THIRD PERSON.
| Fem. Sing. | Plur. | |
| Nom. | she, | they, |
| Poss. | her or hers, | their or theirs. |
| Obj. | her. | them. |
THIRD PERSON.
| Neut. Sing. | Plur. | |
| Nom. | it, | they, |
| Poss. | its, | their or theirs, |
| Obj. | it. | them. |
NOTES.
1. When self is added to the personal pronouns, as himself, myself, itself, themselves, &c. they are called compound personal pronouns, and are used in the nominative or objective case, but not in the possessive.
2. In order to avoid the disagreeable harshness of sound, occasioned by the frequent recurrence of the terminations est, edst, in the adaptation of our verbs to the nominative thou, a modern innovation which substitutes you for thou, in familiar style, has generally been adopted. This innovation contributes greatly to the harmony of our colloquial style. You was formerly restricted to the plural number; but now it is employed to represent either a singular or a plural noun. It ought to be recollected, however, that when used as the representative of a singular noun, this word retains its original plural form; and, therefore, the verb connected with it, should always be plural. Inattention to this peculiarity, has betrayed some writers into the erroneous conclusion, that, because you implies unity when it represents a singular noun, it ought, when thus employed, to be followed by a singular verb; as, "When was you there?" "How far was you from the parties?" Such a construction, however, is not supported by good usage, nor by analogy. It is as manifest a solecism as to say, We am, or we is. Were it, in any case, admissible to connect a singular verb with you, the use of was would still be ungrammatical, for this form of the verb is confined to the first and third persons, and you is second person. Wast being second person, it would approximate nearer to correctness to say, you wast. We never use the singular of the present tense with you:—you art, you is; you walkest, you walks. Why, then, should any attempt be made to force a usage so unnatural and gratuitous as the connecting of the singular verb in the past tense with this pronoun? In every point of view, the construction, "When were you there?" "How far were you from the parties?" is preferable to the other.
3. The words my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, are, by many, denominated possessive adjective pronouns; but they always stand for nouns in the possessive case. They ought, therefore, to be classed with the personal pronouns. That principle of classification which ranks them with the adjective pronouns, would also throw all nouns in the possessive case among the adjectives. Example: "The lady gave the gentleman her watch for his horse." In this sentence her personates, or stands for, the noun "lady," and his represents "gentleman." This fact is clearly shown by rendering the sentence thus, "The lady gave the gentleman the lady's watch for the gentleman's horse." If lady's and gentleman's are nouns, her and his must be personal pronouns. The same remarks apply to my, thy, our, your, their and its. This view of these words may be objected to by those who speculate and refine upon the principles of grammar until they prove their non-existence, but it is believed, nevertheless, to be based on sound reason and common sense.
4. Mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, theirs, have, by many respectable grammarians, been considered merely the possessive cases of personal pronouns, whilst, by others, they have been denominated pronouns or nouns in the nominative or objective case. It is believed, however, that a little attention to the meaning and office of these words, will clearly show the impropriety of both these classifications. Those who pursue the former arrangement, allege, that, in the examples, "You may imagine what kind of faith theirs was; My pleasures are past; hers and yours are to come; they applauded his conduct, but condemned hers and yours," the words theirs, hers, and yours, are personal pronouns in the possessive case, and governed by their respective nouns understood. To prove this, they construct the sentence thus, "You may imagine what kind of faith their faith was;—her pleasures and your pleasures are to come;—but condemned her conduct and your conduct;" or thus, "You may imagine what kind of faith the faith of them was;—the pleasures of her and the pleasures of you, are to come;— but condemned the conduct of her and the conduct of you." But these constructions, (both of which are correct,) prove too much for their purpose; for, as soon as we supply the nouns after these words, they are resolved into personal pronouns of kindred meaning, and the nouns which we supply: thus, theirs becomes, their faith: hers, her pleasures; and yours, your pleasures. This evidently gives us two words instead of, and altogether distinct from, the first; so that, in parsing, their faith, we are not, in reality, analyzing theirs, but two other words of which theirs is the proper representative. These remarks also prove, with equal force, the impropriety of calling these words merely simple pronouns or nouns in the nominative or objective case. Without attempting to develop the original or intrinsic meaning of these pluralizing adjuncts, ne and s, which were, no doubt, formerly detached from the pronouns with which they now coalesce, for all practical purposes, it is sufficient for us to know, that, in the present application of these pronouns, they invariably stand for, not only the person possessing, but, also the thing possessed, which gives them a compound character. They may, therefore, be properly denominated COMPOUND PERSONAL PRONOUNS; and, as they always perform a double office in a sentence by representing two other words, and, consequently, including two cases, they should, like the compound relative what, be parsed as two words. Thus, in the example, "You may imagine what kind of faith theirs was," theirs is a compound personal pronoun, equivalent to their faith. Their is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun; personal, it personates the persons spoken of, understood; third pers. plur. numb., &c.—and in the possessive case, and governed by "faith," according to Rule 12. Faith is a noun, the name of a thing, &c. &c.—and in the nominative case to "was," and governs it; Rule 3. Or, if we render the sentence thus, "You may imagine what kind of faith the faith of them[4] was," faith would be in the nominative case to "was," and them would be in the objective case, and governed by "of:" Rule 31.