This evidently gives us
two words instead of, and altogether distinct from, the first; so
that, in parsing, _their faith_, we are not, in reality, analyzing
_theirs_, but two other words of which _theirs_ is the proper
representative. These remarks also prove, with equal force, the
impropriety of calling these words merely simple pronouns or nouns
in the nominative or objective case. Without attempting to develop
the original or intrinsic meaning of these pluralizing adjuncts,
_ne_ and _s_, which were, no doubt, formerly detached from the
pronouns with which they now coalesce, for all practical purposes,
it is sufficient for us to know, that, in the present application of
these pronouns, they invariably stand for, not only the person
possessing, but, also the thing possessed, which gives them a
_compound_ character. They may, therefore, be properly denominated
COMPOUND PERSONAL PRONOUNS; and, as they always perform a double
office in a sentence by representing two other words, and,
consequently, including two cases, they should, like the compound
relative _what_, be parsed as two words.
Pages:
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249