Chapter III: Nouns (1)

A Noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned: as, _George, York, man, apple, truth_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--All words and signs taken _technically_, (that is, independently of their meaning, and merely as things spoken of,) are _nouns_; or, rather, are _things_ read and construed _as nouns_; because, in such a use, they temporarily assume the _syntax_ of nouns: as, "For this reason, I prefer _contemporary_ to _cotemporary_."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 175; _Murray's Gram._, i, p. 368. "I and J were formerly expressed by the same character; as were U and V."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 3. "_Us_ is a personal pronoun."--_Murray_. "_Th_ has two sounds."--_Ib._ "The _'s_ cannot be a contraction of _his_, because _'s_ is put to _female_ [feminine] nouns; as, _Woman's beauty, the Virgin's delicacy_."--_Dr. Johnson's Gram._ "_Their_ and _theirs_ are the possessives likewise of _they_, when _they_ is the plural of _it_."--_Ib._ "Let B be a _now_ or instant."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 103. "In such case, I say that the instant B is the end of the time A B."--_Ib._, 103. "_A_ is sometimes a noun: as, a great _A_."--_Todd's Johnson_. "Formerly _sp_ was cast in a piece, as _st's_ are now."--_Hist. of Printing_, 1770. "I write to others than he will perhaps include in his _we_."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. iii, p. 455. "Here are no fewer than eight _ands_ in one sentence."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 112; _Murray's Gram._, Vol. i, p. 319. "Within this wooden _O_;" i. e., circle.--_Shak._

OBS. 2.--In parsing, the learner must observe the sense and use of each word, and class it accordingly. Many words commonly belonging to other parts of speech are occasionally used as nouns; and, since it is the manner of its use, that determines any word to be of one part of speech rather than of an other, whatever word is used directly as a noun, must of course be parsed as such.

1. Adjectives made nouns: "The _Ancient_ of days did sit."--_Bible_. "Of the _ancients_."--_Swift_. "For such _impertinents_."--_Steele_. "He is an _ignorant_ in it."--_Id._ "In the luxuriance of an unbounded _picturesque_."--_Jamieson_. "A source of _the sublime_;" i. e., of sublimity.--_Burke_. "The vast _immense_ of space:" i. e., immensity.--_Murray_. "There is none his _like._"--_Job_, xli, 33. "A _little_ more than a _little_, is by _much_ too _much_."--_Shakspeare_. "And gladly make _much_ of that entertainment."--_Sidney_. "A covetous man makes _the most_ of what he has."--_L'Estrange_. "It has done _enough_ for me."--_Pope_. "He had _enough_ to do."--_Bacon_.

"_All_ withers here; who _most_ possess, are losers by their gain,
Stung by full proof, that bad at best, life's idle _all_ is vain."
--_Young_.

"Nor grudge I thee _the much_ the Grecians give,
Nor murm'ring take _the little_ I receive."
--_Dryden_.

2. Pronouns made nouns: "A love of seeing the _what_ and _how_ of all about him."--STORY'S LIFE OF FLAXMAN: _Pioneer_, Vol. i, p. 133. "The nameless HE, whose nod is Nature's birth."--_Young_, Night iv. "I was wont to load my _she_ with knacks."--_Shak. Winter's Tale_. "Or any _he_, the proudest of thy sort."--_Shak_. "I am the happiest _she_ in Kent."--_Steele_. "The _shes_ of Italy."--_Shak_. "The _hes_ in birds."--_Bacon_. "We should soon have as many _hes_ and _shes_ as the French."--_Cobbet's E. Gram._, Para. 42. "If, for instance, we call a nation a _she_, or the sun a _he_."--_Ib._, Para. 198. "When I see many _its_ in a page, I always tremble for the writer."--_Ib._, Para. 196. "Let those two questionary petitioners try to do this with their _whos_ and their _whiches_."--SPECT: _Ash's Gr._, p. 131.

"Such mortal drugs I have; but Mantua's law
Is death to any _he_ that utters them."--_Shak_.

3. Verbs made nouns: "Avaunt all attitude, and _stare_, and _start_ theatric."--_Cowper_. "A _may-be_ of mercy is sufficient."--_Bridge_. "Which _cuts_ are reckoned among the fractures."--_Wiseman_. "The officer erred in granting a _permit_."--"Feel darts and charms, _attracts_ and flames."--_Hudibras_. "You may know by the falling off of the _come_, or sprout."--_Mortimer_. "And thou hast talk'd of _sallies_ and _retires_."--_Shak_.

"For all that else did come, were sure to fail;
Yet would he further none, but for _avail_."--_Spenser_.

4. Participles made nouns: "For the _producing_ of real happiness."--_Crabb_. "For the _crying_ of the poor and the _sighing_ of the needy, I will arise."--_Bible_. "Surely the _churning_ of milk bringeth forth butter, and the _wringing_ of the nose bringeth forth blood; so the _forcing_ of wrath bringeth forth strife."--_Prov._, xxx, 33. "_Reading, writing_, and _ciphering_, are indispensable to civilized man."--"Hence was invented the distinction between _doing_ and _permitting_."--_Calvin's Inst._, p. 131. "Knowledge of the _past_ comes next."--_Hermes_, p. 113. "I am my _beloved's_, and his desire is toward me."--_Sol. Song_, vii, 10. "Here's--a simple _coming-in_ for one man."--_Shak_.

"What are thy rents? What are thy _comings-in_?
O Ceremony, show me but thy worth."--_Id._

5. Adverbs made nouns: "In these cases we examine the _why_, the _what_, and the _how_ of things."--_L'Estrange_. "If a point or _now_ were extended, each of them would contain within itself infinite other points or _nows_."--_Hermes_, p. 101. "The _why_ is plain as way to parish church."--_Shak_. "'Tis Heaven itself that points out _an hereafter_."--_Addison_. "The dread of _a hereafter_."--_Fuller_. "The murmur of the deep _amen_."--_Sir W. Scott_. "For their _whereabouts_ lieth in a mystery."--_Book of Thoughts_, p. 14. Better: "Their _whereabout_ lieth," or, "Their _whereabouts lie_," &c.

"Bid them farewell, Cordelia, though unkind;
Thou losest _here_, a better _where_ to find."--_Shak_.

6. Conjunctions made nouns: "The _if_, which is here employed, converts the sentence into a supposition."--_Blair's Rhet._ "Your _if_ is the only peacemaker; much virtue is in _if_."--_Shak_.

"So his Lordship decreed with a grave solemn tone,
Decisive and clear, without one _if_ or _but_--
That whenever the Nose put his spectacles on,
By daylight or candlelight--Eyes should be shut."--_Cowper_.

7. Prepositions made nouns: "O, not like me; for mine's beyond _beyond_."--_Shakspeare: Cymb._, iii, 2. "I. e., her longing is _further than beyond_; beyond any thing that desire can be said to be beyond."--_Singer's Notes_. "You whirled them to the back of _beyont_ to look at the auld Roman camp."--_Antiquary_, i. 37.

8. Interjections or phrases made nouns: "Come away from all the _lo-heres_! and _lo-theres_!"--_Sermon_. "Will cuts him short with a '_What then_?'"--_Addison_. "With _hark_ and _whoop_, and wild _halloo_."--_Scott_. "And made a _pish_ at chance and sufferance."--_Shak_.

"A single look more marks th' internal wo,
Than all the windings of the lengthen'd _oh_."--_Lloyd_.

CLASSES.

Nouns are divided into two general classes; _proper_ and _common_. I. A _proper noun_ is the name of some particular individual, or people, or group; as, _Adam, Boston_, the _Hudson_, the _Romans_, the _Azores_, the _Alps_.

II. A _common noun_ is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things; as, _Beast, bird, fish, insect,--creatures, persons, children_.

The particular classes, _collective, abstract_, and _verbal_, or _participial_, are usually included among common nouns. The name of a thing _sui generis_ is also called common.

1. A _collective noun_, or _noun of multitude_, is the name of many individuals together; as, _Council, meeting, committee, flock_.

2. An _abstract noun_ is the name of some particular quality considered apart from its substance; as, _Goodness, hardness, pride, frailty_.

3. A _verbal_ or _participial noun_ is the name of some action, or state of being; and is formed from a verb, like a participle, but employed as a noun: as, "The _triumphing_ of the wicked is short."--_Job_, xx, 5.

4. A thing _sui generis_, (i. e., _of its own peculiar kind_,) is something which is distinguished, not as an individual of a species, but as a sort by itself, without plurality in either the noun or the sort of thing; as, _Galvanism, music, geometry_.

OBS. 1.--Through the influence of an article, a proper name sometimes acquires the import of a common noun: as, "He is _the Cicero_ of his age;" that is, _the great orator_. "Many _a fiery Alp_;" that is, _high volcanic mountain_. "Such is the following application of famous names; a Solomon for a wise man, a Croesus for a rich man, a Judas for a traitor, a Demosthenes for an orator, and a Homer for a poet."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 326.

"Consideration, like an angel, came,
And whipp'd _th' offending Adam_ out of him."--_Shak_.

OBS. 2.--A common noun, with the definite article before it, sometimes becomes proper: as, _The Park; the Strand; the Gharmel; the Downs; the United States_.

OBS. 3.--The common name of a thing or quality personified, often becomes proper; our conception of the object being changed by the figure of speech: as, "My power," said _Reason_, "is to advise, not to compel."--_Johnson_. "Fair _Peace_ her olive branch extends." For such a word, the form of parsing should be like this: "_Peace_ is a _common noun, personified proper_; of the third person, singular number, feminine gender, and nominative case." Here the construction of the word as a proper noun, and of the _feminine gender_, is the result of the personification, and contrary to the literal usage.

MODIFICATIONS.

Nouns have modifications of four kinds; namely, _Persons, Numbers, Genders_, and _Cases_.

PERSONS.

Persons, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish the speaker, the hearer, and the person or thing merely spoken of.

There are three persons; the _first_, the _second_, and the _third_.

The _first person_ is that which denotes the speaker or writer; as, "_I Paul_ have written it."

The second person is that which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed; as, "_Robert_, who did this?"

The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of; as, "_James_ loves his book."

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The distinction of persons is founded on the different relations which the objects mentioned in any discourse may bear to the discourse itself. The speaker or writer, being the mover and maker of the communication, of course stands in the nearest or _first_ of these relations. The hearer or hearers, being personally present and directly addressed, evidently sustain the next or _second_ of these relations; this relation is also that of the reader, when he peruses what is addressed to himself in print or writing. Lastly, whatsoever or whosoever is merely mentioned in the discourse, bears to it that more remote relation which constitutes the _third_ person. The distinction of persons belongs to nouns, pronouns, and finite verbs; and to these it is always applied, either by peculiarity of form or construction, or by inference from the principles of concord. Pronouns are like their antecedents, and verbs are like their subjects, in person.

OBS. 2.--Of the persons, numbers, genders, cases, and some other grammatical modifications of words, it should be observed that they belong not exclusively to any one part of speech, but jointly and equally, to two or three. Hence, it is necessary that our _definitions_ of these things be such as will apply to each of them in full, or under all circumstances; for the definitions ought to be as general in their application as are the things or properties defined. Any person, number, gender, case, or other grammatical modification, is really but one and the same thing, in whatever part of speech it may be found. This is plainly implied in the very nature of every form of syntactical agreement; and as plainly contradicted in one half, and probably more, of the definitions usually given of these things.

OBS. 3.--Let it be understood, that _persons, in grammar_, are not _words_, but mere forms, relations, or modifications of words; that they are things, thus named by a _figure_; _things_ of the neuter gender, and not living souls. But persons, in common parlance, or in ordinary life, are _intelligent beings_, of one or the other sex. These objects, different as they are in their nature, are continually confounded by the makers of English grammars: as, "The _first_ person is _the person who speaks_."--_Comly's Gram._, p. 17. So Bicknell, of London: "The _first person_ speaks of _himself_; as, _I John take thee Elizabeth_. The _second_ person has the speech directed to _him_, and is supposed to be present; as, _Thou Harry art a wicked fellow_. The _third_ person is spoken of, or described, and supposed to be _absent_; as, _That Thomas is a good man_. And in the same manner the plural pronouns are used, when more than one are spoken of."--_Bicknell's Grammatical Wreath_, p. 50. "The person speaking is the first person; the person spoken to, the second; and the person spoken of, the third."--_Russell's Gram._, p. 16. "The first person is the speaker."--_Parker & Fox's Gram._, Part i, p. 6. "Person is that, which distinguishes a noun, that speaks, one spoken to, or one spoken about."--_S. B. Hall's Gram._, p. 6. "A noun that speaks!" A noun "spoken to!" If ever one of Father Hall's nouns shall speak for itself, or answer when "spoken to," will it not reprove him? And how can the _first person_ be "the _person_ WHO _speaks_," when every word of this phrase is of the _third_ person? Most certainly, _it is not_ HE, nor any one of his sort. If any body can boast of being "_the first person in grammar_," I pray, _Who_ is it? Is it not _I_, even _I_? Many grammarians say so. But nay: such authors know not what the first person in grammar is. The Rev. Charles Adams, with infinite absurdity, makes the three persons in grammar to be never any thing but _three nouns_, which hold a confabulation thus: "Person is defined to be _that_ which distinguishes a _noun that speaks, one spoken to, or one spoken of_. The _noun_ that speaks [,] is the first person; as, _I, James_, was present. The _noun_ that is spoken to, is the second person; as, _James_, were you present? The _noun_ that is spoken of is the third person; as, _James_ was present."--_Adams's System of English Gram._, p. 9. What can be a greater blunder, than to call the first person of a verb, of a pronoun, or even of a noun, "_the noun that speaks?_" What can be more absurd than are the following assertions? "_Nouns_ are _in_ the first person when _speaking_. Nouns are _of_ the second person when _addressed_ or _spoken to_."--_O. C. Felton's Gram._, p. 9.

OBS. 4.--An other error, scarcely less gross than that which has just been noticed, is the very common one of identifying the three grammatical persons with certain _words_, called personal pronouns: as, "_I_ is the first person, _thou_ the second, _he, she_ or _it_, the third."--_Smith's Productive Gram._, p. 53. "_I_ is the first person, singular. _Thou_ is the second person, singular. _He, she_, or _it_, is the third person, singular. _We_ is the first person, plural. _Ye_ or _you_ is the second person, plural. _They_ is the third person, plural."--_L. Murray's Grammar_, p. 51; _Ingersoll's_, 54; _D. Adams's_, 37; _A. Flint's_, 18; _Kirkham's_, 98; _Cooper's_, 34; _T. H. Miller's_, 26; _Hull's_, 21; _Frost's_, 13; _Wilcox's_, 18; _Bacon's_, 19; _Alger's_, 22; _Maltby's_, 19; _Perley's_, 15; _S. Putnam's_, 22. Now there is no more propriety in affirming, that "_I is the first person_," than in declaring that _me, we, us, am, ourselves, we think, I write_, or any other word or phrase _of_ the first person, _is_ the first person. Yet Murray has given us no other definitions or explanations of the persons than the foregoing erroneous assertions; and, if I mistake not, all the rest who are here named, have been content to define them only as he did. Some others, however, have done still worse: as, "There are _three_ personal pronouns; so called, because they denote the three persons, _who_ are the subjects of a discourse, viz. 1st. _I, who is_ the person _speaking_; 2d _thou, who is_ spoken to; 3d _he, she_, or _it, who_ is spoken of, and their plurals, _we, ye_ or _you, they_."--_Bingham's Accidence_, 20th Ed., p. 7. Here the two kinds of error which I have just pointed out, are jumbled together. It is impossible to write _worse English_ than this! Nor is the following much better: "Of the personal pronouns there are five, viz. _I_, in the first person, speaking; _Thou_, in the second person, spoken to; and _He, she, it_, in the third person, spoken of."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 25.

OBS. 5.--In _written_ language, the _first person_ denotes the writer or author; and the _second_, the reader or person addressed: except when the writer describes not himself, but some one else, as uttering to an other the words which he records. This exception takes place more particularly in the writing of dialogues and dramas; in which the first and second persons are abundantly used, not as the representatives of the author and his reader, but as denoting the fictitious speakers and hearers that figure in each scene. But, in discourse, the grammatical persons may be changed without a change of the living subject. In the following sentence, the three grammatical persons are all of them used with reference to one and the same individual: "Say ye of _Him whom_ the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, _Thou blasphemest_, because _I said I am_ the _Son_ of _God?_"--_John_, x, 36.

OBS. 6.-The speaker seldom refers to himself _by name_, as the speaker; and, of the objects which there is occasion to name in discourse, but comparatively few are such as can ever be supposed to speak. Consequently, _nouns_ are rarely used in the first person; and when they do assume this relation, a pronoun is commonly associated with them: as, "_I John_,"--"_We Britons_." These words I conceive to agree throughout, in person, number, gender, and case; though it must be confessed, that agreement like this is not always required between words in apposition. But some grammarians deny the first person to nouns altogether; others, with much more consistency, ascribe it;[140] while very many are entirely silent on the subject. Yet it is plain that both the doctrine of concords, and the analogy of general grammar, require its admission. The reason of this may be seen in the following examples: "_Themistocles ad te veni_." "I Themistocles have come to you."--_Grant's Latin Gram._, p. 72. "_Adsum Troius Æneas_."--_Virgil_. "_Romulus Rex regia arma offero_."--Livy. "_Annibal peto pacem_."--Id. "_Callopius recensui._"--See _Terence's Comedies, at the end_. "_Paul_, an apostle, &c., unto Timothy, _my_ own son in the faith."--_1 Tim._, i, 2. Again, if the word _God_ is of the second person, in the text, "_Thou, God_, seest me," why should any one deny that _Paul_ is of the first person, in this one? "_I Paul_ have written it."--_Philemon_, 19. Or this? "The salutation by the hand of _me Paul_."--_Col._, iv, 18. And so of the plural: "Of _you builders_."--_Acts_, iv, 11. "Of _us the apostles_."--_2 Pet._, iii, 2. How can it be pretended, that, in the phrase, "_I Paul_," _I_ is of the first person, as denoting the speaker, and _Paul_, of some other person, as denoting something or somebody that is _not_ the speaker? Let the admirers of Murray, Kirkham, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Comly, Greenleaf, Parkhurst, or of any others who teach this absurdity, answer.

OBS. 7.--As, in the direct application of what are called Christian names, there is a kind of familiarity, which on many occasions would seem to indicate a lack of proper respect; so in a frequent and familiar use of the second person, as it is the placing of an other in the more intimate relation of the hearer, and one's self in that of the speaker, there is a sort of assumption which may seem less modest and respectful than to use the third person. In the following example, the patriarch Jacob uses both forms; applying the term _servant_ to himself, and to his brother Esau the term _lord_: "Let _my lord, I_ pray _thee_, pass over before _his servant_: and _I_ will lead on softly."--_Gen._, xxxiii, 14. For when a speaker or writer does not choose to declare himself in the _first_ person, or to address his hearer or reader in the _second_, he speaks of both or either in the _third_. Thus Moses relates what _Moses_ did, and Cæsar records the achievements of _Cæsar_. So Judah humbly beseeches Joseph: "Let _thy servant_ abide in stead of the lad a bondman to _my lord_."--_Gen._, xliv, 33. And Abraham reverently intercedes with God: "Oh! let not _the Lord_ be angry, and I will speak."--_Gen._, xviii, 30. And the Psalmist prays: "_God_ be merciful unto us, and bless us; and cause _his_ face to shine upon us."--_Ps._, lxvii, 1. So, on more common occasions:--

"As will the rest, so _willeth Winchester_."--_Shak_.

"Richard of York, how _fares_ our dearest _brother_?"--_Id._[141]

OBS. 8.--When inanimate things are spoken to, they are _personified_; and their names are put in the second person, because by the figure the objects are _supposed_ to be capable of hearing: as, "What ailed thee, _O thou sea_, that thou fleddest? _thou Jordan_, that thou wast driven back? _Ye mountains_, that ye skipped like rams; and _ye little hills_, like lambs? Tremble, _thou earth_, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob."--_Psalms_, cxiv, 5-7.

NUMBERS.

Numbers, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish unity and plurality.

There are two numbers; the _singular_ and the _plural_.

The _singular number_ is that which denotes but one; as, "The _boy learns_."

The _plural number_ is that which denotes more than one; as, "The _boys learn_."

The plural number _of nouns_ is regularly formed by adding _s_ or _es_ to the singular: as, _book, books; box, boxes; sofa, sofas; hero, heroes_.

When the singular ends in a sound which will unite with that of _s_, the plural is generally formed by adding _s only_, and the number of syllables is not increased: as, _pen, pens; grape, grapes_.

But when the sound of _s_ cannot be united with that of the primitive word, the regular plural adds _s_ to final _e_, and _es_ to other terminations, and forms a separate syllable: as, _page, pages; fox, foxes_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The distinction of numbers serves merely to show whether we speak of one object, or of more. In some languages, as the Greek and the Arabic, there is a _dual_ number, which denotes _two_, or a _pair_; but in ours, this property of words, or class of modifications, extends no farther than to distinguish unity from plurality, and plurality from unity. It belongs to nouns, pronouns, and finite verbs; and to these it is always applied, either by peculiarity of form, or by inference from the principles of concord. Pronouns are like their antecedents, and verbs are like their subjects, in number.

OBS. 2.--The most common way of forming the plural of English nouns, is that of simply adding to them an _s_; which, when it unites with a sharp consonant, is always sharp, or hissing; and when it follows a vowel or a flat mute, is generally flat, like _z_: thus, in the words, _ships, skiffs, pits, rocks, depths, lakes, gulfs_, it is sharp; but in _seas, lays, rivers, hills, ponds, paths, rows, webs, flags_, it is flat. The terminations which always make the regular plural in _es_, with increase of syllables, are twelve; namely, _ce, ge, ch_ soft, _che_ soft, _sh, ss, s, se, x, xe, z_, and _ze_: as in _face, faces; age, ages; torch, torches; niche, niches; dish, dishes; kiss, kisses; rebus, rebuses; lens, lenses; chaise, chaises; corpse, corpses; nurse, nurses; box, boxes; axe, axes; phiz, phizzes; maze, mazes._ All other endings readily unite in sound either with the sharp or with the flat _s_, as they themselves are sharp or flat; and, to avoid an increase of syllables, we allow the final _e_ mute to remain mute after that letter is added: thus, we always pronounce as monosyllables the words _babes, blades, strifes, tithes, yokes, scales, names, canes, ropes, shores, plates, doves_, and the like.

OBS. 3.--Though the irregular plurals of our language appear considerably numerous when brought together, they are in fact very few in comparison with the many thousands that are perfectly simple and regular. In some instances, however, usage is various in writing, though uniform in speech; an unsettlement peculiar to certain words that terminate in vowels: as, _Rabbis_, or _rabbies; octavos_, or _octavoes; attornies_, or _attorneys_. There are also some other difficulties respecting the plurals of nouns, and especially respecting those of foreign words; of compound terms; of names and titles; and of words redundant or deficient in regard to the numbers. What is most worthy of notice, respecting all these puzzling points of English grammar, is briefly contained in the following observations.

OBS. 4.--It is a general rule of English grammar, that all singular nouns ending with a vowel preceded by an other vowel, shall form the plural by simply assuming an _s_: as, _Plea, pleas; idea, ideas; hernia, hernias; bee, bees; lie, lies; foe, foes; shoe, shoes; cue, cues; eye, eyes; folio, folios; bamboo, bamboos; cuckoo, cuckoos; embryo, embryos; bureau, bureaus; purlieu, purlieus; sou, sous; view, views; straw, straws; play, plays; key, keys; medley, medleys; viceroy, viceroys; guy, guys._ To this rule, the plurals of words ending in _quy_, as _alloquies, colloquies, obloquies, soliloquies_, are commonly made exceptions; because many have conceived that the _u_, in such instances, is a mere appendage to the _q_, or is a consonant having the power of _w_, and not a vowel forming a diphthong with the _y_. All other deviations from the rule, as _monies_ for _moneys, allies_ for _alleys, vallies_ for _valleys, chimnies_ for _chimneys_, &c., are now usually condemned as errors. See Rule 12th for Spelling.

OBS. 5.--It is also a general principle, that nouns ending in _y_ preceded by a consonant, change the _y_ into _i_, and add _es_ for the plural, without increase of syllables: as, _fly, flies; ally, allies; city, cities; colony, colonies_. So nouns in _i_, (so far as we have any that are susceptible of a change of number,) form the plural regularly by assuming _es_: as, _alkali, alkalies; salmagundi, salinagundies._ Common nouns ending in _y_ preceded by a consonant, are numerous; and none of them deviate from the foregoing rule of forming the plural: thus, _duty, duties_. The termination added is _es_, and the _y_ is changed into _i_, according to the general principle expressed in Rule 11th for Spelling. But, to this principle, or rule, some writers have supposed that _proper nouns_ were to be accounted exceptions. And accordingly we sometimes find such names made plural by the mere addition of an _s_; as, "How come the _Pythagoras'_, [it should be, _the Pythagorases_,] the _Aristotles_, the _Tullys_, the _Livys_, to appear, even to us at this distance, as stars of the first magnitude in the vast fields of ether?"--_Burgh's Dignity_, Vol. i, p. 131. This doctrine, adopted from some of our older grammars, I was myself, at one period, inclined to countenance; (see _Institutes of English Grammar_, p. 33, at the bottom;) but further observation having led me to suspect, there is more _authority_ for changing the _y_ than for retaining it, I shall by-and-by exhibit some examples of this change, and leave the reader to take his choice of the two forms, or principles.

OBS. 6.--The vowel _a_, at the end of a word, (except in the questionable term _huzza_, or when silent, as in _guinea_,) has always its Italian or middle sound, as heard in the interjection _aha!_ a sound which readily unites with that of _s_ flat, and which ought, in deliberate speech, to be carefully preserved in plurals from this ending: as, _Canada, the Canadas; cupola, cupolas; comma, commas; anathema, anathemas_. To pronounce the final _a_ flat, as _Africay_ for _Africa_, is a mark of vulgar ignorance.

OBS. 7.--The vowel _e_ at the end of a word, is generally silent; and, even when otherwise, it remains single in plurals from this ending; the _es_, whenever the _e_ is vocal, being sounded _eez_, or like the word _ease_: as, _apostrophe, apostrophes; epitome, epitomes; simile, similes_. This class of words being anomalous in respect to pronunciation, some authors have attempted to reform them, by changing the _e_ to _y_ in the singular, and writing _ies_ for the plural: as, _apostrophy, apostrophies; epitomy, epitomies; simily, similies_. A reformation of some sort seems desirable here, and this has the advantage of being first proposed; but it is not extensively adopted, and perhaps never will be; for the vowel sound in question, is not exactly that of the terminations _y_ and _ies_, but one which seems to require _ee_--a stronger sound than that of _y_, though similar to it.

OBS. 8.--For nouns ending in open _o_ preceded by a consonant, the regular method of forming the plural seems to be that of adding _es_; as in _bilboes, umboes, buboes, calicoes, moriscoes, gambadoes, barricadoes, fumadoes, carbonadoes, tornadoes, bravadoes, torpedoes, innuendoes, viragoes, mangoes, embargoes, cargoes, potargoes, echoes, buffaloes, volcanoes, heroes, negroes, potatoes, manifestoes, mulattoes, stilettoes, woes_. In words of this class, the _e_ appears to be useful as a means of preserving the right sound of the _o_; consequently, such of them as are the most frequently used, have become the most firmly fixed in this orthography. In practice, however, we find many similar nouns very frequently, if not uniformly, written with _s_ only; as, _cantos, juntos, grottos, solos, quartos, octavos, duodecimos, tyros_. So that even the best scholars seem to have frequently doubted which termination they ought to regard as the _regular_ one. The whole class includes more than one hundred words. Some, however, are seldom used in the plural; and others, never. _Wo_ and _potato_ are sometimes written _woe_ and _potatoe_. This may have sprung from a notion, that such as have the _e_ in the plural, should have it also in the singular. But this principle has never been carried out; and, being repugnant to derivation, it probably never will be. The only English appellatives that are established in _oe_, are the following fourteen: seven monosyllables, _doe, foe, roe, shoe, sloe, soe, toe_; and seven longer words, _rockdoe, aloe, felloe, canoe, misletoe, tiptoe, diploe_. The last is pronounced _dip'-lo-e_ by Worcester; but Webster, Bolles, and some others, give it as a word of two syllables only.[142]

OBS. 9.--Established exceptions ought to be enumerated and treated as exceptions; but it is impossible to remember how to write some scores of words, so nearly alike as _fumadoes_ and _grenados, stilettoes_ and _palmettos_, if they are allowed to differ in termination, as these examples do in Johnson's Dictionary. Nay, for lack of a rule to guide his pen, even Johnson himself could not remember the orthography of the common word _mangoes_ well enough to _copy_ it twice without inconsistency. This may be seen by his example from King, under the words _mango_ and _potargo_. Since, therefore, either termination is preferable to the uncertainty which must attend a division of this class of words between the two; and since _es_ has some claim to the preference, as being a better index to the sound; I shall make no exceptions to the principle, that common nouns ending in _o_ preceded by a consonant take _es_ for the plural. Murray says, "_Nouns which_ end in _o_ have sometimes _es_ added, to form the plural; as, cargo, echo, hero, negro, manifesto, potato, volcano, wo: and sometimes only _s_; as, folio, nuncio, punctilio, seraglio."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 40. This amounts to nothing, unless it is to be inferred from his _examples_, that others like them in form are to take _s_ or _es_ accordingly; and this is what I teach, though it cannot be said that Murray maintains the principle.

OBS. 10.--Proper names of _individuals_, strictly used as such, have no plural. But when several persons of the same name are spoken of, the noun becomes in some degree common, and admits of the plural form and an article; as, "_The Stuarts, the Cæsars_."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 41. These, however, may still be called _proper nouns_, in parsing; because they are only inflections, peculiarly applied, of certain names which are indisputably such. So likewise when such nouns are used to denote character: as, "_Solomons_, for wise men; _Neros_, for tyrants."--_Ib._ "Here we see it becomes a doubt which of the two _Herculeses_, was the monster-queller."--_Notes to Pope's Dunciad_, iv, 492. The proper names of _nations, tribes_, and _societies_, are generally plural; and, except in a direct address, they are usually construed with the definite article: as, "_The Greeks, the Athenians, the Jews, the Jesuits_." But such words may take the singular form with the indefinite article, as often as we have occasion to speak of an individual of such a people; as, "_A Greek, an Athenian, a Jew, a Jesuit_." These, too, may be called _proper nouns_; because they are national, patrial, or tribal names, each referring to some place or people, and are not appellatives, which refer to actual sorts or kinds, not considered local.

OBS. 11.--Proper names, when they form the plural, for the most part form it regularly, by assuming _s_ or _es_ according to the termination: as, _Carolina_, the _Carolinas_; _James_, the _Jameses_. And those which are only or chiefly plural, have, or ought to have, such terminations as are proper to distinguish them as plurals, so that the form for the singular may be inferred: as, "The _Tungooses_ occupy nearly a third of Siberia."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 379. Here the singular must certainly be _a Tungoose_. "The principal tribes are the _Pawnees_, the _Arrapahoes_, and the _Cumanches_, who roam through the regions of the Platte, the Arkansaw, and the Norte."--_Ib._, p. 179. Here the singulars may be supposed to be a _Pawnee_, an _Arrapaho_, and a _Cumanche_. "The Southern or Floridian family comprised the _Cherokees, Creeks, Chickasaws, Choctaws, Seminoles_, and _Natchez_."--_Ib._, p. 179. Here all are regular plurals, except the last; and this probably ought to be _Natchezes_, but Jefferson spells it _Natches_, the singular of which I do not know. Sometimes foreign words or foreign terminations have been improperly preferred to our own; which last are more intelligible, and therefore better: as, _Esquimaux_, to _Esquimaus_; _Knistenaux_, to _Knistenaus_, or _Crees; Sioux_, to _Sious_, or _Dahcotahs; Iroquois_, to _Iroquoys_, or _Hurons_.

OBS. 12.--Respecting the plural of nouns ending in _i, o, u_, or _y_, preceded by a consonant, there is in present usage much uncertainty. As any vowel sound may be uttered with an _s_, many writers suppose these letters to require for plurals strictly regular, the _s_ only; and to take _es_ occasionally, by way of exception. Others, (perhaps with more reason,) assume, that the most usual, regular, and proper endings for the plural, in these instances, are _ies, oes, and ues_: as, _alkali, alkalies; halo, haloes; gnu, gnues; enemy, enemies_. This, I think, is right for common nouns. How far proper names are to be made exceptions, because they are proper names, is an other question. It is certain that some of them are not to be excepted: as, for instance, _Alleghany_, the _Alleghanies_; _Sicily_, the Two _Sicilies_; _Ptolemy_, the _Ptolemies_; _Jehu_, the _Jehues_. So the names of tribes; as, The _Missouries_, the _Otoes_, the _Winnebagoes_. Likewise, the _houries_ and the _harpies_; which words, though not strictly proper names, are often written with a capital as such. Like these are _rabbies, cadies, mufties, sophies_, from which some writers omit the _e_. Johnson, Walker, and others, write _gipsy_ and _gipsies_; Webster, now writes _Gipsey_ and _Gipseys_; Worcester prefers _Gypsy_, and probably _Gypsies_: Webster once wrote the plural _gypsies_; (see his _Essays_, p. 333;) and Johnson cites the following line:--

"I, near yon stile, three sallow _gypsies_ met."--_Gay_.

OBS. 13.--Proper names in _o_ are commonly made plural by _s_ only. Yet there seems to be the same reason for inserting the _e_ in these, as in other nouns of the same ending; namely, to prevent the _o_ from acquiring a short sound. "I apprehend," says Churchill, "it has been from an erroneous notion of proper names being unchangeable, that some, feeling the necessity of obviating this mispronunciation, have put an apostrophe between the _o_ and the _s_ in the plural, _in stead of an e_; writing _Cato's, Nero's_; and on a similar principle, _Ajax's, Venus's_; thus using the possessive case singular for the nominative or objective plural. Harris says very properly, 'We have our _Marks_ and our _Antonies_: _Hermes_, B. 2, Ch. 4; for which those would have given us _Mark's_ and _Antony's_."--_New Gram._, p. 206. Whatever may have been the motive for it, such a use of the apostrophe is a gross impropriety. "In this quotation, ['From the Socrates's, the Plato's, and the Confucius's of the age,'] the proper names should have been pluralized like common nouns; thus, From the _Socrateses_, the _Platoes_, and the _Confuciuses_ of the age."--_Lennie's Gram._, p. 126; _Bullions's_, 142.

OBS. 14.--The following are some examples of the plurals of proper names, which I submit to the judgement of the reader, in connexion with the foregoing observations: "The Romans had their plurals _Marci_ and _Antonii_, as we in later days have our _Marks_ and our _Anthonies_."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 40. "There seems to be more reason for such plurals, as the _Ptolemies, Scipios, Catos_: or, to instance in more modern names, the _Howards, Pelhams, and Montagues_."--_Ib._, 40. "Near the family seat of the _Montgomeries_ of Coil's-field."--_Burns's Poems_, Note, p. 7. "Tryphon, a surname of one of the _Ptolemies_."--_Lempriere's Dict._ "Sixteen of the _Tuberos_, with their wives and children, lived in a small house."--_Ib._ "What are the _Jupiters_ and _Junos_ of the heathens to such a God?"--_Burgh's Dignity_, i, 234. "Also when we speak of more than one person of the same name; as, the _Henries_, the _Edwards_."--_Cobbetts E. Gram._, ¶ 40. "She was descended from the _Percies_ and the _Stanleys_."--_Loves of the Poets_, ii, 102. "Naples, or the _Two Sicilies_."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 273. The word _India_, commonly makes the plural _Indies_, not _Indias_; and, for _Ajaxes_, the poets write _Ajaces_. But Richard Hiley says, "Proper nouns, when pluralized, follow the same rules as common nouns; as, Venus, the _Venuses_; Ajax, the _Ajaxes_; Cato, the _Catoes_; Henry, the _Henries_."--_Hiley's E. Gram._, p. 18.

"He ev'ry day from King to King can walk,
Of all our _Harries_, all our Edwards talk."--_Pope's Satires_, iv.

OBS. 15.--When a name and a title are to be used together in a plural sense, many persons are puzzled to determine whether the name, or the title, or both, should be in the plural form. For example--in speaking of two young ladies whose family name is Bell--whether to call them the _Miss Bells_, the _Misses Bell_, or the _Misses Bells_. To an inquiry on this point, a learned editor, who prefers the last, lately gave his answer thus: "There are two young ladies; of course they are 'the Misses.' Their name is Bell; of course there are two 'Bells.' Ergo, the correct phrase, in speaking of them, is--'the Misses Bells.'"--_N. Y. Com. Adv_. This puts the words in apposition; and there is no question, that it is _formally_ correct. But still it is less agreeable to the ear, less frequently heard, and less approved by grammarians, than the first phrase; which, if we may be allowed to assume that the two words may be taken together as a sort of compound, is correct also. Dr. Priestley says, "When a name has a title prefixed to it, as _Doctor, Miss, Master_, &c., the plural termination affects only the latter of the two words; as, 'The two _Doctor Nettletons_'--'The two _Miss Thomsons_;' though a strict analogy would plead for the alteration of the former word, and lead us to say, 'The two _Doctors Nettleton_'--'The two _Misses Thomson_.'"--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 59. The following quotations show the opinions of some other grammarians: "Two or more nouns in concordance, and forming one complex name, or a name and a title, have the plural termination annexed to the last only; as, 'The _Miss Smiths_'--'The three _Doctor Simpsons_'--'The two _Master Wigginses_.' With a few exceptions, and those not parallel to the examples just given, we almost uniformly, in complex names, confine the inflection to the last or the latter noun."--_Dr. Crombie_. The foregoing opinion from Crombie, is quoted and seconded by Maunder, who adds the following examples: "Thus, Dr. Watts: 'May there not be _Sir Isaac Newtons_ in every science?'--'You must not suppose that the world is made up of _Lady Aurora Granvilles_.'"--_Maunder's Gram._, p. 2.

OBS. 16.--These writers do not seem to accord with W. L. Stone, the editor above quoted, nor would his reasoning apply well to several of their examples. Yet both opinions are right, if neither be carried too far. For when the words are in apposition, rather than in composition, the first name or title must be made plural, if it refers to more than one: as, "The _Misses Bell and Brown_,"--"_Messrs. Lambert and Son_,"--"The _Lords Calthorpe and Erskine_,"--"The _Lords Bishops_ of Durham and St. David's,"--"The _Knights Hospitalers_,"--"The _Knights Templars_,"--"The _Knights Baronets_." But this does not prove the other construction, which varies the last word only, to be irregular; and, if it did, there is abundant authority for it. Nor is that which varies the first only, to be altogether condemned, though Dr. Priestley is unquestionably wrong respecting the "_strict analogy_" of which he speaks. The joining of a plural title to one singular noun, as, "_Misses Roy_,"--"_The Misses Bell_,"--"_The two Misses Thomson_," produces a phrase which is in itself the _least analogous_ of the three; but, "_The Misses Jane and Eliza Bell_," is a phrase which nobody perhaps will undertake to amend. It appears, then, that each of these forms of expression may be right in some cases; and each of them may be wrong, if improperly substituted for either of the others.

OBS. 17.--The following statements, though erroneous in several particulars, will show the opinions of some other grammarians, upon the foregoing point: "Proper nouns have the plural only when they refer to a race or family; as, _The Campbells_; or to several persons of the same name; as, _The eight Henrys; the two Mr. Sells; the two Miss Browns_; or, without the numeral, _the Miss Roys._ But in addressing letters in which both or all are equally concerned, and also when the names are different, we pluralize the _title_, (Mr. or Miss,) and write, _Misses_ Brown; _Misses_ Roy; _Messrs_, (for Messieurs, Fr.) Guthrie and Tait."_--Lennie's Gram._, p. 7. "If we wish to distinguish the _unmarried_ from the _married_ Howards, we call them _the Miss Howards._ If we wish to distinguish these Misses from other Misses, we call them the _Misses Howard_."--_Fowle's Gram._ "To distinguish several persons of the same name and family from others of a different name and family, the _title_, and not the _proper name_, is varied to express the distinction; as, the _Misses_ Story, the _Messrs._ Story. The elliptical meaning is, the Misses and Messrs, _who are named_ Story. To distinguish _unmarried_ from _married_ ladies, _the proper name_, and not the _title_, should be varied; as, the _Miss_ Clarks. When we mention more than one person of different names, the title should be expressed before each; as, _Miss_ Burns, _Miss_ Parker, and _Miss_ Hopkinson, were present."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 79. In the following examples from Pope's Works, the last word only is varied: "He paragons himself to two _Lord Chancellors_ for law."--Vol. iii, p. 61. "Yearly panegyrics upon the _Lord Mayors_."--_Ib._, p. 83.

"Whence hapless Monsieur much complains at Paris
Of wrongs from Duchesses and _Lady Maries_."_--Dunciad_, B. ii, L 135.

OBS. 18.--The following eleven nouns in _f_, change the _f_ into _v_ and assume _es_ for the plural: _sheaf, sheaves; leaf, leaves; loaf, loaves; leaf, beeves; thief, thieves; calf, calves; half, halves; elf, elves; shelf, shelves; self, selves; wolf, wolves_. Three others in _fe_ are similar: _life, lives; knife, knives; wife, wives._ These are specific exceptions to the general rule for plurals, and not a series of examples coming under a particular rule; for, contrary to the instructions of nearly all our grammarians, there are more than twice as many words of the same endings, which take _s_ only: as, _chiefs, kerchiefs, handkerchiefs, mischiefs, beliefs, misbeliefs, reliefs, bassreliefs, briefs, feifs, griefs, clefs, semibrefs, oafs, waifs, coifs, gulfs, hoofs, roofs, proofs, reproofs, woofs, califs, turfs, scarfs, dwarfs, wharfs, fifes, strifes, safes._ The plural of _wharf_ is sometimes written _wharves_; but perhaps as frequently, and, if so, more accurately, _wharfs_. Examples and authorities: "_Wharf, wharfs_."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. 80; _Ward's_, 24; _Goar's_, 26; _Lennie's_, 7; _Bucke's_, 39. "There were not in London so many _wharfs_, or _keys_, for the landing of merchants' goods."--CHILD: _in Johnson's Dict._ "The _wharfs_ of Boston are also worthy of notice."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 37. "Between banks thickly clad with dwelling-houses, manufactories, and _wharfs_."_--London Morn. Chronicle_, 1833. Nouns in _ff_ take _s_ only; as, _skiffs, stuffs, gaffs_. But the plural of _staff_ has hitherto been generally written _staves_; a puzzling and useless anomaly, both in form and sound: for all the compounds of _staff_ are regular; as, _distaffs, whipstaffs, tipstaffs, flagstaffs, quarterstaffs_; and _staves_ is the regular plural of _stave_, a word now in very common use with a different meaning, as every cooper and every musician knows. _Staffs_ is now sometimes used; as, "I saw the husbandmen bending over their _staffs_."--_Lord Carnarvon_. "With their _staffs_ in their hands for very age."--_Hope of Israel_, p. 16. "To distinguish between the two _staffs_."--_Comstock's Elocution_, p. 43. In one instance, I observe, a very excellent scholar has written _selfs_ for _selves_, but the latter is the established plural of _self_:

"Self-love would cease, or be dilated, when
We should behold as many _selfs_ as men."_--Waller's Poems_, p. 55.

OBS. 19.--Of nouns purely English, the following thirteen are the only simple words that form distinct plurals not ending in _s_ or _es_, and four of these are often regular: _man, men; woman, women; child, children; brother, brethren_ or _brothers; ox, oxen; goose, geese; foot, feet; tooth, teeth; louse, lice; mouse, mice; die, dice_ or _dies; penny, pence_ or _pennies; pea, pease_ or _peas_. The word _brethren_ is now applied only to fellow-members of the same church or fraternity; for sons of the same parents we always use _brothers_; and this form is sometimes employed in the other sense. _Dice_ are spotted cubes for gaming; _dies_ are stamps for coining money, or for impressing metals. _Pence_, as _six pence_, refers to the amount of money in value; _pennies_ denotes the corns themselves. "We write _peas_, for two or more individual seeds; but _pease_, for an indefinite number in quantity or bulk."_--Webster's Dict._ This last anomaly, I think, might well enough "be spared; the sound of the word being the same, and the distinction to the eye not always regarded." Why is it not as proper, to write an order for "a bushel of _peas_," as for "a bushel of _beans_?" "_Peas_ and _beans_ may be severed from the ground before they be quite dry."_--Cobbett's E. Gram._, ¶ 31.

OBS. 20.--When a compound, ending with any of the foregoing irregular words, is made plural, it follows the fashion of the word with which it ends: as, _Gentleman, gentlemen; bondwoman, bondwomen; foster-child, foster-children; solan-goose, solan-geese; eyetooth, eyeteeth; woodlouse, woodlice_;[143] _dormouse, dormice; half-penny, halfpence, half-pennies_. In this way, these irregularities extend to many words; though some of the metaphorical class, as _kite's-foot, colts-foot, bear's-foot, lion's-foot_, being names of plants, have no plural. The word _man_, which is used the most frequently in this way, makes more than seventy such compounds. But there are some words of this ending, which, not being compounds of _man_, are regular: as, _German, Germans; Turcoman, Turcomans; Mussulman, Mussulmans; talisman, talismans; leman, lemans; caiman, caimans_.

OBS. 21.--Compounds, in general, admit but one variation to form the plural, and that must be made in the principal word, rather than in the adjunct; but where the terms differ little in importance, the genius of the language obviously inclines to a variation of the last only. Thus we write _fathers-in-law, sons-in-law, knights-errant, courts-martial, cousins-german, hangers-on, comings-in, goings-out, goings-forth_, varying the first; and _manhaters, manstealers, manslayers, maneaters, mandrills, handfuls, spoonfuls, mouthfuls, pailfuls, outpourings, ingatherings, downsittings, overflowings_, varying the last. So, in many instances, when there is a less intimate connexion of the parts, and the words are written with a hyphen, if not separately, we choose to vary the latter or last: as, _fellow-servants, queen-consorts, three-per-cents, he-goats, she-bears, jack-a-dandies, jack-a-lanterns, piano-fortes_. The following mode of writing is irregular in two respects; first, because the words are separated, and secondly, because both are varied: "Is it unreasonable to say with John Wesley, that '_men buyers_ are exactly on a level with _men stealers_?"--GOODELL'S LECT. II: _Liberator_, ix, 65. According to analogy, it ought to be: "_Manbuyers_ are exactly on a level with _manstealers_." J. W. Wright alleges, that, "The phrase, 'I want two _spoonfuls_ or _handfuls_,' though common, is improperly constructed;" and that, "we should say, 'Two _spoons_ or _hands full_.'"--_Philos. Gram._, p. 222. From this opinion, I dissent: both authority and analogy favour the former mode of expressing the plural of such quantities.

OBS. 22.--There is neither difficulty nor uncertainty respecting the proper forms for the plurals of compound nouns in general; but the two irregular words _man_ and _woman_ are often varied at the beginning of the looser kind of compounds, contrary to what appears to be the general analogy of similar words. Of the propriety of this, the reader may judge, when I shall have quoted a few examples: "Besides their _man-servants_ and their _maid-servants_."--_Nehemiah_, vii, 67. "And I have oxen and asses, flocks, and _men-servants_, and _women-servants_."--_Gen._, xxxii, 5. "I gat me _men-singers_, and _women-singers_, and the delights of the sons of men."--_Ecclesiastes_, ii, 8. "And she brought forth a _man-child_, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron."--_Rev._, xii, 5.--"Why have ye done this, and saved the _men-children_ alive?"--_Exod._, i, 18. Such terms as these, if thought objectionable, may easily be avoided, by substituting for the former part of the compound the separate adjective _male_ or _female_; as, _male child, male children_. Or, for those of the third example, one might say, "_singing men_ and _singing women_," as in _Nehemiah_, vii, 67; for, in the ancient languages, the words are the same. Alger compounds "_singing-men_ and _singing-women_."

OBS. 23.--Some foreign compound terms, consisting of what are usually, in the language from which they come, distinct words and different parts of speech, are made plural in English, by the addition of _e_ or _es_ at the end. But, in all such cases, I think the hyphen should be inserted in the compound, though it is the practice of many to omit it. Of this odd sort of words, I quote the following examples from Churchill; taking the liberty to insert the hyphen, which he omits: "_Ave-Maries, Te-Deums, camera-obscuras, agnus-castuses, habeas-corpuses, scire-faciases, hiccius-docciuses, hocus-pocuses, ignis-fatuuses, chef-d'oeuvres, congé-d'élires, flower-de-luces, louis-d'-ores, tête-à-têtes_."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 62.

OBS. 24.--Some nouns, from the nature of the things meant, have no plural. For, as there ought to be no word, or inflection of a word, for which we cannot conceive an appropriate meaning or use, it follows that whatever is of such a species that it cannot be taken in any plural sense, must naturally be named by a word which is singular only: as, _perry, cider, coffee, flax, hemp, fennel, tallow, pitch, gold, sloth, pride, meekness, eloquence_. But there are some things, which have in fact neither a comprehensible unity, nor any distinguishable plurality, and which may therefore be spoken of in either number; for the distinction of unity and plurality is, in such instances, merely verbal; and, whichever number we take, the word will be apt to want the other: as, _dregs_, or _sediment; riches_, or _wealth; pains_, or _toil; ethics_, or _moral philosophy; politics_, or _the science of government; belles-lettres_, or _polite literature_. So _darkness_, which in English appears to have no plural, is expressed in Latin by _tenebræ_, in French by _ténèbres_, which have no singular. It is necessary that every noun should be understood to be of one number or the other; for, in connecting it with a verb, or in supplying its place by a pronoun, we must assume it to be either singular or plural. And it is desirable that singulars and plurals should always abide by their appropriate forms, so that they may be thereby distinguished with readiness. But custom, which regulates this, as every thing else of the like nature, does not always adjust it well; or, at least, not always upon principles uniform in themselves and obvious to every intellect.

OBS. 25.--Nouns of multitude, when taken collectively, generally admit the regular plural form; which of course is understood with reference to the individuality of the whole collection, considered as one thing: but, when taken distributively, they have a plural signification without the form; and, in this case, their plurality refers to the individuals that compose the assemblage. Thus, a _council_, a _committee_, a _jury_, a _meeting_, a _society_, a _flock_, or a _herd_, is singular; and the regular plurals are _councils, committees, juries, meetings, societies, flocks, herds_. But these, and many similar words, may be taken plurally without the _s_, because a collective noun is the name of many individuals together. Hence we may say, "The _council were_ unanimous."--"The _committee are_ in consultation."--"The _jury were_ unable to agree."--"The _meeting have shown their_ discretion."--"The _society have settled their_ dispute."--"The _flock are_ widely scattered."--"The whole _herd were drowned_ in the sea." The propriety of the last example seems questionable; because _whole_ implies unity, and _were drowned_ is plural. Where a purer concord can be effected, it may be well to avoid such a construction, though examples like it are not uncommon: as, "Clodius was acquitted by _a corrupt jury_, that had palpably taken shares of money before _they gave their_ verdict."--_Bacon_. "And the _whole multitude_ of the people _were praying_ without, at the time of incense."--_Luke_, i, 10.