{243}
CHAPTER V.
THE PERSONAL p.r.o.nOUNS.
-- 297. _I, we, us, me, thou, ye._--These const.i.tute the true personal p.r.o.nouns. From _he_, _she_, and _it_, they differ in being dest.i.tute of gender.
These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there are in English true personal p.r.o.nouns for the first two persons only.
In other languages the current p.r.o.nouns of the third person are, as in English, demonstrative rather than personal.
The usual declension of the personal p.r.o.nouns is exceptionable. _I_ and _me_, _thou_ and _ye_, stand in no etymological relations to each other.
The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but defective.
_I_ has no _oblique_, and _me_ no nominative case. And so with respect to the rest.
_I_, in German _ich_, Icelandic _ek_, corresponds with [Greek: ego], and _ego_ of the cla.s.sical languages; _ego_ and [Greek: ego] being, like _I_, defective in the oblique cases.
_My_, as stated above, is a form originally accusative, but now used in a genitive sense.
_Me._--In Anglo-Saxon this was called a dative form. The fact seems to be that both _my_ and _me_ grow out of an accusative form, _meh_, _mec_.
That the sound of _k_ originally belonged to the p.r.o.nouns _me_ and _thee_, we learn not only from the Anglo-Saxons _mec_, _ec_, _meh_, _eh_, but from the Icelandic _mik_, _ik_, and the German _mich_, _dich_. This accounts for the form _my_; since _y_=_ey_, and the sounds of _y_ and _g_ are allied. That both _me_ and _my_ can be evolved from _mik_, we see in the present Scandinavian languages, where, very often even in the same district, _mig_ is p.r.o.nounced both _mey_ and _mee_. {244}
_We_ and _our_.--These words are not in the condition of _I_ and _me_.
Although the fact be obscured, they are really in an etymological relation to each other. This we infer from the alliance between the sounds of _w_ and _ou_, and from the Danish forms _vi_ (_we_), _vor_ (_our_). It may be doubted, however, whether _our_ be a true genitive rather than an adjectival form. In the form _ours_ we find it playing the part, not of a case, but of an independent word. Upon this, however, too much stress cannot be laid. In Danish it takes a neuter form: _vor_=_noster_; _vort_=_nostrum_. From this I conceive that it agrees, not with the Latin genitive _nostrum_, but with the adjective _noster_.
_Us, we, our._--Even _us_ is in an etymological relation to _we_. That _we_ and _our_ are so, has just been shown. Now in Anglo-Saxon there were two forms of _our_, _viz_., _ure_ (=_nostrum_), and _user_ (=_noster_). This connects _we_ and _us_ through _our_.
From these preliminary notices we have the changes in form of the true personal p.r.o.nouns, as follows:--
1ST PERSON
_1st Term._ (_for nominative singular_).
_I._ Undeclined.
_2nd Term._ (_for the singular number_).
Acc. _Me_. Gen. _My_. Form in _n_--_Mine_.
_3rd Term._ (_for the plural number_).
Nom. _We_. Acc. _Us_. Form in _r_--_Our_, _ours_.
2ND PERSON.
_1st Term._ (_for the singular number_).
Nom. _Thou_. Acc. _Thee_. Gen. _Thy_. Form in _n_--_Thine_.
_2nd Term._ (_for the plural number_).
Nom. _Ye_. Acc. _You_. Form in _r_--_Your_, _yours_.
-- 298. _We_ and _me_ have been dealt with as distinct words. But it is only for practical purposes that they can be considered to be thus separate; since the sounds of _m_ and _w_ are allied, and in Sanskrit the singular form _ma_=_I_ is looked upon as part of the same word with _vayam_=_we_.
The same is the case with the Greek [Greek: me] (_me_), and the plural form [Greek: hemeis] (_haemeis_)=_we_.
_You._--As far as the practice of the present mode of speech {245} is concerned, the word _you_ is a _nominative_ form; since we say _you move_, _you are moving_, _you were speaking_.
Why should it not be treated as such? There is no absolute reason why it should not. All that can be said is, that the historical reason and the logical reason are at variance. The Anglo-Saxon form for _you_ was _eow_, for _ye_, _ge_. Neither bear any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are 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. The reasons why it should or should not be treated as such are involved in the previous paragraph.
_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 a.s.sume 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, as it is admitted to have done with the forms _him_ and _whom_, once dative, but now accusative?
_Observe._--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 {246} 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:--_you are speaking_, not _you art speaking_.
{247}
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE p.r.o.nOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH.
-- 299. A true reflective p.r.o.noun is wanting in English. In other words, there are no equivalents to the Latin p.r.o.nominal forms _sui_, _sibi_, _se_.
Nor yet are there any equivalents in English to the so-called 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; as they also are in the present English.
The history of the reflective p.r.o.noun in the Gothic tongues is as follows:--
_In Moeso-Gothic._--Found in three cases, _seina_, _sis_, _sik_=_sui_, _sibi_, _se_.
_In Old Norse._--Ditto. _Sin_, _ser_, _sik_=_sui_, _sibi_, _se_.
_In Old High German._--The dative form lost; there being no such word as _sir_=_sis_=_sibi_. Besides this, the genitive {248} or possessive form _sin_ is used only in the masculine and neuter genders.
_In Old Frisian._--As stated above, there is here no equivalent to _se_; whilst there _is_ the form _sin_=_suus_.
_In Old Saxon._--The equivalent to _se_, _sibi_, and _sui_ 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 _sinne_=_suum_, and _sinum_=_suo_, occur in Beowulf. In Caedmon 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.