These are the simple pronouns. But a variety of compounds are formed by joining these simple pronouns with other words, such as himself, whatever, any one.
Pronouns, as we have seen, express the most abstract relations in language. They are, in fact, the most attenuated and colorless signs of thought conceivable—the highest effort, apparently, of man's generalizing powers. Accordingly, in the days of purely a priori speculation on the origin and growth of language, it was held to be indisputable that pronouns must have been the latest product of the language-making faculty; and they have been appealed to as a conclusive argument against the theory that the mean ing of all words, when they are traced to their origin, is grounded on sensible proper ties and relations of material things. The philologist, on the contrary, pursuing his inves tigations on the historico-comparative method, sees irresistible proof that pronouns, in the Aryan family of languages at least, were among the earliest words in use. In fact, besides their independent use, the same elements are found as suffixes forming the inflections (see INFLECTION) of the predicative roots, and first making them real words capable of entering into a sentence. In the beginning, however, they were far from being the impalpable abstractions they afterward became, and really form the strongest proof of the theory they were supposed upset. They were, in fact, simply demonstra tive particles, indicating palpable relations of space or position (" that" or "there." " this" or "here," "what" or "where?"). We can easily see how the indication of the vocal sign would at first be helped out and made precise by gesticulation; or more prob able still, the gesticulation was at first the fundamental sign, and the word a natural involuntary utterance accompanying it, and in process of time taking its place.
Of the various demonstrative radicals still traceable in the Aryan tongues as pro nouns and suffixes, one of the most universal and outstanding is the sound to or sa for "that" or "this," "there." It is seen in the Sanskrit sa (mas.), sd (fern.), tad (neut.); Lat. (is)ta, (is)ta, (is)tud; Gr. ho, he, to; Goth. sa, so, thata; A.-S. se, se6, that; as also
in the numerous allied adverbs, e.g., Lit. tam, tune; Ger. dann; Eng. so, as, then, thus. Another demonstrative radical, ma, seems to have been used to call attention to the speaker—to point to the immediate or central " here;" in short, to the " me." Besides occurring in the oblique cases of the first personal pronoun, the element ma or m enters largely into the suffixes of the first person of verbs in the older languages, such as Greek and Latin. The only remnant of it in English is in I am. The nominative case of the first person pronoun in Sansk. is ahcim, which is conjectured to be a mutilation of a fuller form ma-gha-m; in Gr. and Lat. ego, Goth. ik, Ger. ick, A.-S. Eng. I, Ital. io, Fr. je, the m has completely disappeared. In the oblique cases it has been better pre served. The root of the 2d pers. pron. seems to have been the syllable tu or tea, indicat ting a position intermediate between the central " here " and the more distant and con trasted "there." The form of this pronoun is more constant throughout the allied languages than that of any other: Sansk. Wm, Lat. tu, Gr. ty or sy, Ger. du, Eng. thou. Fr. tu, Ital. tie.
The pronouns of the first and second persons are invariable in respect of gender, and are never used as adjectives; the pronouns of the third person not only take the form of adjectives in respect of gender, but are often—especially in the older languages—joined to nouns, in which case they are rather demonstrative (or relative) adjectives than pro nouns; as Lat. ille homo , Eng. that "man." It is difficult to trace any etymological relations between the singular and the plural in the first and second pronouns—e.g., between Lat. tu and ws, or Eng. thou and you; but this is not to be wondered at when we reflect that "we" is not equal to "I" and "I," but to "I" and "he," or "I" and "thou;" and that " you" is as much '• thou" and " he" as " thou" and " thou." The plurals must therefore have been compounded of several elements, which, by coalescence and abrasion, have become irrecognizable.