Part 21 (1/2)
_Nom_, he, they, _Poss_ his, their _or_ theirs, _Obj_ hi_ _Plur_
_Nom_ she, they, _Poss_ her _or_ hers, their _or_ theirs
_Obj_ her the_ _Plur_
_Nom_ it, they, _Poss_ its, their _or_ theirs, _Obj_ it them
NOTES
1 When _self_ is added to the personal pronouns, as himself, myself, itself, themselves, &c they are called _compound personal pronouns_, and are used in the nominative or objective case, but not in the possessive
2 In order to avoid the disagreeable harshness of sound, occasioned by the frequent recurrence of the terminations _est, edst_, in the adaptation of our verbs to the nominative _thou_, a modern innovation which substitutes _you_ for _thou_, in faenerally been adopted This innovation contributes greatly to the harmony of our colloquial style _You_ was formerly restricted to the plural nuular or a plural noun It ought to be recollected, however, that when used as the representative of a singular noun, this word retains its original _plural form_; and, therefore, the verb connected with it, should always be plural Inattention to this peculiarity, has betrayed some writers into the erroneous conclusion, that, because _you_ iht, when thus eular verb; as, ”When _was you_ there?” ”How far _was you_ from the parties?” Such a construction, however, is not supported by _good_ usage, nor by analogy It is as manifest a solecism as to say, We _am_, or we _is_ Were it, in any case, adular verb with _you_, the use of _ould still be ungrammatical, for this form of the verb is confined to the first and third persons, and _you_ is second person _Wast_ being second person, it would approximate nearer to correctness to say, you _wast_ We never use the singular of the present tense with you:--you _art_, you _is_; you _walkest_, you _walks_ Why, then, should any atteratuitous as the connecting of the singular verb in the past tense with this pronoun? In every point of view, the construction, ”When _were_ you there?” ”How far _were_ you from the parties?” is preferable to the other
3 The words _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_, are, by many, denominated _possessive adjective pronouns_; but they always _stand for_ nouns in the possessive case They ought, therefore, to be classed with the _personal_ pronouns That principle of classification which ranks them with the adjective pronouns, would also throw all nouns in the possessive case aentleman _her_ watch for _his_ horse”
In this sentence _her_ personates, or stands for, the noun ”lady,”
and _his_ represents ”gentle the sentence thus, ”The lady gave the gentleentleentleman's_ are nouns, _her_ and _his_ must be personal pronouns
The same remarks apply to _my, thy, our, your, their_ and _its_
This view of these words may be objected to by those who speculate and refine upon the principles of grammar until they prove their non-existence, but it is believed, nevertheless, to be based on sound reason and common sense
4 _Mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, theirs_, have, by rammarians, been considered merely the possessive cases of personal pronouns, whilst, by others, they have been denominated pronouns or nouns in the nominative or objective case It is believed, however, that a little attention to theand office of these words, will clearly show the impropriety of both these classifications Those who pursue the forine what kind of faith _theirs_ was; My pleasures are past; _hers_ and _yours_ are to come; they applauded his conduct, but condemned _hers_ and _yours_,” the words _theirs, hers_, and _yours_, are personal pronouns in the possessive case, and governed by their respective nouns understood To prove this, they construct the sentence thus, ”You ine what kind of faith _their faith_ was;--_her pleasures_ and _your pleasures_ are to come;--but condeine what kind of faith the faith of them was;--the pleasures of her and the pleasures of you, are to come;-- but condemned the conduct of her and the conduct of you” But these constructions, (both of which are correct,) prove too much for their purpose; for, as soon as we supply the nouns after these words, they are resolved into personal pronouns of kindred , and the nouns which we supply: thus, _theirs_ becomes, their faith: _hers_, her pleasures; and _yours_, your pleasures This evidently gives us tords instead of, and altogether distinct fro, _their faith_, we are not, in reality, analyzing _theirs_, but two other words of which _theirs_ is the proper representative These re these words merely simple pronouns or nouns in the no to develop the original or intrinsicadjuncts, _ne_ and _s_, which were, no doubt, formerly detached from the pronouns hich they now coalesce, for all practical purposes, it is sufficient for us to know, that, in the present application of these pronouns, they invariably stand for, not only the person possessing, but, also the thing possessed, which gives them a _compound_ character They may, therefore, be properly denominated COMPOUND PERSONAL pronOUNS; and, as they always perfor two other words, and, consequently, including two cases, they should, like the compound relative _what_, be parsed as tords Thus, in the exaine what kind of faith theirs was,” _theirs_ is a compound personal pronoun, equivalent to _their faith Their_ is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun; personal, it personates the persons spoken of, understood; third pers plur nuoverned by ”faith,” according to Rule 12
_Faith_ is a noun, the na, &c &c--and in the nooverns it; Rule 3 Or, if we render the sentence thus, ”You ine what kind of faith _the faith of them[4]_ was,” _faith_ would be in the nominative case to ”was,” and _theoverned by ”of:” Rule 31
[4] In the note next preceding, it is asserted, that my, thy, his, her, our your, and their, are personal pronouns What can more clearly demonstrate the correctness of that assertion, than this latter construction of the word theirs? All admit, that, in the construction, ”The faith _of them_,” the word _them_, is a personal pronoun: and for this conclusive reason:--it represents a noun understood What, then, is _their_, in the phrase, ”their faith?” Is it not obvious, that, if _them_ is a personal pronoun, _their_ must be, also? for the latter represents the same noun as the for these pronouns, will doubtless be preferred by those who assert, that a noun is understood after these words, and not represented by them But this is assertion without proof; for, if a noun were understood, it ht be supplied
If the question be put, whose book? and the answer be, _mine, ours, hers_, or _theirs_, the word book is included in such answer Were it not included, we ht supply it, thus, mine _book_, ours _book_, hers _book_, and so on This, however, we cannot do, for it would be giving a _double_ answer: but when the question is answered by a noun in the possessive case, the word book is not included, but implied; as, Whose book? John's, Richard's; that is, John's _book_; Richard's _book_
This view of the subject, without a parallel, except in the compounds _what, whoever_, and _others_, is respectfully sub, that those who approve of a critical analysis of words, will coincide with me Should any still be disposed to treat these words so superficially as to rank the interrogatory: If _what_, when compound, should be parsed as tords, why not _mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours_, and _theirs_?
5 _Mine_ and _thine_, instead of _inning with a vowel or silent _h_; as, ”Blot out all _mine_ iniquities;” and when thus used, they are not compound _His_ always has the same form, whether simple or compound; as, ”Give John _his_ book; That desk is _his” Her_, when placed before a noun, is in the possessive case; as, Take _her_ hat: when standing alone, it is in the objective case; as, Give the hat to _her_
When you shall have studied this lecture attentively, and committed the _declension_ of the personal pronouns, youSYSTEMATIC ORDER OF PARSING
_The order of parsing a_ PERSONAL pronOUN, is--a pronoun, and why?--personal, and why?--person, and why?--gender and number, and why?--RULE: case, and why?--RULE--Decline it
There arepersonal pronouns in their different persons; therefore, if you wish ever to parse them correctly, you must pay particular attention to theare analyzed Now notice, particularly, and you will perceive that we apply only _one_ rule in parsing _I_ and _ _thou, him_, and _they_
”_I_ saw _my_ friend”
_I_ is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun--personal, it represents the person speaking, understood--first person, it denotes the speaker--singular number, it implies but one--and in the nominative case, it represents the actor and subject of the verb ”saw,” and governs it, agreeably to RULE 3 _The no num nom I, poss my or mine, obj me Plur nom we, poss
our or ours, obj us