s. 451. _The idea of _possession_, and its likelihood of determining the evolution of a genitive form to the pronouns of the first and second person singular._ --It is less likely to do so with such pronouns than with other words, inasmuch as it is less necessary. It has been before observed, that the practice of most languages shows a tendency to express the relation by adjectival forms--_meus_, _tuus_. An objection against the conclusiveness of this argument will be mentioned in the sequel. s. 452. _The idea of _partition_, and its likelihood of determining the evolution of a genitive form, &c._--Less than with other words. 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 {384} 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 part of you_, _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_, _thei-r_. The two ideas are not in the same predicament. We can say, _one of ten_, or _ten of twenty_; but we cannot say _one of one_--_Waes hira Matheus sum_=_Matthew was one of them_; Andreas--_Your noither_=_neither of you_; Amis and Ameloun--from Mr. Guest: _Her eyder_=_either of them_; Octavian.--Besides this, the form of the two numbers are neither identical, nor equally genitival; as may be seen by contrasting _mi-n_ and _thi-n_ with _ou-r_ and _you-r_. s. 453. Such are the chief _[`a] priori_ arguments against the genitival character of words like _mine_ and _thine_. Akin to these, and a point which precedes the _[`a] posteriori_ evidence as to the nature of the words in question, is the determination of the side on which lies the _onus probandi_. This question is material; inasmuch as, although the present writer believes, for his own part, that the forms under discussion are adjectival rather than genitival, this is not the point upon which he insists. What he insists upon is the fact of the genitival character of _mine_ and _thine_ requiring a particular proof; which particular proof no one has yet given: in other words, his position is that they are not to be thought genitive until proved to be such.