-- 453. Such are the chief _a priori_ arguments against the genitival character of words like _mine_ and _thine_.
Akin to these, and a point which precedes the _a posteriori_ evidence as to the nature of the words in question, is the determination of the side on which lies the _onus probandi_. This question is material; inasmuch as, although the present writer believes, for his own part, that the forms under discussion are adjectival rather than genitival, this is not the point upon which he insists. What he insists upon is the fact of the genitival character of _mine_ and _thine_ requiring a particular proof; which particular proof no one has yet given: in other words, his position is that they are not to be thought genitive until proved to be such.
It has not been sufficiently considered that the _prima facie_ evidence is against them. They have not the form of a genitive case--indeed, they have a different one; and whoever a.s.sumes a second form for a given case has the burden of proof on his side.
-- 454. Against this circ.u.mstance of the _-n_ in _mine_ and _thine_ being the sign of anything rather than of a genitive case, and against the _prima facie_ evidence afforded by it, the {385} following facts may, or have been, adduced as reasons on the other side. The appreciation of their value, either taken singly or in the way of c.u.mulative evidence, is submitted to the reader. It will be seen that none of them are unexceptionable.
-- 455. _The fact, that, if the words _mine_ and _thine_ are not genitive cases, there is not a genitive case at all._--It is not necessary that there should be one. Particular reasons in favour of the probability of personal p.r.o.nouns of the singular number being dest.i.tute of such a case have been already adduced. _It is more likely that a word should be defective than that it should have a separate form._
-- 456. _The a.n.a.logy of the forms _mei_ and _[Greek: emou]_ in Latin and Greek._--It cannot be denied that this has some value. Nevertheless, the argument deducible from it is anything but conclusive.
1. It is by no means an indubitable fact that _mei_ and [Greek: emou] are really cases of the p.r.o.noun. The _extension_ of a principle acknowledged in the Greek language might make them the genitive cases of adjectives used p.r.o.nominally. Thus,
[Greek: To emon] = [Greek: ego], [Greek: Tou emou] = [Greek: emou], [Greek: Toi emoi] = [Greek: emoi].
a.s.sume the omission of the article and the extension of the Greek principle to the Latin language, and [Greek: emou] and _mei_ may be cases, not of [Greek: eme] and _me_, but of [Greek: emos] and _meus_.
2. In the cla.s.sical languages the part.i.tive power was expressed by the genitive.
"---- multaque pars mei Vitabit Libitinam."
This is a reason for the evolution of a genitive power. Few such forms exist in the Gothic; _part my_ is not English, nor was _dael min_ Anglo-Saxon,=_part of me_, or _pars mei_.
-- 457. The following differences of form, are found in the different Gothic languages, between the equivalents of _mei_ and _tui_, the so-called genitives of _ego_ and _tu_, and the equivalents of _meus_ and _tuus_, the so-called possessive adjectives. {386}
_Moeso-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 this list, those languages where the two forms are alike are not exhibited. This is the case with the Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon.
In the above-noticed 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.
-- 458. 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.
-- 459. _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 {387} 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. Such is the general statement. Reasons for believing that in the particular cases of the words in question such is the fact, will be found hereafter.
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. _Cujus_ (as in _cujum pecus_) and _sestertium_ are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one.
-- 460. _Syntactic evidence._--If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions as _dael min_=_pars mei_, _haelf in_=_dimidium tui_, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a genitive with a part.i.tive power. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted; whilst, even if quoted, they would not be _conclusive_. Expressions like [Greek: sos pothos]=_desiderium tui_, [Greek: se promethiai] = _providentia propter te_, show the extent to which the possessive expression encroaches on the part.i.tive.
1. The words _min_ or _in_, with a power anything rather than possessive, would not for that reason be proved (on the strength of their meaning) to be genitive cases rather than possessive p.r.o.nouns; since such lat.i.tude in the power of the possessive p.r.o.noun is borne out by the comparison of languages--[Greek: pater hemon] (not [Greek: hemeteros]) in Greek is _pater noster_ (not _nostrum_) in Latin.
-- 461. 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, _min_ra=_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 {388} 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 (real or apparent) exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward.
Such instances have yet to be quoted; whilst even if quoted, they would not be conclusive.
-- 462. A few references to the _Deutsche Grammatik_ will explain this.
As early as the Moeso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of the 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_=[Greek: aron sou ton krabbaton] (Mark ii. 9.) opposed to _nim thata badi thein_ two verses afterwards. So also with _mein_ and _meinata_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 470. 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.--Deutsche Grammatik, 474-478.
_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_.--Deutsche Grammatik, 480. 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 Moeso-Gothic we have _mein leik_ and _leik meinata_.--Deutsche Grammatik, 470.
-- 463. Now by a.s.suming (which is only a fair a.s.sumption) 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 {389} after their nouns), we explain these constructions by a process which, in the mind of the present writer, is involved in fewer difficulties than the opposite doctrine of a genitive case, in words where it is not wanted, and with a termination which is foreign to it elsewhere.
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_.--See pp. 251-253.
{390}
CHAPTER x.x.xVIII.
ON THE CONSt.i.tUTION OF THE WEAK PRaeTERITE.
-- 464. The remote origin of the weak praeterite in _-d_ or _-t_, has been considered by Grimm, in the Deutsche Grammatik. 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 Moeso-Gothic we have something more, _viz._ the termination _-dedum_; as _nas-idedum_, _nas-idedu_, _nas-idedum_, from _nas-ja_; _sok-idedum_, _sok-idedu_, _sok-idedum_ 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-odedeina_. The English phrase, _we did salve_, as compared with _salb-odedum_, is confirmatory of this.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1042.
-- 465. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen"s on the Slavonic praeterite, in the Transactions of the Philological Society, induce me 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 [Greek: tuph-th-eis].
l. 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; and the fact of its being so accounts for {391} the apparently remarkable fact of its inflection. 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 language, the Slavonic gives us the undoubted fact of an active praeterite growing out of a pa.s.sive participle (unless, indeed, we chose to say that both are derived from a common origin); and as the English participle and praeterite, when weak, are nearly identical, we have reason for believing that the _d_, in the English active praeterite, is the _t_ in the Latin pa.s.sive participle.
-- 466. The following extract exhibits Dr. Trithen"s remarks on the Slavonic verb:--
"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.