The translation-method is injurious here too, because it veils contours which ought to be sharp. For instance, the pupils will not get the proper conception of gender and its relation to expressions for sex, if _er_ referring to _der hut_ and _sie_ referring to _die bank_, and likewise _il_ referring to _le chapeau_, and _elle_ referring to _la chaise_, are all translated by the English _it_, while the same pronouns, when used about persons, are translated by _he_ and _she_.
Comparisons between the languages which the pupils know, for the purpose of showing their differences of economy in the use of linguistic means of expression, will only be a natural outcome of this systematized occupation with the theory of the language, and may often become very interesting, especially for advanced students. (Comparisons between the reflexive pronouns in the different languages; du ihr Sie sie--toi vous vous ils elles eux--you you you they--il y a, es giebt, there is, etc.). The teacher may call attention to the inconsistency of the languages; what is distinctly expressed in one case is in another case not designated by any outward sign (haus häuser; häuschen häuschen--house houses; sheep sheep--cheval chevaux; vers vers--yes in reality also maison, maisons, etc.; mich mir, dich dir, sich sich; der mann, die frau, das weib; ein guter mann, eine gute frau, ein gutes weib; der gute mann, die gute frau, das gute weib; die männer, die frauen, die weiber; die guten m., f., w., etc.). In French and English, there is ample occasion to point out how differently the grammatical relations present themselves in sound and on paper (singular and plural alike in bon bons, beau beaux, hideux hideux, further amer amère, clair claire, révolutionnaire révolutionnaire | church churches, judge judges | sin sinned, fine fined | say said, lay laid, etc.). That this may be a good way to make a beginning in comparative philology scarcely needs further proof; many things belonging to this field of study can be understood by our advanced pupils, and ought to belong to a good general education. Everyone who has received a little more than the most ordinary school education ought to understand what is meant by the relationship and development of languages; he ought to be acquainted with such linguistic phenomena as the loss of sounds, assimilation, analogical formations, differentiations, etc.; he ought to have noticed examples of these phenomena, both in his mother tongue and in the foreign languages which he has learned, just as he ought to realize how these processes continually influence the whole construction of the languages, and, in the course of time, have produced such great differences as those he sees between German and English, or between Latin and French; a valuable point of departure would be to take up the fate of French loan-words in English with the frequent retention of the old French sounds (_ch_ in _chase_, _j_ in _journal_, _n_ in _cousin_ _cousine_, _s_ in _beast_, _feast_, etc.). But however interesting and valuable these things are, it is scarcely advisable to devote too much time to them as long as the living languages have so few hours at their disposal. How much or how little of this sort of thing the teacher takes up will also, to a great extent, depend upon whether the class on the whole is ripe for it, and if the pupils show sufficient interest and desire to ask questions; very much philology ought not to be _forced_ upon them.