HER'S, THEIR'S, YOUR'S, YOURS'.

86. Another of those things which startle accountability and stagger reason, is the little thing' which is so gracefully attached to hers, theirs, and yours. Nothing can I urge to excuse her's and their's, but the supposition that the s attending some of the describing forms of fornames is to indicate that they stand for the 's describing form of names. But you know, apart from the s, that her and their describe possession, and that the s is annexed to indicate the omission of the name that would have to succeed these words were the s omitted. The nature of this I plainly exhibited to you in No. 82, in the case of the words plurals and others, and if you read that number, you will discover, that it would be as reasonable to write plural's and other's as it is to write her's and their's.

87. A similar, but even more irrational, practice, is stamped upon your's and yours'. In these words, I conceive the most glaring manifestation of intellectual weakness. Their authors and abettors, are, generally, both innocent and harmless creatures, who will never outvie stars of the smallest magnitude. It is a wild fancy indeed to imagine that yours, which is on all hands allowed to be plural, can be curtailed or lengthened out at pleasure, to mean either one or two, by the mere apostrophe. This error is more frequently found at the close of letters, after this manner: "I am, sir, your's, &c.," or "I am, sirs, yours', &c." I am aware that it is the practice of placing the apostrophe before and after what has been called the possessive case of names,

for the singular and plural, that has lead to this violation, but this view reduces the thing to a still more pitiable condition, for the spelling of your its self, indicates as much possession as the 's describing form of names.

ON THE 'S.

88. The origin of the 's, attending the English possessive describing form, has served as a subject for the genius and conjectures of the learned, and upon it, both have been freely bestowed. The gigantic mind of Addison was betrayed into conjecture, who delivers it as his opinion, that the 's is a contraction of his, and improperly calls his paper "Ulysses his bow," instead of "Ulysses's bow." In accordance with the same principle, we have similar instances in the writings of Donne and others, and in the Book of Common Prayer, we have "Christ his sake." Bishop Lowth, however, effectually subverts Mr. Addison's opinion, by observing, "That, though we can resolve The king's crown' into The king his crown,' we cannot resolve 'The queen's crown' into 'The queen his crown,' or 'The children's bread,' into 'The children his bread.'"

،

89. The most popular, and most probable, opinion is, that the 's takes the place of the Saxon genitive, which ends in es or is. Dr. Crombie observes, that we have the Saxon termination as early as the fourteenth century, while we have no trace of his. But Webster would overthrow this opinion, by adducing "Bishop his land," found in a charter of Edward the Confessor, in the eleventh century, when the Saxon genitive was

not in use. The opinion however, which Webster's garbled extract might inculcate, is again effectually laid aside when Dr. Crombie gives the whole sentence, which is this: "Know that Alfred hath sold to Bishop Gise his land at Lutton." The Doctor draws away the foundation stone, and down comes the whole fabric, and the land turns out not to be Bishop Gise's but Alfred's. I am the more intent here, because I feel it necessary, as it has been observed, to impress upon your mind an incontestable truth, that no authority how respectable soever can sanction inconsistency, and that great names, though they may be honoured by ignorance and credulity with the most obsequious homage, will never pass with the intelligent reader, either for demonstration or for argument.

90. That the 's is a contraction for his, is only a modern suggestion, and it is not improbable, upon enquiry, but that the contraction would be found as early as the word for which it is said to stand. To tell us that 's was once his, is a principle as intolerable as telling us, when we see a stone, that it was once a house.

HIMSELF, THEMSELVES, &c.

91. I must now inform you, that many of the describing forms of the fornames, and two of the fornames their selves, are often added to the word self, and, along with it, placed after a name or forname, to add strength to the expression, as, "Thou thyself shalt suffer." All of this class are, myself, thyself, herself, itself, ourselves, yourselves, himself, and themselves.

92. Self, you will observe, is preceeded by the de

scribing forms of the fornames, save in the two last, which have the receiving cases him and them. You have seen in some of the foregoing chapters, that it is the peculiar characteristic of my, thy, her, its, our, and your, to describe possession in the absence of the possessive describers from names, which end in 's, and that it is the peculiar characteristic of him and them that they are used for, or instead of, names. Thus corresponding, we can resolve sentences two ways, with the only difference, that one version is smooth and the other irksome to the ear. herself," is, "The This is quite intelligible. Now, "This is the man's,” cannot be resolved but by "This is his." But here is a manifest imperfection in the expression, and you are ready to inquire, "His what?" or "The man's what?" Say, "The man's book," or "His book." After the same manner, you can say, "This is the man's self," or "This is HIS-shall I blunder out HIM-self!” This discloses the whole secret, and reveals to us an inconsistency for which all the philosophy in the world could not account. Why not write, "This is him book," as well as "This is him self?" It is plainly, then, an absurdity to suppose that any other than the describing forms of the fornames can accompany self, because, when self is supplied, there is no name absent, and the forname cannot stand for that which has no existence.

For instance, "The woman slew woman slew the woman's self."

93. But I have yet other striking proofs of the workings and absurdities of the system. St. Paul, in 2 Corinthians, viii. 5., says, "And this they did not as

66

we hoped, but first gave their own selves unto the Lord." You know, St. Paul's language, to be fashionable, had he omitted own, would have been themselves instead of their and selves. But you see, we are sometimes obliged to come to a truce with reason and analogy, however much our prejudices may be opposed to it, and of this we can scarcely have anything more forcible than in the above, They first gave them own selves unto the Lord," is most contemptible, but not a jot more so, says analogy, than " They first gave themselves unto the Lord." Dr. Watts says, in one of his hymns, "We give our whole selves to thee." This is another case in point. Providing the Doctor had said, "We give our whole souls to thee," do you think that souls would not have had as close a connexion with our as selves has, and that oursouls would not, in other cases, be as consistently one word as ourselves? and if souls, why not all other names be united to these fornames and describing words? I am satisfied you are now of opinion that these receiving cases are wrong, either joined to, or separate from, self or selves, and that the describing forms should always be separate words, and it would be useless to say anything more. Lennie gives the following amusing sentence amongst his specimens of bad grammar: "Having exposed HISSELF too much to the fire of the enemy, he soon lost an arm in the action." It is rendered HIMSELF, of course, in the Key wherein such pretty errors are corrected for the young inquirer!

94. Every example I have adduced, represents himself and themselves in the receiving case, but it is

E