ey immediately distribute into certain other genders, into genders of gender, or kinds of gender, and these not compatible with their definition. Thus Wells: "Gender is the distinction of objects, with regard to sex. There are four genders;--the masculine, the feminine, the common, and the neuter."--School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 49. [Those] "Nouns which are applicable alike to both sexes, are of the common gender."--Ib. This then is manifestly no gender under the foregoing definition, and the term neuter is made somewhat less appropriate by the adoption of a third denomination before it. Nor is there less absurdity in the phraseology with which Murray proposes to avoid the recognition of the common gender: "Thus we may say, Parents is a noun of the masculine and feminine gender; Parent, if doubtful, is of the masculine or feminine gender; and Parent, if the gender is known by the construction, is of the gender so ascertained."--Gram., 8vo, p. 39. According to this, we must have five genders, exclusive of that which is called common; namely, the masculine, the feminine, the neuter, the androgynal, and the doubtful.
OBS. 4.--It is plain that many writers on grammar have had but a confused notion of what a gender really is. Some of them, confounding gender with sex, deny that there are more than two genders, because there are only two sexes. Others, under a like mistake, resort occasionally, (as in the foregoing instance,) to an androgynal, and also to a doubtful gender: both of which are more objectionable than the common gender of the old grammarians; though this common "distinction with regard to sex," is, in our language, confessedly, no distinction at all. I assume, that there are in English the three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter, and no more; and that every noun and every pronoun must needs be of some gender; consequently, of some one of these three. A gender is, literally, a sort, a kind, a sex. But genders, in grammar, are attributes of words, rather than of persons, or animals, or things; whereas sexes are attributes, not of words, but of living creatures. He who understands this, will perceive that the absence of sex in some things, is as good a basis for a grammatical distinction, as the presence or the difference of it in others; nor can it be denied, that the neuter, according to my definition, is a gender, is a distinction "in regard to sex," though it does not embrace either of the sexes. There are therefore three genders, and only three.
OBS. 5.--Generic names, even when construed as masculine or feminine, often virtually include both sexes; as, "Hast thou given the horse strength? hast thou clothed his neck with thunder? Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils is terrible."--Job, xxxix, 19. "Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south? Doth the eagle mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high?"--Ib., ver. 26. These were called, by the old grammarians, epicene nouns--that is, supercommon; but they are to be parsed each according to the gender of the pronoun which is put for it.
OBS. 6.--The gender of words, in many instances, is to be determined by the following principle of universal grammar. Those terms which are equally applicable to both sexes, (if they are not expressly applied to females,) and those plurals which are known to include both sexes, should be called masculine in parsing; for, in all languages, the masculine gender is considered the most worthy,[159] and is generally employed when both sexes are included under one common term. Thus parents is always masculine, and must be represented by a masculine pronoun, for the gender of a word is a property indivisible, and that which refers to the male sex, always takes the lead in such cases. If one say, "Joseph took the young child and his mother by night, and fled with them into Egypt," the pronoun them will be masculine; but let "his" be changed to its, and the plural pronoun that follows, will be feminine. For the feminine gender takes precedence of the neuter, but not of the masculine; and it is not improper to speak of a young child without designating the sex. As for such singulars as parent, friend, neighbour, thief, slave, and many others, they are feminine when expressly applied to any of the female sex; but otherwise, masculine.
OBS. 7.--Nouns of multitude, when they convey the idea of unity or take the plural form, are of the neuter gender; but when they convey the idea of plurality without the form, they follow the gender of the individuals which compose the assemblage. Thus a congress, a council, a committee, a jury, a sort, or a sex, if taken collectively, is neuter; being represented in discourse by the neuter pronoun it: and the formal plurals, congresses, councils, committees, juries, sorts, sexes, of course, are neuter also. But, if I say, "The committee disgraced themselves," the noun and pronoun are presumed to be masculine, unless it be known that I am speaking of a committee of females. Again: "The fair sex, whose task is not to mingle in the labours of public life, have their own part assigned them to act."--Comly's Gram., p. 132. Here sex, and the three pronouns which have that word for their antecedent, are all feminine. Again: "Each sex, dressing themselves in the clothes of the other."--Wood's Dictionary, v. Feast of Purim. Here sex, and the pronoun which follows, are masculine; because, the male sex, as well as the female, is here spoken of plurally.
OBS. 8.--To persons, of every description, known or unknown, real or imaginary, we uniformly ascribe sex.[160] But, as personality implies intelligence, and sex supposes some obvious difference,
