a. They may be genitives or possessives, which were originally datives or accusatives; in which case they are deduced from the Anglo-Saxon _mec_ and _ec_.
b. They may be the Anglo-Saxon _min_ and _in_, _minus_ the final -n.
Each of these views has respectable supporters. The former is decidedly preferred by the present writer.
-- 398. What, however, are _thine_ and _mine_? Are they adjectives like _meus_, _tuus_, and _suus_, or cases like _mei_, _tui_, _sui_, in Latin, and _hi-s_ in English?
It is no answer to say that sometimes they are one and sometimes the other.
They were not so originally. They did not begin with meaning two things at once; on the contrary, they were either possessive cases, of which the power became subsequently adjectival, or adjectives, of which the power became subsequently possessive.
-- 399. In Anglo-Saxon and in Old Saxon there is but one form to express the Latin _mei_ (or _tui_), on the one side, and _meus_, _mea_, _meum_ (or _tuus_, &c.), on the other. In several other Gothic tongues, however, there was the following difference of form:
_Mso-Gothic_ meina = _mei_ as opposed to meins = _meus_.
eina = _tui_ -- eins = _tuus_.
_Old High German_ min = _mei_ -- miner = _meus_.
din = _tui_ -- diner = _tuus_.
_Old Norse_ min = _mei_ -- minn = _meus_.
in = _tui_ -- inn = _tuus_.
_Middle Dutch_ mins = _mei_ -- min = _meus_.
dins = _tui_ -- din = _tuus_.
_Modern High German_ mein = _mei_ -- meiner = _meus_.
dein = _tui_ -- deiner = _tuus_.
In these differences of form lie the best reasons for the a.s.sumption of a genitive case, as the origin of an adjectival form; and, undoubtedly, in those languages where both forms occur, it is convenient to consider one as a case and one as an adjective.
-- 400. But this is not the present question. In Anglo-Saxon there is but one form, _min_ and _in_ = _mei_ and _meus_, _tui_ and _tuus_, indifferently. Is this form an oblique case or an adjective?
This involves two sorts of evidence.
-- 401. _Etymological evidence._--a.s.suming two _powers_ for the words _min_ and _in_, one genitive, and one adjectival, which is the original one? Or, going beyond the Anglo-Saxon, a.s.suming that of two _forms_ like _meina_ and _meins_, the one has been derived from the other, which is the primitive, radical, primary, or original one?
Men, from whom it is generally unsafe to differ, consider that the adjectival form is the derived one; and, as far as forms like _miner_, as opposed to _min_, are concerned, the evidence of the foregoing list is in their favour. But what is the case with the Middle Dutch? The genitive _mins_ is evidently the derivative of _min_.
The reason why the forms like _miner_ seem derived is because they are longer and more complex than the others. Nevertheless, it is by no means an absolute rule in philology that the least compound form is the oldest. A word may be adapted to a secondary meaning by a change in its parts in the way of omission, as well as by a change in the way of addition.
-- 402. As to the question whether it is most likely for an adjective to be derived from a case, or a case from an adjective, it may be said, that philology furnishes instances both ways. _Ours_ is a case derived, in syntax at least, from an adjective. _Cujum_ (as in _cujum pecus_) and _sestertium_ are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one.
-- 403. _Syntactic evidence._--If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions as _dl min_ = _pars mei_, _hlf in_ = _dimidium tui_, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a true genitive. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted.
-- 404. Again--as _min_ and _in_ are declined like adjectives, even as _meus_ and _tuus_ are so declined, we have means of ascertaining their nature from the form they take in certain constructions; thus, _mi-nra_ = _me-orum_, and _min-re_ = _me-ae_, are the genitive plural and the dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for _of thy eyes_ should be _eagena inra_, and the Anglo-Saxon for _to my widow_, should be _wuduwan minre_; just as in Latin, they would be _oculorum tuorum_, and _viduae meae._
If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as _eagena in_, or _wuduwan min_, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words _in_ and _min_ must be construed as the Latin forms _tui_ and _mei_ would be in _oculorum mei_, and _viduae mei_; viz.: as genitive cases. Now, whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward.
Such instances, even if quoted, would not be conclusive.
-- 405. Why would they not be conclusive? Because _even of the adjective there are uninflected forms_.
As early as the Mso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of this omission of the inflection. The possessive p.r.o.nouns in the _neuter singular_ sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms, _nim thata badi theinata_ = ???? s?? t?? ???at?? (Mark ii. 9), opposed to _nim thata badi thein_, two verses afterwards. So also with _mein_ and _meinata_. It is remarkable that this omission should begin with forms so marked as those of the neuter (-ata). It has, perhaps, its origin in the adverbial character of that gender.
_Old High German._--Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it--_thin dohter_, _sin quena_, _min dohter_, _sinaz lib_. In a few cases, when the p.r.o.noun comes after, even the _oblique_ cases drop the inflection.
_Middle High German._--_Preceding_ the noun, the nominative of all genders is dest.i.tute of inflection; _sin lib_, _min ere_, _din lib_, &c.
_Following_ the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; _ine herse sin_. The influence of position should here be noticed. Undoubtedly a place _after_ the substantive influences the omission of the inflection. This appears in its _maximum_ in the Middle High German. In Mso-Gothic we have _mein leik_ and _leik meinata_.
-- 406. Now by a.s.suming the extension of the Middle High German omission of the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and by supposing it to affect the words in question in _all_ positions (i.e., both before and after their nouns), we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as already stated, no instances of them have been quoted.
To suppose _two_ adjectival forms, one inflected (_min_, _minre_, &c.), and one uninflected, or common to all genders and both numbers (_min_), is to suppose no more than is the case with the uninflected _e_, as compared with the inflected _aet_.
-- 407. Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance of _min_ or _in_, the _necessary_ equivalents to _mei_ and _tui_, rather than to _meus_ and _tuus_, must consist in the quotation from the Anglo-Saxon of some text, wherein _min_ or _in_ occurs with a feminine substantive, in an _oblique_ case, the p.r.o.noun _preceding_ the noun. When this has been done, it will be time enough to treat _mine_ and _thine_ as the equivalents to _mei_ and _tui_, rather than as those to _meus_ and _tuus_.
CHAPTER x.x.xVIII.
ON THE CONSt.i.tUTION OF THE WEAK PRaeTERITE.
-- 408. The remote origin of the weak praeterite in -d or -t, has been considered by Grimm. He maintains that it is the d in _d-d_, the reduplicate praeterite of _do_. In all the Gothic languages the termination of the past tense is either -da, -ta, -de, -i, -d, -t, or -ed, for the singular, and -don, -ton, -tumes, or -um, for the plural; in other words, d, or an allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In the _plural_ praeterite of the _Mso-Gothic_, however, we have something more, viz., the termination _-dedum_; as _nas-idedum_, _nas-idedu_, _nas-idedun_, from _nas-ja_; _sok-idedum_, _sok-idedu_, _sok-idedun_, from _sok-ja_; _salb-odedum_, _salb-odedu_, _salb-odedun_, from _salbo_. Here there is a second d. The same takes place with the dual form _salb-odeduts_, and with the subjunctive forms, _salb-odedjan_, _salb-odeduts_, _salb-odedi_, _salb-odedeits_, _salb-odedeima_, _salb-odedei_, _salb-odedina_. The English phrase, _we did salve_, as compared with _salb-odedum_, is confirmatory of this.
-- 409. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen"s on the Slavonic praeterite, in the "Transactions of the Philological Society," induce me to prefer a different doctrine, and to identify the -d in words like _moved_, &c., with the -t of the pa.s.sive participles of the Latin language; as found in mon-it-us, voc-at-us, rap-t-us, and probably in Greek forms like t?f-?-e??.
1. The Slavonic praeterite is commonly said to possess genders: in other words, there is one form for speaking of a past action when done by a male, and another for speaking of a past action when done by a female.
2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine or feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the praeterite is a participle. If, instead of saying _ille amavit_, the Latins said _ille amatus_, whilst, instead of saying _illa amavit_, they said _illa amata_, they would exactly use the grammar of the Slavonians.
3. Hence, as one cla.s.s of languages, at least, gives us the undoubted fact of an active praeterite being identical with a pa.s.sive participle, and as the participle and praeterite in question are nearly identical, we have a fair reason for believing that the d, in the English active praeterite, is the d of the participle, which in its turn, is the t of the Latin pa.s.sive participle.
-- 410. The following extract gives Dr. Trithen"s remarks on the Slavonic verb in his own words:--
"A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish languages, consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an active sense, for the purpose of expressing the praeterite. This participle generally ends in l; and much uncertainty prevails both as to its origin and its relations, though the termination has been compared by various philologists with similar affixes in the Sanscrit, and the cla.s.sical languages.
"In the Old Slavish, or the language of the church, there are three methods of expressing the past tense: one of them consists in the union of the verb substantive with the participle; as,
_Rek esm"_ _chital esmi"_ _Rek esi"_ _chital esi"_ _Rek est"_ _chital est"_.
"In the corresponding tense of the Slavonic dialect we have the verb substantive placed before the participle:
_Ya sam imao_ _mi" smo imali_ _Ti si imao_ _vi" ste imali_ _On ye imao_ _omi su imali_.
"In the Polish it appears as a suffix:
_Czytalem_ _czytalismy_ _Czytales_ _czytaliscie_ _Czytal_ _czytalie_.
"And in the Servian it follows the participle:
_Igrao sam_ _igrali smo_ _Igrao si_ _igrali ste_ _Igrao ye_ _igrali su_.
"The ending -ao, of _igrao_ and _imao_, stands for the Russian _al_, as in some English dialects a" is used for _all_."