Английского

§ 6. We have considered theoretical aspects of the problem of case 
of the English noun, and have also observed the relevant lingual 
data instrumental in substantiating the suggested interpretations. As 
a result of the analysis, we have come to the conclusion that the in-
flexional case of nouns in English has ceased to exist. In its place a 
new, peculiar two case system has developed based on the particle 
expression of the genitive falling into two segmental types: the 
word-genitive and the phrase-genitive. 
The undertaken study of the case in the domain of the noun, as the 
next step, calls upon the observer to re-formulate the accepted in-
terpretation of the form-types of the English personal pronouns. 
The personal pronouns are commonly interpreted as having a case 
system of their own, differing in principle from the case system of 
the noun. The two cases traditionally recognised here are the 
nominative case (I, you, he, etc.) and the 

---

73
objective case (me, you, him, etc.). To these forms the two series of 
forms of the possessive pronouns are added — respectively, the 
conjoint series (my, your, his, etc.) and the absolute series (mine, 
yours, his, etc.). A question now arises, if it is rational at all to rec-
ognise the type of case in the words of substitutional nature which 
is absolutely incompatible with the type of case in the correlated 
notional words? Attempts have been made in linguistics to transfer 
the accepted view of pronominal cases to the unchangeable forms 
of the nouns (by way of the logical procedure of back substitution), 
thereby supporting the positional theory of case (M. Bryant). In the 
light of the present study, however, it is clear that these attempts 
lack an adequate linguistic foundation. 
As a matter of fact, the categories of the substitute have to reflect 
the categories of the antecedent, not vice versa. As an example we 
may refer to the category of gender (see Ch. VI): the English gen-
der is expressed through the correlation of nouns with their pro-
nominal substitutes by no other means than the reflection of the 
corresponding semantics of the antecedent in the substitute. But the 
proclaimed correlation between the case forms of the noun and the 
would-be case forms of the personal pronouns is of quite another 
nature: the nominative "case" of the pronoun has no antecedent 
case in the noun; nor has the objective "case" of the pronoun any 
antecedent case in the noun. On the other hand, the only oblique 
case of the English noun, the genitive, does have its substitutive re-
flection in the pronoun, though not in the case form, but in the 
lexical form of possession (possessive pronouns). And this latter 
relation of the antecedent to its substitute gives us a clue to the 
whole problem of pronominal "case": the inevitable conclusion is 
that there is at present no case in the English personal pronouns; 
the personal pronominal system of cases has completely disinte-
grated, and in its place the four individual word-types of pronouns 
have appeared: the nominative form, the objective form, and the 
possessive form in its two versions, conjoint and absolute. 
An analysis of the pronouns based on more formal considerations 
can only corroborate the suggested approach proceeding from the 
principle of functional evaluation. In fact, what is traditionally ac-
cepted as case-forms of the pronouns are not the regular forms of 
productive morphological change implied by the very idea of case 
declension, but individual 

---

74
forms sustained by suppletivity and given to the speaker as a 
ready-made set. The set is naturally completed by the possessive 
forms of pronouns, so that actually we are faced by a lexical para-
digmatic series of four subsets of personal pronouns, to which the 
relative who is also added: I — me — my — mine, you — you — 
your — yours,... who — whom — whose — whose. Whichever of 
the former case correlations are still traceable in this system (as, for 
example, in the sub-series he—him—his), they exist as mere rel-
icts, i.e. as a petrified evidence of the old productive system that 
has long ceased to function in the morphology of English. 
Thus, what should finally be meant by the suggested terminologi-
cal name "particle case" in English, is that the former system of the 
English inflexional declension has completely and irrevocably dis-
integrated, both in the sphere of nouns and their substitute pro-
nouns; in its place a new, limited case system has arisen based on a