Chapter 125

ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE.

§ 394. The inflection of pronouns has its natural peculiarities in language. It has also its natural difficulties in philology. These occur not in one language in particular, but in all generally.

The most common peculiarity in the grammar of pronouns is the fact of what may be called their _convertibility_. Of this _convertibility_ the following statements serve as illustration:--

1. _Of case._--In our own language the words _my_ and _thy_ although at present possessives, were previously datives, and, earlier still, accusatives. Again, the accusative _you_ replaces the nominative _ye_, and _vice versâ_.

2. _Of number._--The words _thou_ and _thee_ are, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, _ye_ and _you_, have replaced them.

3. _Of person._--The Greek language gives us examples of this in the promiscuous use of [Greek: nin], [Greek: min], [Greek: sphe], and [Greek: heautou]; whilst _sich_ and _sik_ are used with a similar latitude in the Middle High German and Scandinavian.

4. _Of class._--The demonstrative pronouns become--

a. Personal pronouns. b. Relative pronouns. c. Articles.

The reflective pronoun often becomes reciprocal.

§ 395. These statements are made for the sake of illustrating, not of exhausting, the subject. It follows, however, as an inference from them, that the classification of pronouns is complicated. Even if we knew the original power and derivation of every form of every pronoun in a language, it would be far from an easy matter to determine therefrom the paradigm that they should take in grammar. To place a word according to its power in a late stage of language might confuse the study of an early stage. To say that because a word was once in a given class, it should always be so, would be to deny that in the present English _they_, _these_, and _she_ are personal pronouns at all.

The two tests, then, of the grammatical place of a pronoun, its _present power_ and its _original power_, are often conflicting.

§ 396. In the English language the point of most importance in this department of grammar is the place of forms like _mine_ and _thine_; in other words, of the forms in -n.

Now, if we take up the common grammars of the English language _as it is_, we find, that, whilst _my_ and _thy_ are dealt with as genitive cases, _mine_ and _thine_ are considered adjectives. In the _Anglo-Saxon_ grammars, however, _min_ and _þin_, the older forms of _mine_ and _thine_, are treated as genitives or possessives.

§ 397. This gives us two views of the words _my_ and _thy_.

a. They may be genitives or possessives, which were originally datives or accusatives; in which case they are deduced from the Anglo-Saxon _mec_ and _þec_.

b. They may be the Anglo-Saxon _min_ and _þin_, _minus_ the final -n.

Each of these views has respectable supporters. The former is decidedly preferred by the present writer.

§ 398. What, however, are _thine_ and _mine_? Are they adjectives like _meus_, _tuus_, and _suus_, or cases like _mei_, _tui_, _sui_, in Latin, and _hi-s_ in English?

It is no answer to say that sometimes they are one and sometimes the other. They were not so originally. They did not begin with meaning two things at once; on the contrary, they were either possessive cases, of which the power became subsequently adjectival, or adjectives, of which the power became subsequently possessive.

§ 399. In Anglo-Saxon and in Old Saxon there is but one form to express the Latin _mei_ (or _tui_), on the one side, and _meus_, _mea_, _meum_ (or _tuus_, &c.), on the other. In several other Gothic tongues, however, there was the following difference of form:

_Moeso-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 these 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.

§ 400. 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.

§ 401. _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.

§ 402. 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. _Cujum_ (as in _cujum pecus_) and _sestertium_ are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one.

§ 403. _Syntactic evidence._--If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions as _doel min_ = _pars mei_, _hoelf þin_ = _dimidium tui_, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a true genitive. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted.

§ 404. Again--as _min_ and _þin_ are declined like adjectives, even as _meus_ and _tuus_ are so declined, we have means of ascertaining their nature from the form they take in certain constructions; thus, _mi-nra_ = _me-orum_, and _min-re_ = _me-æ_, are the genitive plural and the dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for _of thy eyes_ should be _eagena þinra_, and the Anglo-Saxon for _to my widow_, should be _wuduwan minre_; just as in Latin, they would be _oculorum tuorum_, and _viduæ meæ._

If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as _eagena þin_, or _wuduwan min_, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words _þin_ and _min_ must be construed as the Latin forms _tui_ and _mei_ would be in _oculorum mei_, and _viduæ mei_; viz.: as genitive cases. Now, whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward.

Such instances, even if quoted, would not be conclusive.

§ 405. Why would they not be conclusive? Because _even of the adjective there are uninflected forms_.

As early as the Moeso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of this omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the _neuter singular_ sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms, _nim thata badi theinata_ = [Greek: airon sou ton krabbaton] (Mark ii. 9), opposed to _nim thata badi thein_, two verses afterwards. So also with _mein_ and _meinata_. It is remarkable that this omission should begin with forms so marked as those of the neuter (-ata). It has, perhaps, its origin in the adverbial character of that gender.

_Old High German._--Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it--_thin dohter_, _sîn quenâ_, _min dohter_, _sinaz lîb_. In a few cases, when the pronoun comes after, even the _oblique_ cases drop the inflection.

_Middle High German._--_Preceding_ the noun, the nominative of all genders is destitute of inflection; _sîn lîb_, _mîn ere_, _dîn lîb_, &c. _Following_ the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; _ine herse sîn_. The influence of position should here be noticed. Undoubtedly a place _after_ the substantive influences the omission of the inflection. This appears in its _maximum_ in the Middle High German. In Moeso-Gothic we have _mein leik_ and _leik meinata_.

§ 406. Now by assuming the extension of the Middle High German omission of the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and by supposing it to affect the words in question in _all_ positions (i.e., both before and after their nouns), we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as already stated, no instances of them have been quoted.

To suppose _two_ adjectival forms, one inflected (_min_, _minre_, &c.), and one uninflected, or common to all genders and both numbers (_min_), is to suppose no more than is the case with the uninflected _þe_, as compared with the inflected _þæt_.

§ 407. Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance of _min_ or _þin_, the _necessary_ equivalents to _mei_ and _tui_, rather than to _meus_ and _tuus_, must consist in the quotation from the Anglo-Saxon of some text, wherein _min_ or _þin_ occurs with a feminine substantive, in an _oblique_ case, the pronoun _preceding_ the noun. When this has been done, it will be time enough to treat _mine_ and _thine_ as the equivalents to _mei_ and _tui_, rather than as those to _meus_ and _tuus_.

* * * * *