"^79^' grammatical disqu'uitions. 245 



be sa:d to admit of the masculiue zxiA feminine gen- 

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

 sidered as an efsential property of t:ie noun. It would 

 be easy to adopt different words for this purpose, as 

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

 and mare, hull and cow, ram and evae^ &:c. which are 

 all distinct words. Therefore to say that nouns ne- 

 cefsarily require a variation by inflection for gender, 

 is improper ; and if we were to admit that a m^iscu- 

 liae and feminine gender were required, we fliouJd stili 

 find that several other genders were necefsary. Many 

 animals have no sex at all, as grubs, caterpillars, \Sc. 

 many others are of both sexes, as diiTerent kinds of 

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

 slugs, \£c. To denote all these variations, a much 

 greater diversity of genders than the masculine and fe- 

 minine therefore would nave been necefsary. The truth 

 Jiowever, is, that no variation of the 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 principle in 

 grammar. The doctrine oi genders is indeed one of 

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

 the most absurd, in grammar, and hig]ily requires 

 elucidation ; but that will come to be more pro- 

 perly investigated under a separate head, if we fhould 

 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 fliall form the subject of a 

 separate paper. 



'To he continued. 



