equally and indifferently nominative and accusative, as the habit of language may make them. Hence it, perhaps, is more logical to say that a certain form (you) is used either as a nominative or accusative, than to say that the accusative case is used instead of a nominative. It is clear that you can be used instead of ye only so far as it is nominative in power. Ye. As far as the evidence of such expressions as get on with ye is concerned, the word ye is an accusative form. Me.-Carrying out the views just laid down, and admitting you to be a nominative, or quasi-nominative case, we may extend the reasoning to the word me, and call it also a secondary nominative; inasmuch as such phrases as it is me = it is I are common. Now to call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No one says that c'est moi is bad French, and that c'est je is good. The fact is, that the whole question is a question of degree. Has or has not the custom been sufficiently prevalent to have transferred the forms me, ye, and you from one case to another? At the same time it must be observed that the expression it is me = it is I will not justify the use of it is him, it is her = it is he and it is she. Me, ye, you, are what may be called indifferent forms, i. e. nominative as much as accusative, and accusative as much as nominative. Him and her, on the other hand, are not indifferent. The -m and -r are respectively the signs of cases other than the nominative. : Again the reasons which allow the form you to be considered as a nominative plural, on the strength of its being used for ye, will not allow it to be considered a nominative singular on the strength of its being used for thou. It is submitted to the reader, that in phrases like you are speaking, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, that the courtesy consists in treating one person as more than one, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered, you = thou is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural. Thus we say, you are speaking; not you art speaking. CHAPTER XIV. ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LAN GUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH. § 365. A TRUE reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words, there are no equivalents to the Latin pronominal forms, se, sibi. Nor yet are there any equivalents in English to the socalled adjectival forms suus, sua, suum: since his and her are the equivalents to ejus and illius, and are not adjectives but genitive cases. At the first view, this last sentence seems unnecessary. It might seem superfluous to state, that, if there were no such primitive form as se (or its equivalent), there could be no such secondary form as suus (or its equivalent). Such, however, is not the case. Suus might exist in the language, and yet se be absent; in other words, the derivative form might have continued whilst the original one had become extinct. Such is really the case with the Old Frisian. The reflective personal form, the equivalent to se, is lost, whilst the reflective possessive form, the equivalent to suus, is found. In the Modern Frisian, however, both forms are lost. The history of the reflective pronoun in the Gothic tongues is as follows: In Maso-Gothic.-Found in two cases, sis, siksibi, se. In Old High-German.—The dative form lost; there being no such word as sir sis sibi. In Old Frisian.-As stated above, there is here no equivalent to se; whilst there is the adjectival form sin = suus. In Old Saxon.-The equivalent to se and sibi very rare. The equivalent to suus not common, but commoner than in Anglo-Saxon. In Anglo-Saxon.-No instance of the equivalent to se at all. The forms sinnesuum, and sinum suo, occur in Beowulf. In Cadmon cases of sin suus, are more frequent. Still the usual form is his ejus. In the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, the true reflectives, both personal and possessive, occur; so that the modern Frisian and English stand alone in respect to the entire absence of them.-Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 321–348. The statement concerning the absence of the true reflective in English, although negative, has an important philological bearing on more points than one. 1. It renders the use of the word self much more necessary than it would be otherwise. 2. It renders us unable to draw a distinction between the meanings of the Latin words suus and ejus. 3. It precludes the possibility of the evolution of a middle voice like that of the Old Norse, where kalla-sc = kalla-sik. CHAPTER XV. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, &c. § 366. THE demonstrative pronouns are, 1. He, it. 2. She. 3. This, that. 4. The. He, she, and it, generally looked on as personal, are here treated as demonstrative pronouns, for the following reasons. 1. The personal pronouns form an extremely natural class, if the pronouns of the two first persons be taken by themselves. This is not the case if they be taken along with he, it, and she. The absence of gender, the peculiarity in their declension, and their defectiveness, are marked characters wherein they agree with each other, but not with any other words. 2. The idea expressed by he, it, and she is naturally that of demonstrativeness. In the Latin language is, ea, id; ille, illa, illud; hic, hæc, hoc, are demonstrative pronouns in sense, as well as in declension. 3. The plural forms they, them, in the present English, are the plural forms of the root of that, a true demonstrative pronoun; so that even if he, she, and it could be treated as personal pronouns, it could only be in the singular number. 4. The word she has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon seó. Now seó was in Anglo-Saxon the feminine form of the definite article; the definite article being a demonstrative pronoun. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as follows: She.-The Anglo-Saxon form heó, being lost to the language, is replaced by the feminine article seó. Her. This is a case, not of the present she, but of the Anglo-Saxon heó: so that she may be said to be defective in the oblique cases and her to be defective in the nomi native. Him.-A true dative form, which has replaced the AngloSaxon hine. When used as a dative, it was neuter as well as masculine. His.-Originally neuter as well as masculine. Now, as a neuter, replaced by its-"et quidem ipsa vox his, ut et interrogativum whose, nihil aliud sunt quam hee's, who's, ubi s omnino idem præstat quod in aliis possessivis. Similiter autem his pro hee's eodem errore quo nonnunquam bin pro been; item whose pro who's eodem errore quo done, gone, knowne, growne, &c., pro doen, goen, knowen, vel do'n, go'n, know'n, grow'n; utrobique contra analogiam linguæ; sed usu defenditur."-WALLIS, c. v. It.-Changed from the Anglo-Saxon hit, by the ejection of h. The t is no part of the original word, but a sign of the neuter gender, forming it regularly from he. The same neuter sign is preserved in the Latin id and illud. Its. In the course of time the nature of the neuter sign t, in it, the form being found in but a few words, became misunderstood. Instead of being looked on as an affix, it passed for part of the original word. Hence was formed from it the anomalous genitive its, superseding the Saxon his. The same was the case with Hers.-The r is no part of the original word, but the sign of the dative case. These formations are of value in the history of cases. They, their, them.-As hit changed into it; as he became replaced by she, and as the vowel form the, as an article, came to serve for all the cases of all the genders, two circumstances took place: 1. The forms pám and þára as definite articles became superfluous; and, 2. The connection between the plural forms hí, heom, heora, and the singular forms he and it, grew indistinct. These were conditions favourable to the use of the forms they, them, and their, instead of hí, heom, heora. Theirs. In the same predicament with hers and its. Than or then, and there.-Although now adverbs, they were once demonstrative pronouns, in a certain case and in a certain gender-than and then masculine accusative and singular, there feminine dative and singular. |