CHAPTER I.

OF THE NOUN.

SECTION I.

Noun (Nomen) is that part of speech which expresses the subject of discourse, or which is the name of the thing spoken of, as, _table_, _house_, _river_.

Of nouns there are two kinds, proper and appellative.

A proper noun, or name, is the name of an individual, as _Alexander_, _London_, _Vesuvius_.

An appellative, or common noun, expresses a genus, or class of things, and is common or applicable to every individual of that class.

Nouns or Substantives (for these terms are equivalent) have also been divided into natural, artificial, and abstract. Of the first class, _man_, _horse_, _tree_, are examples. The names of things of our own formation are termed artificial substantives, as, _watch_, _house_, _ship_. The names of qualities or properties, conceived as existing by themselves, or separated from the substances to which they belong, are called abstract nouns; while Adjectives, expressing these qualities as conjoined with their subjects, are called concretes. _Hard_, for example, is termed the concrete, _hardness_ the abstract.

Nouns have also been considered as denoting genera, species, and individuals. Thus _man_ is a generic term, _an Englishman_ a special term, and _George_ an individual. Appellative nouns being employed to denote genera or species, and these orders comprising each many individuals, hence arises that accident of a common noun, called Number, by which we signify, whether one or more individuals of any genus or species be intended.

In English there are two numbers, the singular and the plural. The singular, expressing only one of a class or genus, is the noun in its simple form, as, _river_; the plural, denoting more than one, is generally formed by adding the letter s to the singular, as, _rivers_[9]. To this rule, however, there are many exceptions.

Nouns ending in _ch_, _sh_, _ss_, or _x_, form their plural by adding the syllable _es_ to the singular number, as, _church, churches_. Dr. Whately, (Archbishop of Dublin,) in violation of this universal rule, writes _premiss_ in the singular number, and _premises_ in the plural. (See his Logic, pp. 25, 26.) _Premise_, like _promise_, is the proper term, and makes _premises_ in the plural. _Premiss_ and _premises_ are repugnant to all analogy.--_Ch_ hard takes _s_ for the plural termination, and not _es_, as _patriarch, patriarchs_; _distich, distichs_.

Nouns ending in _f_ or _fe_, make their plural by changing _f_ or _fe_ into _ves_, as, _calf, calves_; _knife, knives_. Except _hoof_, _roof_, _grief_, _dwarf_, _mischief_, _handkerchief_, _relief_, _muff_, _ruff_, _cuff_, _snuff_, _stuff_, _puff_, _cliff_, _skiff_, with a few others, which in the formation of their plurals follow the general rule.

Nouns in _o_ impure form their plural by adding _es_, as, _hero, heroes_; _echo, echoes_: those which end in _o_ pure, by adding _s_, as, _folio, folios_.

Some nouns have their plural in _en_, thus following the Teutonic termination, as, _ox, oxen_; _man, men_.

Some are entirely anomalous, as, _die, dice_; _penny, pence_; _goose, geese_; _sow, swine_; and _brother_ makes _brethren_[10], when denoting persons of the same society or profession. _Die_, a stamp for coining, makes _dies_ in the plural.

_Index_ makes in the plural _indexes_, when it expresses a table of contents, and _indices_, when it denotes the exponent of an algebraic quantity.

Some are used alike in both numbers, as, _hose_[11], _deer_, _sheep_, these being either singular or plural.

Nouns expressive of whatever nature or art has made double or plural have no singular, as, _bowels_, _lungs_, _scissors_, _ashes_, _bellows_.

Nouns ending in _y_ impure form their plural by changing _y_ into _ies_, as _quality, qualities_.

Nouns purely Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, &c., retain their original plurals.

_Sing._ _Pl._ _Lat._ Arcanum Arcana _Fr._ Beau Beaux _Lat._ Erratum Errata _Fr._ Monsieur Messieurs, Messrs. _Heb._ Cherub Cherubim _Heb._ Seraph Seraphim _Lat._ Magus Magi _Gr._ Phenomenon Phenomena _Lat._ Stratum Strata _Gr._ Automaton Automata _Lat._ Vortex Vortices _Lat._ Radius Radii _Lat._ Genus Genera _Gr._ Crisis Crises _Gr._ Emphasis Emphases _Gr._ Hypothesis Hypotheses _Lat._ Genius Genii,

when denoting aërial spirits; but when signifying _men of genius_, or employed to express the plural of that combination of mental qualities which constitutes genius, it follows the general rule.

A proper name has a plural number when it becomes the name of more individuals than one, as, _the two Scipios_; _the twelve Cæsars_. It is to be observed, however, that it ceases then to be, strictly speaking, a proper name.

Some nouns have no plural. 1st. Those which denote things measured or weighed, unless when they express varieties, as, _sugar, sugars_; _wheat, wheats_; _oil, oils_; _wine, wines_. Here, not numbers of individuals, but different species or classes, are signified. In this sense the nouns are used plurally.

2d. Names of abstract, and also of moral qualities, as, _hardness_, _softness_, _prudence_, _envy_, _benevolence_, have no plural. It is to be observed, however, that several nouns of this class ending in _y_, when they do not express the quality or property in the abstract, but either its varieties or its manifestations, are used plurally. Thus we say, _levities_, _affinities_, _gravities_, &c. There may be different degrees and different exhibitions of the quality, but not a plurality.

Where displays of the mental quality are to be expressed, it is better in all cases to employ a periphrasis. Thus, instead of using with Hume (vol. vii. p. 411) the plural _insolences_, the expression _acts of insolence_, would be preferable.

Some of those words which have no singular termination are names of sciences, as, _mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _politics_, _ethics_, _pneumatics_, &c.

Of these, the term _ethics_ is, I believe, considered as either singular or plural.

_Mathematics_ is generally construed as plural; sometimes, however, we find it as singular. “It is a great pity,” says Locke, (vol. iii. p. 427, 8vo. 1794,) “Aristotle had not understood mathematics, as well as Mr. Newton, and made use of _it_ in natural philosophy.”

“But when mathematics,” says Mr. Harris, “instead of being applied to this excellent purpose, _are_ used not to exemplify logic, but to supply its place, no wonder if logic pass into contempt.”

Bacon improperly uses the word as singular and plural in the same sentence. “If a child,” says he, “be bird-witted, that is, hath not the faculty of attention, the mathematics _giveth_ a remedy thereunto; for in _them_, if the wit be caught away but a moment, one is new to begin.” He likewise frequently gives to some names of sciences a singular termination; and Beattie, with a few others, have, in some instances, followed his example.

“Thus far we have argued for the sake of argument, and opposed _metaphysic_ to metaphysic.”--_Essay on Truth._

“See physic beg the Stagyrite’s defence, See metaphysic call for aid on sense.”--_Pope._

This usage, however, is not general.

_Metaphysics_ is used both as a singular and plural noun.

“Metaphysics _has_ been defined, by a writer deeply read in the ancient philosophy, ‘The science of the principles and causes of all things existing.’”--_Encyc. Brit._ Here the word is used as singular; as likewise in the following example:

“Metaphysics _has_ been represented by painters and sculptors as a woman crowned and blindfolded, holding a sceptre in her hand, and having at her feet an hour-glass and a globe.”

“Metaphysics _is_ that science, in which are understood the principles of other sciences.”--_Hutton._

In the following examples it is construed as a plural noun.

“Metaphysics _tend_ only to benight the understanding in a cloud of its own making.”--_Knox._

“Here, indeed, lies the justest and most plausible objection against a considerable part of metaphysics, that _they_ are not properly a science.”--_Hume._

The latter of these usages is the more common, and more agreeable to analogy. The same observation is applicable to the terms _politics_, _optics_, _pneumatics_, and other similar names of sciences.

“But in order to prove more fully that politics _admit_ of general truths.”--_Hume._

Here the term is used as plural.

_Folk_ and _folks_ are used indiscriminately; but the plural termination is here superfluous, the word _folk_ implying plurality.

_Means_ is used both as a singular and plural noun. Lowth recommends the latter usage only, and admits mean as the singular of means. But notwithstanding the authority of Hooker, Sidney, and Shakspeare, for the expressions _this mean_, _that mean_, &c., and the recommendation they receive from analogy, custom has so long decided in favour of _means_, repudiating the singular termination, that it may seem, perhaps, idle, as well as fastidious, to propose its dismission.

It is likewise observable, that the singular form of this noun is not to be found in our version of the Bible; a circumstance which clearly shows, that the translators preferred the plural termination.

That the noun _means_ has been used as a substantive singular by some of our best writers, it would be easy to prove by numberless examples. Let a few suffice.

“By _this_ means it became every man’s interest, as well as his duty, to prevent all crimes.”--_Temple_, vol. iii. p. 133.

“And by _this_ means I should not doubt.”--_Wilkins’s real Character._

“He by _that_ means preserves his superiority.”--_Addison._

“By _this_ means alone the greatest obstacles will vanish.”--_Pope._

“By _this_ means there was nothing left to the parliament of Ireland.”--_Blackstone_, vol. i. p. 102.

“Faith is not only _a_ means of obeying, but a principal act of obedience.”--_Young._

“_Every_ means was lawful for the public safety.”--_Gibbon._

That this word is also used as plural, the most inattentive English reader must have frequently observed.

“He was careful to observe what means _were_ employed by his adversaries to counteract his schemes.”

While we offer these examples to show that the term is used either as a singular or as a plural noun, we would at the same time remark, that though the expression “a mean” is at present generally confined to denote “a middle, or medium, between two extremes,” we are inclined to concur with the learned Dr. Lowth, and to recommend a more extended use of the noun singular. This usage was common in the days of Shakspeare.

“I’ll devise a _mean_ to draw the Moor out of the way.”--_Othello._

“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 Heathen’s conversion unto Christ.”--_Hooker._

Melmoth, Beattie, and several other writers, distinguished by their elegance and accuracy of diction, have adopted this usage. _A means_, indeed, is a form of expression which, though not wholly unsupported by analogy, is yet so repugnant to the general idiom of our language, and seems so ill adapted to denote the operation of a single cause, that we should be pleased to see it dismissed from use. If we say, “This was _one of the means_ which he employed to effect his purpose,” analogy and metaphysical propriety concur in recommending _a mean_, or _one mean_, as preferable to _a means_. _News_, _alms_, _riches_, _pains_, have been used as either singular or plural; but we never say, “one of the news,” “one of the alms,” “one of the riches,” “one of the pains,” as we say “one of the means;” we may, therefore, be justified, notwithstanding the authority of general usage, in pronouncing “a means” a palpable anomaly.

_News_ is likewise construed sometimes as a singular, and sometimes as a plural noun. The former usage, however, is far the more general.

“A general joy at _this_ glad news appeared.”--_Cowley._

“No news so bad as _this_ at home.”--_Shakspeare_, _Richard III._

“The amazing news of Charles at once _was_ spread.”--_Dryden._

“The king was employed in his usual exercise of besieging castles, when the news _was_ brought of Henry’s arrival.”--_Swift._

“The only news you can expect from me _is_ news from heaven.”--_Gay._

“_This_ is all the news talked of.”--_Pope._

Swift, Pope, Gay, with most other classic writers of that age, seem to have uniformly used it as singular.

A few examples occur of a plural usage.

“When Rhea heard _these_ news.”--_Raleigh_, _Hist. World_.

“_Are_ there any news of his intimate friend?”--_Smollett._

“News _were_ brought to the queen.”--_Hume._

The same rule as that just now recommended in regard to the noun _means_ might perhaps be useful here also, namely, to consider the word as singular when only one article of intelligence is communicated, and as plural when several new things are reported.

_Pains_ is considered as either singular or plural, some of our best writers using it in either way. This word is evidently of French extraction, being the same with _peine_, pains or trouble, and was originally used in a singular form thus, “Which may it please your highness to take the _payne_ for to write.”--_Wolsey’s Letter to Henry VIII._ It seems probable, that this word, after it assumed a plural form, was more frequently used as a singular than as a plural noun. Modern usage, however, seems to incline the other way. A celebrated grammarian indeed, has pronounced this noun to be in all cases plural; but this assertion might be proved erroneous by numberless examples[12].

“The pains they had taken _was_ very great.”--_Clarendon._

“Great pains _has_ been taken.”--_Pope._

“No pains _is_ taken.”--_Pope._

In addition to these authorities in favour of a singular usage, it may be observed, that the word _much_, a term of quantity, not of number, is frequently joined with it, as,

“I found much art and pains employed.”--_Middleton._

“He will assemble materials with much pains.”--_Bolingbroke on History._

The word _much_ is never joined to a plural noun; _much labours_, _much papers_, would be insufferable[13].

_Riches_ is generally now considered as a plural noun; though it was formerly used either as singular or plural. This substantive seems to have been nothing but the French word _richesse_; and therefore no more a plural than _gentlenesse, distresse_, and many others of the same kind. In this form we find it in Chaucer:

“But for ye spoken of swiche gentlenesse, As is descended out of old richesse. And he that ones to love doeth his homage, Full often times dere bought is the richesse.”

Accordingly he gives it a plural termination, and uses it as a plural word.

“Thou hast dronke so much hony of swete temporal richesses, and delices, and honours of this world.”

It seems evident, then, that this word was originally construed as a substantive singular, and even admitted a plural form. The orthography varying, and the noun singular assuming a plural termination, it came in time to be considered by some as a noun plural.

In our translation of the Bible, it is construed sometimes as a singular, but generally as a plural noun.

“In one hour is so great riches come to nought.”--_Bible._

“Riches take to themselves wings, and fly away.”--_Ibid._

Modern usage, in like manner, inclines to the plural construction; there are a few authorities, however, on the other side, as,

“_Was_ ever riches gotten by your golden mediocrities?”--_Cowley._

“The envy and jealousy which great riches _is_ always attended with.”--_Moyle._

_Alms_ was also originally a noun singular, being a contraction of the old Norman French _almesse_, the plural of which was _almesses_.

“This almesse shouldst thou do of thy proper things.”--_Chaucer._

“These ben generally the almesses and workes of charity.”--_Ibid._

Johnson says this word has no singular. It was, in truth, a first a noun singular, and afterwards, by contraction, receiving a plural form, it came to be considered by some as a noun plural. Johnson would have had equal, nay, perhaps, better authority for saying that this word has no plural. Our translators of the Bible seem to have considered it as singular. “To ask _an_ alms,” “to give _much_ alms,” and other similar phraseologies, occur in Scripture. Nay, Johnson himself has cited two authorities, in which the indefinite article is prefixed to it.

... “My arm’d knees, Which bow’d but in my stirrup, bend like his That hath received _an_ alms.”--_Shakspeare._

“The poor beggar hath a just demand of _an_ alms from the rich man.”--_Swift._

Lowth objected to the phraseology _a means_, for this reason, that _means_, being a plural noun, cannot admit the indefinite article, or name of unity. The objection would be conclusive, if the expressions _this means, that means_, did not oppose the learned author’s opinion, that _means_ is a noun plural. To the substantive _alms_, as represented by Johnson to have no singular, the objection is applicable.

_Thanks_ is considered to be a plural noun, though denoting only one expression of gratitude. It occurs in Scripture as a substantive singular. “What thank have ye?”

It has been observed, that many of those words which have no singular denote things consisting of two parts, and therefore have a plural termination. Hence the word _pair_ is used with many of them, as, “_a pair of bellows_, _a pair of scissors_, _a pair of colours_, _a pair of drawers_.”

SECTION II.

_Of Genders._

We not only observe a plurality of substances, or of things of the same sort, whence arises the distinction of number; but we distinguish also another character of some substances, which we call sex. Every substance is either male or female, or neither the one nor the other. In English, all male animals are considered as masculine; all female animals as feminine; and all things inanimate, or destitute of sex, are termed neuter, as belonging neither to the male nor the female sex. In this distribution we follow the order of nature; and our language is, in this respect, both simple and animated.

The difference of sex is, in some cases, expressed by different words, as,

_Masc._ _Fem._ Boy Girl Buck Doe Bull Cow Bullock Heifer Boar Sow Drake Duck Friar Nun Gaffer Gammer Gander Goose Gelding } Mare Horse } Milter Spawner Nephew Niece Ram Ewe Sloven Slut Stag Hind Widower Widow Wizard Witch

Sometimes the female is distinguished by the termination _ess_ or _ix_.

_Masc._ _Fem._ Abbot Abbess Actor Actress Adulterer Adulteress Ambassador Ambassadress Arbiter Arbitress Author Authoress Baron Baroness Chanter Chantress Count Countess Deacon Deaconess Duke Duchess Elector Electress Emperor Empress Governor Governess Heir Heiress Hunter Huntress Jew Jewess Lion Lioness Marquis Marchioness Master Mistress Patron Patroness Prince Princess Peer Peeress Prior Prioress Poet Poetess Prophet Prophetess Shepherd Shepherdess Sorcerer Sorceress Traitor Traitress Tutor Tutress Tiger Tigress Viscount Viscountess

There are a few whose feminine ends in _ix_, viz.

_Masc._ _Fem._ Administrator Administratrix Executor Executrix Testator Testatrix Director Directrix

Where there is but one word to express both sexes, we add another word to distinguish the sex; as, _he-goat, she-goat_; _man-servant, maid-servant_; _cock-sparrow, hen-sparrow_.

It has been already observed, that all things destitute of sex are in English considered as of the neuter gender; and, when we speak with logical accuracy, we follow this rule. Sometimes, however, by a figure in rhetoric, called personification, we assign sex to things inanimate. Thus, instead of “virtue is _its_ own reward,” we sometimes say, “virtue is _her_ own reward;” instead of “_it_ (the sun) rises,” we say, “he rises;” instead of “_it_ (death) advances with hasty steps,” we say, “_he_ advances.”

This figurative mode of expression, by which we give life and sex to things inanimate, and embody abstract qualities, forms a singular and striking beauty in our language, rendering it in this respect superior to the languages of Greece and Rome, neither of which admitted this animated phraseology[14].

When we say,

“The sun _his_ orient beams had shed,”

the expression possesses infinitely more vivacity than

“The sun _its_ orient beams had shed.”

In assigning sex to things inanimate, it has been supposed that we have been guided by certain characters or qualities in the inanimate objects, as bearing some resemblance to the distinctive or characteristic qualities of male and female animals. Thus, it has been said, that those inanimate substances, or abstract qualities, which are characterized by the attributes of giving or imparting, or which convey an idea of great strength, firmness, or energy, are masculine; and that those, on the contrary, which are distinguished by the properties of receiving, containing, and producing, or which convey an idea of weakness or timidity, having more of a passive than active nature, are feminine. Hence it has been observed, that the _sun_, _death_, _time_, the names also of great rivers and mountains, are considered as masculine; and that the _moon_, a _ship_, the _sea_, _virtue_, in all its species, are considered as feminine. Of these and such speculations it may be truly said, as the learned author of them remarks himself, that they are at best but ingenious conjectures. They certainly will not bear to be rigorously examined; for there are not any two languages which harmonize in this respect, assigning the same sex to the same inanimate objects, nor any one language in which this theory is supported by fact[15]. Hence it is evident, that neither reason nor nature has any share in the regulation of this matter; and that, in assigning sex to inanimate things, the determination is purely fanciful. In Greek, _death_ is masculine: in Latin, feminine. In those languages the _sun_ is masculine; in the Gothic, German, Anglo-Saxon, and some other northern languages, it is feminine; in Russian it is neuter. In several of the languages of Asia, the _sun_ is feminine. According to our northern mythology, the sun was the wife of Tuisco. The Romans considered the winds as masculine; the Hebrews, says Caramuel, represented them as nymphs. In the Hebrew language, however, they were of the masculine gender, as were also the _sun_ and _death_. In short, we know not any two languages which accord in this respect, or any one language in which sex is assigned to things inanimate according to any consistent or determinate rule.

In speaking of animals whose sex is not known to us, or not regarded, we assign to them gender either masculine or feminine, according, as it would appear, to the characteristic properties of the animal himself. In speaking, for example, of the horse, a creature distinguished by usefulness and a certain generosity of nature, unless we be acquainted with the sex and wish to discriminate, we always speak of this quadruped as of the male sex; thus,

“While winter’s shivering snow affects the horse With frost, and makes _him_ an uneasy course.”--_Creech._

In speaking of a hare, an animal noted for timidity, we assign to it, if we give it sex, the feminine gender; thus, “the hare is so timorous a creature, that _she_ continually listens after every noise, and will run a long way on the least suspicion of danger: so that _she_ always eats in terror.”

The elephant is generally considered as of the masculine gender, an animal distinguished not only by great strength and superiority of size, but also by sagacity, docility, and fortitude.

“The elephant has joints, but not for courtesy; _His_ legs are for necessity, not flexure.”--_Shakspeare._

To a cat we almost always assign the female sex; to a dog, on the contrary, or one of the canine species, we attribute the masculine gender.

“A cat, as _she_ beholds the light, draws the ball of _her_ eye small and long.”--_Peacham on Drawing._

“The dog is a domestic animal remarkably various in _his_ species.”

It would be easy to illustrate, by more examples, this ascription of either male or female sex to animals, when we speak of them in the species, or are not acquainted with the sex of the individual; but these now adduced will, I presume, be sufficient.

By what principle this phraseology is dictated, or whether it be merely casual or arbitrary in its origin, it would be of no utility at present to inquire. It may be necessary, however, to remark that, when speaking of animals, particularly those of inferior size, we frequently consider them as devoid of sex. “_It_ is a bold and daring creature,” says a certain writer, speaking of a cat, “and also cruel to _its_ enemy; and never gives over, till _it_ has destroyed it, if possible. _It_ is also watchful, dexterous, swift, and pliable.”

Before I dismiss this subject, I would request the reader’s attention to an idiom which seems to have escaped the notice of our grammarians. It frequently happens, as I have already observed, that our language furnishes two distinct terms for the male and the female, as _shepherd, shepherdess_. It is to be observed, however, that the masculine term has a general meaning, expressing both male and female, and is always employed, when the office, occupation, profession, &c., and not the sex of the individual is chiefly to be expressed; and that the feminine term is used in those cases only, when discrimination of sex is indispensably necessary. This may be illustrated by the following examples. If I say, “The poets of this age are distinguished more by correctness of taste, than sublimity of conception,” I clearly include in the term _poet_, both male and female writers of poetry. If I say, “She is the best poetess in this country,” I assign her the superiority over those only of her own sex. If I say, “She is the best poet in this country,” I pronounce her superior to all other writers of poetry, both male and female. “Spinning,” says Lord Kames in his Sketches, “is a female occupation, and must have had a female inventor.” If he had said “a female inventress,” the expression would have been pleonastic. If he had said “must have had an inventress,” he would not have sufficiently contrasted the male and the female; he would have merely predicated the necessity of an inventress. He, therefore, properly adopts the term _inventor_ as applicable to each of the sexes, limiting it to the female by the appropriate term[16]. When distinction of sex is necessary for the sake of perspicuity, or where the sex, rather than the general idea implied by the term, is the primary object, the feminine noun must be employed to express the female; thus, “I hear that some _authoresses_ are engaged in this work.”--_Political Register._ Here the feminine term is indispensable[17]. This subject will be resumed in “the Critical Remarks and Illustrations.”

SECTION III.

_Of Cases._

The third accident of a noun is case, (_casus_, or fall,) so called because ancient grammarians, it is said, represented the cases as declining or falling from the nominative, which was represented by a perpendicular, and thence called _Casus rectus_, or upright case, while the others were named _Casus obliqui_, or oblique cases. The cases, in the languages of Greece and Rome, were formed by varying the termination; and were intended to express a few of the most obvious and common relations.

In English there are only three cases, nominative, genitive, and objective, or accusative case. In substantives the nominative case and the objective, have, like neuter nouns in Greek and Latin, the same form, being distinguishable from each other by nothing but their place; thus,

Nom. Obj. _Achilles slew Hector_, _Hector slew Achilles_,

where the meaning is reversed by the interchange of the nouns, the nominative or agent being known by its being placed before the verb; and the subject of the action by its following it. Pronouns have three cases, that is, two inflexions from the nominative, as, _I, mine, me_; _thou, thine, thee_.

The genitive in English, by some called the possessive case, is formed by adding to the nominative the letter s, with an apostrophe before it, as _king, king’s_. It expresses a variety of relations, and was hence called by the Greeks the general case[18]. The relation which it most commonly denotes is that of property or possession, as, _the king’s crown_; and is, in general, the same with that which is denoted by the word _of_, as, _the crown of the king_, _the rage of the tyrant_, _the death of the prince_, equivalent to _the king’s crown_, _the tyrant’s rage_, _the prince’s death_.

The nature of the relation which the genitive expresses must, in some instances, be collected from the scope of the context; for, in English, as in most other languages, this case frequently involves an ambiguity. When I say, “neither life nor death shall separate us from the love of God,” it may mean, either from the love which we owe to God, or the love which he bears to us; for “God’s love” may denote either the relation which the affection bears to its subject, or that which it bears to its object. If the latter be the meaning intended, the ambiguity may be prevented by saying, “love to God.”

An ambiguity likewise arises from it, as expressing either the relation of the effect to its cause, or that of the accident to its subject. “A little after the reformation of Luther,” says Swift. This may import either the change produced by Luther, or a change produced in him. The latter indeed is properly the meaning, though not that which was intended by the author. He should have said, “the reformation by Luther.” It is clear, therefore, that the relation expressed by the genitive is not uniformly the same, that the phrase may be interpreted either in an active or passive sense[19], and that the real import must be collected not from the expression, but the context.

Mr. Harris has said, that the genitive is formed to express all relations commencing from itself, and offers the analysis of this case in all modern languages as a proof. That it expresses more than this, both in English and Latin, and that it denotes relations, not only commencing from itself, but likewise directed to itself, the examples already quoted are sufficient to prove. Nay, were it necessary, it would be easy to demonstrate, that this ambiguity in the use of the genitive is not confined to these two languages, but is found in Greek, Hebrew, Italian, and, I believe, in all the modern languages of Europe.

Concerning the origin of the English genitive, grammarians and critics are not agreed. That the cases, or nominal inflexions, in all languages were originally formed by annexing to the noun in its simple form a word significant of the relation intended, is a doctrine which, I conceive, is not only approved by reason, but also attested by fact. That any people, indeed, in framing their language, should affix to their nouns insignificant terminations, for the purpose of expressing any relation, is a theory extremely improbable. Numerous as the inflexions are in the Greek and Latin languages, I am persuaded that, were we sufficiently acquainted with their original structure, we should find that all these terminations were at first words significant, subjoined to the _radix_, and afterwards abbreviated. This opinion is corroborated by the structure of the Hebrew, and some other oriental languages, whose affixes and prefixes, in the formation of their cases and conjugation of their verbs, we can still ascertain.

Now the English genitive being formed by annexing to the nominative the letter _s_, with an apostrophe, several critics, among whom is Mr. Addison, deliver it as their opinion, that this termination is a contraction for the possessive pronoun _his_. This opinion appears to be countenanced by the examples which occur in the Bible, and Book of Common Prayer, in which, instead of the English genitive, we find the nominative with the possessive pronoun masculine of the third person; thus, “for Christ his sake,” “Asa his heart was perfect.” Dr. Lowth considers these expressions as errors either of the printers or the authors. That they are not typographical mistakes I am fully persuaded. They occur in the books now mentioned, and also in the works of Bacon, Donne, and many other writers, much too frequently to admit this supposition. If errors, therefore, they are errors not of the printers, but of the authors themselves.

To evince the incorrectness of this phraseology, and to show that Addison’s opinion is erroneous, Dr. Lowth observes that, though we can resolve “the king’s crown” into “the king his crown,” we cannot resolve “the queen’s crown” into “the queen her crown,” or “the children’s bread” into “the children their bread.” This fact, he observes, ought to have demonstrated to Mr. Addison the incorrectness of his opinion. Lowth, therefore, refers the English to the Saxon genitive for its real origin, and observes, that its derivation from that genitive decides the question[20]. Hickes, in his _Thesaurus_, had previously delivered the same opinion. Speaking of the Anglo-Saxon genitive in _es_, he observes, “Inde in nostratium sermone nominum substantivorum, genitivus singularis, et nominativus pluralis, exeunt in es, vel _s_.” From the introduction of the Saxons into this island, to the Norman conquest, the Saxon genitive was in universal use. From the latter period to the time of Henry II. (1170), though the English language underwent some alterations, we still find the Saxon genitive. Thus, in a poem, entitled “The Life of St. Margaret,” in the Normanno-Saxon dialect, we find the following among other examples, “chrisꞇes angles,” and the pronoun hyꞅ (his) spelled _is_; thus, “Theodosius was _is_ name.”--See _Hickes_, _Thes._ vol. i. p. 226.

Webster has asserted that, in the age of Edward the Confessor (1050), he does not find the Saxon genitive; and as a proof that the pronoun _his_ was used instead of the Saxon termination, he quotes a passage from a charter of Edward the Confessor, where the words, “bissop his land” occur, which he conceives to be equivalent to “bishop’s land.” Now, had he read but a small part of that charter, he would have found the Saxon genitive; and what he imagines to be equivalent to the English genitive is neither that case, nor synonymous with it. The passage runs thus: “And ich ke þe eu þat Alfred havet iseld Gise bissop his land at Llyton;” the meaning of which is, “Know that Alfred hath sold to Bishop Gise his land at Lutton.” In the time of Richard II. (1385) we find Trevisa and Chaucer using the Saxon genitive. Thus, in Trevisa’s translation of the Athanasian creed, we find among other examples, “Godes sight.”

In Gavin Douglas, who lived in the beginning of the sixteenth century, we find _is_ instead of _es_, thus, _faderis hands_.

In the time of Henry the Eighth we find, in the works of Sir T. More, both the Saxon and the English genitive; and in a letter, written in 1559, by Maitland of Lethington, the English genitive frequently occurs. Had this genitive, then, been an abbreviation for the noun and the pronoun _his_, the use of the words separately would have preceded their abbreviated form in composition. This, however, was not the case.

To form the genitive plural, we annex the apostrophe without the letter _s_, as _eagles’ wings_, that is, _the wings of eagles_. The genitive singular of nouns terminating in _s_, is formed in the same manner, as, _righteousness’ sake_, or _the sake of righteousness_.

I finish this article with observing, that there are in English a few diminutive nouns, so called from their expressing a small one of the kind. Some of these end in _kin_, from a Dutch and Teutonic word signifying a _child_, as _manikin_, a little man, _lambkin_, _pipkin_, _thomkin_. Proper names ending in _kin_ belonged originally to this class of diminutives, as, _Wilkin_, Willielmulus; _Halkin, Hawkin_, Henriculus; _Tomkin_, Thomulus; _Simkin_, _Peterkin_, &c.

Some diminutives end in _ock_, as, _hill, hillock_; _bull, bullock_; some in _el_, as _pike, pickrel_; _cock, cockrel_; _sack, satchel_; some in _ing_, as _goose, gosling_. These seem to be the only legitimate ones, as properly belonging to our language. The rest are derived from Latin, French, Italian, and have various terminations.