194 tn personal pronouns. Oct. ic. 



admits of a thret fold diitinction, respecting gender, 

 and no more, i;/«. 



IJ^, Masculine, exprefsive of males. 

 id. Feminine, exprefsive of females. And 

 3^, Neuter, applicable to inanimate objects, or t® 

 animals whose sex is not obvious or generally known, 

 or not necefsary to be specified. Here the division 

 rests. And although from what has been already 

 said on the subject oi gender, it is plain that this divi- 

 der of the nouns to which they refer, it becomes a severe taflt to learners 

 to recollect these. This is a source of many grammatical blunders in the 

 common use of these languages. But if it be embarrafsing, even where on- 

 ly t^ao genders have been admitted, how much more would it have been 

 so, had all the pofsible variations been adopted that a strict adherence to 

 nature would have required ? It has probably been from this circum- 

 s:ance that so few genders have bes-n in general employed : and, where 

 this practice is adopted, perhaps the fewer of them the better. 



In the Er.glirti language no variation of either arf/tfirii/sj or az-nV/ci, re- 

 specting gender, are admitted ; and it is only in the pronouns that the gen- 

 der of the noun, /or which they are substituted, becomes apparent. Tliis 

 language too pofsefses the singular «Icgance of following nature precisely 

 with regard to gender, as far as the number of genders we have adopted 

 will permit. If a person therefore, knows the nature of the object of 

 which he speaks or writes, he must also know the gender of the pronoun 

 Jiemust employ. If it be a male animal, the masculine gender of the pro- 

 noun only can he employed ; if it be z female, the femir.he alone can be 

 u;,ed ; if th^ sex of the animal be unknown, or if it be an inanimate ob- 

 t'ct, the neuter gender must necefsarlly be adoptei^. 



This rule is general, and admits of no except. on ; unlefs where, with 

 a poetical enthusiasm, which the genius of our langu.-ge. rfadlly admits, 

 'nanimatc objects are personified j and la th's c :i the poet who has tnce 

 afsigned sex to tlie object, must adhere to the same rule when Jie substi- 

 tutes a pronoun for it. 



In this respect then the EiigliOi language !s unequalled. It adheres to 

 nature; but it does not extend i.s powers as far as the bounds of nature al- 

 l.nvs. The enquiry in the text is calculated to ftow how manv discinc" 

 lio IS in that rcipsct nature would i&adily admit of. ' 



