ry.

---

This intimation of annexation is not, indeed, always given by adding a syllable or a letter to the word to be adjectived; it is sometimes made by changing the form of the adjectived name; as, Chinese, Asiatic, Spanish, French; sometimes by adding a hyphen; as, sea-weed, broom-corn, lime-water; and sometimes by mere juxtaposition; as, wine vessel, corn field, meadow ground; but is more frequently contained in the form of the expression; as, a good boy, a wise man, a strong horse, a sweet apple. In these examples, the words, good, wise, strong, and sweet, contain the name of qualities, with an intimation, that these qualities are connected with the objects denoted by the nouns, boy, man, horse, and apple, for if, in pronouncing these phrases, we were to stop at the adjectives, and say, a good-a wise-&c. our hearers would very naturally ask, a goodwhat? a wise-what? &c., clearly signifying that the ideas we had expressed, contained an intimation, that they were to be added to others expected to follow. This is further evident from the fact, that when we wish to speak of these qualities, separately considered, we add the syllable, ness, to the words denoting them; as, goodness, sweetness: or otherwise change the form of the word; as, wisdom, strength.

From what has been said, it appears to follow that the idea expressed by the adjective is subordinate to that expressed by the noun; and that the former must be of the same gender, number and case with the latter.) Accordingly, in most languages where the noun is varied to express the distinctions of gender, number, and case, we find the adjective varied in like manner; as in Latin, bonus puer, a good boy, bona puella, a good girl; boni pueri, good boys, bona, puellæ, good girls. But the English language, with admirable simplicity, rejects this encumbrance and leaves the gender, &c. of the adjective to be determined by those of the noun; thus we say, a good boy, a good girl, good boys, good girls, without any variation of the adjective whatever. Yet even in English, when the adjective does express either gender or number, it cannot be correctly added to a noun, which expresses a different gender or number. We can say with propriety, a man servant: because though the adjective, man, denotes the masculine gender, yet the noun, servant, does not express either masculine or feminine; and there is therefore no disagreement, with respect to gender, between the adjective and the noun. But we cannot say a man woman, a man maid, or a man girl. So in regard to number, when the adjective denotes either singular or plural, it must be associated with nouns of the same number; as man servant, men servants; one horse, two horses, &c. But in general, the adjective is not varied on account of gender, number, or case; the principal variation, which it admits, (being that of the degrees of comparison.}

Adjectives denoting number are called numeral adjectives; as one, two, three, &c.; those denoting order are called ordinal adjectives; as, first, second, third, &c.

Adjectives appear to answer one purpose in common with the articles : they also serve to limit and define the signification of the noun) un as, a good man is a much more limited expression than a man. Sometimes we find several adjectives added to the same noun as, a cheerful good old man: a new silver tea spoon.

SECTION 2. Of the Degrees or forms of comparison.

Grammarians have generally enumerated three degrees of comparison; but the first of them has been thought by some writers, to be improperly termed a degree of comparison; as it seems to be nothing more than the simple form of the adjective, and not to imply either comparison or degree. This opinion may be well founded unless the adjective be supposed to im

ply comparison or degree, by containing a secret or general reference to other things; as when we say, he is a tall man,' this is a fair day,' we make some reference to the ordinary size of men, and to different weather. The termination, ish may be accounted, in some sort, a degree of comparison by which the signification is diminished below the positive as, black, blackish, or tending to blackness; salt, saltish, or having a little taste of salt.

The word rather, is very properly used to express (a small degree or excess of quality as, "She is rather profuse in her expenses."

Dissyllables ending in y: as, happy, lovely: and in le after a mute, as, able, ample: or accented on the last syllable, as, discreet, polite : easily admit of er and est: as, happier, happiest: abler, ablest: politer, politest :Words of more than two syllables hardly ever admit of those terminations. In some words the superlative) is formed by adding the adverb most to the end of them; as, nethermost, uttermost or utmost, undermost, uppermost, foremost.

use,

In English, as in most languages, there are some words of very common (in which the caprice of custom is apt to get the better of analogy,) that are irregular in this respect; as, 'good, better, best: bad, worse, worst: little, less, least: much or many, more, most: near, nearer, nearest or next : late, later, latest or last: old, older, or elder, oldest or eldest ;' and a few others. SECTION 3. Remarks on the Subject of Comparison.

If we consider the subject of comparison attentively, we shall perceive that the degrees of it are infinite in number, or at least indefinite. A mountain is larger than a mite; by how many degrees? How much bigger is the earth than a grain of sand? By how many degrees was Socrates wiser than Alcibiades? or by how many is snow whiter than this paper? It is plain that to these and the like questions, no definite answer can be returned. In quantities, however, that may be exactly measured, the degrees of excess may be exactly ascertained. A foot is just twelve times as long as an inch; and an hour is sixty times the length of a minute. But, in regard to qualities, and to those quantities, which cannot be measured exactly, it is impossible to say how many degrees may be comprehended in the comparative excess.

But though these degrees are infinite or indefinite in fact, they cannot be so in language; nor would it be convenient, if language were to express many of them. In regard to unmeasured quantities and qualities, the degrees of more and less, (besides those marked above,) may be expressed intelligibly, at least, if not accurately, by certain adverbs, or words of like import; as, "Socrates was much wiser than Alcibiades ;" "Snow is a great deal whiter than this paper;' "Epaminondas was by far the most accomplished of the Thebans;" "The evening star is a very splendid object, but the sun is incomparably more splendid; "The Deity is infinitely greater than the greatest of his creatures." The inaccuracy of these and the like expressions, is not a material inconvenience; and, if it were, it is unavoidable; for human speech can only express human thought; and where thought is necessarily inaccurate, language must be so too.

When the word very, exceedingly, or any other of similar import is put before the positive, it is called by some writers the superlative of eminence, to distinguish it from the other superlative, which has been already mentioned and is called the superlative of comparison. Thus, very eloquent, is termed the superlative of eminence; most eloquent, the superlative of comparison. In the superlative of eminence, something of comparison is, however, remotely or indirectly intimated; for we cannot reasonably call a man very eloquent, without comparing his eloquence with the eloquence of other men.

The comparative may be so employed, as to express the same preeminence or inferiority as the superlative. Thus the sentence, "Of all acquire ments, virtue is the most valuable," conveys the same sentiment as the fol lowing: "Virtue is more valuable than any other acquirement."

66

When we properly use the comparative degree, the objects compared are set in direct opposition, and the one is not considered as a part of the other, or as comprehended under it. If I say, "Cicero was more eloquent than the Romans," I speak absurdly; because it is well known, that of the class of men expressed by the word Romans, Cicero was one. But when I assert, that "Cicero was more eloquent than all the other Romans," or than any other Roman," I do not speak absurdly; for though the persons spoken of were all of the same class, or city, yet Cicero is here set in contradistinction to the rest of his countrymen, and is not considered as one of the persons with whom he is compared. Moreover, if the Psalmist had said, "I am the wisest of my teachers," the phrase would have been improper, because it would imply that he was one of his teachers. But when he says, "I am wiser than my teachers," he does not consider himself one of them, but places himself in contradistinction to them. So also in the expression, "Eve was the fairest of her daughters,” the same species of impropriety is manifested; since the phrase supposes, that Eve was one of her own daughters. Again, in the sentence, "Solomon was the wisest of men," Solomon is compared with a kind of beings, of whom he himself was one, and therefore the superlative is used. But the expression, "Solomon was of all men the wiser," is nonsense: because the use of the comparative would imply, that Solomon was set in opposition to mankind; which is so far from being the case, that he is expressly considered as one of the species.

66 a cir

As there are some qualities which admit of comparison, so there are others which admit of none. Such, for example, are those, which denote the quality of bodies arising from their figure; as, when we say, cular table; a quadrangular court, a conical piece of metal," &c. The reason is, that a million of things, participating the same figure, participate it equally, if they do at all. To say, therefore, that while A and B are both quadrangular, A is more or less quadrangular than B, is absurd. The same holds true in all attributives, denoting definitive quantities, of whatever nature. Thus the two foot rule, C, cannot be more a two foot rule, than any other of the same length. For, as there can be no comparison without intension or remission, and as there can be no intension or remission in things always definite, these attributes can admit of no comparison. By the same method of reasoning we discover the cause why no substantive is susceptible of these degrees of comparison. A mountain. cannot be said more to be or exist, than a mole hill; but the more or less, must be sought for in their qualities.

Nouns are the names of things. The name of every thing that exists, or of which we can form any notion, is a noun. Thus, London, John, tree, are the names of objects, which have existence; virtue, vice, benevolence, are the names of objects, that we can think of, as existing. These names are naturally divided into two sorts; proper names, or names appropriated to individuals; as, John, Thomas, - and common names, or names common to a whole class of individuals; as, man, book, tree.

Contemplating the objects around us, we observe that many of them have several properties in common with each other; thus, all men resemble each

other in several respects: man is therefore a common noun, or a name common to a whole class of beings. When we have occasion frequently to designate an individual and to point him out as distinct from the class to which he belongs, we appropriate to him a particular name; thus, a father gives or appropriates to one of his children the name, John to another, Thomas, &c., and these are therefore called proper nouns.

When proper nouns have an article prefixed to them, they are used as common nouns; as, 'He is the Cicero of his age; Ile is reading the lives of the twelve Cæsars.'

Abstract

Common nouns may also be used to signify individuals, by the addition of articles or pronouns; as, The boy is studious; That girl is discreet.' Nouns may also be divided into the following classes; Collective nouns or nouns of multitude; as, the people, the army, the assembly,nouns, or the names of qualities separately considered; as, knowledge, goodness, whiteness :- Verbal or participial nouns: as, beginning, reading, writing.

SECTION 2. Of Gender.

When using nouns, we have sometimes occasion to distinguish the sex of objects, or to signify whether the object, of which we are speaking, is male or female. This we sometimes do by a change in the termination of the name of the object; as, actor, actress: poet, poetess: sometimes by using a different name; as, man, woman: father, mother: and sometimes by prefixing some characteristic mark of sex to the same noun; as, man-servant, maid-servant, a he-goat, a she-goat; and this is what is meant by the gender of nouns. Gender is that variation or change in the name, which denotes the sex of the object signified by the name.

Some nouns, naturally neuter, (are by a figure of speech converted into the masculine or feminine gender; as, when we say of the sun, he is setting; and of a ship, she sails well.

Figuratively, in the English tongue, we commonly give the masculine gender to nouns, which are conspicuous for the attributes of imparting or communicating, and which are by nature strong and efficacious. Those, again, are made feminine, which are conspicuous for the attributes of containing or bringing forth, or which are peculiarly beautiful or amiable. Upon these principles, the sun is said to be masculine; and the moon, being the receptacle of the sun's light, to be feminine. The earth is generally feminine. A ship, a country, a city, &c. are likewise made feminine, being receivers or containers. Time is always masculine, on account of its mighty efficacy. Virtue is feminine from its beauty, and its being the object of love. Fortune and the church are generally put in the feminine gender.

There appears to be a rational foundation for these figurative distinctions, though they have not been adopted in all countries. Many of the substances, which in our language, have masculine names, have in others, names that are feminine.

Greek and Latin and many of the modern tongues have nouns, some masculine, some feminine, which denotes substances, where sex never had existence. Nay some languages are so particularly defective in this respect, as to class every object, inanimate as well as animate, under either the masculine or feminine gender, as they have no neuter gender for those which are of neither sex. This is the case with the Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish. But the English, strictly following the order of nature, puts every noun, which denotes a male animal and no other, in the masculine gender; every name of a female animal, in the feminine gender; and the name of every animal, whose sex is not obvious, or known, as well as of every inanimate object whatever, in the neuter gender. And this gives our language a superior advantage to most others, in the poetical and rhetorical

E

style; for when nouns, naturally neuter, are converted into masculine and feminine, the personification is more distinctly and more forcibly marked. The English language has three methods of distinguishing the sex, viz.

3. By a noun, pronoun, or adjective, being prefixed to the substantive ; as,

It sometimes happens, that the same noun is either masculine or feminine. The words parent, child, cousin, friend, neighbor, servant, and several others are used indifferently for males, or females. These words cannot properly be said to denote a distinct species of gender, as some writers on English grammar have asserted, and who denominate them the common gender.