It is a native of Brazil; feeds on fruits, vegetables, insects, and snails; and is fond of fish.

The ouistiti is one of the few clafses of the monkey kind which have been known ever to breed in Europe. Mr Edwards says, that it produced young ones in Portugal, which were at first extremely ugly, having hardly any hair upon their bodies, They adhered closely to the teats of their mother; and when grown a little larger, fixed themselves upon her back, from which she could not easily disengage them without rubbing them off against a wall. Upon these occasions, the male, who discovers a great fondness for them, either compels the female to take them up again, or allows them to mount upon his own back to relieve her.

As this is one of the smallest and most beautiful of the monkey tribe, it is frequently kept in Portugal as a pet in families; but it is even there tender, and impatient of cold.

GRAMMATICAL DISQUISITIONS.
Continued from p. 250.
OTHER and OTHERS.

ہو

Dr

ENGLISH grammarians have likewise been at a lofs what to make of the words other and others. Johnson, with other grammarians, has clafsed them: among pronouns, and calls others, the plural of other, for no better reason, seemingly, than that the word others has an s final, which is the usual plural termination of our nouns, though this rule be not observed: in our pronouns. By the same mode of arguing,

bers fhould be the plural of ber, yours the plural of your, and ours of our. A very little attention, how ever, would have been sufficient to convince Dr Johnson, that the word other, has, in general, a plural meaning, as well as others. For we may say, "other men went," or "other houses were sold,"

c. In all which, and similar cases, the word other has an evident relation to plurality. The truth, how ever, seems to be, that the word other, is not a pronoun, but merely a definitive; which, like other de finitives, must always be accompanied by the noun which it serves to define; and it is one of those definitives that relate to plurality, like many others. If, therefore, we must have a singular to this word, that singular can doubtlefs be nothing else than an other; for we say another man came," or ટ્રેડ other men came," exactly denoting the same idea, the one singular, and the other plural. These are, therefore, alike definitives of the same kind. Others, is similar in power to those words we have above called pronouns possessive; see table p. 244.

SELF and SELVES.

Grammarians have been still more at a lofs with regard to the word self, with its plural selves; because of some anomalies that have arisen in the English language, from a deficiency in the inflection of some of our pronours, that now require to be explained.

The word self, denotes an object considered in its totality, without discrimination of parts. It has been universally accounted a pronoun; though I think there is great reason to doubt if it strictly belongs to this clafs of words. We fhall try to ascertain its rank in grammar by the following analysis.

When we say, "I cut my hand," we denote the particular part of the body that was cut. But, if we wished to exprefs the circumstance GENERALLY, we would say, "I cut my self;" Here it is plain the word hand, in a grammatical sense, is precisely of the same nature with the word self;-the first only denoting a particular member, and the last denoting the object in general, without specification of parts. But it never yet has been thought that hand could be reckoned a pronoun; it has been universally called a noun. Why then should self be placed in

another clafs ?

I can see no other reason for this distinction, unlefs it be, that, as self seldom appears in language without being conjoined with a definitive pronoun, it has been thought to be itself a pronoun also. We fhall find, however, that the word band is, on many occasions, as necefsarily accompanied with the definitive as the other. In the example above given, the definitive my, equally accompanies both; and whereever a particular member is represented as acting, or being acted upon, the name of that member must be as necefsarily accompanied with its definitive, to refer it to the whole of which it is a part, as if that whole were represented, without specification of parts, by the word self.

It is indeed true, that when we express a part, we can more easily adopt the nomial definitive, and avoid that of the pronoun, than when we mean to denote the whole because we have more frequently occasion: to identify the hole to which the part belongs, by repeating its name, than when we exprefs the whole.

For example, we more readily say, James's hand, than James's self, for a very obvious reason, viz. because the phrase James's hand, is, when taken altogether, only one noun; the definitive James's, being only necefsary to identify the word hand. But the whole individual is clearly expressed by the single word Fames alone; and therefore the word self is here unnecessary, unless where some particular contrast is implied, or a particular emphasis be given to the phrase.

These considerations, with others that are sufficiently obvious in pursuing this mode of reasoning, satisfy me, that the word self is a noun, in the strictest sense of the word, and fhould be ranked in the same class with the word band'; but that, as it exprefses the object generally, the defining noun alone, can, on many occasions, denote the idea, without obliging us to repeat this particular word; but that this definitive must always be accompanied by the particular object it serves to identify, when a particular part or member only is exprefsed. Where we wish to exprefs that general idea, without appro priating it to particulars, we can equally make use of either of these words as a nominative to a verb, without being accompanied by any sort of definitive: Thus,

"A band is the most useful member of the human

body;" or, Self, ever interesting to man."

We have seen above the reason why those nouns that serve to denote particular parts or members of bodies, are usually defined by the nomial definitive; as also why the general word self, so often afsumes the pronomial definitive in language. It now only

remains, that we should point out the cause of some anomalies that are observable in the English langu age, with regard to the composition of that word self with its definitive.

We find, that in the pronouns of the first and se◄ cond persons, the word self, with its plural selves, regularly assumes the proper definitive pronoun in composition. Thus we say MY-self, rejecting, alike, the accusative me and the possessive mine; for we can neither say me-self, nor mine-self*. In like manner we take, in the plural, the proper definitive our, and say our-selves; and not us-selves, or ours-selves. The same rule is observed in regard to the pronoun of the second person; for we say, thy-self, using the proper definitive, and not thee-self, or thine-self; and your-selves, and not you-self, or yours-selves. In all these cases, our pronoun admits of a distinct word for the definitive, different from either the accusative or the possessive, and therefore no difficulty occurs. But when we come to the pronoun of the third person, we are at a stand; for, with regard to that pronoun, we find, that, in the masculine gender, there is no particular word appropriated as a definitive +, the. word his being obviously the pofsefsive only, and not the definitive. In this embarrassment, what shall be done? No alternative seems to remain, but either to employ in this case the accusative HIM, by way of a definitive, or the pofsefsive HIS. Custom has established the first, and we say him-self, and not bis-self. Some critics, however, observing that the word his, has been for