independent of their present geographical situation; and this division
rests upon a marked distinction in the Slavic language. To specify the
marks, by which the philologist recognizes to which of these families
each nation belongs, seems to be here out of place. The reader,
without knowing the language itself, would hardly be able to
comprehend them sufficiently; and he who understands it, will find
better sources of information in philological works. All that concerns
us here, is the general character, the genius of the language. For
this purpose we will try to give in a few words a general outline of
its grammar; exhibiting principally those features, which, as being
common to all or most of its different dialects, seem to be the best
adapted to express its general character.

The analogy between the Slavic and the Sanscrit languages consists
indeed only in the similar sound of a great many words; the
construction of the former is purely European, and it has in this
respect a nearer relation to the Greek, Latin, and German; with which
idioms it has evidently been derived from the same source.[13] The
Slavic has three genders. Like the Latin, it knows no article; at
least not the genuine Slavic; for those dialects which have lost their
national character, like the Bulgarian, or those which have been
corrupted by the influence of the German,[14] employ the demonstrative
pronoun as an article; and the Bulgarian has borrowed the Albanian
mode of suffixing one to the noun. For this very reason the
declensions are more perfect in Slavic than in German and Greek; for
the different cases, as in Latin, are distinguished by suffixed
syllables or endings. The Singular has seven cases; the Plural only
six, the vocative having always the form of the nominative. As for the
Dual, a form which the Slavic languages do not all possess, the
nominative and accusative, the genitive and local; the dative and