Again: the reasons which allow the form _you_ to be {246} considered as a nominative plural, on the strength of its being used for _ye_, will not allow it to be considered a nominative singular on the strength of its being used for _thou_. It is submitted to the reader, that in phrases like _you are speaking_, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, that the courtesy consists in treating _one_ person as _more than one_, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered, _you_=_thou_ is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural:--_you are speaking_, not _you art speaking_. * * * * * {247} CHAPTER VI. ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH. s. 299. A true reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words, there are no equivalents to the Latin pronominal forms _sui_, _sibi_, _se_. Nor yet are there any equivalents in English to the so-called adjectival forms _suus_, _sua_, _suum_: since _his_ and _her_ are the equivalents to _ejus_ and _illius_, and are not adjectives but genitive cases. At the first view, this last sentence seems unnecessary. It might seem superfluous to state, that, if there were no such primitive form as _se_ (or its equivalent), there could be no such secondary form as _suus_ (or its equivalent). Such, however, is not the case. _Suus_ might exist in the language, and yet _se_ be absent; in other words, the derivative form might have continued whilst the original one had become extinct. Such is really the case with the _Old_ Frisian. The reflective personal form, the equivalent to _se_, is lost, whilst the reflective possessive form, the equivalent to _suus_, is found. In the _Modern_ Frisian, however, both forms are lost; as they also are in the present English. The history of the reflective pronoun in the Gothic tongues is as follows:-- _In Moeso-Gothic._--Found in three cases, _seina_, _sis_, _sik_=_sui_, _sibi_, _se_. _In Old Norse._--Ditto. _Sin_, _ser_, _sik_=_sui_, _sibi_, _se_. _In Old High German._--The dative form lost; there being no such word as _sir_=_sis_=_sibi_. Besides this, the genitive {248} or possessive form _sin_ is used only in the masculine and neuter genders. _In Old Frisian._--As stated above, there is here no equivalent to _se_; whilst there _is_ the form _sin_=_suus_. _In Old Saxon._--The equivalent to _se_, _sibi_, and _sui_ very rare. The equivalent to _suus_ not common, but commoner than in Anglo-Saxon. _In Anglo-Saxon._--No instance of the equivalent to _se_ at all. The forms _sinne_=_suum_, and _sinum_=_suo_, occur in Beowulf. In Caedmon cases of _sin_=_suus_ are more frequent. Still the usual form is _his_=_ejus_.