CHAPTER XXXVII.
ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE.
[§ 446]. 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.—Laying aside the habit of the Germans and other nations, of using the third person plural for the second singular (as in expressions like wie befinden sie sich = how do they find themselves? instead of how do you find yourself?) the Greek language gives us examples of interchange in the way of persons 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.
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.
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. Are they genitive cases of a personal pronoun, as mei and tui are supposed to be in Latin, or are they possessive pronouns like meus and tuus?
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; of which my and thy have been dealt with as abbreviated forms, and that by respectable scholars.
Now, to prove from the syntax of the older English that in many cases the two forms were convertible, and to answer that the words in question are either genitive cases or adjectives, is lax philology; since the real question is, which of the two is the primary, and which the secondary meaning?
[§ 447]. The à priori view of the likelihood of words like mine and thine being genitive cases, must be determined by the comparison of three series of facts.
1. The ideas expressed by the genitive case, with particular reference to the two preponderating notions of possession and partition.
2. The circumstance of the particular notion of possession being, in the case of the personal pronouns of the two first persons singular, generally expressed by a form undoubtedly adjectival.
3. The extent to which the idea of partition becomes merged in that of possession, and vice versâ.
[§ 448]. The ideas of possession and partition as expressed by genitive forms.—If we take a hundred genitive cases, and observe their construction, we shall find, that, with a vast majority of them, the meaning is reducible to one of two heads; viz., the idea of possession or the idea of partition.
Compared with these two powers all the others are inconsiderable, both in number and importance; and if, as in the Greek and Latin languages, they take up a large space in the grammars, it is from their exceptional character rather than from their normal genitival signification.
Again, if both the ideas of possession and partition may, and in many cases must be, reduced to the more general idea of relation, this is a point of grammatical phraseology by no means affecting the practical and special bearings of the present division.
[§ 449]. The adjectival expression of the idea of possession.—All the world over, a property is a possession; and persons, at least, may be said to be the owners of their attributes. Whatever may be the nature of words like mine and thine, the adjectival character of their Latin equivalents, meus and tuus, is undoubted.
The ideas of partition and possession merge into one another.—A man's spade is the possession of a man; a man's hand is the part of a man. Nevertheless, when a man uses his hand as the instrument of his will, the idea which arises from the fact of its being part of his body is merged in the idea of the possessorship which arises from the feeling of ownership or mastery which is evinced in its subservience and application. Without following the refinements to which the further investigation of these questions would lead us, it is sufficient to suggest that the preponderance of the two allied ideas of partition and possession is often determined by the
personality or the non-personality of the subject, and that, when the subject is a person, the idea is chiefly possessive; when a thing, partitive—caput fluvii=the head, which is a part, of a river; caput Toli=the head, which is the possession, of Tolus.
But as persons may be degraded to the rank of things, and as things may, by personification, be elevated to the level of persons, this distinction, although real, may become apparently invalid. In phrases like a tributary to the Tiber—the criminal lost his eye—this field belongs to that parish—the ideas of possessorship and partition, as allied ideas subordinate to the idea of relationship in general, verify the interchange.
[§ 450]. These observations should bring us to the fact that there are two ideas which, more than any other, determine the evolution of a genitive case—the idea of partition and the idea of possession; and that genitive cases are likely to be evolved just in proportion as there is a necessity for the expression of these two ideas.—Let this be applied to the question of the à priori probability of the evolution of a genitive case to the pronouns of the first and second persons of the singular number.
[§ 451]. The idea of possession, and its likelihood of determining the evolution of a genitive form to the pronouns of the first and second person singular. —It is less likely to do so with such pronouns than with other words, inasmuch as it is less necessary. It has been before observed, that the practice of most languages shows a tendency to express the relation by adjectival forms—meus, tuus.
An objection against the conclusiveness of this argument will be mentioned in the sequel.
[§ 452]. The idea of partition, and its likelihood of determining the evolution of a genitive form, &c.—Less than with other words.
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 part of you, 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, thei-r. The two ideas are not in the same predicament. We can say, one of ten, or ten of twenty; but we cannot say one of one—Wæs hira Matheus sum=Matthew was one of them; Andreas—Your noither=neither of you; Amis and Ameloun—from Mr. Guest: Her eyder=either of them; Octavian.—Besides this, the form of the two numbers are neither identical, nor equally genitival; as may be seen by contrasting mi-n and thi-n with ou-r and you-r.
[§ 453]. Such are the chief à priori arguments against the genitival character of words like mine and thine.
Akin to these, and a point which precedes the à posteriori evidence as to the nature of the words in question, is the determination of the side on which lies the onus probandi. This question is material; inasmuch as, although the present writer believes, for his own part, that the forms under discussion are adjectival rather than genitival, this is not the point upon which he insists. What he insists upon is the fact of the genitival character of mine and thine requiring a particular proof; which particular proof no one has yet given: in other words, his position is that they are not to be thought genitive until proved to be such.
It has not been sufficiently considered that the primâ facie evidence is against them. They have not the form of a genitive case—indeed, they have a different one; and whoever assumes a second form for a given case has the burden of proof on his side.
[§ 454]. Against this circumstance of the -n in mine and thine being the sign of anything rather than of a genitive case, and against the primâ facie evidence afforded by it, the
following facts may, or have been, adduced as reasons on the other side. The appreciation of their value, either taken singly or in the way of cumulative evidence, is submitted to the reader. It will be seen that none of them are unexceptionable.
[§ 455]. The fact, that, if the words mine and thine are not genitive cases, there is not a genitive case at all.—It is not necessary that there should be one. Particular reasons in favour of the probability of personal pronouns of the singular number being destitute of such a case have been already adduced. It is more likely that a word should be defective than that it should have a separate form.
[§ 456]. The analogy of the forms mei and ἐμοῦ in Latin and Greek.—It cannot be denied that this has some value. Nevertheless, the argument deducible from it is anything but conclusive.
1. It is by no means an indubitable fact that mei and ἐμοῦ are really cases of the pronoun. The extension of a principle acknowledged in the Greek language might make them the genitive cases of adjectives used pronominally. Thus,
| Τὸ ἐμὸν | =ἐγὼ, |
| Τοῦ ἐμοῦ | =ἐμοῦ, |
| Τῷ ἐμῷ | =ἐμοί. |
Assume the omission of the article and the extension of the Greek principle to the Latin language, and ἐμοῦ and mei may be cases, not of ἐμὲ and me, but of ἐμὸς and meus.
2. In the classical languages the partitive power was expressed by the genitive.
"—— multaque pars mei
Vitabit Libitinam."
This is a reason for the evolution of a genitive power. Few such forms exist in the Gothic; part my is not English, nor was dæl min Anglo-Saxon,=part of me, or pars mei.
[§ 457]. The following differences of form, are found in the different Gothic languages, between the equivalents of mei and tui, the so-called genitives of ego and tu, and the equivalents of meus and tuus, the so-called possessive adjectives.
| 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 this list, those languages where the two forms are alike are not exhibited. This is the case with the Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon.
In the above-noticed 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.
[§ 458]. 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.
[§ 459]. 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. Such is the general statement. Reasons for believing that in the particular cases of the words in question such is the fact, will be found hereafter.
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. Cujus (as in cujum pecus) and sestertium are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one.
[§ 460]. Syntactic evidence.—If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions as dæl min=pars mei, hælf þin=dimidium tui, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a genitive with a partitive power. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted; whilst, even if quoted, they would not be conclusive. Expressions like σὸς πόθος=desiderium tui, σῆ προμηθίᾳ = providentiâ propter te, show the extent to which the possessive expression encroaches on the partitive.
1. The words min or þin, with a power anything rather than possessive, would not for that reason be proved (on the strength of their meaning) to be genitive cases rather than possessive pronouns; since such latitude in the power of the possessive pronoun is borne out by the comparison of languages—πατὲρ ἡμῶν (not ἡμέτερος) in Greek is pater noster (not nostrum) in Latin.
[§ 461]. 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 (real or apparent) exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward.
Such instances have yet to be quoted; whilst even if quoted, they would not be conclusive.
[§ 462]. A few references to the Deutsche Grammatik will explain this.
As early as the Mœso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of the omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the neuter singular sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms, nim thata badi theinata=ἆρον σοῦ τὸν κράββατον (Mark ii. 9.) opposed to nim thata badi thein two verses afterwards. So also with mein and meinata.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 470. 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.—Deutsche Grammatik, 474-478.
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.—Deutsche Grammatik, 480. 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.—Deutsche Grammatik, 470.
[§ 463]. Now by assuming (which is only a fair assumption) 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 explain these constructions by a process which, in the mind of the present writer, is involved in fewer difficulties than the opposite doctrine of a genitive case, in words where it is not wanted, and with a termination which is foreign to it elsewhere.
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.—See pp. 251-253.