The Grammar of English Grammars, page 787 by Gould Brown
<< Return to Title Details & Download788
se as _mine_; or mine and my are equally pronominal adjectives."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 221. "Mr. Murray considers the phrases, 'our desire,' 'your intention,' 'their resignation,' as instances of plural adjectives agreeing with singular nouns; and consequently exceptions to the general (may we not say _universal_?) rule: but if they [the words _our, your, their_,] be, as is attempted to be proved above, the possessive cases of pronouns, no rule is here violated."--_Ib._, p. 224.
OBS. 16.--One strong argument, touching this much-disputed point of grammar, was incidentally noticed in the observations upon antecedents: an adjective cannot give person, number, and gender, to a relative pronoun; because, in our language, adjectives do not possess these qualities; nor indeed in any other, except as they take them by immediate agreement with nouns or pronouns in the same clause. But it is undeniable, that _my, thy, his, her, our, your, their_, do sometimes stand as antecedents, and give person, number, and gender to relatives, which head other clauses. For the learner should remember, that, "When a relative pronoun is used, the sentence is divided into two parts; viz. the antecedent sentence, or that which contains the _antecedent_; and the relative sentence, containing the relative."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 123. We need not here deny, that Terence's Latin, as quoted in the grammars, "Omnes laudare fortunas _meas, qui_ haberem gnatum tali ingeuio præditum," is quite as intelligible syntax, as can literally be made of it in English--"That all would praise my fortunes, who had a son endued with such a genius." For, whether the Latin be good or not, it affords no argument against us, except that of a supposed analogy; nor does the literality of the version prove, at all points, either the accuracy or the sameness of the construction.
OBS. 17.--Surely, without some imperative reason, we ought not, in E