240 On Definitions. 
way without any exceptions, would cut off many sources of ambi- 
guit : 
But the irregularities found in the expression of number, sink into 
insignificance when compared with those which relate to the dis- 
tinction of gender. [am not aware that there is any known lan- 
guage, except the English, in which that distinction is founded in 
nature, and the corresponding accuracy of expression preserved. In 
all others, it is a mere load to the memory, and consequently a hin- 
drance to readiness of expression, and an interminable obstruction 
to perspicuity. Many languages have only two genders, and conse- 
quently arrange all the names of inanimate objects, without any in- 
telligible rule of distinction, under the masculine or feminine gen- 
ders. Others have three genders, but still with the most capricious 
contempt of order distribute the names of inanimate objects among 
all the three. 
In the degrees of comparison, most Janguages have been more 
uniform. Yet all of them have even in this respect, useless irregu- 
larities. 
The want of genders and numbers in English adjectives, is proba- 
bly a defect in that language. A uniform mode of forming them, 
corresponding to their substantives, would probably have been an 
additional source of precision. 
It is scarcely necessary to bring forward more examples of this 
irregularity. I would only allude to, but not dwell on the great 
complexity of the declensions and conjugations in the ancient Jan- 
guages. That there should be five or six modes of producing the 
same alterations on different nouns, and as many on different verbs, 
is an extraordinary instance of the caprice of custom. 
All these irregularities, and many others that might be mentioned, 
both in ancient and modern languages, are occasioned by the same 
cause. They are consequences of languages being entirely formed 
by chance, and custom and caprice. The writers on grammar come 
too late with their rules, to remedy the anomalies which desultory 
practice had long sanctioned. Nations have never been willing 10 
allow their languages to be reformed according to any principle. 
They all act as if their language was sacred, the product of some 
celestial understanding, which no mortal had a right to change oF 
improve. All that is permitted to grammarians, is to collect and 
methodize the practices which custom has introduced, however wild 
and incongruous they may have been. But mankind always follow 
etic winihinsiaieatiae 
