The Grammar of English Grammars Part 39

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 G.o.d 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 cla.s.s of modifications, extends no farther than to distinguish unity from plurality, and plurality from unity. It belongs to nouns, p.r.o.nouns, and finite verbs; and to these it is always applied, either by peculiarity of form, or by inference from the principles of concord. p.r.o.nouns 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 p.r.o.nounce as monosyllables the words _babes, blades, strifes, t.i.thes, yokes, scales, names, canes, ropes, sh.o.r.es, 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 t.i.tles; 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 a.s.suming 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 a.s.suming _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 _Inst.i.tutes 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 p.r.o.nounce 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 cla.s.s of words being anomalous in respect to p.r.o.nunciation, 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 cla.s.s, 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 cla.s.s 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 p.r.o.nounced _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 cla.s.s 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 Caesars_."--_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 a.s.suming _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 princ.i.p.al tribes are the _p.a.w.nees_, the _Arrapahoes_, and the _c.u.manches_, 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 _p.a.w.nee_, an _Arrapaho_, and a _c.u.manche_. "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,) a.s.sume, 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 misp.r.o.nunciation, 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 G.o.d?"--_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 t.i.tle are to be used together in a plural sense, many persons are puzzled to determine whether the name, or the t.i.tle, 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 a.s.sume that the two words may be taken together as a sort of compound, is correct also. Dr. Priestley says, "When a name has a t.i.tle 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 a.n.a.logy 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 t.i.tle, 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 t.i.tle 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 a.n.a.logy_" of which he speaks. The joining of a plural t.i.tle to one singular noun, as, "_Misses Roy_,"--"_The Misses Bell_,"--"_The two Misses Thomson_," produces a phrase which is in itself the _least a.n.a.logous_ of the three; but, "_The Misses Jane and Eliza Bell_," is a phrase which n.o.body 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 subst.i.tuted 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 _t.i.tle_, (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 _t.i.tle_, 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 _t.i.tle_, should be varied; as, the _Miss_ Clarks. When we mention more than one person of different names, the t.i.tle 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 d.u.c.h.esses and _Lady Maries_."_--Dunciad_, B. ii, L 135.

OBS. 18.--The following eleven nouns in _f_, change the _f_ into _v_ and a.s.sume _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, ba.s.sreliefs, 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. .h.i.therto 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 quant.i.ty 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 cla.s.s, 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 princ.i.p.al 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 a.n.a.logy, 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 a.n.a.logy favour the former mode of expressing the plural of such quant.i.ties.

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 a.n.a.logy 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 a.s.ses, flocks, and _men-servants_, and _women-servants_."--_Gen._, x.x.xii, 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 subst.i.tuting 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, conge-d'elires, flower-de-luces, louis-d'-ores, tete-a-tetes_."--_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 _tenebrae_, in French by _tenebres_, 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 p.r.o.noun, we must a.s.sume 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 mult.i.tude, 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 a.s.semblage. 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 mult.i.tude_ of the people _were praying_ without, at the time of incense."--_Luke_, i, 10.