IV. PERSON OF NOUNS.

The person of nouns is not determined by any difference of form, as in pronouns, but simply by their relation to the discourse. In direct discourse, a noun used by a speaker or writer to designate himself, is said to be of the first person; used to designate the person addressed, it is said to be of the second person; and when used to designate a person or thing spoken of, it is said to be of the third person. It is obvious then from the nature of the case, that those words only can be of the first or second person, which denote intelligent beings, or which by personification are regarded as such, for no other can either speak or properly be spoken to, and they are usually in apposition with the first or second personal pronouns; as, I, Artaxerxes make a decree;" “I, thy father-in-law Jethro, am come unto thee;” “Thou, God seest me."

66

66

A noun in the predicate, however, denoting either the speaker, or the person spoken to, is generally regarded as in the third person; thus, I am he that liveth and was dead;" "I am Alpha and Omega-who is, and who was, and who is to come." For this construction, and the variation of meaning which a change of person commonly indicates, see § 59, R. II, Rem. This rule, however, does not hold universally. In the following sentence, Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself," the word "God," in the predicate, is evidently regarded as of the second person. So also in the phrases, "It is I," "It is thou," etc. In oblique discourse, the third person only can be used.

66

As the name of the speaker, or of the person spoken to, is seldom expressed (the pronouns Í and thou, we and you, being used in their stead), it seems to be a useless waste of time, in parsing, to mention the person of a noun, unless it be in the first or second person, which will not happen more than once in a thousand times. Much time therefore will be saved, and no loss sustained, if it be considered as taken for granted, without stating it, that a noun is in the third person, unless it be otherwise mentioned.

V. GENDER OF NOUNS.

In all languages, the distinction of nouns with regard to sex, has been noted. Every substantive denotes either a male or female, or that which is neither the one nor the other. This accident, or characteristic of nouns, is called their Gender. In English, all words denoting male animals, are considered as masculine; all those denoting female animals, feminine; and those denoting things neither male nor female, are termed neuter. “In

*Discourse is said to be direct, when a writer or speaker delivers his own sen. timents; as, "I am the man." Oblique, when he relates, in his own language the sayings of another; as, says that he is the man." See Lat. Gr. § 1 Rule VI.

"He

this distribution," says Crombie, "we follow the order of nature, and our language is, in this respect, both simple and animated." Both in Latin and Greek, many words denoting things without sex, are ranked as masculine or feminine, without any regard to their meaning, but simply on account of their terminations. In French, all nouns are regarded as either masculine or feminine, which is a still greater departure from the order and simplicity of nature, for which the English language on this point is distinguished.

66

Some have objected to the designation of three genders; they think that as there are but two sexes, it would be more philosophical and accurate to say there are only two genders; and to regard all words not belonging to these, as without gender. A little reflection, I think, will show that this objection has no just foundation, either in philosophy or in fact, and that the change it proposes would be no improvement. It has probably arisen from confounding the word gender, which properly signifies a kind, class, or species (Lat. genus, French genre), with the word sex, and considering them as synonymous. This, however, is not the case; these words do not mean precisely the same thing, and they can not be properly applied in the same way. We never say, "the masculine sex, the feminine sex;" nor the male gender, the female gender. In strict propriety of speech, the word sex can be predicated only of animated beings; the word gender, only of the term by which that being is expressed. The being man, has sex, not gender; the word man, has gender, not sex. Though therefore it is very absurd to speak of three sexes, yet it may be very proper to speak of three genders; that is to say, there are three classes (genders) of nouns, distinguished from each other by their relation to sex. One denotes objects of the male sex, and is called masculine; another denotes objects of the female sex, and is called feminine; and the third denotes objects neither male nor female, for which a name more appropriate than the term neuter need not be desired.

The term "Common gender," applied to such words as parent, child, friend, etc., does not constitute a distinct class of words, which are neither masculine, nor feminine, nor neuter, but is used for convenience, merely to indicate that such words sometimes denote a male, and sometimes a female. Instead of " common,' those who prefer it, may call such words "masculine or feminine.”

VI. CASE OF NOUNS.

In the ancient languages, and also in the modern languages of Europe, nouns in each number have certain changes of termination, called Cases, which serve to shew the relation existing between them and other words in the sentence. Of these, the Latin has six, the Greek five, the German four, the Saxon six, the French three, etc. In English, the only variation of the noun in each number, is that used to mark possession, and, for this reason,

commonly called the possessive case. The nominative and objective do not differ in form, but only in their use; the former being used to denote the subject of a verb, and the latter to denote the object of a verb or preposition. The propriety of this distinction is manifest, from the fact, that in personal and relative pronouns, the objective case is distinguished from the nominative by a change of form.

VII. THE ARTICLE.

THE ARTICLE may properly be regarded as an adjective word, i. e. it is always employed in connection with a noun, or with words and phrases used as such. In Greek, and also in other languages, it is declined like the adjective, and comes under the same rules of concord with it. The Articles in English are A or an, and The. Of these, the first is used to individualize without restricting. It is therefore appropriately termed Indefinite, and is never used but with the singular number.

For the

This word is evidently a derivative of the Saxon numeral Ane (one), shortened by the absence of emphasis into An ; or it may be regarded as the same word used in a particular way. sake of euphony, the n is dropped before a consonant; and because most words begin with a consonant, this of course is its more common form. In the French, German, and other languages, which have the indefinite article, its form is the same with their numeral one, and, in reading or speaking, is distinguished from it by emphasis only. Still, in these languages it is not regarded as a numeral, its office being specifically different. The office of the numeral is to designate number only-one as opposed to two or more. But though from its nature this article is joined only with the singular, yet number is not the idea it is used to convey, but simply to indicate an individual indefinitely. An example will illustrate this. If I say, "Will one man be able to carry this burden so far?" I evidently oppose one to more, and the answer might be, "No; but two men will." But if I say, a man be able to carry this burden?" it is manifest the idea is entirely changed; the reference is not to number, but to the species; and the answer might be, "No; but a horse will." Translate these two sentences into Latin or Greek, or any language which does not use the indefinite article, and the first will necessarily have the numeral, the second will as necessarily want it. In this respect, the English has manifestly a decided advantage over those languages in which the same term is used both as an article and a numeral; and hence it appears to me, that to class this article as a numeral, as some have proposed, would not only be in some measure to relinquish this advantage, but, by combining under one head, words whose use is so widely different, would prove an injury instead of an improvement.

"Will

The Article The, on the other hand, is used to shew that a word is restricted or limited, and is therefore termed Definite. Its pro

per office is to call the attention to a particular individual or class, or to any number of such, and is used with nouns in either the singular or plural number. This word seems to be derived from the Saxon Se (that), plural Tha; and is distinguished from the demonstratives this, and that, much in the same way that a is distinguished from the numeral one. The Greeks had a separate word for this purpose, which the early grammarians called the prepositive Article, from its position before its noun; and to distinguish it from the relative pronoun which they called the postpositive Article, usually placed after it. These two words, in many sentences, were used relatively to each other, and, like a joint (Articulus), from which the name is derived, served to unite the two members of the sentence to which they respectively belonged, into one whole. This designation, originally given to this word from one of its prevailing uses, continued to be applied to it not only after the postpositive article was more appropriately called the Relative pronoun, but also in cases in which no conjunction of the parts of a sentence was effected; and modern grammarians have extended it to the word known as the Indefinite Article. Whether a more appropriate designation for these words should now be devised, or whether they might be classed under some other head, are questions of no practical moment The words exist in the language; they have a specific office to perform; they have peculiarities of construction which belong to no other class of words; they are only two in number, and are easily distinguished from other parts of speech, and if these con siderations should not be considered sufficient to entitle them strictly and philosophically to a separate denomination, they are such, at any rate, as to render it convenient and useful; and if so, it seems unwise, for the sake of a trivial advantage, even if that could be gained, to disturb the settled language of grammar on this point, and so to destroy its present similarity to that of most other languages, in which this division and nomenclature are received.

In many sentences, The and That are nearly equivalent, and the sense will be the same by using either; as, "The man, or that man who hath no music in his soul," etc. This, however, does not always hold; "The difference," says Crombie, "seems to be,

1st. The Article the, like a, must have a substantive joined with it; whereas that, like one, may have it understood; thus, speaking of books, I may select one and say, 'give me that; but not, give me the ;' give me one;' but not give me a Here the analogy holds between a and one-the and that.

6

2d. "In general, the distinction between the and that seems to be that the latter marks the object more emphatically than the former, being indirectly opposed to this. I can not, for example, say, that man with that long beard,' without implying a contrast with this man with this long beard; the word that being always emphatical and discriminative."

แ

66

Words of this class are supposed to have been originally nouns, the names of qualities or attributes, and, from being joined to nouns whose quality or property they were employed to express, were called adjective nouns. In a more advanced state of language, with few exceptions, they cease to be used as nouns, and are employed to denote a quality, property, or attribute, not separately, but in conjunction with its subject; thus, when we say, 99 a stone, we have the generic name of a certain substance, and no more; but when we say, a round stone," " a hard stone,' a smooth stone," we have the generic name, limited and described by the attributes of roundness, hardness, smoothness; and these as inherent in or belonging to the substance stone. The adjective always implies the name of a quality or attribute, but does not present that idea alone to the mind, as when we speak of roundness, hardness, etc., but that idea in concreto-in conjunction with its subject. Hence it follows that a word which does not add to its noun the idea of some quality or attribute as belonging to it or connected with it, is not, strictly speaking, an adjective; and for this reason the articles, and the words generally ranked as distributive, demonstrative, and indefinite pronouns, though adjectives in construction, are not so in sense and meaning. They express no quality, property, or attribute of a noun, either separately or in connection with it, nor can they be predicated of it. On the other hand, all words which do make such an addition to the noun, may properly be regarded as adjectives, though they be often or generally used for other purposes. Thus the words " flower," are nouns; but when we sea water," " a flower garden," they are

gold,"

99 66

say a gold watch," used as adjectives.

sea,"

IX. COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES.

Adjectives denoting qualities or properties capable of increase, and so of existing in different degrees, assume different forms, to express a greater or less degree of such quality or property in one object compared with another, or with several others. These forms are three, and are appropriately denominated the positive, comparative, and superlative. Some object to the positive being called a degree of comparison, because, in its ordinary use, it does not, like the comparative and superlative forms, necessarily involve comparison; and they think it more philosophical to say, that the degrees of comparison are only two, the comparative and superlative. This, however, with the appearance of greater exactness, is little else than a change of words, and a change perhaps not for the better. If we define a degree of comparison a form of the adjective which necessarily implies comparison,' this change would be an improvement; but this is not what grammarians mean, when they say there are three degrees of comparison. Their meaning is, that there are three forms of the adjective, each of