-- 444. As _his_ and _her_ are genitive cases (and not adjectives), there is no need of explaining such combinations as _his mother_, _her father_, inasmuch as no concord of gender is expected. The expressions are respectively equivalent to
_mater ejus_, not _mater sua_; _pater ejus_, -- _pater suus_.
-- 445. It has been stated that _its_ is a secondary genitive, and it may be added, that it is of late origin in the language. The Anglo-Saxon form was _his_, the genitive of _he_ for the neuter and masculine equally. Hence, when, in the old writers, we meet _his_, where we expect _its_, we must not suppose that any personification takes place, but simply that the old genitive common to the two genders is used in preference to the modern one limited to the neuter, and irregularly formed.
The following instances are the latest specimens of its use:
"The apoplexy is, as I take it, a kind of lethargy. I have read the cause of _his_ effects in Galen; _it_ is a kind of deafness."--_2 Henry IV._ i. 2.
"If the salt have lost _his_ savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
_It_ is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast _it_ out."--_Luke_ xiv. 35.
"Some affirm that every plant has _his_ particular fly or caterpillar, which it breeds and feeds."--WALTON"S _Angler_.
"This rule is not so general, but that _it_ admitteth of _his_ exceptions."--CAREW.
CHAPTER VII.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF.
-- 446. The undoubted constructions of the word _self_, in the present state of the cultivated English, are threefold.
1. _Government._--In _my-self_, _thy-self_, _our-selves_, and _your-selves_, the construction is that of a common substantive with an adjective or genitive case. _My-self_ = _my individuality_, and is similarly construed--_mea individualitas_ (or _persona_), or _mei individualitas_ (or _persona_).
2. _Apposition._--In _him-self_ and _them-selves_, when accusative, the construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a p.r.o.noun.
_Himself_ = _him_, _the individual_.
3. _Composition._--It is only, however, when _himself_ and _themselves_, are in the _accusative_ case, that the construction is appositional. When they are used as _nominatives_, it must be explained on another principle.
In phrases like
_He himself_ was present _They themselves_ were present,
there is neither apposition nor government; _him_ and _them_, being neither related to _my_ and _thy_, so as to be governed, nor yet to _he_ and _they_, so as to form an apposition. In order to come under one of these conditions, the phrases should be either _he his self_ (_they their selves_), or else _he he self_ (_they they selves_). In this difficulty, the only logical view that can be taken of the matter, is to consider the words _himself_ and _themselves_, not as two words, but as a single word compounded; and even then, the compound will be of an irregular kind; inasmuch as the inflectional element -m is dealt with as part and parcel of the root.
-- 447. _Her-self_.--The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of 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.
CHAPTER VIII.
ON THE POSSESSIVE p.r.o.nOUNS.
-- 448. The possessive p.r.o.nouns fall into two cla.s.ses. The first contains the forms like _my_ and _thy_, &c.; the second, those like _mine_ and _thine_, &c.
_My_, _thy_, _his_ (as in _his book_), _her_, _its_ (as in _its book_), _our_, _your_, _their_, are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms _mei_, _tui_, _ejus_, _nostrum_, _vestrum_, _eorum_.
_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_.
-- 449. There is a difference between the construction 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 term--_these 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 ill.u.s.trated, 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 ill.u.s.trated, 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 p.r.o.nouns present the phenomenon of being, singly, incomplete, but, nevertheless, complementary to each other when taken in their two forms.
-- 450. 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 p.r.o.nouns.--_This hat is mine_ = _this hat is my hat_; and _this is a hat of mine_ = _this is a hat of my hats_.
-- 451. 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.
"Duo sunt adjectivorum genera, a substantivis immediate descendentia, quae semper substantivis suis praeponuntur. 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.
CHAPTER IX.
THE RELATIVE p.r.o.nOUNS.
-- 452. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _gender_ as the antecedent--_the man who_--_the woman who_--_the thing which_.
-- 453. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _number_ with the antecedent.
-- 454. It is _not_ necessary for the relative to be in the same _case_ with its antecedent.
1. John, _who_ trusts me, comes here.
2. John, _whom_ I trust, comes here.
3. John, _whose_ confidence I possess, comes here.
4. I trust John _who_ trusts me.