READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
MARCH 9, 1849.
The writer wishes to make the word _cujum_, as found in a well-known
quotation from the third eclogue of Virgil,--
Dic mihi Damæta _cujum_ pecus?
the basis of some remarks which are meant to be suggestions rather than
doctrines.
In the second edition of a work upon the English language, he devoted
an additional chapter to the consideration of the grammatical position
of the words _mine_ and _thine_, respecting which he then considered
(and still considers) himself correct in assuming that the current
doctrine concerning them was, that they were, in origin, genitive or
possessive cases, and that they were adjectives only in a secondary
sense. Now whatever was then written upon this subject was written
with the view of recording an opinion in favour of exactly the
opposite doctrine, viz. that they were originally adjectives, but that
afterwards they took the appearance of oblique cases. Hence for words
like _mine_ and _thine_ there are two views:--
1. That they were originally _cases_, and _adjectives_ only in a
secondary manner.
2. That they were originally _adjectives_, and _cases_ only in a
secondary manner.
In which predicament is the word _cujum_? If in the first, it supplies
a remarkable instance of an unequivocally adjectival form, as tested by
an inflection in the way of gender, having grown out of a case. If in
the second, it shows how truly the converse may take place, since it
cannot be doubted that whatever in this respect can be predicated of
_cujus_ can be predicated of _ejus_ and _hujus_ as well.
Assuming this last position, it follows that if _cujus_ be originally a
case, we have a proof how thoroughly it may _take_ a gender; whereas if
it be originally an adjective, _ejus_ and _hujus_ (for by a previous
assumption they are in the same category) are samples of the extent to
which words like it may _lose_ one.
Now the termination _-us_ is the termination of an adjective, and is
_not_ the termination of a genitive case; a fact that fixes the _onus
probandi_ with those who insist upon the genitival character of the
words in question. But as it is not likely that every one lays so
much value upon this argument as is laid by the present writer, it is
necessary to refer to two facts taken from the Greek:--
1. That the class of words itself is not a class which (as is often
the case) naturally leads us to expect a variation from the usual
inflections. The forms οὗ, οἷ, ἕ, and ὅς, οὗ, ὧ, are perfectly usual.
2. That the adjectives ὃς = ἑὸς,[1] κοῖος = ποῖος, and ὁῖος, are not
only real forms, but forms of a common kind. Hence, if we consider the
termination _-jus_ as a case-ending, we have a phænomenon in Latin
for which we miss a Greek equivalent; whilst on the other hand, if
we do not consider it as adjectival, we have the Greek forms ὁῖος,
κοῖος = ποῖος and ὃς = ἑὸς, without any Latin ones. I do not say that
this argument is, when taken alone, of any great weight. In doubtful
cases, however, it is of value. In the present case it enables us to
get rid of an inexplicable genitival form, at the expense of a slight
deflection from the usual power of an adjective. And here it should be
remembered that many of the arguments in favour of a case becoming an
adjective are (to a certain extent) in favour of an adjective becoming
a case--_to a certain extent_ and _to a certain extent_ only, because a
change in one direction by no means necessarily implies a change in the
reverse one, although it is something in favour of its probability.
[Footnote 1: hora for wora, κοῖος = _cujus_; ὁῖος = _hujus_; ἑὸς =
_ejus_ (1859).]
Probably _unius_, _ullius_, _illius_, and _alterius_, are equally,
as respects their origin, adjectival forms with _ejus_, _cujus_, and
_hujus_.
Now it must not be concealed that one of the arguments which apply to
words like _mine_ and _thine_ being adjectives rather than genitives,
does not apply to words like _ejus_, _cujus_, and _hujus_. The reason
is as follows; and it is exhibited in nearly the same words which
have been used in the work already mentioned.--The idea of partition
is one of the ideas expressed by the genitive case. The necessity for
expressing this idea is an element in the necessity for evolving a
genitive case. With personal pronouns of the singular number the idea
of partition is of less frequent occurrence than with most other
words, since 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 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 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_, _the-ir_. The two ideas
are not in the same predicament.
Again, the convenience of expressing the difference between _suus_
and _ejus_, is, to a certain extent, a reason for the evolution of
a genitive case to words like _is_; but it is a reason to a certain
extent only, and that extent a small one, since an equally convenient
method of expressing the difference is to be found in the fact of there
being two roots for the pronouns in question, the root from which we
get _ea_, _id_, _eum_, _ejus_, &c., and the root from which we get
_sui_, _sibi_, _suus_, &c.
Here the paper should end, for here ends the particular suggestion
supplied by the word in question. Two questions however present
themselves too forcibly to be wholly passed over:--
I. The great extent to which those who look in Latin for the same
inflections that occur in Greek, must look for them under new names.
That two tenses in Greek (the aorist like ἔ-τυπ-σα, and the perfect
like τέ-τυφ-α) must be looked for in the so-called _double_ form of a
_single_ tense in Latin (_vic-si_, _mo-mordi_) is one of the oldest
facts of this sort. That the Greek participle in -μενος (τυπτόμενος)
must be sought for in the passive persons in _-mini_ is a newer notice.
II. The fact that the character of the deflection that takes place
between case and adjective is not _single_ but _double_. It goes both
ways. The change from case to adjective is one process in philology;
the change from adjective to case another; and both should be
recognized. This is mentioned for the sake of stating, that except in a
few details, there is nothing in the present remarks that is meant to
be at variance with the facts and arguments of five papers already laid
before this Society, viz. those of Mr. Garnett on the Formation of
Words from Inflected Cases, and on the Analysis of the Verb.
The papers alluded to really deal with two series of facts:--(A.)
_Deflection with identity of form._--In this the inflection is still
considered an inflection, but is dealt with as one different from what
it really is, _i. e._ as a nominative instead of an oblique one. Some
years back the structure of the Finlandic suggested to the present
writer:--
1. A series of changes in meaning whereby such a term as _with waves_
might equal _wavy_.
2. The existence of a class of words of which _sestertium_ was the
type, where an oblique case, _with a convertible termination_, becomes
a nominative.
3. The possible evolution of forms like _fluctuba_,
_fluctubum_ = _fluctuosa_, _fluctuosum_, from forms like _fluctubus_.
Mr. Garnett has multiplied cases of this kind; his illustrations
from the Basque being pre-eminently typical, _i. e._ like the form
_sestertium_. If the modern vehicle called an _omnibus_ had been
invented in ancient Rome, if it had had the same name as it has now,
and if its plural form had been _omnibi_, it would also have been a
typical instance.
Words of the hypothetical form _fluctuba_, _fluctubum_, have not
been discovered. They would have existed if the word just quoted had
been (if used in ancient Rome at all) used as an adjective, _omnibus
currus_, _omniba esseda_, _omnibum plaustrum_.
(B.) _Deflection with superaddition._--Here the inflection is dealt
with as if it were not inflectional but radical. This is the case with
ἴφιος. Words like _it-_, as proved by the genitive _i-t-s_, and the
so-called _petrified_ (_versteinerte_) nominative cases of the German
grammarians, are of this class.