grammar. 
inferred ; as in the expressions iron ore, 
iron chain, iron heat, China orange, house 
door, &c. The theoretical distinction be- 
tween the dative, and accusative does not 
appear to be clearly marked ; but the gene- 
ral force of the former is to denote acquisi- 
tion, and of the latter to designate the word 
as the object of the action of verbs and their 
derivatives. As to the ablative, there is 
scarcely room for doubt that it is merely a 
variation of the dative form, where indeed , 
it has a form distinct from it. Probably, in 
consequence of the ellipsis of a preposition, 
this form has by degrees become the de- 
notement of the cause, manner, or instru- 
ment of an action ; and this is now the pri- 
mary force of the case when unattended 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 ar- 
bitrary, or gradually produced by the coa- 
lescence of words or abbreviations of words. 
The latter hypothesis is in every respect so 
very probable, that nothing seems requisite 
to prove it to have been the general pro- 
cedure of language ; but to shew that it has 
actually occurred in some instances. It has 
been for some time the prevailing opinion 
among philosophical philologists, and it has 
acquired great support from the discoveries 
of Mr. H. Tooke. He states it without any 
limit, in the following manner : “ All those 
common terminations, in any language, of 
which all nouns or verbs in that language 
equally partake (under the notion of de- 
clension or conjugation) are themselves se- 
parate 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 ex- 
plained.” In fact, the progress of the coa- 
lescence has been detected in some of the 
most refined instances of it ; and in many 
cases to which system has not reached the 
coalescence is universally allowed. 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 Hebrew noun are obvi- 
ously formed by prefixing (instead of affix- 
ing, as in the Greek) significant words. The 
grammarian does not indeed allow that the 
changes of the Hebrew noun are cases; but 
such arbitrary distinctions serve only to 
render obscurity more obscure. In the 
French, au and du are indisputaby abbrevia- 
tions of 6. le and de le: we can trace their 
corruption, and we are not obliged to sup- 
pose greater corruptions in more disputable 
instances. What is the origin of the pos- 
sessive termination of our nouns is very un- 
certain. It is obviously the corresponding 
Anglo Saxon termination ; but what is the 
origin of that? We may hope to receive 
light upon this point, when the third part of 
“ Epea Pteroenta” is laid before the pub- 
lic. 
20. Gender is a distinction of substantives, 
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 said to be of the neuter, that is, of 
neither gender. The purposes even of ac- 
curate communication do not in all cases 
require any denotement of gender, and ac- 
cordingly we find many words which are 
common to both sexes. The English and 
the pure Persian appear to be the only 
languages which observe the natural distinc- 
tion in the division of nouns. We denote 
difference of sex, either by a change of ap- 
pellation, or by a change on the word itself, 
or by a significant adjunct. In addition to 
its greater philosophical accuracy, the pro- 
cedure of our language enables us to mark 
with greater perspicuity and force the per- 
sonification of inanimate substances or ab- 
stract qualities. In the earliest languages 
there is no distinction of gender further than 
into masculine and feminine, and the reason 
is obvious ; for the principle of animation 
appears to the uncultivated mind to pervade 
all nature. In the more cultivated languages 
in which a third class is admitted, the ar- 
rangement seems to have been the work of 
art. The foundation was laid in the natural 
distinction of sex ; by degrees those termi- 
nations which most frequently occurred in 
the respective divisions were made the cha- 
racteristics of those divisions, and nouns of 
similar terminations were arranged under 
them, without respect to the original ground 
of distinction. AVe must not be surprized 
to find, that languages derived from those, 
in which the distinctions of nature had 
given way to the divisions of art, should 
leave nature altogether ; and we accordingly 
find, that in those modern European Ian-; 
guages which are derived from the Latin, 
gender is little more than a mere gramma- 
tical distinction of nouns into two classes, 
called masculine and feminine. 
BbJ 
