T79^* grammatical disquisitions. 245 



be sa;d to admit of the masculiue znd feminine GEN- 

 DER, by inflection. Bat this can in no sense be con- 

 sidered as an efsential property of tie noun. It would 

 be easy to adopt different words for tiiis purpose, as 

 we in fact do in many cases, as king and queen, horse 

 and mare, bull and cow, ram and eive, Sec. which arc 

 all distinct words. Therefore to say that nouns ue- 

 cefsarily require a variation by inflection for gender, 

 is improper ; and if we were to admit that a m'dscu- 

 liae and feminine gender were required, we fhould still 

 find that several other genders were necefsary. Many 

 animals have no sex at all, as grubs, citerpillars, X^c. 

 many others are of both sexes, as different kinds of 

 worms ; many others have no apparent icx, as snails, 

 slugs, iSc. To denote all these variations, a much 

 greater diversity of genders than the masculiue and fe- 

 minine therefore would nave been necefsary. The truth 

 Iiowever, is, that no variation of tlie noun whatever 

 is required respecting gender, and our notions have 

 been, as to this particular, totally perverted, by en- 

 deavouring to erect the anomalous practice adopted 

 in a particular language into a radical jjrinciple in 

 grammar. The doctrine oi genders is indeed one of 

 the most intricate, and as it has been apjilied, one of 

 the most absurd, in grammar, and higJjly requires 

 elucidation ; but that will come to be more pro- 

 perly investigated under a separate head, if we Ihould 

 ever go so far. 



The variation respecting case is still more absurd, 

 and the doctrine that has been founded on it, yet 

 more ridiculous ; but this Iliali form the subject of a 

 separate paper. 



To be continued. 



