Part 54 (1/2)

OBS 5--Respecting the _possessive case_ of the sirae diversity of sentiment Yet is there but one view of the matter, that has in it either truth or reason, consistency or plausibility And, in the opinion of any judicious teacher, an erroneous classification of words so coo far to conderees in person, nuender, with the noun _for which it is a substitute_; and, if it is in the possessive case, it is usually governed by _an other noun_ expressed or implied after it That is, if it denotes possession, it stands for the na possessed Now do not _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_, and _mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, all equally denote possession? and do they not severally show by their forender, of whomever or whatever they make to be the possessor? If they do, they are all of the else; all found in the _possessive case_, and nowhere else It is true, that in Latin, Greek, and soenitive cases corresponding to these possessives, but also certain declinable adjectives which we render in English by these same words: that is, by _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours; thy_ or _thine, your_ or _yours_; &c But this circu any of these English terms to be mere adjectives; and, say ill, it is plain that they have not the signification of adjectives, nor can we ascribe to therareeree, in any respect, with the nouns which _follow_ them, unless it be by mere accident This view of the raiven by Ash, C Adams, Ainsworth, R W Bailey, Barnard, Buchanan, Bicknell, Blair, Burn, Butler, Comly, Churchill, Cobbett, Dalton, Davenport, Dearborn, Farnum, A Flint, Fowler, Frost, Gilbert, S S Green, Greenleaf, Hamlin, Hiley, Kirkham, Merchant, Murray the schoolmaster, Parkhurst, Picket, Russell, Sanborn, Sanders, R C Smith, Wilcox

OBS 6--In opposition to the classification and doctrine adopted above, rammarians teach, that _my, thy, this, her, our, your, their_, are adjectives or ”adjective pronouns;” and that _mine, thine, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs_, are personal pronouns in the possessive case Aer, Allen, Bacon, Barrett, Bingham, Bucke, Bullions, Cutler, Fisk, Frost, (in his sersoll, Jaudon, Lennie, Lowth, Miller, L Murray, Pond, T Smith, Spear, Spencer, Staniford, Webber, Woodworth The authority of all these names, however, amounts to little more than that of one man; for Murray pretended to folloth, and nearly all the rest copied Murray Dr Lowth says, ”_Thy, my, her, our, your, their_, are pronominal adjectives; but _his_, (that is, _he's_,) _her's, our's, your's, their's_, have evidently the fory, _mine, thine_, may be esteemed of the same rank”--_Lowth's Gram_, p 23[208] But why did he not see, that by the sa of the words, as well as by their distinctions of person, nuender, all the other six are entitled to ”the same rank?” Are not the forms of _my, thy, her, our, your, their_, as fit to denote the relation of property, and to be called the possessive case, as _rammar, all needless distinctions are reprehensible And where shall we find a more blamable one than this? It seems to have been based merely upon the false notion, that the possessive case of pronouns ought to be formed like that of nouns; whereas custom has clearly decided that they shall always be different: the former must never be written with an apostrophe; and the latter, never without it Contrary to all good usage, however, the Doctor here writes ”_her's, our's, your's, their's_,” each with a needless apostrophe Perhaps he thought it would serve to strengthen his position; and help to refute what some affirmed, that all these words are adjectives

OBS 7--Respecting _ree

The latter will have them to be sometimes ”_possessive pronouns_,” and sometimes ”_possessive cases_” An adreat author to make! too slippery for even the inventor's own hold, and utterly unintelligible to those who do not know its history! In short, these authors disagree also concerning _my, thy, her, our, your, their_; and where two leaders of a party are at odds with each other, and each is in the wrong, what is to be expected fro these words ”_pronoed the ter the class entire; and accordingly taught, in his early editions, that, ”There are _four kinds_ of pronouns, viz, the personal, _the possessive, the_ relative, and _the_ adjective pronouns”--_Murray's Gram_, 2d Edition, p

37 ”The Possessive pronouns are such as principally relate to possession or property There are seven of them; viz _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_ The possessives _his, mine, thine_, may be accounted either _possessive pronouns_, or the _possessive cases_ of their respective personal pronouns”--_Ib_, p 40 He next idly demonstrates that these seven words may come before nouns of any nu his own distinction, adds, ”When they are separated from the noun, all of them, except _his_, vary _their terminations_; as, this hat is _mine_, and the other is _thine_; those trinkets are _hers_; this house is _ours_, and that is _yours; theirs_ is more commodious than _ours_”--_Ib_, p 40 Thus all his personal pronouns of the possessive case, he then made to be inflections of pronouns of _a different class!_ What are they now? Seek the answer under the head of that gross solecism, ”_Adjective pronouns_” You ra of words, does not stand alone; it naturally brings others in its train Murray's ”_Adjective pronouns_,” (which he now subdivides into four little classes, _possessive, distributive, de all of they, have led both hie errors in syntax The _possessives only_ are ”pronouns;” and these are pronouns of the possessive _case_ As such, they agree with the _antecedent_ nouns for which they stand, in _person, nuoverned, like all other possessives, by the nouns which follow them The rest are _not pronouns_, but pronominal _adjectives_; and, as such, they relate to nouns expressed or understood _after thely, they have none of the above-mentioned qualities, except that the words _this_ and _that_ form the plurals _these_ and _those_ Or, if we choose to ascribe to a pronominal adjective all the properties of the noun understood, it isThe difference, then, between a ”pronominal adjective” and an ”adjective pronoun,” should seem to be this; that the one is _an adjective_, and the other _a pronoun_: it is like the difference between a _horserace_ and a _racehorse_ What can be hoped frorammarian who cannot discern it?

And what can be ? ”Adjective _pronouns_ ree, in number, with _their substantives_: as, '_This_ book, _these_ books; _that_ sort, _those_ sorts; _another_ road, _other_ roads'”--_Murray's Graer's Murray_, p

56; _Alden's, 85; Bacon's, 48; Maltby's, 59; Miller's, 66; Merchant's, 81; S Putnaree with _their nouns_ in gender, number, and person; thus, '_My son_, hear the instructions of _thy_ father' 'Call the _labourers_, and give theives a rule for _pronouns_, and illustrates it by _adjectives_; and Maunder, as ingeniously blunders in reverse: he gives a rule for _adjectives_, and illustrates it by _pronouns_ But what do they mean by ”_their substantives_,” or ”_their nouns_?” As applicable to _pronouns_, the phrase should mean _nouns antecedent_; as applicable to _adjectives_, it should mean _nouns subsequent_ Both these rules are therefore false, and fit only to bewilder; and the examples to both are totally inapplicable Murray's was once essentially right, but he afterwards corrupted it, and a multitude of his admirers have since copied the perversion It formerly stood thus: ”The pronominal adjectives _this_ and _that, &c_ and the nuree in number with their substantives: as, 'This book, these books; that sort, those sorts; one girl, ten girls; another road, other roads' ”--_Murray's Grarammarians, some of considerable note have contended, that the personal pronouns have but _two cases_, the nominative and the objective Of this class, htland, Dr Johnson, Fisher, Mennye, Cardell, Cooper, Dr Jas P Wilson, W B Fowle and, according to his late gra what to make of _my_ or _mine, our_ or _ours, thy_ or _thine, your_ or _yours, his, her_ or _hers, its_, and _their_ or _theirs_, they are as far froreement, or even froine To the person, the nuender, and the case, of each of these words, they either profess theers, or else prove thehtland calls them ”Possessive Qualities, or Qualities of Possession;” in which class he also embraces all _nouns_ of the possessive case Johnson calls them pronouns; and then says of them, ”The possessive _pronouns_, like _other adjectives_, are without _cases_ or change of termination”--_Gram_, p 6 Fisher calls them ”Personal Possessive Qualities;” admits the person of _my, our_, &c; but supposes _overn them!_ Mennye makes them one of his three classes of pronouns, ”_personal, possessive_, and _relative_;” giving to both forives, to the first for adjectives” With Fowle, these, and all other possessives, are ”possessive adjectives” Cooper, in his grammar of 1828 copies the last scheme of Murray: in that of 1831, he avers that the personal pronouns ”want the possessive case” Now, like Webster and Wilson, he will have _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, to be pronouns of the no the pronouns into six general classes, hethe in a note the monstrous name, ”_Possessive pronouns Substitute_” His sixth class are what he calls, ”The Possessive pronominal _Adjectives_;” namely, ”_my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, its, own_, and sometimes _mine_ and _thine_”--_Cooper's Pl and Pr

Gram_, p 43 But all these he has, unquestionably, either misplaced or ement should be the object of every corammar all the pronouns are _nouns_,) will have _my, thy, his, her, its, our, your_, and _their_, to be in the possessive case; but of _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_, he says, ”These may be called _Desiderative Personal pronouns_”--_Perley's Grah he professes to follow Murray, declines the siues admirably, that _my, thy, his, &c_, are pronouns of the possessive case, because, ”They always _stand for nouns in the possessive case_” But he afterwards contradicts both hira _mine, thine, hers_, &c, to the class of ”_Compound Personal pronouns_” Nay, as if to outdo even himself in absurdity, he first makes _ that, ”These _pluralizing adjuncts, ne_ and _s_, were, no doubt, formerly detached from the pronouns hich they now coalesce;” and then, because he finds in each of his supposed co noun, reassu them, the very principle of error, on which he condemns their common classification He says, ”They should be parsed _as tords_” He also supposes theovern theree in any respect! Thus is he wrong in al he says about them See _Kirkham's Gram_, p

99, p 101, and p 104 Goodenow, too, a still later writer, adopts the major part of all this absurdity He will have _my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, their_, for the possessive case of his personal pronouns; but _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, he calls ”_compound possessive pronouns_, in the subjective or [the] objective case”--_Text-Book of E

Gram_, p 33 Thus he introduces a new class, unknown to his primary division of the pronouns, and not included in his scherammar produced at Ply He called _I, thou, he, she_, and _it_, with their plurals, ”_antecedent_ pronouns;” took _my, thy, his, her_, &c, for their _only_ possessive for passed from them by the space of just half his book, added: ”Sometimes, to prevent the repetition of the same word, an _antecedent pronoun in the possessive case_, is made to represent, both the pronoun and a noun; as, 'That book is _mine_'--i e '_my book_' MINE is a _compound antecedent pronoun_, and is equivalent to _h they were both expressed”--_Fuller's Gram_, p 71

OBS 11--Arammar, who shall so fix its principles that our schoolmasters and schoolmistresses may knohat to believe and teach_? Not he that speculates without regard to other men's views; nor yet he that makes it a merit to follow implicitly ”the footsteps of” _one only_ The true principles of gra, hoeneral, coincide Contradiction of falsities, is necessary to the maintenance of truth; correction of errors, to the success of science But not every man's errors can be so considerable as to deserve correction froraenerally escaped censure I do not wish any one to coincide with norance of what others inculcate If doctors of divinity and doctors of laill contradict therammar, so far as they do so, the lovers of consistency will find it necessary to deviate fro these pronouns, I learned in childhood, from Webster, a doctrine which he now declares to be false This was nearly the same as Lowth's, which is quoted in the sixth observation above But, in stead of correcting its faults, this zealous reforreater

Noith equal reproach to his etyic, he denies that our pronouns have any forrant the obvious fact, that _substitution_ is one thing, and _ellipsis_ an other, and his whole argu these, that he reaches his absurd conclusion

OBS 12--Dr Webster's doctrine now is, that none of the English pronouns have more than two cases He says, ”_mine, thine, his, hers, yours_, and _theirs_, are _usually considered_ as [being of] the possessive case But the _three first_ are either attributes, and used with nouns, or they are substitutes The _three last_ are always substitutes, used in the place of names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD”--”That _mine, thine, his_, [_ours_,] _yours, hers_, and _theirs_, do not constitute a possessive case, is demonstrable; for they are constantly used as the nominatives to verbs and as the objectives after verbs and prepositions, as in the following passages

'Whether it could perforanized as _ours is_'--_Locke_ 'The reason is, that his subject is generally things; _theirs_, on the contrary, _is_ persons'--_Camp Rhet_ 'Therefore leave your forest of beasts for _ours_ of brutes, called men'--_Wycherley to Pope_ It is needless to multiply proofs We observe these _pretended possessives_ uniformly used as nominatives or objectives[210] Should it be said that _a noun is understood_; I reply, _this cannot be true_,” &c--_Philosophical Gram_, p 35; _Improved Gram_, p 26 Nohether it be true or not, this very position is expressly affirh he is, unquestionably, wrong in suggesting that the pronouns are ”used _in the place_ of [those] names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD” They are used in the place of other naoverned by those which he here both admits and denies to be ”understood”

OBS 13--The other arguainst the possessive case of pronouns, ine

The first is drawn from the fact that conjunctions connect like cases

”Besides, in three passages just quoted, the word _yours_ is joined by a connective _to a name_ in the same case; 'To ensure _yours_ and _their in_' '_My sword_ and _yours_ are kin' Will any person pretend that the connective here joins different cases?”--_Improved Gram_, p 28; _Philosophical Gram_, p

36 I answer, No But it is falsely assumed that _yours_ is here connected by _and_ to _in_, or to _sword_; because these words are again severally understood after _yours_: or, if otherwise, the two pronouns alone are connected by _and_, so that the proof is rather, that _their_ and _ument is drawn from the use of the preposition _of_ before the possessive ”For we say correctly, 'an acquaintance _of yours, ours_, or _theirs_'--_of_ being the sign of the possessive; but if the words in thens of the same case, which is absurd”--_Improved Gran of the possessive, and affirm that it is taken partitively, in all examples of this sort ”I know my sheep, and am known _of mine_,” is not of this kind; because _of_ here means _by_--a sense in which the word is antiquated In recurring afterwards to this argu texts, and avers that they ”are evidently_to_ the Lord, _all_ ye saints of _his_'--_Ps_ 30, 4

'_He_ that heareth these sayings _of mine_'--_Matt_ 7”--_Iht about the es are_unto_ the Lord, _O ye his Saints_”--”_Every one_ that heareth _these s_” But when a definitive particle precedes the noun, it is very common with us, to introduce the possessive elliptically after it; and what Dr Wilsonthat it is erroneous, I know not: ”When the preposition _of_ precedes _mine, ours, yours_, &c the _errour_ lies, not in this, that there are double possessive cases, but in for an implication of a noun, which the substitute already denotes, together with the persons”--_Essay on Gralish Grammar, Dr Wilson teaches thus: ”_My, our, thy, your, his, her, its, their, whose_, and _whosesoever_ are possessive pronominal _adjectives Ours, yours, hers_, and _theirs_ are _pronoun substantives_, used either as subjects, or [as] objects; as singulars, or [as] plurals; and are substituted both for [the nas possessed _His, its, whose, mine_, and _thine_, are sometimes used as _such substantives_; but also are at other times _pronominal possessive_ adjectives”--_Wilson's Syllabus_, p X Now co three froenerally agrees with its noun in gender and nuender of their antecedents, and not of the nouns hich they stand So in English, _ree with the nouns they represent, in nue expressive of nuender, or case, cannot accord with their nouns”--_Wilson's Essay on Gram_, p 192 ”_Ours, yours, hers_, and _theirs_, are most usually considered possessive cases of personal pronouns; but they are, more probably, possessive substitutes, not adjectives, but _nouns_”--_Ib_, p 109 ”Nor can _mine_ or _thine_, with any more propriety than _ours, yours_, &c be joined to any noun, as possessive adjectives and possessive cases may”--_Ib_, p 110 Whoever understands these instructions, cannot but see their inconsistency

OBS 15--Murray argues at so his opponents, that the words which he assuhtfully in the possessive case; and that, ”they should not, on the slight pretence of their differing froe, which, from time immemorial they have enjoyed”--_Octavo Gra terms, which Lowth calls _pronominal adjectives_, and which Murray and others will have to be _pronouns of no case_, are justly entitled to the same rank ”If _mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, be the possessive case; _my, thy, her, our, your, their_, must be the same

Whether we say, 'It is _John's_ book,' or, 'The book is _John's_;' _John's_ is not less the possessive case in one instance, than it is in the other

If we say, 'It is _his_ book,' or, 'The book is _his_;' 'It is _her_ book,'

or, 'The book is _hers_;' 'It is _my_ book,' or, 'The book is _mine_;' 'It is _your_ book,' or, 'The book is _yours_;' are not these parallel instances? Custom has established it as a law, that this case of the pronoun shall drop its original termination, for the sake of euphony, when it precedes the noun that governs it; retaining it only where the noun is understood: but this certainly makes no alteration in the nature of the word; so that either _my_ is as much a possessive case as _mine_; or _mine_ and _my_ are equally pronominal adjectives”--_Churchill's New Gram_, p

221 ”Mr Murray considers the phrases, '_our desire_,' '_your intention_,' '_their resignation_,' as instances of plural adjectives _agreeing_ with singular nouns; and consequently exceptions to the general (may we not say _universal_?) rule: but if they [the words _our, your, their_,] be, as is attempted to be proved above, the possessive cases of pronouns, no rule is here violated”--_Ib_, p 224

OBS 16--One strong argurammar, was incidentally noticed in the observations upon antecedents: an adjective cannot give person, nuender, to a relative pronoun; because, in our language, adjectives do not possess these qualities; nor indeed in any other, except as they take thereement with nouns or pronouns in the same clause But it is undeniable, that _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_, do soender to relatives, which head other clauses For the learner should remember, that, ”When a relative pronoun is used, the sentence is divided into two parts; viz the _antecedent_ sentence, or that which contains the _antecedent_; and the _relative_ sentence, containing the _relative_”--_Nixon's Parser_, p 123 We need not here deny, that Terence's Latin, as quoted in the granatuible syntax, as can literally be lish--”That all would praise _enius” For, whether the Latin be good or not, it affords no arguy; nor does the literality of the version prove, at all points, either the accuracy or the sameness of the construction

OBS 17--Surely, without solish, to resort to such an assu Rule: ”Sorees in person with that pronoun substantive, from which the possessive pronoun adjective is derived; as, Pity _my_ condition, _who am_ so destitute I rejoice at _thy_ lot, _who art_ so fortunate We la, _who is_ so deceitful Commiserate _our_ condition, _who are_ so poor Treence, _who are_ so careless It shall be _their_ property, _who are_ so diligent We are rejoicing at _thy_ lot, _who hast_ been so fortunate”--_Nixon's Parser_, p 142 In his explanation of the last of these sentences, the author says, ”_Who_ is a relative pronoun; in the rees with _thee_, implied in the adjective _thy_ RULE--Sorees in person, &c And it is the nominative to the verb _hast been_ RULE--When no nominative comes between the relative and the verb, the relative is the nominative to the verb”--_Ib_, p 143 A pupil of G Broould have said, ”_Who_ is a relative pronoun, representing '_thy_,' or the person addressed, in the second person, singular nu to the rule which says, 'A pronoun ree with its antecedent, or the noun or pronoun which it represents, in person, nu the subject of _hast been_; according to the rule which says, 'A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb,is--_who hast been_; that is, _thy lot_, or the lot _of thee, who hast been_”

OBS 18--Because the possessive case of a noun or pronoun is usually equivalent in ra for sameness of case, have asserted that all our possessives have a double form Thus Nixon: ”When the particle _of_ cos, it is not to be considered a preposition, but _the sign of the substantive's being in the possessive case_, equally as if the apostrophic _s_ had been affixed to it; as, 'The skill _of Caesar_,' or _Caesar's_ skill'”--_English Parser_, p 38 ”When the apostrophic _s_ is used, the genitive is the former of the two substantives; as, '_John's_ house:' but when the particle _of_ is used, it is the latter; as, 'The house _of John_'”--_Ib_, p 46 The work here quoted is adapted to two different grammars; namely, Murray's and Allen's These the author doubtless conceived to be the best English grammars extant And it is not a little remarkable, that both of these authors, as well as many others, teach in such a faulty manner, that their intentions upon this point may be matter of dispute ”When Murray, Allen, and others, say, 'we make use of the particle _of_ to express the _relation_ of the genitive,' the auity of their assertion leaves it in doubt whether or not they considered the substantive which is preceded by _of_ and an other substantive, as in the _genitive_ case”--_Nixon's English Parser_, p 38 Resolving this doubt according to his own fancy, Nixon makes the possessive case of our personal pronouns to be as follows: ”_mine_ or _of me, ours_ or _of us; thine_ or _of thee, yours_ or _of you; his_ or _of him, theirs_ or _of them; hers_ or _of her, theirs_ or _of thelish Parser_, p 43 This doctrine gives us a form of declension that is both complex and deficient It is therefore more objectionable than aluments and authorities on which the author rests his position, are not thought likely to gain many converts; for which reason, I dis them