§ 521. At the same time it must be observed that the expression it is me — it is I will not justify the use of it is him, it is her it is he and it is she. Me, ye, you, are what may be called indifferent forms, i. e. nominative as much as accusative, and accusative as much as nominative. Him and her, on the other hand, are not indifferent. The -m and -r are respectively the signs of cases other than the nominative. § 522. Pronomen reverentia.—When we say you instead of thou, it is doubtful whether, in strict language, this is a point of grammar. I imagine that instead of addressing the person we speak to as a single individual, and applying to him a plural pronoun, we treat him as a collection of persons. If so, the practice is other than grammatical. We treat one person as more than one. There is, evidently, some courtesy in this; inasmuch as the practice is very general. The Germans change, not only the number, but the person, and say (e. g.) sprechen sie Deutsch speak they German? rather than either sprechst du (speakest thou), or sprechet Ihr (speak ye). § 523. Dativus ethicus.-In the phrase = Rob me the exchequer.-Henry IV. the me is expletive, and is equivalent to for me. This is conveniently called the dativus ethicus. It occurs more frequently in the Latin than in the English, and more frequently in the Greek than in the Latin. § 524. The reflected personal pronoun.-In the English language there is no equivalent to the Latin se, the German sich, and the Scandinavain sik, or sig; from which it follows that the word self is used to a greater extent than would otherwise be the case. I strike me is awkward, but not ambiguous. Thou strikest thee is awkward, but not ambiguous. He strikes him is ambiguous; inasmuch as him may mean either the person who strikes or some one else. In order to be clear we add the word self when the idea is reflective. He strikes himself is, at once, idiomatic, and unequivocal. So it is with the plural persons. We strike us is awkward, but not ambiguous. Ye strike you is the same. They strike them is ambiguous. Hence, as a general rule, whenever we use a verb reflectively, we use the word self also. The exceptions to this rule are either poetical expressions or imperative moods. He sat him down at a pillar's base. § 525. Reflective neuters.-In I strike me, the verb strike is transitive. In I fear me, the verb fear is intransitive or neuter; unless indeed fear mean terrify-which it does not. Hence, the reflective pronoun appears out of place; i. e. after a neuter or intransitive verb. Such a use, however, is but the fragment of an extensive system of reflective verbs thus formed, developed in different degrees in the different Gothic languages; but in all more than in the English. § 526. Equivocal reflectives.—The proper place of the reflective is after the verb. The proper place of the governing pronoun is, in the indicative or subjunctive moods, before the verb. Hence in expressions like the preceding there is no doubt as to the power of the pronoun. The imperative mood, however, sometimes presents a complication. Here the governing person may follow the verb; so that mount ye: either be mounted or mount yourselves. In phrases, then, like this, and in phrases Busk ye, busk ye, my bonny, bonny bride, Busk ye, busk ye, my winsome marrow, the construction is ambiguous. Ye may either be a nominative case governing the verb busk, or an accusative § 527. The words his, and her, are genitive cases— not adjectives, being equivalent to § 528. It has already been shown that its is a secondary genitive; and it may now be added that it is of late origin in the language. Hence, when, in the old writers, we meet his, where we expect its, we must not suppose that any personification takes place, but simply that the old genitive common to the two genders is used in preference to the modern one; which is limited to the neuter, and irregularly formed. The apoplexy is, as I take it, a kind of lethargy. I have read the cause of his effects in Galen; it is a kind of deafness.-2 Henry IV. i. 2. If the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? It is neither fit for the land nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out.Luke xiv. 34, 35. Some affirm that every plant has his particular fly or caterpillar, which it breeds and feeds.-WALTON's Angler. This rule is not so general, but that it admitteth of his exceptions.— CAREW. CHAPTER IV. SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.-TRUE REFLECTIVE ABSENT IN ENGLISH.-THE WORD SELF. § 529. A TRUE reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words, there are no equivalents to the Latin pronominal forms se, sibi. (§ 524.) Nor yet are there any equivalents in English to the so called adjectival forms suus, sua, suum. At first, it seems superfluous to state all this to say that if there were no such primitive form as se, there could be no such secondary form as suus. Such, however, is not really the case. Suus might exist in a language, and yet se be absent; in other words, the derivative form might have continued whilst the original one had become extinct. Such is really the case with the Old Frisian. The equivalent to se is lost, whilst the equivalent to suus is found. In the Modern Frisian, however, both forms are lost. § 530. The history of the reflective pronoun in the German tongues is as follows: se. -- In Maso-Gothic.-Found in two cases, sis, sik = sibi, In Old High-German.-The dative form lost; there being no such word as sir sis = sibi. In Old Frisian.-As stated above, there is here no equivalent to se; whilst there is the adjectival form sin= suus. In Old Saxon.-The equivalent to se and sibi very rare. The equivalent to suus not common, but commoner than in Anglo-Saxon. In Anglo-Saxon.-No instance of the equivalent to se at all. The forms sinne: = suum and sinum = suo, occur in Beowulf. In Cædmon cases of sin =suus are more frequent. Still the usual form is his = ejus. In the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, the true reflectives, both personal and possessive, occur; so that the modern Frisian and English stand alone in respect to the entire absence of them. § 531. The undoubted constructions of the word self, in the present state of the cultivated English, are threefold.. 1. In my-self, thy-self, our-selves, and your-selves, the construction is that of a common substantive with an adjective or genitive case. My-self my individuality, = and is similarly construed-mea individualitas (persona), or mei individualitas (persona). 2. In him-self and them-selves, when accusative, the construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a pronoun. Himself Himself him, the individual. = 3. Composition.-It is only, however, when himself and themselves are in the accusative case, that the construction is appositional. When they are used as nominatives, it must be explained on another principle. In phrases like He himself was present; they themselves were present, there is no government, no concord, no apposition; at least no apposition between him and self, them and selves. In this difficulty, the only logical view that can be taken of the matter, is to consider the words himself and themselves, not as two words, but as a single word compounded; and, even then, the compound will be of an irregular kind; inasmuch as the inflectional element -m, is dealt with as part and parcel of the root. Her-self. The construction here is ambiguous. 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. CHAPTER V. MINE-THINE-OURS, ETC. § 532. THERE is a difference between the construction of my and mine. We do not say this is mine hat and we cannot say this hat is my. Nevertheless, except as far as |