The partition of a singular object with a pronominal name is of rare occurrence in language.

This last statement proves something more than appears at first sight. It proves that no argument in favour of the socalled singular genitives, like mine and thine, can be drawn from the admission (if made) of the existence of the true plural genitives ou-r, you-r, thei-r. The two ideas are not in the same predicament. We can say, one of ten, or ten of twenty; but we cannot say one of one-Was hira Matheus sum = Matthew was one of them; Andreas: Your noither = neither of you; Amis and Ameloun-from Mr. Guest: Her eyder either of them; Octavian.-Besides this, the form of the two numbers is neither identical, nor equally genitival; as may be seen by contrasting mi-n and thi-n with ou-r and Such are the chief à priori arguments against the genitival character of words like mine and thine.

you-r.

Akin to these, and a point which precedes the à 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 assumes a second form for a given case has the burden of proof on his side.

Against this circumstance 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 following facts may be, or have been, adduced as reasons on the other side. The appreciation of their value, either taken singly or in the way of cumulative evidence, is submitted to the reader. It will be seen that none of them are unexceptionable.

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 pronouns of the singular number being destitute 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.

The analogy of the forms mei and uov 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 quoỡ are really cases of the pronoun. The extension of a principle acknowledged in the Greek language might make them the genitive cases of adjectives used pronominally. Thus—

Assume the omission of the article and the extension of the Greek principle to the Latin language, and uou and mei may be cases, not of què and me, but of quo's and meus.

2. In the classical languages the partitive power was expressed by the genitive.

Few

This is a reason for the evolution of a genitive power. such forms exist in the Gothic; part my is not English, nor was dal min Anglo-Saxon = part of me, or pars mei.

§ 373. 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.

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 assumption 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.

§ 374. But this is not the present question. In AngloSaxon there is but one form, min and pin = mei and meus, tui and tuus, indifferently. Is this form an oblique case or an adjective?

This involves two sorts of evidence.

Etymological evidence.-Assuming two powers for the words min and pin, one genitive and one adjectival, which is the original one? or, going beyond the Anglo-Saxon, assuming 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 mîn, are concerned, the evidence of the foregoing list is in their favour. But what is the case with the Middle Dutch? The genitive míns is evidently the derivative of mín.

The reason why the forms like mîner 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 adapted to a secondary meaning by a change in its parts in the way of omission, as well as by a change in the 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

Ours is a

to be derived from a case, or a case from an adjective, it may be said, that philology furnishes instances both ways. case derived, in syntax at least, from an adjective. in cujum pecus) and sestertium are Latin instances of tive case being evolved from an oblique one.

Cujus (as

a nomina

§ 375. Syntactic evidence.—If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions as dæl min = pars mei, hælf þin = dimidium tui, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a genitive with a partitive power. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted; whilst, even if quoted, they would not be conclusive. Expressions like oos Tółoç = desiderium tui, σñ πρoμn¤ía = providentia propter te, show the extent to which the possessive expression encroaches on the partitive.

1. The words min or pin, 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 pronouns ; since such latitude in the power of the possessive pronoun is borne out by the comparison of languages—πarè nμov (not nμérepoç) in Greek is pater noster (not nostrum) in Latin.

Again-as min and pin 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, minrameorum, and minre meæ, are the genitive plural and the dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for of thy eyes should be eagena pinra, and the Anglo-Saxon for to my widow, should be wuduwan minre; just as, in Latin, they would be oculorum tuorum, and viduæ meæ.

If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as eagena pin, or wuduwan min, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words pin and min must be construed as the Latin forms tui and mei would be in oculorum mei, and viduæ 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.

A few references to the Deutsche Grammatik will explain this.

As early as the Moso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of the omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the neuter singular sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms: nim thata badi theinata = ἆρον σοῦ τὸν κράββατον (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 itthin dohter, sin quená, min dohter, sinaz lib. In a few cases, when the pronoun 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 destitute of inflection; sin lib, mîn 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 Moso-Gothic we have mein leik and leik meinata.-Deutsche Grammatik, 470.

Now, by assuming (which is only a fair assumption) the ex tension 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 after their nouns), we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as already stated, no instances of them have been quoted.

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 pe, as compared with the inflected pæt.

Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance of min or pin the necessary equivalent to mei and tui,