animals of the
female kind; as, _woman, mother, queen_.

The _neuter gender_ is that which denotes things that are neither male nor
female; as, _pen, ink, paper_.

Hence, names of males are masculine; names of females, feminine; and names
of things inanimate, literally, neuter.

Masculine nouns make regular feminines, when their termination is changed
to _ess_: as, _hunter, huntress_; _prince, princess_; _lion, lioness_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The different genders in grammar are founded on the natural
distinction of sex in animals, and on the absence of sex in other things.
In English, they belong only to nouns and pronouns; and to these they are
usually applied, not arbitrarily, as in some other languages, but agreeably
to the order of nature. From this we derive a very striking advantage over
those who use the gender differently, or without such rule; which is, that
our pronouns are easy of application, and have a fine effect when objects
are personified. Pronouns are of the same gender as the nouns for which
they stand.

OBS. 2.--Many nouns are equally applicable to both sexes; as, _cousin,
friend, neighbour, parent, person, servant_. The gender of these is usually
determined by the context; and they are to be called masculine or feminine
accordingly. To such words, some grammarians have applied the unnecessary
and improper term _common gender_. Murray justly observes, "There is no
such gender belonging to the language. The business of parsing can be
effectually performed, without having recourse to a _common
gender_."--_Gram._, 8vo. p. 39. The term is more useful, and less liable to
objection, as applied to the learned languages; but with us, whose genders
_distinguish objects in regard to sex_, it is plainly a solecism.

OBS. 3.--A great many of our grammars define gender to be "_the distinction
of sex_," and then speak of a _common gender_, in which the two sexes are
left _undistinguished_; and of the _neuter gender_, in which objects are
treated as being of _neither sex_. These views of the matter are obviously
inconsistent. Not genders, or a gender, do the writers undertake to define,
but "gender" as a whole; and absurdly enough, too; because this whole of
gender they 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 gen