[203] The fashion of using the plural number for the singular, or you for thou, has also substituted yourself for thyself, in common discourse. In poetry, in prayer, in Scripture, and in the familiar language of the Friends, the original compound is still retained; but the poets use either term, according to the gravity or the lightness of their style. But yourself, like the regal compound ourself, though apparently of the singular number, and always applied to one person only, is, in its very nature, an anomalous and ungrammatical word; for it can neither mean more than one, nor agree with a pronoun or a verb that is singular. Swift indeed wrote: "Conversation is but carving; carve for all, yourself is starving." But he wrote erroneously, and his meaning is doubtful: probably he meant, "To carve for all, is, to starve yourself." The compound personals, when they are nominatives before the verb, are commonly associated with the simple; as, "I myself also am a man."—Acts, x, 16. "That thou thyself art a guide."—Rom., ii, 19. "If it stand, as you yourself still do"—Shakspeare. "That you yourself are much condemned."—Id. And, if the simple pronoun be omitted, the compound still requires the same form of the verb; as, "Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell."—Milton. The following example is different: "I love mankind; and in a monarchy myself is all that I can love."—Life of Schiller, Follen's Pref., p. x. Dr. Follen objects to the British version, "Myself were all that I could love;" and, if his own is good English, the verb is agrees with all, and not with myself. Is is of the third person: hence, "myself is" or, "yourself is," cannot be good syntax; nor does any one say, "yourself art," or, "ourself am," but rather, "yourself are:" as, "Captain, yourself are the fittest."—Dryden. But to call this a "concord," is to turn a third part of the language upsidedown; because, by analogy, it confounds, to such extent at least, the plural number with the singular through all our verbs; that is, if ourself and yourself are singulars, and not rather plurals put for singulars by a figure of syntax. But the words are, in some few instances, written separately; and then both the meaning and the construction are different; as, "Your self is sacred, profane it not."—The Dial, Vol. i, p. 86. Perhaps the word myself above ought rather to have been two words; thus, "And, in a monarchy, my self is all that I can love." The two words here differ in person and case, perhaps also in gender; and, in the preceding instance, they differ in person, number, gender, and case. But the compound always follows the person, number, and gender of its first part, and only the case of its last. The notion of some grammarians, (to wit, of Wells, and the sixty-eight others whom he cites for it,) that you and your are actually made singular by usage, is demonstrably untrue. Do we, our, and us, become actually singular, as often as a king or a critic applies them to himself? No: for nothing can be worse syntax than, we am, we was, or you was, though some contend for this last construction.
[204] Whose is sometimes used as the possessive case of which; as, "A religion whose origin is divine."—Blair. See Observations 4th and 5th, on the Classes of Pronouns.
[205] After but, as in the following sentence, the double relative what is sometimes applied to persons; and it is here equivalent to the friend who:—
"Lorenzo, pride repress; nor hope to find
A friend, but what has found a friend in thee."—Young.
[206] Of all these compounds. L. Murray very improperly says, "They are seldom used, in modern style."—Octavo Gram., p. 54; also Fisk's, p. 65. None of them are yet obsolete, though the shorter forms seem to be now generally preferred. The following suggestion of Cobbett's is erroneous; because it implies that the shorter forms are innovations and faults; and because the author carelessly speaks of them as one thing only: "We sometimes omit the so, and say, whoever, whomever, whatever, and even whosever. It is a mere abbreviation. The so is understood: and, it is best not to omit to write it."—Eng. Gram., ¶ 209. R. C. Smith dismisses the compound relatives with three lines; and these he closes with the following notion: "They are not often used!"—New Gram., p. 61.
[207] Sanborn, with strange ignorance of the history of those words, teaches thus: "Mine and thine appear to have been formed from my and thy by changing y into i and adding n, and then subjoining e to retain the long sound of the vowel."—Analytical Gram., p. 92. This false notion, as we learn from his guillemets and a remark in his preface, he borrowed from "Parkhurst's Systematic Introduction." Dr. Lowth says, "The Saxon Ic hath the possessive case Min; Thu, possessive Thin; He, possessive His: From which our possessive cases of the same pronouns are taken without alteration."—Lowth's Gram., p. 23.
[208] Latham, with a singularity quite remarkable, reverses this doctrine in respect to the two classes, and says, "My, thy, our, your, her, and their signify possession, because they are possessive cases. * * * Mine, thine, ours, yours, hers, theirs, signify possession for a different reason. They partake of the nature of adjectives, and in all the allied languages are declined as such."—Latham's Elementary E. Gram., p. 94. Weld, like Wells, with a few more whose doctrine will be criticised by-and-by, adopting here an other odd opinion, takes the former class only for forms of the possessive case; the latter he disposes of thus: "Ours, yours, theirs, hers, and generally mine and thine, are POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS, used in either the nominative or objective case,"—Weld's Gram., Improved Ed., p. 68. Not only denying the possessives with ellipsis to be instances of the possessive case, but stupidly mistaking at once two dissimilar things for a third which is totally unlike to either,—i. e., assuming together for substitution both an ellipsis of one word and an equivalence to two—(as some others more learned have very strangely done—) he supposes all this class of pronouns to have forsaken every property of their legitimate roots,—their person, their number, their gender, their case,—and to have assumed other properties, such as belong to "the thing possessed!" In the example, "Your house is on the plain, ours is on the hill," he supposes ours to be of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case; and not, as it plainly is, of the first person, plural number, masculine gender, and possessive case. Such parsing should condemn forever any book that teaches it.
[209] This word should have been numerals, for two or three reasons. The author speaks of the numeral adjectives; and to say "the numbers must agree in number with their substantives," is tautological—G. Brown.
[210] Cardell assails the common doctrine of the grammarians on this point, with similar assertions, and still more earnestness. See his Essay on Language, p. 80. The notion that "these pretended possessives [are] uniformly used as nominatives or objectives"—though demonstrably absurd, and confessedly repugnant to what is "usually considered" to be their true explanation—was adopted by Jaudon, in 1812; and has recently found several new advocates; among whom are Davis, Felch, Goodenow, Hazen, Smart, Weld, and Wells. There is, however, much diversity, as well as much inaccuracy, in their several expositions of the matter. Smart inserts in his declensions, as the only forms of the possessive case, the words of which he afterwards speaks thus: "The following possessive cases of the personal pronouns, (See page vii,) must be called PERSONAL PRONOUNS POSSESSIVE: mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, theirs. For these words are always used substantively, so as to include the meaning of some noun in the third person singular or plural, in the nominative or the objective ease. Thus, if we are speaking of books, and say [,] 'Mine are here,' mine means my books, [Fist] and it must be deemed a personal pronoun possessive in the third person plural, and nominative to the verb are."—Smart's Accidence, p. xxii. If to say, these "possessive cases must be called a class of pronouns, used substantively, and deemed nominatives or objectives," is not absurd, then nothing can be. Nor is any thing in grammar more certain, than that the pronoun "mine" can only be used by the speaker or writer, to denote himself or herself as the owner of something. It is therefore of the first person, singular number, masculine (or feminine) gender, and possessive case; being governed by the name of the thing or things possessed. This name is, of course, always known; and, if known and not expressed, it is "understood." For sometimes a word is repeated to the mind, and clearly understood, where "it cannot properly be" expressed; as, "And he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none."—Luke, xiii, 6. Wells opposes this doctrine, citing a passage from Webster, as above, and also imitating his argument. This author acknowledges three classes of pronouns—"personal, relative, and interrogative;" and then, excluding these words from their true place among personals of the possessive case, absurdly makes them a supernumerary class of possessive nominatives or objectives! "Mine, thine, his, ours, yours, and theirs, are POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS, used in construction either as nominatives or objectives; as, 'Your pleasures are past, mine are to come.' Here the word mine, which is used as a substitute for my pleasures, is the subject of the verb are."—Wells's School Gram., p. 71; 113 Ed., p. 78. Now the question to find the subject of the verb are, is, "My what are to come?" Ans. "pleasures." But the author proceeds to argue in a note thus: "Mine, thine, etc. are often parsed as pronouns in the possessive case, and governed by nouns understood. Thus, in the sentence, 'This book is mine,' the word mine is said to possess book. That the word book is not here understood, is obvious from the fact, that, when it is supplied, the phrase becomes not 'mine book,' but 'my book,' the pronoun being changed from mine to my; so that we are made, by this practice, to parse mine as possessing a word understood, before which it cannot properly be used. The word mine is here evidently employed as a substitute for the two words, my and book."—Wells, ibid. This note appears to me to be, in many respects, faulty. In the first place, its whole design was, to disprove what is true. For, bating the mere difference of person, the author's example above is equal to this: "Your pleasures are past, W. H. Wells's are to come." The ellipsis of "pleasures", is evident in both. But ellipsis is not substitution; no, nor is equivalence. Mine, when it suggests an ellipsis of the governing noun, is equivalent to my and that noun; but certainly, not "a substitute for the two words." It is a substitute, or pronoun, for the name of the speaker or writer; and so is my; both forms representing, and always agreeing with, that name or person only. No possessive agrees with what governs it; but every pronoun ought to agree with that for which it stands. Secondly, if the note above cited does not aver, in its first sentence, that the pronouns in question are "governed by nouns understood," it comes much nearer to saying this, than a writer should who meant to deny it. In the third place, the example, "This book is mine," is not a good one for its purpose. The word "mine" may be regularly parsed as a possessive, without supposing any ellipsis; for "book," the name of the thing possessed, is given, and in obvious connexion with it. And further, the matter affirmed is ownership, requiring different cases; and not the identity of something under different names, which must be put in the same case. In the fourth place, to mistake regimen for possession, and thence speak of one word "as possessing" an other, a mode of expression occurring twice in the foregoing note, is not only unscholarlike, but positively absurd. But, possibly, the author may have meant by it, to ridicule the choice phraseology of the following Rule: "A noun or pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the noun it possesses."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 181; Frazee's, 1844, p. 25.
[211] In respect to the numbers, the following text is an uncouth exception: "Pass ye away, thou inhabitant of Saphir."—Micah, i, 11. The singular and the plural are here strangely confounded. Perhaps the reading should be, "Pass thou away, O inhabitant of Saphir." Nor is the Bible free from abrupt transitions from one number to the other, or from one person to an other, which are neither agreeable nor strictly grammatical; as, "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which [who] are spiritual, restore such an [a] one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."—Gal., vi, 1. "Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near; that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches," &c—Amos, vi, 9.