jects represented by the nouns arranged under these classes respectively. The masculine is so called from containing all the names of males (that is of all animals discriminated as males), the feminine from containing all the names of females. It may here be observed that many grammarians have perplexed themselves and their readers by insensibly confounding gender with sex, or at least, attaching to the term gender, ideas which belong only to scr. Some have even thought it necessary to make an apology for the impropriety supposed to be implied in the expression neuter gender; though there is really no impropriety whatever in the form of expression, correctly interpreted, consequently, no need of an apology. Those who introduced in Latin grammar the term genus, meaning sort or kind (from which we have in French, genre, meaning also sort or kind, and in English, gender), attached no conception to the word inconsistent with the notion of a genus neutrum, a neuter class or class of neuters, that is, of names of objects which are neither masculine nor feminine,-neither male nor female. The same may be said of the common gender, (recognised in some of the grammars of the ancient languages), which includes those names sometimes applied to a male, sometimes to a female, as for example, the nouns parent, cousin, friend, &c. in English. The expression common gender has been ignorantly and presumptuously called a solecism. If we have a clear conception of what the ancient grammarians meant by gender, we can easily perceive the perfect propriety of the expression common gender—that is, a class of names common to males and females as well as of the expression neuter gender. But with the following definitions laid down (and, apparently, tacitly assented to, when not expressed in words), "Gender is the distinction of nouns with regard to sex," and "Gender is the distinction of sex," it is not strange that the notion of a neuter and of a common gender should present insuperable difficulties and incongruities. This definition, if closely examined, will be found to involve not only a total misconception of the meaning of the term gender, as employed by the old grammarians, but an absurd (not to say ridiculous) assertion, whatever we may understand by the word gender. Of what could it be asserted with propriety, that it is the distinction of sex! If we could find such a thing, what business has it among the terms of grammar! From this absurd definition, what could be expected to follow but confusion and inconsistency in every matter of detail founded upon it? No wonder that it was thought necessary to censure the old grammarians, or to apologize for them, when they were supposed to talk of a neuter “distinction of sez !" and a common “distinction of sex !" The old gentlemen knew, we think, much better what they said, and whereof they affirmed, than their inconsiderate critics. Many other definitions of gender, though not chargeable with the same absurdity as those already noticed, yet afford evidence that their authors labored, less or more, under the influence of a similar misconception of the sense of this very simple term; simple, we mean, as it was evidently understood by those who first introduced it into grammar. "Grammatical gender points out the sex, or the absence of sex." This assertion might with more propriety be made of the masculine, feminine, and neuter terminations of adjectives in Latin, Greek, and most of the modern languages, or of such terminations appended to a noun as distinguish the female occupant of an office, station, &c., from the male occupant: the termination ess, for example, in English, as abbot, a male head of an abbey; abbess, a female head of an abbey; prince, princess, &c. The same may be said of the following: "Gender, in grammar, is an alteration generally in the endings of words, to mark distinction of sex." "Gender in grammar, a difference in words to express distinction of sex."-Webster's Dict. The two following definitions are still more faulty: "Genders are modifications that distinguish objects in regard to sex." "Gender is the distinction of objects in regard to sex." Whatever gender may be, whilst it is recognised as a term of grammar, it has reference to words, to the signs of objects, and not to objects themselves. To say that gender is a modification of objects, or a distinction of objects, is therefore altogether irrelevant. This is the old and very common error of confounding words and objects—things and the names of things. Most modern writers on grammar have taken care not to commit themselves by giving a direct definition of gender. They have dodged the question, what is gender? This was perhaps a prudent course, especially if these writers labored in any degree under the apparently very general misconception of this matter, originating, as we think, in confounding the meaning of the terms sex and gender. No rational definition could be expected till this misconception was completely cleared away. Another subject has generally, in our English grammars, been treated under the head of Gender, though it has connection rather with the original structure of single words than with the changes which they undergo in order to perform their grammatical functions, and might, without impropriety, be wholly omitted in this place. In the case of some offices or stations, which may be held both by men and women, and in the case of the more conspicuous animals, there is a separate name for the separate sexes. These names are sometimes formed, the feminine from the masculine, by the addition of a syllable or some change of the termination, generally by the syllable ess; as, priest, priestess or female priest; prince, princess, &c. Sometimes the words which indicate the female are less clearly connected with the male form, and sometimes altogether distinct. According to the custom of the grammarians, we subjoin a list of some of the masculine and feminine forms which most frequently recur. List of Masculine Names which have a Feminine Form in Ess. Abbot, Actor, Abbess. Baron, Baroness. We give no list of those names for males and females which are entirely distinct in form; as, husband, wife; father, mother; brother, sister; horse, mare, &c., since the fact that these different names are given to animals of different sexes has nothing to do with the structure of language, nothing to do with grammar. All this is to be learnt from dictionaries or vocabularies, not from treatises on construction. § 158. THE ARTICLES.-The two determinative adjectives AN or A, and THE have been called very generally by English grammarians the definite and the indefinite article. Under this name these two words have been raised to the dignity of forming a separate class by themselves, and have been placed in the foremost rank among the parts of speech. Yet, so far are these words from being entitled to so much consideration from the indispensable importance of the functions which they perform in speech, that there are many highly polished languages-amongst these the Greek-which possess no separate distinct word equivalent to our an or a—the (so styled) indefinite article; and the Latin has no word exclusively used to perform the functions either of the definite or of the indefinite article. To the mere English scholar the term article applied to the words an and the conveys no meaning whatever. When we have traced it to articulus in Latin, and ascertained that this was employed to translate appor-the name applied by the Greek grammarians to a word nearly equivalent to what our grammarians have called the definite article, and learned that these Latin and Greek words mean a joint, we are still far from unravelling the mystery which hangs about this strange term. Why a and the should be called joints or hinges, and joints or hinges in contradistinction to all other words in the language, remains still to be explained. The application of this name to the Greek determinative ó, ý, rò, is accounted for in the following manner: The Greek grammarians originally gave the appellation appa (joints) to two words in connection, which they afterwards distinguished by the names of the prepositive and postpositive articles or joints. These two words taken together serve indeed as joints or hinges of language, and have been named by the Greeks not inappropriately. One of these is the word above mentioned, the prepositive article ó, ý, Tò, which alone retains this name, though it has no claim to it, save what it obtained through its alliance with the postpositive. This latter (the postpositive article) is what has been commonly called the relative pronoun, equivalent to our who, which and that. To this the name joint was appropriately given. Some modern grammarians (whom in this we willingly follow) still call it by a name of nearly the same import-the Conjunctive Pronoun. We may readily comprehend the reason of giving the name joint to the relative or conjunctive pronoun and the determinative equivalent to THE, if we consider attentively the Compound Proposition with Adjective Accessory already described (§ 111). For example: THE man WHO promised to assist us disappointed our hopes. Here the word who serves as a joint to connect the adjective accessory, promised to assist us, with the word man, which it modifies or completes. In performing this function it is assisted by the determinative sign the used before the noun modified. The intimate relation of the article and conjunctive pronoun in Greek served to render the reference of the latter with its accessory to the former and its noun more striking. The article and relative in that language resemble each other in sound, are of the same family, or rather varieties of the same word, and seem to have been used indiscriminately, in ancient times, as conjunctive pronouns. O av pros ős, The man who, was a form almost like Which man who, or The man the. If this kind of expression were now admissible with us, it would evidently serve to establish the closest relation between the noun man and the accessory introduced by who. This is no imaginary case, as regards the use of the article the in our language. The, like the Greek article, was currently used both as article and relative in the Anglo-Saxon. The determinative use, we suspect, as we shall have occasion to say in another place, was in both languages the earliest and the original use out of which grew the relative or conjunctive use. In other words, we suppose all relatives to be determinatives used in a peculiar mode. But be this as it may, the mode of writing accessory adjective propositions in Anglo-Saxon was to introduce the accessory by the word the, whilst the noun modified by the accessory was preceded by the proper case of the determinative se, seo, thaet, which seems to be the same word, at least the same root subjected to flection. The only forms which are exceptions are se, and seo. All the other forms of all genders, numbers and cases, appear to be formed from the root THE. Thus viewed these words might well be compared to a double joint-a prepositive and postpositive article to connect or lock the word which the one preceded and the other followed with the clause in which the latter performed some prominent function. In many cases the explanatory proposition and postpositive article came to be suppressed, because readily suggested to the mind of the hearer or reader by the drift of the discourse. In such cases the article may be considered as indicating such suppression-as warning us of the Ellipsis. Let us take as an example the following words from the first chapter of Genesis: "God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw THE light, that it was good." Here the word light is twice used without any determinative, and the third time with one. "God saw THE light," that is the light which has been just mentioned the light which he had called into existence. Some accessory proposition is evidently implied, and the determinative sign the indicates (to all who understand the usage of our language) that the light referred to is the same that has been already mentioned. What we have said accounts sufficiently for the ancient Greek grammarians calling this determinative and the conjunctive pronoun taken in connection articles or joints. But it can scarcely vindicate the conduct of their successors, when, having given a distinct name to the form of the determinative which, in time, came to be used exclusively to perform the conjunctive function, they gave the name of joint to that form which no longer served alone as a joint, but only occasionally lent its aid to the jointing or conjunctive word. Much less can these historical facts serve as a just excuse for conti nuing to call the determinative THE, without any allusion to its cooperation or original connection with the conjunctive pronoun, by this inappropriate and (to the mere English scholar) unintelligible name; less still can they justify the application of this name to the word an and its equivalents in the modern languages. This practice, we believe, is confined at present to our own language. The grammars of most modern languages recognise only one article. Yet, if, as originally, the connection with the conjunctive pronoun were recognised in applying the name article, AN might set up an equal claim with THE to the appellation of prepositive article. In the assertions, a man who always does to others, as he would wish others to do to him, is a good |