ly through ignorance of what
others inculcate. If doctors of divinity and doctors of laws will
contradict themselves in teaching grammar, so far as they do so, the lovers
of consistency will find it necessary to deviate from their track.
Respecting these pronouns, I learned in childhood, from Webster, a doctrine
which he now declares to be false. This was nearly the same as Lowth's,
which is quoted in the sixth observation above. But, in stead of correcting
its faults, this zealous reformer has but run into others still greater.
Now, with equal reproach to his etymology, his syntax, and his logic, he
denies that our pronouns have any form of the possessive case at all. But
grant the obvious fact, that _substitution_ is one thing, and _ellipsis_ an
other, and his whole argument is easily overthrown; for it is only by
confounding these, that he reaches his absurd conclusion.

OBS. 12.--Dr. Webster's doctrine now is, that none of the English pronouns
have more than two cases. He says, "_mine, thine, his, hers, yours_, and
_theirs_, are _usually considered_ as [being of] the possessive case. But
the _three first_ are either attributes, and used with nouns, or they are
substitutes. The _three last_ are always substitutes, used in the place of
names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD."--"That _mine, thine, his_, [_ours_,] _yours,
hers_, and _theirs_, do not constitute a possessive case, is demonstrable;
for they are constantly used as the nominatives to verbs and as the
objectives after verbs and prepositions, as in the following passages.
'Whether it could perform its operations of thinking and memory out of a
body organized as _ours is_.'--_Locke_. 'The reason is, that his subject is
generally things; _theirs_, on the contrary, _is_ persons.'--_Camp. Rhet._
'Therefore leave your forest of beasts for _ours_ of brutes, called
men.'--_Wycherley to Pope_. It is needless to multiply proofs. We observe
these _pretended possessives_ uniformly used as nominatives or
objectives.[210] Should it be said that _a noun is understood_; I reply,
_this cannot be true_," &c.--_Philosophical Gram._, p. 35; _Improved
Gram._, p. 26. Now, whether it be true or not, this very position is
expressly affirmed by the Doctor himself, in the citation above; though he
is, unquestionably, wrong in suggesting that the pronouns are "used _in the
place_ of [those] names WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD." They are used in the place
of other names--the names of _the possessors_; and are