lakes, &c. are proper nouns, because they denote individuals; as, Augustus, Baltimore, Alps, Huron.

Physician, lawyer, merchant, and shoemaker, are common nouns, because these names are common to classes of men. God and Lord, when applied to Jehovah or Jesus Christ, are proper; but when employed to denote heathen or false gods, or temporal lords, they are common.

The Notes and remarks throughout the work, though of minor importance, demand your attentive and careful perusal.

NOTES.

1. When proper nouns have an article annexed to them, they are used after the manner of common nouns; as, "Bolivar is styled the Washington of South America."

2. Common nouns are sometimes used to signify individuals, when articles or pronouns are prefixed to them; as," The boy is studious; That girl is discreet." In such instances, they are nearly equivalent to proper nouns.

3. Common nouns are sometimes subdivided into the following classes: Nouns of Multitude; as, The people, the parliament: Verbal or participial nouns; as, The beginning, reading, writing; and Abstract nouns, or the names of qualities abstracted from their substances; as, knowledge, virtue, goodness. Lest the student be led to blend the idea of abstract nouns with that of adjectives, both of which denote qualities, a further illustration appears to be necessary, in order to mark the distinction between these two parts of speech. An abstract noun denotes a quality considered apart (that is, abstracted) from the substance or being to which it belongs; but an adjective denotes a quality joined (adjected) to the substance or being to which it belongs. Thus, whiteness and white both denote the same quality; but we speak of whiteness as a distinct object of thought, while we use the word

the advocates of a mere philosophical investigation of the language, extend their system as far as a radical analysis will warrant them, and, with Horne Tooke, not only consider adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections, as abbreviations of nouns and verbs, but, on their own responsibility, apply them, in teaching the language, in compliance with their radical import, and what would such a course avail them against the power of custom, and the influence of association and refinement? Let them show me one grammarian, produced by such a course of instruction, and they will exhibit a "philosophical" miracle. They might as well undertake to teach architecture, by having recourse to its origin, as represented by booths and tents. In addition to this, when we consider the great number of obsolete words, from which many now in use are derived, the original meaning of which cannot be ascertained, and, also, the multitude whose signification has been changed by the principle of association, it is preposterous to think, that a mere philosophical mode of investigating and teaching the language, is the one by which its significancy can be enforced, its correctness determined, its use comprehended, and its improvement extended. Before what commonly passes for a philosophical manner of developing the language can successfully be made the medium through which it can be comprehended in all its present combinations, relations, and dependances, it must underge a thorough retrogressive change, in all those combinations, relations, and dependances, even to the last letter of the alphabet. And before we can consent to this radical modification and retrograde ratio of the English language, we must agree to revive the customs, the habits, and the precise language of our progenitors, the Goths and Vandals. Were all the advo

white always in reference to the noun to which it belongs; as, white paper,

white house.

4. Some authors have proceeded to still more minute divisions and sub divisions of nouns; such, for example, as the following, which appear to be more complex than useful: Natural nouns, or names of things formed by nature; as, man, beast, water, air: 2. Artificial nouns, or names of things formed by art; as,book, vessel, house: 3. Personal nouns, or those which stand for human beings; as, man, woman, Edwin: 4. Neuter nouns, or those which denote things inanimate; as, book, field, mountain, Cincinnati. The following, however, is quite a rational division: Material nouns are the names of things formed of matter; as, stone, book: Immaterial nouns are the names of things having no substance; as, hope, immortality.

To nouns belong gender, person, number, and

case.

GENDER.

GENDER is the distinction of sex. Nouns have three genders, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter.

The masculine gender denotes males; as, a man, a boy.

The feminine gender denotes females; as, a wo man, a girl.

The neuter gender denotes things without sex; as, a hat, a stick.

Neuter means neither: therefore neuter gender signifies nei ther gender; that is, neither masculine nor feminine. Hence,

cates for the introduction of such philosophical grammars into common schools, at once to enter on their pilgrimage, and recede into the native obscurity and barbarity of the ancient Britons, Picts, and Vandals, it is beieved, that the cause of learning and refinement would not suffer greatly by their loss, and that the good sense of the present age, would not allow many of our best teachers to be of the party.

The last consideration which I shall give a philosophical manner of inves tigating and enforcing the English language, is, that by this mode of analyzing and reducing it to practice, it cannot, in this age, be comprehended as the medium of thought. Were this method to prevail, our present literal language would become a dead letter. Of what avail is language, if it can nos be understood? And how can it be accommodated to the understanding, unless it receive the sanction of common consent? Even if we admit that such a manner of unfolding the principles of our language, is more rational and correct than the ordinary, practical method, I think it is clear that such a mode of investigation and developement, does not meet the necessities and convenience of ordinary learners in school. To be consistent, that system which instructs by tracing a few of our words to their origin, must unfold the whole in the same manner. But the student in common schools and academies, cannot afford time to stem the tide of language up to its source, and there dive to the bottom of the fountain for knowledge. Such labour ought not to be required of him. His object is to become, not a

neuter gender means no gender. Strictly speaking, then, as there are but two sexes, nouns have but two genders; but for the sake of practical convenience, we apply to them three genders, by calling that a gender which is no gender. The English and the pure Persian, appear to be the only languages which observe, in the distinction of sex, the natural division of nouns. -The genders of nouns are so easily known, that a farther explanation of them is unnecessary, except what is given in the following

NOTES.

1. The same noun is sometimes masculine and feminine, and sometimes masculine or feminine. The noun parents is of the masculine and feminine gender. The nouns parent, associate, neighbour, servant, friend, child, bird, fish, &c. if doubtful, are of the masculine or feminine gender.

2. Some nouns naturally neuter, are, when used figuratively, or personified, converted into the masculine or feminine gender. Those nouns are generally rendered masculine, which are conspicuous for the attributes of imparting or communicating, and which are by nature strong and efficacious; as, the sun, time, death, sleep, winter, &c. Those, again, are generally feminine, which are conspicuous for the attributes of containing or bringing forth, or which are very beautiful, mild, or amiable: as, the earth, moon, church, boat, vessel, city, country, nature, ship, soul, fortune, virtue, hope, spring, peace, &c. This principle for designating the sex of a personified object, which is quite rational, is generally adhered to in the English language; but, in some instances, the poet applies the sex according to his fancy.

The masculine and feminine genders are distinguished in three ways: 1. By different words; as,

philosophical antiquarian, but a practical grammarian. If I comprehend the design (if they have any) of our modern philosophical writers on this subject, it is to make grammarians by inculcating a few general principles, arising out of the genius of the language, and the nature of things, which the learner, by the exercise of his reasoning powers, must reduce to practice. His own judgment, independent of grammar rules, is to be his guide in speak ing and writing correctly. Hence, many of them exclude from their systems, all exercises in what is called false Syntax. But these profound philological dictators appear to have overlooked the important consideration, that the great mass of mankind, and especially of boys and girls in common schools, can never become philosophers; and, consequently, can never comprehend and reduce to practice their metaphysical and obscure systems of grammar. I wish to see children treated as reasoning beings. But there should be a medium in all things. It is, therefore, absurd to instruct children as if they were already profound philosophers and logicians.

To demonstrate the utility, and enforce the necessity, of exercising the learner in correcting false Syntax, I need no other argument than the inte resting and undeniable fact, that Mr. Murray's labours, in this department, have effected a complete revolution in the English language, in point of verbal accuracy. Who does not know, that the best writers of this day, are not guilty of one grammatical inaccuracy, where those authors who wrote before Mr. Murray flourished, are guilty of five? And what has produced this im

portant change for the better? Ask the hundreds of thousands who have studied "Mr. Murray's exercises in FALSE SYNTAX." If, then, this view of the subject is correct, it follows, that the greater portion of our philosophical grammars, are far more worthy the attention of literary connoisseurs, than of the great mass of learners.

Knowing that a strong predilection for what are termed philosophical grammars, exists in the minds of some teachers of this science, I have thought proper, for the gratification of such, to intersperse through the pages of this work, under the head of "PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES," a system of grammatical principles as deduced from what appears to me to be the most rational and consistent investigations of this sort. They who prefer this theory to that exhibited in the body of the work, are, of course, at liberty to adopt it. In general, these pretended, philosophical theories of grammar will be found to accord with the practical and still more philosphical theory embraced in the body of this work. Wherever such agreement exists, the system contained in these NOTES will be deficient, and this deficiency may be supplied by adopting the principles contained in the other parts of the work.

OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL CLASSIFICATON OF WORDS.

According to the method in which these philosophical investigations of language have generally been conducted, all our words should be reduced to two

PERSON is a property of the noun and which varies the verb.

The first person denotes the speaker.

pronoun

The second person denotes the person or thing spoken to; as, "Listen, O earth!"

The third person denotes the person or thing spoken of; as, "The earth thirsts."

Nouns have but two persons, the second and third. When man speaks, the pronoun I or we is always used; therefore nouns can never be in the first person. In examples like the

a

classes; for it can be easily shown, that from the noun and verb, all the other parts of speech have sprung. Nay, more. They may even be reduced to one. Verbs do not, in reality, express actions; but they are intrinsically the mere names of actions. The idea of action or being communicated by them, as well as the meaning of words in general, is merely inferential. The principle of reasoning assumed by the celebrated Horne Tooke, if carried to its full extent, would result, it is believed, in proving that we have but one part of speech.

Adnouns or adjectives were originally nouns. Sweet, red, white, are the names of qualities, as well as sweetness, redness, whiteness. The former differ from the latter only in their manner of signification. To denote that the name of some quality or substance is to be used in connexion with some other name, or, that this quality is to be attributed to some other name, we sometimes affix to it the termination en, ed, or y; which signifies give, add, or join. When we employ the words wooden, woollen, wealthy, grassy, the terminations en and y, by their own intrinsick meaning, give notice that we intend to give, add, or join, the names of some other substances in which are found the properties or qualities of wood, wool, wealth, or grass.

Pronouns are a class of nouns, used instead of others to prevent their disagrecable repetition. Participles are certain forms of the verb. Articles