This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England, identical; the apostrophe in _father's_ being a mere matter of orthography. However, there was _once_ a difference. This modifies the previous statement, which may now stand thus:--_for a change of case there must be a change of form existing or presumed_. s. 291. _The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they spread._--In the English language there is undoubtedly a _nominative_ case. This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and pronouns (_father_, _good_, _he_) equally. It is found in both numbers. _Accusative._--Some call this the objective case. The words _him_ (singular) and _them_ (plural) (whatever they may have been originally) are now true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only. _Thee_, _me_, _us_, and _you_ are, to a certain extent, true accusatives. They are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. 2. They are distinguished from the forms _I_, _my_, &c. 3. Their meaning is accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only. One word of English is probably a true accusative in the strict sense of the term, _viz._, the word _twain_=_two_. The _-n_ in _twai-n_ is the _-n_ in _hine_=_him_ and _hwone_=_whom_. This we see from the following inflection:-- _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _N. and Ac._ Tw['a], Tw['e]gen, Tw['a]. \------\/-------/ _Abl. and Dat._ Tw['a]m, Tw['ae]m. _Gen._ Twegra, Twega. Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the original character of _tw['e]gen_ being accusative. The {238} _-n_ is by no means radical; besides which, it _is_ the sign of an accusative case, and is _not_ the sign of a nominative. _Note._--The words _him_ and _them_ are true accusatives in even a less degree than _thee_, _me_, _us_, and _you_. The Anglo-Saxon equivalents to the Latin words _eos_ and _illos_ were _hi_ (or _hig_) and _th['a]_ (or _thaege_); in other words, the sign of the accusative was other than the sound of _-m_. The case which _really_ ended in _-m_ was the so-called dative; so that the Anglo-Saxon forms _him_ (or _heom_) and _th['a]m_=the Latin _iis_ and _illis_. This fact explains the meaning of the words, _whatever they may have been originally_, in a preceding sentence. It also indicates a fresh element in the criticism and nomenclature of the grammarian; _viz._, the extent to which the _history_ of a form regulates its position as an inflection. _Dative._--In the antiquated word _whilom_ (_at times_), we have a remnant of the old dative in _-m_. The _sense_ of the word is adverbial; its form, however, is that of a dative case.