Opuscula

On the Word Cujum

Read Before the Philological Society, March 9, 1849

The writer wishes to make the word cujum, as found in a well-known quotation from the third eclogue of Virgil,—

Dic mihi Damæta cujum pecus?

the basis of some remarks which are meant to be suggestions rather than doctrines.

In the second edition of a work upon the English language, he devoted an additional chapter to the consideration of the grammatical position of the words mine and thine, respecting which he then considered (and still considers) himself correct in assuming that the current doctrine concerning them was, that they were, in origin, genitive or possessive cases, and that they were adjectives only in a secondary sense. Now whatever was then written upon this subject was written with the view of recording an opinion in favour of exactly the opposite doctrine, viz. that they were originally adjectives, but that afterwards they took the appearance of oblique cases. Hence for words like mine and thine there are two views:—

1. That they were originally cases, and adjectives only in a secondary manner.

2. That they were originally adjectives, and cases only in a secondary manner.

In which predicament is the word cujum? If in the first, it supplies a remarkable instance of an unequivocally adjectival form, as tested by an inflection in the way of gender, having grown out of a case. If in the second, it shows how truly the converse may take place, since it cannot be doubted that whatever in this respect can be predicated of cujus can be predicated of ejus and hujus as well.

Assuming this last position, it follows that if cujus be originally a case, we have a proof how thoroughly it may take a gender; whereas if it be originally an adjective, ejus and hujus (for by a previous assumption they are in the same category) are samples of the extent to which words like it may lose one.

Now the termination -us is the termination of an adjective, and is not the termination of a genitive case; a fact that fixes the onus probandi with those who insist upon the genitival character of the words in question. But as it is not likely that every one lays so much value upon this argument as is laid by the present writer, it is necessary to refer to two facts taken from the Greek:—

1. That the class of words itself is not a class which (as is often the case) naturally leads us to expect a variation from the usual inflections. The forms οὗ, οἷ, ἕ, and ὅς, οὗ, ὧ, are perfectly usual.

2. That the adjectives ὃς = ἑὸς,1 κοῖος = ποῖος, and ὁῖος, are not only real forms, but forms of a common kind. Hence, if we consider the termination -jus as a case-ending, we have a phænomenon in Latin for which we miss a Greek equivalent; whilst on the other hand, if we do not consider it as adjectival, we have the Greek forms ὁῖος, κοῖος = ποῖος and ὃς = ἑὸς, without any Latin ones. I do not say that this argument is, when taken alone, of any great weight. In doubtful cases, however, it is of value. In the present case it enables us to get rid of an inexplicable genitival form, at the expense of a slight deflection from the usual power of an adjective. And here it should be remembered that many of the arguments in favour of a case becoming an adjective are (to a certain extent) in favour of an adjective becoming a case—to a certain extent and to a certain extent only, because a change in one direction by no means necessarily implies a change in the reverse one, although it is something in favour of its probability.

Probably unius, ullius, illius, and alterius, are equally, as respects their origin, adjectival forms with ejus, cujus, and hujus.

Now it must not be concealed that one of the arguments which apply to words like mine and thine being adjectives rather than genitives, does not apply to words like ejus, cujus, and hujus. The reason is as follows; and it is exhibited in nearly the same words which have been used in the work already mentioned.—The idea of partition is one of the ideas expressed by the genitive case. The necessity for expressing this idea is an element in the necessity for evolving a genitive case. With personal pronouns of the singular number the idea of partition is of less frequent occurrence than with most other words, since a personal pronoun of the singular number is the name of a unity, and, as such, the name of an object far less likely to be separated into parts than the name of a collection. Phrases like some of them, one of you, many of us, any of them, few of us, &c., have no analogues in the singular number, such as one of me, a few of thee, &c. The partitive words that can combine with singular pronouns are comparatively few, viz. half, quarter, part, &c.; and they can all combine equally with plurals—half of us, a quarter of them, a portion of us. The partition of a singular object with a pronominal name is of rare occurrence in language. This last statement proves something more than appears at first sight. It proves that no argument in favour of the so-called singular genitives, like mine and thine, can be drawn from the admission (if made) of the existence of the true plural genitives ou-r, you-r, the-ir. The two ideas are not in the same predicament.

Again, the convenience of expressing the difference between suus and ejus, is, to a certain extent, a reason for the evolution of a genitive case to words like is; but it is a reason to a certain extent only, and that extent a small one, since an equally convenient method of expressing the difference is to be found in the fact of there being two roots for the pronouns in question, the root from which we get ea, id, eum, ejus, &c., and the root from which we get sui, sibi, suus, &c.

Here the paper should end, for here ends the particular suggestion supplied by the word in question. Two questions however present themselves too forcibly to be wholly passed over:—

I. The great extent to which those who look in Latin for the same inflections that occur in Greek, must look for them under new names. That two tenses in Greek (the aorist like ἔ-τυπ-σα, and the perfect like τέ-τυφ-α) must be looked for in the so-called double form of a single tense in Latin (vic-si, mo-mordi) is one of the oldest facts of this sort. That the Greek participle in -μενος (τυπτόμενος) must be sought for in the passive persons in -mini is a newer notice.

II. The fact that the character of the deflection that takes place between case and adjective is not single but double. It goes both ways. The change from case to adjective is one process in philology; the change from adjective to case another; and both should be recognized. This is mentioned for the sake of stating, that except in a few details, there is nothing in the present remarks that is meant to be at variance with the facts and arguments of five papers already laid before this Society, viz. those of Mr. Garnett on the Formation of Words from Inflected Cases, and on the Analysis of the Verb.

The papers alluded to really deal with two series of facts:—(A.) Deflection with identity of form.—In this the inflection is still considered an inflection, but is dealt with as one different from what it really is, i. e. as a nominative instead of an oblique one. Some years back the structure of the Finlandic suggested to the present writer:—

1. A series of changes in meaning whereby such a term as with waves might equal wavy.

2. The existence of a class of words of which sestertium was the type, where an oblique case, with a convertible termination, becomes a nominative.

3. The possible evolution of forms like fluctuba, fluctubum=fluctuosa, fluctuosum, from forms like fluctubus.

Mr. Garnett has multiplied cases of this kind; his illustrations from the Basque being pre-eminently typical, i. e. like the form sestertium. If the modern vehicle called an omnibus had been invented in ancient Rome, if it had had the same name as it has now, and if its plural form had been omnibi, it would also have been a typical instance.

Words of the hypothetical form fluctuba, fluctubum, have not been discovered. They would have existed if the word just quoted had been (if used in ancient Rome at all) used as an adjective, omnibus currus, omniba esseda, omnibum plaustrum.

(B.) Deflection with superaddition.—Here the inflection is dealt with as if it were not inflectional but radical. This is the case with ἴφιος. Words like it-, as proved by the genitive i-t-s, and the so-called petrified (versteinerte) nominative cases of the German grammarians, are of this class.