which Allen now gives, to the first form only.  Cardell places them among his “defining adjectives.”  With Fowle, these, and all other possessives, are “possessive adjectives.”  Cooper, in his grammar of 1828. copies the last scheme of Murray:  in that of 1831, he avers that the personal pronouns “want the possessive case.”  Now, like Webster and Wilson, he will have mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, and theirs, to be pronouns of the nominative or the objective case.  Dividing the pronouns into six general classes, he makes these the fifth; calling them “Possessive Pronouns,” but preferring in a note the monstrous name, “Possessive Pronouns Substitute.”  His sixth class are what he calls, “The Possessive Pronominal Adjectives;” namely, “my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, its, own, and sometimes mine and thine.”—­Cooper’s Pl. and Pr.  Gram., p. 43.  But all these he has, unquestionably, either misplaced or misnamed; while he tells us, that, “Simplicity of arrangement should be the object of every compiler.”—­Ib., p. 33.  Dr. Perley, (in whose scheme of grammar all the pronouns are nouns,) will have my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, and their, to be in the possessive case; but of mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, and theirs, he says, “These may be called Desiderative Personal Pronouns.”—­Perley’s Gram., p. 15.

OBS. 10.—­Kirkham, though he professes to follow Murray, declines the simple personal pronouns as I have declined them; and argues admirably, that my, thy, his, &c., are pronouns of the possessive case, because, “They always stand for nouns in the possessive case.”  But he afterwards contradicts both himself and the common opinion of all former grammarians, in referring mine, thine, hers, &c., to the class of “Compound Personal Pronouns.” Nay, as if to outdo even himself in absurdity, he first makes mine, thine, hers, ours, &c., to be compounds, by assuming that, “These pluralizing adjuncts, ne and s, were, no doubt, formerly detached from the pronouns with which they now coalesce;” and then, because he finds in each of his supposed compounds the signification of a pronoun and its governing noun, reassumes, in parsing them, the very principle of error, on which he condemns their common classification.  He says, “They should be parsed as two words.”  He also supposes them to represent the nouns which govern them—­nouns with which they do not agree in any respect!  Thus is he wrong in almost every thing he says about them.  See Kirkham’s Gram., p. 99, p. 101, and p. 104.  Goodenow, too, a still later writer, adopts the major part of all this absurdity.  He will have my, thy, his, her, its, our, your, their, for the possessive case of his personal pronouns; but mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, theirs, he calls “compound possessive pronouns, in the subjective or [the]