the preceding constructions. Which, however, it is, is uncertain; since her may be either a so-called genitive, like my, or an accusative, like him.

Itself—is also ambiguous. The s may represent the -s in its, as well as the s- in self.

This inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxon stage of the English language.

In the exhibition of the second construction of the word self, it was assumed that the case was a case of apposition, and that self was substantival in character. Nevertheless, this is by no means a necessary phenomenon. Self might, as far as its power is determined by its construction alone, in words like himself, as easily be an adjective as a substantive. In which case the construction would be a matter, not of apposition, but of agreement. To illustrate this by the Latin language, himself might equal either eum personam (him, the person), or eum personalem (him personal). The evidence, however, of the forms like myself, as well as other facts adducible from comparative philology, prove the substantival character of self. On the other hand, it ought not to be concealed that another word, whereof the preponderance of the adjectival over the substantival power is undoubted, is found in the Old English, with just the same inconsistency as the word self; i. e. sometimes in government (like a substantive), and sometimes in either concord or apposition, like a word which may be either substantive or adjective. This word is one; the following illustrations of which are from Mr. Guest.-Phil. Trans. No. 22.

Against so fierce a kaiser, and all his kingdom.

Here his one, her one, mean his singleness, her single ness.

He made his mone

Within a garden all him one.

GOWER, Confess. Amant.

Here him one

himself in respect to its construction.

§ 470. As to the inflection of the word -self, all its compounds are substantives; inasmuch as they all take plural forms as far as certain logical limitations will allow them to do so—ourselves, yourselves, themselves.

Myself, thyself, himself, itself, and herself, are naturally singular, and under no circumstances can become plural.

Themselves is naturally plural, and under no circumstances can become singular.

Ourselves and yourselves are naturally plural; yet under certain circumstances they become singular.

a. Just as men say we for I, so may they say our for my. b. Just as men say you for thou, so may they say your for thy.

In respect to the inflection in the way of case, there are no logical limitations whatever. There is nothing against the existence of a genitive form self's except the habit of the English language not using one, founded on the little necessity for so doing.-Are you sure this is your own? Yes, I am sure it is my own self's. Such an expression is both logic and grammar.

of

When an adjective intervenes between self and its personal pronoun the construction is always in the way government; in other words, the personal pronoun is always put in the genitive case.

His own self, not him own self.

Their own selves, not them own selves.

§ 471. The construction of self and a personal pronoun with a verb may be noticed in this place. It is only in the case of the two pronouns of the singular number that any doubt can arise.

1. When myself or thyself stands alone, the verb that follows is in the third person-myself is (not am) weak, thyself is (not art) weak. Here the construction is just the same as in the proposition my body is weak.

2. When myself or thyself is preceded by I or thou, the verb that follows is in the first person-I, myself am (not is) weak; thou, thyself, art (not is) weak.

CHAPTER VIII.

ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.

§ 472. THE possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first class contains the forms connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in their syntax, with my and thy, &c. The second class contains the forms connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in their syntax, with mine and thine, &c.

The first class is the class of what may be called the oblique possessives; the name being founded upon the etymological fact of their being connected with the oblique cases of the pronominal inflection.—My, thy, his (as in his book), her, its (as in its book), our, your, their. These are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms, mei, tui, ejus, nostrum, vestrum, eorum.

The second class is the class of what may be called the absolute possessives; the name being founded upon the syntactic fact of their being able to form the term of a proposition by themselves; as whose is this? Mine (not my).-Mine, thine, his (as in the book is his), hers, ours, yours, theirs, are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms meus, mea, meum; tuus, tua, tuum; suus, sua, suum; noster, nostra, nostrum; vester, vestra, vestrum.

How far either or both of these two classes of pronouns are cases, or adjectives, is a point of etymology that has already been noticed (Part IV. chap. xx.).

How far both or either are cases or adjectives is, in syntax, a matter of indifference.

There is, however, a palpable difference between the con

struction of my and mine. We cannot say this is mine hat, and we cannot say this hat is my. Nevertheless, this difference is not explained by any change of construction from that of adjectives to that of cases. As far as the syntax is concerned, the construction of my and mine is equally that of an adjective agreeing with a substantive, and of a genitive (or possessive) case governed by a substantive.

Now a common genitive case can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term (i. e. absolutely).— 1. As part of a term—this is John's hat. 2. As a whole term -this hat is John's.

And a common adjective can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term (i. e. absolutely).—1. As part of a term—these are good hats. 2. As a whole termthese hats are good.

Now whether we consider my, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess only one of the properties just illustrated, i. e. they can only be used as part of a term -this is my hat; not this hat is my.

And whether we consider mine, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess only one of the properties just illustrated, i. e. they can only be used as whole terms, or absolutely-this hat is mine; not this is mine hat.

For a full and perfect construction, whether of an adjective or a genitive case, the possessive pronouns present the phenomenon of being, singly, incomplete, but, nevertheless, complementary to each other when taken in their two forms.

In the absolute construction of a genitive case, the term is formed by the single word only so far as the expression is concerned. A substantive is always understood from what has preceded. This discovery is Newton's this discovery is Newton's discovery.

The same with adjectives.-This weather is fine = this weather is fine weather.

And the same with absolute pronouns.-This hat is mine = this hat is my hat; and this is a hat of mine = this is a hat of my hats.

In respect to all matters of syntax considered exclusively, it is so thoroughly a matter of indifference whether a word be an

adjective or a genitive case, that Wallis considers the forms. in 's, like father's, not as genitive cases, but as adjectives. Looking to the logic of the question alone, he is right, and, looking to the practical syntax of the question, he is right also. He is only wrong on the etymological side of the question.

"Nomina substantiva apud nos nullum vel generum vel casuum discrimen sortiuntur."-P. 76.

66

Duo sunt adjectivorum genera, a substantivis immediate descendentia, quæ semper substantivis suis præponuntur. Primum quidem adjectivum possessivum libet appellare. Fit autem a quovis substantivo, sive singulari sive plurali, addito -s.—Ut man's nature, the nature of man, natura humana vel hominis; men's nature, natura humana vel hominum; Virgil's poems, the poems of Virgil, poemata Virgilii vel Virgiliana."—P. 89.

VOL. II.

A A