question would arise as to the manner in which that number should be formed.

Now we have not less than three forms expressive of the idea of plurality, or something closely akin to it; and consequently three processes by which a singular may be converted into either a true plural or its equivalent :

1. The addition of -s, -z, or -ez (es).

2. The change of vowel.

3. The addition of -n.

Notwithstanding this, it is very certain that the plural of a new word would not be formed in -en (like oxen) nor yet by a change of vowel (like feet); but by addition of -s-the one process being current, the other obsolete. Such the illustration; which, for the ordinary purposes of grammar, is sufficient. For the ordinary purposes of grammar, it may safely be said that the time has gone by for the development afresh of forms like oxen and feet. They are obsolete. In strict language, however, they are not obsolete plurals. They are, rather, collectives, which simulate plurals. (See § 348.) Still, they are obsolete.

CHAPTER XXII.

INFLECTION OF PRONOUNS.- -ITS PECULIARITIES.-SELF, ONE, OTHER.-OF THE INTERROGATIVE, RELATIVE, PRONOUNS.-THE TRUE PER

AND DEMONSTRATIVE

SONAL PRONOUNS.

§ 384. In respect to their Declension, Pronouns fall into three classes. In the first, it is purely Pronominal; in the second it is that of a Substantive; in the third it is that of an Adjective; i. e. it is nothing at all. Now

although this last is a negative fact, it is well to note it in a positive and decided manner; inasmuch as the differences in the declension of pronouns coincide with certain differences of power. Whilst words like same and any are both in import and in the want of declension closely akin to the Adjective; whilst self, with its plural selves, is Substantival; the typical Pronouns like who or I, &c., are neither one nor the other, either in sense or inflection; but members of a class, per se. In the present stage of our language these statements may be taken without either reserve or qualification; though, in the older stages, some reservations will be needed.

§ 385. The Adjectival Pronouns with the no-declension may be disposed of at once. They are same, any, many, and others. Their place is the dictionary rather than the grammar. Though, now undeclined, they were declined in A. S.

§ 386. The Substantival Pronouns are three in number:

In A. S. these were declined like Adjectives.

§ 387. The identity of form between the words one the indefinite pronoun, and one the numeral, is entirely acci

dental. The numeral has no plural number; besides which, the meaning and the origin of the two words are different. The word under notice is derived from the French, and is the on in such expressions as on dit. This, in its turn, is from the Latin homo man. The German for on dit, at the present time, is man sagt (man says); and until the Norman Conquest the same mode of expression prevailed in England. One is often called the Indeterminate Pronoun. It is used in the Possessive Case, and in the Plural Number in such expressions as-One is unwilling to put one's friend to trouble.—My wife and little ones are well.-These are my two little ones' playthings. Such forms as self's and selves' are undoubtedly rare. At the same time they are possible forms, and, if wanted, are strictly grammatical. Substitute the word individuality for self, and we see how truly its nature is substantival; e.g. A. This is the opinion of a humble individual (myself). B. So much, then, for your humble individuality (self), and for your humble individuality's (self's) opinion.

§ 388. The purely pronominal forms now come before us. They fall into two classes. Of the first, who, of the second, thou is the type.

§ 389. The small, but important, class to which who, with its congeners, belongs, gives two numbers, more than two cases, and, in its fuller form, three genders-three true genders.

It gives two numbers; a singular and a plural, as this, these. This, however, though more than we find in the Adjective, is not more than we find in the Substantive.

It gives, at least, three cases: a Nominative who, a Possessive whose, and an Objective whom. The Objective case in the Substantive exists in the Syntax only: in other words it has no distinctive form. With the Pronoun we

say he struck him. With the Substantive we say the

father loves the child, or, the child loves his father indifferently.

Finally, it gives, at least, two true genders and fragments of a third. One of these genders is a Neuter.

§ 390. This neuter ends in -t, and in the three words wherein it occurs we have the pronominal inflection in its typical form.

§ 391. The first division contains—

1. The Interrogative;

2. The Relative;

3. The Demonstrative Pronouns ;

all declined on the same principle: i. e. with the Neuter in -t, a Possessive in -s, and an Objective in -m; as wha-t, who-se, who-m. This we have in the language as it now stands. In the Anglo-Saxon, however, there was a true Accusative Masculine in -n, e. g. hvæne. It is because the Interrogative, Relative, and Demonstrative Pronouns are declined on the same principle, that they form a natural group; and it is because they best exemplify the pronominal inflection, that they come first.

392. The Interrogative comes before the Relative because it is, apparently, the older part of speech. In our own, and many other languages, these two Pronouns are identical. In the Irish Gaelic, however, they are different; and in more than one other tongue there is no Relative at all. The Interrogative, however, is universal. At any rate, though there are several languages which have an Interrogative without a Relative, I know of none where there is a Relative without an Interrogative.

§ 393. The A. S. form of the Interrogative was hwá: declined thus-Nom.: hwa; Accus.: hwæne; Dat: hwam; Gen.: hwas; Genitive and Dative Feminine: hware; Genitive Plural: hwæra; Instrumental: hwi. Closely connected with hwi (=quá causâ) is how (=

quo modo). The present forms of hwane, hware, and hwi have been already noticed. Hwæra (gen. plur.) is obsolete. As to whose, it only seems to end in -se. The proper spelling is whoes (who's). The vulgar error that which is the neuter of who, has already been corrected and condemned. The Inflection of the Relative is that of the Interrogative. It is only in respect to their syntax that they differ.

§ 394. The Demonstratives.—The Demonstratives imply the idea of something pointed-out. We can imagine a stage in the very infancy of language when the use of them was accompanied by the finger, and an object within reach was touched; one more distant pointed to; and one more distant still indicated by attention drawn to the direction in which it lay. In this condition of things there is one word for the far distant bodies, and, perhaps, two for those that lay within ken-these latter falling into two divisions: (1) one containing the contiguous; (2) one containing those that lay on the boundary line between the near and distant. Later still, one of these nearer objects might pass simply for something that was neither the speaker nor the person spoken to-in which case it would be little more than what is called the name for the third person. With this, as a preliminary, we may consider details.

§ 395. The Demonstrative for objects in the far distance is yon. It is only its history which brings the word in its present class. Looking to its declension only, it belongs to the adjectival pronouns. Historically, however, it is a word of importance. It is an old one. It is German, being the jen- in jen-er. It is the Lithuanic anás, that, yon; and, in both the German and the Lithuanic, it is declined in full. The declension, however, in English is obsolete.

§ 396. The name for objects near enough to be consi