Part 2 — CHAPTER III.—NOUNS.

A Noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned: as, George, York, man, apple, truth.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—All words and signs taken technically, (that is, independently of their meaning, and merely as things spoken of,) are nouns; or, rather, are things read and construed as nouns; because, in such a use, they temporarily assume the syntax of nouns: as, "For this reason, I prefer contemporary to cotemporary."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 175; Murray's Gram., i, p. 368. "I and J were formerly expressed by the same character; as were U and V."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 3. "Us is a personal pronoun."—Murray. "Th has two sounds."—Ib. "The 's cannot be a contraction of his, because 's is put to female [feminine] nouns; as, Woman's beauty, the Virgin's delicacy."—Dr. Johnson's Gram. "Their and theirs are the possessives likewise of they, when they is the plural of it."—Ib. "Let B be a now or instant."—Harris's Hermes, p. 103. "In such case, I say that the instant B is the end of the time A B."—Ib., 103. "A is sometimes a noun: as, a great A."—Todd's Johnson. "Formerly sp was cast in a piece, as st's are now."—Hist. of Printing, 1770. "I write to others than he will perhaps include in his we."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 455. "Here are no fewer than eight ands in one sentence."—Blair's Rhet., p. 112; Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 319. "Within this wooden O;" i. e., circle.—Shak.

OBS. 2.—In parsing, the learner must observe the sense and use of each word, and class it accordingly. Many words commonly belonging to other parts of speech are occasionally used as nouns; and, since it is the manner of its use, that determines any word to be of one part of speech rather than of an other, whatever word is used directly as a noun, must of course be parsed as such.

1. Adjectives made nouns: "The Ancient of days did sit."—Bible. "Of the ancients."—Swift. "For such impertinents."—Steele. "He is an ignorant in it."—Id. "In the luxuriance of an unbounded picturesque."—Jamieson. "A source of the sublime;" i. e., of sublimity.—Burke. "The vast immense of space:" i. e., immensity.—Murray. "There is none his like."—Job, xli, 33. "A little more than a little, is by much too much."—Shakspeare. "And gladly make much of that entertainment."—Sidney. "A covetous man makes the most of what he has."—L'Estrange. "It has done enough for me."—Pope. "He had enough to do."—Bacon.

"All withers here; who most possess, are losers by their gain, Stung by full proof, that bad at best, life's idle all is vain." —Young.

"Nor grudge I thee the much the Grecians give, Nor murm'ring take the little I receive." —Dryden.

2. Pronouns made nouns: "A love of seeing the what and how of all about him."—STORY'S LIFE OF FLAXMAN: Pioneer, Vol. i, p. 133. "The nameless HE, whose nod is Nature's birth."—Young, Night iv. "I was wont to load my she with knacks."—Shak. Winter's Tale. "Or any he, the proudest of thy sort."—Shak. "I am the happiest she in Kent."—Steele. "The shes of Italy."—Shak. "The hes in birds."—Bacon. "We should soon have as many hes and shes as the French."—Cobbet's E. Gram., Para. 42. "If, for instance, we call a nation a she, or the sun a he."—Ib., Para. 198. "When I see many its in a page, I always tremble for the writer."—Ib., Para. 196. "Let those two questionary petitioners try to do this with their whos and their whiches."—SPECT: Ash's Gr., p. 131.

"Such mortal drugs I have; but Mantua's law Is death to any he that utters them."—Shak.

3. Verbs made nouns: "Avaunt all attitude, and stare, and start theatric."—Cowper. "A may-be of mercy is sufficient."—Bridge. "Which cuts are reckoned among the fractures."—Wiseman. "The officer erred in granting a permit."—"Feel darts and charms, attracts and flames."—Hudibras. "You may know by the falling off of the come, or sprout."—Mortimer. "And thou hast talk'd of sallies and retires."—Shak.

"For all that else did come, were sure to fail; Yet would he further none, but for avail."—Spenser.

4. Participles made nouns: "For the producing of real happiness."—Crabb. "For the crying of the poor and the sighing of the needy, I will arise."—Bible. "Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood; so the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife."—Prov., xxx, 33. "Reading, writing, and ciphering, are indispensable to civilized man."—"Hence was invented the distinction between doing and permitting."—Calvin's Inst., p. 131. "Knowledge of the past comes next."—Hermes, p. 113. "I am my beloved's, and his desire is toward me."—Sol. Song, vii, 10. "Here's—a simple coming-in for one man."—Shak.

"What are thy rents? What are thy comings-in? O Ceremony, show me but thy worth."—Id.

5. Adverbs made nouns: "In these cases we examine the why, the what, and the how of things."—L'Estrange. "If a point or now were extended, each of them would contain within itself infinite other points or nows."—Hermes, p. 101. "The why is plain as way to parish church."—Shak. "'Tis Heaven itself that points out an hereafter."—Addison. "The dread of a hereafter."—Fuller. "The murmur of the deep amen."—Sir W. Scott. "For their whereabouts lieth in a mystery."—Book of Thoughts, p. 14. Better: "Their whereabout lieth," or, "Their whereabouts lie," &c.

"Bid them farewell, Cordelia, though unkind; Thou losest here, a better where to find."—Shak.

6. Conjunctions made nouns: "The if, which is here employed, converts the sentence into a supposition."—Blair's Rhet. "Your if is the only peacemaker; much virtue is in if."—Shak.

"So his Lordship decreed with a grave solemn tone, Decisive and clear, without one if or but— That whenever the Nose put his spectacles on, By daylight or candlelight—Eyes should be shut."—Cowper.

7. Prepositions made nouns: "O, not like me; for mine's beyond beyond."—Shakspeare: Cymb., iii, 2. "I. e., her longing is further than beyond; beyond any thing that desire can be said to be beyond."—Singer's Notes. "You whirled them to the back of beyont to look at the auld Roman camp."—Antiquary, i. 37.

8. Interjections or phrases made nouns: "Come away from all the lo-heres! and lo-theres!"—Sermon. "Will cuts him short with a 'What then?'"—Addison. "With hark and whoop, and wild halloo."—Scott. "And made a pish at chance and sufferance."—Shak.

"A single look more marks th' internal wo, Than all the windings of the lengthen'd oh."—Lloyd.

CLASSES.

Nouns are divided into two general classes; proper and common. I. A proper noun is the name of some particular individual, or people, or group; as, Adam, Boston, the Hudson, the Romans, the Azores, the Alps.

II. A common noun is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things; as, Beast, bird, fish, insect,—creatures, persons, children.

The particular classes, collective, abstract, and verbal, or participial, are usually included among common nouns. The name of a thing sui generis is also called common.

1. A collective noun, or noun of multitude, is the name of many individuals together; as, Council, meeting, committee, flock.

2. An abstract noun is the name of some particular quality considered apart from its substance; as, Goodness, hardness, pride, frailty.

3. A verbal or participial noun is the name of some action, or state of being; and is formed from a verb, like a participle, but employed as a noun: as, "The triumphing of the wicked is short."—Job, xx, 5.

4. A thing sui generis, (i. e., of its own peculiar kind,) is something which is distinguished, not as an individual of a species, but as a sort by itself, without plurality in either the noun or the sort of thing; as, Galvanism, music, geometry.

OBS. 1.—Through the influence of an article, a proper name sometimes acquires the import of a common noun: as, "He is the Cicero of his age;" that is, the great orator. "Many a fiery Alp;" that is, high volcanic mountain. "Such is the following application of famous names; a Solomon for a wise man, a Croesus for a rich man, a Judas for a traitor, a Demosthenes for an orator, and a Homer for a poet."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 326.

"Consideration, like an angel, came, And whipp'd th' offending Adam out of him."—Shak.

OBS. 2.—A common noun, with the definite article before it, sometimes becomes proper: as, The Park; the Strand; the Gharmel; the Downs; the United States.

OBS. 3.—The common name of a thing or quality personified, often becomes proper; our conception of the object being changed by the figure of speech: as, "My power," said Reason, "is to advise, not to compel."—Johnson. "Fair Peace her olive branch extends." For such a word, the form of parsing should be like this: "Peace is a common noun, personified proper; of the third person, singular number, feminine gender, and nominative case." Here the construction of the word as a proper noun, and of the feminine gender, is the result of the personification, and contrary to the literal usage.

MODIFICATIONS.

Nouns have modifications of four kinds; namely, Persons, Numbers, Genders, and Cases.

PERSONS.

Persons, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish the speaker, the hearer, and the person or thing merely spoken of.

There are three persons; the first, the second, and the third.

The first person is that which denotes the speaker or writer; as, "I Paul have written it."

The second person is that which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed; as, "Robert, who did this?"

The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of; as, "James loves his book."

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—The distinction of persons is founded on the different relations which the objects mentioned in any discourse may bear to the discourse itself. The speaker or writer, being the mover and maker of the communication, of course stands in the nearest or first of these relations. The hearer or hearers, being personally present and directly addressed, evidently sustain the next or second of these relations; this relation is also that of the reader, when he peruses what is addressed to himself in print or writing. Lastly, whatsoever or whosoever is merely mentioned in the discourse, bears to it that more remote relation which constitutes the third person. The distinction of persons belongs to nouns, pronouns, and finite verbs; and to these it is always applied, either by peculiarity of form or construction, or by inference from the principles of concord. Pronouns are like their antecedents, and verbs are like their subjects, in person.

OBS. 2.—Of the persons, numbers, genders, cases, and some other grammatical modifications of words, it should be observed that they belong not exclusively to any one part of speech, but jointly and equally, to two or three. Hence, it is necessary that our definitions of these things be such as will apply to each of them in full, or under all circumstances; for the definitions ought to be as general in their application as are the things or properties defined. Any person, number, gender, case, or other grammatical modification, is really but one and the same thing, in whatever part of speech it may be found. This is plainly implied in the very nature of every form of syntactical agreement; and as plainly contradicted in one half, and probably more, of the definitions usually given of these things.

OBS. 3.—Let it be understood, that persons, in grammar, are not words, but mere forms, relations, or modifications of words; that they are things, thus named by a figure; things of the neuter gender, and not living souls. But persons, in common parlance, or in ordinary life, are intelligent beings, of one or the other sex. These objects, different as they are in their nature, are continually confounded by the makers of English grammars: as, "The first person is the person who speaks."—Comly's Gram., p. 17. So Bicknell, of London: "The first person speaks of himself; as, I John take thee Elizabeth. The second person has the speech directed to him, and is supposed to be present; as, Thou Harry art a wicked fellow. The third person is spoken of, or described, and supposed to be absent; as, That Thomas is a good man. And in the same manner the plural pronouns are used, when more than one are spoken of."—Bicknell's Grammatical Wreath, p. 50. "The person speaking is the first person; the person spoken to, the second; and the person spoken of, the third."—Russell's Gram., p. 16. "The first person is the speaker."—Parker & Fox's Gram., Part i, p. 6. "Person is that, which distinguishes a noun, that speaks, one spoken to, or one spoken about."—S. B. Hall's Gram., p. 6. "A noun that speaks!" A noun "spoken to!" If ever one of Father Hall's nouns shall speak for itself, or answer when "spoken to," will it not reprove him? And how can the first person be "the person WHO speaks," when every word of this phrase is of the third person? Most certainly, it is not HE, nor any one of his sort. If any body can boast of being "the first person in grammar," I pray, Who is it? Is it not I, even I? Many grammarians say so. But nay: such authors know not what the first person in grammar is. The Rev. Charles Adams, with infinite absurdity, makes the three persons in grammar to be never any thing but three nouns, which hold a confabulation thus: "Person is defined to be that which distinguishes a noun that speaks, one spoken to, or one spoken of. The noun that speaks [,] is the first person; as, I, James, was present. The noun that is spoken to, is the second person; as, James, were you present? The noun that is spoken of is the third person; as, James was present."—Adams's System of English Gram., p. 9. What can be a greater blunder, than to call the first person of a verb, of a pronoun, or even of a noun, "the noun that speaks?" What can be more absurd than are the following assertions? "Nouns are in the first person when speaking. Nouns are of the second person when addressed or spoken to."—O. C. Felton's Gram., p. 9.

OBS. 4.—An other error, scarcely less gross than that which has just been noticed, is the very common one of identifying the three grammatical persons with certain words, called personal pronouns: as, "I is the first person, thou the second, he, she or it, the third."—Smith's Productive Gram., p. 53. "I is the first person, singular. Thou is the second person, singular. He, she, or it, is the third person, singular. We is the first person, plural. Ye or you is the second person, plural. They is the third person, plural."—L. Murray's Grammar, p. 51; Ingersoll's, 54; D. Adams's, 37; A. Flint's, 18; Kirkham's, 98; Cooper's, 34; T. H. Miller's, 26; Hull's, 21; Frost's, 13; Wilcox's, 18; Bacon's, 19; Alger's, 22; Maltby's, 19; Perley's, 15; S. Putnam's, 22. Now there is no more propriety in affirming, that "I is the first person," than in declaring that me, we, us, am, ourselves, we think, I write, or any other word or phrase of the first person, is the first person. Yet Murray has given us no other definitions or explanations of the persons than the foregoing erroneous assertions; and, if I mistake not, all the rest who are here named, have been content to define them only as he did. Some others, however, have done still worse: as, "There are three personal pronouns; so called, because they denote the three persons, who are the subjects of a discourse, viz. 1st. I, who is the person speaking; 2d thou, who is spoken to; 3d he, she, or it, who is spoken of, and their plurals, we, ye or you, they."—Bingham's Accidence, 20th Ed., p. 7. Here the two kinds of error which I have just pointed out, are jumbled together. It is impossible to write worse English than this! Nor is the following much better: "Of the personal pronouns there are five, viz. I, in the first person, speaking; Thou, in the second person, spoken to; and He, she, it, in the third person, spoken of."—Nutting's Gram., p. 25.

OBS. 5.—In written language, the first person denotes the writer or author; and the second, the reader or person addressed: except when the writer describes not himself, but some one else, as uttering to an other the words which he records. This exception takes place more particularly in the writing of dialogues and dramas; in which the first and second persons are abundantly used, not as the representatives of the author and his reader, but as denoting the fictitious speakers and hearers that figure in each scene. But, in discourse, the grammatical persons may be changed without a change of the living subject. In the following sentence, the three grammatical persons are all of them used with reference to one and the same individual: "Say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God?"—John, x, 36.

OBS. 6.-The speaker seldom refers to himself by name, as the speaker; and, of the objects which there is occasion to name in discourse, but comparatively few are such as can ever be supposed to speak. Consequently, nouns are rarely used in the first person; and when they do assume this relation, a pronoun is commonly associated with them: as, "I John,"—"We Britons." These words I conceive to agree throughout, in person, number, gender, and case; though it must be confessed, that agreement like this is not always required between words in apposition. But some grammarians deny the first person to nouns altogether; others, with much more consistency, ascribe it;[140] while very many are entirely silent on the subject. Yet it is plain that both the doctrine of concords, and the analogy of general grammar, require its admission. The reason of this may be seen in the following examples: "Themistocles ad te veni." "I Themistocles have come to you."—Grant's Latin Gram., p. 72. "Adsum Troius Æneas."—Virgil. "Romulus Rex regia arma offero."—Livy. "Annibal peto pacem."—Id. "Callopius recensui."—See Terence's Comedies, at the end. "Paul, an apostle, &c., unto Timothy, my own son in the faith."—1 Tim., i, 2. Again, if the word God is of the second person, in the text, "Thou, God, seest me," why should any one deny that Paul is of the first person, in this one? "I Paul have written it."—Philemon, 19. Or this? "The salutation by the hand of me Paul."—Col., iv, 18. And so of the plural: "Of you builders."—Acts, iv, 11. "Of us the apostles."—2 Pet., iii, 2. How can it be pretended, that, in the phrase, "I Paul," I is of the first person, as denoting the speaker, and Paul, of some other person, as denoting something or somebody that is not the speaker? Let the admirers of Murray, Kirkham, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Comly, Greenleaf, Parkhurst, or of any others who teach this absurdity, answer.

OBS. 7.—As, in the direct application of what are called Christian names, there is a kind of familiarity, which on many occasions would seem to indicate a lack of proper respect; so in a frequent and familiar use of the second person, as it is the placing of an other in the more intimate relation of the hearer, and one's self in that of the speaker, there is a sort of assumption which may seem less modest and respectful than to use the third person. In the following example, the patriarch Jacob uses both forms; applying the term servant to himself, and to his brother Esau the term lord: "Let my lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly."—Gen., xxxiii, 14. For when a speaker or writer does not choose to declare himself in the first person, or to address his hearer or reader in the second, he speaks of both or either in the third. Thus Moses relates what Moses did, and Cæsar records the achievements of Cæsar. So Judah humbly beseeches Joseph: "Let thy servant abide in stead of the lad a bondman to my lord."—Gen., xliv, 33. And Abraham reverently intercedes with God: "Oh! let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak."—Gen., xviii, 30. And the Psalmist prays: "God be merciful unto us, and bless us; and cause his face to shine upon us."—Ps., lxvii, 1. So, on more common occasions:—

"As will the rest, so willeth Winchester."—Shak.

"Richard of York, how fares our dearest brother?"—Id.[141]

OBS. 8.—When inanimate things are spoken to, they are personified; and their names are put in the second person, because by the figure the objects are supposed to be capable of hearing: as, "What ailed thee, O thou sea, that thou fleddest? thou Jordan, that thou wast driven back? Ye mountains, that ye skipped like rams; and ye little hills, like lambs? Tremble, thou earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob."—Psalms, cxiv, 5-7.

NUMBERS.

Numbers, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish unity and plurality.

There are two numbers; the singular and the plural.

The singular number is that which denotes but one; as, "The boy learns."

The plural number is that which denotes more than one; as, "The boys learn."

The plural number of nouns is regularly formed by adding s or es to the singular: as, book, books; box, boxes; sofa, sofas; hero, heroes.

When the singular ends in a sound which will unite with that of s, the plural is generally formed by adding s only, and the number of syllables is not increased: as, pen, pens; grape, grapes.

But when the sound of s cannot be united with that of the primitive word, the regular plural adds s to final e, and es to other terminations, and forms a separate syllable: as, page, pages; fox, foxes.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—The distinction of numbers serves merely to show whether we speak of one object, or of more. In some languages, as the Greek and the Arabic, there is a dual number, which denotes two, or a pair; but in ours, this property of words, or class of modifications, extends no farther than to distinguish unity from plurality, and plurality from unity. It belongs to nouns, pronouns, and finite verbs; and to these it is always applied, either by peculiarity of form, or by inference from the principles of concord. Pronouns are like their antecedents, and verbs are like their subjects, in number.

OBS. 2.—The most common way of forming the plural of English nouns, is that of simply adding to them an s; which, when it unites with a sharp consonant, is always sharp, or hissing; and when it follows a vowel or a flat mute, is generally flat, like z: thus, in the words, ships, skiffs, pits, rocks, depths, lakes, gulfs, it is sharp; but in seas, lays, rivers, hills, ponds, paths, rows, webs, flags, it is flat. The terminations which always make the regular plural in es, with increase of syllables, are twelve; namely, ce, ge, ch soft, che soft, sh, ss, s, se, x, xe, z, and ze: as in face, faces; age, ages; torch, torches; niche, niches; dish, dishes; kiss, kisses; rebus, rebuses; lens, lenses; chaise, chaises; corpse, corpses; nurse, nurses; box, boxes; axe, axes; phiz, phizzes; maze, mazes. All other endings readily unite in sound either with the sharp or with the flat s, as they themselves are sharp or flat; and, to avoid an increase of syllables, we allow the final e mute to remain mute after that letter is added: thus, we always pronounce as monosyllables the words babes, blades, strifes, tithes, yokes, scales, names, canes, ropes, shores, plates, doves, and the like.

OBS. 3.—Though the irregular plurals of our language appear considerably numerous when brought together, they are in fact very few in comparison with the many thousands that are perfectly simple and regular. In some instances, however, usage is various in writing, though uniform in speech; an unsettlement peculiar to certain words that terminate in vowels: as, Rabbis, or rabbies; octavos, or octavoes; attornies, or attorneys. There are also some other difficulties respecting the plurals of nouns, and especially respecting those of foreign words; of compound terms; of names and titles; and of words redundant or deficient in regard to the numbers. What is most worthy of notice, respecting all these puzzling points of English grammar, is briefly contained in the following observations.

OBS. 4.—It is a general rule of English grammar, that all singular nouns ending with a vowel preceded by an other vowel, shall form the plural by simply assuming an s: as, Plea, pleas; idea, ideas; hernia, hernias; bee, bees; lie, lies; foe, foes; shoe, shoes; cue, cues; eye, eyes; folio, folios; bamboo, bamboos; cuckoo, cuckoos; embryo, embryos; bureau, bureaus; purlieu, purlieus; sou, sous; view, views; straw, straws; play, plays; key, keys; medley, medleys; viceroy, viceroys; guy, guys. To this rule, the plurals of words ending in quy, as alloquies, colloquies, obloquies, soliloquies, are commonly made exceptions; because many have conceived that the u, in such instances, is a mere appendage to the q, or is a consonant having the power of w, and not a vowel forming a diphthong with the y. All other deviations from the rule, as monies for moneys, allies for alleys, vallies for valleys, chimnies for chimneys, &c., are now usually condemned as errors. See Rule 12th for Spelling.

OBS. 5.—It is also a general principle, that nouns ending in y preceded by a consonant, change the y into i, and add es for the plural, without increase of syllables: as, fly, flies; ally, allies; city, cities; colony, colonies. So nouns in i, (so far as we have any that are susceptible of a change of number,) form the plural regularly by assuming es: as, alkali, alkalies; salmagundi, salinagundies. Common nouns ending in y preceded by a consonant, are numerous; and none of them deviate from the foregoing rule of forming the plural: thus, duty, duties. The termination added is es, and the y is changed into i, according to the general principle expressed in Rule 11th for Spelling. But, to this principle, or rule, some writers have supposed that proper nouns were to be accounted exceptions. And accordingly we sometimes find such names made plural by the mere addition of an s; as, "How come the Pythagoras', [it should be, the Pythagorases,] the Aristotles, the Tullys, the Livys, to appear, even to us at this distance, as stars of the first magnitude in the vast fields of ether?"—Burgh's Dignity, Vol. i, p. 131. This doctrine, adopted from some of our older grammars, I was myself, at one period, inclined to countenance; (see Institutes of English Grammar, p. 33, at the bottom;) but further observation having led me to suspect, there is more authority for changing the y than for retaining it, I shall by-and-by exhibit some examples of this change, and leave the reader to take his choice of the two forms, or principles.

OBS. 6.—The vowel a, at the end of a word, (except in the questionable term huzza, or when silent, as in guinea,) has always its Italian or middle sound, as heard in the interjection aha! a sound which readily unites with that of s flat, and which ought, in deliberate speech, to be carefully preserved in plurals from this ending: as, Canada, the Canadas; cupola, cupolas; comma, commas; anathema, anathemas. To pronounce the final a flat, as Africay for Africa, is a mark of vulgar ignorance.

OBS. 7.—The vowel e at the end of a word, is generally silent; and, even when otherwise, it remains single in plurals from this ending; the es, whenever the e is vocal, being sounded eez, or like the word ease: as, apostrophe, apostrophes; epitome, epitomes; simile, similes. This class of words being anomalous in respect to pronunciation, some authors have attempted to reform them, by changing the e to y in the singular, and writing ies for the plural: as, apostrophy, apostrophies; epitomy, epitomies; simily, similies. A reformation of some sort seems desirable here, and this has the advantage of being first proposed; but it is not extensively adopted, and perhaps never will be; for the vowel sound in question, is not exactly that of the terminations y and ies, but one which seems to require ee—a stronger sound than that of y, though similar to it.

OBS. 8.—For nouns ending in open o preceded by a consonant, the regular method of forming the plural seems to be that of adding es; as in bilboes, umboes, buboes, calicoes, moriscoes, gambadoes, barricadoes, fumadoes, carbonadoes, tornadoes, bravadoes, torpedoes, innuendoes, viragoes, mangoes, embargoes, cargoes, potargoes, echoes, buffaloes, volcanoes, heroes, negroes, potatoes, manifestoes, mulattoes, stilettoes, woes. In words of this class, the e appears to be useful as a means of preserving the right sound of the o; consequently, such of them as are the most frequently used, have become the most firmly fixed in this orthography. In practice, however, we find many similar nouns very frequently, if not uniformly, written with s only; as, cantos, juntos, grottos, solos, quartos, octavos, duodecimos, tyros. So that even the best scholars seem to have frequently doubted which termination they ought to regard as the regular one. The whole class includes more than one hundred words. Some, however, are seldom used in the plural; and others, never. Wo and potato are sometimes written woe and potatoe. This may have sprung from a notion, that such as have the e in the plural, should have it also in the singular. But this principle has never been carried out; and, being repugnant to derivation, it probably never will be. The only English appellatives that are established in oe, are the following fourteen: seven monosyllables, doe, foe, roe, shoe, sloe, soe, toe; and seven longer words, rockdoe, aloe, felloe, canoe, misletoe, tiptoe, diploe. The last is pronounced dip'-lo-e by Worcester; but Webster, Bolles, and some others, give it as a word of two syllables only.[142]

OBS. 9.—Established exceptions ought to be enumerated and treated as exceptions; but it is impossible to remember how to write some scores of words, so nearly alike as fumadoes and grenados, stilettoes and palmettos, if they are allowed to differ in termination, as these examples do in Johnson's Dictionary. Nay, for lack of a rule to guide his pen, even Johnson himself could not remember the orthography of the common word mangoes well enough to copy it twice without inconsistency. This may be seen by his example from King, under the words mango and potargo. Since, therefore, either termination is preferable to the uncertainty which must attend a division of this class of words between the two; and since es has some claim to the preference, as being a better index to the sound; I shall make no exceptions to the principle, that common nouns ending in o preceded by a consonant take es for the plural. Murray says, "Nouns which end in o have sometimes es added, to form the plural; as, cargo, echo, hero, negro, manifesto, potato, volcano, wo: and sometimes only s; as, folio, nuncio, punctilio, seraglio."—Octavo Gram., p. 40. This amounts to nothing, unless it is to be inferred from his examples, that others like them in form are to take s or es accordingly; and this is what I teach, though it cannot be said that Murray maintains the principle.

OBS. 10.—Proper names of individuals, strictly used as such, have no plural. But when several persons of the same name are spoken of, the noun becomes in some degree common, and admits of the plural form and an article; as, "The Stuarts, the Cæsars."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 41. These, however, may still be called proper nouns, in parsing; because they are only inflections, peculiarly applied, of certain names which are indisputably such. So likewise when such nouns are used to denote character: as, "Solomons, for wise men; Neros, for tyrants."—Ib. "Here we see it becomes a doubt which of the two Herculeses, was the monster-queller."—Notes to Pope's Dunciad, iv, 492. The proper names of nations, tribes, and societies, are generally plural; and, except in a direct address, they are usually construed with the definite article: as, "The Greeks, the Athenians, the Jews, the Jesuits." But such words may take the singular form with the indefinite article, as often as we have occasion to speak of an individual of such a people; as, "A Greek, an Athenian, a Jew, a Jesuit." These, too, may be called proper nouns; because they are national, patrial, or tribal names, each referring to some place or people, and are not appellatives, which refer to actual sorts or kinds, not considered local.

OBS. 11.—Proper names, when they form the plural, for the most part form it regularly, by assuming s or es according to the termination: as, Carolina, the Carolinas; James, the Jameses. And those which are only or chiefly plural, have, or ought to have, such terminations as are proper to distinguish them as plurals, so that the form for the singular may be inferred: as, "The Tungooses occupy nearly a third of Siberia."—Balbi's Geog., p. 379. Here the singular must certainly be a Tungoose. "The principal tribes are the Pawnees, the Arrapahoes, and the Cumanches, who roam through the regions of the Platte, the Arkansaw, and the Norte."—Ib., p. 179. Here the singulars may be supposed to be a Pawnee, an Arrapaho, and a Cumanche. "The Southern or Floridian family comprised the Cherokees, Creeks, Chickasaws, Choctaws, Seminoles, and Natchez."—Ib., p. 179. Here all are regular plurals, except the last; and this probably ought to be Natchezes, but Jefferson spells it Natches, the singular of which I do not know. Sometimes foreign words or foreign terminations have been improperly preferred to our own; which last are more intelligible, and therefore better: as, Esquimaux, to Esquimaus; Knistenaux, to Knistenaus, or Crees; Sioux, to Sious, or Dahcotahs; Iroquois, to Iroquoys, or Hurons.

OBS. 12.—Respecting the plural of nouns ending in i, o, u, or y, preceded by a consonant, there is in present usage much uncertainty. As any vowel sound may be uttered with an s, many writers suppose these letters to require for plurals strictly regular, the s only; and to take es occasionally, by way of exception. Others, (perhaps with more reason,) assume, that the most usual, regular, and proper endings for the plural, in these instances, are ies, oes, and ues: as, alkali, alkalies; halo, haloes; gnu, gnues; enemy, enemies. This, I think, is right for common nouns. How far proper names are to be made exceptions, because they are proper names, is an other question. It is certain that some of them are not to be excepted: as, for instance, Alleghany, the Alleghanies; Sicily, the Two Sicilies; Ptolemy, the Ptolemies; Jehu, the Jehues. So the names of tribes; as, The Missouries, the Otoes, the Winnebagoes. Likewise, the houries and the harpies; which words, though not strictly proper names, are often written with a capital as such. Like these are rabbies, cadies, mufties, sophies, from which some writers omit the e. Johnson, Walker, and others, write gipsy and gipsies; Webster, now writes Gipsey and Gipseys; Worcester prefers Gypsy, and probably Gypsies: Webster once wrote the plural gypsies; (see his Essays, p. 333;) and Johnson cites the following line:—

"I, near yon stile, three sallow gypsies met."—Gay.

OBS. 13.—Proper names in o are commonly made plural by s only. Yet there seems to be the same reason for inserting the e in these, as in other nouns of the same ending; namely, to prevent the o from acquiring a short sound. "I apprehend," says Churchill, "it has been from an erroneous notion of proper names being unchangeable, that some, feeling the necessity of obviating this mispronunciation, have put an apostrophe between the o and the s in the plural, in stead of an e; writing Cato's, Nero's; and on a similar principle, Ajax's, Venus's; thus using the possessive case singular for the nominative or objective plural. Harris says very properly, 'We have our Marks and our Antonies: Hermes, B. 2, Ch. 4; for which those would have given us Mark's and Antony's."—New Gram., p. 206. Whatever may have been the motive for it, such a use of the apostrophe is a gross impropriety. "In this quotation, ['From the Socrates's, the Plato's, and the Confucius's of the age,'] the proper names should have been pluralized like common nouns; thus, From the Socrateses, the Platoes, and the Confuciuses of the age."—Lennie's Gram., p. 126; Bullions's, 142.

OBS. 14.—The following are some examples of the plurals of proper names, which I submit to the judgement of the reader, in connexion with the foregoing observations: "The Romans had their plurals Marci and Antonii, as we in later days have our Marks and our Anthonies."—Harris's Hermes, p. 40. "There seems to be more reason for such plurals, as the Ptolemies, Scipios, Catos: or, to instance in more modern names, the Howards, Pelhams, and Montagues."—Ib., 40. "Near the family seat of the Montgomeries of Coil's-field."—Burns's Poems, Note, p. 7. "Tryphon, a surname of one of the Ptolemies."—Lempriere's Dict. "Sixteen of the Tuberos, with their wives and children, lived in a small house."—Ib. "What are the Jupiters and Junos of the heathens to such a God?"—Burgh's Dignity, i, 234. "Also when we speak of more than one person of the same name; as, the Henries, the Edwards."—Cobbetts E. Gram., ¶ 40. "She was descended from the Percies and the Stanleys."—Loves of the Poets, ii, 102. "Naples, or the Two Sicilies."—Balbi's Geog., p. 273. The word India, commonly makes the plural Indies, not Indias; and, for Ajaxes, the poets write Ajaces. But Richard Hiley says, "Proper nouns, when pluralized, follow the same rules as common nouns; as, Venus, the Venuses; Ajax, the Ajaxes; Cato, the Catoes; Henry, the Henries."—Hiley's E. Gram., p. 18.

"He ev'ry day from King to King can walk, Of all our Harries, all our Edwards talk."—Pope's Satires, iv.

OBS. 15.—When a name and a title are to be used together in a plural sense, many persons are puzzled to determine whether the name, or the title, or both, should be in the plural form. For example—in speaking of two young ladies whose family name is Bell—whether to call them the Miss Bells, the Misses Bell, or the Misses Bells. To an inquiry on this point, a learned editor, who prefers the last, lately gave his answer thus: "There are two young ladies; of course they are 'the Misses.' Their name is Bell; of course there are two 'Bells.' Ergo, the correct phrase, in speaking of them, is—'the Misses Bells.'"—N. Y. Com. Adv. This puts the words in apposition; and there is no question, that it is formally correct. But still it is less agreeable to the ear, less frequently heard, and less approved by grammarians, than the first phrase; which, if we may be allowed to assume that the two words may be taken together as a sort of compound, is correct also. Dr. Priestley says, "When a name has a title prefixed to it, as Doctor, Miss, Master, &c., the plural termination affects only the latter of the two words; as, 'The two Doctor Nettletons'—'The two Miss Thomsons;' though a strict analogy would plead for the alteration of the former word, and lead us to say, 'The two Doctors Nettleton'—'The two Misses Thomson.'"—Priestley's Gram., p. 59. The following quotations show the opinions of some other grammarians: "Two or more nouns in concordance, and forming one complex name, or a name and a title, have the plural termination annexed to the last only; as, 'The Miss Smiths'—'The three Doctor Simpsons'—'The two Master Wigginses.' With a few exceptions, and those not parallel to the examples just given, we almost uniformly, in complex names, confine the inflection to the last or the latter noun."—Dr. Crombie. The foregoing opinion from Crombie, is quoted and seconded by Maunder, who adds the following examples: "Thus, Dr. Watts: 'May there not be Sir Isaac Newtons in every science?'—'You must not suppose that the world is made up of Lady Aurora Granvilles.'"—Maunder's Gram., p. 2.

OBS. 16.—These writers do not seem to accord with W. L. Stone, the editor above quoted, nor would his reasoning apply well to several of their examples. Yet both opinions are right, if neither be carried too far. For when the words are in apposition, rather than in composition, the first name or title must be made plural, if it refers to more than one: as, "The Misses Bell and Brown,"—"Messrs. Lambert and Son,"—"The Lords Calthorpe and Erskine,"—"The Lords Bishops of Durham and St. David's,"—"The Knights Hospitalers,"—"The Knights Templars,"—"The Knights Baronets." But this does not prove the other construction, which varies the last word only, to be irregular; and, if it did, there is abundant authority for it. Nor is that which varies the first only, to be altogether condemned, though Dr. Priestley is unquestionably wrong respecting the "strict analogy" of which he speaks. The joining of a plural title to one singular noun, as, "Misses Roy,"—"The Misses Bell,"—"The two Misses Thomson," produces a phrase which is in itself the least analogous of the three; but, "The Misses Jane and Eliza Bell," is a phrase which nobody perhaps will undertake to amend. It appears, then, that each of these forms of expression may be right in some cases; and each of them may be wrong, if improperly substituted for either of the others.

OBS. 17.—The following statements, though erroneous in several particulars, will show the opinions of some other grammarians, upon the foregoing point: "Proper nouns have the plural only when they refer to a race or family; as, The Campbells; or to several persons of the same name; as, The eight Henrys; the two Mr. Sells; the two Miss Browns; or, without the numeral, the Miss Roys. But in addressing letters in which both or all are equally concerned, and also when the names are different, we pluralize the title, (Mr. or Miss,) and write, Misses Brown; Misses Roy; Messrs, (for Messieurs, Fr.) Guthrie and Tait."—Lennie's Gram., p. 7. "If we wish to distinguish the unmarried from the married Howards, we call them the Miss Howards. If we wish to distinguish these Misses from other Misses, we call them the Misses Howard."—Fowle's Gram. "To distinguish several persons of the same name and family from others of a different name and family, the title, and not the proper name, is varied to express the distinction; as, the Misses Story, the Messrs. Story. The elliptical meaning is, the Misses and Messrs, who are named Story. To distinguish unmarried from married ladies, the proper name, and not the title, should be varied; as, the Miss Clarks. When we mention more than one person of different names, the title should be expressed before each; as, Miss Burns, Miss Parker, and Miss Hopkinson, were present."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 79. In the following examples from Pope's Works, the last word only is varied: "He paragons himself to two Lord Chancellors for law."—Vol. iii, p. 61. "Yearly panegyrics upon the Lord Mayors."—Ib., p. 83.

"Whence hapless Monsieur much complains at Paris Of wrongs from Duchesses and Lady Maries."—Dunciad, B. ii, L 135.

OBS. 18.—The following eleven nouns in f, change the f into v and assume es for the plural: sheaf, sheaves; leaf, leaves; loaf, loaves; leaf, beeves; thief, thieves; calf, calves; half, halves; elf, elves; shelf, shelves; self, selves; wolf, wolves. Three others in fe are similar: life, lives; knife, knives; wife, wives. These are specific exceptions to the general rule for plurals, and not a series of examples coming under a particular rule; for, contrary to the instructions of nearly all our grammarians, there are more than twice as many words of the same endings, which take s only: as, chiefs, kerchiefs, handkerchiefs, mischiefs, beliefs, misbeliefs, reliefs, bassreliefs, briefs, feifs, griefs, clefs, semibrefs, oafs, waifs, coifs, gulfs, hoofs, roofs, proofs, reproofs, woofs, califs, turfs, scarfs, dwarfs, wharfs, fifes, strifes, safes. The plural of wharf is sometimes written wharves; but perhaps as frequently, and, if so, more accurately, wharfs. Examples and authorities: "Wharf, wharfs."—Brightland's Gram., p. 80; Ward's, 24; Goar's, 26; Lennie's, 7; Bucke's, 39. "There were not in London so many wharfs, or keys, for the landing of merchants' goods."—CHILD: in Johnson's Dict. "The wharfs of Boston are also worthy of notice."—Balbi's Geog., p. 37. "Between banks thickly clad with dwelling-houses, manufactories, and wharfs."—London Morn. Chronicle, 1833. Nouns in ff take s only; as, skiffs, stuffs, gaffs. But the plural of staff has hitherto been generally written staves; a puzzling and useless anomaly, both in form and sound: for all the compounds of staff are regular; as, distaffs, whipstaffs, tipstaffs, flagstaffs, quarterstaffs; and staves is the regular plural of stave, a word now in very common use with a different meaning, as every cooper and every musician knows. Staffs is now sometimes used; as, "I saw the husbandmen bending over their staffs."—Lord Carnarvon. "With their staffs in their hands for very age."—Hope of Israel, p. 16. "To distinguish between the two staffs."—Comstock's Elocution, p. 43. In one instance, I observe, a very excellent scholar has written selfs for selves, but the latter is the established plural of self:

"Self-love would cease, or be dilated, when We should behold as many selfs as men."—Waller's Poems, p. 55.

OBS. 19.—Of nouns purely English, the following thirteen are the only simple words that form distinct plurals not ending in s or es, and four of these are often regular: man, men; woman, women; child, children; brother, brethren or brothers; ox, oxen; goose, geese; foot, feet; tooth, teeth; louse, lice; mouse, mice; die, dice or dies; penny, pence or pennies; pea, pease or peas. The word brethren is now applied only to fellow-members of the same church or fraternity; for sons of the same parents we always use brothers; and this form is sometimes employed in the other sense. Dice are spotted cubes for gaming; dies are stamps for coining money, or for impressing metals. Pence, as six pence, refers to the amount of money in value; pennies denotes the corns themselves. "We write peas, for two or more individual seeds; but pease, for an indefinite number in quantity or bulk."—Webster's Dict. This last anomaly, I think, might well enough "be spared; the sound of the word being the same, and the distinction to the eye not always regarded." Why is it not as proper, to write an order for "a bushel of peas," as for "a bushel of beans?" "Peas and beans may be severed from the ground before they be quite dry."—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 31.

OBS. 20.—When a compound, ending with any of the foregoing irregular words, is made plural, it follows the fashion of the word with which it ends: as, Gentleman, gentlemen; bondwoman, bondwomen; foster-child, foster-children; solan-goose, solan-geese; eyetooth, eyeteeth; woodlouse, woodlice;[143] dormouse, dormice; half-penny, halfpence, half-pennies. In this way, these irregularities extend to many words; though some of the metaphorical class, as kite's-foot, colts-foot, bear's-foot, lion's-foot, being names of plants, have no plural. The word man, which is used the most frequently in this way, makes more than seventy such compounds. But there are some words of this ending, which, not being compounds of man, are regular: as, German, Germans; Turcoman, Turcomans; Mussulman, Mussulmans; talisman, talismans; leman, lemans; caiman, caimans.

OBS. 21.—Compounds, in general, admit but one variation to form the plural, and that must be made in the principal word, rather than in the adjunct; but where the terms differ little in importance, the genius of the language obviously inclines to a variation of the last only. Thus we write fathers-in-law, sons-in-law, knights-errant, courts-martial, cousins-german, hangers-on, comings-in, goings-out, goings-forth, varying the first; and manhaters, manstealers, manslayers, maneaters, mandrills, handfuls, spoonfuls, mouthfuls, pailfuls, outpourings, ingatherings, downsittings, overflowings, varying the last. So, in many instances, when there is a less intimate connexion of the parts, and the words are written with a hyphen, if not separately, we choose to vary the latter or last: as, fellow-servants, queen-consorts, three-per-cents, he-goats, she-bears, jack-a-dandies, jack-a-lanterns, piano-fortes. The following mode of writing is irregular in two respects; first, because the words are separated, and secondly, because both are varied: "Is it unreasonable to say with John Wesley, that 'men buyers are exactly on a level with men stealers?"—GOODELL'S LECT. II: Liberator, ix, 65. According to analogy, it ought to be: "Manbuyers are exactly on a level with manstealers." J. W. Wright alleges, that, "The phrase, 'I want two spoonfuls or handfuls,' though common, is improperly constructed;" and that, "we should say, 'Two spoons or hands full.'"—Philos. Gram., p. 222. From this opinion, I dissent: both authority and analogy favour the former mode of expressing the plural of such quantities.

OBS. 22.—There is neither difficulty nor uncertainty respecting the proper forms for the plurals of compound nouns in general; but the two irregular words man and woman are often varied at the beginning of the looser kind of compounds, contrary to what appears to be the general analogy of similar words. Of the propriety of this, the reader may judge, when I shall have quoted a few examples: "Besides their man-servants and their maid-servants."—Nehemiah, vii, 67. "And I have oxen and asses, flocks, and men-servants, and women-servants."—Gen., xxxii, 5. "I gat me men-singers, and women-singers, and the delights of the sons of men."—Ecclesiastes, ii, 8. "And she brought forth a man-child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron."—Rev., xii, 5.—"Why have ye done this, and saved the men-children alive?"—Exod., i, 18. Such terms as these, if thought objectionable, may easily be avoided, by substituting for the former part of the compound the separate adjective male or female; as, male child, male children. Or, for those of the third example, one might say, "singing men and singing women," as in Nehemiah, vii, 67; for, in the ancient languages, the words are the same. Alger compounds "singing-men and singing-women."

OBS. 23.—Some foreign compound terms, consisting of what are usually, in the language from which they come, distinct words and different parts of speech, are made plural in English, by the addition of e or es at the end. But, in all such cases, I think the hyphen should be inserted in the compound, though it is the practice of many to omit it. Of this odd sort of words, I quote the following examples from Churchill; taking the liberty to insert the hyphen, which he omits: "Ave-Maries, Te-Deums, camera-obscuras, agnus-castuses, habeas-corpuses, scire-faciases, hiccius-docciuses, hocus-pocuses, ignis-fatuuses, chef-d'oeuvres, congé-d'élires, flower-de-luces, louis-d'-ores, tête-à-têtes."—Churchill's Gram., p. 62.

OBS. 24.—Some nouns, from the nature of the things meant, have no plural. For, as there ought to be no word, or inflection of a word, for which we cannot conceive an appropriate meaning or use, it follows that whatever is of such a species that it cannot be taken in any plural sense, must naturally be named by a word which is singular only: as, perry, cider, coffee, flax, hemp, fennel, tallow, pitch, gold, sloth, pride, meekness, eloquence. But there are some things, which have in fact neither a comprehensible unity, nor any distinguishable plurality, and which may therefore be spoken of in either number; for the distinction of unity and plurality is, in such instances, merely verbal; and, whichever number we take, the word will be apt to want the other: as, dregs, or sediment; riches, or wealth; pains, or toil; ethics, or moral philosophy; politics, or the science of government; belles-lettres, or polite literature. So darkness, which in English appears to have no plural, is expressed in Latin by tenebræ, in French by ténèbres, which have no singular. It is necessary that every noun should be understood to be of one number or the other; for, in connecting it with a verb, or in supplying its place by a pronoun, we must assume it to be either singular or plural. And it is desirable that singulars and plurals should always abide by their appropriate forms, so that they may be thereby distinguished with readiness. But custom, which regulates this, as every thing else of the like nature, does not always adjust it well; or, at least, not always upon principles uniform in themselves and obvious to every intellect.

OBS. 25.—Nouns of multitude, when taken collectively, generally admit the regular plural form; which of course is understood with reference to the individuality of the whole collection, considered as one thing: but, when taken distributively, they have a plural signification without the form; and, in this case, their plurality refers to the individuals that compose the assemblage. Thus, a council, a committee, a jury, a meeting, a society, a flock, or a herd, is singular; and the regular plurals are councils, committees, juries, meetings, societies, flocks, herds. But these, and many similar words, may be taken plurally without the s, because a collective noun is the name of many individuals together. Hence we may say, "The council were unanimous."—"The committee are in consultation."—"The jury were unable to agree."—"The meeting have shown their discretion."—"The society have settled their dispute."—"The flock are widely scattered."—"The whole herd were drowned in the sea." The propriety of the last example seems questionable; because whole implies unity, and were drowned is plural. Where a purer concord can be effected, it may be well to avoid such a construction, though examples like it are not uncommon: as, "Clodius was acquitted by a corrupt jury, that had palpably taken shares of money before they gave their verdict."—Bacon. "And the whole multitude of the people were praying without, at the time of incense."—Luke, i, 10.

OBS. 26.—Nouns have, in some instances, a unity or plurality of meaning, which seems to be directly at variance with their form. Thus, cattle, for beasts of pasture, and pulse, for peas and beans, though in appearance singulars only, are generally, if not always, plural; and summons, gallows, chintz, series, superficies, molasses, suds, hunks, jakes, trapes, and corps, with the appearance of plurals, are generally, if not always, singular. Dr. Webster says that cattle is of both numbers; but wherein the oneness of cattle can consist, I know not. The Bible says, "God made—cattle after their kind."—Gen., i, 25. Here kind is indeed singular, as if cattle were a natural genus of which one must be a cattle; as sheep are a natural genus of which one is a sheep: but whether properly expressed so or not, is questionable; perhaps it ought to be, "and cattle after their kinds." Dr. Gillies says, in his History of Greece, "cattle was regarded as the most convenient measure of value." This seems to me to be more inaccurate and unintelligible, than to say, "Sheep was regarded as the most convenient measure of value." And what would this mean? Sheep is not singular, unless limited to that number by some definitive word; and cattle I conceive to be incapable of any such limitation.

OBS. 27.—Of the last class of words above cited, some may assume an additional es, when taken plurally; as, summonses, gallowses, chintses: the rest either want the plural, or have it seldom and without change of form. Corps, a body of troops, is a French word, which, when singular, is pronounced c=ore, and when plural, c=ores. But corpse, a dead body, is an English word, pronounced k~orps, and making the plural in two syllables, corpses. Summonses is given in Cobb's Dictionary as the plural of summons; but some authors have used the latter with a plural verb: as, "But Love's first summons seldom are obey'd."—Waller's Poems, p. 8. Dr. Johnson says this noun is from the verb to summon; and, if this is its origin, the singular ought to be a summon, and then summons would be a regular plural. But this "singular noun with a plural termination," as Webster describes it, more probably originated from the Latin verb submoneas, used in the writ, and came to us through the jargon of law, in which we sometimes hear men talk of "summonsing witnesses." The authorities for it, however, are good enough; as, "This present summons."—SHAK.: Joh. Dict. "This summons he resolved to disobey."—FELL: ib. Chints is called by Cobb a "substantive plural" and defined as "cotton cloths, made in India;" but other lexicographers define it as singular, and Worcester (perhaps more properly) writes it chintz. Johnson cites Pope as speaking of "a charming chints," and I have somewhere seen the plural formed by adding es. "Of the Construction of single Words, or Serieses of Words."—Ward's Gram., p. 114. Walker, in his Elements of Elocution, makes frequent use of the word "serieses," and of the phrase "series of serieses." But most writers, I suppose, would doubt the propriety of this practice; because, in Latin, all nouns of the fifth declension, such as caries, congeries, series, species, superficies, make their nominative and vocative cases alike in both numbers. This, however, is no rule for writing English. Dr. Blair has used the word species in a plural sense; though I think he ought rather to have preferred the regular English word kinds: "The higher species of poetry seldom admit it."—Rhet., p. 403. Specie, meaning hard money, though derived or corrupted from species, is not the singular of that word; nor has it any occasion for a plural form, because we never speak of a specie. The plural of gallows, according to Dr. Webster, is gallowses; nor is that form without other authority, though some say, gallows is of both numbers and not to be varied: "Gallowses were occasionally put in order by the side of my windows."—Leigh Hunt's Byron, p. 369.

"Who would not guess there might be hopes, The fear of gallowses and ropes, Before their eyes, might reconcile Their animosities a while?"—Hudibras, p. 90.

OBS. 28.—Though the plural number is generally derived from the singular, and of course must as generally imply its existence, we have examples, and those not a few, in which the case is otherwise. Some nouns, because they signify such things as nature or art has made plural or double; some, because they have been formed from other parts of speech by means of the plural ending which belongs to nouns; and some, because they are compounds in which a plural word is principal, and put last, are commonly used in the plural number only, and have, in strict propriety, no singular. Though these three classes of plurals may not be perfectly separable, I shall endeavour to exhibit them in the order of this explanation.

1. Plurals in meaning and form: analects, annals,[144] archives, ashes, assets, billiards, bowels, breeches, calends, cates, chops, clothes, compasses, crants, eaves, embers, estovers, forceps, giblets, goggles, greaves, hards or hurds, hemorrhoids, ides, matins, nippers, nones, obsequies, orgies,[145] piles, pincers or pinchers, pliers, reins, scissors, shears, skittles, snuffers, spectacles, teens, tongs, trowsers, tweezers, umbles, vespers, victuals.

2. Plurals by formation, derived chiefly from adjectives: acoustics, aeronautics, analytics, bitters, catoptrics, commons, conics, credentials, delicates, dioptrics, economics, ethics, extraordinaries, filings, fives, freshes, glanders, gnomonics, goods, hermeneutics, hustings, hydrodynamics, hydrostatics, hydraulics, hysterics, inwards, leavings, magnetics, mathematics, measles, mechanics, mnemonics, merils, metaphysics, middlings, movables, mumps, nuptials, optics, phonics, phonetics, physics,[146] pneumatics, poetics, politics, riches, rickets, settlings, shatters, skimmings, spherics, staggers, statics, statistics, stays, strangles, sundries, sweepings, tactics, thanks, tidings, trappings, vives, vitals, wages,[147] withers, yellows.

3. Plurals by composition: backstairs, cocklestairs, firearms,[148] headquarters, hotcockles, spatterdashes, self-affairs. To these may be added the Latin words, aborigines, antipodes, antes, antoeci, amphiscii, anthropophagi, antiscii, ascii, literati, fauces, regalia, and credenda, with the Italian vermicelli, and the French belles-lettres and entremets.

OBS. 29.—There are several nouns which are set down by some writers as wanting the singular, and by others as having it. Of this class are the following: amends,[149] ancients, awns, bots, catacombs, chives, cloves, cresses, dogsears, downs, dregs,[150] entrails, fetters, fireworks, greens, gyves, hatches, intestines, lees,[151] lungs, malanders, mallows, moderns, oats, orts, pleiads, premises, relics, remains, shackles, shambles,[152] stilts, stairs, tares, vetches. The fact is, that these words have, or ought to have, the singular, as often as there is any occasion to use it; and the same may, in general terms, be said of other nouns, respecting the formation of the plural.[153] For where the idea of unity or plurality comes clearly before the mind, we are very apt to shape the word accordingly, without thinking much about the authorities we can quote for it.

OBS. 30.—In general, where both numbers exist in common use, there is some palpable oneness or individuality, to which the article a or an is applicable; the nature of the species is found entire in every individual of it; and a multiplication of the individuals gives rise to plurality in the name. But the nature of a mass, or of an indefinite multitude taken collectively, is not found in individuals as such; nor is the name, whether singular, as gold, or plural, as ashes, so understood. Hence, though every noun must be of one number or the other, there are many which have little or no need of both. Thus we commonly speak of wheat, barley, or oats, collectively; and very seldom find occasion for any other forms of these words. But chafferers at the corn-market, in spite of Cobbett,[154] will talk about wheats and barleys, meaning different kinds[155] or qualities; and a gardener, if he pleases, will tell of an oat, (as does Milton, in his Lycidas,) meaning a single seed or plant. But, because wheat or barley generally means that sort of grain in mass, if he will mention a single kernel, he must call it a grain of wheat or a barleycorn. And these he may readily make plural, to specify any particular number; as, five grains of wheat, or three barleycorns.

OBS. 31.—My chief concern is with general principles, but the illustration of these requires many particular examples—even far more than I have room to quote. The word amends is represented by Murray and others, as being singular as well as plural; but Webster's late dictionaries exhibit amend as singular, and amends as plural, with definitions that needlessly differ, though not much. I judge "an amends" to be bad English; and prefer the regular singular, an amend. The word is of French origin, and is sometimes written in English with a needless final e; as, "But only to make a kind of honourable amende to God."—Rollin's Ancient Hist., Vol. ii, p. 24. The word remains Dr. Webster puts down as plural only, and yet uses it himself in the singular: "The creation of a Dictator, even for a few months, would have buried every remain of freedom."—Webster's Essays, p. 70. There are also other authorities for this usage, and also for some other nouns that are commonly thought to have no singular; as, "But Duelling is unlawful and murderous, a remain of the ancient Gothic barbarity."—Brown's Divinity, p. 26. "I grieve with the old, for so many additional inconveniences, more than their small remain of life seemed destined to undergo."—POPE: in Joh. Dict. "A disjunctive syllogism is one whose major premise is disjunctive."—Hedge's Logic. "Where should he have this gold? It is some poor fragment, some slender ort of his remainder."—SHAK.: Timon of Athens.

OBS. 32.—There are several nouns which are usually alike in both numbers. Thus, deer, folk, fry, gentry, grouse, hose, neat, sheep, swine, vermin, and rest, (i. e. the rest, the others, the residue,) are regular singulars, but they are used also as plurals, and that more frequently. Again, alms, aloes, bellows, means, news, odds, shambles, and species, are proper plurals, but most of them are oftener construed as singulars. Folk and fry are collective nouns. Folk means people; a folk, a people: as, "The ants are a people not strong;"—"The conies are but a feeble folk."—Prov., xxx, 25, 26. "He laid his hands on a few sick folk, and healed them."—Mark, vi, 5. Folks, which ought to be the plural of folk, and equivalent to peoples, is now used with reference to a plurality of individuals, and the collective word seems liable to be entirely superseded by it. A fry is a swarm of young fishes, or of any other little creatures living in water: so called, perhaps, because their motions often make the surface fry. Several such swarms might properly be called fries; but this form can never be applied to the individuals, without interfering with the other. "So numerous was the fry."—Cowper. "The fry betake themselves to the neighbouring pools."—Quarterly Review. "You cannot think more contemptuously of these gentry than they were thought of by the true prophets."—Watson's Apology, p. 93. "Grouse, a heathcock."—Johnson.

"The 'squires in scorn will fly the house For better game, and look for grouse."—Swift.

"Here's an English tailor, come hither for stealing out of a French hose."—Shak. "He, being in love, could not see to garter his hose."—Id. Formerly, the plural was hosen: "Then these men were bound, in their coats, their hosen, and their hats."—Dan., iii, 21. Of sheep, Shakspeare has used the regular plural: "Two hot sheeps, marry!"—Love's Labour Lost, Act ii, Sc. 1.

"Who both by his calf and his lamb will be known, May well kill a neat and a sheep of his own."—Tusser.

"His droves of asses, camels, herds of neat, And flocks of sheep, grew shortly twice as great."—Sandys.

"As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout."—Prov., xi, 22. "A herd of many swine, feeding."—Matt., viii, 30. "An idle person only lives to spend his time, and eat the fruits of the earth, like a vermin or a wolf."—Taylor. "The head of a wolf, dried and hanged up, will scare away vermin."—Bacon. "Cheslip, a small vermin that lies under stones or tiles."—SKINNER: in Joh. and in Web. Dict. "This is flour, the rest is bran."—"And the rest were blinded."—Rom., xi, 7. "The poor beggar hath a just demand of an alms."—Swift. "Thine alms are come up for a memorial before God."—Acts, x, 4. "The draught of air performed the function of a bellows."—Robertson's Amer., ii, 223. "As the bellows do."—Bicknell's Gram., ii, 11. "The bellows are burned."—Jer., vi, 29. "Let a gallows be made."—Esther, v, 14. "Mallows are very useful in medicine."—Wood's Dict. "News," says Johnson, "is without the singular, unless it be considered as singular."—Dict. "So is good news from a far country."—Prov., xxv, 25. "Evil news rides fast, while good news baits."—Milton. "When Rhea heard these news, she fled."—Raleigh. "News were brought to the queen."—Hume's Hist., iv, 426. "The news I bring are afflicting, but the consolation with which they are attended, ought to moderate your grief."—Gil Blas, Vol. ii, p. 20. "Between these two cases there are great odds."—Hooker. "Where the odds is considerable."—Campbell. "Determining on which side the odds lie."—Locke. "The greater are the odds that he mistakes his author."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 1. "Though thus an odds unequally they meet."—Rowe's Lucan, B. iv, l. 789. "Preëminent by so much odds."—Milton. "To make a shambles of the parliament house."—Shak. "The earth has been, from the beginning, a great Aceldama, a shambles of blood."—Christian's Vade-Mecum, p. 6. "A shambles" sounds so inconsistent, I should rather say, "A shamble." Johnson says, the etymology of the word is uncertain; Webster refers it to the Saxon scamel: it means a butcher's stall, a meat-market; and there would seem to be no good reason for the s, unless more than one such place is intended. "Who sells his subjects to the shambles of a foreign power."—Pitt. "A special idea is called by the schools a species."—Watts. "He intendeth the care of species, or common natures."—Brown. "ALOE, (al~o) n.; plu. ALOES."—Webster's Dict., and Worcester's. "But it was aloe itself to lose the reward."— Tupper's Crock of Gold, p. 16.

"But high in amphitheatre above, His arms the everlasting aloes threw." —Campbell, G. of W., ii, 10.

OBS. 33.—There are some nouns, which, though really regular in respect to possessing the two forms for the two numbers, are not free from irregularity in the manner of their application. Thus means is the regular plural of mean; and, when the word is put for mediocrity, middle point, place, or degree, it takes both forms, each in its proper sense; but when it signifies things instrumental, or that which is used to effect an object, most writers use means for the singular as well as for the plural:[156] as, "By this means"—"By those means," with reference to one mediating cause; and, "By these means,"—"By those means," with reference to more than one. Dr. Johnson says the use of means for mean is not very grammatical; and, among his examples for the true use of the word, he has the following: "Pamela's noble heart would needs gratefully make known the valiant mean of her safety."—Sidney. "Their virtuous conversation was a mean to work the heathens' conversion."—Hooker. "Whether his wits should by that mean have been taken from him."—Id. "I'll devise a mean to draw the Moor out of the way."—Shak. "No place will please me so, no mean of death."—Id. "Nature is made better by no mean, but nature makes that mean."—Id. Dr. Lowth also questioned the propriety of construing means as singular, and referred to these same authors as authorities for preferring the regular form. Buchanan insists that means is right in the plural only; and that, "The singular should be used as perfectly analogous; by this mean, by that mean."—English Syntax, p. 103. Lord Kames, likewise, appears by his practice to have been of the same opinion: "Of this the child must be sensible intuitively, for it has no other mean of knowledge."—Elements of Criticism, Vol. i, p. 357. "And in both the same mean is employed."—Ib. ii, 271. Caleb Alexander, too, declares "this means," "that means." and "a means," to be "ungrammatical."—Gram., p. 58. But common usage has gone against the suggestions of these critics, and later grammarians have rather confirmed the irregularity, than attempted to reform it.

OBS. 34.—Murray quotes sixteen good authorities to prove that means may be singular; but whether it ought to be so or not, is still a disputable point. Principle is for the regular word mean, and good practice favours the irregularity, but is still divided. Cobbett, to the disgrace of grammar, says, "Mean, as a noun, is never used in the singular. It, like some other words, has broken loose from all principle and rule. By universal consent, it is become always a plural, whether used with singular or plural pronouns and articles, or not."—E. Gram., p. 144. This is as ungrammatical, as it is untrue. Both mean and means are sufficiently authorized in the singular: "The prospect which by this mean is opened to you."—Melmoth's Cicero. "Faith in this doctrine never terminates in itself, but is a mean, to holiness as an end."—Dr. Chalmers, Sermons, p. v. "The mean of basely affronting him."—Brown's Divinity, p. 19. "They used every mean to prevent the re-establishment of their religion."—Dr Jamieson's Sacred Hist., i, p. 20. "As a necessary mean to prepare men for the discharge of that duty."— Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 153. "Greatest is the power of a mean, when its power is least suspected."—Tupper's Book of Thoughts, p. 37. "To the deliberative orator the reputation of unsullied virtue is not only useful, as a mean of promoting his general influence, it is also among his most efficient engines of persuasion, upon every individual occasion."—J. Q. Adams's Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory, i, 352. "I would urge it upon you, as the most effectual mean of extending your respectability and usefulness in the world."—Ib., ii, 395. "Exercise will be admitted to be a necessary mean of improvement."—Blair's Rhet., p. 343. "And by that means we have now an early prepossession in their favour."—Ib., p. 348. "To abolish all sacrifice by revealing a better mean of reconciliation." —Keith's Evidences, p. 46. "As a mean of destroying the distinction." —Ib., p. 3. "Which however is by no mean universally the case."— Religious World Displayed, Vol. iii, p. 155.

OBS. 35.—Again, there are some nouns, which, though they do not lack the regular plural form, are sometimes used in a plural sense without the plural termination. Thus manner makes the plural manners, which last is now generally used in the peculiar sense of behaviour, or deportment, but not always: it sometimes means methods, modes, or ways; as, "At sundry times and in divers manners."—Heb., i, 1. "In the manners above mentioned."—Butler's Analogy, p. 100. "There be three manners of trials in England."—COWELL: Joh. Dict., w. Jury. "These two manners of representation."—Lowth's Gram., p. 15. "These are the three primary modes, or manners, of expression."—Lowth's Gram., p. 83. "In arrangement, too, various manners suit various styles."—Campbell's Phil. of Rhet., p. 172. "Between the two manners."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 35. "Here are three different manners of asserting."— Barnard's Gram., p. 59. But manner has often been put for sorts, without the s; as, "The tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits."—Rev., xxii, 2. "All manner of men assembled here in arms."—Shak. "All manner of outward advantages."—Atterbury. Milton used kind in the same way, but not very properly; as, "All kind of living creatures."—P. Lost, B. iv, l. 286. This irregularity it would be well to avoid. Manners may still, perhaps, be proper for modes or ways; and all manner, if allowed, must be taken in the sense of a collective noun; but for sorts, kinds, classes, or species, I would use neither the plural nor the singular of this word. The word heathen, too, makes the regular plural heathens, and yet is often used in a plural sense without the s; as, "Why do the heathen rage?"—Psalms, ii, 1. "Christianity was formerly propagated among the heathens."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 217. The word youth, likewise, has the same peculiarities.

OBS. 36.—Under the present head come names of fishes, birds, or other things, when the application of the singular is extended from the individual to the species, so as to supersede the plural by assuming its construction: as, Sing. "A great fish."—Jonah, i, 17. Plur. "For the multitude of fishes'."—John, xxi, 6. "A very great multitude of fish."—Ezekiel, xlvii, 9.[157] The name of the genus being liable to this last construction, men seem to have thought that the species should follow; consequently, the regular plurals of some very common names of fishes are scarcely known at all. Hence some grammarians affirm, that salmon, mackerel, herring, perch, tench, and several others, are alike in both numbers, and ought never to be used in the plural form. I am not so fond of honouring these anomalies. Usage is here as unsettled, as it is arbitrary; and, if the expression of plurality is to be limited to either form exclusively, the regular plural ought certainly to be preferred. But, for fish taken in bulk, the singular form seems more appropriate; as, "These vessels take from thirty-eight to forty-five quintals of cod and pollock, and six thousand barrels of mackerel, yearly."—Balbi's Geog., p. 28.

OBS. 37.—The following examples will illustrate the unsettled usage just mentioned, and from them the reader may judge for himself what is right. In quoting, at second-hand, I generally think it proper to make double references; and especially in citing authorities after Johnson, because he so often gives the same passages variously. But he himself is reckoned good authority in things literary. Be it so. I regret the many proofs of his fallibility. "Hear you this Triton of the minnows?"—Shak. "The shoal of herrings was of an immense extent."—Murray's Key, p. 185. "Buy my herring fresh."—SWIFT: in Joh. Dict. "In the fisheries of Maine, cod, herring, mackerel alewives, salmon, and other fish, are taken."—Balbi's Geog., p. 23. "MEASE, n. The quantity of 500; as, a mease of herrings."—Webster's Dict. "We shall have plenty of mackerel this season."—ADDISON: in Joh. Dict. "Mackarel is the same in both numbers. Gay has improperly mackarels."—Churchill's Gram., p. 208. "They take salmon and trouts by groping and tickling them under the bellies."—CAREW: in Joh. Dict. "The pond will keep trout and salmon in their seasonable plight."—Id., ib., w. Trout. "Some fish are preserved fresh in vinegar, as turbot."—Id., ib., w. Turbot. "Some fish are boiled and preserved fresh in vinegar, as tunny and turbot."—Id., ib., w. Tunny. "Of round fish, there are brit, sprat, barn, smelts."—Id., ib., w. Smelt. "For sprats and spurlings for your house."—TUSSEE: ib., w. Spurling. "The coast is plentifully stored with pilchards, herrings, and haddock."—CAREW: ib., w. Haddock. "The coast is plentifully stored with round fish, pilchard, herring, mackerel, and cod"—Id., ib., w. Herring. "The coast is plentifully stored with shellfish, sea-hedgehogs, scallops, pilcherd, herring, and pollock."—Id., ib., w. Pollock. "A roach is a fish of no great reputation for his dainty taste. It is noted that roaches recover strength and grow a fortnight after spawning."—WALTON: ib., w. Roach. "A friend of mine stored a pond of three or four acres with carps and tench."—HALE: ib., w. Carp. "Having stored a very great pond with carps, tench, and other pond-fish, and only put in two small pikes, this pair of tyrants in seven years devoured the whole."—Id., ib., w. Tench. "Singular, tench; plural, tenches."—Brightland's Gram., p. 78. "The polar bear preys upon seals, fish, and the carcasses of whales."—Balbi's Geog., p. 172. "Trouts and salmons swim against the stream."—BACON: Ward's Gram., p. 130.

"'Tis true no turbots dignify my boards, But gudgeons, flounders, what my Thames affords."—Pope.

OBS. 38.—Prom the foregoing examples it would seem, if fish or fishes are often spoken of without a regular distinction of the grammatical numbers, it is not because the words are not susceptible of the inflection, but because there is some difference of meaning between the mere name of the sort and the distinct modification in regard to number. There are also other nouns in which a like difference may be observed. Some names of building materials, as brick, stone, plank, joist, though not destitute of regular plurals, as bricks, stones, planks, joists, and not unadapted to ideas distinctly singular, as a brick, a stone, a plank, a joist, are nevertheless sometimes used in a plural sense without the s, and sometimes in a sense which seems hardly to embrace the idea of either number; as, "Let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly."—Gen., xi, 3. "And they had brick for stone."—Ib. "The tale of bricks."—Exod., v, 8 and 18. "Make brick."—Ib., v, 16. "From your bricks."—Ib., v, 19. "Upon altars of brick."—Isaiah. lxv, 3. "The bricks are fallen down."—Ib., ix, 10. The same variety of usage occurs in respect to a few other words, and sometimes perhaps without good reason; as, "Vast numbers of sea fowl frequent the rocky cliffs."—Balbi's Geog., p. 231. "Bullocks, sheep, and fowls."—Ib., p. 439. "Cannon is used alike in both numbers."—Everest's Gram., p. 48. "Cannon and shot may be used in the singular or plural sense."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 37. "The column in the Place Vendome is one hundred and thirty-four feet high, and is made of the brass of the cannons taken from the Austrians and Prussians."—Balbi's Geog., p. 249. "As his cannons roar."—Dryden's Poems, p. 81. "Twenty shot of his greatest cannon."—CLARENDON: Joh. Dict. "Twenty shots" would here, I think, be more proper, though the word is not made plural when it means little balls of lead. "And cannons conquer armies."—Hudibras, Part III, Canto iii, l. 249.

"Healths to both kings, attended with the roar Of cannons echoed from th' affrighted shore."—Waller, p. 7.

OBS. 39.—Of foreign nouns, many retain their original plural; a few are defective; and some are redundant, because the English form is also in use. Our writers have laid many languages under contribution, and thus furnished an abundance of irregular words, necessary to be explained, but never to be acknowledged as English till they conform to our own rules.

1. Of nouns in a, saliva, spittle, and scoria, dross, have no occasion for the plural; lamina, a thin plate, makes laminæ; macula, a spot, maculæ; minutia, a little thing, minutiæ; nebula, a mist, nebulæ; siliqua, a pod, siliqiuæ. Dogma makes dogmas or dogmata; exanthema, exanthemas or exanthemata; miasm or miasma, miasms or miasmata; stigma, stigmas or stigmata.

2. Of nouns in um, some have no need of the plural; as, bdellium, decorum, elysium, equilibrium, guaiacum, laudanum, odium, opium, petroleum, serum, viaticum. Some form it regularly; as, asylums, compendiums, craniums, emporiums, encomiums, forums, frustums, lustrums, mausoleums, museums, pendulums, nostrums, rostrums, residuums, vacuums. Others take either the English or the Latin plural; as, desideratums or desiderata, mediums or media, menstruums or menstrua, memorandums or memoranda, spectrums or spectra, speculums or specula, stratums or strata, succedaneums or succedanea, trapeziums or trapezia, vinculums or vincula. A few seem to have the Latin plural only: as, arcanum, arcana; datum, data; effluvium, effluvia; erratum, errata; scholium, scholia.

3. Of nouns in us, a few have no plural; as, asparagus, calamus, mucus. Some have only the Latin plural, which usually changes us to i; as, alumnus, alumni; androgynus, androgyni; calculus, calculi; dracunculus, dracunculi; echinus, echini; magus, magi. But such as have properly become English words, may form the plural regularly in es; as, chorus, choruses: so, apparatus, bolus, callus, circus, fetus, focus, fucus, fungus, hiatus, ignoramus, impetus, incubus, isthmus, nautilus, nucleus, prospectus, rebus, sinus, surplus. Five of these make the Latin plural like the singular; but the mere English scholar has no occasion to be told which they are. Radius makes the plural radii or radiuses. Genius has genii, for imaginary spirits, and geniuses, for men of wit. Genus, a sort, becomes genera in Latin, and genuses in English. Denarius makes, in the plural, denarii or denariuses.

4. Of nouns in is, some are regular; as, trellis, trellises: so, annolis, butteris, caddis, dervis, iris, marquis, metropolis, portcullis, proboscis. Some seem to have no need of the plural; as, ambergris, aqua-fortis, arthritis, brewis, crasis, elephantiasis, genesis, orris, siriasis, tennis. But most nouns of this ending follow the Greek or Latin form, which simply changes is to =es: as, amanuensis, amanuenses; analysis, analyses; antithesis, antitheses; axis, axes; basis, bases; crisis, crises; diæresis, diæreses; diesis, dieses; ellipsis, ellipses; emphasis, emphases; fascis, fasces; hypothesis, hypotheses; metamorphosis, metamorphoses; oasis, oases; parenthesis, parentheses; phasis, phases; praxis, praxes; synopsis, synopses; synthesis, syntheses; syrtis, syrtes; thesis, theses. In some, however, the original plural is not so formed; but is made by changing is to ~ides; as, aphis, aphides; apsis, apsides; ascaris, ascarides; bolis, bolides; cantharis, cantharides; chrysalis, chrysalides; ephemeris, ephemerides; epidermis, epidermides. So iris and proboscis, which we make regular; and perhaps some of the foregoing may be made so too. Fisher writes Praxises for praxes, though not very properly. See his Gram, p. v. Eques, a Roman knight, makes equites in the plural.

5. Of nouns in x, there are few, if any, which ought not to form the plural regularly, when used as English words; though the Latins changed x to ces, and ex to ices, making the i sometimes long and sometimes short: as, apex, apices, for apexes; appendix, appendices, for appendixes; calix, calices, for calixes; calx, calces, for calxes; calyx, calyces, for calyxes; caudex, caudices, for caudexes; cicatrix, cicatrices, for cicatrixes; helix, helices, for helixes; index, indices, for indexes; matrix, matrices, for matrixes; quincunx, quincunces, for quincunxes; radix, radices, for radixes; varix, varices, for varixes; vertex, vertices, for vertexes; vortex, vortices, for vortexes. Some Greek words in x change that letter to ges; as, larynx, larynges, for larinxes; phalanx, phalanges, for phalanxes. Billet-doux, from the French, is billets-doux in the plural.

6. Of nouns in on, derived from Greek, the greater part always form the plural regularly; as, etymons, gnomons, ichneumons, myrmidons, phlegmons, trigons, tetragons, pentagons, hexagons, heptagons, octagons, enneagons, decagons, hendecagons, dodecagons, polygons. So trihedrons, tetrahedrons, pentahedrons, &c., though some say, these last may end in dra, which I think improper. For a few words of this class, however, there are double plurals in use; as, automata or atomatons, criteria or criterions, parhelia or parhelions; and the plural of phenomenon appears to be always phenomena.

7. The plural of legumen is legumens or legumina; of stamen, stamens or stamina: of cherub, cherubs or cherubim; of seraph, seraphs or seraphim; of beau, beaus or beaux; of bandit, bandits or banditti. The regular forms are in general preferable. The Hebrew plurals cherubim and seraphim, being sometimes mistaken for singulars, other plurals have been formed from them; as, "And over it the cherubims of glory."—Heb. ix, 5. "Then flow one of the seraphims unto me."—Isaiah, vi, 6. Dr. Campbell remarks: "We are authorized, both by use and by analogy, to say either cherubs and seraphs, according to the English idiom, or cherubim and seraphim, according to the oriental. The former suits better the familiar, the latter the solemn style. I shall add to this remark," says he, "that, as the words cherubim and seraphim are plural, the terms cherubims and seraphims, as expressing the plural, are quite improper."—Phil. of Rhet., p. 201.

OBS. 40.—When other parts of speech become nouns, they either want the plural, or form it regularly,[158] like common nouns of the same endings; as, "His affairs went on at sixes and sevens."—Arbuthnot. "Some mathematicians have proposed to compute by twoes; others, by fours; others, by twelves."—Churchill's Gram., p. 81. "Three fourths, nine tenths."—Ib., p. 230. "Time's takings and leavings."— Barton. "The yeas and nays."—Newspaper. "The ays and noes."—Ib. "Oes and spangles."—Bacon. "The ins and the outs."—Newspaper."—We find it more safe against outs and doubles."—Printer's Gram. "His ands and his ors."—Mott. "One of the buts."—Fowle. "In raising the mirth of stupids."—Steele. "Eatings, drinkings, wakings, sleepings, walkings, talkings, sayings, doings—all were for the good of the public; there was not such a things as a secret in the town."—LANDON: Keepsake, 1833. "Her innocent forsooths and yesses."—Spect., No. 266.

"Henceforth my wooing mind shall be expressed In russet yeas and honest kersey noes." —SHAK. See Johnson's Dict., w. Kersey.

GENDERS.

Genders, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish objects in regard to sex.

There are three genders; the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter.

The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind; as, man, father, king.

The feminine gender is that which denotes persons or 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 genders;—the masculine, the feminine, the common, and the neuter."—School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 49. [Those] "Nouns which are applicable alike to both sexes, are of the common gender."—Ib. This then is manifestly no gender under the foregoing definition, and the term neuter is made somewhat less appropriate by the adoption of a third denomination before it. Nor is there less absurdity in the phraseology with which Murray proposes to avoid the recognition of the common gender: "Thus we may say, Parents is a noun of the masculine and feminine gender; Parent, if doubtful, is of the masculine or feminine gender; and Parent, if the gender is known by the construction, is of the gender so ascertained."—Gram., 8vo, p. 39. According to this, we must have five genders, exclusive of that which is called common; namely, the masculine, the feminine, the neuter, the androgynal, and the doubtful.

OBS. 4.—It is plain that many writers on grammar have had but a confused notion of what a gender really is. Some of them, confounding gender with sex, deny that there are more than two genders, because there are only two sexes. Others, under a like mistake, resort occasionally, (as in the foregoing instance,) to an androgynal, and also to a doubtful gender: both of which are more objectionable than the common gender of the old grammarians; though this common "distinction with regard to sex," is, in our language, confessedly, no distinction at all. I assume, that there are in English the three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter, and no more; and that every noun and every pronoun must needs be of some gender; consequently, of some one of these three. A gender is, literally, a sort, a kind, a sex. But genders, in grammar, are attributes of words, rather than of persons, or animals, or things; whereas sexes are attributes, not of words, but of living creatures. He who understands this, will perceive that the absence of sex in some things, is as good a basis for a grammatical distinction, as the presence or the difference of it in others; nor can it be denied, that the neuter, according to my definition, is a gender, is a distinction "in regard to sex," though it does not embrace either of the sexes. There are therefore three genders, and only three.

OBS. 5.—Generic names, even when construed as masculine or feminine, often virtually include both sexes; as, "Hast thou given the horse strength? hast thou clothed his neck with thunder? Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils is terrible."—Job, xxxix, 19. "Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south? Doth the eagle mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high?"—Ib., ver. 26. These were called, by the old grammarians, epicene nouns—that is, supercommon; but they are to be parsed each according to the gender of the pronoun which is put for it.

OBS. 6.—The gender of words, in many instances, is to be determined by the following principle of universal grammar. Those terms which are equally applicable to both sexes, (if they are not expressly applied to females,) and those plurals which are known to include both sexes, should be called masculine in parsing; for, in all languages, the masculine gender is considered the most worthy,[159] and is generally employed when both sexes are included under one common term. Thus parents is always masculine, and must be represented by a masculine pronoun, for the gender of a word is a property indivisible, and that which refers to the male sex, always takes the lead in such cases. If one say, "Joseph took the young child and his mother by night, and fled with them into Egypt," the pronoun them will be masculine; but let "his" be changed to its, and the plural pronoun that follows, will be feminine. For the feminine gender takes precedence of the neuter, but not of the masculine; and it is not improper to speak of a young child without designating the sex. As for such singulars as parent, friend, neighbour, thief, slave, and many others, they are feminine when expressly applied to any of the female sex; but otherwise, masculine.

OBS. 7.—Nouns of multitude, when they convey the idea of unity or take the plural form, are of the neuter gender; but when they convey the idea of plurality without the form, they follow the gender of the individuals which compose the assemblage. Thus a congress, a council, a committee, a jury, a sort, or a sex, if taken collectively, is neuter; being represented in discourse by the neuter pronoun it: and the formal plurals, congresses, councils, committees, juries, sorts, sexes, of course, are neuter also. But, if I say, "The committee disgraced themselves," the noun and pronoun are presumed to be masculine, unless it be known that I am speaking of a committee of females. Again: "The fair sex, whose task is not to mingle in the labours of public life, have their own part assigned them to act."—Comly's Gram., p. 132. Here sex, and the three pronouns which have that word for their antecedent, are all feminine. Again: "Each sex, dressing themselves in the clothes of the other."—Wood's Dictionary, v. Feast of Purim. Here sex, and the pronoun which follows, are masculine; because, the male sex, as well as the female, is here spoken of plurally.

OBS. 8.—To persons, of every description, known or unknown, real or imaginary, we uniformly ascribe sex.[160] But, as personality implies intelligence, and sex supposes some obvious difference, a young child may be spoken of with distinction of sex or without, according to the notion of the speaker; as, "I went to see the child whilst they were putting on its cloaths."—Priestley's Gram., p. 125. "Because the child has no idea of any nurse besides his own."—Ib., p. 153. To brute animals also, the same distinction is generally applied, though with less uniformity. Some that are very small, have a gender which seems to be merely occasional and figurative; as, "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise."—Prov., vi, 6. "The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces."—Prov., xxx, 28. So the bee is usually made feminine, being a little creature of admirable industry and economy. But, in general, irrational creatures whose sex is unknown, or unnecessary to be regarded, are spoken of as neuter; as, "And it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. And the Lord said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand."—Exod., iv, 3, 4. Here, although the word serpent is sometimes masculine, the neuter pronoun seems to be more proper. So of some imaginary creatures: as, "Phenix, the fowl which is said to exist single, and to rise again from its own ashes."—Webster's Dict. "So shall the Phoenix escape, with no stain on its plumage."—Dr. Bartlett's Lect., p. 10.

OBS. 9.—But this liberty of representing animals as of no sex, is often carried to a very questionable extent; as, "The hare sleeps with its eyes open."—Barbauld. "The hedgehog, as soon as it perceives itself attacked, rolls itself into a kind of ball, and presents nothing but its prickles to the foe."—Blair's Reader, p. 138. "The panther is a ferocious creature: like the tiger it seizes its prey by surprise."—Ib., p. 102. "The leopard, in its chace of prey, spares neither man nor beast."—Ib., p. 103. "If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it."—Exod., xxii, 1. "A dog resists its instinct to run after a hare, because it recollects the beating it has previously received on that account. The horse avoids the stone at which it once has stumbled."—Spurzheim, on Education, p. 3. "The racehorse is looked upon with pleasure; but it is the warhorse, that carries grandeur in its idea."—Blair's Rhet., p. 30.