Chapter V: Section I

Noun (Nomen) is that part of speech which expresses the subject of discourse, or which is the name of the thing spoken of, as, _table_, _house_, _river_.

Of nouns there are two kinds, proper and appellative.

A proper noun, or name, is the name of an individual, as _Alexander_, _London_, _Vesuvius_.

An appellative, or common noun, expresses a genus, or class of things, and is common or applicable to every individual of that class.

Nouns or Substantives (for these terms are equivalent) have also been divided into natural, artificial, and abstract. Of the first class, _man_, _horse_, _tree_, are examples. The names of things of our own formation are termed artificial substantives, as, _watch_, _house_, _ship_. The names of qualities or properties, conceived as existing by themselves, or separated from the substances to which they belong, are called abstract nouns; while Adjectives, expressing these qualities as conjoined with their subjects, are called concretes. _Hard_, for example, is termed the concrete, _hardness_ the abstract.

Nouns have also been considered as denoting genera, species, and individuals. Thus _man_ is a generic term, _an Englishman_ a special term, and _George_ an individual. Appellative nouns being employed to denote genera or species, and these orders comprising each many individuals, hence arises that accident of a common noun, called Number, by which we signify, whether one or more individuals of any genus or species be intended.

In English there are two numbers, the singular and the plural. The singular, expressing only one of a class or genus, is the noun in its simple form, as, _river_; the plural, denoting more than one, is generally formed by adding the letter s to the singular, as, _rivers_[9]. To this rule, however, there are many exceptions.

Nouns ending in _ch_, _sh_, _ss_, or _x_, form their plural by adding the syllable _es_ to the singular number, as, _church, churches_. Dr. Whately, (Archbishop of Dublin,) in violation of this universal rule, writes _premiss_ in the singular number, and _premises_ in the plural. (See his Logic, pp. 25, 26.) _Premise_, like _promise_, is the proper term, and makes _premises_ in the plural. _Premiss_ and _premises_ are repugnant to all analogy.--_Ch_ hard takes _s_ for the plural termination, and not _es_, as _patriarch, patriarchs_; _distich, distichs_.

Nouns ending in _f_ or _fe_, make their plural by changing _f_ or _fe_ into _ves_, as, _calf, calves_; _knife, knives_. Except _hoof_, _roof_, _grief_, _dwarf_, _mischief_, _handkerchief_, _relief_, _muff_, _ruff_, _cuff_, _snuff_, _stuff_, _puff_, _cliff_, _skiff_, with a few others, which in the formation of their plurals follow the general rule.

Nouns in _o_ impure form their plural by adding _es_, as, _hero, heroes_; _echo, echoes_: those which end in _o_ pure, by adding _s_, as, _folio, folios_.

Some nouns have their plural in _en_, thus following the Teutonic termination, as, _ox, oxen_; _man, men_.

Some are entirely anomalous, as, _die, dice_; _penny, pence_; _goose, geese_; _sow, swine_; and _brother_ makes _brethren_[10], when denoting persons of the same society or profession. _Die_, a stamp for coining, makes _dies_ in the plural.

_Index_ makes in the plural _indexes_, when it expresses a table of contents, and _indices_, when it denotes the exponent of an algebraic quantity.

Some are used alike in both numbers, as, _hose_[11], _deer_, _sheep_, these being either singular or plural.

Nouns expressive of whatever nature or art has made double or plural have no singular, as, _bowels_, _lungs_, _scissors_, _ashes_, _bellows_.

Nouns ending in _y_ impure form their plural by changing _y_ into _ies_, as _quality, qualities_.

Nouns purely Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, &c., retain their original plurals.

_Sing._ _Pl._
_Lat._ Arcanum Arcana
_Fr._ Beau Beaux
_Lat._ Erratum Errata
_Fr._ Monsieur Messieurs, Messrs.
_Heb._ Cherub Cherubim
_Heb._ Seraph Seraphim
_Lat._ Magus Magi
_Gr._ Phenomenon Phenomena
_Lat._ Stratum Strata
_Gr._ Automaton Automata
_Lat._ Vortex Vortices
_Lat._ Radius Radii
_Lat._ Genus Genera
_Gr._ Crisis Crises
_Gr._ Emphasis Emphases
_Gr._ Hypothesis Hypotheses
_Lat._ Genius Genii,

when denoting aërial spirits; but when signifying _men of genius_, or employed to express the plural of that combination of mental qualities which constitutes genius, it follows the general rule.

A proper name has a plural number when it becomes the name of more individuals than one, as, _the two Scipios_; _the twelve Cæsars_. It is to be observed, however, that it ceases then to be, strictly speaking, a proper name.

Some nouns have no plural. 1st. Those which denote things measured or weighed, unless when they express varieties, as, _sugar, sugars_; _wheat, wheats_; _oil, oils_; _wine, wines_. Here, not numbers of individuals, but different species or classes, are signified. In this sense the nouns are used plurally.

2d. Names of abstract, and also of moral qualities, as, _hardness_, _softness_, _prudence_, _envy_, _benevolence_, have no plural. It is to be observed, however, that several nouns of this class ending in _y_, when they do not express the quality or property in the abstract, but either its varieties or its manifestations, are used plurally. Thus we say, _levities_, _affinities_, _gravities_, &c. There may be different degrees and different exhibitions of the quality, but not a plurality.

Where displays of the mental quality are to be expressed, it is better in all cases to employ a periphrasis. Thus, instead of using with Hume (vol. vii. p. 411) the plural _insolences_, the expression _acts of insolence_, would be preferable.

Some of those words which have no singular termination are names of sciences, as, _mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _politics_, _ethics_, _pneumatics_, &c.

Of these, the term _ethics_ is, I believe, considered as either singular or plural.

_Mathematics_ is generally construed as plural; sometimes, however, we find it as singular. “It is a great pity,” says Locke, (vol. iii. p. 427, 8vo. 1794,) “Aristotle had not understood mathematics, as well as Mr. Newton, and made use of _it_ in natural philosophy.”

“But when mathematics,” says Mr. Harris, “instead of being applied to this excellent purpose, _are_ used not to exemplify logic, but to supply its place, no wonder if logic pass into contempt.”

Bacon improperly uses the word as singular and plural in the same sentence. “If a child,” says he, “be bird-witted, that is, hath not the faculty of attention, the mathematics _giveth_ a remedy thereunto; for in _them_, if the wit be caught away but a moment, one is new to begin.” He likewise frequently gives to some names of sciences a singular termination; and Beattie, with a few others, have, in some instances, followed his example.

“Thus far we have argued for the sake of argument, and opposed _metaphysic_ to metaphysic.”--_Essay on Truth._

“See physic beg the Stagyrite’s defence,
See metaphysic call for aid on sense.”--_Pope._

This usage, however, is not general.

_Metaphysics_ is used both as a singular and plural noun.

“Metaphysics _has_ been defined, by a writer deeply read in the ancient philosophy, ‘The science of the principles and causes of all things existing.’”--_Encyc. Brit._ Here the word is used as singular; as likewise in the following example:

“Metaphysics _has_ been represented by painters and sculptors as a woman crowned and blindfolded, holding a sceptre in her hand, and having at her feet an hour-glass and a globe.”

“Metaphysics _is_ that science, in which are understood the principles of other sciences.”--_Hutton._

In the following examples it is construed as a plural noun.

“Metaphysics _tend_ only to benight the understanding in a cloud of its own making.”--_Knox._

“Here, indeed, lies the justest and most plausible objection against a considerable part of metaphysics, that _they_ are not properly a science.”--_Hume._

The latter of these usages is the more common, and more agreeable to analogy. The same observation is applicable to the terms _politics_, _optics_, _pneumatics_, and other similar names of sciences.

“But in order to prove more fully that politics _admit_ of general truths.”--_Hume._

Here the term is used as plural.

_Folk_ and _folks_ are used indiscriminately; but the plural termination is here superfluous, the word _folk_ implying plurality.

_Means_ is used both as a singular and plural noun. Lowth recommends the latter usage only, and admits mean as the singular of means. But notwithstanding the authority of Hooker, Sidney, and Shakspeare, for the expressions _this mean_, _that mean_, &c., and the recommendation they receive from analogy, custom has so long decided in favour of _means_, repudiating the singular termination, that it may seem, perhaps, idle, as well as fastidious, to propose its dismission.

It is likewise observable, that the singular form of this noun is not to be found in our version of the Bible; a circumstance which clearly shows, that the translators preferred the plural termination.

That the noun _means_ has been used as a substantive singular by some of our best writers, it would be easy to prove by numberless examples. Let a few suffice.

“By _this_ means it became every man’s interest, as well as his duty, to prevent all crimes.”--_Temple_, vol. iii. p. 133.

“And by _this_ means I should not doubt.”--_Wilkins’s real Character._

“He by _that_ means preserves his superiority.”--_Addison._

“By _this_ means alone the greatest obstacles will vanish.”--_Pope._

“By _this_ means there was nothing left to the parliament of Ireland.”--_Blackstone_, vol. i. p. 102.

“Faith is not only _a_ means of obeying, but a principal act of obedience.”--_Young._

“_Every_ means was lawful for the public safety.”--_Gibbon._

That this word is also used as plural, the most inattentive English reader must have frequently observed.

“He was careful to observe what means _were_ employed by his adversaries to counteract his schemes.”

While we offer these examples to show that the term is used either as a singular or as a plural noun, we would at the same time remark, that though the expression “a mean” is at present generally confined to denote “a middle, or medium, between two extremes,” we are inclined to concur with the learned Dr. Lowth, and to recommend a more extended use of the noun singular. This usage was common in the days of Shakspeare.

“I’ll devise a _mean_ to draw the Moor out of the way.”--_Othello._

“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 Heathen’s conversion unto Christ.”--_Hooker._

Melmoth, Beattie, and several other writers, distinguished by their elegance and accuracy of diction, have adopted this usage. _A means_, indeed, is a form of expression which, though not wholly unsupported by analogy, is yet so repugnant to the general idiom of our language, and seems so ill adapted to denote the operation of a single cause, that we should be pleased to see it dismissed from use. If we say, “This was _one of the means_ which he employed to effect his purpose,” analogy and metaphysical propriety concur in recommending _a mean_, or _one mean_, as preferable to _a means_. _News_, _alms_, _riches_, _pains_, have been used as either singular or plural; but we never say, “one of the news,” “one of the alms,” “one of the riches,” “one of the pains,” as we say “one of the means;” we may, therefore, be justified, notwithstanding the authority of general usage, in pronouncing “a means” a palpable anomaly.

_News_ is likewise construed sometimes as a singular, and sometimes as a plural noun. The former usage, however, is far the more general.

“A general joy at _this_ glad news appeared.”--_Cowley._

“No news so bad as _this_ at home.”--_Shakspeare_, _Richard III._

“The amazing news of Charles at once _was_ spread.”--_Dryden._

“The king was employed in his usual exercise of besieging castles, when the news _was_ brought of Henry’s arrival.”--_Swift._

“The only news you can expect from me _is_ news from heaven.”--_Gay._

“_This_ is all the news talked of.”--_Pope._

Swift, Pope, Gay, with most other classic writers of that age, seem to have uniformly used it as singular.

A few examples occur of a plural usage.

“When Rhea heard _these_ news.”--_Raleigh_, _Hist. World_.

“_Are_ there any news of his intimate friend?”--_Smollett._

“News _were_ brought to the queen.”--_Hume._

The same rule as that just now recommended in regard to the noun _means_ might perhaps be useful here also, namely, to consider the word as singular when only one article of intelligence is communicated, and as plural when several new things are reported.

_Pains_ is considered as either singular or plural, some of our best writers using it in either way. This word is evidently of French extraction, being the same with _peine_, pains or trouble, and was originally used in a singular form thus, “Which may it please your highness to take the _payne_ for to write.”--_Wolsey’s Letter to Henry VIII._ It seems probable, that this word, after it assumed a plural form, was more frequently used as a singular than as a plural noun. Modern usage, however, seems to incline the other way. A celebrated grammarian indeed, has pronounced this noun to be in all cases plural; but this assertion might be proved erroneous by numberless examples[12].

“The pains they had taken _was_ very great.”--_Clarendon._

“Great pains _has_ been taken.”--_Pope._

“No pains _is_ taken.”--_Pope._

In addition to these authorities in favour of a singular usage, it may be observed, that the word _much_, a term of quantity, not of number, is frequently joined with it, as,

“I found much art and pains employed.”--_Middleton._

“He will assemble materials with much pains.”--_Bolingbroke on History._

The word _much_ is never joined to a plural noun; _much labours_, _much papers_, would be insufferable[13].

_Riches_ is generally now considered as a plural noun; though it was formerly used either as singular or plural. This substantive seems to have been nothing but the French word _richesse_; and therefore no more a plural than _gentlenesse, distresse_, and many others of the same kind. In this form we find it in Chaucer:

“But for ye spoken of swiche gentlenesse,
As is descended out of old richesse.
And he that ones to love doeth his homage,
Full often times dere bought is the richesse.”

Accordingly he gives it a plural termination, and uses it as a plural word.

“Thou hast dronke so much hony of swete temporal richesses, and delices, and honours of this world.”

It seems evident, then, that this word was originally construed as a substantive singular, and even admitted a plural form. The orthography varying, and the noun singular assuming a plural termination, it came in time to be considered by some as a noun plural.

In our translation of the Bible, it is construed sometimes as a singular, but generally as a plural noun.

“In one hour is so great riches come to nought.”--_Bible._

“Riches take to themselves wings, and fly away.”--_Ibid._

Modern usage, in like manner, inclines to the plural construction; there are a few authorities, however, on the other side, as,

“_Was_ ever riches gotten by your golden mediocrities?”--_Cowley._

“The envy and jealousy which great riches _is_ always attended with.”--_Moyle._

_Alms_ was also originally a noun singular, being a contraction of the old Norman French _almesse_, the plural of which was _almesses_.

“This almesse shouldst thou do of thy proper things.”--_Chaucer._

“These ben generally the almesses and workes of charity.”--_Ibid._

Johnson says this word has no singular. It was, in truth, a first a noun singular, and afterwards, by contraction, receiving a plural form, it came to be considered by some as a noun plural. Johnson would have had equal, nay, perhaps, better authority for saying that this word has no plural. Our translators of the Bible seem to have considered it as singular. “To ask _an_ alms,” “to give _much_ alms,” and other similar phraseologies, occur in Scripture. Nay, Johnson himself has cited two authorities, in which the indefinite article is prefixed to it.

... “My arm’d knees,
Which bow’d but in my stirrup, bend like his
That hath received _an_ alms.”--_Shakspeare._

“The poor beggar hath a just demand of _an_ alms from the rich man.”--_Swift._

Lowth objected to the phraseology _a means_, for this reason, that _means_, being a plural noun, cannot admit the indefinite article, or name of unity. The objection would be conclusive, if the expressions _this means, that means_, did not oppose the learned author’s opinion, that _means_ is a noun plural. To the substantive _alms_, as represented by Johnson to have no singular, the objection is applicable.

_Thanks_ is considered to be a plural noun, though denoting only one expression of gratitude. It occurs in Scripture as a substantive singular. “What thank have ye?”

It has been observed, that many of those words which have no singular denote things consisting of two parts, and therefore have a plural termination. Hence the word _pair_ is used with many of them, as, “_a pair of bellows_, _a pair of scissors_, _a pair of colours_, _a pair of drawers_.”