sitions which, whether they be called " Propria quæ maribus," or otherwise, the student of the classical languages must necessarily enter into, as a kind of "pons asinorum,' before he advances within the inner vestibule of classical knowledge.

In the English language, which, contrary to the usage of the Classical languages, as before adverted to, follows the arrangement of nature, there are, of necessity, but two genders-called masculine and feminine the former including animals of the male, the latter those of the female sex; thus, boy, father, king, &c. &c., are said to be of the masculine; girl, mother, queen, &c. &c., of the feminine gender. The names of inanimate objects, as tree, book, house, &c. &c. &c., are said to be of the neuter gender, not because they have no life, but because they, of course, belong to neither of the sexes; the term neuter signifying neither, and expressing merely the negation of gender in those nouns to which it is applied.

There are, moreover, in the English language certain words which may be applied to both males and females, as hireling, adversary, promoter, &c. &c.; and such grammarians call common. It is worthy of remark, too, that those words strictly called common do not admit of inflection in gender; whilst some words that are inflected, though they be in the masculine form, as benefactor, poet, &c. &c., may be applied, in a certain sense, to females, as will hereafter be explained. The attribution of sex to objects naturally destitute of it, which Latham calls "the second element of gender," properly so called, exists in the English, as it does in every other language; every one, at all events, which is spoken by a people who ever had a mythology. This attribution of sex to such objects is called personification, of which we have examples in the words, sun, ship. Thus we say, "The sun in his meridian splendour,' "The ship in her course." Whilst the figure itself exists in various languages, the law which regulates the attribution of the gender in the case of each word is sometimes different in different languages. Thus, instead of the above expression, the Germans would say, "The sun in her meridian splendour." The usage of the English language in this respect is produced by the influence thereon of the

classical languages. Such influence, however, does not account for the law in respect of gender by personification, in every instance. "Country folks in Hampshire call almost every thing he or she. It is curious to observe that country labourers give the feminine appellation to those things only which are more closely identified with themselves, and by the qualities or conditions of which their own efforts, and their character as workmen, are affected. The mower calls his scythe a she; the ploughman calls his plough a she; but a prong or shovel, or a harrow, which passes promiscuously from hand to hand, and which is appropriated to no particular labourer, is called a he."(Cobbett's English Grammar.)

Philosophy, virtue, happiness, truth, justice, mercy, the names of abstract qualities personified, rhetorically considered, have their genders conventionally regulated; and, being feminine in the Latin, are also feminine in the English language; with this distinction, however, that in the Latin the gender is fixed, whilst in the English language the gender may be changed according to circumstances; and, in this respect, the English has the decided advantage in a rhetorical point of view. Demosthenes or Cicero could not, in their orations, alter the ordinary gender of the word virtue; whilst the English orator, by the simple substitution of she for it, invests the thing with a life-like property, and thereby calls into exercise the imaginative powers, arrests the attention, and increases the admiration of his hearers. The masculine word, too, is frequently applied to a female when the business or professional occupation of the individual, apart from the sex, is intended to be implied; whilst the feminine would be applied on the contrary, if the distinction of sex were intended. Thus, for instance, "Sappho was the greatest poet of her age,' and "Sappho was the greatest poetess," are both grammatically correct, whilst the ideas conveyed by both are altogether different; that conveyed by the first example being that Sappho was the greatest of all poets, whether males or females; whilst in the latter she is compared, as regarded her poetical powers, to such poets only as were females.

The foregoing remarks on gender may be considered as

special, whilst the following rules may be considered general, and sufficient, in addition to the reading and observation of each individual student, to convey an adequate knowledge of the formation of gender in the English noun. The method by which difference of gender is conveyed is threefold :

1st. By the use of wholly different words. Of this method the following list will furnish examples :

2nd. By prefixing to a word, which by itself is independent, and may be applied to a male or female indiscriminately, some other word which involves the distinct idea of sex.

NOTE.-Instances of this method are comparatively very few in the English language.

3rd. By a change of termination. This method Latham calls derivation; and admits to be a near approach to gender, though not gender itself, properly so called.

The student should supply examples of his own under

each of the three foregoing heads.

QUESTIONS FOR EXAMINATION ON GENDER.

What is inflection? Name other terms on the use of which grammarians are not agreed. What two applications are there of the word derivation? Supply examples. How are nouns inflected? What classes of words are not inflected? On what principle is the gender of the English noun regulated? Show that this principle is not the same as that which obtains in the classical languages. How many genders are there? What other is there said to be? Give examples of all. What is the precise meaning of the term Neuter, as applied to nouns? Some words in the masculine form may be applied to females. The following is an example:-"Mrs. Beecher Stowe is the greatest benefactor of the slave." State the exact difference be tween the meaning of this expression and the following

"the greatest benefactress," &c., and supply a list of such expressions, giving also the principle which regulates the application of such words to females. What is the second element of gender, properly so called, according to Latham, and what sort of words does he admit to have something like gender? What is personification? In determining the law thereof, what languages exercise an influence on the English? State the substance of Cobbett's remark on the law of personification, as it exists in certain country districts. In regard of the law of personification, what advantage does the English language possess? Give a list of words which may be personified, and construct sentences of your own, or quote them from writers of eminence, in which such words are personified.

ON NUMBER.

All nouns in the English language are in one or other of two numbers-singular and plural. The singular, if one thing only is expressed; plural, if more than one. Thus, tree, house, star, are each in the singular; trees, houses, stars, in the plural number. Some nouns are the same in both numbers, as deer, sheep, &c. &c. Thus we say, "I

bought a sheep," "I bought five sheep." Other nouns, again, are always used in a plural form, as ashes, riches, &c. &c. The nouns, however, to which respectively the two latter remarks apply, are comparatively but few; they are called indeclinable nouns, In other languages-the Greek and Hebrew, for instance, there is found another number, called the dual, in which words are said to be which express only two things. Of the non-importance, however, of such a distinction, sufficient evidence is afforded by the fact, that, in some of the languages in which it exists, it is frequently unobserved.

From a comparison of several languages, ancient and modern, Latham arrives at the conclusion that the dual number is one of those distinctions that languages drop as they become modern. Respecting the formation of the plural, the same grammarian says:-"The current rule is, that it is formed from the singular by adding 8, as father, fathers. This, however, is by no means a true expression. The letter s added to the word father, making it fathers, is s to the eye only, to the ear it is z; the word sounds as fatherz. If the s retained its sound, the spelling would be fatherce. In stags, lads, &c., the sound is stagz, ladz. The rule, then, for the formation of English plurals, rigorously though somewhat lengthily expressed, is as follows: The plural is formed from the singular by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant (z), and to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibilant (s); for instance, (the sound of the word being expressed), pea, peaz; tree, treez; day, dayz; hill, hilz; hen, henz; trap, traps; pit, pits; stack, stacks." In addition to the foregoing, for the sake of generalising, it is well to add, that nouns ending in ss, sh, ch, (the latter pronounced soft, as in the word church, as opposed to hard, as in the word monarch); x and o (the latter preceded by a consonant) before the terminational s prefix an e, evidently a matter

* When Latham denies this to be a true expression, he cannot mean that it is not true as far as it goes; but I suppose that it does not express the whole truth. Also, when he calls z, farther down, a sibilant, he means a letter which in the pronunciation thereof produces a sort of hissing sound, the word being evidently derived from sibilo, to biss