GRAMMAR. 
ml principles of language ; and though the 
neglect of the plural termination in such 
cases is ungrammatical, it probably savours 
less of vulgarity to go thus far with the mul- 
titude, than of pedantry to quit the beaten 
track. There are other instances, how- 
ever, in which the use of the same word 
both in a singular and plural acceptation is 
perfectly legitimate ; we say one, or twenty, 
deer, sheep, or swine. If there must be a 
form for unity as distinguished from plura- 
lity, why not forms to denote two things, 
three things, &c. ? There is no reason but 
in their inferior utility some languages have 
a form for duality ; and by the Greeks this 
form was carried through their nouns, ad- 
nouns, pronouns, verbs, and participles. 
They had, however, no scruple in using the 
plural form for two things, and in making 
their duals agree with plurals. The fact is, 
the distinction between one and more than 
one is more useful than any farther distinc- 
tion. The indefinite denotement of plura- 
lity is continually serviceable ; and if we 
wish to specify the exact number, the addi- 
tion of a numeral is a much more simple 
procedure than the burdening of language 
with a number of distinctions, which would 
seldom be useful, and never necessary. 
19. In every department of knowledge 
we are concerned with individuals; and 
though for the purposes of communication 
genera! terms are not only convenient, but 
absolutely necessary, some contrivances are 
requisite to designate individuals, or less 
general classes of individuals. This is done 
by means of adnouns, or by stating some 
connection between what is denoted by 
the noun and some other substance or qua- 
lity. The latter is accomplished by juxta- 
position, by prepositions, or by equivalent 
changes in the word connected. The last 
is called inflection, and the word so changed 
is called a case of the noun. In English we 
have only one inflection of the noun, and 
two of the pronoun. Persons who think 
that the procedures of every language must 
be accommodated to the grammar of the 
Greek and Latin, strenuously contend for 
an equal number of cases with their’s. If 
case mean a change in the word, to denote 
connection with other words, then the plan 
of our language cannot be accommodated to 
that of the Latin : if of a man, to a man, See. be 
considered as cases, there is certainly no 
reason why the same appellation should not 
be given to every noun to which a prepo- 
sition is prefixed, and then we shall have 
above thirty cases. It is fortunate for the 
speculator, that, in this and other, instances, 
language will not bend to the contrivances 
of the technical grammarian : for his wish 
to reduce every process to an agreement 
with a standard which prejudice only can 
deem perfect would, if successful, material- 
ly increase the difficulties of grammatical 
investigation. The variation of our nouns 
is confined to the denotement of one rela- 
tion, that of property or possession ; and it 
is therefore with great propriety called the 
possessive case. The appellation genitive 
case is sometimes applied to it; but the 
force of the Greek and Latin genitive is to 
denote relation in general, though capable 
of specific application, and is exactly equi- 
valent to a noun preceded by of. The pos- 
sessive case of a noun is not equivalent 
to the noun preceded by of, except where 
the latter has the'specific force of belonging 
to. It may in all cases be represented by of, 
with the noun following ; but the latter' mode 
of expression cannot in many instances be 
represented by the possessive case. The 
French, Spanish, and Italian languages have 
no cases of nouns : the German has changes 
to express what we denote by of and to ; but 
these changes are not carried through all the 
nouns. The Latin and Greek languages 
have still more variations, which they carry 
through all their variable parts of speech, 
except the verbs. The arrangement of these 
variations is the work of art ; and the appel- 
lations of case, or fallen, and declension, 
or bending from, appear to have gone upon 
this principle : the word from which the cases 
are formed was represented by a perpendi- 
cular line, and the cases by lines declining 
or falling from it. For the sake of conve- 
nience, the nominative and vocative are de- 
nominated cases ; and from the above con- 
trivance the nominative was termed the 
upright case, and the other cases were term- 
ed oblique. The nominative is the name itself. 
The vocative, or case of calling, has its ori- 
gin in those changes in the pronunciation 
which arise from the mode of utterance in 
calling to a person : it is a corruption, or 
an abbreviation of the nominative. We 
have already spoken of the force of the 
genitive; we shall only add here, that we 
have in English one procedure exactly cor- 
responding to it in force, though not so uni- 
versally applied, viz. juxtaposition. This is 
a very simple and intelligible procedure. 
To connect the terms is a satisfactory ex- 
pression of the connection of the things 
signified : and in this procedure, as in the 
genitive, the kind of connection is left to be 
