"THE

no sex.

HE only remaining circumstance concerning gender, of importance sufficient to attract attention in an inquiry so general as the present, is the principles which seem to have guided the practice, both of the ancients and moderns, in the classification of nouns expressive of substances of The proper arrangement would have been, to have made all nouns, not naturally significant of sex, of no gender. This, however, is found not to be the case; for many of these nouns are elevated to the rank of males or females Two analogies which influenced the conduct of antiquity, still appear to regulate the practice of the French and Italians, and even of ourselves, when we personify, or assign gender to inanimate substances. The former regarded termination; the latter signification. If a noun had a masculine termination, it was raised to the masculine gender, though it inherited no other claim to that pre-eminence. Accordingly, ventus and fluvius are masculine in Latin, ovos and youròs in Greek. For no better reason were nouns often remitted to the feminine gender, as semita, cathedra, puuva, μάχαιρα. So powerful, sometimes, was this principle, as to counteract even the analogy of nature, and to banish to the neuter gender, nouns which, from their

signification, ought to have been made masculine or feminine. Thus mancipium in Latin, and avoperador in Greek, both significant of a human creature, were banished to the class of neuters, on account of their termination. In French, malbeur is masculine, and maladie feminine, for a similar reason.

"But signification chiefly seems to have guided the French, in assigning genders to words expressive of neuter substances; and the English, when they personify. Hence nouns, naturally neuter, but denoting something powerful, vigorous, or energetic; or energetic; as tonnerre, canen, transport, are arranged among masculines; while nouns, significant of capacity, or something prolific, beautiful, or passive, as chaleur, vertu, montagne, mer, are associated with the class of feminines. But to this rule there are many exceptions in the French language.

"Articles and adjectives are employed to restrict and explain substantives; and before we relinquish this branch of our subject, they are entitled to some portion of attention.

"Articles are little words prefixed to substantives, or to other parts of speech, used as substantives, to enlarge or circumscribe their meaning. The purpose they serve, will be readily understood from the following simple theory. When we survey any object we never saw

before,

before, or speak about an object with which we are not intimately acquainted, the first thing we do to distinguish or ascertain it, is to refer it to its species, or to class it with other objects of its species, of which we have the knowledge. For instance, we would say, a tree, a house, a horse, a man, when we wished to denote any individual of these classes which we had never before seen, and of which we knew nothing but its species from its appearance. These objects are individuals of the species called trees, houses, horses, or men; and must therefore possess the common qualities of their respective species.

"But, on surveying the same objects a second time, and recollecting our former acquaintance with them, or their own peculiar properties, we would not express our sentiments of them in the same language we did at first. Besides referring them to their species, we would now signify the additional ideas of having formerly seen them, and of having been made acquainted with their nature, or distinction; and would therefore employ the following phraseology, the tree, the house, the horse, the man. The article a is called indefinite, because it refers the object to its species only, and denotes our conceptions of it no farther than the common qualities of the species extend. The article the is called definite, because it *discriminates the object to which it is prefixed from all others of the same species, and denotes our previous acquaintance with it, or its own particular characteristics. A king, a commander, a bookseller, express any individuals of the order of men called kings, commanders, booksellers. But the king, the Commander, the bookseller, circum

scribe the expression, and signify the king of a particular nation, the commander of a particular army, the bookseller of peculiar eminence, or of some particular town.

"In respect of articles, our own is, perhaps, the most perfect lan guage in the world. The Greek, the French, the Italian, and the Spanish, possess only the definite article. The Greeks, indeed, supplied the place of the indefinite article, by the absence of the definite; the Italians, the Spaniards, and the French, by the adjective one. The Romens neither had articles, nor supplied the place of them by any expedient. Their conduct, in this instance, is one cause of the hesitation and suspense to which the reader is sometimes reduced in perusing their splendid, but occasionally equivocal language. A few examples will illustrate these remarks.

"The following phrase, amicus imperator's, admits no fewer than four different interpretations. It may denote either, a friend of a' commander, a friend of the commander, the friend of the commander, or the friend of a commander. The Latin reader must collect from the context which of these interpretations it is proper to prefer. He can receive no assistance from the words themselves. The Greek language would distinguish the first sense by the words φίλος ἡγεμόνος, the second by φίλος το ηγεμόνος, the third by ὁ φίλος το yeuvos, and the last, by ginos

suoras. The French would exprs the first meaning, by un ami d'un chef, the second, by un ami du chef, the third, by l'ami du chef, and the last, by l'ami d'un chef. Again, the phrase, prabe mihi panem, may be translated either, Giye me bread,

that

that is, bread in opposition to sugar or wine, or, Give me the bread, which is used at the table. The Greek language can distinguish these meanings, and, to convey the former, would employ the words, dos μà agrov, but to convey the latter, the words dos po rov prov. The French would express the former, by donnez moi du pain, the latter, by donnez moi le pain. The phraseology of Italy and Spain, on this occasion, is perfectly analogous to that of France.

"Between adjectives and participles there is no difference, except that the latter, along with their primary signification, denote the additional idea of time. Both serve to notify the qualities or attributes, and to define or illustrate the meaning, of substantives. Thus the qualities of a man are, black, white, young, old, strong, weak, tall, little; of a horse, black, brown, white, grey, fat, lean, swift, slow; which qualities all tend to describe or distinguish the man or the horse of which we speak, and to discriminate them from all others of their species. I have already made remarks on the genders of adjectives; it remains only to offer a few observations on their comparison. "All adjectives that denote qualities susceptible of augmentation or diminution, and almost all quali ties are so, are susceptible of comparison. It is unnecessary to criticise the propriety of the grammatical word comparison, or to inquire whether it can be applied to what is called the positive degree, or the adjective itself. We have no leisure to scrutinize or to rectify the loose and scholastic language of grammarians, and must, therefore, be satisfied with expressing what the subject calls us to explain.

"It was of great consequence int the formation of language, never to descend farther to particulars than was absolutely necessary; because it more completely preserved the simplicity of expression, and rendered communication more easy and expeditious. For this reason, though the degrees of augmentation of which a quality is susceptible may be almost infinite, yet the framers of languages have been content with marking two stages only of these degrees. By the former is signified, that of two qualities compared, one is greater than the other; by the latter is understood, that of any larger number of qualities than two compared, one is the greatest among them. It will easily be perceived, that the former of these stages is called the comparative degree; the latter, the superlative. These two stages have been found sufficient for all the purposes of social communication; and if more minuteness were sometimes necessary, such as twice, thrice, a hundred times greater, it was thought preferable to notify them, by concomitant words, rather than to encumber language, by adopting more stages of comparison than were commonlyrequisite. The ancient languages express these degrees of comparison chiefly by adding terminations to the adjectives themselves. The modern languages incline more to signify them by auxiliary words.

"Having explained the theory of nouns, both substantive and adjective, it will, perhaps, appear unnecessary, that I should detain you with an illustration of pronouns; the use of them being, as their name implies, to occupy the place of nouns, in order to prevent

too

too frequent and disagreeable repetitions of the same word: as, however, there is something singular, both in the syntax and inflections of pronouns, it will not, I presume, be a misapplication of our time, to 'offer concerning them a few observations.

"Pronouns are a source of very great convenience and variety in language. Were it not for them, the substantive for which the pronoun stands, must have been repeated every time there was occasion to mention it, and the verbs of all languages would have had much less variety of termination than they possess. Suppose the contents of the following sentence were to be expressed without the use of pronouns: Cæsar loved his country, his family, and his friends; but his ruling passion was ambition, and he sacrificed to it all his attachments and his duties.' It must have appeared in this very aukward form: Cæsar loved Cæsar's country, Cæsar's family, and Cæsar's friends: but Caesar's ruling passion was ambition, and Cæsar sacrificed to ambition, all Cæsar's attachments, and all Cæsar's duties.' Suppose, again, Cæsar to have addressed the senate, by a letter couched in the following terms: I consent to disband my army, provided you will order my enemy Pompey to dismiss his. I cannot come to Rome in safety without my army, while he retains his near the city and that he had been obliged to convey the same sentiments without the aid of pronouns. He must have employed the following words: Cæsar consents to disband Cæsar's army, provided the senate will order Cesar's enemy, Pompey, to dismiss Pompey's army. Cæsar cannot come to Rome in safety without Cæsar's army,

while Pompey retains Pompey's army near the city.'

It is plain, from these examples, that without the use of pronouns, the repetition of nouns would have been intolerable; and that all verbs would have been restricted to the third part of the variety of terminations they now possess. They could have retained only the terminations peculiar to the third persons of the singular and plural numbers. Because the noun requir ing the third person of the verb to follow it; and the noun being al ways repeated without any substi tution of the pronoun; the first and second persons of verbs which correspond to the pronouns of the first and second persons, would have been altogether unnecessary; and, of course, must have been banished from the number of their inflections.

"The pronoun I is said to be of the first person, because the speaker or the writer employs it to denote himself, and to prevent the disagreeable repetition of his name. Thou, or you, is called the pronoun of the second person, because the speaker or the writer employs it to denote the person or thing addressed, in order to prevent the too frequent recurrence of its name. To both these persons, the verbs of polished languages have adapted terminations, which contribute greatly to promote the variety and the precision of communication. He, she, it, are called pronouns of the third person, because they denote some third thing, or person, which has been formerly mentioned, but is not addressed. They are employed, like the other pronouns, to prevent the too frequent appearance of the nouns for which they stand; but they have no terminations of the verbs appropriated

to

to them. They correspond with the terminations required by the nouns whose places they supply.

"The substantive pronouns are more numerous in English, than in any other of the polished languages, either ancient or modern. The Greeks and Latins have only three such pronouns; those of the first and second persons, I, thou; and the reflected pronoun of the third person, self, including all genders. The French, the Spani ards, and the Italians, have four; I, thou, denoting the first and second persons; and, as they have no neuter genders, he, denoting the male, and sbe, the female of the third person. The English have the pronouns of the first and second persons, I, thou; but preserving here, as in the case of nouns, a strict accommodation to the genders of nature, they present, in the third person, he, to denote the male, she to denote the female, and a fifth, it, to denote every substance of no gender, or of which the gender is unknown. The pronoun it is perhaps the most general word in the language, being employed to supply the place of all substantives, and even of things without names. There is not a thing in language, or in nature, which it may not represent.

person there is the greatest differ. ence, and the merits of different languages are most discernible.

"Both the Greek and Latin languages are well provided with words for this purpose; 8705, ExTVOS, duros, ille, iste, hic, ipse, is; which are all adjectives, and have all the varieties of gender, both in the singular and plural numbers. Both the French and the Italians have two pronouns of the third person, and these in the plural have likewise their varieties of gender. Our own language is here not a little defective, owing to its rigid attachment to the simplicity of nature, which is the leading principle of its structure. We have no adjective pronoun of the third person; and even the little variety we have in the singu lar number is diminished in the plural.

"Though we possess three pronouns, he, she, it, to express the third person in the singular number, yet, unless the subject of discourse be a male or a female, or some inanimate substance personified, we are not at liberty to denote that subject by any other word than it; and as the far greater part of the occasions on which the third person must be employed, refer to other things than males, or females, or personifications, we are in a great measure restricted, even in the singular number, to the use of it alone. We are still more embarrassed in the plural number, for he, she, it, have no other plural for them all than they, which also is destitute of all variety of gender.

"The ambiguity resulting from the nakedness of our language, in respect of the pronouns of the third person, is the chief defect, perhaps, to which it is obnoxions. Open only the works of any of the principal writers of the latter part