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.

OBS. 10.--The sexes are distinguished _by words_, in four different ways.

First, by the use of different terminations: as, _Jew, Jewess; Julius,

Julia; hero, heroine_. Secondly, by the use of entirely different names:

as, _Henry, Mary; king, queen_. Thirdly, by compounds or phrases including

some distinctive term: as, _Mr. Murray, Mrs. Murray; Englishman,

Englishwoman; grandfather, grandmother; landlord, landlady; merman,

mermaid; servingman, servingmaid; man-servant, maid-servant; schoolmaster,

schoolmistress; school-boy, school-girl; peacock, peahen; cock-sparrow,

hen-sparrow; he-goat, she-goat; buck-rabbit, doe-rabbit; male elephant,

female elephant; male convicts, female convicts_. Fourthly, by the pronouns

_he, his, him_, put for nouns masculine; and _she, her, hers_, for nouns

feminine: as, "Ask _him_ that fleeth, and _her_ that escapeth, and say,

What is done?"--_Jer._, xlviii, 19.

"O happy _peasant!_ Oh unhappy _bard!_

_His_ the mere tinsel, _hers_ the rich reward."--_Cowper_.

OBS. 11.--For feminine nouns formed by inflection, the regular termination

is _ess_; but the manner in which this ending is applied to the original or

masculine noun, is not uniform:--

1. In some instances the syllable _ess_ is simply added: as, _accuser,

accuseress; advocate, advocatess; archer, archeress; author, authoress;

avenger, avengeress; barber, barberess; baron, baroness; canon, canoness;

cit, cittess;[161] coheir, coheiress; count, countess; deacon, deaconess;

demon, demoness; diviner, divineress; doctor, doctoress; giant, giantess;

god, goddess; guardian, guardianess; Hebrew, Hebrewess; heir, heiress;

herd, herdess; hermit, hermitess; host, hostess; Jesuit, Jesuitess; Jew,

Jewess; mayor, mayoress; Moabite, Moabitess; monarch, monarchess; pape,

papess_; or, _pope, popess; patron, patroness; peer, peeress; poet,

poetess; priest, priestess; prior, prioress; prophet, prophetess; regent,

regentess; saint, saintess; shepherd, shepherdess; soldier, soldieress;

tailor, tailoress; viscount, viscountess; warrior, warrioress_.

2. In other instances, the termination is changed, and there is no increase

of syllables: as, _abbot, abbess; actor, actress; adulator, adulatress;

adulterer, adulteress; adventurer, adventuress; advoutrer, advoutress;

ambassador, ambassadress; anchorite, anchoress_; or, _anachoret,

anachoress; arbiter, arbitress; auditor, auditress; benefactor,

benefactress; caterer, cateress; chanter, chantress; cloisterer,

cloisteress; commander, commandress; conductor, conductress; creator,

creatress; demander, demandress; detractor, detractress; eagle, eagless;

editor, editress; elector, electress; emperor, emperess_, or _empress;

emulator, emulatress; enchanter, enchantress; exactor, exactress; fautor,

fautress; fornicator, fornicatress; fosterer, fosteress_, or _fostress;

founder, foundress; governor, governess; huckster, huckstress_; or,

_hucksterer, hucksteress; idolater, idolatress; inhabiter, inhabitress;

instructor, instructress; inventor, inventress; launderer, launderess_, or

_laundress; minister, ministress; monitor, monitress; murderer, murderess;

negro, negress; offender, offendress; ogre, ogress; porter, portress;

progenitor, progenitress; protector, protectress; proprietor, proprietress;

pythonist, pythoness; seamster, seamstress; solicitor, solicitress;

songster, songstress; sorcerer, sorceress; suitor, suitress; tiger,

tigress; traitor, traitress; victor, victress; votary, votaress_.

3. In a few instances the feminine is formed as in Latin, by changing _or_

to _rix_; but some of these have also the regular form, which ought to be

preferred: as, _adjutor, adjutrix; administrator, administratrix;

arbitrator, arbitratrix; coadjutor, coadjutrix; competitor, competitress_,

or _competitrix; creditor, creditrix; director, directress_, or _directrix;

executor, executress_, or _executrix; inheritor, inheritress_, or

_inheritrix; mediator, mediatress_, or _mediatrix; orator, oratress_, or

_oratrix; rector, rectress_, or _rectrix; spectator, spectatress_, or

_spectatrix; testator, testatrix; tutor, tutoress_, or _tutress_, or

_tutrix; deserter, desertress_, or _desertrice_, or _desertrix_.

4. The following are irregular words, in which the distinction of sex is

chiefly made by the termination: _amoroso, amorosa: archduke, archduchess;

chamberlain, chambermaid; duke, duchess; gaffer, gammer; goodman, goody;

hero, heroine; landgrave, landgravine; margrave, margravine; marquis,

marchioness; palsgrave, palsgravine; sakeret, sakerhawk; sewer, sewster;

sultan, sultana; tzar, tzarina; tyrant, tyranness; widower, widow_.

OBS. 12.--The proper names of persons almost always designate their sex;

for it has been found convenient to make the names of women different from

those of men. We have also some appellatives which correspond to each

other, distinguishing the sexes by their distinct application to each: as,

_bachelor, maid; beau, belle; boy, girl; bridegroom, bride; brother,

sister; buck, doe; boar, sow; bull, cow; cock, hen; colt, filly; dog,

bitch; drake, duck; earl, countess; father, mother; friar, nun; gander,

goose; grandsire, grandam; hart, roe; horse, mare; husband, wife; king,

queen; lad, lass; lord, lady; male, female; man, woman; master, mistress_;

Mister, Missis; (Mr., Mrs.;) _milter, spawner; monk, nun; nephew, niece;

papa, mamma; rake, jilt; ram, ewe; ruff, reeve; sire, dam; sir, madam;

sloven, slut; son, daughter; stag, hind; steer, heifer; swain, nymph;

uncle, aunt; wizard, witch; youth, damsel; young man, maiden_.

OBS. 13.--The people of a particular country are commonly distinguished by

some name derived from that of their country; as, _Americans, Africans,

Egyptians, Russians, Turks_. Such words are sometimes called _gentile

names_. There are also adjectives, of the same origin, if not the same

form, which correspond with them. "Gentile names are for the most part

considered as masculine, and the feminine is denoted by the gentile

adjective and the noun _woman_: as, a _Spaniard_, a _Spanish woman_; a

_Pole_, or _Polander_, a _Polish woman_. But, in a few instances, we always

use a compound of the adjective with _man_ or _woman_: as, an _Englishman_,

an _Englishwoman_; a _Welshman_, a _Welshwoman_; an _Irishman_, an

_Irishwoman_; a _Frenchman_, a _Frenchwoman_; a _Dutchman_, a _Dutchwoman_:

and in these cases the adjective is employed as the collective noun; as,

_the Dutch, the French_, &c. A _Scotchman_, and a _Scot_, are both in use;

but the latter is not common in prose writers: though some employ it, and

these generally adopt the plural, _Scots_, with the definite article, as

the collective term."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 70.

OBS. 14.--The names of things without life, used literally, are always of

the neuter gender: as, "When Cleopatra fled, Antony pursued her in a

five-oared galley; and, coming along side of her _ship_, entered _it_

without being seen by her."--_Goldsmith's Rome_, p. 160. "The _sun_, high

as _it_ is, has _its_ business assigned; and so have the

stars."--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 138. But inanimate objects are often

represented figuratively as having sex. Things remarkable for power,

greatness, or sublimity, are spoken of as masculine; as, the _sun, time,

death, sleep, fear, anger, winter, war_. Things beautiful, amiable, or

prolific, are spoken of as feminine; as, a _ship_, the _moon_, the _earth,

nature, fortune, knowledge, hope, spring, peace_. Figurative gender is

indicated only by the personal pronouns of the singular number: as, "When

we say of the _sun, He_ is setting; or of a _ship, She_ sails well."--_L.

Murray_. For these two objects, the _sun_ and a _ship_, this phraseology is

so common, that the literal construction quoted above is rarely met with.

OBS. 15.--When any inanimate object or abstract quality is distinctly

personified, and presented to the imagination in the character of a living

and intelligent being, there is necessarily a change of the gender of the

word; for, whenever personality is thus ascribed to what is literally

neuter, there must be an assumption of one or the other sex: as, "_The

Genius of Liberty_ is awakened, and springs up; _she_ sheds her divine

light and creative powers upon the two hemispheres. A great _nation_,

astonished at seeing _herself_ free, stretches _her_ arms from one

extremity of the earth to the other, and embraces the first nation that

became so."--_Abbé Fauchet_. But there is an inferior kind of

personification, or of what is called such, in which, so far as appears,

the gender remains neuter: as, "The following is an instance of

personification and apostrophe united: 'O _thou sword_ of the Lord! how

long will it be ere _thou_ be quiet? put _thyself_ up into _thy_ scabbard,

rest, and be still! How can _it_ be quiet, seeing the Lord hath given _it_

a charge against Askelon, and against the sea-shore? there hath he

appointed _it_.'"--_Murray's Gram._, p. 348. See _Jer._, xlvii, 6.

OBS. 16.--If what is called personification, does not always imply a change

of gender and an ascription of sex, neither does a mere ascription of sex

to what is literally of no sex, necessarily imply a personification; for

there may be sex without personality, as we see in brute animals. Hence the

gender of a brute animal personified in a fable, may be taken literally as

before; and the gender which is figuratively ascribed to the _sun_, the

_moon_, or a _ship_, is merely metaphorical. In the following sentence,

_nature_ is animated and made feminine by a metaphor, while a lifeless

object bearing the name of _Venus_, is spoken of as neuter: "Like that

conceit of old, which declared that the _Venus of Gnidos_ was not the work

of Praxiteles, since _nature herself_ had concreted the boundary surface of

_its_ beauty."--_Rush, on the Voice_, p. xxv.

OBS. 17.--"In personifications regard must be had to propriety in

determining the gender. Of most of the passions and moral qualities of man

the ancients formed deities, as they did of various other things: and, when

these are personified, they are usually made male or female, according as

they were gods or goddesses in the pagan mythology. The same rule applies

in other cases: and thus the planet Jupiter will be masculine; Venus,

feminine: the ocean, _Oce=anus_, masculine: rivers, months, and winds, the

same: the names of places, countries, and islands, feminine."--_Churchill's

Gram._, p. 71.

OBS. 18.--These suggestions are worthy of consideration, but, for the

gender which ought to be adopted in personifications, there seems to be no

absolute general rule, or none which English writers have observed with

much uniformity. It is well, however, to consider what is most common in

each particular case, and abide by it. In the following examples, the sex

ascribed is not that under which these several objects are commonly

figured; for which reason, the sentences are perhaps erroneous:--

"_Knowledge_ is proud that _he_ has learn'd so much;

_Wisdom_ is humble that _he_ knows no more."--_Cowper_.

"But hoary _Winter_, unadorned and bare,

Dwells in the dire retreat, and freezes there;

There _she_ assembles all her blackest storms,

And the rude hail in rattling tempests forms."--_Addison_.

"_Her_ pow'r extends o'er all things that have breath,

A cruel tyrant, and _her_ name is _Death_."--_Sheffield_.

CASES.

Cases, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish the relations of

nouns or pronouns to other words.

There are three cases; the _nominative_, the _possessive_, and the

_objective_.

The _nominative case_ is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which

usually denotes the subject of a finite verb: as, The _boy_ runs; _I_ run.

The subject of a finite verb is that which answers to _who_ or _what_

before it; as, "The boy runs."--_Who_ runs? "The _boy_." Boy is therefore

here in the _nominative_ case.

The _possessive case_ is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which

usually denotes the relation of property: as, The _boy's_ hat; _my_ hat.

The possessive case of nouns is formed, in the singular number, by adding

to the nominative _s preceded by an apostrophe_; and, in the plural, when

the nominative ends in _s_, by adding _an apostrophe only_: as, singular,

_boy's_; plural, _boys'_;--sounded alike, but written differently.

The _objective case_ is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which

usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition: as, I

know the _boy_, having seen _him_ at _school_; and he knows _me_.

The object of a verb, participle, or preposition, is that which answers to

_whom_ or _what_ after it; as, "I know the boy."--I know _whom_? "The boy."

_Boy_ is therefore here in the _objective_ case.

The nominative and the objective of nouns, are always alike in form, being

distinguishable from each other only by their place in a sentence, or by

their simple dependence according to the sense.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The cases, in grammar, are founded on the different relations

under which things are represented in discourse; and from which the words

acquire correspondent relations; or connexions and dependences according to

the sense. In Latin, there are six cases; and in Greek, five. Consequently,

the nouns and pronouns of those languages, and also their adjectives and

participles, (which last are still farther inflected by the three genders,)

are varied by many different terminations unknown to our tongue. In

English, those modifications or relations which we call cases, belong only

to nouns and pronouns; nor are there ever more than three. Pronouns are not

necessarily like their antecedents in case.

OBS. 2.--Because the infinitive mood, a phrase, or a sentence, may in some

instances be made the subject of a verb, so as to stand in that relation in

which the nominative case is most commonly found; very many of our

grammarians have deliberately represented all terms used in this manner, as

being "_in the nominative case_:" as if, to sustain any one of the

relations which are usually distinguished by a particular case, must

necessarily constitute that modification itself. Many also will have

participles, infinitives, phrases, and sentences, to be occasionally "_in

the objective case_:" whereas it must be plain to every reader, that they

are, all of them, _indeclinable_ terms; and that, if used in any relation

common to nouns or pronouns, they assume that office, as participles, as

infinitives, as phrases, or as sentences, and not as _cases_. They no more

take the nature of cases, than they become nouns or pronouns. Yet Nixon, by

assuming that _of_, with the word governed by it, constitutes a _possessive

case_, contrives to give to participles, and even to the infinitive mood,

_all three of the cases_. Of the infinitive, he says, "An examination of

the first and second methods of parsing this mood, must naturally lead to

the inference that _it is a substantive_; and that, if it has the

nominative case, it must also have the possessive and objective cases of a

substantive. The fourth method proves its [capacity of] being in the

possessive case: thus, 'A desire _to learn_;' that is, '_of learning_.'

When it follows a participle, or a verb, as by the fifth or [the] seventh

method, it is in the objective case. Method sixth is analogous to the Case

Absolute of a substantive."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 83. If the infinitive

mood is really a _declinable substantive_, none of our grammarians have

placed it in the right chapter; except that bold contemner of all

grammatical and literary authority, Oliver B. Peirce. When will the cause

of learning cease to have assailants and underminers among those who

profess to serve it? Thus every new grammatist, has some grand absurdity or

other, peculiar to himself; and what can be more gross, than to talk of

English infinitives and participles as being in the _possessive case_?

OBS. 3.--It was long a subject of dispute among the grammarians, what

number of cases an English noun should be supposed to have. Some, taking

the Latin language for their model, and turning certain phrases into cases

to fill up the deficits, were for having _six_ in each number; namely, the

nominative, the genitive, the dative, the accusative, the vocative, and the

ablative. Others, contending that a case in grammar could be nothing else

than a terminational inflection, and observing that English nouns have but

one case that differs from the nominative in form, denied that there were

more than two, the nominative and the possessive. This was certainly an

important question, touching a fundamental principle of our grammar; and

any erroneous opinion concerning it, might well go far to condemn the book

that avouched it. Every intelligent teacher must see this. For what sense

could be made of parsing, without supposing an objective case to nouns? or

what propriety could there be in making the words, _of_, and _to_, and

_from_, govern or compose three different cases? Again, with what truth can

it be said, that nouns have _no cases_ in English? or what reason can be

assigned for making more than three?

OBS. 4.--Public opinion is now clear in the decision, that it is

_expedient_ to assign to English nouns three cases, and no more; and, in a

matter of this kind, what is expedient for the purpose of instruction, is

right. Yet, from the works of our grammarians, may be quoted every

conceivable notion, right or wrong, upon this point. Cardell, with Tooke

and Gilchrist on his side, contends that English nouns have _no cases_.

Brightland averred that they have neither cases nor genders.[162] Buchanan,

and the author of the old British Grammar, assigned to them _one_ case

only, the possessive, or genitive. Dr. Adam also says, "In English, nouns

have _only one case_, namely, the genitive, or possessive case."--_Latin

and Eng. Gram._, p. 7. W. B. Fowle has two cases, but rejects the word

_case_: "We use the simple term _agent_ for a _noun that acts_, and

_object_ for the object of an action."--_Fowle's True Eng. Gram._, Part II,

p. 68. Spencer too discards the word _case_, preferring "_form_," that he

may merge in one the nominative and the objective, giving to nouns _two_

cases, but neither of these. "Nouns have _two Forms_, called the _Simple_

and [the] _Possessive_."--_Spencer's E. Gram._, p. 30. Webber's Grammar,

published at Cambridge in 1832, recognizes but _two_ cases of nouns,

declaring the objective to be "altogether superfluous."--P. 22. "Our

substantives have no more cases than two."--_Jamieson's Rhet._, p. 14. "A

Substantive doth not properly admit of more than two cases: the Nominative,

and the Genitive."--_Ellen Devis's Gram._, p. 19. Dr. Webster, in his

Philosophical Grammar, of 1807, and in his Improved Grammar, of 1831,

teaches the same doctrine, but less positively. This assumption has also

had the support of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, Ash, Bicknell, Fisher,

Dalton, and our celebrated Lindley Murray.[163] In Child's or Latham's

English Grammar, 1852, it is said, "The cases in the present English are

three:--1. Nominative; 2. Objective; 3. Possessive." But this seems to be

meant of pronouns only; for the next section affirms, "The _substantives_

in English _have only two_ out of the three cases."--See pp. 79 and 80.

Reckless of the current usage of grammarians, and even of self-consistency,

both author and reviser will have no objective case of nouns, because this

is like the nominative; yet, finding an objective set after "the adjective

_like_," they will recognize it as "_a dative_ still existing in

English!"--See p. 156. Thus do they forsake their own enumeration of cases,

as they had before, in all their declensions, forsaken the new order in

which they had at first so carefully set them!

OBS. 5.--For the _true_ doctrine of _three_ cases, we have the authority of

Murray, in his later editions; of Webster, in his "Plain and Comp. Grammar,

grounded on _True Principles_," 1790; also in his "Rudiments of English

Grammar," 1811; together with the united authority of Adams, Ainsworth,

Alden, Alger, Bacon, Barnard, Bingham, Burr, Bullions, Butler, Churchill,

Chandler, Cobbett, Cobbin, Comly, Cooper, Crombie, Davenport, Davis, Fisk,

A. Flint, Frost, Guy, Hart, Hiley, Hull, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Kirkham,

Lennie, Mack, M'Culloch, Maunder, Merchant, Nixon, Nutting, John Peirce,

Perley, Picket, Russell, Smart, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith, Wilcox, and I

know not how many others.

OBS. 6.--Dearborn, in 1795, recognized _four_ cases: "the nominative, the

possessive, the objective, and the absolute."--_Columbian Gram._, pp. 16

and 20. Charles Bucke, in his work misnamed "A Classical Grammar of the

English Language," published in London in 1829, asserts, that,

"Substantives in English do not vary their terminations;" yet he gives them

_four_ cases; "the nominative, the genitive, the accusative, and the

vocative." So did Allen, in a grammar much more classical, dated, London,

1813. Hazen, in 1842, adopted "four cases; namely, the nominative, the

possessive, the objective, and the independent."--_Hazen's Practical

Gram._, p. 35. Mulligan, since, has chosen these four: "Nominative,

Genitive, Dative, Accusative."--_Structure of E. Lang._, p. 185. And yet

his case after _to_ or _for_ is _not_ "_dative_," but "_accusative!_"--

_Ib._, p. 239. So too, Goodenow, of Maine, makes the cases four: "the

_subjective_,[164] the _possessive_, the _objective_, and the

_absolute_."--_Text-Book_, p. 31. Goldsbury, of Cambridge, has also four:

"the Nominative, the Possessive, the Objective, and the Vocative."--_Com.

S. Gram._, p. 13. Three other recent grammarians,--Wells, of Andover,--

Weld, of Portland,--and Clark, of Bloomfield, N. Y.,--also adopt "_four_

cases;--the _nominative_, the _possessive_, the _objective_, and the

_independent_."--_Wells's Gram._, p. 57; _Weld's_, 60; _Clark's_, 49. The

first of these gentlemen argues, that, "Since a noun or pronoun, used

_independently_, cannot at the same time be employed as 'the subject of a

verb,' there is a manifest impropriety in regarding it as a _nominative_."

It might as well be urged, that a nominative after a verb, or in apposition

with an other, is, for this reason, not a _nominative_. He also cites this

argument: "'Is there not as much difference between the _nominative_ and

[the] _independent_ case, as there is between the _nominative_ and [the]

_objective?_ If so, why class them together as _one_ case?'--_S. R.

Hall_."--_Wells's School Gram._, p. 51. To this I answer, No. "The

nominative is that case which _primely denotes the name_ of any person or

thing;" (_Burn's Gram._, p. 36;) and _this only_ it is, that can be

absolute, or independent, in English. This scheme of four cases is, in

fact, a grave innovation. As authority for it, Wells cites Felton; and bids

his readers, "See also Kennion, Parkhurst, Fowle, Flint, Goodenow, Buck,

Hazen, Goldsbury, Chapin, S. Alexander, and P. Smith."--Page 57. But is the

fourth case of these authors _the same_ as his? Is it a case which "has

usually the nominative form," but admits occasionally of "_me_" and

"_him_," and embraces objective nouns of "_time, measure, distance,

direction_, or _place_?" No. Certainly one half of them, and probably more,

give little or no countenance to _such_ an independent case as he has

adopted. Parkhurst admitted but three cases; though he thought _two others_

"might be an improvement." What Fowle has said in support of Wells's four

cases, I have sought with diligence, and not found. Felton's "independent

case" is only what he absurdly calls, "_The noun or pronoun addressed_."--

Page 91. Bucke and Goldsbury acknowledge "_the nominative case absolute_;"

and none of the twelve, so far as I know, admit any objective word, or what

others call objective, to be independent or absolute, except perhaps

Goldsbury.

OBS. 7.--S. R. Hall, formerly principal of the Seminary for Teachers at

Andover, (but no great grammarian,) in 1832, published a manual, called

"The Grammatical Assistant;" in which he says, "There are _at least five

cases_, belonging to English nouns, differing as much from _each_ other, as

the cases of Latin and Greek nouns. They may be called Nominative,

Possessive, Objective, Independent and Absolute."--P. 7. O. B. Peirce will

have both nouns and pronouns to be used in _five cases_, which he thus

enumerates: "Four simple cases; the Subjective, Possessive, Objective, and

the Independent; and the Twofold case."--_Gram._, p. 42. But, on page 56th,

he speaks of a "twofold _subjective_ case," "the twofold _objective_ case,"

and shows how the _possessive_ may be twofold also; so that, without taking

any of the Latin cases, or even all of Hall's, he really recognizes as many

as seven, if not eight. Among the English grammars which assume all the

_six cases_ of the Latin Language, are Burn's, Coar's, Dilworth's,

Mackintosh's, Mennye's, Wm. Ward's, and the "Comprehensive Grammar," a

respectable little book, published by Dobson of Philadelphia, in 1789, but

written by somebody in England.

OBS. 8.--Of the English grammars which can properly be said to be _now in

use_, a very great majority agree in ascribing to nouns three cases, and

three only. This, I am persuaded, is the best number, and susceptible of

the best defence, whether we appeal to authority, or to other argument. The

disputes of grammarians make no small part of the _history of grammar_; and

in submitting to be guided by their decisions, it is proper for us to

consider what _degree of certainty_ there is in the rule, and what

difference or concurrence there is among them: for, the teaching of any

other than the best opinions, is not the teaching of science, come from

what quarter it may. On the question respecting the objective case of

nouns, Murray and Webster _changed sides with each other_; and that, long

after they first appeared as grammarians. Nor was this the only, or the

most important instance, in which the different editions of the works of

these two gentlemen, present them in opposition, both to themselves and to

each other. "What cases are there in English? The _nominative_, which

usually stands before a verb; as, the _boy_ writes: The _possessive_, which

takes an _s_ with a _comma_, and denotes property; as, _John's_ hat: The

_objective_, which follows a verb or preposition; as, he honors _virtue_,

or it is an honor to _him_."--_Webster's Plain and Comp. Gram., Sixth

Edition_, 1800, p. 9. "But for convenience, the two positions of nouns, one

_before_, the other _after_ the verb, are called _cases_. There are then

three cases, the _nominative, possessive_, and _objective_."--_Webster's

Rudiments of Gram._, 1811, p. 12. "In English therefore names have two

cases only, the _nominative_ or simple name, and the _possessive_."--

_Webster's Philosoph. Gram._, 1807, p. 32: also his _Improved Gram._, 1831,

p. 24.

OBS. 9.--Murray altered his opinion after the tenth or eleventh edition of

his duodecimo Grammar. His instructions stand thus: "In English,

substantives have but two cases, the nominative, and [the] possessive or

genitive."--_Murray's Gram. 12mo, Second Edition_, 1796, p. 35. "For the

assertion, that there are in English but two cases of nouns, and three of

pronouns, we have the authority of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, &c. _names

which are sufficient_ to decide this point."--_Ib._, p. 36. "In English,

substantives have three cases, the nominative, the possessive, and the

objective."--_Murray's Gram., 12mo, Twenty-third Edition_, 1816, p. 44.

"The author of this work _long doubted_ the propriety of assigning to

English substantives an _objective case_: but a renewed critical

examination of the subject; an examination to which he was prompted by the

extensive and increasing demand for the grammar, has produced in his mind

_a full persuasion_, that the nouns of our language are entitled to this

comprehensive objective case."--_Ib._, p. 46. If there is any credit in

changing one's opinions, it is, doubtless, in changing them for the better;

but, of all authors, a grammarian has the most need critically to examine

his subject before he goes to the printer. "This case was adopted in the

_twelfth edition_ of the Grammar."--_Murray's Exercises_, 12mo, N. Y.,

1818, p. viii.

OBS. 10.--The _possessive case_ has occasioned no less dispute than the

objective. On this vexed article of our grammar, custom has now become much

more uniform than it was a century ago; and public opinion may be said to

have settled most of the questions which have been agitated about it. Some

individuals, however, are still dissatisfied. In the first place, against

those who have thought otherwise, it is determined, by infinite odds of

authority, that there _is such a case_, both of nouns and of pronouns. Many

a common reader will wonder, who can have been ignorant enough to deny it.

"The learned and sagacious Wallis, to whom every English grammarian owes a

tribute of reverence, calls this modification of the noun an _adjective

possessive_; I think, with no more propriety than he might have applied the

same to the Latin genitive."--_Dr. Johnson's Gram._, p. 5. Brightland also,

who gave to _adjectives_ the name of _qualities_, included all possessives

among them, calling them "_Possessive Qualities_, or _Qualities of

Possession_."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. 90.

OBS. 11.--This exploded error, William S. Cardell, a few years ago,

republished as a novelty; for which, among other pretended improvements of

a like sort, he received the ephemeral praise of some of our modern

literati. William B. Fowle also teaches the same thing. See his _Common

School Gram._, Part II, p. 104. In Felch's Grammar, too, published in

Boston in 1837, an attempt is made, to revive this old doctrine; but the

author takes no notice of any of the above-named authorities, being

probably ignorant of them all. His _reasoning_ upon the point, does not

appear to me to be worthy of a detailed answer.[165] That the possessive

case of nouns is not an adjective, is demonstrable; because it may have

adjectives of various kinds, relating to it: as, "_This old man's_

daughter."--_Shak._ It may also govern an other possessive; as, "_Peter's

wife's_ mother."--_Bible_. Here the former possessive is governed by the

latter; but, if both were adjectives, they would both relate to the noun

_mother_, and so produce a confusion of ideas. Again, nouns of the

possessive case have a distinction of number, which adjectives have not. In

gender also, there lies a difference. Adjectives, whenever they are varied

by gender or number, _agree with their nouns_ in these respects. Not so

with possessives; as, "In the _Jews'_ religion."--_Gal._, i. 13. "The

_children's_ bread."--_Mark_, vii, 27. "Some _men's_ sins."--_1 Tim._, v,

24. "Other _men's_ sins."--_Ib._, ver. 22.

OBS. 12.--Secondly, general custom has clearly determined that the

possessive case of _nouns_ is always to be written _with an apostrophe_:

except in those few instances in which it is not governed singly by the

noun following, but so connected with an other that both are governed

jointly; as, "_Cato the Censor's_ doctrine,"--"_Sir Walter Scott's_

Works,"--"_Beaumont_ and _Fletcher's Plays._" This custom of using the

apostrophe, however, has been opposed by many. Brightland, and Buchanan,

and the author of the British Grammar, and some late writers in the

Philological Museum, are among those who have successively taught, that the

possessive case should be formed _like the nominative plural_, by adding

_s_ when the pronunciation admits the sound, and _es_ when the word

acquires an additional syllable. Some of these approve of the apostrophe,

and others do not. Thus Brightland gives some examples, which are contrary

to his rule, adopting that strange custom of putting the _s_ in Roman, and

the name in Italic; "as, King _Charles_'s _Court_, and St. _James_'s

_Park._"--_Gram. of the English Tongue_, p. 91.

OBS. 13.--"The genitive case, in my opinion," says Dr. Ash, "might be much

more properly formed by adding _s_, or when the pronunciation requires it,

_es_, without an Apostrophe: as, _men, mens; Ox, Oxes; Horse, Horses; Ass,

Asses._"--_Ash's Gram._, p. 23. "To write _Ox's, Ass's, Fox's_, and at the

same time pronounce it _Oxes, Asses, Foxes_, is such a departure from the

original formation, at least in writing, and such an inconsistent use of

the Apostrophe, as cannot be equalled perhaps in any other

language."--_Ib._ Lowth, too, gives some countenance to this objection: "It

[i.e., _'God's grace'_] was formerly written _'Godis grace;'_ we now always

shorten it with an apostrophe; often _very improperly_, when we are obliged

to pronounce it fully; as, _'Thomas's_ book,' that is, '_Thomasis_ book,'

not '_Thomas his_ book,' as it is commonly supposed."--_Lowth's Gram._, p.

17. Whatever weight there may be in this argument, the objection has been

overruled by general custom. The convenience of distinguishing, even to the

eye alone, the numbers and cases of the noun, is found too great to be

relinquished. If the declension of English nouns is ever to be amended, it

cannot be done in this way. It is understood by every reader, that the

_apostrophic s_ adds a syllable to the noun, whenever it will not unite

with the sound in which the nominative ends; as, _torch's_, pronounced

_torchiz_.

"Yet time ennobles or degrades each line;

It brightened _Craggs's_, and may darken thine."--_Pope._

OBS. 14.--The English possessive case unquestionably originated in that

form of the Saxon genitive which terminates in _es_, examples of which may

be found in almost any specimen of the Saxon tongue: as, "On _Herodes_

dagum,"--"In _Herod's_ days;"--"Of _Aarones_ dohtrum,"--"Of _Aaron's_

daughters."--_Luke_, i, 5. This ending was sometimes the same as that of

the plural; and both were changed to _is_ or _ys_, before they became what

we now find them. This termination added a syllable to the word; and Lowth

suggests, in the quotation above, that the apostrophe was introduced to

shorten it. But some contend, that the use of this mark originated in a

mistake. It appears from the testimony of Brightland, Johnson, Lowth,

Priestley, and others, who have noticed the error in order to correct it,

that an opinion was long entertained, that the termination _'s_ was a

contraction of the word _his_. It is certain that Addison thought so; for

he expressly says it, in the 135th number of the Spectator. Accordingly he

wrote, in lieu of the regular possessive, "My paper is _Ulysses his_

bow."--_Guardian_, No. 98. "Of _Socrates his_ rules of prayer."--_Spect._,

No. 207. So Lowth quotes Pope: "By _young Telemachus his_ blooming

years."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 17.[166] There is also one late author who

says, "The _'s_ is a contraction of _his_, and was formerly written in

full; as, William Russell _his_ book."--_Goodenow's Gram._, p. 32. This is

undoubtedly bad English; and always was so, however common may have been

the erroneous notion which gave rise to it. But the apostrophe, whatever

may have been its origin, is now the acknowledged distinctive mark of the

possessive case of English nouns. The application of the _'s_, frequently

to feminines, and sometimes to plurals, is proof positive that it is _not a

contraction_ of the pronoun _his_; as,

"Now Jove suspends his golden scales in air,

Weighs the _men's_ wits against the _Lady's_ hair."

--_Pope_, R. of L., C. v, l. 72.

OBS. 15.--Many of the old grammarians, and Guy, Pinneo, and Spencer, among

the moderns, represent the regular formation of the possessive case as

being the same in both numbers, supposing generally in the plural an

abbreviation of the word by the omission of the second or syllabic _s_.

That is, they suppose that such terms as _eagles' wings, angels' visits_,

were written for _eagles's wings, angels's visits_, &c. This odd view of

the matter accounts well enough for the fashion of such plurals as _men's,

women's, children's_, and makes them regular. But I find no evidence at all

of the fact on which these authors presume; nor do I believe that the

regular possessive plural was ever, in general, a syllable longer than the

nominative. If it ever had been so, it would still be easy to prove the

point, by citations from ancient books. The general principle then is, that

_the apostrophe forms the possessive case, with an s in the singular, and

without it in the plural_; but there are some exceptions to this rule, on

either hand; and these must be duly noticed.

OBS. 16.--The chief exceptions, or irregularities, in the formation of the

possessive _singular_, are, I think, to be accounted mere poetic licenses;

and seldom, if ever, to be allowed in prose. Churchill, (closely copying

Lowth,) speaks of them thus: "In poetry the _s_ is frequently omitted after

proper names ending in _s_ or _x_ as, 'The wrath of _Peleus'_ son.' _Pope._

This is scarcely allowable in prose, though instances of it occur: as,

'_Moses'_ minister.' _Josh._, i, 1. _'Phinehas'_ wife.' _1 Sam._, iv, 19.

'Festus came into _Felix'_ room.' _Acts_, xxiv, 27. It was done in prose

evidently to avoid the recurrence of a sibilant sound at the end of two

following syllables; but this may as readily be obviated by using the

preposition _of_, which is now commonly substituted for the possessive case

in most instances."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 215. In Scott's Bible,

Philadelphia, 1814, the texts here quoted are all of them corrected, thus:

"_Moses's_ minister,"--"_Phinehas's_ wife,"--"_Felix's_ room." But the

phrase, "for _conscience_ sake," (_Rom._, xiii, 5,) is there given without

the apostrophe. Alger prints it, "for _conscience'_ sake," which is better;

and though not regular, it is a common form for this particular expression.

Our common Bibles have this text: "And the weaned child shall put his hand

on the _cockatrice'_ den."--_Isaiah_, xi, 8. Alger, seeing this to be

wrong, wrote it, "on the _cockatrice-den_."--_Pronouncing Bible._ Dr.

Scott, in his Reference Bible, makes this possessive regular, "on the

_cockatrice's_ den." This is right. The Vulgate has it, "_in caverna

reguli_;" which, however, is not classic Latin. After _z_ also, the poets

sometimes drop the _s_: as,

"Sad was the hour, and luckless was the day,

When first from _Shiraz'_ walls I bent my way."--_Collins._

OBS. 17.--A recent critic, who, I think, has not yet learned to speak or

write the possessive case of _his own name_ properly, assumes that the

foregoing occasional or poetical forms are the only true ones for the

possessive singular of such words. He says, "When the name _does end_ with

the sound of _s_ or _z_, (no matter what letter represents the sound,) the

possessive form _is made_ by annexing only an apostrophe."--_O. B. Peirce's

Gram._, p. 44. Agreeably to this rule, he letters his work, "_Peirce'

Grammar_," and condemns, as bad English, the following examples and all

others like them: "James _Otis's_ letters, General _Gates's_ command,

General _Knox's_ appointment, Gov. _Meigs's_ promptness, Mr. _Williams's_

oration, The _witness's_ deposition."--_Ib._, p. 60. It is obvious that

this gentleman's doctrine and criticism are as contrary to the common

practice of all good authors, as they are to the common grammars, which he

ridicules. Surely, such expressions as, "_Harris's_ Hermes, _Philips's_

Poems, _Prince's_ Bay, _Prince's_ Island, _Fox's_ Journal, King _James's_

edict, a _justice's_ warrant, _Sphinx's_ riddle, the _lynx's_ beam, the

_lass's_ beauty," have authority enough to refute the cavil of this writer;

who, being himself wrong, falsely charges the older grammarians, that,"

their theories vary from the principles of the language correctly spoken or

written."--_Ib._, p. 60. A much more judicious author treats this point of

grammar as follows: "When the possessive noun is singular, and terminates

with an _s_, another _s_ is requisite after it, and the apostrophe must be

placed between the two; as, '_Dickens's_ works,'--'_Harris's_

wit.'"--_Day's Punctuation, Third London Edition_, p. 136. The following

example, too, is right: "I would not yield to be your _house's_

guest."--_Shakespeare_.

OBS. 18.--All _plural_ nouns that differ from the singular without ending

in _s_, form the possessive case in the same manner as the singular: as,

_man's, men's; woman's, women's j child's, children's; brother's, brothers'

or brethren's; ox's, oxen's; goose, geese's_. In two or three words which

are otherwise alike in both numbers, the apostrophe ought to follow the _s_

in the plural, to distinguish it from the singular: as, the _sheep's_

fleece, the _sheeps'_ fleeces; a _neat's_ tongue, _neats'_ tongues; a

_deer's_ horns, a load of _deers'_ horns.

OBS. 19.--Dr. Ash says, "Nouns of the plural number that end in _s_, will

not very properly admit of the genitive case."--_Ash's Gram._, p. 54. And

Dr. Priestley appears to have been of the same opinion. See his _Gram._, p.

69. Lowth too avers, that the sign of the possessive case is "never added

to the plural number ending in _s_."--_Gram._, p. 18. Perhaps he thought

the plural sign must involve an other _s_, like the singular. This however

is not true, neither is Dr. Ash's assertion true; for the New Testament

speaks as properly of "the _soldiers'_ counsel," as of the "_centurion's_

servant;" of "the scribes that were of the _Pharisees'_ part," as of

"_Paul's sister's_ son." It would appear, however, that the possessive

plural is less frequently used than the possessive singular; its place

being much oftener supplied by the preposition _of_ and the objective. We

cannot say that either of them is absolutely necessary to the language; but

they are both worthy to be commended, as furnishing an agreeable variety of

expression.

"Then shall _man's_ pride and dulness comprehend

His _actions', passions', being's_ use and end."--_Pope_.

OBS. 20.--The apostrophe was introduced into the possessive case, at least

for the singular number, in some part of the seventeenth century. Its

adoption for the plural, appears to have been later: it is not much used in

books a hundred years old. In Buchanan's "Regular English Syntax," which

was written, I know not exactly when, but near the middle of the eighteenth

century, I find the following paragraph: "We have certainly a Genitive

Plural, though there has been no Mark to distinguish it. The Warriors Arms,

i. e. the Arms of the Warriors, is as much a Genitive Plural, as the

Warrior's Arms, for the Arms of the Warrior is a Genitive Singular. To

distinguish this Genitive Plural, especially to Foreigners, we might use

the Apostrophe reversed, thus, the Warrior`s Arms, the Stone`s End, for the

End of the Stones, the Grocer`s, Taylor`s, Haberdasher`s, &c. Company; for

the Company of Grocers, Taylors, &c. The Surgeon`s Hall, for the Hall of

the Surgeons; the Rider`s Names, for the Names of the Riders; and so of all

Plural Possessives."--See _Buchan. Synt._, p. 111. Our present form of the

possessive plural, being unknown to this grammarian, must have had a later

origin; nor can it have been, as some imagine it was, an abbreviation of a

longer and more ancient form.

OBS. 21.--The apostrophic _s_ has often been added to nouns _improperly_;

the words formed by it not being intended for the possessive singular, but

for the nominative or objective plural. Thus we find such authors as

Addison and Swift, writing _Jacobus's_ and _genius's_, for _Jacobuses_ and

_geniuses_; _idea's, toga's_, and _tunica's_, for _ideas, togas_, and

_tunicas_; _enamorato's_ and _virtuoso's_, for _enamoratoes_ and

_virtuosoes_. Errors of this kind, should be carefully avoided.

OBS. 22.--The apostrophe and _s_ are sometimes added to mere characters, to

denote plurality, and not the possessive case; as, two _a_'s, three _b_'s,

four 9's. These we cannot avoid, except by using the _names_ of the things:

as, two _Aes_, three _Bees_, four _Nines_. "Laced down the sides with

little _c_'s."--_Steele_. "Whenever two _gg_'s come together, they are both

hard."--_Buchanan_. The names of _c_ and _g_, plural, are _Cees_ and

_Gees_. Did these authors _know_ the words, or did they not? To have

learned the _names_ of the letters, will be found on many occasions a great

convenience, especially to critics. For example: "The pronunciation of

these two consecutive _s's_ is hard."--_Webber's Gram._, p. 21. Better:

"_Esses_." "_S_ and _x_, however, are exceptions. They are pluralyzed by

adding _es_ preceded by a hyphen [-], as the _s-es_; the _x-es_."--_O. B.

Peirce's Gram._, p. 40. Better, use the _names, Ess_ and _Ex_, and

pluralize thus: "the _Esses_; the _Exes_."

"Make Q's of answers, to waylay

What th' other party's like to say."

--_Hudibras_, P. III, C. ii, l. 951.

Here the cipher is to be read _Kues_, but it has not the meaning of this

name merely. It is put either for the plural of _Q._, a _Question_, like D.

D.'s, (read _Dee-Dees_,) for _Doctors of Divinity_; or else, more

erroneously, for _cues_, the plural of _cue_, a turn which the next speaker

catches.

OBS. 23.--In the following example, the apostrophe and _s_ are used to give

the sound of a _verb's_ termination, to words which the writer supposed

were not properly verbs: "When a man in a soliloquy reasons with himself,

and _pro's_ and _con's_, and weighs all his designs."--_Congreve_. But

here, "_proes_ and _cons_," would have been more accurate. "We put the

ordered number of _m's_ into our composing-stick."--_Printer's Gram._ Here

"_Ems_" would have done as well. "All measures for _folio's_ and

_quarto's_, should be made to _m's_ of the English body; all measures for

_octavo's_, to Pica _m's_."--_Ibid._ Here regularity requires, "_folios,

quartoes, octavoes_," and "_pica Ems_." The verb _is_, when contracted,

sometimes gives to its nominative the same form as that of the possessive

case, it not being always spaced off for distinction, as it may be; as,

"A _wit's_ a feather, and a chief a rod;

An honest _man's_ the noblest work of God."

--_Pope, on Man_, Ep. iv, l. 247.

OBS. 24.--As the _objective case of nouns_ is to be distinguished from the

nominative, only by the sense, relation, and position, of words in a

sentence, the learner must acquire a habit of attending to these several

things. Nor ought it to be a hardship to any reader to understand that

which he thinks worth reading. It is seldom possible to mistake one of

these cases for the other, without a total misconception of the author's

meaning. The nominative denotes the agent, actor, or doer; the person or

thing that is made the subject of an affirmation, negation, question, or

supposition: its place, except in a question, is commonly _before_ the

verb. The objective, when governed by a verb or a participle, denotes the

person on whom, or the thing on which, the action falls and terminates: it

is commonly placed _after_ the verb, participle, or preposition, which

governs it. Nouns, then, by changing places, may change cases: as,

"_Jonathan_ loved _David_;" "_David_ loved _Jonathan_." Yet the case

depends not entirely upon position; for any order in which the words cannot

be misunderstood, is allowable: as, "Such tricks hath strong

imagination."--_Shak._ Here the cases are known, because the meaning is

plainly this: "Strong imagination hath such tricks." "To him give all the

prophets witness."--_Acts_, x, 43. This is intelligible enough, and more

forcible than the same meaning expressed thus: "All the prophets give

witness to him." The _order_ of the words never can affect the explanation

to be given of them in parsing, unless it change the sense, and form them

into a different sentence.

THE DECLENSION OF NOUNS.

The declension of a noun is a regular arrangement of its numbers and cases.

Thus:--

EXAMPLE I.--FRIEND.

Sing. Nom. friend, Plur. Nom. friends,

Poss. friend's, Poss. friends',

Obj. friend; Obj. friends.

EXAMPLE II.--MAN.

Sing. Nom. man, Plur. Nom. men,

Poss. man's, Poss. men's,

Obj. man; Obj. men.

EXAMPLE III.--FOX.

Sing. Nom. fox, Plur. Nom. foxes,

Poss. fox's, Poss. foxes',

Obj. fox; Obj. foxes.

EXAMPLE IV.--FLY.

Sing. Nom. fly, Plur. Nom. flies,

Poss. fly's, Poss. flies',

Obj. fly; Obj. flies.

EXAMPLES FOR PARSING.

PRAXIS III.--ETYMOLOGICAL.

_In the Third Praxis, it is required of the pupil--to distinguish and

define the different parts of speech, and the classes and modifications of

the ARTICLES and NOUNS.

The definitions to be given in the Third Praxis, are two for an article,

six for a noun, and one for an adjective, a pronoun, a verb, a participle,

an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition, or an interjection. Thus_:--

EXAMPLE PARSED.

"The writings of Hannah More appear to me more praiseworthy than Scott's."

_The_ is the definite article. 1. An article is the word _the, an_, or _a_,

which we put before nouns to limit their signification. 2. The definite

article is _the_, which denotes some particular thing or things.

_Writings_ is a common noun, of the third person, plural number, neuter

gender, and nominative case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or

thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a

sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person is that

which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The plural number is

that which denotes more than one. 5. The neuter gender is that which

denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is

that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject

of a finite verb.

_Of_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some

relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally

placed before a noun or a pronoun.

_Hannah More_ is a proper noun, of the third person, singular number,

feminine gender, and objective case. 1. A noun is the name of any person,

place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A proper noun is the

name of some particular individual, or people, or group. 3. The third

person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The

singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The feminine gender is

that which denotes persons or animals of the female kind. 6. The objective

case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the

object of a verb, participle, or preposition.

_Appear_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or

_to be acted upon_.

_To_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some

relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally

placed before a noun or a pronoun.

_Me_ is a pronoun. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun.

_More_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle,

an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place,

degree, or manner.

_Praiseworthy_ is an adjective. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun

or pronoun, and generally expresses quality.

_Than_ is a conjunction. 1. A conjunction is a word used to connect words

or sentences in construction, and to show the dependence of the terms so

connected.

_Scott's_ is a proper noun, of the third person, singular number, masculine

gender, and possessive case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or

thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A proper noun is the name of some

particular individual, or people, or group. 3. The third person is that

which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number

is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which

denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The possessive case is that

form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the relation of

property.

LESSON I.--PARSING.

"The virtue of Alexander appears to me less vigorous than that of Socrates.

Socrates in Alexander's place I can readily conceive: Alexander in that of

Socrates I cannot. Alexander will tell you, he can subdue the world: it was

a greater work in Socrates to fulfill the duties of life. Worth consists

most, not in great, but in good actions."--_Kames's Art of Thinking_, p.

70.

"No one should ever rise to speak in public, without forming to himself a

just and strict idea of what suits his own age and character; what suits

the subject, the hearers, the place, the occasion."--_Blair's Rhetoric_, p.

260.

"In the short space of little more than a century, the Greeks became such

statesmen, warriors, orators, historians, physicians, poets, critics,

painters, sculptors, architects, and, last of all, philosophers, that one

can hardly help considering that golden period, as a providential event in

honour of human nature, to show to what perfection the species might

ascend."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 417.

"Is genius yours? Be yours a glorious end,

Be your king's, country's, truth's, religion's friend."--_Young_.

LESSON II.--PARSING.

"He that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman:

likewise also, he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant."--_1

Cor._, vii, 22.

"What will remain to the Alexanders, and the Cæsars, and the Jenghizes, and

the Louises, and the Charleses, and the Napoleons, with whose 'glories' the

idle voice of fame is filled?"--_J. Dymond_. "Good sense, clear ideas,

perspicuity of language, and proper arrangement of words and thoughts, will

always command attention."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 174.

"A mother's tenderness and a father's care are nature's gifts for man's

advantage.--Wisdom's precepts form the good man's interest and

happiness."--_Murray's Key_, p. 194.

"A dancing-school among the Tuscaroras, is not a greater absurdity than a

masquerade in America. A theatre, under the best regulations, is not

essential to our happiness. It may afford entertainment to individuals; but

it is at the expense of private taste and public morals."--_Webster's

Essays_, p. 86.

"Where dancing sunbeams on the waters played,

And verdant alders form'd a quivering shade."--_Pope_.

LESSON III.--PARSING.

"I have ever thought that advice to the young, unaccompanied by the routine

of honest employments, is like an attempt to make a shrub grow in a certain

direction, by blowing it with a bellows."--_Webster's Essays_, p. 247.

"The Arabic characters for the writing of numbers, were introduced into

Europe by Pope Sylvester II, in the eleventh century."--_Constable's

Miscellany_.

"Emotions raised by inanimate objects, trees, rivers, buildings, pictures,

arrive at perfection almost instantaneously; and they have a long

endurance, a second view producing nearly the same pleasure with the

first."--_Kames's Elements_, i, 108.

"There is great variety in the same plant, by the different appearances of

its stem, branches, leaves, blossoms, fruit, size, and colour; and yet,

when we trace that variety through different plants, especially of the same

kind, there is discovered a surprising uniformity."--_Ib._, i, 273.

"Attitude, action, air, pause, start, sigh, groan,

He borrow'd, and made use of as his own."--_Churchill_.

"I dread thee, fate, relentless and severe,

With all a poet's, husband's, father's fear!"--_Burns_.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

ERRORS OF NOUNS.

LESSON I.--NUMBERS.

"All the ablest of the Jewish Rabbis acknowledge it."--_Wilson's Heb.

Gram._, p. 7.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the word _Rabbi_ is here made plural by the

addition of _s_ only. But, according to Observation 12th on the Numbers,

nouns in _i_ ought rather to form the plural in _ies_. The capital _R_,

too, is not necessary. Therefore, _Rabbis_ should be _rabbies_, with _ies_

and a small _r_.]

"Who has thoroughly imbibed the system of one or other of our Christian

rabbis."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 378. "The seeming singularitys of reason

soon wear off."--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 47. "The chiefs and arikis or

priests have the power of declaring a place or object taboo."--_Balbi's

Geog._, p. 460. "Among the various tribes of this family, are the

Pottawatomies, the Sacs and Foxes, or Saukis and Ottogamis."--_Ib._, p.

178. "The Shawnees, Kickapoos, Menomonies, Miamis and Delawares, are of the

same region."--_Ib._, p. 178. "The Mohegans and Abenaquis belonged also to

this family."--_Ib._, p. 178. "One tribe of this family, the Winnebagos,

formerly resided near lake Michigan."--_Ib._, p. 179. "The other tribes are

the Ioways, the Otoes, the Missouris, the Quapaws."--_Ib._, p. 179. "The

great Mexican family comprises the Aztecs, Toltecs, and Tarascos."--_Ib._,

p. 179. "The Mulattoes are born of negro and white parents; the Zambos, of

Indians and negroes."--_Ib._, p. 165. "To have a place among the

Alexanders, the Cæsars, the Lewis', or the Charles', the scourges and

butchers of their fellow-creatures."--_Burgh's Dignity_, i, 132. "Which was

the notion of the Platonic Philosophers and Jewish rabbii."--_Ib._, p. 248.

"That they should relate to the whole body of virtuosos."--_Gobbett's E.

Gram._, ¶ 212. "What thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love

them."--_Luke_, vi, 32. "There are five ranks of nobility; dukes,

marquesses, earls, viscounts, and barons."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 228. "Acts,

which were so well known to the two Charles's."--_Payne's Geog._, ii, 511.

"Court Martials are held in all parts, for the trial of the

blacks."--_Observer_, No. 458. "It becomes a common noun, and may have a

plural number; as, the two _Davids_; the two _Scipios_, the two

_Pompies_."--_Staniford's Gram._, p. 8. "The food of the rattlesnake is

birds, squirrels, hare, rats, and reptiles."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 177. "And

let fowl multiply in the earth."--_Genesis_, i, 22. "Then we reached the

hill-side where eight buffalo were grazing."--_Martineau's Amer._, i, 202.

"_Corset, n._ a pair of bodice for a woman."--_Worcester's Dict._, 12mo.

"As the _be's_; the _ce's_, the _doubleyu's_."--_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p.

40. "Simplicity is the means between ostentation and rusticity."--_Pope's

Pref. to Homer_. "You have disguised yourselves like tipstaves."--_Gil

Blas_, i, 111. "But who, that hath any taste, can endure the incessant

quick returns of the _also_'s, and the _likewise_'s, and the _moreover_'s,

and the _however_'s, and the _notwithstanding_'s?"--_Campbell's Rhet._, p.

439.

"Sometimes, in mutual sly disguise,

Let Aye's seem No's, and No's seem Aye's."--_Gay_, p. 431.

LESSON II.--CASES.

"For whose name sake, I have been made willing."--_Wm. Penn_.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the noun _name_, which is here meant for the

possessive case singular, has not the true form of that case. But,

according to a principle on page 258th, "The possessive case of nouns is

formed, in the singular number, by adding to the nominative _s preceded by

an apostrophe_; and, in the plural, when the nominative ends in _s_, by

adding _an apostrophe only_." Therefore, name should be _name's_; thus,

"For whose _name's_ sake, I have been made willing."]

"Be governed by your conscience, and never ask anybodies leave to be

honest."--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 105. "To overlook nobodies merit or

misbehaviour."--_Ib._, p. 9. "And Hector at last fights his way to the

stern of Ajax' ship."--_Coleridge's Introd._, p. 91. "Nothing is lazier,

than to keep ones eye upon words without heeding their meaning."--

_Philological Museum_, i, 645. "Sir William Joneses division of the

day."--_Ib., Contents_. "I need only refer here to Vosses excellent account

of it."--_Ib._, i, 465. "The beginning of Stesichoruses palinode has been

preserved."--_Ib._, i, 442. "Though we have Tibulluses elegies, there is

not a word in them about Glycera."--_Ib._, p. 446. "That Horace was at

Thaliarchuses country-house."--_Ib._, i, 451. "That Sisyphuses foot-tub

should have been still in existence."--_Ib._, i, 468. "How every thing went

on in Horace's closet, and in Mecenases antechamber."--_Ib._, i, 458. "Who,

for elegant brevities sake, put a participle for a verb."--_Walker's

Particles_, p. 42. "The countries liberty being oppressed, we have no more

to hope."--_Ib._, p. 73. "A brief but true account of this peoples'

principles."--_Barclay's Pref._ "As, the Churche's Peace, or the Peace of

the Church; Virgil's Eneid, or the Eneid of Virgil"--_British Gram._, p.

93. "As, Virgil's Æneid, for the Æneid of Virgil; the Church'es Peace, for

the Peace of the Church."--_Buchanan's Syntax_, p. 18. "Which, with

Hubner's Compend, and Wells' Geographia Classica, will be sufficient."--

_Burgh's Dignity_, i, 155. "Witness Homer's speaking horses, scolding

goddesses, and Jupiter enchanted with Venus' girdle."--_Ib._, i, 184. "Dr.

Watts' Logic may with success be read and commented on to them."--_Ib._, p.

156. "Potter's Greek, and Kennet's Roman Antiquities, Strauchius' and

Helvicus' Chronology."--_Ib._, p. 161. "_Sing_. Alice' friends, Felix'

property; _Plur._ The Alices' friends, The Felixes' property."--_O. B.

Peirce's Gram._, p. 46. "Such as Bacchus'es company,"--"at Bacchus'es

festivals."--_Ainsworth's Dict., w. Thyrsus._ "Burn's inimitable _Tam

o'Shanter_ turns entirely upon such a circumstance."--_Scott's Lay, Notes_,

p. 201. "Nominative, Men. Genitive, Mens. Objective, Men."--_Cutler's

Gram._, p. 20. "Mens Happiness or Misery is most part of their own

making."--_Locke, on Education_, p. 1. "That your Sons Cloths be never made

strait, especially about the Breast."--_Ib._, p. 15. "Childrens Minds are

narrow and weak."--_Ib._, p. 297. "I would not have little Children much

tormented about Punctilio's, or Niceties of Breeding."--_Ib._, p. 90. "To

fill his Head with suitable Idea's."--_Ib._, p. 113. "The Burgusdiscius's

and the Scheiblers did not swarm in those Days, as they do now."--_Ib._, p.

163. "To see the various ways of dressing--a calve's head!"--_Shenstone_,

Brit. Poets, Vol. vii, p. 143.

"He puts it on, and for decorum sake

Can wear it e'en as gracefully as she."--_Cowper's Task_.

LESSON III.--MIXED.

"Simon the witch was of this religion too."--_Bunyan's P. P._, p. 123.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the feminine name _witch_ is here applied to

a man. But, according to the doctrine of genders, on page 254th, "Names of

males are masculine; names of females, feminine;" &c. Therefore, _witch_

should be _wizard_; thus, "Simon the _wizard_," &c.]

"Mammodis, n. Coarse, plain India muslins."--_Webster's Dict._ "Go on from

single persons to families, that of the Pompeyes for instance."--_Collier's

Antoninus_, p. 142. "By which the ancients were not able to account for

phænomenas."--_Bailey's Ovid_, p. vi. "After this I married a wife who had

lived at Crete, but a Jew by birth."--_Josephus's Life_, p. 194. "The very

heathen are inexcusable for not worshipping him."--_Student's Manual_, p.

328. "Such poems as Camoen's Lusiad, Voltaire's Henriade, &c."--_Blair's

Rhet._, p. 422. "My learned correspondent writes a word in defence of large

scarves."--SPECT.: in _Joh. Dict._ "The forerunners of an apoplexy are

dulness, vertigos, tremblings."--ARBUTHNOT: _ib._ "_Vertigo_ changes the

_o_ into _~in=es_, making the plural _vertig~in=es_."--_Churchill's Gram._,

p. 59. "_Noctambulo_ changes the _o_ into _=on=es_, making the plural

_noctambul=on=es_."--_Ib._, p. 59. "What shall we say of

noctambulos?"--ARBUTHNOT: _in Joh. Dict._ "In the curious fretwork of rocks

and grottos."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 220. "_Wharf_ makes the plural

_wharves_."--_Smith's Gram._, p. 45; _Merchant's_, 29; _Picket's_, 21;

_Frost's_, 8. "A few cent's worth of maccaroni supplies all their

wants."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 275. "C sounds hard, like _k_, at the end of a

word or syllables."--_Blair's Gram._, p. 4. "By which the virtuosi try The

magnitude of every lie."--_Hudibras_. "Quartos, octavos, shape the

lessening pyre."--_Pope's Dunciad_, B. i, l. 162. "Perching within square

royal rooves."--SIDNEY: _in Joh. Dict._ "Similies should, even in poetry,

be used with moderation."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 166. "Similies should never

be taken from low or mean objects."--_Ib._, p. 167. "It were certainly

better to say, 'The house of lords,' than 'the Lord's house.'"--_Murray's

Gram._, 8vo, p. 177. "Read your answers. Unit figure? 'Five.' Ten's? 'Six.'

Hundreds? 'Seven.'"--_Abbott's Teacher_, p. 79. "Alexander conquered

Darius' army."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 58. "Three days time was requisite,

to prepare matters."--_Brown's Estimate_, ii, 156. "So we say that Ciceros

stile and Sallusts, were not one, nor Cesars and Livies, nor Homers and

Hesiodus, nor Herodotus and Theucidides, nor Euripides and Aristophanes,

nor Erasmus and Budeus stiles."--_Puttenham's Arte of English Poesie_, iii,

5. "_Lex_ (i.e. _legs_) is no other than our ancestors past participle

_læg, laid down_."--_Tooke's Diversions_, ii, 7. "Achaia's sons at Ilium

slain for the Atridæ' sake."--_Cowper's Iliad_. "The corpse[167] of half

her senate manure the fields of Thessaly."--_Addison's Cato_.

"Poisoning, without regard of fame or fear:

And spotted corpse are frequent on the bier."--_Dryden_.

CHAPTER IV.--ADJECTIVES.

An Adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses

quality: as, A _wise_ man; a _new_ book. You _two_ are _diligent_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--Adjectives have been otherwise called attributes, attributives,

qualities, adnouns; but none of these names is any better than the common

one. Some writers have classed adjectives with verbs; because, with a

neuter verb for the copula, they often form logical predicates: as, "Vices

_are contagious_." The Latin grammarians usually class them with nouns;

consequently their nouns are divided into nouns substantive and nouns

adjective. With us, substantives are nouns; and adjectives form a part of

speech by themselves. This is generally acknowledged to be a much better

distribution. Adjectives cannot with propriety be called _nouns_, in any

language; because they are not _the names_ of the qualities which they

signify. They must be _added_ to nouns or pronouns in order to make sense.

But if, in a just distribution of words, the term "_adjective nouns_" is

needless and improper, the term "_adjective pronouns_" is, certainly, not

less so: most of the words which Murray and others call by this name, are

not pronouns, but adjectives.

OBS. 2.--The noun, or substantive, is a _name_, which makes sense of

itself. The adjective is an adjunct to the noun or pronoun. It is a word

added to denote quality, situation, quantity, number, form, tendency, or

whatever else may characterize and distinguish the thing or things spoken

of. Adjectives, therefore, are distinguished _from_ nouns by their

_relation to_ them; a relation corresponding to that which qualities bear

to things: so that no part of speech is more easily discriminated than the

adjective. Again: English adjectives, as such, are all indeclinable. When,

therefore, any words usually belonging to this class, are found to take

either the plural or the possessive form, like substantive nouns, they are

to be parsed as nouns. To abbreviate expression, we not unfrequently, in

this manner, convert adjectives into nouns. Thus, in grammar, we often

speak of _nominatives, possessives_, or _objectives_, meaning nouns or

pronouns of the nominative, the possessive, or the objective case; of

_positives, comparatives_, or _superlatives_, meaning adjectives of the

positive, the comparative, or the superlative degree; of _infinitives,

subjunctives_, or _imperatives_, meaning verbs of the infinitive, the

subjunctive, or the imperative mood; and of _singulars, plurals_, and many

other such things, in the same way. So a man's _superiors_ or _inferiors_

are persons superior or inferior to himself. His _betters_ are persons

better than he. _Others_ are any persons or things distinguished from some

that are named or referred to; as, "If you want enemies, excel _others_; if

you want friends, let _others_ excel you."--_Lacon_. All adjectives thus

taken substantively, become _nouns_, and ought to be parsed as such, unless

this word _others_ is to be made an exception, and called a "_pronoun_."

"Th' event is fear'd; should we again provoke

Our _stronger_, some worse way his wrath may find."

--_Milton, P. L._, B. ii, l. 82.

OBS. 3.--Murray says, "Perhaps the words _former_ and _latter_ may be

properly ranked amongst the demonstrative pronouns, _especially in many of

their applications_. The following sentence may serve as an example: 'It

was happy for the state, that Fabius continued in the command with

Minutius: the _former's_ phlegm was a check upon the _latter's_

vivacity.'"--_Gram._, 8vo, p. 57. This I take to be bad English. _Former_

and _latter_ ought to be adjectives only; except when _former_ means

_maker_. And, if not so, it is too easy a way of multiplying pronouns, to

manufacture two out of one single anonymous sentence. If it were said, "The

deliberation of _the former_ was a seasonable chock upon the fiery temper

of _the latter_" the words _former_ and _latter_ would seem to me not to be

pronouns, but adjectives, each relating to the noun _commander_ understood

after it.

OBS. 4.--The sense and relation of words in sentences, as well as their

particular form and meaning, must be considered in parsing, before the

learner can say, with certainty, to what class they belong. Other parts of

speech, and especially nouns and participles, by a change in their

construction, may become adjectives. Thus, to denote the material of which

a thing is formed, we very commonly make the name of the substantive an

adjective to that of the thing: as, A _gold chain_, a _silver spoon_, a

_glass pitcher_, a _tin basin_, an _oak plank_, a _basswood slab_, a

_whalebone rod_. This construction is in general correct, whenever the

former word may be predicated of the latter; as, "The chain is gold."--"The

spoon is silver." But we do not write _gold beater_ for _goldbeater_, or

_silver smith_ for _silversmith_; because the beater is not gold, nor is

the smith silver. This principle, however, is not universally observed; for

we write _snowball, whitewash_, and many similar compounds, though the ball

is snow and the wash is white; and _linseed oil_, or _Newark cider_, may be

a good phrase, though the former word cannot well be predicated of the

latter. So in the following examples: "Let these _conversation_ tones be

the foundation of public pronunciation."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 334. "A

_muslin_ flounce, made very full, would give a very agreeable _flirtation_

air."--POPE: _Priestley's Gram._, p. 79.

"Come, calm Content, serene and sweet,

O gently guide my _pilgrim_ feet

To find thy _hermit_ cell."--_Barbauld_.

OBS. 5.--Murray says, "Various nouns placed before other nouns assume the

nature of adjectives: as, sea fish, wine vessel, corn field, meadow ground,

&c."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 48. This is, certainly, very lame instruction. If

there is not palpable error in all his examples, the propriety of them all

is at least questionable; and, to adopt and follow out their principle,

would be, to tear apart some thousands of our most familiar compounds.

"_Meadow ground_" may perhaps be a correct phrase, since the ground is

meadow; it seems therefore preferable to the compound word meadow-ground.

What he meant by "_wine vessel_" is doubtful: that is, whether a ship or a

cask, a flagon or a decanter. If we turn to our dictionaries, Webster has

_sea-fish_ and _wine-cask_ with a hyphen, and _cornfield_ without; while

Johnson and others have _corn-field_ with a hyphen, and _seafish_ without.

According to the rules for the figure of words, we ought to write them

_seafish, winecask, cornfield_. What then becomes of the thousands of

"adjectives" embraced in the "&c." quoted above?