1-1^2. ctt personal pronoTtm. 241 



are obriouslj derived. Without spending time la 

 examining their several hypotheses, let us rather 

 try if we can at once discover what are the real dis- 

 tinguifliing characteristics which fhould determine 

 their name and situation in grammar. 



It is, in the first place, very evident, that the word 

 mjif is equivalent, in power, to what has been usually- 

 called the genitive case of our Englifh noun, being in 

 signification very nearly equivalent to the phrase of 

 me. Thms, the phrase, *' this is my house," has nearly 

 the same meaning as if it were, " this is the house 

 0/ me." By a similar mode of analysis, we fliall find 

 that the words, thy^ our, &C, of the first clafs, are 

 precisely of the same import with my, having in all 

 cases a meaning nearly the' same with that of the 

 pronouns from which they are respectively derived, 

 when the word 0/ \s prefixed to them. 



We observe also, in the second place, that the 

 Tvord mine has a signification nearly allied to that of 

 my, thoug.b it obviously differs in certain particulars. 

 We can, for example, say with propriety, " this is. 

 my house," but not, " this is mine house." And 

 the same observation will apply to all the other 

 "words of this clafs. 



Again, we say, 



" My hiuit ii better than thine; but thine is more e'egint than mine.'''' 



In this sentence it is evident that the word mine, 

 is substituted for the phrase, " my house" 1. e. " the 

 house of me ;" and the ^fl orA tbme, for the phrase 

 '* your houte" which is equivalent to " the house 

 tf thee or you." Accordingly, we find that the sense 

 would be the same were it written in either of these 

 ways, as under. 



VOJ.. xl. HK f 



