ur distinctions_" of
"_the distinction_ occasioned by sex." In general, the other authors here
quoted, suppose that we have only "_three distinctions_" of "_the
distinction_ of sex." And, as no philosopher has yet discovered more than
two sexes, some have thence stoutly argued, that it is absurd to speak of
more than two genders. Lily makes it out, that in Latin there are _seven_:
yet, with no great consistency, he will have _a gender_ to be _a_ or _the_
distinction of _sex_. "GENUS est sexus discretio. Et sunt genera numero
septem."--_Lilii Gram._, p. 10. That is, "GENDER is the distinction of
_sex_. And _the genders_ are _seven_ in number." Ruddiman says, "GENUS est,
discrimen _nominis_ secundum sexum, vel _ejus_ in structura grammatica
imitatio. Genera nominum sunt _tria_."--_Ruddimanni Gram._, p. 4. That is,
"GENDER is the diversity of the _noun_ according to sex, or [it is] the
imitation _of it_ in grammatical structure. The genders of nouns are
_three_." These old definitions are no better than the newer ones cited
above. All of them are miserable failures, full of faults and absurdities.
Both the nature and the cause of their defects are in some degree explained
near the close of the tenth chapter of my Introduction. Their most
prominent errors are these: 1. They all assume, that _gender_, taken as one
thing, is in fact two, three, or more, _genders_, 2. Nearly all of them
seem to say or imply, that _words_ differ from one an other _in sex_, like
animals. 3. Many of them expressly confine _gender_, or _the genders_, to
_nouns_ only. 4. Many of them confessedly _exclude the neuter gender_,
though their authors afterwards admit this gender. 5. That of Dr. Webster
supposes, that words differing in gender never have the same
"_termination_." The absurdity of this may be shown by a multitude of
examples: as, _man_ and _woman, male_ and _female, father_ and _mother,
brother_ and _sister_. This is better, but still not free from some other
faults which I have mentioned. For the correction of all this great batch
of errors, I shall simply substitute in the Key one short definition, which
appears to me to be exempt from each of these inaccuracies.

[455] Walker states this differently, and even repeats his remark, thus:
"But _y_ preceded by a vowel is _never_ changed: as coy, coyly, gay,
gayly."--_Walker's Rhyming Dict._, p.x. "Y preceded by a vowel is _never_
changed, as boy, boys, I cloy, he cloys, etc."--_Ib._, p viii. W