for, as soon as we supply the nouns after these words, they are resolved into personal pronouns of kindred meaning, and the nouns which we supply:  thus, theirs becomes, their faith:  hers, her pleasures; and yours, your pleasures.  This evidently gives us two words instead of, and altogether distinct from, the first; so that, in parsing, their faith, we are not, in reality, analyzing theirs, but two other words of which theirs is the proper representative.  These remarks also prove, with equal force, the impropriety of calling these words merely simple pronouns or nouns in the nominative or objective case.  Without attempting to develop the original or intrinsic meaning of these pluralizing adjuncts, ne and s, which were, no doubt, formerly detached from the pronouns with which they now coalesce, for all practical purposes, it is sufficient for us to know, that, in the present application of these pronouns, they invariably stand for, not only the person possessing, but, also the thing possessed, which gives them a compound character.  They may, therefore, be properly denominated COMPOUND PERSONAL PRONOUNS; and, as they always perform a double office in a sentence by representing two other words, and, consequently, including two cases, they should, like the compound relative what, be parsed as two words.  Thus, in the example, “You may imagine what kind of faith theirs was,” theirs is a compound personal pronoun, equivalent to their faith.  Their is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun; personal, it personates the persons spoken of, understood; third pers. plur. numb., &c.—­and in the possessive case, and governed by “faith,” according to Rule 12. Faith is a noun, the name of a thing, &c. &c.—­and in the nominative case to “was,” and governs it; Rule 3.  Or, if we render the sentence thus, “You may imagine what kind of faith the faith of them[4] was,” faith would be in the nominative case to “was,” and them would be in the objective case, and governed by “of:”  Rule 31.

[4] In the note next preceding, it is asserted, that my, thy, his, her, our your, and their, are personal pronouns.  What can more clearly demonstrate the correctness of that assertion, than this latter construction of the word theirs?  All admit, that, in the construction, “The faith of them,” the word them, is a personal pronoun:  and for this conclusive reason:—­it represents a noun understood.  What, then, is their, in the phrase, “their faith?” Is it not obvious, that, if them is a personal pronoun, their must be, also? for the latter represents the same noun as the former.