Page images
PDF
EPUB

IT. They are so called because they denote only the relation of personality. They are substitutes for nouns, and are sometimes called substantive pronouns.

The reasons for including the pronoun it with the personal pronouns are historical rather than logical. Strictly, it is applied to things rather than to persons. The reasons for not including the pronoun who, which denotes persons, in this class, are found in its distinctive office of connecting sentences, in which it agrees with the relative pronouns, and is classed with them.

Personal pronouns admit of person, number, gender, and case.

Variety of form to distinguish the sex is confined to the third person. He is masculine; she is feminine; it is neuter. Pronouns of the first and second person are either masculine or feminine, according to the sex of the speaker or of the person addressed.

[blocks in formation]

PRONOUNS OF THE FIRST PERSON.

§ 225. I. For I in English we have ic in Anglo-Saxon, ich in the German, ek in the Icelandic, ik in the Moso-Gothic, jag in the Swedish, ego in the Greek, ego in the Latin. There are no oblique cases from this root.

MINE and MY. These words sprang from the same root as me. For their etymological relations, see § 231.

ME. For me in English we have in the Anglo-Saxon me, meh, mec, in German mich, in Danish mig, in Meso-Gothic mik, Latin me, Greek me. These words all grow out of the same root, but they are all defective in the nominative case. Me, in colloquial discourse, is often used for I; as, "Who is at the door?" "It is me." This form of expression, arising from an objective view of one's self, should not be encouraged. WE. For we in English, we have we in the Anglo-Saxon, wir in the German, vi in the Danish, nos in the Latin.

OUR and OURS. For our and ours in English we have ure, user in the

Why are personal pronouns so called? Of what modifications do they admit? What are masculine pronouns, what feminine, and what neuter? Decline the personal pronouns.

66

Anglo-Saxon, unser in the German, vor in the Danish. Ours, yours, and theirs have been characterized as having double inflections. People in common life say our'n, your'n, their'n, his'n, her'n, for ours, yours, &c. In WICLIF's translation we have the following forms: Blessyd be poure in spirit, for the kingdom of hevenes is herun."-Matthew, v. "And some ouren wentin to the grave, and thei founden so as the wymmen seiden, but thei founden not hym."-Luc, chap. xxiv. It is not easy to say when the forms ours, yours, theirs, first made their appearance in the language. The present difference between them and our, your, their, consists in this, that the former can be used absolutely or independently; as, "Yours is the best book." Formerly, namely, in the old English stage, the latter class also could be used absolutely; as, "Gif he passeth with honour,

Our is the dishonoure."-Kyng Alisaunder, 38.

"Of Synah can I tell the more,

And of Our Lady's bower,

But little needs to strow my store,

Suffice this hill of our.'

[ocr errors]

Us. For us in English we have us in the Anglo-Saxon, unser in the German, os in the Danish, nos in the Latin. We, our, ours, us, spring from the same root.

SUBSTITUTION OF PLURALITY FOR UNITY.

§ 226. WE, in the plural, is often used in the place of I in the singular, especially by reviewers, authors, monarchs, &c. In ordinary books, except when the author can be reasonably conceived to be speaking, not merely in his own person, but as the organ of a body, or when he can fairly assume that his readers are going along with him, his using the plural we impresses one with much such feeling as a man's being afraid to look one in the face. See § 228.

PRONOUNS OF THE SECOND PERSON.

§ 227. THOU. The equivalent of thou, in the Anglo-Saxon was thu; in the German, du; in the Swedish and Danish, du; in the Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, tu.

THY. For the etymological relations of thy and thine, see § 231. THEE. The equivalents of thee, in Anglo-Saxon, are the, theh, thec. YE. In the Anglo-Saxon we have ge. This is a true nominative. It sometimes has the force of an accusative, and, as such, is used by the poets. "His wrath, which will one day destroy ye both.”—MILTON. YOUR, YOURS. In the Anglo-Saxon we have the equivalent cower. YOURS is equivalent to two substantives. It expresses a possessor, and implies an object possessed; as, "This book is yours" this book is your book; "I have no pen; give me yours" give me your pen. You. The equivalent of you, in Anglo-Saxon, was eow. accusative. It is also used as a nominative instead of ye. It is, in familiar language, addressed to a single person. You is used, like on in French, indefinitely, i. e., for any one; as, "It is a grand object; you may look over the world without finding such another."

It is a true

What is said of the substitution of plurals for unity in the first person?

SUBSTITUTION OF PLURALITY FOR UNITY.

§ 228. The original use of you, a plural form, instead of thou, a nominative singular, may have arisen from a deference to the person addressed, which led the speaker to treat one as more than one, or as representing others beside himself. That you had a plural meaning, and not a singular one, is evident from the circumstance that it is nominative to a plural verb, you are, you were, and not to a singular one, you art, you was. But it has long since ceased to have that meaning, or to suggest the idea of plurality when applied to an individual. It may, therefore, with propriety take its place among the singular forms in the declension of the pronoun and the conjugation of the verb. See § 224. In the languages of modern Europe, divers expedients have been adopted to supersede the pronoun of the second person singular; and only among certain classes, or in particular cases, is it thought allowable nowadays to address any one by his rightful appellation thou. This is commonly supposed to be dictated by a desire of showing honor to him whom we are addressing. But the further question arises, Why is it esteemed a mark of honor to turn an individual into a multitude? The secret motive which lies at the bottom of these conventions is a reluctance, in the one case, to obtrude one's own personality by the use of I, and, in the other, to intrude on the personality of another by the use of thou. See § 226. Thou has a natural demonstrative force (see phonetic elements), and is equivalent to pointing the finger in a man's face. At Walter Raleigh's trial, Coke, when argument and evidence failed him, insulted the defendant by applying to him the term thou. "All that Lord Cobham did," he cried, "was at thy instigation, thou viper! for I thou thee, thou traitor!" When Sir Toby Belch is urging Sir Andrew Aguecheek to send a challenge to Viola, he says, "If thou thouest him thrice it shall not be amiss."

er,

PRONOUNS OF THE THIRD PERSON.

§ 229. HE. For he we have in the Anglo-Saxon he, in the German in the Swedish han, in the Latin ille.

His. His was in the Anglo-Saxon a true possessive as now, and was common to both the masculine and the neuter genders.

HIM. Him was in the Anglo-Saxon a dative (heom), common to the masculine and the neuter genders, but now an objective case, and restricted to the masculine.

SHE. For she we find in the Anglo-Saxon heo.

HER. Originally hire, or hyre, was used in the Anglo-Saxon either as a dative or a possessive; used in the modern English as a possessive (her book) or an objective (he led her). "Hers is probably a case from a case," or an instance of a double inflection.

Ir. A true form of the neuter gender, which in the Anglo-Saxon was hit. The letter t is the sign of the neuter gender, as in what, that, it. In the present Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Icelandic, and in the old Norse and Moso-Gothic, all neuter adjectives end in t. It is used as a nominative and as an objective.

What is said of the substitution of plurals for unity in the second person?

ITs. A possessive irregularly formed, the t being mistaken as an original part of the word. It has superseded the Anglo-Saxon his. The following forms were in use in the time of Queen Elizabeth and James I.: "Learning hath his infancy, when it is but beginning, and almost childish; then his youth, when it is luxuriant and juvenile; then his strength of years, when it is solid and reduced; and, lastly, his old age, when it waxeth dry and exhaust."-BACON, Essay LVIII. Here his is evidently used as the possessive case of it.

The word its is of late introduction into the language. It does not occur in the common version of the Bible, the substitute being his or thereof. It has been introduced into Shakspeare by modern editors.

THEY, THEIR, THEIRS, THEM. These words, borrowed from the demonstrative pronoun thaet (see § 236), replaced the pronouns hi, heora, heom. Theirs is in the same predicament with ours, yours, and hers. It is either a case formed from a case, and is a secondary genitive, or it is the case of an adjective. See § 231.

THE GERMAN USAGE.

§ 230. The Germans, when addressing a person, generally use the third person plural of the personal pronoun.

THE EMPHATIC AND THE PREPOSITIVE FORMS OF THE

POSSESSIVE CASE.

§ 231. As the indefinite articles an and a are mere abridgments of the ancient numeral for one, so are mine and my, thine and thy, severally mere abridgments of the same ancient form. Thus we say, "It is my book;" but, "The book is mine," or "Mine is the book." Also, we say, "My book;" but anciently altogether, and now, in more solemn style, "Mine hour," ""mine iniquities," just as we say, "A book," an hour,' an elephant," Thus the longer forms are used at the end of a sentence or a clause whenever the word with which they stand most immediately connected is omitted, and the emphasis falls upon the pronoun.

99.66

99 66

Our and ours, your and yours, their and theirs, her and hers, stand etymologically on somewhat different ground.

In my and mine, &c., mine is the original form. But in our and ours, &c., our appears to be the original form from which ours is derived, probably in imitation of the genitive of nouns, king's, John's.

But in usage, the distinction between our and ours, &c., is now perfectly analogous to that between my and mine, &c. The latter (ours, mine, &c.) are used alone, and are emphatic, and substantival; the former (our, my, &c.) are generally proclitic, and adjectival. Compare "mine be the blame" with "my Lord;" "love your enemies" with "Is this yours?" See § 357, N. 8.

The distinction in usage between the longer and the shorter forms of the possessive case is often very delicate. Thus we say, "The book is mine;" but if own follows, own receives the emphasis, and we say, "The book is my own." So 66 'yours and her ancestors," if the ancestors are different; but if they are the same, we say, "your and her ancestors.'

What word has its superseded? What is said of the German usage?

[ocr errors]

There is another form of the possessive, namely, of mine, of thine, of ours, of yours, &c., which has been usually explained as a partitive construction; but it is to be regarded as emphatic; or, rather, as indicating the logical importance of the term thus used. Thus: "Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of his.”—Ps. xxx., 4. "And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar."-1 Sam., ii., 33. "My faith would lay her hand on that dear head of thine."-WATTS.

In the ancient language, a genitive might be employed either before or after a noun, according to its logical worth or importance. Hence, in forming our modern language, when an emphasis fell on the genitive, the mind vacillated between the expressions "a book mine" and " a book of me," and finally adopted the mixed construction, "a book of

mine."

SELF USED WITH THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS AS A RE-` FLECTIVE PRONOUN.

§ 232. The word SELF, compounded with the personal pronouns my, thy, him, her, it, and their plurals our, your, their, them, has the force and supplies the place of a reflective pronoun; as, I abhor myself; thou enrichest thyself; he loves himself; she admires herself; it pleases itself: plural: We value ourselves; ye or you hurry yourselves; they see themselves. Self, in composition, both in the singular and plural number, is used only in the nominative and the objective case.

There is no reflective pronoun in the English language, and hence the use of the word SELF is the more necessary and convenjent.

In the Latin, the Moso-Gothic, Old Norse, Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Old High-German, Anglo-Saxon, Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, reflectives or adjectival forms from them occur, so that the modern Frisian and English stand alone in respect to the entire absence of them.

SELF A SUBSTANTIVE.

§ 233. SELF appears to be in reality a substantive, though sylf in the Anglo-Saxon was declined as an adjective, and was used as an adjective, as was the corresponding word in the other Teutonic languages. 1. Self has selves, the plural form of a noun, and not that of an adjective.

2. It is used as a noun; as, The lover of self.

3. The circumstance that if self be dealt with as a substantive, such phrases as my own self, my great self, my single self, &c., can be used, by which the language would be a gainer. In the Anglo-Saxon, it is added to personal pronouns in the same gender and case; as, N. Icsylf, I myself; G. Minsylfes, of myself, &c. N. Wesylfe, we ourselves; G. Uresylfra, of ourselves, &c. It was also annexed to nouns; as, Petrussylf, Peter's self; Crist-sylf, Christ himself.

4. In myself, thyself, ourselves, yourselves, it appears to be a substantive preceded by a genitive case: Myself=my individuality. In himself and themselves the construction is that of a substantive in apposition with

What office does the word self perform? Has the English language any true reflective pronoun? What proof have you that self is used as a substantive, and in what several ways is it thus used?

« PreviousContinue »