It has not been sufficiently considered that the _prim[^a] facie_ evidence is against them. They have not the form of a genitive case--indeed, they have a different one; and whoever assumes a second form for a given case has the burden of proof on his side. s. 454. Against this circumstance of the _-n_ in _mine_ and _thine_ being the sign of anything rather than of a genitive case, and against the _prim[^a] facie_ evidence afforded by it, the {385} following facts may, or have been, adduced as reasons on the other side. The appreciation of their value, either taken singly or in the way of cumulative evidence, is submitted to the reader. It will be seen that none of them are unexceptionable. s. 455. _The fact, that, if the words _mine_ and _thine_ are not genitive cases, there is not a genitive case at all._--It is not necessary that there should be one. Particular reasons in favour of the probability of personal pronouns of the singular number being destitute of such a case have been already adduced. _It is more likely that a word should be defective than that it should have a separate form._ s. 456. _The analogy of the forms _mei_ and _[Greek: emou]_ in Latin and Greek._--It cannot be denied that this has some value. Nevertheless, the argument deducible from it is anything but conclusive. 1. It is by no means an indubitable fact that _mei_ and [Greek: emou] are really cases of the pronoun. The _extension_ of a principle acknowledged in the Greek language might make them the genitive cases of adjectives used pronominally. Thus, [Greek: To emon] = [Greek: ego], [Greek: Tou emou] = [Greek: emou], [Greek: Toi emoi] = [Greek: emoi]. Assume the omission of the article and the extension of the Greek principle to the Latin language, and [Greek: emou] and _mei_ may be cases, not of [Greek: eme] and _me_, but of [Greek: emos] and _meus_. 2. In the classical languages the partitive power was expressed by the genitive. "---- multaque pars mei Vitabit Libitinam." This is a reason for the evolution of a genitive power. Few such forms exist in the Gothic; _part my_ is not English, nor was _dael min_ Anglo-Saxon,=_part of me_, or _pars mei_. s. 457. The following differences of form, are found in the different Gothic languages, between the equivalents of _mei_ and _tui_, the so-called genitives of _ego_ and _tu_, and the equivalents of _meus_ and _tuus_, the so-called possessive adjectives. {386}