| 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.