the basis of some remarks which are meant to be suggestions rather than doctrines.
In the second edition of a work upon the English language, he devoted an additional chapter to the consideration of the grammatical position of the words mine and thine, respecting which he then considered (and still considers) himself correct in assuming that the current doctrine concerning them was, that they were, in origin, genitive or possessive cases, and that they were adjectives only in a secondary sense. Now whatever was then written upon this subject was written with the view of recording an opinion in favour of exactly the opposite doctrine, viz. that they were originally adjectives, but that afterwards they took the appearance of oblique cases. Hence for words like mine and thine there are two views:—
1. That they were originally cases, and adjectives only in a secondary manner.
2. That they were originally adjectives, and cases only in a secondary manner.
In which predicament is the word cujum? If in the first, it supplies a remarkable instance of an unequivocally adjectival form, as tested by an inflection in the way of gender, having grown out of a case. If in the second, it shows how truly the converse may take place, since it cannot be doubted that whatever in this respect can be predicated of cujus can be predicated of ejus and hujus as well.
Assuming this last position, it follows that if cujus be originally a case, we have a proof how thoroughly it may take a gender; whereas if it be originally an adjective, ejus and hujus (for by a previous assumption they are in the same category) are samples of the extent to which words like it may lose one.
Now the termination -us is the termination of an adjective, and is not the termination of a genitive case; a fact that fixes the onus probandi with those who insist upon the genitival character of the words in question. But as it is not likely that every one lays so much value upon this argument as is laid by the present writer, it is necessary to refer to two facts taken from the Greek:—
1. That the class of words itself is not a class which (as is often the case) naturally leads us to expect a variation from the usual inflections. The forms [a]οὗ], [a]οἷ], [a]ἕ], and [a]ὅς], [a]οὗ], [a]ὧ], are perfectly usual.
2. That the adjectives [a]ὃς] = [a]ἑὸς],[1] [a]κοῖος] = [a]ποῖος], and [a]ὁῖος], are not only real forms, but forms of a common kind. Hence, if we consider the termination -jus as a case-ending, we have a phænomenon in Latin for which we miss a Greek equivalent; whilst on the other hand, if we do not consider it as adjectival, we have the Greek forms [a]ὁῖος], [a]κοῖος] = [a]ποῖος] and [a]ὃς] = [a]ἑὸς], without any Latin ones. I do not say that this argument is, when taken alone, of any great weight. In doubtful cases, however, it is of value. In the present case it enables us to get rid of an inexplicable genitival form, at the expense of a slight deflection from the usual power of an adjective. And here it should be remembered that many of the arguments in favour of a case becoming an adjective are (to a certain extent) in favour of an adjective becoming a case—to a certain extent and to a certain extent only, because a change in one direction by no means necessarily implies a change in the reverse one, although it is something in favour of its probability.
Probably unius, ullius, illius, and alterius, are equally, as respects their origin, adjectival forms with ejus, cujus, and hujus.