1. When _self_ is added to the personal pronouns, as himself,
myself, itself, themselves, &c. they are called _compound personal
pronouns_, and are used in the nominative or objective case, but not
in the possessive.
2. In order to avoid the disagreeable harshness of sound, occasioned
by the frequent recurrence of the terminations _est, edst_, in the
adaptation of our verbs to the nominative _thou_, a modern
innovation which substitutes _you_ for _thou_, in familiar style,
has generally been adopted. This innovation contributes greatly to
the harmony of our colloquial style. _You_ was formerly restricted
to the plural number; but now it is employed to represent either a
singular or a plural noun. It ought to be recollected, however, that
when used as the representative of a singular noun, this word
retains its original _plural form_; and, therefore, the verb
connected with it, should always be plural. Inattention to this
peculiarity, has betrayed some writers into the erroneous
conclusion, that, because _you_ implies unity when it represents a
singular noun, it ought, when thus employed, to be followed by a
singular verb; as, "When _was you_ there?" "How far _was you_ from
the parties?" Such a construction, however, is not supported by
_good_ usage, nor by analogy. It is as manifest a solecism as to
say, We _am_, or we _is_. Were it, in any case, admissible to
connect a singular verb with _you_, the use of _was_ would still be
ungrammatical, for this form of the verb is confined to the first and
third persons, and _you_ is second person. _Wast_ being second
person, it would approximate nearer to correctness to say, you
_wast_. We never use the singular of the present tense with
you:--you _art_, you _is_; you _walkest_, you _walks_. Why, then,
should any attempt be made to force a usage so unnatural and
gratuitous as the connecting of the singular verb in the past tense
with this pronoun? In every point of view, the construction, "When
_were_ you there?" "How far _were_ you from the parties?" is
preferable to the other.
3. The words _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_, are, by many,
denominated _possessive adjective pronouns_; but they always _stand
for_ nouns in the possessive case. They ought, therefore, to be
classed with the _personal_ pronouns. That principle of
classification which ranks them with the adjective pronouns, would
also throw all nouns in the possessive case among the adjectives.
Example: "The lady gave the gentleman _her_ watch for _his_ horse."
In this sentence _her_ personates, or stands for, the noun "lady,"
and _his_ represents "gentleman." This fact is clearly shown by
rendering the sentence thus, "The lady gave the gentleman the
_lady's_ watch for the _gentleman's_ horse." If _lady's_ and
_gentleman's_ are nouns, _her_ and _his_ must be personal pronouns.
The same remarks apply to _my, thy, our, your, their_ and _its_.
This view of these words may be objected to by those who speculate
and refine upon the principles of grammar until they prove their
non-existence, but it is believed, nevertheless, to be based on
sound reason and common sense.
4. _Mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, have, by many
respectable grammarians, been considered merely the possessive cases
of personal pronouns, whilst, by others, they have been denominated
pronouns or nouns in the nominative or objective case. It is
believed, however, that a little attention to the meaning and office
of these words, will clearly show the impropriety of both these
classifications. Those who pursue the former arrangement, allege,
that, in the examples, "You may imagine what kind of faith _theirs_
was; My pleasures are past; _hers_ and _yours_ are to come; they
applauded his conduct, but condemned _hers_ and _yours_," the words
_theirs, hers_, and _yours_, are personal pronouns in the possessive
case, and governed by their respective nouns understood. To prove
this, they construct the sentence thus, "You may imagine what kind
of faith _their faith_ was;--_her pleasures_ and _your pleasures_
are to come;--but condemned _her conduct_ and _your conduct_;" or
thus, "You may imagine what kind of faith the faith of them
was;--the pleasures of her and the pleasures of you, are to come;--
but condemned the conduct of her and the conduct of you." But these
constructions, (both of which are correct,) prove too much for their
purpose; for, as soon as we supply the nouns after these words, they
are resolved into personal pronouns of kindred meaning, and the
nouns which we supply: thus, _theirs_ becomes, their faith: _hers_,
her pleasures; and _yours_, your pleasures. This evidently gives us
two words instead of, and altogether distinct from, the first; so
that, in parsing, _their faith_, we are not, in reality, analyzing
_theirs_, but two other words of which _theirs_ is the proper
representative. These remarks also prove, with equal force, the
impropriety of calling these words merely simple pronouns or nouns
in the nominative or objective case. Without attempting to develop
the original or intrinsic meaning of these pluralizing adjuncts,
_ne_ and _s_, which were, no doubt, formerly detached from the
pronouns with which they now coalesce, for all practical purposes,
it is sufficient for us to know, that, in the present application of
these pronouns, they invariably stand for, not only the person
possessing, but, also the thing possessed, which gives them a
_compound_ character. They may, therefore, be properly denominated
COMPOUND PERSONAL PRONOUNS; and, as they always perform a double
office in a sentence by representing two other words, and,
consequently, including two cases, they should, like the compound
relative _what_, be parsed as two words. Thus, in the example, "You
may imagine what kind of faith theirs was," _theirs_ is a compound
personal pronoun, equivalent to _their faith. Their_ is a pronoun, a
word used instead of a noun; personal, it personates the persons
spoken of, understood; third pers. plur. numb., &c.--and in the
possessive case, and governed by "faith," according to Rule 12.
_Faith_ is a noun, the name of a thing, &c. &c.--and in the
nominative case to "was," and governs it; Rule 3. Or, if we render
the sentence thus, "You may imagine what kind of faith _the faith of
them[4]_ was," _faith_ would be in the nominative case to "was," and
_them_ would be in the objective case, and governed by "of:" Rule
31.
[4] In the note next preceding, it is asserted, that my, thy, his,
her, our your, and their, are personal pronouns. What can more
clearly demonstrate the correctness of that assertion, than this
latter construction of the word theirs? All admit, that, in the
construction, "The faith _of them_," the word _them_, is a personal
pronoun: and for this conclusive reason:--it represents a noun
understood. What, then, is _their_, in the phrase, "their faith?" Is
it not obvious, that, if _them_ is a personal pronoun, _their_ must
be, also? for the latter represents the same noun as the former.
Objections to this method of treating these pronouns, will doubtless
be preferred by those who assert, that a noun is understood after
these words, and not represented by them. But this is assertion
without proof; for, if a noun were understood, it might be supplied.
If the question be put, whose book? and the answer be, _mine, ours,
hers_, or _theirs_, the word book is included in such answer. Were
it not included, we might supply it, thus, mine _book_, ours _book_,
hers _book_, and so on. This, however, we cannot do, for it would be
giving a _double_ answer: but when the question is answered by a
noun in the possessive case, the word book is not included, but
implied; as, Whose book? John's, Richard's; that is, John's _book_;
Richard's _book_.
This view of the subject, without a parallel, except in the
compounds _what, whoever_, and _others_, is respectfully submitted
to the public; believing, that those who approve of a critical
analysis of words, will coincide with me. Should any still be
disposed to treat these words so superficially as to rank them among
the simple pronouns, let them answer the following interrogatory: If
_what_, when compound, should be parsed as two words, why not _mine,
thine, his, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_?
5. _Mine_ and _thine_, instead of _my_ and _thy_, are used in solemn
style, before a word beginning with a vowel or silent _h_; as, "Blot
out all _mine_ iniquities;" and when thus used, they are not
compound. _His_ always has the same form, whether simple or
compound; as, "Give John _his_ book; That desk is _his." Her_, when
placed before a noun, is in the possessive case; as, Take _her_ hat:
when standing alone, it is in the objective case; as, Give the hat
to _her_.
When you shall have studied this lecture attentively, and committed the
_declension_ of the personal pronouns, you may commit the following
SYSTEMATIC ORDER OF PARSING.
_The order of parsing a_ PERSONAL PRONOUN, is--a pronoun, and
why?--personal, and why?--person, and why?--gender and number, and
why?--RULE: case, and why?--RULE.--Decline it.
There are many peculiarities to be observed in parsing personal pronouns
in their different persons; therefore, if you wish ever to parse them
correctly, you must pay particular attention to the manner in which the
following are analyzed. Now notice, particularly, and you will perceive
that we apply only _one_ rule in parsing _I_ and _my_, and _two_ in
parsing _thou, him_, and _they_.
"_I_ saw _my_ friend."
_I_ is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun--personal, it represents
the person speaking, understood--first person, it denotes the
speaker--singular number, it implies but one--and in the nominative
case, it represents the actor and subject of the verb "saw," and governs
it, agreeably to RULE 3. _The nom. case gov. the verb_. Declined--first
pers. sing. num. nom. I, poss. my or mine, obj. me. Plur. nom. we, poss.
our or ours, obj. us.
_My_ is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun--personal, it
personates the person speaking, understood--first pers. it denotes the
speaker--sing. num. it implies but one--and in the possessive case, it
denotes possession; it is governed by the noun "friend", agreeably to
RULE 12. _A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the
noun it possesses_. Declined--first pers. sing. nom. I, poss. my or
mine, obj. me. Plur. nom. we, poss. our or ours, obj. us.
"Young man, _thou_ hast deserted thy companion, and left _him_ in
distress."
_Thou_ is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun--personal, it
personates "man"--second person, it represents the person spoken
to--mas. gend. sing. num. because the noun "man" is for which it stands,
according to RULE 13. _Personal pronouns must agree with the nouns for
which they stand in gender and number_.
_Thou_ is in the nom. case, it represents the actor and subject of the
verb "hast deserted," and governs it agreeably to RULE 3. _The nom. case
governs the verb._ Declined--sec. pers. sing. num. nom. thou, poss. thy
or thine, obj. thee. Plur. nom. ye or you, poss. your or yours, obj.
you.
_Him_ is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun--personal, it
personates "companion"--third pers. it represents the person spoken
of--mas. gend. sing. num. because the noun "companion" is for which it
stands: RULE 13. _Pers. pro. &c_. (Repeat the Rule.)--_Him_ is in the
objective case, the object of the action expressed by the
active-transitive verb "hast left," and gov. by it: RULE 20.
_Active-trans. verbs gov. the obj. case_. Declined--third pers. mas.
gend. sing. num. nom. he, poss. his, obj. him. Plur. nom. they, poss.
their or theirs, obj. them.
"Thrice I raised my voice, and called the chiefs to combat, but
_they_ dreaded the force of my arm."
_They_ is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun--personal, it
represents "chiefs"--third pers. it denotes the persons spoken of--mas.
gend. plur. num. because the noun "chiefs" is for which it stands: RULE
13. _Pers. Pron. &c_. (Repeat the Rule.) It is the nom. case, it
represents the actors and subject of the verb "dreaded," and governs it:
RULE 3. _The nom. case, gov. the verb_. Declined--third pers. mas. gend.
sing. num. nom. he, poss. his, obj. him. Plur. nom. they, poss. their or
theirs, obj. them.
NOTE. We do not apply gender in parsing the personal pronouns,
(excepting the third person singular,) if the nouns they represent are
understood; and therefore we do not, in such instances, apply Rule 13.
But when the noun is expressed, gender should be applied, and _two_
Rules.