ohn's_ book,' or, 'The book is _John's_;' _John's_
is not less the possessive case in one instance, than it is in the other.
If we say, 'It is _his_ book,' or, 'The book is _his_;' 'It is _her_ book,'
or, 'The book is _hers_;' 'It is _my_ book,' or, 'The book is _mine_;' 'It
is _your_ book,' or, 'The book is _yours_;' are not these parallel
instances? Custom has established it as a law, that this case of the
pronoun shall drop its original termination, for the sake of euphony, when
it precedes the noun that governs it; retaining it only where the noun is
understood: but this certainly makes no alteration in the nature of the
word; so that either _my_ is as much a possessive case as _mine_; or _mine_
and _my_ are equally pronominal adjectives."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p.
221. "Mr. Murray considers the phrases, '_our desire_,' '_your
intention_,' '_their resignation_,' as instances of plural adjectives
_agreeing_ with singular nouns; and consequently exceptions to the general
(may we not say _universal_?) rule: but if they [the words _our, your,
their_,] be, as is attempted to be proved above, the possessive cases of
pronouns, no rule is here violated."--_Ib._, p. 224.

OBS. 16.--One strong argument, touching this much-disputed point of
grammar, was incidentally noticed in the observations upon antecedents: an
adjective cannot give person, number, and gender, to a relative pronoun;
because, in our language, adjectives do not possess these qualities; nor
indeed in any other, except as they take them by immediate agreement with
nouns or pronouns in the same clause. But it is undeniable, that _my, thy,
his, her, our, your, their_, do sometimes stand as antecedents, and give
person, number, and gender to relatives, which head other clauses. For the
learner should remember, that, "When a relative pronoun is used, the
sentence is divided into two parts; viz. the _antecedent_ sentence, or that
which contains the _antecedent_; and the _relative_ sentence, containing
the _relative_."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 123. We need not here deny, that
Terence's Latin, as quoted in the grammars, "Omnes laudare fortunas _meas,
qui_ haberem gnatum tali ingeuio praeditum," is quite as intelligible
syntax, as can literally be made of it in English--"That all would praise
_my_ fortunes, _who had_ a son endued with such a genius." For, whether the
Latin be good or not, it affords no argument against us, except that of a
supposed analogy; nor does the