124 on tlje personal pronouns. Sept. 76, 



them, which might be called the imperfect. We can- 

 easily conceive that prodigious force might occasion- 

 ally be given to the language of contempt by the use 

 of this pronoun. 



^th. For the neuter gender, where inanimate objects 

 are concerned. Some may, perhaps, think it would 

 be a very unnecefsary, and even an absurd refinement, 

 to have a variation of these personal pronouns for 

 the neuter gender ; because inanimate objects neither 

 can speak themselves, nor be spoken to. Tetitis 

 very pofsible to form an idea of the utility of such a. 

 clafs of words, had tliey been in use in language. 

 Even at present, when it is meant to denote a high 

 degree of contempt for any person, the neuter Eng- 

 lilh pronoun, of the third person, is often substituted 

 for either of the other two genders in use in our lan- 

 guage : thus, *' it, meaning he or Jhe, is a despicable 

 creature," " it, meaning as before, is a pitiful thing,''^ 

 i. e. person ; and it is surely as necefsary to give nerve 

 to the language of contempt, when the object is pre- 

 sent, as wiien absent : and, as the speaker may some- 

 times wifli to exprefs a particular sense of humilia-. 

 tion or debasement of mind, denoting contrition, it 

 is easy to conceive occasions when this gender might 

 be adopted with great force and propriety, in the pro- 

 nouns of the Jirst and second, as well as of the third 

 person. 



Even in another way might this gender becorrse 

 necefsary. Addrefses to inanimate objects are com- 

 mon, even without any attempt at perso.iification ; as 

 in the song, " Cogie gin ye were ay fu'*," life, in 

 which cases the r.euter pronoun might be employed 

 • Ahunii,uious S:ots bjilaJ in T\'!i'ii.h a [e.'j-ia is reprcs'-ntcJ as'aiijref- 



