nd _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 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 exist or not, they
have not yet been brought forward.

Such instances, even if quoted, would not be conclusive.

s. 405. Why would they not be conclusive? Because _even of the adjective
there are uninflected forms_.

As early as the Moeso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of
this 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: airon sou ton krabbaton] (Mark ii. 9),
opposed to _nim thata badi thein_, two verses afterwards. So also with
_mein_ and _meinata_. 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.

_Old High German._--Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose
the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it--_thin dohter_, _s[^i]n
quen[^a]_, _min dohter_, _sinaz l[^i]b_. In a few cases, when the pronoun
comes after, even the _oblique_ cases drop the inflection.

_Middle High German._--_Preceding_ the noun, the nominative of all genders
is destitute of inflection; _s[^i]n l[^i]b_, _m[^i]n ere_, _d[^i]n l[^i]b_,
&c. _Following_ the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; _ine herse
s[^i]n_. The influence of position should here be noticed. Undoubtedly a
place _after_ the substantive influences the omission of the inflection.
This appears in its _maximum_ in the Middle High German. In Moeso-Gothic we
have _mein leik_ and _leik meinata_.

s. 406. Now by assuming the extension of the Middle High German omission of
the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and by supposing it to affect the words
in question in _all_ positions (i.e., both before and