Abili-ty, agili-ty, ami-ty, du-ty, antipa-thy, apa-thy, sympa-thy. These signify different general properties and qualities of things.
Aristocra-cy, oligar-chy, ordina-ry, mason-ry, orator-y, lecher-y, grocer-y, orthodox-y, ha-y, ho-y. The cy and chy signify different qualities, and the y is the Welsh the.
Ma-w, me-w, mo-w, and s or es for substantives of a plural nature. This w signifies different springs.
Substantives are distinguished by grammarians into appellatives or general names of things common to many individuals, as man, river, month, wind; and proper names, appropriated only to individuals, as, George, Britain, London, October, Libs, which admit of neither articles or plurality of numbers. But all words, excepting one or an, according to their natural meaning seem to me to be appellative and capable of being applied to things of a plural nature, were their primitive sense understood, as for instance, George, which originally signified a chief of the circle nation, as an appellative name of a magistrate, in the same manner as King, Prince, Duke, or any other; but when its original meaning was lost, and it came to be adopted as a Christian name by different families, it was thence supposed to be a mere arbitrary term, imposed as the name of an individual; and so as to Britain, London, October, Libs, Thames, Avon, which were originally appellatives or common expressions for the sea coast, long towns, the eighth month from the spring, the west south-west, or Libian wind, the limits of the Iceni, and Rivers. So that these names, so long as their original meanings were understood, were as much appellative or common expressions, as man, river, month, wind, or any other common names, and as capable too of a plural or singular sense, in concord with the articles or demonstrative pronouns; as, a, the, this, or that, chief of the circle nation or long town, &c. Hence the distinction of common and proper names seems to be frivolous and unnecessary.
All substantives were originally appellative and plural, and the articles and demonstrative pronouns were set in apposition or as terminations thereto, to determine their singular nature as well as the identity of the individual. But as they are now mostly understood as the signs of single things, the English method of adding s or es as a plural termination, should be generally followed as the best method; unless substantives and their articles should be restored to their original sense and use; but in either case the particles, an or en, as terminations of plural names, when the sense will admit of their being singular, and en does not express the male and female of the same kind, as men does both man and woman, seem to be improper. Nor is it best so to continue the use of such plurals, as mice, lice, teeth, feet, geese, but rather mus, lus, toth, fot, gus, which are so in their nature, as expressing the little eaters, the little family, the grinders, the movers and the water nation. It is however certain that the numbers of nouns are in their nature but two, singular and plural, one and two or many, but whether they are expressed by one or an, and two or as and es seems not to be very material, tho’ as and es were the primitive signs, as, as signified the masculine gender, and es the feminine. And numbers and genders ought to be the same.
There were originally no other distinction of genders of nouns than the masculine and feminine, and which were distinguishable only by the signification of vocables; and whatever other arbitrary modes and distinctions as to genders of nouns and their declensions or inflections have been arbitrarily made by other nations, the English still in fact adhere to the original masculine and feminine genders, the only distinction of nature, as and es; for were the meaning of substantives precisely understood, they would all appear to be either masculine or feminine, at least, as relative to man and woman, or according to their active and passive, or hard and soft sounds. Nor do the English adjectives or pronouns vary as to genders, numbers, or cases, as has been supposed; but naturally agree in concord, without any variation or inflection thereof, from their primitive state.
Indeed if the Welsh modes of inflection derive their origin from the original language, which was musical, and vocables could be reduced to their true primitive state, perhaps it might be the best way, but as that might be impracticable or too arduous a task, we may as well stick to our old English voices, which deviate so very little from the primitive language.
And, as to any variation of cases or the declension of nouns, the English still remains in the primitive state of language without any; their prepositions being fully expressive of the situation and direction of actions and things, and those of other nations being altogether arbitrary and calculated more for the sake of variety and preservation of vocables, than from any necessity, as their prepositions and vocables might in their primitive state be as expressive, and agree in concord, like the English, which has no other state or case, than that in which names were originally formed, or the nominative, as will appear to any one, that will be at the trouble of a deliberate consideration of the origin, frame, and construction of the English language, whatever may have been advanced by our modern grammarians, as to the variation of the genitive or possessive case.