with singular propriety. In short, there seems to be no doubt that the neuter gender might be admitted with regard to the pronouns of the first and second persons. Hence we may conclude that, instead of THREE, there might be at least FIVE genders of this clafs of pronouns.

Of number.

But

In all languages each of the personal pronouns admits of a change respecting NUMBER, which must be at least two-fold, viz. singular and plural. Most languages have no other distinction in this respect; but some divide the plural into definite and indefinite. The Greeks, we have already said, admitted a definite plural for the number two, which has been called the dual number; the same distinction I am told also takes place in the Galic, Calic, or Celtic language. I have not heard that the definite plural has ever been extended farther than two in any language. It is plain, however, it might be with equal propriety extended to the number three, or other higher numbers; and it is by no means impossible but some languages may have extended this definite plural to other higher numbers, especially with respect to the pronouns. Should this be the case, and were a writer at all times permitted either to employ the definite, or the indefinite plural, as best suited his purpose, it might doubtless be a new source of elegance and perspicuity. sing himself to his cogie, that is, a dish that contains his victuals, in a very pleasing manner. The burden of the song is:

"Cogie gin [if] ye were ay [always] fu' [full,]
Cogie gin ye were ay fu',

I would sit and sing to you,
I would sit and sing to you,
Until that I was weary."

Of cases.

IN some languages certain relations that subsist between nouns or pronouns and other words, are denoted by a variation in the form of the noun or pro❤ noun, to which clafs of variations has been appropri ated the name of cuses. In many languages no such variation subsists with regard to nouns, as particucularly the English; and in all the languages where CASES have been adopted, the number of cases is so ~ few as to perform very imperfectly the uses for which they seem to have been adopted; the highest number of cases in any European language being six*, whereas the relations that for want of these come to be denoted by prepositions, amount to six times that number at least. This variation, therefore, seems to be, for the most part, a very unefsential peculiarity of certain languages.

4

There seems, however, to exist in nature an essen-tial reason for one variation, at least, in regard to case; and in respect to this particular circumstance all languages, that I know, admit a variation in their pronouns, even where the nouns do not. The object denoted by the noun or pronoun, when considered as connected with an active verb, may be viewed either as active or as passive; as the object from which the energy proceeds, or as that on which it acts. This distinction is real, and must subsist in all languages; though, from some unaccountable oversight, most. languages admit of no distinction for the noun when placed in these diferent circumstances, though in

* And even these are so imperfectly discriminated, that the distinction is in many nouns more nominal than rea..

others it has been adopte; and the words then have obtained the name of the nominative and accusative CASES. Though perhaps it would be better to call them the active and the passive states. Our English pronouns admit of this dis inction, though our nouns do not. The same may be said f many other languages, ancient as well as modern, even where grammarians do usually arrange the whole into cases; or in the Latin, for example, where more cases are adopted than in any other language, the nominative and accusative are the same in perhaps half the nouns of that language. This defect is the more to be regretted, in that no word has ever been adopted, which, when joined to the noun, denoted this relation, as in other cases.

Another unobserved pofsible variation of the pronoun.

THESE are all the variations that grammarians have admitted to be possible respecting the pronouns; because these are all the variations that have been carried into practice in the languages we have been taught grammatically. But there are several other relations that may subsist between the parties, for which pronouns become the substitutes, which it would be of great importance to be able to represent without circum'locution, with clearnefs and perspicuity, by means of a particular variation of the pronoun for that purpose. For example, the speaker may be supposed to addrefs a discourse to the party present, or to speak of those who are absent, or to represent himself, under one or other of the following points of view, at least.

1. They may be considered as inferiors.

11. As equals.

III. As superiors indefinite.

IV. As superiors definite.

The number of variations, definite, would vary greatly according to the degrees of rank established in the country where the language was spoken; but they could in no case, perhaps, be lefs than two, viz. 1st, As respecting the king or first magistrate. 2d, As respecting the supreme Being.

In all these respects, at least, we can easily con ceive that a variation of the pronoun is not only pofsible, but in some measure absolutely necessary, before man can exprefs, with any degree of precision, the sensations by which his mind is on innumerable occasions influenced. So necefsary indeed is this variation of the pronoun, that although it has been hitherto, in as far as I know, entirely overlooked by grammarians, yet in actual practice, men, feeling the want, have, in most languages, adopted certain contrivances for removing the defect, which have been in some languages, more happily effected than in

others.

In the English language we have no other pronoun of the first and second persons, but the words I and thou. Practice has enabled us however to vary these words from the original meaning; and on some occasions to substitute others in their stead that are sufficiently absurd; or periphrastic phrases are made use of to supply the place of a simple pronoun. Thus the proper pronoun thou, is, by general practice, now in a great measure appropriated to solemn

addrefses to the deity, or as announcing commands; and in common conversation between man and man, the plural you is made to stand in place of a singu

On the other hand, with a view to give a certain elevation of tone to majesty, in many languages the king, in the singular number, makes use of the plural pronouns, and says, in English, we, instead of simple I. On some occasions, rejecting the plural, the king uses the simple pronoun singular, with the addition of his distinctive epithet, as in Spain, yo il re, I the king.

Formerly we had in English an indefinite pronoun, exprefsive of general respect from an inferior to a superior, which has now fallen into disuse. The phrase was, your bonour. But though this indefinite respectful pronoun be now obsolete, we still retain many other pronouns, definite, of the same clafs, as your lordship, your grace, your excellency, your royal highnefs, your holiness, your serene highness, your majesty, &c. And the word friend, as denoting kindnefs from a superior to an inferior, is still in use, though we have no pronoun that can become its substitute exprefsive of the same idea.

In the Spanish language they have proceeded a step farther than we have done in this respect. It is only in speaking to inferiors they make use of the plain pronoun vos or os. In addrefsing equals whom they wish to treat with respect, they make use of the word usted; and the periphrastic phrase vuestra VOL. xi.