s. 460. _Syntactic evidence._--If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions as _dael min_=_pars mei_, _haelf thin_=_dimidium tui_, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a genitive with a partitive power. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted; whilst, even if quoted, they would not be _conclusive_. Expressions like [Greek: sos pothos]=_desiderium tui_, [Greek: se promethiai] = _providenti[^a] propter te_, show the extent to which the possessive expression encroaches on the partitive. 1. The words _min_ or _thin_, with a power anything rather than possessive, would not for that reason be proved (on the strength of their meaning) to be genitive cases rather than possessive pronouns; since such latitude in the power of the possessive pronoun is borne out by the comparison of languages--[Greek: pater hemon] (not [Greek: hemeteros]) in Greek is _pater noster_ (not _nostrum_) in Latin. s. 461. Again--as _min_ and _thin_ 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, _min_ra=_me_orum, and _min_re=_me_ae, are the genitive plural and the dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for _of thy eyes_ should be _eagena thinra_, and the Anglo-Saxon for _to my widow_, should be _wuduwan minre_; just as in Latin, they would be _oculorum tuorum_, and _viduae meae_. If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as _eagena thin_, or _wuduwan min_, we find evidence in favour of a {388} genitive case; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words _thin_ and _min_ must be construed as the Latin forms _tui_ and _mei_ would be in _oculorum mei_, and _viduae mei_; viz.: as genitive cases. Now, whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions (real or apparent) exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward. Such instances have yet to be quoted; whilst even if quoted, they would not be conclusive. s. 462. A few references to the _Deutsche Grammatik_ will explain this. As early as the Moeso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of the omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the _neuter singular_ sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms, _nim thata badi theinata_=[Greek: aron sou ton krabbaton] (Mark ii. 9.) opposed to _nim thata badi thein_ two verses afterwards. So also with _mein_ and _meinata_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 470. 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.