yet given: in other words, his position
is that they are not to be thought genitive until proved to be such.
It has not been sufficiently considered that the _prim[^a] facie_ evidence
is against them. They have not the form of a genitive case--indeed, they
have a different one; and whoever assumes a second form for a given case
has the burden of proof on his side.
s. 454. Against this circumstance of the _-n_ in _mine_ and _thine_ being
the sign of anything rather than of a genitive case, and against the
_prim[^a] facie_ evidence afforded by it, the {385} following facts may, or
have been, adduced as reasons on the other side. The appreciation of their
value, either taken singly or in the way of cumulative evidence, is
submitted to the reader. It will be seen that none of them are
unexceptionable.
s. 455. _The fact, that, if the words _mine_ and _thine_ are not genitive
cases, there is not a genitive case at all._--It is not necessary that
there should be one. Particular reasons in favour of the probability of
personal pronouns of the singular number being destitute of such a case
have been already adduced. _It is more likely that a word should be
defective than that it should have a separate form._
s. 456. _The analogy of the forms _mei_ and _[Greek: emou]_ in Latin and
Greek._--It cannot be denied that this has some value. Nevertheless, the
argument deducible from it is anything but conclusive.
1. It is by no means an indubitable fact that _mei_ and [Greek: emou] are
really cases of the pronoun. The _extension_ of a principle acknowledged in
the Greek language might make them the genitive cases of adjectives used
pronominally. Thus,
[Greek: To emon] = [Greek: ego],
[Greek: Tou emou] = [Greek: emou],
[Greek: Toi emoi] = [Greek: emoi].
Assume the omission of the article and the extension of the Greek principle
to the Latin language, and [Greek: emou] and _mei_ may be cases, not of
[Greek: eme] and _me_, but of [Greek: emos] and _meus_.
2. In the classical languages the partitive power was expressed by the
genitive.
"---- multaque pars mei
Vitabit Libitinam."
This is a reason for the evolution of a genitive power. Few such forms
exist in the Gothic; _part my_ is not English, nor was _dael min_
Anglo-Saxon,=_part of me_, or _pars mei_.
s. 457. The following differences of form, are found in the different
Gothic languages, between the equivalents of _mei_ and _tui_, the so-called
genitives of _ego_ and _tu_, and the equivalents of _meus_ and _tuus_, the
so-called possessive adjectives. {386}
_Moeso-Gothic_ meina = _mei_ _as_ opposed to meins = _meus_.
theina = _tui_ " theins = _tuus_.
_Old High German_ m[^i]n = _mei_ " m[^i]ner = _meus_.
d[^i]n = _tui_ " d[^i]ner = _tuus_.
_Old Norse_ min = _mei_ " minn = _meus_.
thin=_tui_ " thinn = _tuus_.
_Middle Dutch_ m[^i]ns = _mei_ " m[^i]n = _meus_.
d[^i]ns = _tui_ " d[^i]n = tuus.
_Modern High German_ mein = _mei_ " meiner = meus.
dein = _tui_ " deiner = tuus.
In this list, those languages where the two forms are alike are not
exhibited. This is the case with the Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon.
In the above-noticed differences of form lie the best reasons for the
assumption of a genitive case, as the origin of an adjectival form; and,
undoubtedly, in those languages, where both forms occur, it is convenient
to consider one as a case and one as an adjective.
s. 458. But this is not the present question. In Anglo-Saxon there is but
one form, _min_ and _thin_=_mei_ and _meus_, _tui_ and _tuus_,
indifferently. Is this form an oblique case or an adjective?
This involves two sorts of evidence.
s. 459. _Etymological evidence._--Assuming two _powers_ for the words _min_
and _thin_, one genitive, and one adjectival, which is the original one?
or, going beyond the Anglo-Saxon, assuming that of two _forms_ like _meina_
and _meins_, the one has been derived from the other, which is the
primitive, radical, primary, or original one?
Men, from whom it is generally unsafe to differ, consider that the
adjectival form is the derived one; and, as far as forms like _m[^i]ner_,
as opposed to _m[^i]n_, are concerned, the evidence of the foregoing list
is in their favour. But what is the case with the Middle Dutch? The
genitive _m[^i]ns_ is evidently the derivative of _m[^i]n_.
The reason why the forms like _m[^i]ner_ seem derived is because they are
longer and more complex than the others. Nevertheless, it is by no means an
absolute rule in philology that the least compound form is the oldest. A
word may be {387} adapted to a secondary meaning by a change in its parts
in the way of omission, as well as by a change in the way of addition. Such
is the general statement. Reasons for believing that in the particular
cases of the words in question such is the fact, will be found hereafter.
As to the question whether it is most likely for an adjective to be derived
from a case, or a case from an adjective, it may be said, that philology
furnishes instances both ways. _Ours_ is a case derived, in syntax at
least, from an adjective. _Cujus_ (as in _cujum pecus_) and _sestertium_
are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one.
s. 460. _Syntactic evidence._--If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions
as _dael min_=_pars mei_, _haelf thin_=_dimidium tui_, we should have a
reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a genitive
with a partitive power. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted;
whilst, even if quoted, they would not be _conclusive_. Expressions like
[Greek: sos pothos]=_desiderium tui_, [Greek: se promethiai] =
_providenti[^a] propter te_, show the extent to which the possessive
expression encroaches on the partitive.
1. The words _min_ or _thin_, with a power anything rather than possessive,
would not for that reason be proved (on the strength of their meaning) to
be genitive cases rather than possessive pronouns; since such latitude in
the power of the possessive pronoun is borne out by the comparison of
languages--[Greek: pater hemon] (not [Greek: hemeteros]) in Greek is _pater
noster_ (not _nostrum_) in Latin.
s. 461. Again--as _min_ and _thin_ are declined like adjectives, even as
_meus_ and _tuus_ are so declined, we have means of ascertaining their
nature from the form they take in certain constructions; thus,
_min_ra=_me_orum, and _min_re=_me_ae, are the genitive plural and the
dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for _of thy eyes_
should be _eagena thinra_, and the Anglo-Saxon for _to my widow_, should be
_wuduwan minre_; just as in Latin, they would be _oculorum tuorum_, and
_viduae meae_.
If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as _eagena thin_, or
_wuduwan min_, we find evidence in favour of a {388} genitive case; for
then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the
words _thin_ and _min_ must be construed as the Latin forms _tui_ and _mei_
would be in _oculorum mei_, and _viduae mei_; viz.: as genitive cases. Now,
whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions (real or apparent)
exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward.
Such instances have yet to be quoted; whilst even if quoted, they would not
be conclusive.
s. 462. A few references to the _Deutsche Grammatik_ will explain this.
As early as the Moeso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of
the omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the _neuter
singular_ sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms,
_nim thata badi theinata_=[Greek: aron sou ton krabbaton] (Mark ii. 9.)
opposed to _nim thata badi thein_ two verses afterwards. So also with
_mein_ and _meinata_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 470. It is remarkable that
this omission should begin with forms so marked as those of the neuter
(_-ata_). It has, perhaps, its origin in the adverbial character of that
gender.
_Old High German._--Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose
the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it--_thin dohter_, _s[^i]n
quen[^a]_, _min dohter_, _sinaz l[^i]b_. In a few cases, when the pronoun
comes after, even the _oblique_ cases drop the inflection.--Deutsche
Grammatik, 474-478.
_Middle High German._--_Preceding_ the noun, the nominative of all genders
is destitute of inflection; _s[^i]n l[^i]b_, _m[^i]n ere_, _d[^i]n l[^i]b_,
&c. _Following_ the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; _ine herse
s[^i]n_.--Deutsche Grammatik, 480. The influence of position should here be
noticed. Undoubtedly a place _after_ the substantive influences the
omission of the inflection. This appears in its _maximum_ in the Middle
High German. In Moeso-Gothic we have _mein leik_ and _leik
meinata_.--Deutsche Grammatik, 470.
s. 463. Now by assuming (which is only a fair assumption) the extension of
the Middle High German omission of the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and
by supposing it to affect the words in question in _all_ positions (_i.e._,
both before and {389} after their nouns), we explain these constructions by
a process which, in the mind of the present writer, is involved in fewer
difficulties than the opposite doctrine of a genitive case, in words where
it is not wanted, and with a termination which is foreign to it elsewhere.
To suppose _two_ adjectival forms, one inflected (_min_, _minre_, &c.), and
one uninflected, or common to all genders and both numbers (_min_), is to
suppose no more than is the case with the uninflected _the_, as compared
with the inflected _thaet_.--See pp. 251-253.
* * * * *
{390}