ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF GRAMMATICAL GENDEE. 217 



.'(some only, as Burmese, Chinese, Siamese, Annamese), some African 

 tongues (as Fulah, Nuba, Kunama, Barea, Somali, Niam-niam), 

 Dravidian (except where Sanskrit has influenced), Caucasian (some 

 only as liCzghi, Ude, Georgian, Mingi-elian, Lazic, Suanic), Basque, 

 Negro Languages of W. Africa (as Serer, Nupe, Soninke, Mandingo, 

 Serechule, Basa, Grebo, Kuru etc.), Kham-Bushman, Nicobarese and 

 Andamanese. The distinction of animate and inanimate so character- 

 istic of American tongues appears also in several old-world languages, 

 as : — Caucasian ( Abchas, Kasikumuk, Artsclii, Hiirkan, Tschetschenz, 

 Thusi, etc.), Dravidian, etc. The Khasia, Tibetan, and Hiirkan and 

 Avar are of especial value for our study of this subject. It is in the 

 American languages taken in connection with these that the solution 

 of the problem is to be found. To the American tongues, considered 

 in this respect, M. Lucien Adam and M. Raoul de la Grasserie, have 

 <levoted considerable attention. The probability of the distinction 

 between animate and inanimate having preceded that of male and 

 female is very great. The able essay of M. de La Grasserie (Revue de 

 Linguistique, XIX, 96-102) throws considerable light upon tlie sub- 

 ject. The following scheme shows the ideas of M. de La Grasserie, 

 regarding the origin and development of Grammatical Gender : 



I. Ego (animal) — non-ego. II. animate (homo) — inanimate (vital- 

 istic distinction). III. rational — irrational (rationalistic). IV. 

 andric — metandric (conception of man as superior in intelligence and 

 dignity to woman). V. Meidzobiotic — meiobiotic (conception of 

 greater or less intensity of vitality. VI. Masculine — Feminine. 



Man first distinguished the ego and the non-ego, and along with this 

 the like-me and the unlike-me. Then he separated the animate and 

 the inanimate into two great groups, him.self included in the first. 

 The next step was to discover the rationalistic distinction between 

 himself and the other animals ; this led to his esteeming himself 

 higher in dignity and intelligence to woman, and again to a distinc- 

 tion based upon the degree of intensity of vitality which finally led 

 up to the diflferentiation of masculine and feminine. Instead of there 

 Iiaving been one original sex-distinction from which grammatical 

 gender and all other genders arose, there have been many more, more 

 in some languages than others, and not until all these categories have 

 been examined and searched into can the problem of the origin of 

 Grammatical Gender be solved. 



