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.

§ 351. 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.

Accusative. Some call this the objective case. The words him (singular) and them (plural) (whatever they may have been originally) are now true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only. Thee, me, us, and you are, to a certain extent, true accusatives.

They 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 of 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 hwome This we see from the following inflection:

whom.

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.

The words him and them are true accusatives in even a less degree than thee, me, us, and you. The Anglo-Saxon equivalents to the Latin words eos and illos were hi (or hig) and þá

(or þæge); in other words, the sign of the accusative was other than the sound of -m. The case which really ended in -m was the so-called dative; so that the Anglo-Saxon forms him (or heom) and pám=the Latin iis and illis.

This fact explains the meaning of the words, whatever they may have been originally, in a preceding sentence. It also indicates a fresh element in the criticism and nomenclature of the grammarian; viz. the extent to which the history of a form regulates its position as an inflection.

Dative. In the antiquated word whilom (at times), we have a remnant of the old dative in -m. The sense of the word is adverbial; its form, however, is that of a dative case.

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, princesseses, &c.

Instrumental.-The following extracts from Rask's "AngloSaxon 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, eu), which are also used for the article; and pis, pes, peós (hoc, hic, hæc). They are thus declined :—

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

"py seems justly to be received as a proper ablativus instrumenti, as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, mid þy ápe with that oath (Inæ Reges, 53). And in the same place in the dative, on pa'm áþe=in that oath."-Pp. 56, 57.

Hence the the that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon py is one word; the the that has originated out of the AngloSaxon 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 (= þy) may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflection of the interrogative pronoun :

Hence, then, in the and why we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply, instrumentals.

§ 352. 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 accusative, 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, as stated above, the words him and them (to which we may add whom) were once dative cases; -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 approximate accusatives in the English language will be the forms you, thee, us, me, and the only true accusative will be the word twain.

My, an accusative form (meh, me, mec), has now a genitive The same may be said of thy.

sense.

Me, originally an accusative form (both me and my can grow out of mec and meh), had, even with the Anglo-Saxons, a dative sense. Give it me is correct English. The same may

be said of thee.

Him, a dative form, has now an accusative sense.

Her.-For this word, as well as for further details on me and my, see the chapters on the Personal and Demonstrative Pronouns.

When all traces of the original dative signification are effaced, and when all the dative cases in a language are similarly affected, an accusative case may be said to have originated out of a dative.

§ 353. Thus far the question has been concerning the immediate origin of cases: their remote origin is a different matter.

The word um occurs in Icelandic. In Danish and Swedish it is om; in the Germanic languages omme, umbi, umpi, ymbe, and also um. Its meaning is at, on, about. The word whilom is the substantive while a time or pause (Dan. hvileto rest), with the addition of the preposition om. That the par

VOL. II.

N

ticular dative form in om has arisen out of the noun+the preposition, is a safe assertion. I am not prepared, however, to account for the formation of all the cases in this manner.

§ 354. 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.

§ 355. 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. 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 odóvr-os; the Latin dent-is, &c.