GRAMMAR. 



we have in English one procedure exact- 

 ly corresponding 1 to it in force,though not 

 so universally applied, viz. juxtaposition. 

 This is a very simple and intelligible pro- 

 cedure. To connect the terms, is a satis- 

 factory expression of the connection of 

 the things signified : and in this proce- 

 dure, as in the genitive, the kind of con- 

 nection is left to be inferred ; as in the 

 expressions iron ore, iron chain, iron heat, 

 China orange, house door, &c. The the- 

 oretical distinction between the dative and 

 accusative does not appear to be clearly 

 marked ; but the general force of the 

 former is to denote acquisition, and of the 

 latter to designate the word, as the object 

 of the action of verbs and their deriva- 

 tives. As to the ablative, there is scarcely 

 room for doubt that it is merely a varia- 

 tion of the dative form, where indeed it 

 has a form distinct from it. Probably in 

 consequence of the elipsis of a preposi- 

 tion, this form has by degrees become the 

 denotement of the cause, manner, or in- 

 strument of an action ; and this is now 

 the primary force of the case when unat- 

 tended by prepositions. The changes 

 which are made to denote connection 

 have been formed by prefixing or affixing 

 letters to the words themselves; and they 

 might have been arbitrary, or gradually 

 produced by the coalescence of words or 

 abbreviations of words. The latter hy- 

 pothesis is in every respect so very pro- 

 bable, that nothing seems requisite to 

 prove it to have been the general proce- 

 dure of language, but to show that it has 

 actually occurred in some instances. It 

 has been for some time the prevailing 

 opinion among philosophical philolo- 

 gists, and it has acquired great support 

 from the discoveries of Mr. H. Tooke. 

 He states it without any limit, in the fol- 

 lowing manner : *' All those common ter- 

 minations, in any language, of which all 

 nouns or verbs in that language equally 

 partake (under the notion of declension or 

 conjugation) are themselves separate 

 words, with distinct meanings ; which^are 

 therefore added to the different nouns, or 

 verbs, because those additional meanings 

 are intended to be added occasionally to 

 all those nouns or verbs. These termina- 

 tions are all explicable, and ought to be 

 explained." In fact, the progress of the 

 coalescence has been detected in some of 

 the most refined instances of it ; and in 

 many cases to which system has not reach- 

 ed, the coalescence is universally allow- 

 ed. In the two principal cases of the 

 Greek noun, in some at least of its forms 

 of inflection, the origin of the change has 

 been traced ; and all the cases of the He- 



brew noun are obviously formed by pre- 

 fixing (instead of afhxing,as in the Greek) 

 significant words. The grammarian does 

 not indeed allow that the changes of the 

 Hebrew noun are cases : but such arbi- 

 trary distinctions serve only to render ob- 

 scurity more obscure. In the French, 

 au and du are indisputably abbreviations 

 of a le and de le : we can trace their cor- 

 ruption, and we are not obliged to sup- 

 pose greater corruptions in more disputa- 

 ble instances. What is the origin of the 

 possessive termination of our nouns is ve- 

 ry uncertain. It is obviously the corres- 

 ponding Anglo Saxon termination ; but 

 what is the origin of that ? We may hope 

 to receive light upon this point, when 

 the third part of " Epesf Pteroenta" is 

 laid before the public. 



20. Gender is a distinction of substan- 

 tives as denoting males or females, or 

 neither. The names of males are said to 

 be of the masculine gender; the names of 

 females of the feminine gender ; and all 

 other names are sajd to be of the neuter, 

 that is, of neither gender. The purposes 

 even of accurate communication do not in 

 all cases require any denotement of gen- 

 der, and accordingly we find many words 

 which are common to both sexes. T-he 

 English and the pure Persian appear to 

 be the only languages which observe the 

 natural distinction in the division of nouns. 

 We denote difference of sex, either by a 

 change of appellation, or by a change on 

 the word itself, or by a significant adjunct. 

 In addition to its greater philosophical 

 accuracy, the procedure of our language 

 enables us to mark with greater perspi- 

 cuity and force the personification of in- 

 animate substances or abstract qualities. 

 In the earliest languages there is no dis- 

 tinction of gender further than into mas- 

 culine and feminine, and the reason is 

 obvious; for the principle of animation ap- 

 pears to the uncultivated mind to pervade 

 all nature. In the more cultivated lan- 

 guages, in which a third class isadmitted, 

 the arrangement seems to have been the 

 work of art. The foundation was laid in 

 the natural distinction of sex; by degrees 

 those terminations which mostfrequently 

 occurred in the respective divisions were 

 made the characteristics of those divi- 

 sions, and nouns of similar termina- 

 tions were arranged under them, with- 

 out respect to the original ground of 

 distinction. We must not be surpris- 

 ed to find that languages, derived from 

 those in which the distinctions of na- 

 tiire had given way to the divisions of 

 art, should leave nature altogether : and 



