whole species in the singular number; and, in the plural, all the individuals of the species. Alexander, on the contrary, is a particular name, and is restricted to distinguish him alone.

Illus. On this principle, are all common nouns susceptible of number, singular or plural, as they denote one, or more than one, of a species; and hence, alo, it appears plain, why proper nouns do not take a plural form, except in some instances, when they express more than one individual of a species, and of the same name; as "the twelve Cæsars," "the Henries of England."

Corol. The only nouns of language are, therefore, common nouns ; proper nouns being local and occasional, appropriated to persons and places, make no part of general communication. (Compare Art. 52. and the Illus. to Arl, 50 and 51.)

54. NUMBER, which distinguishes objects as singly or collectively, must have been coeval with the very infancy of language, because there were few things which men had more frequent occasion to express, than the difference between one and many.

Obs. The distinctions of number are signified, in most languages, by some change in the terminations of the nouns, and it rarely happens that the change is extended further than to denote, wheth er one individual, or all the individuals of the species, be understood. The Greek dual is not more necessary for the purposes of communication, than a triple, a quadruple, a centuple, or any other plural number, where the richness of a language would furnish it, to denote a given number of individuals of the species.

55. Substantives are susceptible of other concomitant circumstances, besides their capacity to denote difference of number. These circumstances are the variations of the terminations, and are called

CASES.

Illus. 1. This peculiarity of substantives or nouns, is a necessary provision for expressing the circumstances attending them, and has been accomplished in two ways, either by varying their terminations, or by preferring auxiliary words. The ancient languages employed the former of these methods; the modern languages accomplish the same end, by prefixing particles or prepositions.

2. These methods are perhaps nearly equal, in respect of perspicuity; but that of antiquity is preferable, in point of melody. Particles and prepositions are mostly monosyllables, and the fre quency with which they must be used, impairs the modulation of language.

D

3. The Greek language has five cases in the singular, two in the dual, and four in the plural number.

4. The Latin tongue has sometimes six, but generally five, in the singular, and four in the plural.

5. No cases appear in the Italian, the French, and the Spanish languages; and there are not more than two in the English.

56. GENDER, another peculiarity of substantive nouns, in the grammatical structure of language, arises out of the difference of sex, discernible only in animals. It will therefore admit of two varieties, the MASCULINE and FEMININE genders, agreeably to the distinction of living creatures into male and female. All other substantive nouns ought to belong to what grammarians call the neuter gender, which is a negation of the other two.

Illus. 1. In the structure of language, a remarkable singularity hath obtained with respect to this distribution. In most languages, men have ranked a great number of inanimate objects under the distinctions of masculine and feminine. This is remarkably the case in the Greek and Latin languages, which admit this capricious assignation of sex to inanimate objects, from no other principle than the casual structure of those languages, which refer to a certain gender, words of a certain termination; yet even termination does not always govern this distribution into masculine and feminine, but many nouns in those languages are classed, where all of them ought to have been classed, under the neuter gender.

2. In the French and Italian tongues, the neuter gender is whol-^ ly unknown; and all their names of inanimate objects are put upon the same footing with living creatures, and distributed, without exception, into masculine and feminine.

3. In the English language, there obtains a peculiarity quite opposite. In the English, when we use common discourse, all substantive nouns, that are not names of living creatures, are neuter without exception. He, she, it, are the marks of the three genders; and we always use it, in speaking of any object where there is no sex, or where the sex is not known. In this respect, our own language is pre-eminently philosophical in the application of its genders, or of those words which mark the real distinctions of male and female. Yet the genius of the language permits us, whenever it will add beauty to our discourse, to make the names of inanimate objects masculine or feminine in a metaphorical sense; and when we do so, we are understood to quit the literal style, and to use what is termed a figure of speech. By this means, we have it in our power to vary our style at pleasure. By making a very slight alteration, we can personify any object we choose to introduce with dignity; and by this change of manner, we give warn

ing that we are passing, from the strict and logical, to the ornamental, rhetorical style.

Eve

4. Of this advantage, not only every poet, but every good writer and speaker in prose, avails himself; and it is an advantage peculiar to our own tongue; no other language possesses it. ry word in other languages has one fixed gender, masculine, femi nine, or neuter, which cannot on any occasion be changed: apero, for instance, in Greek; virtus in Latin; and la vertu in French; are uniformly feminine. She must always be the pronoun answering to the word. whether you be writing in poetry or in prose, whether you be using the style of reasoning, or that of declamation; whereas, in English, we can either express ourselves with the philosophical accuracy of giving no gender to things inanimate; or, by giving them gender, and transforming them into persons, we adapt them to the style of poetry, and, when it is proper, we enliven prose.

1

5. On this general principle, we give the masculine gender to those substantive nouns used figuratively, which are conspicuous for the attributes of imparting or communicating; which are by nature strong and efficacious, either to good or evil, or which have a claim to some eminence, whether laudable or not. Those again we make feminine, which are conspicuous for the attributes of containing and of bringing forth, which have more of the passive in their nature, than of the active; which are peculiarly beautiful or amiable; or which have respect to such excesses, as are rather feminine than masculine.

57. ARTICLES are little words prefixed to substantives, or to other parts of speech, used as substantives, to enlarge or circumscribe their meaning.

Illus. 1. When we survey any object we never saw before, or speak about an object with which we are not intimately acquainted, the first thing which we do to distinguish or ascertain it, is, to refer to its species, or to class it with some other objects of its species. of which we have some knowledge. (Art. 49. Illus.)

Example. 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 seen before, and of which, from its appearance, we knew nothing, but its species. These objects are individuals of the species called trees, horses, houses, or men; and must therefore possess the common qualities of their respective species.—(Art. 50. Illus.)

2. But, on surveying the same objects a second time, and recol lecting our former acquaintance with them, or their own particular properties, we would not express our sentiments of them in the same language, in which we did at first. Besides referring them to their species, we would now signify the additional ideas of hav ing formerly seen them, and of having been made acquainted with

their nature, or distinction; and would therefore employ the forlowing phraseology: the tree, the house, the horse, the man.

Corol. 1. The article a is called indefinite, because it refers the object to its species only, and denotes our conceptions of it no further than the common qualities of the species extend.

2. 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.

58. PRONOUNS are the class of words most nearly related to substantive nouns; being, as their name imports, representatives, or substitutes, of nouns.

Illus. I, thou, he, she, it, are pronouns, and they are no other fhan an abridged way of naming the persons or objects with which we have immediate intercourse, or to which, in discourse, we are frequently obliged to refer.

Corol. They are thence, with substantive nouns, subject to the same modifications of number, geader, and case.

Obs. 1. As the pronouns of the first and second person refer to persons who are present to each other when they speak, their sex must appear, and therefore needs not to be marked by a masculine or feminine pronoun. But as the third person may be absent, or unknown, the distinction of gender there becomes necessary; and accordingly, in English, the third person hath all the three genders belonging to it; he, she, it.

2. In English, most of our grammarians hold the personal proBouns to have two cases, besides the nominative; a possessive or genitive, and an accusative-I, mine, me; thou, thine, thee; he, his, him; who, whose, whom; we, ours, us; ye, yours, you; they, theirs, them.

59. ADJECTIVES, or terms of quality, such as great, little, black, white, are the plainest and simplest of all that class of words which are termed attributive. (Art. 44 Corol.)

Obs. 1. They are found in all languages; and, in all languages, must have been very early invented, as objects could not be distinguished from one another, nor could any intercourse be carried on concerning them, till names were given to their different qualities.

2. Between adjectives and participles there is no difference, except the latter, along with their primary signification, denote the additional idea of time. Both serve to notify the qualities or attributes, and to define and illustrate the meaning of substantives.

3. All adjectives which denote qualities susceptible of augmentation or diminution, and almost all the qualities which are so, are susceptible of comparison.

4. Though the degrees of augmentation of which a quality is sus

ceptible, may be almost infinite, yet the framers of languages have been content with marking two stages only of these degrees.

5. By the former is signified that of two quantities 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.

6. The ancient languages express their degrees of comparison, chiefly by adding terminations to the adjectives; the modern languages, incline more to signify them by auxiliary words.

60. The VERB is by far the most complex of the whole class of words which are called attributive. The chief characteristic of the verb is action or energy. The combination of ideas which it is thence employed to express, unavoidably renders it the most intricate of all the parts of speech.

Corol. Verbs, therefore, from their importance and necessity in speech, must have been coëral with men's first attempts towards the formation of language. (Art. 54.)

61. Of the various circumstances which must be communicated by the word denoting action, the chief refer to time and manner.

Illus. In relating an action it is requisite to notify whether it is finished, is finishing, or will be finished. And it is no less important to communicate also the manner in which the action has been performed, is performing, or will be performed. Whether the agent operated with deliberation, confidence, and resolution, or with embarrassment, hesitation, and suspicion; whether he commanded the performance of the action, or signified only his inclination that it should be performed. ·

Corol. Hence arose the necessity that the verb along with the signification of action, should likewise express time, and that, with the signification of action and time, it should also denote manner. Here, then, we find the origin of moods and tenses.

62. As it was necessary that the circumstances of time and manner should attend the signification of action; the next important step, in the formation of language, was, to determine by what means this combined communication should be accomplished.

Illus. One of two methods, it seems, must have been adopted; either to vary the terminations of the verb, or to conjoin with it auxiliary words, so as to convey these additional circumstances. The former of these methods, with a mixture of the latter, in the pas sive form of their verbs, was employed by the Greeks and Romans,