The English Language Part 80

-- 516. _Her-self._--The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of the preceding constructions. Which, however it is, {417} is uncertain; since _her_ may be either a so-called genitive, like _my_, or an accusative like _him_.

_Itself_--is also ambiguous. The _s_ may represent the _-s_ in _its_, as well as the _s-_ in _self_.

This inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxon stage of the English language.

-- 517. In the exhibition of the second construction of the word _self_ it was a.s.sumed that the case was a case of apposition, and that _self_ was substantival in character. Nevertheless, this is by no means a necessary phenomenon. _Self_ might, as far as its power is determined by its construction alone, in words like _himself_ as easily be an adjective as a substantive. In which case the construction would be a matter, not of apposition, but of _agreement_. To ill.u.s.trate this by the Latin language, _himself_, might equal either _eum personam_ (_him, the person_), or _eum personalem_ (_him personal_). The evidence, however, of the forms like _myself_, as well as other facts adduceable from comparative philology, prove the substantival character of _self_. On the other hand, it ought not to be concealed that another word, whereof the preponderance of the adjectival over the substantival power is undoubted, is found in the Old English, with just the same inconsistency as the word _self_; _i.e._, sometimes in government (like a substantive), and sometimes in either concord or apposition, like a word which may be _either_ substantive or adjective. This word is _one_; the following ill.u.s.trations of which are from Mr. Guest.--_Phil. Trans. No. 22._

In this world wote I no knight, Who durst _his one_ with hym fight.

_Ipomedon_, 1690.

ah ha _hire ane_ were Ayein so kene keisere and al his kine riche.

_St. Catherine_, 90.

Though she _alone_ were Against so fierce a kaiser, and all his kingdom.

Here _his one_, _her one_, mean _his singleness_, _her singleness_.

He made his mone Within a garden all _him one_.

GOWER, _Confess. Amant._

{418}

Here _him one_ = _himself_ in respect to its construction.

-- 518. As to the inflection of the word _-self_, all its compounds are substantives; inasmuch as they all take plural forms as far as certain logical limitations will allow them to do so--_ourselves_, _yourselves_, _themselves_.

_Myself_, _thyself_, _himself_, _itself_, and _herself_, are naturally singular, and under no circ.u.mstances can become plural.

_Themselves_ is naturally plural, and under no circ.u.mstances can become singular.

_Ourselves_ and _yourselves_ are naturally plural; yet under certain circ.u.mstances they become singular.

_a._ Just as men say _we_ for _I_, so may they say _our_ for _my_.

_b._ Just as men say _you_ for _thou_, so may they say _your_ for _thy_.

In respect to the inflection in the way of case, there are no logical limitations whatever. There is nothing against the existence of a genitive form _self's_ except the habit of the English language not to use one, founded on the little necessity for so doing.--_Are you sure this is your own?_ _Yes, I am sure it is my own self's._ Such an expression is both logic and grammar.

When an adjective intervenes between _self_ and its personal p.r.o.noun the construction is always in the way of government; in other words, the personal p.r.o.noun is always put in the genitive case.

His own self, _not_ him own self.

Their own selves, _not_ them own selves.

-- 519. The construction of _self_ and a personal p.r.o.noun with a verb may be noticed in this place. It is only in the case of the two p.r.o.nouns of the singular number that any doubt can arise.

1. When _myself_ or _thyself_ stands alone, the verb that follows is in the third person--_myself is_ (not _am_) _weak_, _thyself is_ (not _art_) _weak_. Here the construction is just the same as in the proposition _my body is weak_.

2. When _myself_ or _thyself_ is preceded by _I_ or _thou_, the verb that follows is in the first person--_I, myself, am_ (not _is_) _weak_; _thou, thyself, art_ (not _is_) _weak_.

{419}

CHAPTER VIII.

ON THE POSSESSIVE p.r.o.nOUNS.

-- 520. The possessive p.r.o.nouns fall into two cla.s.ses. The first cla.s.s contains the forms connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in their syntax, with _my_ and _thy_, &c. The second cla.s.s contains the forms connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in their syntax, with _mine_ and _thine_, &c.

The first cla.s.s is the cla.s.s of what may be called the _oblique_ possessives; the name being founded upon the etymological fact of their being connected with the oblique cases of the p.r.o.nominal inflection.--_My_, _thy_, _his_ (as in _his book_), _her_, _its_ (as in _its book_), _our_, _your_, _their_. These are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms _mei_, _tui_, _ejus_, _nostrum_, _vestrum_, _eorum_.

The second cla.s.s is the cla.s.s of what may be called the _absolute_ possessives; the name being founded upon the syntactic fact of their being able to form the term of a proposition by themselves; as _whose is this?_ _Mine_ (not _my_).--_Mine_, _thine_, _his_ (as _in the book is his_), _hers_, _ours_, _yours_, _theirs_ are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms _meus, mea, meum_; _tuus, tua, tuum_; _suus, sua, suum_; _noster, nostra, nostrum_; _vester, vestra, vestrum_. How far either or both of these two cla.s.ses of p.r.o.nouns are cases, or adjectives, is a point of etymology that has already been noticed (Part IV., chap. 37).

How far either or both are cases or adjectives is, in syntax, a matter of indifference.

-- 521. There is, however, a palpable difference between the construction of _my_ and _mine_. We cannot say _this is mine hat_, and we cannot say _this hat is my_. Nevertheless, this {420} difference is not explained by any change of construction from that of adjectives to that of cases. As far as the syntax is concerned the construction of _my_ and _mine_ is equally that of an adjective _agreeing_ with a substantive, and of a genitive (or possessive) case _governed_ by a substantive.

Now a common genitive case can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term (_i. e._, absolutely).--1. As part of a term--_this is John's hat_. 2. As a whole term--_this hat is John's_.

And a common adjective can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term (_i. e._, absolutely).--1. As part of a term--_these are good hats_. 2. As a whole term--_these hats are good_.

Now whether we consider _my_, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess only _one_ of the properties just ill.u.s.trated, _i. e._, they can only be used as part of a term--_this is my hat_; not _this hat is my_.

And whether we consider _mine_, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess only _one_ of the properties just ill.u.s.trated, _i. e._, they can only be used as whole terms, or absolutely--_this hat is mine_; not _this is mine hat_.

For a full and perfect construction whether of an adjective or a genitive case, the possessive p.r.o.nouns present the phenomenon of being, singly, incomplete, but, nevertheless, complimentary to each other when taken in their two forms.

In the absolute construction of a genitive case, the term is formed by the single word only so far as the _expression_ is concerned. A substantive is always _understood_ from what has preceded.--_This discovery is Newton's_=_this discovery is Newton's discovery._

The same with adjectives.--_This weather is fine_=_this weather is fine weather._

And the same with absolute p.r.o.nouns.--_This hat is mine_=_this hat is my hat_; and _this is a hat of mine_=_this is a hat of my hats_.

In respect to all matters of syntax considered exclusively, it is so thoroughly a matter of indifference whether a word be an adjective or a genitive case that Wallis considers the {421} forms in _-'s_ like _father's_, not as genitive cases but as adjectives. Looking to the logic of the question alone he is right, and looking to the practical syntax of the question he is right, also. He is only wrong on the etymological side of the question.

"Nomina substantiva apud nos nullum vel generum vel casuum discrimen sortiuntur."--p. 76.

"Duo sunt adjectivorum genera, a substantivis immediate descendentia, quae semper substantivis suis praeponuntur. Primum quidem adjectivum possessivum libet appellare. Fit autem a quovis substantivo, sive singulari sive plurali, addito _-s_.--Ut _man's nature_, _the nature of man_, natura humana vel hominis; _men's nature_, natura humana vel hominum; _Virgil's poems_, _the poems of Virgil_, poemata Virgilii vel Virgiliana."--p. 89.

{422}

CHAPTER IX.