female, than the English scholar would be in drawing the same inference from the corresponding word cow. In the Latin, the termination of the word would, to a certain extent, indicate its gender; but, from the mere form of the word, no guess even can be made in English. The words spear and sword are both neuter in English, because they represent things without life; but the corresponding words in Latin, hasta and gladius, are feminine and masculine respectively, because they happen to terminate in a and us. 93. Adam Smith remarks, that "in many languages, the qualities both of sex and the want of sex are expressed by different terminations in the nouns substantive which denote objects so qualified." After showing that, in Latin, certain terminations were appropriated to expressing certain genders, he adds, "The quality [of sex] appears in nature as a modification of the substance; and as it is thus expressed in language by a modification of the noun substantive which denotes that substance, the quality and the subject are, in this case, blended together, if I may say so, in the expression, in the same manner as they appear to be in the object and in the idea. Hence the origin of the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders, in all the ancient languages." Admitting the truth as well as the ingenuity of this speculation, as far as regards ancient languages, it certainly is not the genius of the English language to assign any particular termination (as we find in the Latin) to the different genders. There are no doubt many words with terminations from which we could infer the gender, but these are mostly derived from Latin or French; and in by far the greater number of important words there is no etymological relation whatever subsisting between the words expressing a male and the corresponding female. The words son and daughter are in no way related to each other any more than the words son and father. They are correlative terms, to be sure, but the relation is not a grammatical one. exists in the things, not in the words. It 94. Without, then, upholding the correctness of the classification, we may state, that the gender of a noun is said to be indicated in three ways:-1st, By a different termination; 2d, by a different word; and, 3d, by a prefix. 95. In the first class some change is made on the termination of the word to make it represent the corresponding male. Of this sort are the following: If the masculine word is adopted from a dead or foreign tongue, we generally use the feminine word of the same 96. On this class of words a remark of Dr Crombie's is well worth attending to. "It frequently happens," he says, "that our language furnishes two distinct terms for the male and female, as shepherd, shepherdess. It is to be observed, however, that the masculine term has a general meaning, expressing both male and female, and is always employed when the office, occupation, profession, &c., and not the sex of the individual, is chiefly to be expressed; and the feminine term is used in those cases only where discrimination of sex is indispensably necessary." From this it follows that such sentences as "Mrs Siddons was the greatest actor of her time,” and “ Mrs Siddons was the greatest actress of her time,” are both quite correct as far as grammar is concerned, but the meaning conveyed by the one is very different from that suggested by the other. 97. In some cases, difference of sex is expressed by a totally different word, and the gender cannot be ascertained but by knowing the exact idea attached to the word. Of this sort are the following : 98. Sometimes the same word is applied to males and females indiscriminately; and when we wish to distinguish the sex, we prefix another word, forming, in fact, a com pound word, with a signification allied to, but yet distinct from, its primitive. Thus, the word servant signifies either a male or a female; but if we desire to notify which, we can use the compound words man-servant or maid-servant. Of the same kind are he-goat and she-goat, cock-sparrow and hen-sparrow, and many others. 99. In assigning gender to nouns, then, so far as we have yet seen, the English language corresponds entirely to the truth of natural history, or, as Crombie expresses it, "follows the order of nature." Sometimes, however, it departs from this rule, and assigns a masculine or feminine gender to a word that should strictly be considered neuter, as expressing a thing without life, and consequently without the natural distinction of sex. By a figure of speech, called Personification, a fictitious sex is attributed to things inanimate. We can often see or fancy we see a reason for preferring the masculine to the feminine, or the feminine to the masculine; but sometimes the choice seems to have been made capriciously, or at any rate to have been regulated by ideas whose operation on our language we cannot now clearly trace. Mr Harris thinks that the masculine would be preferred when masculine qualities, such as strength, energy, &c., predominated; while the feminine would be adopted when the object was distinguished rather by the feminine graces of beauty, mildness, &c.; and the explanation is on the whole satisfactory. 100. This power of varying the gender of a word gives an obvious advantage to our tongue over those in which the gender is fixed. If we wish to speak of an object without feeling, we use its natural gender, but if we wish to produce a rhetorical effect, we use a masculine or feminine gender. The natural philosopher, referring to the sun merely as one of the component parts of a system, would properly enough use the pronoun it; but the poet, who wishes to excite a feeling of admiration for the object, would use he. In the same way, the metaphysician, detailing a theory of virtue without wishing to awaken any feeling, would use it; but the poet, fired with love for the object, would say she. Forasmuch as it has been disputed wherein virtue consists, or whatever ground for doubt there may be about particulars, yet, in general, there is in reality an universally acknowledged standard of it.-Butler's Dissertation" Of the Nature of Virtue. Mortals that would follow me, Heaven itself would stoop to her.-Milton's Comus. EXERCISE XIII. 1. Whence originates the grammatical distinction of gender? What two natural genders are there? What other two? Explain all the four sorts, and give two examples of each. Is the distinction of gender deeply impressed on the English language? From the mere form of the words king, queen, pen, can any conjecture be made as to their respective genders? Does the same thing hold in the Latin words rex, regina, penna? In how many ways is gender said to be pointed out? Give the substance of Dr Crombie's remark on the class of words, actor, actress; governor, governess, &c. Does the English language always follow the order of nature in assigning gender to words? When it departs from it, does it follow any other rule? State Mr Harris's theory on this subject. What advantage arises from this power of assigning different genders to the same word? Illustrate this by quotations. 2. State or write the corresponding feminines to the following masculine nouns: man, king, prince, husband, brother, he-goat, duke, friar, nephew, boy, uncle, man-servant, cock-sparrow, father, administrator. 3. State or write the corresponding masculines to the following feminine nouns: duck, countess, goose, lass, mistress, sultana, heiress, widow, sorceress, daughter. 4. In assigning gender, figuratively, to the following words, sun, peace, spring, sleep, death, fortune, earth, winter, noon, time, state generally on what principle you fix the gender, and make or quote sentences to illustrate your choice. 3.-CASE. 101. CASE is that accident of a noun which points out the relation which it bears to other parts of the sentence. 102. English grammarians have not, it must be confessed, been consistent in their theory of cases. They judge neither wholly by change of idea nor by change of form, but partly by both. Were we to reckon every modification of idea a case, then, as was long ago remarked by Dr Beattie, we should have at least as many cases in nouns as we have prepositions; but the absurdity of this has preserved it from being adopted by any one. But, on the other hand, were we to be very strict in our definition-and definitions ought to be exclusive-we should cut off one case hitherto universally admitted, namely the objective, because, as far as nouns are concerned, it is not distinguished by a change of termination. The distinction is useful in syntax, though it can scarcely be justified in etymology. 103. The common doctrine of cases is this. Nouns have three cases, if not distinguished by difference of form, at least used in different syntactical relations. These are the Nominative, Possessive, and Objective.* 104. The noun is said to be in the Nominative, when it is the subject of discourse, and represents the person or thing of whom or which some assertion is made. Thus, in the sentence, "John reads," the proper noun John is said to be in the nominative, because it names the person of whom "CASE.-Sometimes grammarians use this word to signify (which is its strict sense) a certain variation in the writing and utterance of a noun, denoting the relation in which it stands to some other part of the sentence;' sometimes to denote that relation itself, whether indicated by the termination or by a preposition, or by its collocation; and there is hardly any writer on the subject who does not occasionally employ the term in each sense, without explaining the ambiguity. Much confusion and frivolous debate has (?) hence resulted. "Whoever would see a specimen of this, may find it in the Port Royal Greek Grammar, in which the authors insist on giving the Greek language an ablative case, with the same termination, however, as the dative (though by the way they had better have fixed on the genitive, which oftener answers to the Latin ablative); urging, and with great truth, that if a distinct termination be necessary to constitute a case, many Latin nouns will be without an ablative, some without a genitive or without a dative, and all neuters without an accusative. And they add, that since it is possible, in every instance, to render into Greek the Latin ablative, consequently there must be an ablative in Greek. If they had known and recollected, that in the language of Lapland there are, as we are told, thirteen cases, they would have hesitated to use an argument which would prove that there must therefore be thirteen cases in Greek and Latin also! All this confusion might have been avoided if it had been but observed that the word "Case' is used in two senses." -Whately's Logic. |