§ 404. Again--as _min_ and _þin_ are declined like adjectives, even as _meus_ and _tuus_ are so declined, we have means of ascertaining their nature from the form they take in certain constructions; thus, _mi-nra_ = _me-orum_, and _min-re_ = _me-æ_, are the genitive plural and the dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for _of thy eyes_ should be _eagena þinra_, and the Anglo-Saxon for _to my widow_, should be _wuduwan minre_; just as in Latin, they would be _oculorum tuorum_, and _viduæ meæ._ If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as _eagena þin_, or _wuduwan min_, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words _þin_ and _min_ must be construed as the Latin forms _tui_ and _mei_ would be in _oculorum mei_, and _viduæ mei_; viz.: as genitive cases. Now, whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward. Such instances, even if quoted, would not be conclusive. § 405. Why would they not be conclusive? Because _even of the adjective there are uninflected forms_. As early as the Mœso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of this omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the _neuter singular_ sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms, _nim thata badi theinata_ = ᾆρόν σου τὸν κράββατον (Mark ii. 9), opposed to _nim thata badi thein_, two verses afterwards. So also with _mein_ and _meinata_. It is remarkable that this omission should begin with forms so marked as those of the neuter (-ata). It has, perhaps, its origin in the adverbial character of that gender. _Old High German._--Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it--_thin dohter_, _sîn quenâ_, _min dohter_, _sinaz lîb_. In a few cases, when the pronoun comes after, even the _oblique_ cases drop the inflection. _Middle High German._--_Preceding_ the noun, the nominative of all genders is destitute of inflection; _sîn lîb_, _mîn ere_, _dîn lîb_, &c. _Following_ the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; _ine herse sîn_. The influence of position should here be noticed. Undoubtedly a place _after_ the substantive influences the omission of the inflection. This appears in its _maximum_ in the Middle High German. In Mœso-Gothic we have _mein leik_ and _leik meinata_. § 406. Now by assuming the extension of the Middle High German omission of the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and by supposing it to affect the words in question in _all_ positions (i.e., both before and after their nouns), we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as already stated, no instances of them have been quoted.