"Time writes no wrinkle on thine azure brow."—Byron.
"Deign on the passing world to turn thine eyes."—Johnson.
"Mine eyes beheld the messenger divine."—Lusiad.
"Thine ardent symphony sublime and high."—Sir W. Scott.
OBS. 4.—The possessives mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs, usually denote possession, or the relation of property, with an ellipsis of the name of the thing possessed; as, "My sword and yours are kin."—Shakspeare. Here yours means your sword. "You may imagine what kind of faith theirs was."—Bacon. Here theirs means their faith. "He ran headlong into his own ruin whilst he endeavoured to precipitate ours."—Bolingbroke. Here ours means our ruin. "Every one that heareth these saying of mine."—Matt., vii, 26. Here mine means my sayings. "Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of his."—Psalms, xxx, 4. Here his means his saints. The noun which governs the possessive, is here understood after it, being inferred from that which precedes, as it is in all the foregoing instances. "And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart."—1 Samuel, ii, 33. Here thine, in the first phrase, means thy men; but, in the subsequent parts of the sentence, both mine and thine mean neither more nor less than thy and my, because there is no ellipsis. Of before the possessive case, governs the noun which is understood after this case; and is always taken in a partitive sense, and not as the sign of the possessive relation: as, "When we say, 'a soldier of the king's', we mean, 'one of the king's soldiers.'"—Webster's Improved Gram., p. 29. There is therefore an ellipsis of the word soldiers, in the former phrase. So, in the following example, mine is used elliptically for my feet; or rather, feet is understood after mine, though mine feet is no longer good English, for reasons before stated:—
"Ere I absolve thee, stoop I that on thy neck
Levelled with earth tins foot of mine may tread."—Wordsworth.
OBS. 5.—Respecting the possessive case of the simple personal pronouns, there appears among our grammarians a strange diversity of sentiment. Yet is there but one view of the matter, that has in it either truth or reason, consistency or plausibility. And, in the opinion of any judicious teacher, an erroneous classification of words so common and so important as these, may well go far to condemn any system of grammar in which it is found. A pronoun agrees in person, number, and gender, with the noun for which it is a substitute; and, if it is in the possessive case, it is usually governed by an other noun expressed or implied after it. That is, if it denotes possession, it stands for the name of the possessor, and is governed by the name of the thing possessed. Now do not my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, and mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, all equally denote possession? and do they not severally show by their forms the person, the number, and sometimes also the gender, of whomever or whatever they make to be the possessor? If they do, they are all of them pronouns, and nothing else; all found in the possessive case, and nowhere else. It is true, that in Latin, Greek, and some other languages, there are not only genitive cases corresponding to these possessives, but also certain declinable adjectives which we render in English by these same words: that is, by my or mine, our or ours; thy or thine, your or yours; &c. But this circumstance affords no valid argument for considering any of these English terms to be mere adjectives; and, say what we will, it is plain that they have not the signification of adjectives, nor can we ascribe to them the construction of adjectives, without making their grammatical agreement to be what it very manifestly is not. They never agree, in any respect, with the nouns which follow them, unless it be by mere accident. This view of the matter is sustained by the authority of many of our English grammars; as may be seen by the declensions given by Ash, C. Adams, Ainsworth, R. W. Bailey, Barnard, Buchanan, Bicknell, Blair, Burn, Butler, Comly, Churchill, Cobbett, Dalton, Davenport, Dearborn, Farnum, A. Flint, Fowler, Frost, Gilbert, S. S. Green, Greenleaf, Hamlin, Hiley, Kirkham, Merchant, Murray the schoolmaster, Parkhurst, Picket, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R. C. Smith, Wilcox.
OBS. 6.—In opposition to the classification and doctrine adopted above, many of our grammarians teach, that my, thy, this, her, our, your, their, are adjectives or "adjective pronouns;" and that mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, are personal pronouns in the possessive case. Among the supporters of this notion, are D. Adams, Alden, Alger, Allen, Bacon, Barrett, Bingham, Bucke, Bullions, Cutler, Fisk, Frost, (in his small Grammar,) Guy, Hall, Hart, Harrison, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Lennie, Lowth, Miller, L. Murray, Pond, T. Smith, Spear, Spencer, Staniford, Webber, Woodworth. The authority of all these names, however, amounts to little more than that of one man; for Murray pretended to follow Lowth, and nearly all the rest copied Murray. Dr. Lowth says, "Thy, my, her, our, your, their, are pronominal adjectives; but his, (that is, he's,) her's, our's, your's, their's, have evidently the form of the possessive case: And, by analogy, mine, thine, may be esteemed of the same rank."—Lowth's Gram., p. 23.[208] But why did he not see, that by the same analogy, and also by the sense and meaning of the words, as well as by their distinctions of person, number, and gender, all the other six are entitled to "the same rank?" Are not the forms of my, thy, her, our, your, their, as fit to denote the relation of property, and to be called the possessive case, as mine, thine, his, or any others? In grammar, all needless distinctions are reprehensible. And where shall we find a more blamable one than this? It seems to have been based merely upon the false notion, that the possessive case of pronouns ought to be formed like that of nouns; whereas custom has clearly decided that they shall always be different: the former must never be written with an apostrophe; and the latter, never without it. Contrary to all good usage, however, the Doctor here writes "her's, our's, your's, their's," each with a needless apostrophe. Perhaps he thought it would serve to strengthen his position; and help to refute what some affirmed, that all these words are adjectives.
OBS. 7.—Respecting mine, thine, and his, Lowth and L. Murray disagree. The latter will have them to be sometimes "possessive pronouns," and sometimes "possessive cases." An admirable distinction this for a great author to make! too slippery for even the inventor's own hold, and utterly unintelligible to those who do not know its history! In short, these authors disagree also concerning my, thy, her, our, your, their; and where two leaders of a party are at odds with each other, and each is in the wrong, what is to be expected from their followers? Perceiving that Lowth was wrong in calling these words "pronominal adjectives," Murray changed the term to "possessive pronouns," still retaining the class entire; and accordingly taught, in his early editions, that, "There are four kinds of pronouns, viz., the personal, the possessive, the relative, and the adjective pronouns."—Murray's Gram., 2d Edition, p. 37. "The Possessive Pronouns are such as principally relate to possession or property. There are seven of them; viz. my, thy, his, her, our, your, their. The possessives his, mine, thine, may be accounted either possessive pronouns, or the possessive cases of their respective personal pronouns."—Ib., p. 40. He next idly demonstrates that these seven words may come before nouns of any number or case, without variation; then, forgetting his own distinction, adds, "When they are separated from the noun, all of them, except his, vary their terminations; as, this hat is mine, and the other is thine; those trinkets are hers; this house is ours, and that is yours; theirs is more commodious than ours"—Ib., p. 40. Thus all his personal pronouns of the possessive case, he then made to be inflections of pronouns of a different class! What are they now? Seek the answer under the head of that gross solecism, "Adjective Pronouns." You may find it in one half of our English grammars.
OBS. 8.—Any considerable error in the classing of words, does not stand alone; it naturally brings others in its train. Murray's "Adjective Pronouns," (which he now subdivides into four little classes, possessive, distributive, demonstrative, and indefinite,) being all of them misnamed and misplaced in his etymology, have led both him and many others into strange errors in syntax. The possessives only are "pronouns;" and these are pronouns of the possessive case. As such, they agree with the antecedent nouns for which they stand, in person, number, and gender; and are governed, like all other possessives, by the nouns which follow them. The rest are not pronouns, but pronominal adjectives; and, as such, they relate to nouns expressed or understood after them. Accordingly, they have none of the above-mentioned qualities, except that the words this and that form the plurals these and those. Or, if we choose to ascribe to a pronominal adjective all the properties of the noun understood, it is merely for the sake of brevity in parsing. The difference, then, between a "pronominal adjective" and an "adjective pronoun," should seem to be this; that the one is an adjective, and the other a pronoun: it is like the difference between a horserace and a racehorse. What can be hoped from the grammarian who cannot discern it? And what can be made of rules and examples like the following? "Adjective pronouns must agree, in number, with their substantives: as, 'This book, these books; that sort, those sorts; another road, other roads.'"—Murray's Gram., Rule viii, Late Editions; Alger's Murray, p. 56; Alden's, 85; Bacon's, 48; Maltby's, 59; Miller's, 66; Merchant's, 81; S. Putnam's, 10; and others. "Pronominal adjectives must agree with their nouns in gender, number, and person; thus, 'My son, hear the instructions of thy father.' 'Call the labourers, and give them their hire.'"—Maunder's Gram., Rule xvii. Here Murray gives a rule for pronouns, and illustrates it by adjectives; and Maunder, as ingeniously blunders in reverse: he gives a rule for adjectives, and illustrates it by pronouns. But what do they mean by "their substantives," or "their nouns?" As applicable to pronouns, the phrase should mean nouns antecedent; as applicable to adjectives, it should mean nouns subsequent. Both these rules are therefore false, and fit only to bewilder; and the examples to both are totally inapplicable. Murray's was once essentially right, but he afterwards corrupted it, and a multitude of his admirers have since copied the perversion. It formerly stood thus: "The pronominal adjectives this and that, &c. and the numbers[209] one, two, &c., must agree in number with their substantives: as, 'This book, these books; that sort, those sorts; one girl, ten girls; another road, other roads.' "—Murray's Gram., Rule viii, 2d Ed., 1796.