j'jgi. on penonal pronoimr. a4f 



By glancing over this table, we are enabled to dis- 

 cover some defects in our language, that otherwise 

 are not very apparent, which have not, that I know, 

 been hitherto remarked. Thus, in tlie pronoun of 

 the third person singular, we observe that the words 

 his and its, are each of them compelled to perforn* 

 alike the ofBce of definitives and pofiefsives. The 

 word her, is, in like manner, forced to do the double 

 office of accusative and definitive, while the word itf 

 -performs alike the office of nominative and accusative. 

 These are great defects which have escaped our no- 

 tice, merely because custom has rendered this double 

 use of them quite familiar to us. The following ex- 

 ample will illustrate this position. 7 ' 



" Hit house \%htXV.t thixi hen f bathers !sy!W than«MMi^* 

 " My house is better xHmnyours, hutyours hjitur than mine." 



In this example the word bis performs, alike^ th« 

 office of mjf and mine, yet the meaning appears com- 

 plete, though we have already seen that mjr, if sub- 

 stituted for mine, could not be at all tolerated* 

 Again, in the phrase, 



" It struck HIM and cut his eye brow," 

 '* It struck HER and cut her eye brow." 



We observe that the word her performs, alike, the 

 xffice of both the words him and his, without appear- 

 ing in any respect improper. How absurd would it 

 seem if we were to say, 



" It sduck HIM and cut him eye brow." 



The same impropriety might be, in like manner, 

 pointed out with regard to the double office perform- 

 ed by the words it and its. But as this will be suf^ 

 ficiently obvious, I do not dwell upon it. It must 



