Chapter III: The Numbers

§ 194. In the Greek language the word _patær_ signifies a _father_, denoting _one_, whilst _patere_ signifies _two fathers_, denoting a pair, and thirdly, _pateres_ signifies _fathers_, speaking of any number beyond two. The three words, _patær_, _patere_, and _pateres_, are said to be in different numbers, the difference of meaning being expressed by a difference of form. These numbers have names. The number that speaks of _one_ is the _singular_, the number that speaks of _two_ is the _dual_ (from the Latin word _duo_ = _two_), and the number that speaks of _more than two_ is the _plural_.

All languages have numbers, but all languages have not them to the same extent. The Hebrew has a dual, but it is restricted to nouns only. It has, moreover, this peculiarity; it applies, for the most part, only to things which are naturally double, as _the two eyes_, _the two hands_, &c. The Latin has no dual number, except the _natural_ one in the words _ambo_ and _duo_.

§ 195. The question presents itself,--to what extent have we numbers in English? Like the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, we have a singular and a plural. Like the Latin, and unlike the Greek and Hebrew, we have no dual.

§ 196. Different from the question, _to what degree have we numbers?_ is the question,--_over what extent of our language have we numbers?_ This distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who said _typtô_ = _I beat_, _typteton_ = _ye two beat_, _typtomen_ = _we beat_, had a dual number for their verbs as well as their nouns; while the Hebrew dual was limited to the nouns only. In the Greek, then, the dual number is spread over a greater extent of the language than in the Hebrew.

There is no dual in the _present_ English. It has been seen, however, that in the Anglo-Saxon there _was_ a dual. But the Anglo-Saxon dual, being restricted to the personal pronouns (_wit_ = _we two_; _git_ = _ye two_), was not co-extensive with the Greek dual.

There is no dual in the present German. In the ancient German there _was_ one.

In the present Danish and Swedish there is no dual. In the Old Norse and in the present Icelandic a dual number is to be found.

From this we learn that the dual number is one of those inflections that languages drop as they become modern.

§ 197. The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and the plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural? The Latins say _bonus pater_ = _a good father_; _boni patres_ = _good fathers_. In the Latin, the adjective _bonus_ changes its form with the change of number of the substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive that is changed. Hence we see that in the Latin language the numbers were extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the substantives and pronouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present English is in the same relation as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon there were plural forms for the adjectives.

§ 198. Respecting the formation of the plural, the current rule is, that it is formed from the singular by adding s, as _father_, _fathers_. This, however, is by no means a true expression. The letter s added to the word _father_, making it _fathers_, is s to the _eye_ only. To the _ear_ it is z. The word sounds _fatherz_. If the s retained its sound the spelling would be _fatherce_. In _stags_, _lads_, &c., the sound is _stagz_, _ladz_. The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously, though somewhat lengthily expressed, is as follows.--_The plural is formed from the singular, by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibilant (s):_ e.g. (the sound of the word being expressed), _pea_, _peaz_; _tree_, _treez_; _day_, _dayz_; _hill_, _hillz_; _hen_, _henz_; _gig_, _gigz_; _trap_, _traps_; _pit_, _pits_; _stack_, _stacks_.

§ 199. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary.

a. In the case of words ending in b, v, d, the th in _thine_ = ð, or g, a change either of the final flat consonant, or of the sharp s affixed, was _not a matter of choice but of necessity_; the combinations abs, avs, ads, aðs, ags, being unpronounceable.

b. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second (aps, afs, ats, aþs, aks), or the second to the first (abz, avz, adz, aðz, agz), is determined by _the habit of the particular language_ in question; and, with a few _apparent_ exceptions it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not _vice versâ_.

c. Such combinations as _peas_, _trees_, _hills_, _hens_, &c., (the s preserving its original power, and being sounded as if written _peace_, _treece_, _hillce_, _hence_), being pronounceable, the change from s to z, in words so ending, is _not_ a matter determined by the necessity of the case, but by the habit of the English language.

d. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in s, but in z, the original addition was not z, but s. This we infer from three facts: 1. From the spelling; 2. from the fact of the sound of z being either rare or non-existent in Anglo-Saxon; 3. from the sufficiency of the causes to bring about the change.

It may now be seen that some slight variations in the form of our plurals are either mere points of orthography, or else capable of being explained on very simple euphonic principles.

§ 200. _Boxes, churches, judges, lashes, kisses, blazes, princes_.--Here there is the addition, not of the mere letter s, but of the syllable -es. As s cannot be immediately added to s, the intervention of a vowel becomes necessary; and that all the words whose plural is formed in -es really end either in the sounds of s, or in the allied sounds of z, sh, or zh, may be seen by analysis; since x = ks, ch = tsh, and j or ge = dzh, whilst ce, in _prince_, is a mere point of orthography for s.

_Monarchs_, _heresiarchs_.--Here the ch equals not tsh, but k, so that there is no need of being told that they do not follow the analogy of _church_, &c.

_Cargoes_, _echoes_.--From _cargo_ and _echo_, with the addition of e; an orthographical expedient for the sake of denoting the length of the vowel o.

_Beauty, beauties_; _key, keys_.--Like the word _cargoes_, &c., these forms are points, not of etymology, but of orthography.

_Pence_.--The peculiarity of this word consists in having a _flat_ liquid followed by the sharp sibilant s (spelt ce), contrary to the rule given above. In the first place, it is a contracted form from _pennies_; in the second place, its sense is collective rather than plural; in the third place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it from _pens_, sounded _penz_. That its sense is _collective_ rather than _plural_, we learn from the word _sixpence_, which, compared with _sixpences_, is no plural, but a singular form.

_Dice_.--In respect to its form, peculiar for the reason that _pence_ is peculiar.--We find the sound of s after a vowel, where that of z is expected. This distinguishes _dice_ for play, from _dies_ (_diz_) for coining. _Dice_, perhaps, like _pence_, is collective rather than plural.

In _geese_, _lice_, and _mice_, we have, apparently, the same phenomenon as in _dice_, viz., a sharp sibilant (s) where a _flat_ one (z) is expected. The s, however, in these words is not the sign of the plural, but the last letter of the original word.

_Alms_.--This is no true plural form. The s belongs to the original word, Anglo-Saxon, _ælmesse_; Greek, [Greek: eleêmosunê]; just as the s in _goose_ does. How far the word, although a true singular in its form, may have a collective signification, and require its verb to be plural, is a point not of etymology, but of syntax. The same is the case with the word _riches_, from the French _richesse_. In _riches_ the last syllable being sounded as ez, increases its liability to pass for a plural.

_News_, _means_, _pains_.--These, the reverse of _alms_ and _riches_, are true plural forms. How far, in sense, they are singular is a point not of etymology, but of syntax.

_Mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _politics_, _ethics_, _optics_, _physics_.--The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each is the name of some department of study, of some art, or of some science. As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they denote, either of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let the arts and sciences of Greece be expressed in Greek, rather by a substantive and an adjective combined, than by a simple substantive; for instance, let it be the habit of the language to say _the musical art_, rather than _music_. Let the Greek for _art_ be a word in the feminine gender; e.g., [Greek: technê] (_tekhnæ_), so that the _musical art_ be [Greek: hê mousikê technê] (_hæ mousikæ tekhnæ_). Let, in the progress of language (as was actually the case in Greece), the article and substantive be omitted, so that, for the _musical art_, or for _music_, there stand only the feminine adjective, [Greek: mousikê]. Let there be, upon a given art or science, a series of books, or treatises; the Greek for _book_, or _treatise_, being a neuter substantive, [Greek: biblion] (_biblion_). Let the substantive meaning _treatise_ be, in the course of language, omitted, so that whilst the science of physics is called [Greek: phusikê] (_fysikæ_), physic, from [Greek: hê phusikê technê], a series of treatises (or even chapters) upon the science shall be called [Greek: phusika] (_fysika_) or physics. Now all this was what happened in Greece. The science was denoted by a feminine adjective singular, as [Greek: phusikê] (_fysicæ_), and the treatises upon it, by the neuter adjective plural, as [Greek: phusika] (_fysika_). The treatises of Aristotle are generally so named. To apply this, I conceive, that in the middle ages a science of Greek origin might have its name drawn from two sources, viz., from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, as _physic_, _logic_; in the second place a plural form, as _mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _optics_.

In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs to be, is a point of syntax.

§ 201. The plural form _children_ (_child-er-en_) requires particular notice.

In the first place it is a double plural; the -en being the -en in _oxen_, whilst the simpler form _child-er_ occurs in the old English, and in certain provincial dialects.

Now, what is the -er in _child-er_?

In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than that in -r; as _geisl-ar_ = _flashes_, _tung-ur_ = _tongues_, &c. Nevertheless, it is not the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question.

Besides the word _childer_, we collect from the Old High German the following forms in -r:--

Hus-ir, _Houses_,
Chalp-ir, _Calves_,
Lemp-ir, _Lambs_,
Plet-ir, _Blades of grass_,
Eig-ir, _Eggs_,

and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being _of the neuter gender_.

Now, the theory respecting this form which is propounded by Grimm is as follows:--

1. The -r represents an earlier -s.

2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number.

3. In this form it appears in the Moeso-Gothic: _ag-is_ = _fear_ (whence _ague_ = _shivering_), _hat-is_ = _hate_, _riqv-is_ = _smoke_ (_reek_). In none of these words is the -s radical, and in none is it limited to the singular number.

To these doctrines, it should be added, that the reason why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most probably, in the _collective_ nature of the words in which it occurs: _Husir_ = _a collection of houses_, _eiger_ = _a collection of eggs_, _eggery_ or _eyry_. In words like _yeoman-r-y_ and _Jew-r-y_, the -r has, probably, the same origin, and is _collective_.

In Wicliffe we find the form _lamb-r-en_, which is to _lamb_ as _children_ is to _child_.

§ 202. _The form in -en._--In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural number is more common than -n: _tungan_, tongues; _steorran_, stars. Of this termination we have evident remains in the words _oxen_, _hosen_, _shoon_, _eyne_, words more or less antiquated. This, perhaps, is _no_ true plural. In _welk-in_ = _the clouds_, the original singular form is lost.

§ 203. _Men_, _feet_, _teeth_, _mice_, _lice_, _geese_.--In these we have some of the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a certainty, true plurals, we should have an appearance somewhat corresponding to the so-called _weak_ and _strong_ tenses of verbs; viz., one series of plurals formed by a change of the vowel, and another by the addition of the sibilant. The word _kye_, used in Scotland for _cows_, is of the same class. The list in Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that of the present English.

_Sing._ _Plur._

Freónd Frýnd _Friends_.
Feónd Fynd _Foes_.
Niht Niht _Nights_.
Bóc Béc _Books_.
Burh Byrig _Burghs_.
Bróc Bréc _Breeches_.
Turf Týrf _Turves_.

§ 204. _Brethren_.--Here there are two changes. 1. The alteration of the vowel. 2. The addition of -en. Mr. Guest quotes the forms _brethre_ and _brothre_ from the Old English. The sense is collective rather than plural.

_Peasen_ = _pulse_.--As _children_ is a double form of one sort (r + en), so is _peasen_ a double form of another (s + en); _pea_, _pea-s_, _pea-s-en_. Wallis speaks to the _singular_ power of the form in -s;--"Dicunt nonnulli _a pease_, pluraliter _peasen_; at melius, singulariter _a pea_, pluraliter _pease_."--P. 77. He might have added, that, theoretically, _pease_ was the proper singular form; as shown by the Latin _pis-um_.

_Pullen_ = poultry.

_Lussurioso._--What? three-and-twenty years in law!

_Vendice._--I have known those who have been five-and-fifty, and all
about _pullen_ and pigs.--"Revenger's Tragedy," iv. 1.

If this were a plural form, it would be a very anomalous one. The -en, however, is no more a sign of the plural than is the -es in _rich-es_ (_richesse_.) The proper form is in -ain or -eyn.

A false theefe,
That came like a false fox, my _pullain_ to kill and mischeefe.
"Gammer Gurton's Needle," v. 2.

_Chickens_.--A third variety of the double inflection (en + s), with the additional peculiarity of the form _chicken_ being used, at present, almost exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was, probably, the plural of _chick_. So Wallis considered it:--"At olim etiam per -en vel -yn formabant pluralia; quorum pauca admodum adhuc retinemus. Ut, _an ox_, _a chick_, pluralitur _oxen_, _chicken_ (sunt qui dicunt in singulari _chicken_, et in plurali _chickens_)." _Chick_, _chick-en_, _chick-en-s_.

_Fern_.--According to Wallis the -n in _fer-n_ is the -en in _oxen_, in other words a plural termination:--"A _fere_ (_filix_) pluraliter _fern_ (verum nunc plerumque _fern_ utroque numero dicitur, sed et in plurali _ferns_); nam _fere_ et _feres_ prope obsoleta sunt." Subject to this view, the word _fer-n-s_ would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word _chicken-s_. It is doubtful, however, whether Wallis's view be correct. A reason for believing the -n to be radical is presented by the Anglo-Saxon form _fearn_, and the Old High German, _varam_.

_Women_.--Pronounced _wimmen_, as opposed to the singular form _woomman_. Probably an instance of accommodation.

_Houses_.--Pronounced _houz-ez_. The same peculiarity in the case of s and z, as occurs between f and v in words like _life_, _lives_, &c.

_Paths_, _youths_.--Pronounced _padhz_, _yoodhz_. The same peculiarity in the case of þ and ð, as occurs between s and z in the words _house_, _houses_. "Finita in f plerumque alleviantur in plurali numero, substituendo v; ut _wife_, _wives_, &c. Eademque alleviatio est etiam in s et th, quamvis retento charactere, in _house_, _cloth_, _path_."

§ 205. The words sounded _houz-ez_, _padh-z_, _yoodh-z_, taken along with the extract from Wallis, lead us to an important class of words.--§ 199 b.

§ 206. Certain words ending in f, like _loaf_, _wife_, &c.

The regular plural of these would be _loafs_, _wifes_, pronounced _loafce_, _wifce_, &c.

But this is not the case. The sound added to the final f is the sound of z, not that of s.

And the plurals are sounded _loavz_, _wivz_ (_wivez_, _weivz_).

Furthermore, the sound of the final f is changed to that of v; in other words, the _first_ of the two letters is accommodated to the second, in violation to the rule of § 199 b.

Can this be explained? Perhaps it can. In the Swedish language the letter f has the sound of v; so that _staf_ is sounded _stav_.

Again, in the allied languages the words in question end in the _flat_ (not the _sharp_) mute,--_weib_, _laub_, _calb_, _halb_, _stab_, &c. = _wife_, _leaf_, _calf_, _half_, _staff_.

This makes it probable that, originally, the f in _wife_, _loaf_, &c. was sounded as v; so that the singular forms were _wive_, _loav_.

If so, the _plural is_ perfectly normal; it being the _singular_ form on which the irregularity lies.

* * * * *