THE NUMBERS.
§ 194. In the Greek language the word _patær_ signifies a _father_,
denoting _one_, whilst _patere_ signifies _two fathers_, denoting a pair,
and thirdly, _pateres_ signifies _fathers_, speaking of any number beyond
two. The three words, _patær_, _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. 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, except the _natural_ one in the words _ambo_ and
_duo_.
§ 195. 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.
§ 196. 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 _typtô_ = _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
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.
§ 197. 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.
§ 198. Respecting the formation of the plural, the current rule is, that it
is formed from the singular by adding s, as _father_, _fathers_. This,
however, is by no means a true expression. The letter s 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,
though somewhat lengthily 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_.
§ 199. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are
necessary.
a. In the case of words ending in b, v, d, the th in _thine_ = ð, 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,
aðs, ags, being unpronounceable.
b. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second
(aps, afs, ats, aþs, aks), or the second to the first (abz, avz, adz, aðz,
agz), is determined by _the habit of the particular language_ in question;
and, with a few _apparent_ exceptions it is the rule of the English
language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not _vice
versâ_.
c. 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.
d. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in s, but in z, the
original addition was not z, but s. This we 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.
§ 200. _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.
_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 _pens_,
sounded _penz_. That its sense is _collective_ rather than _plural_, 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_ (_diz_) 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, _ælmesse_; Greek, [Greek: eleêmosunê]; 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 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:
technê] (_tekhnæ_), so that the _musical art_ be [Greek: hê mousikê technê]
(_hæ mousikæ tekhnæ_). 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: mousikê]. 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: phusikê] (_fysikæ_), physic, from
[Greek: hê phusikê technê], 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: phusikê] (_fysicæ_), and the treatises upon
it, by the neuter adjective plural, as [Greek: phusika] (_fysika_). 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.
§ 201. 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 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 Old High German the
following forms in -r:--
Hus-ir, _Houses_,
Chalp-ir, _Calves_,
Lemp-ir, _Lambs_,
Plet-ir, _Blades of grass_,
Eig-ir, _Eggs_,
and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being _of the
neuter gender_.
Now, the theory respecting this form which is propounded by Grimm 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_, _riqv-is_ = _smoke_ (_reek_). In
none of these words is the -s radical, and in none is it limited to the
singular number.
To these doctrines, 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_, _eiger_ = _a collection of eggs_,
_eggery_ or _eyry_. In words like _yeoman-r-y_ and _Jew-r-y_, the -r has,
probably, the same origin, and is _collective_.
In Wicliffe we find the form _lamb-r-en_, which is to _lamb_ as _children_
is to _child_.
§ 202. _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.
§ 203. _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
so-called _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._
Freónd Frýnd _Friends_.
Feónd Fynd _Foes_.
Niht Niht _Nights_.
Bóc Béc _Books_.
Burh Byrig _Burghs_.
Bróc Bréc _Breeches_.
Turf Týrf _Turves_.
§ 204. _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.
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_, pluralitur _oxen_, _chicken_ (sunt qui dicunt in singulari
_chicken_, et in plurali _chickens_)." _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." Subject to this view,
the word _fer-n-s_ would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word
_chicken-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 þ and ð, 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_."
§ 205. The words sounded _houz-ez_, _padh-z_, _yoodh-z_, taken along with
the extract from Wallis, lead us to an important class of words.--§ 199 b.
§ 206. Certain words ending in f, like _loaf_, _wife_, &c.
The regular plural of these would be _loafs_, _wifes_, pronounced _loafce_,
_wifce_, &c.
But this is not the case. The sound added to the final f is the sound of z,
not that of s.
And the plurals are sounded _loavz_, _wivz_ (_wivez_, _weivz_).
Furthermore, the sound of the final f is changed to that of v; in other
words, the _first_ of the two letters is accommodated to the second, in
violation to the rule of § 199 b.
Can this be explained? Perhaps it can. In the Swedish language the letter f
has the sound of v; so that _staf_ is sounded _stav_.
Again, in the allied languages the words in question end in the _flat_ (not
the _sharp_) mute,--_weib_, _laub_, _calb_, _halb_, _stab_, &c. = _wife_,
_leaf_, _calf_, _half_, _staff_.
This makes it probable that, originally, the f in _wife_, _loaf_, &c. was
sounded as v; so that the singular forms were _wive_, _loav_.
If so, the _plural is_ perfectly normal; it being the _singular_ form on
which the irregularity lies.
* * * * *