Note that strong and weak forms are identical in the plural; that even in the singular there is no formal distinction when the OE. strong masc. nom. ended in a vowel (grēne); that monosyllables ending in a vowel (e.g. fre), polysyllables, and participles, are usually invariable; and that regular dropping of final -e levels all distinctions, so that the North and N. Midlands early reached the relatively flexionless stage of Modern English.
Survivals. The Ayenbyte shows some living use of the adjective inflexions. Otherwise the survivals are limited to set phrases, e.g. gen. sg. nones cunnes 'of no kind', enes cunnes 'of any kind', XV g 20, 22. That the force of the inflexion was lost is shown by the early wrong analysis no skynnes, al skynnes, &c.
Definite Article. Parallel to the simplification of the adjective, the full OE. declension sē, sēo, þæt, &c., is reduced to invariable þe. The Ayenbyte alone of our specimens keeps some of the older distinctions. Elsewhere traces appear in set phrases, e.g. neut. sg. þat, þet in þat on 'the one', þat oþer 'the other' V 344, and, with wrong division, þe ton XI b 27, the toþer IX 4; neut. sg. dat. þen (OE. þǣm), with wrong division, in atte nale (for at þen ale) VIII a 109.
§ 12. PRONOUNS. In a brilliant study (Progress in Language, London 1894) Jespersen exemplifies the economy and resources of English from the detailed history of the Pronoun. In the first and second persons fourteenth-century usage does not differ greatly from that of the Authorized Version of the Bible. But the pronoun of the third person shows a variety of developments. In the singular an objective case replaces, without practical disadvantages, the older accusative and dative: him (OE. hine and him), her(e) (OE. hīe and hiere), (h)it (OE. hit and him). The possessive his still serves for the neuter as well as the masculine, e.g. þat ryuer... chaungeþ hys fordes XIII a 55 f.; though an uninflected neuter possessive hit occasionally appears in the fourteenth century. In the plural, where one would expect objective him from the regular OE. dat. pl. him, clearness is gained by the choice of unambiguous hem, from an OE. dat. pl. by-form heom.
But as we see from Orfeo, ll. 408, 446, 185, in some dialects the nom. sg. masc. (OE. hē), nom. sg. fem. (OE. hēo), and nom. pl. (OE. hīe), had all become ME. he. The disadvantages of such ambiguity increased as the flexional system of nouns and adjectives collapsed, and a remedy was found in the adoption of new forms. For the nom. sg. fem., s(c)he, s(c)ho (mostly Northern), come into use, which are probably derived from si̯ē, se̯ō, the corresponding case of the definite article. The innovation was long resisted in the South, and ho, an unambiguous development of heō, remains late in W. Midland texts like Pearl.
In the nom. pl. ambiguous he was replaced by þei, the nom. pl. of the Norse definite article. This is the regular form in all except the Southern specimens II (orig.), III, XIII. And although the full series of Norse forms þei, þeir, þe(i)m is found in Orm at the beginning of the thirteenth century, Chaucer and other Midland writers of the fourteenth century as a rule have only þei, with native English her(e), hem in the oblique cases. (For details see the language note to each specimen.)
The poss. pl. her(e), beside hor(e), was still liable to confusion with the obj. sg. fem. her(e), cp. II 92. Consequently this was the next point to be gained by the Norse forms, e.g. in VII 181. In the Northern texts X, XVI, XVII, all from late MSS., the Norse forms þai, þa(i)r, þa(i)me are fully established; but (h)em, which was throughout unambiguous, survived into modern dialects in the South and Midlands.
Note the reduced nominative form a 'he', 'they' in XIII; and the objective his(e) 'her', 'them' in III, which has not been satisfactorily explained.
Relative: The general ME. relative is þat, representing all genders and cases (note to XV i 4). Sometimes definition is gained by adding the personal pronoun: þat... he (sche) = 'who'; þat... it = 'which'; þat... his = 'whose'; þat ... him = 'whom', &c.; e.g. a well, þat in the day it is so cold IX 5-6, cp. V 127 (note); oon That with a spere was thirled his brest-boon 'one whose breast-bone was pierced with a spear', Knight's Tale 1851. For the omission of þat see note to XIII a 36.
In later texts, which, properly an interrogative, appears commonly as a relative, both with personal and impersonal antecedents, e.g. Alceone... which... him loveth XII a 3 ff.; þat steede... fro whilke þe feende fell XVI 13 f. Under the influence of French lequel, &c., which is often compounded with the article þe, e.g. a gret serpent... the which Bardus anon up drouh XII b 72 f.; no thing of newe, in the whiche the hereres myghten hauen... solace IX 275 f. Further compounding with þat is not uncommon, e.g. the queen of Amazoine, the whiche þat maketh hem to ben kept in cloos IX 190 f.