CHAPTER VII.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF.
[§ 515]. The undoubted constructions of the word self, in the present state of the cultivated English, are three-fold.
1. Government.—In my-self, thy-self, our-selves, and your-selves, the construction is that of a common substantive with an adjective or genitive case. My-self=my individuality, and is similarly construed—mea individualitas (or persona), or mei individualitas (or persona).
2. Apposition.—In him-self and them-selves, when accusative, the construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a pronoun. Him-self=him, the individual.
3. Composition.—It is only, however, when himself and themselves, are in the accusative case, that the construction is appositional. When they are used as nominatives, it must be explained on another principle. In phrases like
He himself was present.
They themselves were present.
There is neither apposition nor government; him and them, being neither related to my and thy, so as to be governed, nor yet to he and they, so as to form an apposition. In order to come under one of these conditions, the phrases should be either he his self (they their selves), or else he he self (they they selves). In this difficulty, the only logical view that can be taken of the matter, is to consider the words himself and themselves, not as two words, but as a single word compounded; and even then, the compound will be of an irregular kind; inasmuch as the inflectional element -m, is dealt with as part and parcel of the root.
[§ 516]. Her-self.—The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of the preceding constructions. Which, however it is,
is uncertain; since her may be either a so-called genitive, like my, or an accusative like him.
Itself—is also ambiguous. The s may represent the -s in its, as well as the s- in self.
This inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxon stage of the English language.
[§ 517]. In the exhibition of the second construction of the word self it was assumed that the case was a case of apposition, and that self was substantival in character. Nevertheless, this is by no means a necessary phenomenon. Self might, as far as its power is determined by its construction alone, in words like himself as easily be an adjective as a substantive. In which case the construction would be a matter, not of apposition, but of agreement. To illustrate this by the Latin language, himself, might equal either eum personam (him, the person), or eum personalem (him personal). The evidence, however, of the forms like myself, as well as other facts adduceable from comparative philology, prove the substantival character of self. On the other hand, it ought not to be concealed that another word, whereof the preponderance of the adjectival over the substantival power is undoubted, is found in the Old English, with just the same inconsistency as the word self; i.e., sometimes in government (like a substantive), and sometimes in either concord or apposition, like a word which may be either substantive or adjective. This word is one; the following illustrations of which are from Mr. Guest.—Phil. Trans. No. 22.
In this world wote I no knight,
Who durst his one with hym fight.
Ipomedon, 1690.
þah ha hire ane were
Ayein so kene keisere and al his kine riche.
St. Catherine, 90.
Though she alone were
Against so fierce a kaiser, and all his kingdom.
Here his one, her one, mean his singleness, her singleness.
He made his mone
Within a garden all him one.
Gower, Confess. Amant.
Here him one = himself in respect to its construction.
[§ 518]. As to the inflection of the word -self, all its compounds are substantives; inasmuch as they all take plural forms as far as certain logical limitations will allow them to do so—ourselves, yourselves, themselves.
Myself, thyself, himself, itself, and herself, are naturally singular, and under no circumstances can become plural.
Themselves is naturally plural, and under no circumstances can become singular.
Ourselves and yourselves are naturally plural; yet under certain circumstances they become singular.
a. Just as men say we for I, so may they say our for my.
b. Just as men say you for thou, so may they say your for thy.
In respect to the inflection in the way of case, there are no logical limitations whatever. There is nothing against the existence of a genitive form self's except the habit of the English language not to use one, founded on the little necessity for so doing.—Are you sure this is your own? Yes, I am sure it is my own self's. Such an expression is both logic and grammar.
When an adjective intervenes between self and its personal pronoun the construction is always in the way of government; in other words, the personal pronoun is always put in the genitive case.
His own self, not him own self.
Their own selves, not them own selves.
[§ 519]. The construction of self and a personal pronoun with a verb may be noticed in this place. It is only in the case of the two pronouns of the singular number that any doubt can arise.
1. When myself or thyself stands alone, the verb that follows is in the third person—myself is (not am) weak, thyself is (not art) weak. Here the construction is just the same as in the proposition my body is weak.
2. When myself or thyself is preceded by I or thou, the verb that follows is in the first person—I, myself, am (not is) weak; thou, thyself, art (not is) weak.