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.