CHAPTER IV.

ON THE CASES.

[§ 289]. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases, depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the sentence a house of a father, the idea expressed by the words of a father, is an idea of relation between them and the word house. This idea is an idea of property or possession. The relation between the words father and house may be called the possessive relation. This relation, or connexion, between the two words is expressed by the preposition of.

In a fathers house the idea is, there or thereabouts, the same; the relation or connexion between the two words being the same. The expression, however, differs. In a father's house the relation, or connexion, is expressed, not by a preposition, but by a change of form, father becoming father's.

He gave the house to a father.—Here the words father and house stand in another sort of relationship; the relationship being expressed by the preposition to. The idea to a father differs from the idea of a father, in being expressed in one way only; viz., by the preposition. There is no second mode of expressing it by a change of form, as was done with father's.

The father taught the child.—Here there is neither preposition nor change of form. The connexion between the words father and child is expressed by the arrangement only.

Now if the relation alone between two words constitutes a case, the words or sentences, child; to a father; of a father; and father's, are all equally cases; of which one may be

called the accusative, another the dative, a third the genitive, and so on.

Perhaps, however, the relationship alone does not constitute a case. Perhaps there is a necessity of either the addition of a preposition (as in of a father), or of a change in form (as in father's). In this case (although child be not so) father's, of a father, and to a father, are all equally cases.

Now it is a remark, at least as old as Dr. Beattie,[^[39]] that if the use of a preposition constitute a case, there must be as many cases in a language as there are prepositions, and that "above a man, beneath a man, beyond a man, round about a man, within a man, without a man, shall be cases, as well as of a man, to a man, and with a man."

For etymological purposes it is necessary to limit the meaning of the word case; and, as a sort of definition, it may be laid down that where there is no change of form there is no case. With this remark, the English language may be compared with the Latin.

		Latin.	English.
Sing.	Nom.	Pater	a father.
	Gen.	Patris	a father's.
	Dat.	Patri	to a father.
	Acc.	Patrem	a father.
	Abl.	Patre	from a father.

Here, since in the Latin language there are five changes of form, whilst in English there are but two, there are (as far, at least, as the word pater and father are concerned) three more cases in Latin than in English. It does not, however, follow that because in father we have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two.

In order to constitute a case there must be a change of form.—This statement is a matter of definition. A second question, however, arises out of it; viz., whether every change of form constitute a case? In the Greek language there are the words ἔριν (erin), and ἔριδα (erida). Unlike the words father and father's these two words have precisely the same meaning. Each is called an accusative; and each,

consequently, is said to be in the same case with the other. This indicates the statement, that in order to constitute a case there must be not only a change of form, but also a change of meaning. Whether such a limitation of the word be convenient, is a question for the general grammarian. At present we merely state that there is no change of case unless there be a change of form. Hence, in respect to the word patribus (and others like it), which is sometimes translated from fathers, and at other times to fathers, we must say, not that in the one case the word is ablative and in the other dative, but that a certain case is used with a certain latitude of meaning. This remark bears on the word her in English. In her book the sense is that of the case currently called genitive. In it moved her, the sense is that of the case currently called the accusative. If we adhere, however, to what we have laid down, we must take exceptions to this mode of speaking. It is not that out of the single form her we can get two cases, but that a certain form has two powers; one that of the Latin genitive, and another that of the Latin accusative.

[§ 290]. This leads to an interesting question, viz., what notions are sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same form, and in the same case? The word her, in its two senses, may, perhaps, be dealt with as a single case, because the notions conveyed by the genitive and accusative are, perhaps, sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same word. Are the notions, however, of a mistress, and mistresses, so allied? I think not; and yet in the Latin language the same form, dominæ, expresses both. Of dominæ=of a mistress, and of dominæ=mistresses, we cannot say that there is one and the same case with a latitude of meaning. The words were, perhaps, once different. And this leads to the distinction between a real and an accidental identity of form.

In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words smith (smið), end (ende), and day (dæg), were, respectively, smithes (smiðes), endes, and dayes (dæges); whilst the nominative plurals were, respectively, smithas (smiðas), endas, and dayas (dægas). A process of change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in each

word was ejected. The result was, that the forms of the genitive singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and the same; so that the identity of the two cases is an accident.

This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England, identical; the apostrophe in father's being a mere matter of orthography. However, there was once a difference. This modifies the previous statement, which may now stand thus:—for a change of case there must be a change of form existing or presumed.

[§ 291]. The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they spread.—In the English language there is undoubtedly a nominative case. This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and pronouns (father, good, he) equally. It is found in both numbers.

Accusative.—Some call this the objective case. The words him (singular) and them (plural) (whatever they may have been originally) are now true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only. Thee, me, us, and you are, to a certain extent, true accusatives.

They are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. 2. They are distinguished from the forms I, my, &c. 3. Their meaning is accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only.

One word of English is probably a true accusative in the strict sense of the term, viz., the word twain=two. The -n in twai-n is the -n in hine=him and hwone=whom. This we see from the following inflection:—

	Neut.	Masc.	Fem.
N. and Ac.	Twá,	Twégen,	Twá.

Abl. and Dat.	Twám,		Twǽm.
Gen.	Twegra,		Twega.

Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the original character of twégen being accusative. The

-n is by no means radical; besides which, it is the sign of an accusative case, and is not the sign of a nominative.

Note.—The words him and them are true accusatives in even a less degree than thee, me, us, and you. The Anglo-Saxon equivalents to the Latin words eos and illos were hi (or hig) and þá (or þæge); in other words, the sign of the accusative was other than the sound of -m. The case which really ended in -m was the so-called dative; so that the Anglo-Saxon forms him (or heom) and þám=the Latin iis and illis.

This fact explains the meaning of the words, whatever they may have been originally, in a preceding sentence. It also indicates a fresh element in the criticism and nomenclature of the grammarian; viz., the extent to which the history of a form regulates its position as an inflection.

Dative.—In the antiquated word whilom (at times), we have a remnant of the old dative in -m. The sense of the word is adverbial; its form, however, is that of a dative case.

Genitive.—Some call this the possessive case. It is found in substantives and pronouns (father's, his), but not in adjectives. It is formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant (father, fathers; buck, bucks); or if the word end in s, by that of es (boxes, judges, &c.) It is found in both numbers: the men's hearts; the children's bread. In the plural number, however, it is rare; so rare, indeed, that wherever the plural ends in s (as it almost always does), there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words as fatherses, foxeses, princesseses, &c.

Instrumental.—The following extracts from Rask's Anglo-Saxon Grammar, teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the word spelt t-h-e, or of the so-called definite article.

"The demonstrative pronouns are þæt, se, seó (id, is, ea), which are also used for the article; and þis, þes, þeós (hoc, hic, hæc). They are thus declined:—

		Neut.	Masc.	Fem.	Neut.	Masc.	Fem.
Sing.	N.	þæt	se	seó	þis	þes	þeós.
	A.	þæt	þone	þá	þis	þisne	þás.

	Abl.	þý		þǽre	þise		þisse.
	D.	þám		þǽre	þisum		þisse.
	G.	þæs		þǽre	þises		þisse.

Plur.	N. and A.		þá			þás.
	Abl. and D.		þám			þisum.
	G.		þára.			þissa.

"The indeclinable þe is often used instead of þæt, se, seo, in all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times, as an article. Hence the English article the.

"þy seems justly to be received as a proper ablativus instrumenti, as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, mid þy áþe=with that oath (Inæ Reges, 53). And in the same place in the dative, on þǽm áþe=in that oath."—Pp. 56, 57.

Hence the the that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon þý is one word; the the that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon þe, another. The latter is the common article: the former the the in expressions like all the more, all the better=more by all that, better by all that, and the Latin phrases eo majus, eo melius.

That why is in the same case with the instrumental the (=þy) may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflection of the interrogative pronoun:—

	Neut.	Masc.
N.	Hwæt	Hwá.
A.	Hwæt	Hwone (hwæne).

Abl.	Hwi
D.	Hwám (hwæ'm)
G.	Hwæs.

Hence, then, in the and why we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply, instrumentals.

[§ 292]. The determination of cases.—How do we determine cases? In other words, why do we call him and them

accusatives rather than datives or genitives? By one of two means; viz., either by the sense or the form.

Suppose that in the English language there were ten thousand dative cases and as many accusatives. Suppose, also, that all the dative cases ended in -m, and all the accusatives in some other letter. It is very evident that, whatever might be the meaning of the words him and them their form would be dative. In this case the meaning being accusative, and the form dative, we should doubt which test to take.

My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to determine cases by the form of the word alone; so that, even if a word had a dative sense only once, where it had an accusative sense ten thousand times, such a word should be said to be in the dative case. Now, as stated above, the words him and them (to which we may add whom) were once dative cases; -m in Anglo-Saxon being the sign of the dative case. In the time of the Anglo-Saxons their sense coincided with their form. At present they are dative forms with an accusative meaning. Still, as the word give takes after it a dative case, we have, even now, in the sentence, give it him, give it them, remnants of the old dative sense. To say give it to him, to them, is unnecessary and pedantic: neither do I object to the expression, whom shall I give it? If ever the formal test become generally recognised and consistently adhered to, him, them, and whom will be called datives with a latitude of meaning; and then the only true and unequivocal accusatives in the English language will be the forms you, thee, us, me, and twain.

My, an accusative form (meh, me, mec), has now a genitive sense. The same may be said of thy.

Me, originally an accusative form (both me and my can grow out of mec and meh), had, even with the Anglo-Saxons, a dative sense. Give it me is correct English. The same may be said of thee.

Him, a dative form, has now an accusative sense.

Her.—For this word, as well as for further details on me and my, see the Chapters on the Personal and Demonstrative Pronouns.

[§ 293]. When all traces of the original dative signification are effaced, and when all the dative cases in a language are similarly affected, an accusative case may be said to have originated out of a dative.

[§ 294]. Thus far the question has been concerning the immediate origin of cases: their remote origin is a different matter.

The word um occurs in Icelandic. In Danish and Swedish it is om; in the Germanic languages omme, umbi, umpi, ymbe, and also um. Its meaning is at, on, about. The word whilom is the substantive while=a time or pause (Dan. hvile=to rest), with the addition of the preposition om. That the particular dative form in om has arisen out of the noun plus the preposition is a safe assertion. I am not prepared, however, to account for the formation of all the cases in this manner.

[§ 295]. Analysis of cases.—In the word children's we are enabled to separate the word into three parts. 1. The root child. 2. The plural signs r and en. 3. The sign of the genitive case, s. In this case the word is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought always to be attempted.

[§ 296]. The true nature of the genitive form in s.—It is a common notion that the genitive form father's is contracted from father his. The expression in our liturgy, for Jesus Christ his sake, which is merely a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea, however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake of contradiction to it.

1. The expression the Queen's Majesty is not capable of being reduced to the Queen his Majesty.

2. In the form his itself, the s has precisely the power that it has in father's, &c. Now his cannot be said to arise out of he + his.

3. In all the languages of the vast Indo-European tribe, except the Celtic, the genitive ends in s, just as it does in

English; so that even if the words father his would account for the English word father's, it would not account for the Sanskrit genitive pad-as, of a foot; the Zend dughdhar-s, of a daughter; the Lithuanic dugter-s; the Greek ὀδόντ-ος; the Latin dent-is, &c.

For further remarks upon the English genitive, see the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. ii. p. 246.