THE NUMBERS.
s. 280. In the Greek language the word _pataer_ signifies a father,
speaking of _one_, whilst _patere_ signifies _two fathers_, speaking of a
pair, and thirdly, _pateres_ signifies _fathers_, speaking of any number
beyond two. The three words, _pataer_, _patere_, and _pateres_, are said to
be in different numbers, the difference of meaning being expressed by a
difference of form. These numbers have names. The number that speaks of
_one_ is the singular, the number that speaks of _two_ is the _dual_ (from
the Latin word _duo_=_two_), and the number that speaks of _more than two_
is the _plural_.
All languages have numbers, but all languages have not them to the same
extent. The Hebrew has a dual, but it is restricted to nouns only (in Greek
being extended to verbs). It has, moreover, this peculiarity; it applies,
for the most part, only to things which are naturally double, as _the two
eyes_, _the two hands_, &c. The Latin has no dual number at all, except the
natural dual in the words _ambo_ and _duo_.
s. 281. The question presents itself,--to what extent have we numbers in
English? Like the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, we have a singular and a
plural. Like the Latin, and unlike the Greek and Hebrew, we have no dual.
s. Different from the question, to what degree have we numbers? is the
question,--over what extent of our language have we numbers? This
distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who
said _typt[^o]_=_I beat_, _typteton_=_ye two beat_, _typtomen_=_we beat_,
had a dual number for their verbs as well as their nouns; while the Hebrew
dual was limited to the nouns only. In the Greek, then, the dual {226}
number is spread over a greater extent of the language than in the Hebrew.
There is no dual in the present English. It has been seen, however, that in
the Anglo-Saxon there _was_ a dual. But the Anglo-Saxon dual, being
restricted to the personal pronouns (_wit_=_we two_; _git_=_ye two_), was
not co-extensive with the Greek dual.
There is no dual in the present German. In the ancient German there was
one.
In the present Danish and Swedish there is no dual. In the Old Norse and in
the present Icelandic a dual number is to be found.
From this we learn that the dual number is one of those inflections that
languages drop as they become modern.
The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and the
plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural? The Latins say,
_bonus pater_=_a good father_; _boni patres_=_good fathers_. In the Latin,
the adjective _bonus_ changes its form with the change of number of the
substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive that
is changed. Hence we see that in the Latin language the numbers were
extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the
substantives and pronouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present
English is in the same relation as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon
there were plural forms for the adjectives.
For the forms _selves_ and _others_, see the Syntax. For the present, it is
sufficient to foreshadow a remark which will be made on the word _self_,
_viz._ that whether it be a pronoun, a substantive, or an adjective, is a
disputed point.
Words like _wheat_, _pitch_, _gold_, &c., where the idea is naturally
singular; words like _bellows_, _scissors_, _lungs_, &c., where the idea is
naturally plural; and words like _deer_, _sheep_, where the same form
serves for the singular and plural, inasmuch as there takes place no change
of form, are not under the province of etymology.
s. 282. The current rule is, that the plural number is formed from the
singular by adding _s_, as _father_, _fathers_. {227} However, if the
reader will revert to the Section upon the sharp and flat Mutes, where it
is stated that mutes of different degrees of sharpness and flatness cannot
come together in the same syllable, he will find occasion to take to the
current rule a verbal exception. The letter added to the word _father_,
making it _fathers_, is _s_ to the eye only. To the ear it is _z_. The word
sounds _fatherz_. If the _s_ retained its sound, the spelling would be
_fatherce_. In _stags_, _lads_, &c., the sound is _stagz_, _ladz_. The
rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously expressed,
is as follows.--_The plural is formed from the singular, by adding to words
ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and
to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibilant (s): e.g._ (the
_sound_ of the word being expressed), _pea_, _peaz_; _tree_, _treez_;
_day_, _dayz_; _hill_, _hillz_; _hen_, _henz_; _gig_, _gigz_; _trap_,
_traps_; _pit_, _pits_; _stack_, _stacks_. Upon the formation of the
English plural some further remarks are necessary.
I. In the case of words ending in _b_, _v_, _d_, the _th_ in _thine_=dh, or
_g_, a change either of the final flat consonant, or of the sharp _s_
affixed, was not a matter of choice, but of necessity; the combinations
_abs_, _avs_, _ads_, _adhs_, _ags_, being unpronounceable. See the Section
on the Law of Accommodation.
II. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second
(_aps_, _afs_, _ats_, _aths_, _asks_), or the second to the first (_abz_,
_avz_, _adhz_, _agz_), is determined by the habit of the particular
language in question; and, with a few apparent exceptions (mark the word
_apparent_), it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the
second sound to the first, and not _vice vers[^a]_.
III. Such combinations as _peas_, _trees_, _hills_, _hens_, &c. (the _s_
preserving its original power, and being sounded as if written _peace_,
_treece_, _hillce_, _hence_), being pronounceable, the change from _s_ to
_z_, in words so ending, is _not_ a matter determined by the necessity of
the case, but by the habit of the English language.
IV. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in _s_, but in _z_,
the original addition was not _z_, but _s_. This we {228} infer from three
facts: 1. From the spelling; 2. from the fact of the sound of _z_ being
either rare or non-existent in Anglo-Saxon; 3. from the sufficiency of the
causes to bring about the change.
It may now be seen that some slight variations in the form of our plurals
are either mere points of orthography, or else capable of being explained
on very simple euphonic principles.
s. 283. _Boxes, churches, judges, lashes, kisses, blazes, princes._--Here
there is the addition, not of the mere letter _s_, but of the syllable
_-es_. As _s_ cannot be immediately added to _s_, the intervention of a
vowel becomes necessary; and that all the words whose plural is formed in
_-es_ really end either in the sounds of _s_, or in the allied sounds of
_z_, _sh_, or _zh_, may be seen by analysis; since _x_=_ks_, _ch_=_tsh_,
and _j_ or _ge_=_dzh_, whilst _ce_, in _prince_, is a mere point of
orthography for _s_.
_Monarchs, heresiarchs._--Here the _ch_ equals not _tsh_, but _k_, so that
there is no need of being told that they do not follow the analogy of
_church_, &c.
_Cargoes, echoes._--From _cargo_ and _echo_, with the addition of _e_; an
orthographical expedient for the sake of denoting the length of the vowel
_o_.
_Beauty, beauties; key, keys._--Like the word _cargoes_, &c., these forms
are points, not of etymology, but of orthography.
s. 284. "A few _apparent_ exceptions."--These words are taken from
Observation II. in the present section. The apparent exceptions to the rule
there laid down are the words _loaf_, _wife_, and a few others, whose
plural is not sounded _loafs_, _wifs_ (_loafce_, _wifce_), but _loavz_,
_wivz_ (written _loaves_, _wives_). Here it seems as if _z_ had been added
to the singular; and, contrary to rule, the final letter of the original
word been accommodated to the _z_, instead of the _z_ being accommodated to
the final syllable of the word, and so becoming _s_. It is, however, very
probable that instead of the plural form being changed, it is the singular
that has been modified. In the Anglo-Saxon the _f_ at the end of words (as
in the present Swedish) had the power of _v_. In the allied language the
words in point are spelt with the _flat_ mute, as _weib_, _laub_, _kalb_,
_halb_, _stab_, {229} German. The same is the case with _leaf_, _leaves_;
_calf_, _calves_; _half_, _halves_; _staff_, _staves_; _beef_, _beeves_:
this last word being Anglo-Norman.
_Pence._--The peculiarity of this word consists in having a _flat_ liquid
followed by the sharp sibilant _s_ (spelt _ce_), contrary to the rule given
above. In the first place, it is a contracted form from _pennies_; in the
second place, its sense is collective rather than plural; in the third
place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it from _lens_,
sounded _lenz_. That its sense is collective rather than plural (a
distinction to which the reader's attention is directed), we learn from the
word _sixpence_, which, compared with _sixpences_, is no plural, but a
singular form.
_Dice._--In respect to its form, peculiar for the reason that _pence_ is
peculiar. We find the sound of _s_ after a vowel, where that of _z_ is
expected. This distinguishes _dice_ for play, from _dies_ (_diez_) for
coining. _Dice_, perhaps, like _pence_, is collective rather than plural.
In _geese_, _lice_, and _mice_, we have, apparently, the same phenomenon as
in _dice_, viz., a sharp sibilant (_s_) where a _flat_ one (_z_) is
expected. The _s_, however, in these words is not the sign of the plural,
but the last letter of the original word.
_Alms._--This is no true plural form. The _s_ belongs to the original word,
Anglo-Saxon, _aelmesse_; Greek, [Greek: eleemosune]; just as the _s_ in
_goose_ does. How far the word, although a true singular in its form, may
have a collective signification, and require its verb to be plural, is a
point not of etymology, but of syntax. The same is the case with the word
_riches_, from the French _richesse_. In _riches_ the last syllable being
sounded as _ez_, increases its liability to pass for a plural.
_News_, _means_, _pains._--These, the reverse of _alms_ and _riches_, are
true plural forms. How far, in sense, they are singular is a point not of
etymology, but of syntax.
_Mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _politics_, _ethics_, _optics_,
_physics._--The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting
these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in
point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each
is the name of some department of {230} study, of some art, or of some
science. As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they
denote, either of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let
the arts and sciences of Greece be expressed, in Greek, rather by a
substantive and an adjective combined, than by a simple substantive; for
instance, let it be the habit of the language to say _the musical art_,
rather than _music_. Let the Greek for _art_ be a word in the feminine
gender; _e.g._, [Greek: techne] (_tekhnae_), so that the _musical art_ be
[Greek: he mousike techne] (_hae mousikae tekhnae_). Let, in the progress
of language (as was actually the case in Greece), the article and
substantive be omitted, so that, for the _musical art_, or for _music_,
there stand only the feminine adjective, [Greek: mousike]. Let there be,
upon a given art or science, a series of books, or treatises; the Greek for
_book_, or _treatise_, being a neuter substantive, [Greek: biblion]
(_biblion_). Let the substantive meaning _treatise_ be, in the course of
language, omitted, so that whilst the science of physics is called [Greek:
phusike] (_fysikae_), _physic_, from [Greek: he phusike techne], a series
of treatises (or even chapters) upon the science shall be called [Greek:
phusika] (_fysika_) or physics. Now all this was what happened in Greece.
The science was denoted by a feminine adjective singular, as [Greek:
phusike] (_fysicae_), and the treatises upon it, by the neuter adjective
plural, as [Greek: phusika] (_fysica_). The treatises of Aristotle are
generally so named. To apply this, I conceive, that in the middle ages a
science of Greek origin might have its name drawn from two sources, viz.,
from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the books wherein
it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, as _physic_,
_logic_; in the second place a plural form, as _mathematics_,
_metaphysics_, _optics_.
In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs
to be, is a point of syntax.
s. 285. The plural form _children_ (_child-er-en_) requires particular
notice.
In the first place it is a double plural: the _-en_ being the _-en_ in
_oxen_, whilst the simpler form _child-er_ occurs in the old English, and
in certain provincial dialects.
Now, what is the _-er_ in _child-er_?
In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than {231} that in _-r_; as
_geisl-ar_=_flashes_, _tung-ur_=_tongues_, &c. Nevertheless, it is not the
Icelandic that explains the plural form in question.
Besides the word _childer_, we collect from the other Gothic tongue the
following forms in _-r_.--
Hus-er, _Houses_. Old High German.
Chalp-ir, _Calves_. ditto.
Lemp-ir, _Lambs_. ditto.
Plet-ir, _Blades of grass_. ditto.
Eig-ir, _Eggs_. ditto.
and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being _of the
neuter gender_. The particular Gothic dialect wherein they occur most
frequently is the Dutch of Holland.
Now, the theory respecting the form so propounded by Grimm (D. G. iii. p.
270) is as follows:--
1. The _-r_ represents an earlier _-s_.
2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter
derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number.
3. In this form it appears in the Moeso-Gothic: _ag-is_=_fear_ (whence
_ague_=_shivering_), _hat-is_=_hate_, _rigv-is_=_smoke_ (_reek_). In none
of these words is the _-s_ radical, and in none is it limited to the
singular number.
To these views Bopp adds, that the termination in question is the Sanskrit
_-as_, a neuter affix; as in _t[^e]j-as_=_splendour_, _strength_, from
_tij_=to _sharpen_.--V. G. pp. 141-259, Eastwick's and Wilson's
translation.
To these doctrines of Grimm and Bopp, it should be added, that the reason
why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural
number, lies, most probably, in the _collective_ nature of the words in
which it occurs: _Husir_=_a collection of houses_, _eigir_=_a collection of
eggs, eggery _or_ eyry_. For further observations on the power of _-r_, and
for reasons for believing it to be the same as in the words _Jew-r-y_,
_yeoman-r-y_, see a paper of Mr. Guest's, Philol. Trans., May 26, 1843.
There we find the remarkable form _lamb-r-en_, from Wicliffe, Joh. xxi.
_Lamb-r-en_ : _lamb_ :: _child-r-en_ : _child_. {232}
s. 286. _The form in -en._--In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural
number is more common than _-n_: _tungan_, tongues; _steorran_, stars. Of
this termination we have evident remains in the words _oxen_, _hosen_,
_shoon_, _eyne_, words more or less antiquated. This, perhaps, is _no_ true
plural. In _welk-in_=_the clouds_, the original singular form is lost.
s. 287. _Men, feet, teeth, mice, lice, geese._--In these we have some of
the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a certainty, true
plurals, we should have an appearance somewhat corresponding to the weak
and strong tenses of verbs; _viz._, one series of plurals formed by a
change of the vowel, and another by the addition of the sibilant. The word
_kye_, used in Scotland for _cows_, is of the same class. The list in
Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that of the present
English.
_Sing._ _Plur._
Fre['o]nd Fr['y]nd _Friends._
Fe['o]nd Fynd _Foes._
Niht Niht _Nights._
B['o]c B['e]c _Books._
Burh Byrig _Burghs._
Br['o]c Br['e]c _Breeches._
Turf T['y]rf _Turves._
s. 288. _Brethren._--Here there are two changes. 1. The alteration of the
vowel. 2. The addition of _-en._ Mr. Guest quotes the forms _brethre_ and
_brothre_ from the Old English. The sense is collective rather than plural.
_Peasen_=_pulse_.--As _children_ is a double form of one sort (_r_ + _en_),
so is _peasen_ a double form of another (_s_ + _en_); _pea_, _pea-s_,
_pea-s-en_. Wallis speaks to the _singular_ power of the form in
_-s_:--"Dicunt nonnulli _a pease_, pluraliter _peasen_; at melius,
singulariter _a pea_, pluraliter _pease_:"--P. 77. He might have added,
that, theoretically, _pease_ was the proper singular form; as shown by the
Latin _pis-um_.
_Pullen_=poultry.
_Lussurioso._--What? three-and-twenty years in law?
_Vendice._--I have known those who have been five-and-fifty, and all
about _pullen_ and pigs.--_Revenger's Tragedy_, iv. 1.
{233}
If this were a plural form, it would be a very anomalous one. The _-en_,
however, is no more a sign of the plural than is the _-es_ in _rich-es_
(_richesse_). The proper form is in _-ain_ or _-eyn_.
A false theefe,
That came like a false fox, my _pullain_ to kill and mischeefe.
_Gammer Gurton's Needle_, v. 2.
_Chickens._--A third variety of the double inflection (_en_ + _s_), with
the additional peculiarity of the form _chicken_ being used, at present,
almost exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was,
probably, the plural of _chick_. So Wallis considered it:--"At olim etiam
per _-en_ vel _-yn_ formabant pluralia: quorum pauca admodum adhuc
retinemus. Ut, _an ox_, _a chick_, pluraliter _oxen_, _chicken_ (sunt qui
dicunt in singulari _chicken_, et in plurali _chickens_)."--(P. 77).
_Chick_, _chick-en_, _chick-en-s_.
_Fern._--According to Wallis the _-n_ in _fer-n_ is the _-en_ in _oxen_, in
other words, a plural termination:--"A _fere_ (_filix_) pluraliter _fern_
(verum nunc plerumque _fern_ utroque numero dicitur, sed et in plurali
_ferns_); nam _fere_ et _feres_ prope obsoleta sunt."--(P. 77.) Subject to
this view, the word _fer-n-s_ would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word
_chicke-n-s_. It is doubtful, however, whether Wallis's view be correct. A
reason for believing the _-n_ to be radical is presented by the Anglo-Saxon
form _fearn_, and the Old High German, _varam_.
_Women._--Pronounced _wimmen_, as opposed to the singular form _woomman_.
Probably an instance of accommodation.
_Houses._--Pronounced _houz-ez_. The same peculiarity in the case of _s_
and _z_, as occurs between _f_ and _v_ in words like _life_, _lives_, &c.
_Paths, youths._--Pronounced _padhz_, _yoodhz_. The same peculiarity in the
case of _th_ and _dh_, as occurs between _s_ and _z_ in the words _house_,
_houses_. "Finita in _f_ plerumque alleviantur in plurali numero,
substituendo _v_; ut _wife_, _wives_, &c. Eademque alleviatio est etiam in
_s_ et _th_, quamvis retento charactere, in _house_, _cloth_, _path_."--P.
79.
* * * * *
{234}