OBS. 32.—There are several nouns which are usually alike in both numbers. Thus, deer, folk, fry, gentry, grouse, hose, neat, sheep, swine, vermin, and rest, (i. e. the rest, the others, the residue,) are regular singulars, but they are used also as plurals, and that more frequently. Again, alms, aloes, bellows, means, news, odds, shambles, and species, are proper plurals, but most of them are oftener construed as singulars. Folk and fry are collective nouns. Folk means people; a folk, a people: as, "The ants are a people not strong;"—"The conies are but a feeble folk."—Prov., xxx, 25, 26. "He laid his hands on a few sick folk, and healed them."—Mark, vi, 5. Folks, which ought to be the plural of folk, and equivalent to peoples, is now used with reference to a plurality of individuals, and the collective word seems liable to be entirely superseded by it. A fry is a swarm of young fishes, or of any other little creatures living in water: so called, perhaps, because their motions often make the surface fry. Several such swarms might properly be called fries; but this form can never be applied to the individuals, without interfering with the other. "So numerous was the fry."—Cowper. "The fry betake themselves to the neighbouring pools."—Quarterly Review. "You cannot think more contemptuously of these gentry than they were thought of by the true prophets."—Watson's Apology, p. 93. "Grouse, a heathcock."—Johnson.

"The 'squires in scorn will fly the house For better game, and look for grouse."—Swift.

"Here's an English tailor, come hither for stealing out of a French hose."—Shak. "He, being in love, could not see to garter his hose."—Id. Formerly, the plural was hosen: "Then these men were bound, in their coats, their hosen, and their hats."—Dan., iii, 21. Of sheep, Shakspeare has used the regular plural: "Two hot sheeps, marry!"—Love's Labour Lost, Act ii, Sc. 1.

"Who both by his calf and his lamb will be known, May well kill a neat and a sheep of his own."—Tusser.

"His droves of asses, camels, herds of neat, And flocks of sheep, grew shortly twice as great."—Sandys.

"As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout."—Prov., xi, 22. "A herd of many swine, feeding."—Matt., viii, 30. "An idle person only lives to spend his time, and eat the fruits of the earth, like a vermin or a wolf."—Taylor. "The head of a wolf, dried and hanged up, will scare away vermin."—Bacon. "Cheslip, a small vermin that lies under stones or tiles."—SKINNER: in Joh. and in Web. Dict. "This is flour, the rest is bran."—"And the rest were blinded."—Rom., xi, 7. "The poor beggar hath a just demand of an alms."—Swift. "Thine alms are come up for a memorial before God."—Acts, x, 4. "The draught of air performed the function of a bellows."—Robertson's Amer., ii, 223. "As the bellows do."—Bicknell's Gram., ii, 11. "The bellows are burned."—Jer., vi, 29. "Let a gallows be made."—Esther, v, 14. "Mallows are very useful in medicine."—Wood's Dict. "News," says Johnson, "is without the singular, unless it be considered as singular."—Dict. "So is good news from a far country."—Prov., xxv, 25. "Evil news rides fast, while good news baits."—Milton. "When Rhea heard these news, she fled."—Raleigh. "News were brought to the queen."—Hume's Hist., iv, 426. "The news I bring are afflicting, but the consolation with which they are attended, ought to moderate your grief."—Gil Blas, Vol. ii, p. 20. "Between these two cases there are great odds."—Hooker. "Where the odds is considerable."—Campbell. "Determining on which side the odds lie."—Locke. "The greater are the odds that he mistakes his author."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 1. "Though thus an odds unequally they meet."—Rowe's Lucan, B. iv, l. 789. "Preeminent by so much odds."—Milton. "To make a shambles of the parliament house."—Shak. "The earth has been, from the beginning, a great Aceldama, a shambles of blood."—Christian's Vade-Mecum, p. 6. "A shambles" sounds so inconsistent, I should rather say, "A shamble." Johnson says, the etymology of the word is uncertain; Webster refers it to the Saxon scamel: it means a butcher's stall, a meat-market; and there would seem to be no good reason for the s, unless more than one such place is intended. "Who sells his subjects to the shambles of a foreign power."—Pitt. "A special idea is called by the schools a species."—Watts. "He intendeth the care of species, or common natures."—Brown. "ALOE, (al~o) n.; plu. ALOES."—Webster's Dict., and Worcester's. "But it was aloe itself to lose the reward."— Tupper's Crock of Gold, p. 16.

"But high in amphitheatre above, His arms the everlasting aloes threw." —Campbell, G. of W., ii, 10.

OBS. 33.—There are some nouns, which, though really regular in respect to possessing the two forms for the two numbers, are not free from irregularity in the manner of their application. Thus means is the regular plural of mean; and, when the word is put for mediocrity, middle point, place, or degree, it takes both forms, each in its proper sense; but when it signifies things instrumental, or that which is used to effect an object, most writers use means for the singular as well as for the plural:[156] as, "By this means"—"By those means," with reference to one mediating cause; and, "By these means,"—"By those means," with reference to more than one. Dr. Johnson says the use of means for mean is not very grammatical; and, among his examples for the true use of the word, he has the following: "Pamela's noble heart would needs gratefully make known the valiant mean of her safety."—Sidney. "Their virtuous conversation was a mean to work the heathens' conversion."—Hooker. "Whether his wits should by that mean have been taken from him."—Id. "I'll devise a mean to draw the Moor out of the way."—Shak. "No place will please me so, no mean of death."—Id. "Nature is made better by no mean, but nature makes that mean."—Id. Dr. Lowth also questioned the propriety of construing means as singular, and referred to these same authors as authorities for preferring the regular form. Buchanan insists that means is right in the plural only; and that, "The singular should be used as perfectly analogous; by this mean, by that mean."—English Syntax, p. 103. Lord Kames, likewise, appears by his practice to have been of the same opinion: "Of this the child must be sensible intuitively, for it has no other mean of knowledge."—Elements of Criticism, Vol. i, p. 357. "And in both the same mean is employed."—Ib. ii, 271. Caleb Alexander, too, declares "this means," "that means." and "a means," to be "ungrammatical."—Gram., p. 58. But common usage has gone against the suggestions of these critics, and later grammarians have rather confirmed the irregularity, than attempted to reform it.

OBS. 34.—Murray quotes sixteen good authorities to prove that means may be singular; but whether it ought to be so or not, is still a disputable point. Principle is for the regular word mean, and good practice favours the irregularity, but is still divided. Cobbett, to the disgrace of grammar, says, "Mean, as a noun, is never used in the singular. It, like some other words, has broken loose from all principle and rule. By universal consent, it is become always a plural, whether used with singular or plural pronouns and articles, or not."—E. Gram., p. 144. This is as ungrammatical, as it is untrue. Both mean and means are sufficiently authorized in the singular: "The prospect which by this mean is opened to you."—Melmoth's Cicero. "Faith in this doctrine never terminates in itself, but is a mean, to holiness as an end."—Dr. Chalmers, Sermons, p. v. "The mean of basely affronting him."—Brown's Divinity, p. 19. "They used every mean to prevent the re-establishment of their religion."—Dr Jamieson's Sacred Hist., i, p. 20. "As a necessary mean to prepare men for the discharge of that duty."— Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 153. "Greatest is the power of a mean, when its power is least suspected."—Tupper's Book of Thoughts, p. 37. "To the deliberative orator the reputation of unsullied virtue is not only useful, as a mean of promoting his general influence, it is also among his most efficient engines of persuasion, upon every individual occasion."—J. Q. Adams's Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory, i, 352. "I would urge it upon you, as the most effectual mean of extending your respectability and usefulness in the world."—Ib., ii, 395. "Exercise will be admitted to be a necessary mean of improvement."—Blair's Rhet., p. 343. "And by that means we have now an early prepossession in their favour."—Ib., p. 348. "To abolish all sacrifice by revealing a better mean of reconciliation." —Keith's Evidences, p. 46. "As a mean of destroying the distinction." —Ib., p. 3. "Which however is by no mean universally the case."— Religious World Displayed, Vol. iii, p. 155.

OBS. 35.—Again, there are some nouns, which, though they do not lack the regular plural form, are sometimes used in a plural sense without the plural termination. Thus manner makes the plural manners, which last is now generally used in the peculiar sense of behaviour, or deportment, but not always: it sometimes means methods, modes, or ways; as, "At sundry times and in divers manners."—Heb., i, 1. "In the manners above mentioned."—Butler's Analogy, p. 100. "There be three manners of trials in England."—COWELL: Joh. Dict., w. Jury. "These two manners of representation."—Lowth's Gram., p. 15. "These are the three primary modes, or manners, of expression."—Lowth's Gram., p. 83. "In arrangement, too, various manners suit various styles."—Campbell's Phil. of Rhet., p. 172. "Between the two manners."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 35. "Here are three different manners of asserting."— Barnard's Gram., p. 59. But manner has often been put for sorts, without the s; as, "The tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits."—Rev., xxii, 2. "All manner of men assembled here in arms."—Shak. "All manner of outward advantages."—Atterbury. Milton used kind in the same way, but not very properly; as, "All kind of living creatures."—P. Lost, B. iv, l. 286. This irregularity it would be well to avoid. Manners may still, perhaps, be proper for modes or ways; and all manner, if allowed, must be taken in the sense of a collective noun; but for sorts, kinds, classes, or species, I would use neither the plural nor the singular of this word. The word heathen, too, makes the regular plural heathens, and yet is often used in a plural sense without the s; as, "Why do the heathen rage?"—Psalms, ii, 1. "Christianity was formerly propagated among the heathens."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 217. The word youth, likewise, has the same peculiarities.

OBS. 36.—Under the present head come names of fishes, birds, or other things, when the application of the singular is extended from the individual to the species, so as to supersede the plural by assuming its construction: as, Sing. "A great fish."—Jonah, i, 17. Plur. "For the multitude of fishes'."—John, xxi, 6. "A very great multitude of fish."—Ezekiel, xlvii, 9.[157] The name of the genus being liable to this last construction, men seem to have thought that the species should follow; consequently, the regular plurals of some very common names of fishes are scarcely known at all. Hence some grammarians affirm, that salmon, mackerel, herring, perch, tench, and several others, are alike in both numbers, and ought never to be used in the plural form. I am not so fond of honouring these anomalies. Usage is here as unsettled, as it is arbitrary; and, if the expression of plurality is to be limited to either form exclusively, the regular plural ought certainly to be preferred. But, for fish taken in bulk, the singular form seems more appropriate; as, "These vessels take from thirty-eight to forty-five quintals of cod and pollock, and six thousand barrels of mackerel, yearly."—Balbi's Geog., p. 28.

OBS. 37.—The following examples will illustrate the unsettled usage just mentioned, and from them the reader may judge for himself what is right. In quoting, at second-hand, I generally think it proper to make double references; and especially in citing authorities after Johnson, because he so often gives the same passages variously. But he himself is reckoned good authority in things literary. Be it so. I regret the many proofs of his fallibility. "Hear you this Triton of the minnows?"—Shak. "The shoal of herrings was of an immense extent."—Murray's Key, p. 185. "Buy my herring fresh."—SWIFT: in Joh. Dict. "In the fisheries of Maine, cod, herring, mackerel alewives, salmon, and other fish, are taken."—Balbi's Geog., p. 23. "MEASE, n. The quantity of 500; as, a mease of herrings."—Webster's Dict. "We shall have plenty of mackerel this season."—ADDISON: in Joh. Dict. "Mackarel is the same in both numbers. Gay has improperly mackarels."—Churchill's Gram., p. 208. "They take salmon and trouts by groping and tickling them under the bellies."—CAREW: in Joh. Dict. "The pond will keep trout and salmon in their seasonable plight."—Id., ib., w. Trout. "Some fish are preserved fresh in vinegar, as turbot."—Id., ib., w. Turbot. "Some fish are boiled and preserved fresh in vinegar, as tunny and turbot."—Id., ib., w. Tunny. "Of round fish, there are brit, sprat, barn, smelts."—Id., ib., w. Smelt. "For sprats and spurlings for your house."—TUSSEE: ib., w. Spurling. "The coast is plentifully stored with pilchards, herrings, and haddock."—CAREW: ib., w. Haddock. "The coast is plentifully stored with round fish, pilchard, herring, mackerel, and cod"—Id., ib., w. Herring. "The coast is plentifully stored with shellfish, sea-hedgehogs, scallops, pilcherd, herring, and pollock."—Id., ib., w. Pollock. "A roach is a fish of no great reputation for his dainty taste. It is noted that roaches recover strength and grow a fortnight after spawning."—WALTON: ib., w. Roach. "A friend of mine stored a pond of three or four acres with carps and tench."—HALE: ib., w. Carp. "Having stored a very great pond with carps, tench, and other pond-fish, and only put in two small pikes, this pair of tyrants in seven years devoured the whole."—Id., ib., w. Tench. "Singular, tench; plural, tenches."—Brightland's Gram., p. 78. "The polar bear preys upon seals, fish, and the carcasses of whales."—Balbi's Geog., p. 172. "Trouts and salmons swim against the stream."—BACON: Ward's Gram., p. 130.

"'Tis true no turbots dignify my boards, But gudgeons, flounders, what my Thames affords."—Pope.

OBS. 38.—Prom the foregoing examples it would seem, if fish or fishes are often spoken of without a regular distinction of the grammatical numbers, it is not because the words are not susceptible of the inflection, but because there is some difference of meaning between the mere name of the sort and the distinct modification in regard to number. There are also other nouns in which a like difference may be observed. Some names of building materials, as brick, stone, plank, joist, though not destitute of regular plurals, as bricks, stones, planks, joists, and not unadapted to ideas distinctly singular, as a brick, a stone, a plank, a joist, are nevertheless sometimes used in a plural sense without the s, and sometimes in a sense which seems hardly to embrace the idea of either number; as, "Let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly."—Gen., xi, 3. "And they had brick for stone."—Ib. "The tale of bricks."—Exod., v, 8 and 18. "Make brick."—Ib., v, 16. "From your bricks."—Ib., v, 19. "Upon altars of brick."—Isaiah. lxv, 3. "The bricks are fallen down."—Ib., ix, 10. The same variety of usage occurs in respect to a few other words, and sometimes perhaps without good reason; as, "Vast numbers of sea fowl frequent the rocky cliffs."—Balbi's Geog., p. 231. "Bullocks, sheep, and fowls."—Ib., p. 439. "Cannon is used alike in both numbers."—Everest's Gram., p. 48. "Cannon and shot may be used in the singular or plural sense."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 37. "The column in the Place Vendome is one hundred and thirty-four feet high, and is made of the brass of the cannons taken from the Austrians and Prussians."—Balbi's Geog., p. 249. "As his cannons roar."—Dryden's Poems, p. 81. "Twenty shot of his greatest cannon."—CLARENDON: Joh. Dict. "Twenty shots" would here, I think, be more proper, though the word is not made plural when it means little balls of lead. "And cannons conquer armies."—Hudibras, Part III, Canto iii, l. 249.

"Healths to both kings, attended with the roar Of cannons echoed from th' affrighted shore."—Waller, p. 7.

OBS. 39.—Of foreign nouns, many retain their original plural; a few are defective; and some are redundant, because the English form is also in use. Our writers have laid many languages under contribution, and thus furnished an abundance of irregular words, necessary to be explained, but never to be acknowledged as English till they conform to our own rules.

1. Of nouns in a, saliva, spittle, and scoria, dross, have no occasion for the plural; lamina, a thin plate, makes laminae; macula, a spot, maculae; minutia, a little thing, minutiae; nebula, a mist, nebulae; siliqua, a pod, siliqiuae. Dogma makes dogmas or dogmata; exanthema, exanthemas or exanthemata; miasm or miasma, miasms or miasmata; stigma, stigmas or stigmata.

2. Of nouns in um, some have no need of the plural; as, bdellium, decorum, elysium, equilibrium, guaiacum, laudanum, odium, opium, petroleum, serum, viaticum. Some form it regularly; as, asylums, compendiums, craniums, emporiums, encomiums, forums, frustums, lustrums, mausoleums, museums, pendulums, nostrums, rostrums, residuums, vacuums. Others take either the English or the Latin plural; as, desideratums or desiderata, mediums or media, menstruums or menstrua, memorandums or memoranda, spectrums or spectra, speculums or specula, stratums or strata, succedaneums or succedanea, trapeziums or trapezia, vinculums or vincula. A few seem to have the Latin plural only: as, arcanum, arcana; datum, data; effluvium, effluvia; erratum, errata; scholium, scholia.

3. Of nouns in us, a few have no plural; as, asparagus, calamus, mucus. Some have only the Latin plural, which usually changes us to i; as, alumnus, alumni; androgynus, androgyni; calculus, calculi; dracunculus, dracunculi; echinus, echini; magus, magi. But such as have properly become English words, may form the plural regularly in es; as, chorus, choruses: so, apparatus, bolus, callus, circus, fetus, focus, fucus, fungus, hiatus, ignoramus, impetus, incubus, isthmus, nautilus, nucleus, prospectus, rebus, sinus, surplus. Five of these make the Latin plural like the singular; but the mere English scholar has no occasion to be told which they are. Radius makes the plural radii or radiuses. Genius has genii, for imaginary spirits, and geniuses, for men of wit. Genus, a sort, becomes genera in Latin, and genuses in English. Denarius makes, in the plural, denarii or denariuses.

4. Of nouns in is, some are regular; as, trellis, trellises: so, annolis, butteris, caddis, dervis, iris, marquis, metropolis, portcullis, proboscis. Some seem to have no need of the plural; as, ambergris, aqua-fortis, arthritis, brewis, crasis, elephantiasis, genesis, orris, siriasis, tennis. But most nouns of this ending follow the Greek or Latin form, which simply changes is to =es: as, amanuensis, amanuenses; analysis, analyses; antithesis, antitheses; axis, axes; basis, bases; crisis, crises; diaeresis, diaereses; diesis, dieses; ellipsis, ellipses; emphasis, emphases; fascis, fasces; hypothesis, hypotheses; metamorphosis, metamorphoses; oasis, oases; parenthesis, parentheses; phasis, phases; praxis, praxes; synopsis, synopses; synthesis, syntheses; syrtis, syrtes; thesis, theses. In some, however, the original plural is not so formed; but is made by changing is to ~ides; as, aphis, aphides; apsis, apsides; ascaris, ascarides; bolis, bolides; cantharis, cantharides; chrysalis, chrysalides; ephemeris, ephemerides; epidermis, epidermides. So iris and proboscis, which we make regular; and perhaps some of the foregoing may be made so too. Fisher writes Praxises for praxes, though not very properly. See his Gram, p. v. Eques, a Roman knight, makes equites in the plural.

5. Of nouns in x, there are few, if any, which ought not to form the plural regularly, when used as English words; though the Latins changed x to ces, and ex to ices, making the i sometimes long and sometimes short: as, apex, apices, for apexes; appendix, appendices, for appendixes; calix, calices, for calixes; calx, calces, for calxes; calyx, calyces, for calyxes; caudex, caudices, for caudexes; cicatrix, cicatrices, for cicatrixes; helix, helices, for helixes; index, indices, for indexes; matrix, matrices, for matrixes; quincunx, quincunces, for quincunxes; radix, radices, for radixes; varix, varices, for varixes; vertex, vertices, for vertexes; vortex, vortices, for vortexes. Some Greek words in x change that letter to ges; as, larynx, larynges, for larinxes; phalanx, phalanges, for phalanxes. Billet-doux, from the French, is billets-doux in the plural.

6. Of nouns in on, derived from Greek, the greater part always form the plural regularly; as, etymons, gnomons, ichneumons, myrmidons, phlegmons, trigons, tetragons, pentagons, hexagons, heptagons, octagons, enneagons, decagons, hendecagons, dodecagons, polygons. So trihedrons, tetrahedrons, pentahedrons, &c., though some say, these last may end in dra, which I think improper. For a few words of this class, however, there are double plurals in use; as, automata or atomatons, criteria or criterions, parhelia or parhelions; and the plural of phenomenon appears to be always phenomena.

7. The plural of legumen is legumens or legumina; of stamen, stamens or stamina: of cherub, cherubs or cherubim; of seraph, seraphs or seraphim; of beau, beaus or beaux; of bandit, bandits or banditti. The regular forms are in general preferable. The Hebrew plurals cherubim and seraphim, being sometimes mistaken for singulars, other plurals have been formed from them; as, "And over it the cherubims of glory."—Heb. ix, 5. "Then flow one of the seraphims unto me."—Isaiah, vi, 6. Dr. Campbell remarks: "We are authorized, both by use and by analogy, to say either cherubs and seraphs, according to the English idiom, or cherubim and seraphim, according to the oriental. The former suits better the familiar, the latter the solemn style. I shall add to this remark," says he, "that, as the words cherubim and seraphim are plural, the terms cherubims and seraphims, as expressing the plural, are quite improper."—Phil. of Rhet., p. 201.

OBS. 40.—When other parts of speech become nouns, they either want the plural, or form it regularly,[158] like common nouns of the same endings; as, "His affairs went on at sixes and sevens."—Arbuthnot. "Some mathematicians have proposed to compute by twoes; others, by fours; others, by twelves."—Churchill's Gram., p. 81. "Three fourths, nine tenths."—Ib., p. 230. "Time's takings and leavings."— Barton. "The yeas and nays."—Newspaper. "The ays and noes."—Ib. "Oes and spangles."—Bacon. "The ins and the outs."—Newspaper."—We find it more safe against outs and doubles."—Printer's Gram. "His ands and his ors."—Mott. "One of the buts."—Fowle. "In raising the mirth of stupids."—Steele. "Eatings, drinkings, wakings, sleepings, walkings, talkings, sayings, doings—all were for the good of the public; there was not such a things as a secret in the town."—LANDON: Keepsake, 1833. "Her innocent forsooths and yesses."—Spect., No. 266.

"Henceforth my wooing mind shall be expressed In russet yeas and honest kersey noes." —SHAK. See Johnson's Dict., w. Kersey.

GENDERS.

Genders, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish objects in regard to sex.

There are three genders; the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter.

The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind; as, man, father, king.

The feminine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the female kind; as, woman, mother, queen.

The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female; as, pen, ink, paper.

Hence, names of males are masculine; names of females, feminine; and names of things inanimate, literally, neuter.

Masculine nouns make regular feminines, when their termination is changed to ess: as, hunter, huntress; prince, princess; lion, lioness.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—The different genders in grammar are founded on the natural distinction of sex in animals, and on the absence of sex in other things. In English, they belong only to nouns and pronouns; and to these they are usually applied, not arbitrarily, as in some other languages, but agreeably to the order of nature. From this we derive a very striking advantage over those who use the gender differently, or without such rule; which is, that our pronouns are easy of application, and have a fine effect when objects are personified. Pronouns are of the same gender as the nouns for which they stand.

OBS. 2.—Many nouns are equally applicable to both sexes; as, cousin, friend, neighbour, parent, person, servant. The gender of these is usually determined by the context; and they are to be called masculine or feminine accordingly. To such words, some grammarians have applied the unnecessary and improper term common gender. Murray justly observes, "There is no such gender belonging to the language. The business of parsing can be effectually performed, without having recourse to a common gender."—Gram., 8vo. p. 39. The term is more useful, and less liable to objection, as applied to the learned languages; but with us, whose genders distinguish objects in regard to sex, it is plainly a solecism.

OBS. 3.—A great many of our grammars define gender to be "the distinction of sex," and then speak of a common gender, in which the two sexes are left undistinguished; and of the neuter gender, in which objects are treated as being of neither sex. These views of the matter are obviously inconsistent. Not genders, or a gender, do the writers undertake to define, but "gender" as a whole; and absurdly enough, too; because this whole of gender they immediately distribute into certain other genders, into genders of gender, or kinds of gender, and these not compatible with their definition. Thus Wells: "Gender is the distinction of objects, with regard to sex. There are four genders;—the masculine, the feminine, the common, and the neuter."—School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 49. [Those] "Nouns which are applicable alike to both sexes, are of the common gender."—Ib. This then is manifestly no gender under the foregoing definition, and the term neuter is made somewhat less appropriate by the adoption of a third denomination before it. Nor is there less absurdity in the phraseology with which Murray proposes to avoid the recognition of the common gender: "Thus we may say, Parents is a noun of the masculine and feminine gender; Parent, if doubtful, is of the masculine or feminine gender; and Parent, if the gender is known by the construction, is of the gender so ascertained."—Gram., 8vo, p. 39. According to this, we must have five genders, exclusive of that which is called common; namely, the masculine, the feminine, the neuter, the androgynal, and the doubtful.

OBS. 4.—It is plain that many writers on grammar have had but a confused notion of what a gender really is. Some of them, confounding gender with sex, deny that there are more than two genders, because there are only two sexes. Others, under a like mistake, resort occasionally, (as in the foregoing instance,) to an androgynal, and also to a doubtful gender: both of which are more objectionable than the common gender of the old grammarians; though this common "distinction with regard to sex," is, in our language, confessedly, no distinction at all. I assume, that there are in English the three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter, and no more; and that every noun and every pronoun must needs be of some gender; consequently, of some one of these three. A gender is, literally, a sort, a kind, a sex. But genders, in grammar, are attributes of words, rather than of persons, or animals, or things; whereas sexes are attributes, not of words, but of living creatures. He who understands this, will perceive that the absence of sex in some things, is as good a basis for a grammatical distinction, as the presence or the difference of it in others; nor can it be denied, that the neuter, according to my definition, is a gender, is a distinction "in regard to sex," though it does not embrace either of the sexes. There are therefore three genders, and only three.

OBS. 5.—Generic names, even when construed as masculine or feminine, often virtually include both sexes; as, "Hast thou given the horse strength? hast thou clothed his neck with thunder? Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils is terrible."—Job, xxxix, 19. "Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south? Doth the eagle mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high?"—Ib., ver. 26. These were called, by the old grammarians, epicene nouns—that is, supercommon; but they are to be parsed each according to the gender of the pronoun which is put for it.

OBS. 6.—The gender of words, in many instances, is to be determined by the following principle of universal grammar. Those terms which are equally applicable to both sexes, (if they are not expressly applied to females,) and those plurals which are known to include both sexes, should be called masculine in parsing; for, in all languages, the masculine gender is considered the most worthy,[159] and is generally employed when both sexes are included under one common term. Thus parents is always masculine, and must be represented by a masculine pronoun, for the gender of a word is a property indivisible, and that which refers to the male sex, always takes the lead in such cases. If one say, "Joseph took the young child and his mother by night, and fled with them into Egypt," the pronoun them will be masculine; but let "his" be changed to its, and the plural pronoun that follows, will be feminine. For the feminine gender takes precedence of the neuter, but not of the masculine; and it is not improper to speak of a young child without designating the sex. As for such singulars as parent, friend, neighbour, thief, slave, and many others, they are feminine when expressly applied to any of the female sex; but otherwise, masculine.

OBS. 7.—Nouns of multitude, when they convey the idea of unity or take the plural form, are of the neuter gender; but when they convey the idea of plurality without the form, they follow the gender of the individuals which compose the assemblage. Thus a congress, a council, a committee, a jury, a sort, or a sex, if taken collectively, is neuter; being represented in discourse by the neuter pronoun it: and the formal plurals, congresses, councils, committees, juries, sorts, sexes, of course, are neuter also. But, if I say, "The committee disgraced themselves," the noun and pronoun are presumed to be masculine, unless it be known that I am speaking of a committee of females. Again: "The fair sex, whose task is not to mingle in the labours of public life, have their own part assigned them to act."—Comly's Gram., p. 132. Here sex, and the three pronouns which have that word for their antecedent, are all feminine. Again: "Each sex, dressing themselves in the clothes of the other."—Wood's Dictionary, v. Feast of Purim. Here sex, and the pronoun which follows, are masculine; because, the male sex, as well as the female, is here spoken of plurally.

OBS. 8.—To persons, of every description, known or unknown, real or imaginary, we uniformly ascribe sex.[160] But, as personality implies intelligence, and sex supposes some obvious difference, a young child may be spoken of with distinction of sex or without, according to the notion of the speaker; as, "I went to see the child whilst they were putting on its cloaths."—Priestley's Gram., p. 125. "Because the child has no idea of any nurse besides his own."—Ib., p. 153. To brute animals also, the same distinction is generally applied, though with less uniformity. Some that are very small, have a gender which seems to be merely occasional and figurative; as, "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise."—Prov., vi, 6. "The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces."—Prov., xxx, 28. So the bee is usually made feminine, being a little creature of admirable industry and economy. But, in general, irrational creatures whose sex is unknown, or unnecessary to be regarded, are spoken of as neuter; as, "And it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. And the Lord said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand."—Exod., iv, 3, 4. Here, although the word serpent is sometimes masculine, the neuter pronoun seems to be more proper. So of some imaginary creatures: as, "Phenix, the fowl which is said to exist single, and to rise again from its own ashes."—Webster's Dict. "So shall the Phoenix escape, with no stain on its plumage."—Dr. Bartlett's Lect., p. 10.

OBS. 9.—But this liberty of representing animals as of no sex, is often carried to a very questionable extent; as, "The hare sleeps with its eyes open."—Barbauld. "The hedgehog, as soon as it perceives itself attacked, rolls itself into a kind of ball, and presents nothing but its prickles to the foe."—Blair's Reader, p. 138. "The panther is a ferocious creature: like the tiger it seizes its prey by surprise."—Ib., p. 102. "The leopard, in its chace of prey, spares neither man nor beast."—Ib., p. 103. "If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it."—Exod., xxii, 1. "A dog resists its instinct to run after a hare, because it recollects the beating it has previously received on that account. The horse avoids the stone at which it once has stumbled."—Spurzheim, on Education, p. 3. "The racehorse is looked upon with pleasure; but it is the warhorse, that carries grandeur in its idea."—Blair's Rhet., p. 30.

OBS. 10.—The sexes are distinguished by words, in four different ways. First, by the use of different terminations: as, Jew, Jewess; Julius, Julia; hero, heroine. Secondly, by the use of entirely different names: as, Henry, Mary; king, queen. Thirdly, by compounds or phrases including some distinctive term: as, Mr. Murray, Mrs. Murray; Englishman, Englishwoman; grandfather, grandmother; landlord, landlady; merman, mermaid; servingman, servingmaid; man-servant, maid-servant; schoolmaster, schoolmistress; school-boy, school-girl; peacock, peahen; cock-sparrow, hen-sparrow; he-goat, she-goat; buck-rabbit, doe-rabbit; male elephant, female elephant; male convicts, female convicts. Fourthly, by the pronouns he, his, him, put for nouns masculine; and she, her, hers, for nouns feminine: as, "Ask him that fleeth, and her that escapeth, and say, What is done?"—Jer., xlviii, 19.

"O happy peasant! Oh unhappy bard! His the mere tinsel, hers the rich reward."—Cowper.

OBS. 11.—For feminine nouns formed by inflection, the regular termination is ess; but the manner in which this ending is applied to the original or masculine noun, is not uniform:—

1. In some instances the syllable ess is simply added: as, accuser, accuseress; advocate, advocatess; archer, archeress; author, authoress; avenger, avengeress; barber, barberess; baron, baroness; canon, canoness; cit, cittess;[161] coheir, coheiress; count, countess; deacon, deaconess; demon, demoness; diviner, divineress; doctor, doctoress; giant, giantess; god, goddess; guardian, guardianess; Hebrew, Hebrewess; heir, heiress; herd, herdess; hermit, hermitess; host, hostess; Jesuit, Jesuitess; Jew, Jewess; mayor, mayoress; Moabite, Moabitess; monarch, monarchess; pape, papess; or, pope, popess; patron, patroness; peer, peeress; poet, poetess; priest, priestess; prior, prioress; prophet, prophetess; regent, regentess; saint, saintess; shepherd, shepherdess; soldier, soldieress; tailor, tailoress; viscount, viscountess; warrior, warrioress.

2. In other instances, the termination is changed, and there is no increase of syllables: as, abbot, abbess; actor, actress; adulator, adulatress; adulterer, adulteress; adventurer, adventuress; advoutrer, advoutress; ambassador, ambassadress; anchorite, anchoress; or, anachoret, anachoress; arbiter, arbitress; auditor, auditress; benefactor, benefactress; caterer, cateress; chanter, chantress; cloisterer, cloisteress; commander, commandress; conductor, conductress; creator, creatress; demander, demandress; detractor, detractress; eagle, eagless; editor, editress; elector, electress; emperor, emperess, or empress; emulator, emulatress; enchanter, enchantress; exactor, exactress; fautor, fautress; fornicator, fornicatress; fosterer, fosteress, or fostress; founder, foundress; governor, governess; huckster, huckstress; or, hucksterer, hucksteress; idolater, idolatress; inhabiter, inhabitress; instructor, instructress; inventor, inventress; launderer, launderess, or laundress; minister, ministress; monitor, monitress; murderer, murderess; negro, negress; offender, offendress; ogre, ogress; porter, portress; progenitor, progenitress; protector, protectress; proprietor, proprietress; pythonist, pythoness; seamster, seamstress; solicitor, solicitress; songster, songstress; sorcerer, sorceress; suitor, suitress; tiger, tigress; traitor, traitress; victor, victress; votary, votaress.

3. In a few instances the feminine is formed as in Latin, by changing or to rix; but some of these have also the regular form, which ought to be preferred: as, adjutor, adjutrix; administrator, administratrix; arbitrator, arbitratrix; coadjutor, coadjutrix; competitor, competitress, or competitrix; creditor, creditrix; director, directress, or directrix; executor, executress, or executrix; inheritor, inheritress, or inheritrix; mediator, mediatress, or mediatrix; orator, oratress, or oratrix; rector, rectress, or rectrix; spectator, spectatress, or spectatrix; testator, testatrix; tutor, tutoress, or tutress, or tutrix; deserter, desertress, or desertrice, or desertrix.

4. The following are irregular words, in which the distinction of sex is chiefly made by the termination: amoroso, amorosa: archduke, archduchess; chamberlain, chambermaid; duke, duchess; gaffer, gammer; goodman, goody; hero, heroine; landgrave, landgravine; margrave, margravine; marquis, marchioness; palsgrave, palsgravine; sakeret, sakerhawk; sewer, sewster; sultan, sultana; tzar, tzarina; tyrant, tyranness; widower, widow.

OBS. 12.—The proper names of persons almost always designate their sex; for it has been found convenient to make the names of women different from those of men. We have also some appellatives which correspond to each other, distinguishing the sexes by their distinct application to each: as, bachelor, maid; beau, belle; boy, girl; bridegroom, bride; brother, sister; buck, doe; boar, sow; bull, cow; cock, hen; colt, filly; dog, bitch; drake, duck; earl, countess; father, mother; friar, nun; gander, goose; grandsire, grandam; hart, roe; horse, mare; husband, wife; king, queen; lad, lass; lord, lady; male, female; man, woman; master, mistress; Mister, Missis; (Mr., Mrs.;) milter, spawner; monk, nun; nephew, niece; papa, mamma; rake, jilt; ram, ewe; ruff, reeve; sire, dam; sir, madam; sloven, slut; son, daughter; stag, hind; steer, heifer; swain, nymph; uncle, aunt; wizard, witch; youth, damsel; young man, maiden.

OBS. 13.—The people of a particular country are commonly distinguished by some name derived from that of their country; as, Americans, Africans, Egyptians, Russians, Turks. Such words are sometimes called gentile names. There are also adjectives, of the same origin, if not the same form, which correspond with them. "Gentile names are for the most part considered as masculine, and the feminine is denoted by the gentile adjective and the noun woman: as, a Spaniard, a Spanish woman; a Pole, or Polander, a Polish woman. But, in a few instances, we always use a compound of the adjective with man or woman: as, an Englishman, an Englishwoman; a Welshman, a Welshwoman; an Irishman, an Irishwoman; a Frenchman, a Frenchwoman; a Dutchman, a Dutchwoman: and in these cases the adjective is employed as the collective noun; as, the Dutch, the French, &c. A Scotchman, and a Scot, are both in use; but the latter is not common in prose writers: though some employ it, and these generally adopt the plural, Scots, with the definite article, as the collective term."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 70.

OBS. 14.—The names of things without life, used literally, are always of the neuter gender: as, "When Cleopatra fled, Antony pursued her in a five-oared galley; and, coming along side of her ship, entered it without being seen by her."—Goldsmith's Rome, p. 160. "The sun, high as it is, has its business assigned; and so have the stars."—Collier's Antoninus, p. 138. But inanimate objects are often represented figuratively as having sex. Things remarkable for power, greatness, or sublimity, are spoken of as masculine; as, the sun, time, death, sleep, fear, anger, winter, war. Things beautiful, amiable, or prolific, are spoken of as feminine; as, a ship, the moon, the earth, nature, fortune, knowledge, hope, spring, peace. Figurative gender is indicated only by the personal pronouns of the singular number: as, "When we say of the sun, He is setting; or of a ship, She sails well."—L. Murray. For these two objects, the sun and a ship, this phraseology is so common, that the literal construction quoted above is rarely met with.

OBS. 15.—When any inanimate object or abstract quality is distinctly personified, and presented to the imagination in the character of a living and intelligent being, there is necessarily a change of the gender of the word; for, whenever personality is thus ascribed to what is literally neuter, there must be an assumption of one or the other sex: as, "The Genius of Liberty is awakened, and springs up; she sheds her divine light and creative powers upon the two hemispheres. A great nation, astonished at seeing herself free, stretches her arms from one extremity of the earth to the other, and embraces the first nation that became so."—Abbe Fauchet. But there is an inferior kind of personification, or of what is called such, in which, so far as appears, the gender remains neuter: as, "The following is an instance of personification and apostrophe united: 'O thou sword of the Lord! how long will it be ere thou be quiet? put thyself up into thy scabbard, rest, and be still! How can it be quiet, seeing the Lord hath given it a charge against Askelon, and against the sea-shore? there hath he appointed it.'"—Murray's Gram., p. 348. See Jer., xlvii, 6.

OBS. 16.—If what is called personification, does not always imply a change of gender and an ascription of sex, neither does a mere ascription of sex to what is literally of no sex, necessarily imply a personification; for there may be sex without personality, as we see in brute animals. Hence the gender of a brute animal personified in a fable, may be taken literally as before; and the gender which is figuratively ascribed to the sun, the moon, or a ship, is merely metaphorical. In the following sentence, nature is animated and made feminine by a metaphor, while a lifeless object bearing the name of Venus, is spoken of as neuter: "Like that conceit of old, which declared that the Venus of Gnidos was not the work of Praxiteles, since nature herself had concreted the boundary surface of its beauty."—Rush, on the Voice, p. xxv.

OBS. 17.—"In personifications regard must be had to propriety in determining the gender. Of most of the passions and moral qualities of man the ancients formed deities, as they did of various other things: and, when these are personified, they are usually made male or female, according as they were gods or goddesses in the pagan mythology. The same rule applies in other cases: and thus the planet Jupiter will be masculine; Venus, feminine: the ocean, Oce=anus, masculine: rivers, months, and winds, the same: the names of places, countries, and islands, feminine."—Churchill's Gram., p. 71.

OBS. 18.—These suggestions are worthy of consideration, but, for the gender which ought to be adopted in personifications, there seems to be no absolute general rule, or none which English writers have observed with much uniformity. It is well, however, to consider what is most common in each particular case, and abide by it. In the following examples, the sex ascribed is not that under which these several objects are commonly figured; for which reason, the sentences are perhaps erroneous:—

"Knowledge is proud that he has learn'd so much; Wisdom is humble that he knows no more."—Cowper.

"But hoary Winter, unadorned and bare, Dwells in the dire retreat, and freezes there; There she assembles all her blackest storms, And the rude hail in rattling tempests forms."—Addison.

"Her pow'r extends o'er all things that have breath, A cruel tyrant, and her name is Death."—Sheffield.

CASES.

Cases, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish the relations of nouns or pronouns to other words.

There are three cases; the nominative, the possessive, and the objective.

The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb: as, The boy runs; I run.

The subject of a finite verb is that which answers to who or what before it; as, "The boy runs."—Who runs? "The boy." Boy is therefore here in the nominative case.

The possessive case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the relation of property: as, The boy's hat; my hat.

The possessive case of nouns is formed, in the singular number, by adding to the nominative s preceded by an apostrophe; and, in the plural, when the nominative ends in s, by adding an apostrophe only: as, singular, boy's; plural, boys';—sounded alike, but written differently.

The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition: as, I know the boy, having seen him at school; and he knows me.

The object of a verb, participle, or preposition, is that which answers to whom or what after it; as, "I know the boy."—I know whom? "The boy." Boy is therefore here in the objective case.

The nominative and the objective of nouns, are always alike in form, being distinguishable from each other only by their place in a sentence, or by their simple dependence according to the sense.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—The cases, in grammar, are founded on the different relations under which things are represented in discourse; and from which the words acquire correspondent relations; or connexions and dependences according to the sense. In Latin, there are six cases; and in Greek, five. Consequently, the nouns and pronouns of those languages, and also their adjectives and participles, (which last are still farther inflected by the three genders,) are varied by many different terminations unknown to our tongue. In English, those modifications or relations which we call cases, belong only to nouns and pronouns; nor are there ever more than three. Pronouns are not necessarily like their antecedents in case.

OBS. 2.—Because the infinitive mood, a phrase, or a sentence, may in some instances be made the subject of a verb, so as to stand in that relation in which the nominative case is most commonly found; very many of our grammarians have deliberately represented all terms used in this manner, as being "in the nominative case:" as if, to sustain any one of the relations which are usually distinguished by a particular case, must necessarily constitute that modification itself. Many also will have participles, infinitives, phrases, and sentences, to be occasionally "in the objective case:" whereas it must be plain to every reader, that they are, all of them, indeclinable terms; and that, if used in any relation common to nouns or pronouns, they assume that office, as participles, as infinitives, as phrases, or as sentences, and not as cases. They no more take the nature of cases, than they become nouns or pronouns. Yet Nixon, by assuming that of, with the word governed by it, constitutes a possessive case, contrives to give to participles, and even to the infinitive mood, all three of the cases. Of the infinitive, he says, "An examination of the first and second methods of parsing this mood, must naturally lead to the inference that it is a substantive; and that, if it has the nominative case, it must also have the possessive and objective cases of a substantive. The fourth method proves its [capacity of] being in the possessive case: thus, 'A desire to learn;' that is, 'of learning.' When it follows a participle, or a verb, as by the fifth or [the] seventh method, it is in the objective case. Method sixth is analogous to the Case Absolute of a substantive."—Nixon's Parser, p. 83. If the infinitive mood is really a declinable substantive, none of our grammarians have placed it in the right chapter; except that bold contemner of all grammatical and literary authority, Oliver B. Peirce. When will the cause of learning cease to have assailants and underminers among those who profess to serve it? Thus every new grammatist, has some grand absurdity or other, peculiar to himself; and what can be more gross, than to talk of English infinitives and participles as being in the possessive case?

OBS. 3.—It was long a subject of dispute among the grammarians, what number of cases an English noun should be supposed to have. Some, taking the Latin language for their model, and turning certain phrases into cases to fill up the deficits, were for having six in each number; namely, the nominative, the genitive, the dative, the accusative, the vocative, and the ablative. Others, contending that a case in grammar could be nothing else than a terminational inflection, and observing that English nouns have but one case that differs from the nominative in form, denied that there were more than two, the nominative and the possessive. This was certainly an important question, touching a fundamental principle of our grammar; and any erroneous opinion concerning it, might well go far to condemn the book that avouched it. Every intelligent teacher must see this. For what sense could be made of parsing, without supposing an objective case to nouns? or what propriety could there be in making the words, of, and to, and from, govern or compose three different cases? Again, with what truth can it be said, that nouns have no cases in English? or what reason can be assigned for making more than three?

OBS. 4.—Public opinion is now clear in the decision, that it is expedient to assign to English nouns three cases, and no more; and, in a matter of this kind, what is expedient for the purpose of instruction, is right. Yet, from the works of our grammarians, may be quoted every conceivable notion, right or wrong, upon this point. Cardell, with Tooke and Gilchrist on his side, contends that English nouns have no cases. Brightland averred that they have neither cases nor genders.[162] Buchanan, and the author of the old British Grammar, assigned to them one case only, the possessive, or genitive. Dr. Adam also says, "In English, nouns have only one case, namely, the genitive, or possessive case."—Latin and Eng. Gram., p. 7. W. B. Fowle has two cases, but rejects the word case: "We use the simple term agent for a noun that acts, and object for the object of an action."—Fowle's True Eng. Gram., Part II, p. 68. Spencer too discards the word case, preferring "form," that he may merge in one the nominative and the objective, giving to nouns two cases, but neither of these. "Nouns have two Forms, called the Simple and [the] Possessive."—Spencer's E. Gram., p. 30. Webber's Grammar, published at Cambridge in 1832, recognizes but two cases of nouns, declaring the objective to be "altogether superfluous."—P. 22. "Our substantives have no more cases than two."—Jamieson's Rhet., p. 14. "A Substantive doth not properly admit of more than two cases: the Nominative, and the Genitive."—Ellen Devis's Gram., p. 19. Dr. Webster, in his Philosophical Grammar, of 1807, and in his Improved Grammar, of 1831, teaches the same doctrine, but less positively. This assumption has also had the support of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, Ash, Bicknell, Fisher, Dalton, and our celebrated Lindley Murray.[163] In Child's or Latham's English Grammar, 1852, it is said, "The cases in the present English are three:—1. Nominative; 2. Objective; 3. Possessive." But this seems to be meant of pronouns only; for the next section affirms, "The substantives in English have only two out of the three cases."—See pp. 79 and 80. Reckless of the current usage of grammarians, and even of self-consistency, both author and reviser will have no objective case of nouns, because this is like the nominative; yet, finding an objective set after "the adjective like," they will recognize it as "a dative still existing in English!"—See p. 156. Thus do they forsake their own enumeration of cases, as they had before, in all their declensions, forsaken the new order in which they had at first so carefully set them!

OBS. 5.—For the true doctrine of three cases, we have the authority of Murray, in his later editions; of Webster, in his "Plain and Comp. Grammar, grounded on True Principles," 1790; also in his "Rudiments of English Grammar," 1811; together with the united authority of Adams, Ainsworth, Alden, Alger, Bacon, Barnard, Bingham, Burr, Bullions, Butler, Churchill, Chandler, Cobbett, Cobbin, Comly, Cooper, Crombie, Davenport, Davis, Fisk, A. Flint, Frost, Guy, Hart, Hiley, Hull, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Kirkham, Lennie, Mack, M'Culloch, Maunder, Merchant, Nixon, Nutting, John Peirce, Perley, Picket, Russell, Smart, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith, Wilcox, and I know not how many others.

OBS. 6.—Dearborn, in 1795, recognized four cases: "the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the absolute."—Columbian Gram., pp. 16 and 20. Charles Bucke, in his work misnamed "A Classical Grammar of the English Language," published in London in 1829, asserts, that, "Substantives in English do not vary their terminations;" yet he gives them four cases; "the nominative, the genitive, the accusative, and the vocative." So did Allen, in a grammar much more classical, dated, London, 1813. Hazen, in 1842, adopted "four cases; namely, the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the independent."—Hazen's Practical Gram., p. 35. Mulligan, since, has chosen these four: "Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative."—Structure of E. Lang., p. 185. And yet his case after to or for is not "dative," but "accusative!"— Ib., p. 239. So too, Goodenow, of Maine, makes the cases four: "the subjective,[164] the possessive, the objective, and the absolute."—Text-Book, p. 31. Goldsbury, of Cambridge, has also four: "the Nominative, the Possessive, the Objective, and the Vocative."—Com. S. Gram., p. 13. Three other recent grammarians,—Wells, of Andover,— Weld, of Portland,—and Clark, of Bloomfield, N. Y.,—also adopt "four cases;—the nominative, the possessive, the objective, and the independent."—Wells's Gram., p. 57; Weld's, 60; Clark's, 49. The first of these gentlemen argues, that, "Since a noun or pronoun, used independently, cannot at the same time be employed as 'the subject of a verb,' there is a manifest impropriety in regarding it as a nominative." It might as well be urged, that a nominative after a verb, or in apposition with an other, is, for this reason, not a nominative. He also cites this argument: "'Is there not as much difference between the nominative and [the] independent case, as there is between the nominative and [the] objective? If so, why class them together as one case?'—S. R. Hall."—Wells's School Gram., p. 51. To this I answer, No. "The nominative is that case which primely denotes the name of any person or thing;" (Burn's Gram., p. 36;) and this only it is, that can be absolute, or independent, in English. This scheme of four cases is, in fact, a grave innovation. As authority for it, Wells cites Felton; and bids his readers, "See also Kennion, Parkhurst, Fowle, Flint, Goodenow, Buck, Hazen, Goldsbury, Chapin, S. Alexander, and P. Smith."—Page 57. But is the fourth case of these authors the same as his? Is it a case which "has usually the nominative form," but admits occasionally of "me" and "him," and embraces objective nouns of "time, measure, distance, direction, or place?" No. Certainly one half of them, and probably more, give little or no countenance to such an independent case as he has adopted. Parkhurst admitted but three cases; though he thought two others "might be an improvement." What Fowle has said in support of Wells's four cases, I have sought with diligence, and not found. Felton's "independent case" is only what he absurdly calls, "The noun or pronoun addressed."— Page 91. Bucke and Goldsbury acknowledge "the nominative case absolute;" and none of the twelve, so far as I know, admit any objective word, or what others call objective, to be independent or absolute, except perhaps Goldsbury.

OBS. 7.—S. R. Hall, formerly principal of the Seminary for Teachers at Andover, (but no great grammarian,) in 1832, published a manual, called "The Grammatical Assistant;" in which he says, "There are at least five cases, belonging to English nouns, differing as much from each other, as the cases of Latin and Greek nouns. They may be called Nominative, Possessive, Objective, Independent and Absolute."—P. 7. O. B. Peirce will have both nouns and pronouns to be used in five cases, which he thus enumerates: "Four simple cases; the Subjective, Possessive, Objective, and the Independent; and the Twofold case."—Gram., p. 42. But, on page 56th, he speaks of a "twofold subjective case," "the twofold objective case," and shows how the possessive may be twofold also; so that, without taking any of the Latin cases, or even all of Hall's, he really recognizes as many as seven, if not eight. Among the English grammars which assume all the six cases of the Latin Language, are Burn's, Coar's, Dilworth's, Mackintosh's, Mennye's, Wm. Ward's, and the "Comprehensive Grammar," a respectable little book, published by Dobson of Philadelphia, in 1789, but written by somebody in England.

OBS. 8.—Of the English grammars which can properly be said to be now in use, a very great majority agree in ascribing to nouns three cases, and three only. This, I am persuaded, is the best number, and susceptible of the best defence, whether we appeal to authority, or to other argument. The disputes of grammarians make no small part of the history of grammar; and in submitting to be guided by their decisions, it is proper for us to consider what degree of certainty there is in the rule, and what difference or concurrence there is among them: for, the teaching of any other than the best opinions, is not the teaching of science, come from what quarter it may. On the question respecting the objective case of nouns, Murray and Webster changed sides with each other; and that, long after they first appeared as grammarians. Nor was this the only, or the most important instance, in which the different editions of the works of these two gentlemen, present them in opposition, both to themselves and to each other. "What cases are there in English? The nominative, which usually stands before a verb; as, the boy writes: The possessive, which takes an s with a comma, and denotes property; as, John's hat: The objective, which follows a verb or preposition; as, he honors virtue, or it is an honor to him."—Webster's Plain and Comp. Gram., Sixth Edition, 1800, p. 9. "But for convenience, the two positions of nouns, one before, the other after the verb, are called cases. There are then three cases, the nominative, possessive, and objective."—Webster's Rudiments of Gram., 1811, p. 12. "In English therefore names have two cases only, the nominative or simple name, and the possessive."— Webster's Philosoph. Gram., 1807, p. 32: also his Improved Gram., 1831, p. 24.

OBS. 9.—Murray altered his opinion after the tenth or eleventh edition of his duodecimo Grammar. His instructions stand thus: "In English, substantives have but two cases, the nominative, and [the] possessive or genitive."—Murray's Gram. 12mo, Second Edition, 1796, p. 35. "For the assertion, that there are in English but two cases of nouns, and three of pronouns, we have the authority of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, &c. names which are sufficient to decide this point."—Ib., p. 36. "In English, substantives have three cases, the nominative, the possessive, and the objective."—Murray's Gram., 12mo, Twenty-third Edition, 1816, p. 44. "The author of this work long doubted the propriety of assigning to English substantives an objective case: but a renewed critical examination of the subject; an examination to which he was prompted by the extensive and increasing demand for the grammar, has produced in his mind a full persuasion, that the nouns of our language are entitled to this comprehensive objective case."—Ib., p. 46. If there is any credit in changing one's opinions, it is, doubtless, in changing them for the better; but, of all authors, a grammarian has the most need critically to examine his subject before he goes to the printer. "This case was adopted in the twelfth edition of the Grammar."—Murray's Exercises, 12mo, N. Y., 1818, p. viii.

OBS. 10.—The possessive case has occasioned no less dispute than the objective. On this vexed article of our grammar, custom has now become much more uniform than it was a century ago; and public opinion may be said to have settled most of the questions which have been agitated about it. Some individuals, however, are still dissatisfied. In the first place, against those who have thought otherwise, it is determined, by infinite odds of authority, that there is such a case, both of nouns and of pronouns. Many a common reader will wonder, who can have been ignorant enough to deny it. "The learned and sagacious Wallis, to whom every English grammarian owes a tribute of reverence, calls this modification of the noun an adjective possessive; I think, with no more propriety than he might have applied the same to the Latin genitive."—Dr. Johnson's Gram., p. 5. Brightland also, who gave to adjectives the name of qualities, included all possessives among them, calling them "Possessive Qualities, or Qualities of Possession."—Brightland's Gram., p. 90.

OBS. 11.—This exploded error, William S. Cardell, a few years ago, republished as a novelty; for which, among other pretended improvements of a like sort, he received the ephemeral praise of some of our modern literati. William B. Fowle also teaches the same thing. See his Common School Gram., Part II, p. 104. In Felch's Grammar, too, published in Boston in 1837, an attempt is made, to revive this old doctrine; but the author takes no notice of any of the above-named authorities, being probably ignorant of them all. His reasoning upon the point, does not appear to me to be worthy of a detailed answer.[165] That the possessive case of nouns is not an adjective, is demonstrable; because it may have adjectives of various kinds, relating to it: as, "This old man's daughter."—Shak. It may also govern an other possessive; as, "Peter's wife's mother."—Bible. Here the former possessive is governed by the latter; but, if both were adjectives, they would both relate to the noun mother, and so produce a confusion of ideas. Again, nouns of the possessive case have a distinction of number, which adjectives have not. In gender also, there lies a difference. Adjectives, whenever they are varied by gender or number, agree with their nouns in these respects. Not so with possessives; as, "In the Jews' religion."—Gal., i. 13. "The children's bread."—Mark, vii, 27. "Some men's sins."—1 Tim., v, 24. "Other men's sins."—Ib., ver. 22.

OBS. 12.—Secondly, general custom has clearly determined that the possessive case of nouns is always to be written with an apostrophe: except in those few instances in which it is not governed singly by the noun following, but so connected with an other that both are governed jointly; as, "Cato the Censor's doctrine,"—"Sir Walter Scott's Works,"—"Beaumont and Fletcher's Plays." This custom of using the apostrophe, however, has been opposed by many. Brightland, and Buchanan, and the author of the British Grammar, and some late writers in the Philological Museum, are among those who have successively taught, that the possessive case should be formed like the nominative plural, by adding s when the pronunciation admits the sound, and es when the word acquires an additional syllable. Some of these approve of the apostrophe, and others do not. Thus Brightland gives some examples, which are contrary to his rule, adopting that strange custom of putting the s in Roman, and the name in Italic; "as, King Charles's Court, and St. James's Park."—Gram. of the English Tongue, p. 91.

OBS. 13.—"The genitive case, in my opinion," says Dr. Ash, "might be much more properly formed by adding s, or when the pronunciation requires it, es, without an Apostrophe: as, men, mens; Ox, Oxes; Horse, Horses; Ass, Asses."—Ash's Gram., p. 23. "To write Ox's, Ass's, Fox's, and at the same time pronounce it Oxes, Asses, Foxes, is such a departure from the original formation, at least in writing, and such an inconsistent use of the Apostrophe, as cannot be equalled perhaps in any other language."—Ib. Lowth, too, gives some countenance to this objection: "It [i.e., 'God's grace'] was formerly written 'Godis grace;' we now always shorten it with an apostrophe; often very improperly, when we are obliged to pronounce it fully; as, 'Thomas's book,' that is, 'Thomasis book,' not 'Thomas his book,' as it is commonly supposed."—Lowth's Gram., p. 17. Whatever weight there may be in this argument, the objection has been overruled by general custom. The convenience of distinguishing, even to the eye alone, the numbers and cases of the noun, is found too great to be relinquished. If the declension of English nouns is ever to be amended, it cannot be done in this way. It is understood by every reader, that the apostrophic s adds a syllable to the noun, whenever it will not unite with the sound in which the nominative ends; as, torch's, pronounced torchiz.

"Yet time ennobles or degrades each line; It brightened Craggs's, and may darken thine."—Pope.

OBS. 14.—The English possessive case unquestionably originated in that form of the Saxon genitive which terminates in es, examples of which may be found in almost any specimen of the Saxon tongue: as, "On Herodes dagum,"—"In Herod's days;"—"Of Aarones dohtrum,"—"Of Aaron's daughters."—Luke, i, 5. This ending was sometimes the same as that of the plural; and both were changed to is or ys, before they became what we now find them. This termination added a syllable to the word; and Lowth suggests, in the quotation above, that the apostrophe was introduced to shorten it. But some contend, that the use of this mark originated in a mistake. It appears from the testimony of Brightland, Johnson, Lowth, Priestley, and others, who have noticed the error in order to correct it, that an opinion was long entertained, that the termination 's was a contraction of the word his. It is certain that Addison thought so; for he expressly says it, in the 135th number of the Spectator. Accordingly he wrote, in lieu of the regular possessive, "My paper is Ulysses his bow."—Guardian, No. 98. "Of Socrates his rules of prayer."—Spect., No. 207. So Lowth quotes Pope: "By young Telemachus his blooming years."—Lowth's Gram., p. 17.[166] There is also one late author who says, "The 's is a contraction of his, and was formerly written in full; as, William Russell his book."—Goodenow's Gram., p. 32. This is undoubtedly bad English; and always was so, however common may have been the erroneous notion which gave rise to it. But the apostrophe, whatever may have been its origin, is now the acknowledged distinctive mark of the possessive case of English nouns. The application of the 's, frequently to feminines, and sometimes to plurals, is proof positive that it is not a contraction of the pronoun his; as,

"Now Jove suspends his golden scales in air, Weighs the men's wits against the Lady's hair." —Pope, R. of L., C. v, l. 72.

OBS. 15.—Many of the old grammarians, and Guy, Pinneo, and Spencer, among the moderns, represent the regular formation of the possessive case as being the same in both numbers, supposing generally in the plural an abbreviation of the word by the omission of the second or syllabic s. That is, they suppose that such terms as eagles' wings, angels' visits, were written for eagles's wings, angels's visits, &c. This odd view of the matter accounts well enough for the fashion of such plurals as men's, women's, children's, and makes them regular. But I find no evidence at all of the fact on which these authors presume; nor do I believe that the regular possessive plural was ever, in general, a syllable longer than the nominative. If it ever had been so, it would still be easy to prove the point, by citations from ancient books. The general principle then is, that the apostrophe forms the possessive case, with an s in the singular, and without it in the plural; but there are some exceptions to this rule, on either hand; and these must be duly noticed.

OBS. 16.—The chief exceptions, or irregularities, in the formation of the possessive singular, are, I think, to be accounted mere poetic licenses; and seldom, if ever, to be allowed in prose. Churchill, (closely copying Lowth,) speaks of them thus: "In poetry the s is frequently omitted after proper names ending in s or x as, 'The wrath of Peleus' son.' Pope. This is scarcely allowable in prose, though instances of it occur: as, 'Moses' minister.' Josh., i, 1. 'Phinehas' wife.' 1 Sam., iv, 19. 'Festus came into Felix' room.' Acts, xxiv, 27. It was done in prose evidently to avoid the recurrence of a sibilant sound at the end of two following syllables; but this may as readily be obviated by using the preposition of, which is now commonly substituted for the possessive case in most instances."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 215. In Scott's Bible, Philadelphia, 1814, the texts here quoted are all of them corrected, thus: "Moses's minister,"—"Phinehas's wife,"—"Felix's room." But the phrase, "for conscience sake," (Rom., xiii, 5,) is there given without the apostrophe. Alger prints it, "for conscience' sake," which is better; and though not regular, it is a common form for this particular expression. Our common Bibles have this text: "And the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den."—Isaiah, xi, 8. Alger, seeing this to be wrong, wrote it, "on the cockatrice-den."—Pronouncing Bible. Dr. Scott, in his Reference Bible, makes this possessive regular, "on the cockatrice's den." This is right. The Vulgate has it, "in caverna reguli;" which, however, is not classic Latin. After z also, the poets sometimes drop the s: as,

"Sad was the hour, and luckless was the day, When first from Shiraz' walls I bent my way."—Collins.

OBS. 17.—A recent critic, who, I think, has not yet learned to speak or write the possessive case of his own name properly, assumes that the foregoing occasional or poetical forms are the only true ones for the possessive singular of such words. He says, "When the name does end with the sound of s or z, (no matter what letter represents the sound,) the possessive form is made by annexing only an apostrophe."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 44. Agreeably to this rule, he letters his work, "Peirce' Grammar," and condemns, as bad English, the following examples and all others like them: "James Otis's letters, General Gates's command, General Knox's appointment, Gov. Meigs's promptness, Mr. Williams's oration, The witness's deposition."—Ib., p. 60. It is obvious that this gentleman's doctrine and criticism are as contrary to the common practice of all good authors, as they are to the common grammars, which he ridicules. Surely, such expressions as, "Harris's Hermes, Philips's Poems, Prince's Bay, Prince's Island, Fox's Journal, King James's edict, a justice's warrant, Sphinx's riddle, the lynx's beam, the lass's beauty," have authority enough to refute the cavil of this writer; who, being himself wrong, falsely charges the older grammarians, that," their theories vary from the principles of the language correctly spoken or written."—Ib., p. 60. A much more judicious author treats this point of grammar as follows: "When the possessive noun is singular, and terminates with an s, another s is requisite after it, and the apostrophe must be placed between the two; as, 'Dickens's works,'—'Harris's wit.'"—Day's Punctuation, Third London Edition, p. 136. The following example, too, is right: "I would not yield to be your house's guest."—Shakespeare.

OBS. 18.—All plural nouns that differ from the singular without ending in s, form the possessive case in the same manner as the singular: as, man's, men's; woman's, women's j child's, children's; brother's, brothers' or brethren's; ox's, oxen's; goose, geese's. In two or three words which are otherwise alike in both numbers, the apostrophe ought to follow the s in the plural, to distinguish it from the singular: as, the sheep's fleece, the sheeps' fleeces; a neat's tongue, neats' tongues; a deer's horns, a load of deers' horns.

OBS. 19.—Dr. Ash says, "Nouns of the plural number that end in s, will not very properly admit of the genitive case."—Ash's Gram., p. 54. And Dr. Priestley appears to have been of the same opinion. See his Gram., p. 69. Lowth too avers, that the sign of the possessive case is "never added to the plural number ending in s."—Gram., p. 18. Perhaps he thought the plural sign must involve an other s, like the singular. This however is not true, neither is Dr. Ash's assertion true; for the New Testament speaks as properly of "the soldiers' counsel," as of the "centurion's servant;" of "the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part," as of "Paul's sister's son." It would appear, however, that the possessive plural is less frequently used than the possessive singular; its place being much oftener supplied by the preposition of and the objective. We cannot say that either of them is absolutely necessary to the language; but they are both worthy to be commended, as furnishing an agreeable variety of expression.

"Then shall man's pride and dulness comprehend His actions', passions', being's use and end."—Pope.

OBS. 20.—The apostrophe was introduced into the possessive case, at least for the singular number, in some part of the seventeenth century. Its adoption for the plural, appears to have been later: it is not much used in books a hundred years old. In Buchanan's "Regular English Syntax," which was written, I know not exactly when, but near the middle of the eighteenth century, I find the following paragraph: "We have certainly a Genitive Plural, though there has been no Mark to distinguish it. The Warriors Arms, i. e. the Arms of the Warriors, is as much a Genitive Plural, as the Warrior's Arms, for the Arms of the Warrior is a Genitive Singular. To distinguish this Genitive Plural, especially to Foreigners, we might use the Apostrophe reversed, thus, the Warrior's Arms, the Stone's End, for the End of the Stones, the Grocer's, Taylor's, Haberdasher's, &c. Company; for the Company of Grocers, Taylors, &c. The Surgeon's Hall, for the Hall of the Surgeons; the Rider's Names, for the Names of the Riders; and so of all Plural Possessives."—See Buchan. Synt., p. 111. Our present form of the possessive plural, being unknown to this grammarian, must have had a later origin; nor can it have been, as some imagine it was, an abbreviation of a longer and more ancient form.

OBS. 21.—The apostrophic s has often been added to nouns improperly; the words formed by it not being intended for the possessive singular, but for the nominative or objective plural. Thus we find such authors as Addison and Swift, writing Jacobus's and genius's, for Jacobuses and geniuses; idea's, toga's, and tunica's, for ideas, togas, and tunicas; enamorato's and virtuoso's, for enamoratoes and virtuosoes. Errors of this kind, should be carefully avoided.

OBS. 22.—The apostrophe and s are sometimes added to mere characters, to denote plurality, and not the possessive case; as, two a's, three b's, four 9's. These we cannot avoid, except by using the names of the things: as, two Aes, three Bees, four Nines. "Laced down the sides with little c's."—Steele. "Whenever two gg's come together, they are both hard."—Buchanan. The names of c and g, plural, are Cees and Gees. Did these authors know the words, or did they not? To have learned the names of the letters, will be found on many occasions a great convenience, especially to critics. For example: "The pronunciation of these two consecutive s's is hard."—Webber's Gram., p. 21. Better: "Esses." "S and x, however, are exceptions. They are pluralyzed by adding es preceded by a hyphen [-], as the s-es; the x-es."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 40. Better, use the names, Ess and Ex, and pluralize thus: "the Esses; the Exes."

"Make Q's of answers, to waylay What th' other party's like to say." —Hudibras, P. III, C. ii, l. 951.

Here the cipher is to be read Kues, but it has not the meaning of this name merely. It is put either for the plural of Q., a Question, like D. D.'s, (read Dee-Dees,) for Doctors of Divinity; or else, more erroneously, for cues, the plural of cue, a turn which the next speaker catches.

OBS. 23.—In the following example, the apostrophe and s are used to give the sound of a verb's termination, to words which the writer supposed were not properly verbs: "When a man in a soliloquy reasons with himself, and pro's and con's, and weighs all his designs."—Congreve. But here, "proes and cons," would have been more accurate. "We put the ordered number of m's into our composing-stick."—Printer's Gram. Here "Ems" would have done as well. "All measures for folio's and quarto's, should be made to m's of the English body; all measures for octavo's, to Pica m's."—Ibid. Here regularity requires, "folios, quartoes, octavoes," and "pica Ems." The verb is, when contracted, sometimes gives to its nominative the same form as that of the possessive case, it not being always spaced off for distinction, as it may be; as,

"A wit's a feather, and a chief a rod; An honest man's the noblest work of God." —Pope, on Man, Ep. iv, l. 247.

OBS. 24.—As the objective case of nouns is to be distinguished from the nominative, only by the sense, relation, and position, of words in a sentence, the learner must acquire a habit of attending to these several things. Nor ought it to be a hardship to any reader to understand that which he thinks worth reading. It is seldom possible to mistake one of these cases for the other, without a total misconception of the author's meaning. The nominative denotes the agent, actor, or doer; the person or thing that is made the subject of an affirmation, negation, question, or supposition: its place, except in a question, is commonly before the verb. The objective, when governed by a verb or a participle, denotes the person on whom, or the thing on which, the action falls and terminates: it is commonly placed after the verb, participle, or preposition, which governs it. Nouns, then, by changing places, may change cases: as, "Jonathan loved David;" "David loved Jonathan." Yet the case depends not entirely upon position; for any order in which the words cannot be misunderstood, is allowable: as, "Such tricks hath strong imagination."—Shak. Here the cases are known, because the meaning is plainly this: "Strong imagination hath such tricks." "To him give all the prophets witness."—Acts, x, 43. This is intelligible enough, and more forcible than the same meaning expressed thus: "All the prophets give witness to him." The order of the words never can affect the explanation to be given of them in parsing, unless it change the sense, and form them into a different sentence.



THE DECLENSION OF NOUNS.

The declension of a noun is a regular arrangement of its numbers and cases. Thus:—

EXAMPLE I.—FRIEND.

Sing. Nom. friend, Plur. Nom. friends, Poss. friend's, Poss. friends', Obj. friend; Obj. friends.

EXAMPLE II.—MAN.

Sing. Nom. man, Plur. Nom. men, Poss. man's, Poss. men's, Obj. man; Obj. men.

EXAMPLE III.—FOX.

Sing. Nom. fox, Plur. Nom. foxes, Poss. fox's, Poss. foxes', Obj. fox; Obj. foxes.

EXAMPLE IV.—FLY.

Sing. Nom. fly, Plur. Nom. flies, Poss. fly's, Poss. flies', Obj. fly; Obj. flies.

EXAMPLES FOR PARSING.

PRAXIS III.—ETYMOLOGICAL.

_In the Third Praxis, it is required of the pupil—to distinguish and define the different parts of speech, and the classes and modifications of the ARTICLES and NOUNS.

The definitions to be given in the Third Praxis, are two for an article, six for a noun, and one for an adjective, a pronoun, a verb, a participle, an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition, or an interjection. Thus_:—

EXAMPLE PARSED.

"The writings of Hannah More appear to me more praiseworthy than Scott's."

The is the definite article. 1. An article is the word the, an, or a, which we put before nouns to limit their signification. 2. The definite article is the, which denotes some particular thing or things.

Writings is a common noun, of the third person, plural number, neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The plural number is that which denotes more than one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

Of is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.

Hannah More is a proper noun, of the third person, singular number, feminine gender, and objective case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A proper noun is the name of some particular individual, or people, or group. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The feminine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the female kind. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.

Appear is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, or to be acted upon.

To is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.

Me is a pronoun. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun.

More is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place, degree, or manner.

Praiseworthy is an adjective. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality.

Than is a conjunction. 1. A conjunction is a word used to connect words or sentences in construction, and to show the dependence of the terms so connected.

Scott's is a proper noun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and possessive case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A proper noun is the name of some particular individual, or people, or group. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The possessive case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the relation of property.

LESSON I.—PARSING.

"The virtue of Alexander appears to me less vigorous than that of Socrates. Socrates in Alexander's place I can readily conceive: Alexander in that of Socrates I cannot. Alexander will tell you, he can subdue the world: it was a greater work in Socrates to fulfill the duties of life. Worth consists most, not in great, but in good actions."—Kames's Art of Thinking, p. 70.

"No one should ever rise to speak in public, without forming to himself a just and strict idea of what suits his own age and character; what suits the subject, the hearers, the place, the occasion."—Blair's Rhetoric, p. 260.

"In the short space of little more than a century, the Greeks became such statesmen, warriors, orators, historians, physicians, poets, critics, painters, sculptors, architects, and, last of all, philosophers, that one can hardly help considering that golden period, as a providential event in honour of human nature, to show to what perfection the species might ascend."—Harris's Hermes, p. 417.

"Is genius yours? Be yours a glorious end, Be your king's, country's, truth's, religion's friend."—Young.

LESSON II.—PARSING.

"He that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also, he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant."—1 Cor., vii, 22.

"What will remain to the Alexanders, and the Caesars, and the Jenghizes, and the Louises, and the Charleses, and the Napoleons, with whose 'glories' the idle voice of fame is filled?"—J. Dymond. "Good sense, clear ideas, perspicuity of language, and proper arrangement of words and thoughts, will always command attention."—Blair's Rhet., p. 174.

"A mother's tenderness and a father's care are nature's gifts for man's advantage.—Wisdom's precepts form the good man's interest and happiness."—Murray's Key, p. 194.

"A dancing-school among the Tuscaroras, is not a greater absurdity than a masquerade in America. A theatre, under the best regulations, is not essential to our happiness. It may afford entertainment to individuals; but it is at the expense of private taste and public morals."—Webster's Essays, p. 86.

"Where dancing sunbeams on the waters played, And verdant alders form'd a quivering shade."—Pope.

LESSON III.—PARSING.

"I have ever thought that advice to the young, unaccompanied by the routine of honest employments, is like an attempt to make a shrub grow in a certain direction, by blowing it with a bellows."—Webster's Essays, p. 247.

"The Arabic characters for the writing of numbers, were introduced into Europe by Pope Sylvester II, in the eleventh century."—Constable's Miscellany.

"Emotions raised by inanimate objects, trees, rivers, buildings, pictures, arrive at perfection almost instantaneously; and they have a long endurance, a second view producing nearly the same pleasure with the first."—Kames's Elements, i, 108.