Pro

person. He is masculine; she is feminine; it is neuter. nouns of the first and second person are either masculine or feminine, according to the sex of the speaker or of the person addressed.

COMPARATIVE ETYMOLOGY.

$294. The current declension of the English personal pronouns has been given from a regard to convenience, and not because it is an exhibition of true etymological relations. This may be the better understood from an inspection of the declensions of the personal pronouns and of the demonstrative pronouns in the Anglo-Saxon. See § 295 and § 308.

PRONOUNS OF THE FIRST PERSON.

§ 296. 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, eyw in the Greek, ego in the Latin. These words in these several languages grew out of a root which is not the same as that from which the oblique cases in these several languages sprang. They are etymologically defective in the oblique cases, but not practically. The words in actual use in these cases are from another root.

MINE and MY. These words sprang from the same root as me. For their etymological relations, see § 302.

ME. For me in English we have in the Anglo-Saxon me, meh, mec, in German mich, in Danish mig, in Moso-Gothic mik, Latin me, Greek με. These words all grew 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 Anglo-Saxon, unser in the German, vor in the Danish. Ours, yours, and theirs have been characterized as having double inflections. In popular language, the pronouns take another double inflection, which seems to be governed by the same laws as ours, yours, and theirs. People in common life say our'n, your'n, their'n, his'n, her'n, using them absolutely just as the German dessen, deren are used. 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."

We, our,
They all

Us. For us in English we have us in the Anglo-Saxon, unser in the German, os in the Danish, nos in the Latin. ours, us, are etymologically related to each other. spring from the same root.

SUBSTITUTION OF PLURALITY FOR UNITY.

§ 297. WE, in the plural, is often used in the place of I in the singular, especially by reviewers, authors, monarchs, &c. That a reviewer, in giving his individual opinions to the public, should substitute plurality for unity is very natural, inasmuch as he is associated with others, often in a junto or club, whose collective opinions he is supposed to utter. Moreover, what he lacks in argument he can supply by calling in the aid of we instead of I. That a ruler, embodying in himself the collected will of others; that an author or orator, in addressing his readers or hearers, who entertain the same views with himself, should use the plural term instead of the singular, is warrantable.

"But there is a tribe of writers who are fond of merging their individuality in a multitudinous we. They think they may pass themselves off unnoticed, like the Irishman's bad guinea, in a handful of halfpence. 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. In simpler times, before our self-consciousness became so sensitive, men were not afraid to say I, and they never dreamed that their doing so could be any offense to their neighbors. But now men are ready to become he, she, it, they―any thing rather than I. Even Dr. Chalmers, speaking of himself, says, We formerly thought differently, but have now changed our mind." See Guesses at Truth, first series, p. 143.

PRONOUNS OF THE SECOND PERSON.

§ 298. THOυ. The equivalent of thou, in the Anglo-Saxon, was pu; 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 § 302. THEE. The equivalents of thee, in Anglo-Saxon, are þe, peh, рес.

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 one day will destroy ye both."-MILTON.

YOUR, YOURS. In the Anglo-Saxon we have the equivalent eower. Yours is used independently as a substitute for a noun in the nominative or objective case; as, "This book is yours;" "I have no pen; give me yours."

You. The equivalent of you, in Anglo-Saxon, was eow. It is a true accusative. It is also used as a nominative instead of ye. It is, in familiar language, used in the singular number as thou is in the solemn style. 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."

SUBSTITUTION OF PLURALITY FOR UNITY.

§ 299. 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 besides 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, and not to a singular one, you art. 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 noun and the conjugation of the verb. See § 293.

pro

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 right

ful 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.

Among the Greeks and Romans there was not the same personality in their addresses to each other. They never fancied that there could be any thing indecorous or affronting in calling each other simply oú or tu.

"All

In England thou was in current use until, perhaps, near the commencement of the seventeenth century, though it was getting to be regarded as somewhat disrespectful. At Walter Raleigh's trial, Coke, when argument and evidence failed him, insulted the defendant by applying to him the term thou. 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 some thrice it shall not be amiss."

PRONOUNS

OF THE THIRD PERSON.

§ 300. HE. For he we have in the Anglo-Saxon he, in the German er, 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, out of which it grew.

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 AngloSaxon was hit. See § 295. The letter t is the sign of the neu