CHAPTER XXXVII.
ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE.
[§ 394]. 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 versâ.
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.—The Greek language gives us examples of this in the promiscuous use of νιν, μιν, σφε, and ἑαυτοῦ; 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.
[§ 395]. 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.
[§ 396]. 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.
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 þin, the older forms of mine and thine, are treated as genitives or possessives.
[§ 397]. This gives us two views of the words my and thy.
a. They may be genitives or possessives, which were originally datives or accusatives; in which case they are deduced from the Anglo-Saxon mec and þec.
b. They may be the Anglo-Saxon min and þin, minus the final -n.
Each of these views has respectable supporters. The former is decidedly preferred by the present writer.
[§ 398]. What, however, are thine and mine? Are they adjectives like meus, tuus, and suus, or cases like mei, tui, sui, in Latin, and hi-s in English?
It is no answer to say that sometimes they are one and sometimes the other. They were not so originally. They did not begin with meaning two things at once; on the contrary, they were either possessive cases, of which the power became subsequently adjectival, or adjectives, of which the power became subsequently possessive.
[§ 399]. In Anglo-Saxon and in Old Saxon there is but one form to express the Latin mei (or tui), on the one side, and meus, mea, meum (or tuus, &c.), on the other. In several other Gothic tongues, however, there was the following difference of form:
| Mœso-Gothic | meina | = mei | as opposed to | meins | = meus. |
| þeina | = tui | - | þeins | = tuus. | |
| Old High German | mîn | = mei | - | mîner | = meus. |
| dîn | = tui | - | dîner | = tuus. | |
| Old Norse | min | = mei | - | minn | = meus. |
| þin | = tui | - | þinn | = tuus. | |
| Middle Dutch | mîns | = mei | - | mîn | = meus. |
| dîns | = tui | - | dîn | = tuus. | |
| Modern High German | mein | = mei | - | meiner | = meus. |
| dein | = tui | - | deiner | = tuus. |
In these 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.
[§ 400]. But this is not the present question. In
Anglo-Saxon there is but one form, min and þin = mei and meus, tui and tuus, indifferently. Is this form an oblique case or an adjective?
This involves two sorts of evidence.
[§ 401]. Etymological evidence.—Assuming two powers for the words min and þin, 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 mîner, as opposed to mîn, are concerned, the evidence of the foregoing list is in their favour. But what is the case with the Middle Dutch? The genitive mîns is evidently the derivative of mîn.
The reason why the forms like mîner 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 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.
[§ 402]. 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. Cujum (as in cujum pecus) and sestertium are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one.
[§ 403]. Syntactic evidence.—If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions as dœl min = pars mei, hœlf þin
= dimidium tui, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a true genitive. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted.
[§ 404]. Again—as min and þin 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, minra = meorum, and minre = meæ, are the genitive plural and the dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for of thy eyes should be eagena þinra, and the Anglo-Saxon for to my widow, should be wuduwan minre; just as in Latin, they would be oculorum tuorum, and viduæ meæ.
If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as eagena þin, or wuduwan min, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words þin and min must be construed as the Latin forms tui and mei would be in oculorum mei, and viduæ mei; viz.: as genitive cases. Now, whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward.
Such instances, even if quoted, would not be conclusive.
[§ 405]. Why would they not be conclusive? Because even of the adjective there are uninflected forms.
As early as the Mœso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of this omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the neuter singular sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms, nim thata badi theinata = ᾆρόν σου τὸν κράββατον (Mark ii. 9), opposed to nim thata badi thein, two verses afterwards. So also with mein and meinata. 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, sîn quenâ, min dohter, sinaz lîb. In a few cases, when the pronoun comes after, even the oblique cases drop the inflection.
Middle High German.—Preceding the noun, the nominative of all genders is destitute of inflection; sîn lîb, mîn ere, dîn lîb, &c. Following the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; ine herse sîn. 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 Mœso-Gothic we have mein leik and leik meinata.
[§ 406]. Now by assuming 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 after their nouns), we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as already stated, no instances of them have been quoted.
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 þe, as compared with the inflected þæt.
[§ 407]. Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance of min or þin, the necessary equivalents to mei and tui, rather than to meus and tuus, must consist in the quotation from the Anglo-Saxon of some
text, wherein min or þin occurs with a feminine substantive, in an oblique case, the pronoun preceding the noun. When this has been done, it will be time enough to treat mine and thine as the equivalents to mei and tui, rather than as those to meus and tuus.