Chapter 92

ON THE CASES.

§ 207. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases, depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the term _a house of a father_, the idea expressed by the words _of a father_, is an idea of relation between them and the word _house_. This idea is an idea of property or possession. The relation between the words _father_ and _house_ may be called the _possessive_ relation. This relation, or connexion, between the two words, is expressed by the preposition _of_.

In the term _a father's house_, the idea is, there or thereabouts, the same; the relation or connexion between the two words being the same. The expression, however, differs. In _a father's house_ the relation, or connexion, is expressed, not by a preposition, but by a change of form, _father_ becoming _father's_.

_He gave the house to a father_.--Here the words _father_ and _house_ stand in another sort of relationship, the relationship being expressed by the preposition _to_. The idea _to a father_ differs from the idea _of a father_, in being expressed in one way only; viz., by the preposition. There is no second mode of expressing it by a change of form, as was done with _father's_.

_The father taught the child_.--Here there is neither preposition nor change of form. The connexion between the words _father_ and _child_ is expressed by the arrangement only.

§ 208. Now if the relation alone between two words constitute a case, the words _a child_, _to a father_, _of a father_, and _father's_, are all equally cases; of which one may be called the accusative, another the dative, a third the genitive, and so on.

Perhaps, however, the relationship alone does not constitute a case. Perhaps there is a necessity of either the addition of a preposition (as in _of a father_), or of a change in form (as in _father's_). In this case (although _child_ be not so) _father's_, _of a father_, and _to a father_, are all equally cases.

Now it has long been remarked, that if the use of a preposition constitute a case, there must be as many cases in a language as there are prepositions, and that "_above a man_, _beneath a man_, _beyond a man_, _round about a man_, _within a man_, _without a man_, shall be cases as well as _of a man_, _to a man_, and _with a man_."

§ 209. For etymological purposes, therefore, it is necessary to limit the meaning of the word case; and, as a sort of definition, it may be laid down that _where there is no change of form there is no case_. With this remark, the English language may be compared with the Latin.

_Latin._ _English._

_Sing. Nom._ _Pater_ _a father._ _Gen._ _Patris_ _a father's._ _Dat._ _Patri_ _to a father._ _Acc._ _Patrem_ _a father._ _Abl._ _Patre_ _from a father._

Here, since in the Latin language there are five changes of form, whilst in English there are but _two_, there are (as far, at least, as the word _pater_ and _father_ are concerned) three more cases in Latin than in English.

It does not, however, follow that because in the particular word _father_ we have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two.

§ 210. Neither does it follow, that because two words may have the _same form_ they are necessarily in the _same case_; a remark which leads to the distinction between _a real and an accidental identity of form_.

In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words _smið_, _ende_, and _dæg_, were respectively, _smiðes_, _endes_, and _dæges_; whilst the nominative plurals were, _smiðas_, _endas_, and _dægas_.

But when a change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in each word was ejected, the result was, that the forms of the genitive singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and the same; so that the identity of the two cases is an accident.

This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England, identical; the apostrophe in _father's_ being a mere matter of orthography. However, there was _once_ a difference. This modifies the previous statement, which may now stand thus:--_for a change of case there must be a change of form existing or presumed_.

§ 211. _The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they spread._--In the English language there is undoubtedly a _nominative_ case. This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and pronouns (_father_, _good_, _he_) equally. It is found in both numbers.

§ 212. _Accusative._--Some call this the _objective_ case. The words _him_ and _them_ (whatever they may have been originally) are now (to a certain extent) true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only. _Thee, me, us_, and _you_ are, to a certain extent, true accusatives. These are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. 2. They are distinguished from the forms _I_, _my_, &c. 3. Their meaning is accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only.

One word in the present English is probably a true accusative in the strict sense of the term, viz., the word _twain_ = _two_. The -n in _twai-n_ is the -n in _hine_ = _him_ and _hwone_ = _whom_. This we see from the following inflection:--

_Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._

_N. and Acc._ Twá, Twégen, Twá. \____ _____/ \/ _Abl. and Dat._ Twám, Twæm. _Gen._ Twegra, Twega.

Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the original character of _twégen_ being accusative. The -n is by no means radical; besides which, it _is_ the sign of an accusative case, and is _not_ the sign of a nominative.

§ 213. _Dative._--In the antiquated word _whilom_ (_at times_), we have a remnant of the old dative in -m. The _sense_ of the word is abverbial; its form, however, is that of a dative case.

§ 214. _Genitive._--Some call this the possessive case. It is found in substantives and pronouns (_father's, his_), but not in adjectives. It is formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant (_father, fathers; buck, bucks_); or if the word end in -s, by that of -es (_boxes_, _judges_, &c.) It is found in both numbers: _the men's hearts_; _the children's bread_. In the plural number, however, it is rare; so rare, indeed, that wherever the plural ends in s (as it almost always does), there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words as _fatherses_, _foxeses_, _princeses_, &c.

§ 215. _Instrumental._--The following extracts from Rask's "Anglo-Saxon Grammar," teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the word spelt _t-h-e_, or of the so-called definite article--"The demonstrative pronouns are _þæt, se, seó_ (_id, is, ea_), which are also used for the article; and _þis, þes, þeós_ (_hoc, hic, hæc_). They are thus declined:--

_Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._

_Sing N._ þæt se seó þis þes þeós. _A._ þæt þone þá þis þisne þás. \____ _____/ \_____ _____/ \/ \/ _Abl._ þý þære þise þisse. _D._ þám þære þisum þisse. _G._ þæs þære þises þisse. \_____ _____/ \_____ _____/ \/ \/ _Plur. N. and A._ þá þás. _Abl. and D._ þám þisum. _G._ þára. þissa.

"The indeclinable _þe_ is often used instead of _þæt, se, seó_, in all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times, as an article. Hence the English article _the_.

"_þý_ seems justly to be received as a proper _ablativus instrumenti_, as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, _mid þý áþe_ = _with that oath_ ("Inæ Leges," 53). And in the same place in the dative, _on þæm áþe_ = _in that oath_."--Pp. 56, 57.

Hence the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon _þý_ is one word; whilst the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon _þe_, another. The latter is the common article: the former the _the_ in expressions like _all the more_, _all the better_ = _more by all that_, _better by all that_, and the Latin phrases _eo majus_, _eo melius_.

That _why_ is in the same case with the instrumental _the_ ( = _þý_) may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflexion of the interrogative pronoun:--

_Neut._ _Masc._ _N._ Hwæt Hwá _A._ Hwæt Hwone (hwæne). \_____ _____/ \/ _Abl._ _Hwi_ _D._ Hwám (hwæm) _G._ Hwæs.

Hence, then, in _the_ and _why_ we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply, _instrumentals_.

§ 216. _The determination of cases._--How do we determine cases? In other words, why do we call _him_ and _them_ accusatives rather than datives or genitives? By one of two means; viz., either by the _sense_ or the _form_.

Suppose that in the English language there were ten thousand dative cases and as many accusatives. Suppose, also, that all the dative cases ended in -m, and all the accusatives in some other letter. It is very evident that, whatever might be the meaning of the words _him_ and _them_ their form would be dative. In this case the meaning being accusatives, and the form dative, we should doubt which test to take.

My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to determine cases by the _form_ of the word _alone_; so that, even if a word had a dative sense only once, where it had an accusative sense ten thousand times, such a word should be said to be in the dative case. Now the words _him_ and _them_ (to which we may add _whom_) were once dative cases;[48] -m in Anglo-Saxon being the sign of the dative case. In the time of the Anglo-Saxons their sense coincided with their form. At present they are dative forms with an accusative meaning. Still, as the word _give_ takes after it a dative case, we have, even now, in the sentence, _give it him_, _give it them_, remnants of the old dative sense. To say _give it to him_, _to them_, is unnecessary and pedantic: neither do I object to the expression, _whom shall I give it?_ If ever the _formal_ test become generally recognised and consistently adhered to, _him_, _them_, and _whom_ will be called datives with a latitude of meaning; and then the only true and unequivocal accusatives in the English language will be the forms _you_, _thee_, _us_, _me_, and _twain_.

§ 217. _Analysis of cases._--In the word _children's_ we are enabled to separate the word into three parts. 1. The root _child_. 2. The plural signs r and en. 3. The sign of the genitive case, s. In this case the word is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought always to be attempted.

§ 218. _The true nature of the genitive form in 's._--It is a common notion that the genitive form _father's_ is contracted from _father his_. The expression in our liturgy, _for Jesus Christ his sake_, which is merely a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea, however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake of contradiction to it.

1. The expression the _Queen's Majesty_ is not capable of being reduced to the _Queen his Majesty_.

2. In the form _his_ itself, the s has precisely the power that it has in _father's_, &c. Now _his_ cannot be said to arise out of _he_ + _his_.

3. In the Slavonic, Lithuanic, and classical tongues, the genitive ends in s, just as it does in English; so that even if the words _father his_ would account for the English word _father's_, it would not account for the Sanskrit genitive _pad-as_, of a foot; the Zend _dughdhar-s_, of a daughter; the Lithuanic _dugter-s_; the Greek [Greek: odont-os]; the Latin _dent-is_, &c.

* * * * *