the name. But the nature of a mass, or of an indefinite multitude taken
collectively, is not found in individuals as such; nor is the name, whether
singular, as _gold_, or plural, as _ashes_, so understood. Hence, though
every noun must be of one number or the other, there are many which have
little or no need of both. Thus we commonly speak of _wheat, barley, or
oats_, collectively; and very seldom find occasion for any other forms of
these words. But chafferers at the corn-market, in spite of Cobbett,[154]
will talk about _wheats_ and _barleys_, meaning different kinds[155] or
qualities; and a gardener, if he pleases, will tell of an _oat_, (as does
Milton, in his Lycidas,) meaning a single seed or plant. But, because
_wheat_ or _barley_ generally means that sort of grain in mass, if he will
mention a single kernel, he must call it a _grain of wheat_ or a
_barleycorn_. And these he may readily make plural, to specify any
particular number; as, _five grains of wheat_, or _three barleycorns_.

OBS. 31.--My chief concern is with general principles, but the illustration
of these requires many particular examples--even far more than I have room
to quote. The word _amends_ is represented by Murray and others, as being
singular as well as plural; but Webster's late dictionaries exhibit
_amend_ as singular, and _amends_ as plural, with definitions that
needlessly differ, though not much. I judge "_an amends_" to be bad
English; and prefer the regular singular, _an amend_. The word is of French
origin, and is sometimes written in English with a needless final _e_; as,
"But only to make a kind of honourable _amende_ to God."--_Rollin's Ancient
Hist._, Vol. ii, p. 24. The word _remains_ Dr. Webster puts down as plural
only, and yet uses it himself in the singular: "The creation of a Dictator,
even for a few months, would have buried every _remain_ of
freedom."--_Webster's Essays_, p. 70. There are also other authorities for
this usage, and also for some other nouns that are commonly thought to have
no singular; as, "But Duelling is unlawful and murderous, a _remain_ of the
ancient Gothic barbarity."--_Brown's Divinity_, p. 26. "I grieve with the
old, for so many additional inconveniences, more than their small _remain_
of life seemed destined to undergo."--POPE: _in Joh. Dict._ "A disjunctive
syllogism is one whose major _premise_ is disjunctive."--_Hedge's Logic_.
"Where should he have this gold? It is some poor fragment, some slender
_ort_ of his remainder."--SHAK.: _Timon of Athens_.

OBS. 32.--There are
several nouns which are usually alike in both numbers. Thus, _deer, folk,
fry, gentry, grouse, hose, neat, sheep, swine, vermin_, and _rest_, (i. e.
_the rest_, the others, the residue,) are regular singulars, but they are
used also as plurals, and that more frequently. Again, _alms, aloes,
bellows, means, news, odds, shambles_, and _species_, are proper plurals,
but most of them are oftener construed as singulars. _Folk_ and _fry_ are
collective nouns. _Folk_ means _people_; _a folk, a people_: as, "The ants
are _a people_ not strong;"--"The conies are but _a feeble
folk_."--_Prov._, xxx, 25, 26. "He laid his hands on a few sick _folk_, and
healed _them_."--_Mark_, vi, 5. _Folks_, which ought to be the plural of
_folk_, and equivalent to _peoples_, is now used with reference to a
plurality of individuals, and the collective word seems liable to be
entirely superseded by it. A _fry_ is a swarm of young fishes, or of any
other little creatures living in water: so called, perhaps, because their
motions often make the surface _fry_. Several such swarms might properly be
called _fries_; but this form can never be applied to the individuals,
without interfering with the other. "So numerous _was the fry_."--_Cowper_.
"The _fry betake themselves_ to the neighbouring pools."--_Quarterly
Review_. "You cannot think more contemptuously of _these gentry_ than
_they_ were thought of by the true prophets."--_Watson's Apology_, p. 93.
"_Grouse_, a heathcock."--_Johnson_.

   "The 'squires in scorn will fly the house
    For better game, and look for _grouse_."--_Swift_.

"Here's an English tailor, come hither for stealing out of _a_ French
_hose_."--_Shak_. "He, being in love, could not see to garter his
_hose_."--_Id._ Formerly, the plural was _hosen_: "Then these men were
bound, in their coats, their _hosen_, and their hats."--_Dan._, iii, 21. Of
_sheep_, Shakspeare has used the regular plural: "Two hot _sheeps_,
marry!"--_Love's Labour Lost_, Act ii, Sc. 1.

   "Who both by his calf and his lamb will be known,
    May well kill _a neat_ and _a sheep_ of his own."--_Tusser_.

    "His droves of asses, camels, herds of _neat_,
    And flocks of _sheep_, grew shortly twice as great."--_Sandys_.

"As a jewel of gold in _a swine's_ snout."--_Prov._, xi, 22. "A herd of
_many swine_, feeding."--_Matt._, viii, 30. "An idle person only lives to
spend his time, and eat the fruits of the earth, like a _vermin_ or a
wolf."--_Taylor_. "The head of a wolf, dried and hanged up, will scare away
_vermin_."--_Bacon_. "Cheslip, _a small vermin_ that lies under stones or
tiles."--SKINNER: in _Joh. and in Web. Dict._ "This is flour, the _rest is_
bran."--"And the _rest were_ blinded."--_Rom._, xi, 7. "The poor beggar
hath a just demand of _an alms_."--_Swift_. "Thine _alms are_ come up for a
memorial before God."--_Acts_, x, 4. "The draught of air performed the
function of _a bellows_."--_Robertson's Amer._, ii, 223. "As the _bellows
do_."--_Bicknell's Gram._, ii, 11. "The _bellows are_ burned."--_Jer._, vi,
29. "Let _a gallows_ be made."--_Esther_, v, 14. "_Mallows are_ very useful
in medicine."--_Wood's Dict._ "_News_," says Johnson, "is without the
singular, unless it be considered as singular."--_Dict._ "So _is_ good
_news_ from a far country."--_Prov._, xxv, 25. "Evil _news rides_ fast,
while good _news baits_."--_Milton_. "When Rhea heard _these news_, she
fled."--_Raleigh_. "_News were brought_ to the queen."--_Hume's Hist._, iv,
426. "The _news_ I bring _are_ afflicting, but the consolation with which
_they_ are attended, ought to moderate your grief."--_Gil Blas_, Vol. ii,
p. 20. "Between these two cases there _are_ great _odds_."--_Hooker_.
"Where the _odds is_ considerable."--_Campbell_. "Determining on which side
the _odds lie_."--_Locke_. "The greater _are the odds_ that he mistakes his
author."--_Johnson's Gram. Com._, p. 1. "Though thus _an odds_ unequally
they meet."--_Rowe's Lucan_, B. iv, l. 789. "Preëminent by so _much
odds_."--_Milton_. "To make a _shambles_ of the parliament house."--_Shak_.
"The earth has been, from the beginning, a great Aceldama, _a shambles_ of
blood."--_Christian's Vade-Mecum_, p. 6. "_A shambles_" sounds so
inconsistent, I should rather say, "_A shamble_." Johnson says, the
etymology of the word is _uncertain_; Webster refers it to the Saxon
_scamel_: it means _a butcher's stall, a meat-market_; and there would seem
to be no good reason for the _s_, unless more than one such place is
intended. "Who sells his subjects to the _shambles_ of a foreign
power."--_Pitt_. "A special idea is called by the schools _a
species_."--_Watts_. "He intendeth the care of _species_, or common
natures."--_Brown_. "ALOE, (al~o) _n.; plu._ ALOES."--_Webster's Dict._,
and _Worcester's_. "But it was _aloe_ itself to lose the reward."--
_Tupper's Crock of Gold_, p. 16.

   "But high in amphitheatre above,
    _His_ arms the everlasting _aloes_ threw."
        --_Campbell_, G. of W., ii, 10.

OBS. 33.--There are some nouns, which, though really regular in respect to
possessing the two forms for the two numbers, are not free from
irregularity in the manner of their application. Thus _means_ is the
regular plural of _mean_; and, when the word is put for mediocrity, middle
point, place, or degree, it takes both forms, each in its proper sense; but
when it signifies things instrumental, or that which is used to effect an
object, most writers use _means_ for the singular as well as for the
plural:[156] as, "By _this means_"--"By _those means_," with reference to
one mediating cause; and, "By _these means_,"--"By _those means_," with
reference to more than one. Dr. Johnson says the use of _means_ for _mean_
is not very grammatical; and, among his examples for the true use of the
word, he has the following: "Pamela's noble heart would needs gratefully
make known the valiant _mean_ of her safety."--_Sidney._ "Their virtuous
conversation was a _mean_ to work the heathens' conversion."--_Hooker._
"Whether his wits should by that _mean_ have been taken from him."--_Id._
"I'll devise a _mean_ to draw the Moor out of the way."--_Shak._ "No place
will please me so, no _mean_ of death."--_Id._ "Nature is made better by no
_mean_, but nature makes that _mean._"--_Id._ Dr. Lowth also questioned the
propriety of construing _means_ as singular, and referred to these same
authors as authorities for preferring the regular form. Buchanan insists
that _means_ is right in the plural only; and that, "The singular should be
used as perfectly analogous; by this _mean_, by that _mean_."--_English
Syntax_, p. 103. Lord Kames, likewise, appears by his practice to have been
of the same opinion: "Of this the child must be sensible intuitively, for
it has no other _mean_ of knowledge."--_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. i, p.
357. "And in both the same _mean_ is employed."--_Ib._ ii, 271. Caleb
Alexander, too, declares "_this means_," "_that means_." and "_a means_,"
to be "ungrammatical."--_Gram._, p. 58. But common usage has gone against
the suggestions of these critics, and later grammarians have rather
confirmed the irregularity, than attempted to reform it.

OBS. 34.--Murray quotes sixteen good authorities to prove that means may be
singular; but whether it _ought_ to be so or not, is still a disputable
point. Principle is for the regular word _mean_, and good practice favours
the irregularity, but is still divided. Cobbett, to the disgrace of
grammar, says, "_Mean_, as a noun, is _never used in the singular_. It,
like some other words, has broken loose from all principle and rule. By
universal consent, it _is become always a plural_, whether used with
_singular or plural_ pronouns and articles, _or not_."--_E. Gram._, p. 144.
This is as ungrammatical, as it is untrue. Both mean and means are
sufficiently authorized in the singular: "The prospect which by this mean
is opened to you."--_Melmoth's Cicero_. "Faith in this doctrine never
terminates in itself, but is _a mean_, to holiness as an end."--_Dr.
Chalmers, Sermons_, p. v. "The _mean_ of basely affronting him."--_Brown's
Divinity_, p. 19. "They used every _mean_ to prevent the re-establishment
of their religion."--_Dr Jamieson's Sacred Hist._, i, p. 20. "As a
necessary _mean_ to prepare men for the discharge of that duty."--
_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 153. "Greatest is the power of a _mean_, when
its power is least suspected."--_Tupper's Book of Thoughts_, p. 37. "To the
deliberative orator the reputation of unsullied virtue is not only useful,
as a _mean_ of promoting his general influence, it is also among his most
efficient engines of persuasion, upon every individual occasion."--_J. Q.
Adams's Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory_, i, 352. "I would urge it upon
you, as the most effectual _mean_ of extending your respectability and
usefulness in the world."--_Ib._, ii, 395. "Exercise will be admitted to be
a necessary _mean_ of improvement."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 343. "And by _that
means_ we have now an early prepossession in their favour."--_Ib._, p. 348.
"To abolish all sacrifice by revealing a better _mean_ of reconciliation."
--_Keith's Evidences_, p. 46. "As a _mean_ of destroying the distinction."
--_Ib._, p. 3. "Which however is by no _mean_ universally the case."--
_Religious World Displayed_, Vol. iii, p. 155.

OBS. 35.--Again, there are some nouns, which, though they do not lack the
regular plural form, are sometimes used in a plural sense without the
plural termination. Thus _manner_ makes the plural _manners_, which last is
now generally used in the peculiar sense of behaviour, or deportment, but
not always: it sometimes means methods, modes, or ways; as, "At sundry
times and in divers _manners_."--_Heb._, i, 1. "In the _manners_ above
mentioned."--_Butler's Analogy_, p. 100. "There be three _manners_ of
trials in England."--COWELL: _Joh. Dict., w. Jury_. "These two _manners_ of
representation."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 15. "These are the three primary
modes, or _manners_, of expression."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 83. "In
arrangement, too, various _manners_ suit various styles."--_Campbell's
Phil. of Rhet._, p. 172. "Between the two _manners_."--_Bolingbroke, on
Hist._, p. 35. "Here are three different _manners_ of asserting."--
_Barnard's Gram._, p. 59. But _manner_ has often been put for _sorts_,
without the _s_; as, "The tree of life, which bare _twelve manner_ of
fruits."--_Rev._, xxii, 2. "All _manner_ of men assembled here in
arms."--_Shak_. "_All manner_ of outward advantages."--_Atterbury_. Milton
used _kind_ in the same way, but not very properly; as, "_All kind_ of
living creatures."--_P. Lost_, B. iv, l. 286. This irregularity it would be
well to avoid. _Manners_ may still, perhaps, be proper for modes or ways;
and _all manner_, if allowed, must be taken in the sense of a collective
noun; but for sorts, kinds, classes, or species, I would use neither the
plural nor the singular of this word. The word _heathen_, too, makes the
regular plural _heathens_, and yet is often used in a plural sense without
the _s_; as, "Why do the _heathen_ rage?"--_Psalms_, ii, 1. "Christianity
was formerly propagated among the _heathens_."--_Murray's Key_, 8vo, p.
217. The word _youth_, likewise, has the same peculiarities.

OBS. 36.--Under the present head come names of fishes, birds, or other
things, when the application of the singular is extended from the
individual to the species, so as to supersede the plural by assuming its
construction: as, Sing. "A great _fish_."--_Jonah_, i, 17. Plur. "For the
multitude of _fishes_'."--_John_, xxi, 6. "A very great multitude of
_fish_."--_Ezekiel_, xlvii, 9.[157] The name of the genus being liable to
this last construction, men seem to have thought that the species should
follow; consequently, the regular plurals of some very common names of
fishes are scarcely known at all. Hence some grammarians affirm, that
_salmon, mackerel, herring, perch, tench_, and several others, are alike in
both numbers, and ought never to be used in the plural form. I am not so
fond of honouring these anomalies. Usage is here as unsettled, as it is
arbitrary; and, if the expression of plurality is to be limited to either
form exclusively, the regular plural ought certainly to be preferred. But,
_for fish taken in bulk_, the singular form seems more appropriate; as,
"These vessels take from thirty-eight to forty-five quintals of _cod_ and
_pollock_, and six thousand barrels of _mackerel_, yearly."--_Balbi's
Geog._, p. 28.

OBS. 37.--The following examples will illustrate the unsettled usage just
mentioned, and from them the reader may judge for himself what is right. In
quoting, at second-hand, I generally think it proper to make double
references; and especially in citing authorities after Johnson, because he
so often gives the same passages variously. But he himself is reckoned good
authority in things literary. Be it so. I regret the many proofs of his
fallibility. "Hear you this Triton of the _minnows?_"--_Shak_. "The shoal
of _herrings_ was of an immense extent."--_Murray's Key_, p. 185. "Buy my
_herring_ fresh."--SWIFT: _in Joh. Dict._ "In the fisheries of Maine, _cod,
herring, mackerel alewives, salmon_, and other _fish_, are
taken."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 23. "MEASE, _n._ The quantity of 500; as, a
_mease_ of _herrings_."--_Webster's Dict._ "We shall have plenty of
_mackerel_ this season."--ADDISON: _in Joh. Dict._ "_Mackarel_ is the same
in both numbers. Gay has improperly _mackarels_."--_Churchill's Gram._, p.
208. "They take _salmon_ and _trouts_ by groping and tickling them under
the bellies."--CAREW: _in Joh. Dict._ "The pond will keep _trout_ and
_salmon_ in their seasonable plight."--_Id., ib., w. Trout_. "Some _fish_
are preserved fresh in vinegar, as _turbot_."--_Id., ib., w. Turbot_. "Some
_fish_ are boiled and preserved fresh in vinegar, as _tunny_ and
_turbot_."--_Id., ib., w. Tunny_. "Of round _fish_, there are _brit, sprat,
barn, smelts_."--_Id., ib., w. Smelt._ "For _sprats_ and _spurlings_ for
your house."--TUSSEE: _ib., w. Spurling_. "The coast is plentifully stored
with _pilchards, herrings_, and _haddock_."--CAREW: _ib., w. Haddock_. "The
coast is plentifully stored with round _fish, pilchard, herring, mackerel_,
and _cod_"--_Id., ib., w. Herring_. "The coast is plentifully stored with
_shellfish, sea-hedgehogs, scallops, pilcherd, herring_, and
_pollock_."--_Id., ib., w. Pollock_. "A _roach_ is _a fish_ of no great
reputation for his dainty taste. It is noted that _roaches_ recover
strength and grow a fortnight after spawning."--WALTON: _ib., w. Roach_. "A
friend of mine stored a pond of three or four acres with _carps_ and
_tench_."--HALE: _ib., w. Carp_. "Having stored a very great pond with
_carps, tench_, and other _pond-fish_, and only put in two small _pikes_,
this pair of tyrants in seven years devoured the whole."--_Id., ib., w.
Tench_. "Singular, _tench_; plural, _tenches_."--_Brightland's Gram._, p.
78. "The polar bear preys upon _seals, fish_, and the carcasses of
_whales_."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 172. "_Trouts_ and _salmons_ swim against
the stream."--BACON: _Ward's Gram._, p. 130.

   "'Tis true no _turbots_ dignify my boards,
    But _gudgeons, flounders_, what my Thames affords."--_Pope_.

OBS. 38.--Prom the foregoing examples it would seem, if fish or fishes are
often spoken of without a regular distinction of the grammatical numbers,
it is not because the words are not susceptible of the inflection, but
because there is some difference of meaning between the mere name of the
sort and the distinct modification in regard to number. There are also
other nouns in which a like difference may be observed. Some names of
building materials, as _brick, stone, plank, joist_, though not destitute
of regular plurals, as _bricks, stones, planks, joists_, and not unadapted
to ideas distinctly singular, as _a brick, a stone, a plank, a joist_, are
nevertheless sometimes used in a plural sense without the _s_, and
sometimes in a sense which seems hardly to embrace the idea of either
number; as, "Let us make _brick_, and burn _them_ thoroughly."--_Gen._, xi,
3. "And they had _brick_ for _stone_."--_Ib._ "The tale of
_bricks_."--_Exod._, v, 8 and 18. "Make _brick_."--_Ib._, v, 16. "From your
_bricks_."--_Ib._, v, 19. "Upon altars of _brick_."--_Isaiah_. lxv, 3. "The
_bricks_ are fallen down."--_Ib._, ix, 10. The same variety of usage occurs
in respect to a few other words, and sometimes perhaps without good reason;
as, "Vast numbers of sea _fowl_ frequent the rocky cliffs."--_Balbi's
Geog._, p. 231. "Bullocks, sheep, and _fowls_."--_Ib._, p. 439. "_Cannon_
is used alike in both numbers."--_Everest's Gram._, p. 48. "_Cannon_ and
_shot_ may be used in the singular or plural sense."--_O. B. Peirce's
Gram._, p. 37. "The column in the Place Vendome is one hundred and
thirty-four feet high, and is made of the brass of the _cannons_ taken from
the Austrians and Prussians."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 249. "As his _cannons_
roar."--_Dryden's Poems_, p. 81. "Twenty _shot_ of his greatest
cannon."--CLARENDON: _Joh. Dict._ "Twenty _shots_" would here, I think, be
more proper, though the word is not made plural when it means _little balls
of lead_. "And _cannons_ conquer armies."--_Hudibras_, Part III, Canto iii,
l. 249.

   "Healths to both kings, attended with the roar
    Of _cannons_ echoed from th' affrighted shore."--_Waller_, p. 7.

OBS. 39.--Of foreign nouns, many retain their original plural; a few are
defective; and some are redundant, because the English form is also in use.
Our writers have laid many languages under contribution, and thus furnished
an abundance of irregular words, necessary to be explained, but never to be
acknowledged as English till they conform to our own rules.

1. Of nouns in _a, saliva_, spittle, and _scoria_, dross, have no occasion
for the plural; _lamina_, a thin plate, makes _laminæ_; _macula_, a spot,
_maculæ_; _minutia_, a little thing, _minutiæ_; _nebula_, a mist, _nebulæ_;
_siliqua_, a pod, _siliqiuæ_. _Dogma_ makes _dogmas_ or _dogmata_;
_exanthema, exanthemas_ or _exanthemata_; _miasm_ or _miasma, miasms_ or
_miasmata_; _stigma, stigmas_ or _stigmata_.

2. Of nouns in _um_, some have no need of the plural; as, _bdellium,
decorum, elysium, equilibrium, guaiacum, laudanum, odium, opium, petroleum,
serum, viaticum_. Some form it regularly; as, _asylums, compendiums,
craniums, emporiums, encomiums, forums, frustums, lustrums, mausoleums,
museums, pendulums, nostrums, rostrums, residuums, vacuums_. Others take
either the English or the Latin plural; as, _desideratums_ or _desiderata,
mediums_ or _media, menstruums_ or _menstrua, memorandums_ or _memoranda,
spectrums_ or _spectra, speculums_ or _specula, stratums_ or _strata,
succedaneums_ or _succedanea, trapeziums_ or _trapezia, vinculums_ or
_vincula_. A few seem to have the Latin plural only: as, _arcanum, arcana;
datum, data; effluvium, effluvia; erratum, errata; scholium, scholia_.

3. Of nouns in _us_, a few have no plural; as, _asparagus, calamus, mucus_.
Some have only the Latin plural, which usually changes _us_ to _i_; as,
_alumnus, alumni; androgynus, androgyni; calculus, calculi; dracunculus,
dracunculi; echinus, echini; magus, magi_. But such as have properly become
English words, may form the plural regularly in _es_; as, _chorus,
choruses_: so, _apparatus, bolus, callus, circus, fetus, focus, fucus,
fungus, hiatus, ignoramus, impetus, incubus, isthmus, nautilus, nucleus,
prospectus, rebus, sinus, surplus_. Five of these make the Latin plural
like the singular; but the mere English scholar has no occasion to be told
which they are. _Radius_ makes the plural _radii_ or _radiuses_. _Genius_
has _genii_, for imaginary spirits, and _geniuses_, for men of wit.
_Genus_, a sort, becomes _genera_ in Latin, and _genuses_ in English.
_Denarius_ makes, in the plural, _denarii_ or _denariuses_.

4. Of nouns in _is_, some are regular; as, _trellis, trellises_: so,
_annolis, butteris, caddis, dervis, iris, marquis, metropolis, portcullis,
proboscis_. Some seem to have no need of the plural; as, _ambergris,
aqua-fortis, arthritis, brewis, crasis, elephantiasis, genesis, orris,
siriasis, tennis_. But most nouns of this ending follow the Greek or Latin
form, which simply changes _is_ to _=es_: as, _amanuensis, amanuenses;
analysis, analyses; antithesis, antitheses; axis, axes; basis, bases;
crisis, crises; diæresis, diæreses; diesis, dieses; ellipsis, ellipses;
emphasis, emphases; fascis, fasces; hypothesis, hypotheses; metamorphosis,
metamorphoses; oasis, oases; parenthesis, parentheses; phasis, phases;
praxis, praxes; synopsis, synopses; synthesis, syntheses; syrtis, syrtes;
thesis, theses_. In some, however, the original plural is not so formed;
but is made by changing _is_ to _~ides_; as, _aphis, aphides; apsis,
apsides; ascaris, ascarides; bolis, bolides; cantharis, cantharides;
chrysalis, chrysalides; ephemeris, ephemerides; epidermis, epidermides_. So
_iris_ and _proboscis_, which we make regular; and perhaps some of the
foregoing may be made so too. Fisher writes _Praxises_ for _praxes_, though
not very properly. See his _Gram_, p. v. _Eques_, a Roman knight, makes
_equites_ in the plural.

5. Of nouns in _x_, there are few, if any, which ought not to form the
plural regularly, when used as English words; though the Latins changed _x_
to _ces_, and _ex_ to _ices_, making the _i_ sometimes long and sometimes
short: as, _apex, apices_, for _apexes; appendix, appendices_, for
_appendixes; calix, calices_, for _calixes_; _calx, calces_, for _calxes;
calyx, calyces_, for _calyxes; caudex, caudices_, for _caudexes; cicatrix,
cicatrices_, for _cicatrixes; helix, helices_, for _helixes; index,
indices_, for _indexes; matrix, matrices_, for _matrixes; quincunx,
quincunces_, for _quincunxes; radix, radices_, for _radixes; varix,
varices_, for _varixes; vertex, vertices_, for _vertexes; vortex,
vortices_, for _vortexes_. Some Greek words in _x_ change that letter to
_ges_; as, _larynx, larynges_, for _larinxes; phalanx, phalanges_, for
_phalanxes_. _Billet-doux_, from the French, is _billets-doux_ in the
plural.

6. Of nouns in _on_, derived from Greek, the greater part always form the
plural regularly; as, _etymons, gnomons, ichneumons, myrmidons, phlegmons,
trigons, tetragons, pentagons, hexagons, heptagons, octagons, enneagons,
decagons, hendecagons, dodecagons, polygons_. So _trihedrons, tetrahedrons,
pentahedrons_, &c., though some say, these last may end in _dra_, which I
think improper. For a few words of this class, however, there are double
plurals in use; as, _automata_ or _atomatons, criteria_ or _criterions,
parhelia_ or _parhelions_; and the plural of _phenomenon_ appears to be
always _phenomena_.

7. The plural of _legumen_ is _legumens_ or _legumina_; of _stamen,
stamens_ or _stamina_: of _cherub, cherubs_ or _cherubim_; of _seraph,
seraphs_ or _seraphim_; of _beau, beaus_ or _beaux_; of _bandit, bandits_
or _banditti_. The regular forms are in general preferable. The Hebrew
plurals _cherubim_ and _seraphim_, being sometimes mistaken for singulars,
other plurals have been formed from them; as, "And over it the _cherubims_
of glory."--_Heb_. ix, 5. "Then flow one of the _seraphims_ unto
me."--_Isaiah_, vi, 6. Dr. Campbell remarks: "We are authorized, both by
use and by analogy, to say either _cherubs_ and _seraphs_, according to the
English idiom, or _cherubim_ and _seraphim_, according to the oriental. The
former suits better the familiar, the latter the solemn style. I shall add
to this remark," says he, "that, as the words _cherubim_ and _seraphim_ are
plural, the terms _cherubims_ and _seraphims_, as expressing the plural,
are quite improper."--_Phil. of Rhet._, p. 201.

OBS. 40.--When other parts of speech become nouns, they either want the
plural, or form it regularly,[158] like common nouns of the same endings;
as, "His affairs went on at _sixes_ and _sevens_."--_Arbuthnot_. "Some
mathematicians have proposed to compute by _twoes_; _others_, by _fours_;
_others_, by _twelves_."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 81. "Three _fourths_,
nine _tenths_."--_Ib._, p. 230. "Time's _takings_ and _leavings_."--
_Barton_. "The _yeas_ and _nays_."--_Newspaper_. "The _ays_ and
_noes_."--_Ib._ "_Oes_ and _spangles_."--_Bacon_. "The _ins_ and the
_outs_."--_Newspaper_."--We find it more safe against _outs_ and
_doubles_."--_Printer's Gram._ "His _ands_ and his _ors_."--_Mott_. "One of
the _buts_."--_Fowle_. "In raising the mirth of _stupids_."--_Steele_.
"_Eatings, drinkings, wakings, sleepings, walkings, talkings, sayings,
doings_--all were for the good of the public; there was not such a things
as a secret in the town."--LANDON: _Keepsake_, 1833. "Her innocent
_forsooths_ and _yesses_."--_Spect._, No. 266.

   "Henceforth my wooing mind shall be expressed
    In russet _yeas_ and honest kersey _noes_."
        --SHAK. See _Johnson's Dict., w. Kersey_.

GENDERS.

Genders, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish objects in regard
to sex.

There are three genders; the _masculine_, the _feminine_, and the _neuter_.

The _masculine gender_ is that which denotes persons or animals of the male
kind; as, _man, father, king_.

The _feminine gender_ is that which denotes persons or animals of the
female kind; as, _woman, mother, queen_.

The _neuter gender_ is that which denotes things that are neither male nor
female; as, _pen, ink, paper_.

Hence, names of males are masculine; names of females, feminine; and names
of things inanimate, literally, neuter.

Masculine nouns make regular feminines, when their termination is changed
to _ess_: as, _hunter, huntress_; _prince, princess_; _lion, lioness_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The different genders in grammar are founded on the natural
distinction of sex in animals, and on the absence of sex in other things.
In English, they belong only to nouns and pronouns; and to these they are
usually applied, not arbitrarily, as in some other languages, but agreeably
to the order of nature. From this we derive a very striking advantage over
those who use the gender differently, or without such rule; which is, that
our pronouns are easy of application, and have a fine effect when objects
are personified. Pronouns are of the same gender as the nouns for which
they stand.

OBS. 2.--Many nouns are equally applicable to both sexes; as, _cousin,
friend, neighbour, parent, person, servant_. The gender of these is usually
determined by the context; and they are to be called masculine or feminine
accordingly. To such words, some grammarians have applied the unnecessary
and improper term _common gender_. Murray justly observes, "There is no
such gender belonging to the language. The business of parsing can be
effectually performed, without having recourse to a _common
gender_."--_Gram._, 8vo. p. 39. The term is more useful, and less liable to
objection, as applied to the learned languages; but with us, whose genders
_distinguish objects in regard to sex_, it is plainly a solecism.

OBS. 3.--A great many of our grammars define gender to be "_the distinction
of sex_," and then speak of a _common gender_, in which the two sexes are
left _undistinguished_; and of the _neuter gender_, in which objects are
treated as being of _neither sex_. These views of the matter are obviously
inconsistent. Not genders, or a gender, do the writers undertake to define,
but "gender" as a whole; and absurdly enough, too; because this whole of
gender they immediately distribute into certain _other genders_, into
genders of gender, or kinds of gender, and these not compatible with their
definition. Thus Wells: "Gender is _the distinction_ of objects, with
regard to sex. There are four genders;--the _masculine_, the _feminine_,
the _common_, and the _neuter_."--_School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 49. [Those]
"Nouns which are applicable _alike to both sexes_, are of the _common_
gender."--_Ib._ This then is manifestly no gender under the foregoing
definition, and the term _neuter_ is made somewhat less appropriate by the
adoption of a third denomination before it. Nor is there less absurdity in
the phraseology with which Murray proposes to avoid the recognition of the
_common gender_: "Thus we may say, _Parents_ is a noun of the _masculine
and feminine_ gender; _Parent_, if doubtful, is of the _masculine or
feminine_ gender; and _Parent_, if the gender is known by the construction,
is of the gender so ascertained."--_Gram._, 8vo, p. 39. According to this,
we must have _five genders_, exclusive of that which is called _common_;
namely, the _masculine_, the _feminine_, the _neuter_, the _androgynal_,
and the _doubtful_.

OBS. 4.--It is plain that many writers on grammar have had but a confused
notion of what a gender really is. Some of them, confounding gender with
sex, deny that there are more than two genders, because there are only two
sexes. Others, under a like mistake, resort occasionally, (as in the
foregoing instance,) to an _androgynal_, and also to a _doubtful_ gender:
both of which are more objectionable than the _common gender_ of the old
grammarians; though this _common_ "distinction with regard to sex," is, in
our language, confessedly, no distinction at all. I assume, that there are
in English the three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter, and no more;
and that every noun and every pronoun must needs be of some gender;
consequently, of some one of these three. A gender is, literally, a sort, a
kind, a sex. But genders, _in grammar_, are attributes of words, rather
than of persons, or animals, or things; whereas sexes are attributes, not
of words, but of living creatures. He who understands this, will perceive
that the absence of sex in some things, is as good a basis for a
grammatical distinction, as the presence or the difference of it in others;
nor can it be denied, that the neuter, according to my definition, is a
gender, is a distinction "in _regard_ to sex," though it does not embrace
either of the sexes. There are therefore three genders, and only three.

OBS. 5.--Generic names, even when construed as masculine or feminine, often
virtually include both sexes; as, "Hast thou given _the horse_ strength?
hast thou clothed _his_ neck with thunder? Canst thou make _him_ afraid as
a grasshopper? the glory of _his_ nostrils is terrible."--_Job_, xxxix, 19.
"Doth _the hawk_ fly by thy wisdom, and stretch _her_ wings toward the
south? Doth _the eagle_ mount up at thy command, and make _her_ nest on
high?"--_Ib._, ver. 26. These were called, by the old grammarians,
_epicene_ nouns--that is, _supercommon_; but they are to be parsed each
according to the gender of the pronoun which is put for it.

OBS. 6.--The gender of words, in many instances, is to be determined by the
following principle of universal grammar. Those terms which are equally
applicable to both sexes, (if they are not expressly applied to females,)
and those plurals which are known to include both sexes, should be called
masculine in parsing; for, in all languages, the masculine gender is
considered the most worthy,[159] and is generally employed when both sexes
are included under one common term. Thus _parents_ is always masculine, and
must be represented by a masculine pronoun, for the gender of a word is a
property indivisible, and that which refers to the male sex, always takes
the lead in such cases. If one say, "Joseph took _the young child and his
mother_ by night, and fled with _them_ into Egypt," the pronoun _them_ will
be masculine; but let "_his_" be changed to _its_, and the plural pronoun
that follows, will be feminine. For the feminine gender takes precedence of
the neuter, but not of the masculine; and it is not improper to speak of a
young child without designating the sex. As for such singulars as _parent,
friend, neighbour, thief, slave_, and many others, they are feminine when
expressly applied to any of the female sex; but otherwise, masculine.

OBS. 7.--Nouns of multitude, when they convey the idea of unity or take the
plural form, are of the neuter gender; but when they convey the idea of
plurality without the form, they follow the gender of the individuals which
compose the assemblage. Thus a _congress_, a _council_, a _committee_, a
_jury_, a _sort_, or a _sex_, if taken collectively, is neuter; being
represented in discourse by the neuter pronoun _it_: and the formal
plurals, _congresses, councils, committees, juries, sorts, sexes_, of
course, are neuter also. But, if I say, "The committee disgraced
_themselves_," the noun and pronoun are presumed to be masculine, unless it
be known that I am speaking of a committee of females. Again: "The _fair
sex, whose_ task is not to mingle in the labours of public life, have
_their_ own part assigned _them_ to act."--_Comly's Gram._, p. 132. Here
_sex_, and the three pronouns which have that word for their antecedent,
are all feminine. Again: "_Each sex_, dressing _themselves_ in the clothes
of the other."--_Wood's Dictionary_, v. _Feast of Purim_. Here _sex_, and
the pronoun which follows, are masculine; because, the male sex, as well as
the female, is here spoken of plurally.

OBS. 8.--To _persons_, of every description, known or unknown, real or
imaginary, we uniformly ascribe sex.[160] But, as personality implies
intelligence, and sex supposes some obvious difference, a _young child_ may
be spoken of with distinction of sex or without, according to the notion of
the speaker; as, "I went to see the _child_ whilst they were putting on
_its cloaths_."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 125. "Because the _child_ has no
idea of any nurse besides _his_ own."--_Ib._, p. 153. To _brute animals_
also, the same distinction is generally applied, though with less
uniformity. Some that are very small, have a gender which seems to be
merely occasional and figurative; as, "Go to the _ant_, thou sluggard;
consider _her_ ways, and be wise."--_Prov._, vi, 6. "The _spider_ taketh
hold with _her_ hands, and is in kings' palaces."--_Prov._, xxx, 28. So the
_bee_ is usually made feminine, being a little creature of admirable
industry and economy. But, in general, irrational creatures whose sex is
unknown, or unnecessary to be regarded, are spoken of as neuter; as, "And
it became a _serpent_; and Moses fled from before _it_. And the Lord said
unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take _it_ by the tail. And he put
forth his hand and caught _it_, and _it_ became a rod in his
hand."--_Exod._, iv, 3, 4. Here, although the word _serpent_ is sometimes
masculine, the neuter pronoun seems to be more proper. So of some imaginary
creatures: as, "_Phenix_, the fowl which is said to exist single, and to
rise again from _its_ own ashes."--_Webster's Dict._ "So shall the
_Phoenix_ escape, with no stain on _its_ plumage."--_Dr. Bartlett's Lect._,
p. 10.

OBS. 9.--But this liberty of representing animals as of no sex, is often
carried to a very questionable extent; as, "The _hare_ sleeps with _its_
eyes open."--_Barbauld_. "The _hedgehog_, as soon as _it_ perceives
_itself_ attacked, rolls _itself_ into a kind of ball, and presents nothing
but _its_ prickles to the foe."--_Blair's Reader_, p. 138. "The _panther_
is a ferocious creature: like the tiger _it_ seizes _its_ prey by
surprise."--_Ib._, p. 102. "The _leopard_, in _its_ chace of prey, spares
neither man nor beast."--_Ib._, p. 103. "If a man shall steal an _ox_, or a
_sheep_, and kill _it_, or sell _it_."--_Exod._, xxii, 1. "A _dog_ resists
_its_ instinct to run after a hare, because _it_ recollects the beating
_it_ has previously received on that account. The _horse_ avoids the stone
at which _it_ once has stumbled."--_Spurzheim, on Education_, p. 3. "The
_racehorse_ is looked upon with pleasure; but it is the _warhorse_, that
carries grandeur in _its_ idea."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 30.

OBS. 10.--The sexes are distinguished _by words_, in four different ways.
First, by the use of different terminations: as, _Jew, Jewess; Julius,
Julia; hero, heroine_. Secondly, by the use of entirely different names:
as, _Henry, Mary; king, queen_. Thirdly, by compounds or phrases including
some distinctive term: as, _Mr. Murray, Mrs. Murray; Englishman,
Englishwoman; grandfather, grandmother; landlord, landlady; merman,
mermaid; servingman, servingmaid; man-servant, maid-servant; schoolmaster,
schoolmistress; school-boy, school-girl; peacock, peahen; cock-sparrow,
hen-sparrow; he-goat, she-goat; buck-rabbit, doe-rabbit; male elephant,
female elephant; male convicts, female convicts_. Fourthly, by the pronouns
_he, his, him_, put for nouns masculine; and _she, her, hers_, for nouns
feminine: as, "Ask _him_ that fleeth, and _her_ that escapeth, and say,
What is done?"--_Jer._, xlviii, 19.

   "O happy _peasant!_ Oh unhappy _bard!_
    _His_ the mere tinsel, _hers_ the rich reward."--_Cowper_.

OBS. 11.--For feminine nouns formed by inflection, the regular termination
is _ess_; but the manner in which this ending is applied to the original or
masculine noun, is not uniform:--

1. In some instances the syllable _ess_ is simply added: as, _accuser,
accuseress; advocate, advocatess; archer, archeress; author, authoress;
avenger, avengeress; barber, barberess; baron, baroness; canon, canoness;
cit, cittess;[161] coheir, coheiress; count, countess; deacon, deaconess;
demon, demoness; diviner, divineress; doctor, doctoress; giant, giantess;
god, goddess; guardian, guardianess; Hebrew, Hebrewess; heir, heiress;
herd, herdess; hermit, hermitess; host, hostess; Jesuit, Jesuitess; Jew,
Jewess; mayor, mayoress; Moabite, Moabitess; monarch, monarchess; pape,
papess_; or, _pope, popess; patron, patroness; peer, peeress; poet,
poetess; priest, priestess; prior, prioress; prophet, prophetess; regent,
regentess; saint, saintess; shepherd, shepherdess; soldier, soldieress;
tailor, tailoress; viscount, viscountess; warrior, warrioress_.

2. In other instances, the termination is changed, and there is no increase
of syllables: as, _abbot, abbess; actor, actress; adulator, adulatress;
adulterer, adulteress; adventurer, adventuress; advoutrer, advoutress;
ambassador, ambassadress; anchorite, anchoress_; or, _anachoret,
anachoress; arbiter, arbitress; auditor, auditress; benefactor,
benefactress; caterer, cateress; chanter, chantress; cloisterer,
cloisteress; commander, commandress; conductor, conductress; creator,
creatress; demander, demandress; detractor, detractress; eagle, eagless;
editor, editress; elector, electress; emperor, emperess_, or _empress;
emulator, emulatress; enchanter, enchantress; exactor, exactress; fautor,
fautress; fornicator, fornicatress; fosterer, fosteress_, or _fostress;
founder, foundress; governor, governess; huckster, huckstress_; or,
_hucksterer, hucksteress; idolater, idolatress; inhabiter, inhabitress;
instructor, instructress; inventor, inventress; launderer, launderess_, or
_laundress; minister, ministress; monitor, monitress; murderer, murderess;
negro, negress; offender, offendress; ogre, ogress; porter, portress;
progenitor, progenitress; protector, protectress; proprietor, proprietress;
pythonist, pythoness; seamster, seamstress; solicitor, solicitress;
songster, songstress; sorcerer, sorceress; suitor, suitress; tiger,
tigress; traitor, traitress; victor, victress; votary, votaress_.

3. In a few instances the feminine is formed as in Latin, by changing _or_
to _rix_; but some of these have also the regular form, which ought to be
preferred: as, _adjutor, adjutrix; administrator, administratrix;
arbitrator, arbitratrix; coadjutor, coadjutrix; competitor, competitress_,
or _competitrix; creditor, creditrix; director, directress_, or _directrix;
executor, executress_, or _executrix; inheritor, inheritress_, or
_inheritrix; mediator, mediatress_, or _mediatrix; orator, oratress_, or
_oratrix; rector, rectress_, or _rectrix; spectator, spectatress_, or
_spectatrix; testator, testatrix; tutor, tutoress_, or _tutress_, or
_tutrix; deserter, desertress_, or _desertrice_, or _desertrix_.

4. The following are irregular words, in which the distinction of sex is
chiefly made by the termination: _amoroso, amorosa: archduke, archduchess;
chamberlain, chambermaid; duke, duchess; gaffer, gammer; goodman, goody;
hero, heroine; landgrave, landgravine; margrave, margravine; marquis,
marchioness; palsgrave, palsgravine; sakeret, sakerhawk; sewer, sewster;
sultan, sultana; tzar, tzarina; tyrant, tyranness; widower, widow_.

OBS. 12.--The proper names of persons almost always designate their sex;
for it has been found convenient to make the names of women different from
those of men. We have also some appellatives which correspond to each
other, distinguishing the sexes by their distinct application to each: as,
_bachelor, maid; beau, belle; boy, girl; bridegroom, bride; brother,
sister; buck, doe; boar, sow; bull, cow; cock, hen; colt, filly; dog,
bitch; drake, duck; earl, countess; father, mother; friar, nun; gander,
goose; grandsire, grandam; hart, roe; horse, mare; husband, wife; king,
queen; lad, lass; lord, lady; male, female; man, woman; master, mistress_;
Mister, Missis; (Mr., Mrs.;) _milter, spawner; monk, nun; nephew, niece;
papa, mamma; rake, jilt; ram, ewe; ruff, reeve; sire, dam; sir, madam;
sloven, slut; son, daughter; stag, hind; steer, heifer; swain, nymph;
uncle, aunt; wizard, witch; youth, damsel; young man, maiden_.

OBS. 13.--The people of a particular country are commonly distinguished by
some name derived from that of their country; as, _Americans, Africans,
Egyptians, Russians, Turks_. Such words are sometimes called _gentile
names_. There are also adjectives, of the same origin, if not the same
form, which correspond with them. "Gentile names are for the most part
considered as masculine, and the feminine is denoted by the gentile
adjective and the noun _woman_: as, a _Spaniard_, a _Spanish woman_; a
_Pole_, or _Polander_, a _Polish woman_. But, in a few instances, we always
use a compound of the adjective with _man_ or _woman_: as, an _Englishman_,
an _Englishwoman_; a _Welshman_, a _Welshwoman_; an _Irishman_, an
_Irishwoman_; a _Frenchman_, a _Frenchwoman_; a _Dutchman_, a _Dutchwoman_:
and in these cases the adjective is employed as the collective noun; as,
_the Dutch, the French_, &c. A _Scotchman_, and a _Scot_, are both in use;
but the latter is not common in prose writers: though some employ it, and
these generally adopt the plural, _Scots_, with the definite article, as
the collective term."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 70.

OBS. 14.--The names of things without life, used literally, are always of
the neuter gender: as, "When Cleopatra fled, Antony pursued her in a
five-oared galley; and, coming along side of her _ship_, entered _it_
without being seen by her."--_Goldsmith's Rome_, p. 160. "The _sun_, high
as _it_ is, has _its_ business assigned; and so have the
stars."--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 138. But inanimate objects are often
represented figuratively as having sex. Things remarkable for power,
greatness, or sublimity, are spoken of as masculine; as, the _sun, time,
death, sleep, fear, anger, winter, war_. Things beautiful, amiable, or
prolific, are spoken of as feminine; as, a _ship_, the _moon_, the _earth,
nature, fortune, knowledge, hope, spring, peace_. Figurative gender is
indicated only by the personal pronouns of the singular number: as, "When
we say of the _sun, He_ is setting; or of a _ship, She_ sails well."--_L.
Murray_. For these two objects, the _sun_ and a _ship_, this phraseology is
so common, that the literal construction quoted above is rarely met with.

OBS. 15.--When any inanimate object or abstract quality is distinctly
personified, and presented to the imagination in the character of a living
and intelligent being, there is necessarily a change of the gender of the
word; for, whenever personality is thus ascribed to what is literally
neuter, there must be an assumption of one or the other sex: as, "_The
Genius of Liberty_ is awakened, and springs up; _she_ sheds her divine
light and creative powers upon the two hemispheres. A great _nation_,
astonished at seeing _herself_ free, stretches _her_ arms from one
extremity of the earth to the other, and embraces the first nation that
became so."--_Abbé Fauchet_. But there is an inferior kind of
personification, or of what is called such, in which, so far as appears,
the gender remains neuter: as, "The following is an instance of
personification and apostrophe united: 'O _thou sword_ of the Lord! how
long will it be ere _thou_ be quiet? put _thyself_ up into _thy_ scabbard,
rest, and be still! How can _it_ be quiet, seeing the Lord hath given _it_
a charge against Askelon, and against the sea-shore? there hath he
appointed _it_.'"--_Murray's Gram._, p. 348. See _Jer._, xlvii, 6.

OBS. 16.--If what is called personification, does not always imply a change
of gender and an ascription of sex, neither does a mere ascription of sex
to what is literally of no sex, necessarily imply a personification; for
there may be sex without personality, as we see in brute animals. Hence the
gender of a brute animal personified in a fable, may be taken literally as
before; and the gender which is figuratively ascribed to the _sun_, the
_moon_, or a _ship_, is merely metaphorical. In the following sentence,
_nature_ is animated and made feminine by a metaphor, while a lifeless
object bearing the name of _Venus_, is spoken of as neuter: "Like that
conceit of old, which declared that the _Venus of Gnidos_ was not the work
of Praxiteles, since _nature herself_ had concreted the boundary surface of
_its_ beauty."--_Rush, on the Voice_, p. xxv.

OBS. 17.--"In personifications regard must be had to propriety in
determining the gender. Of most of the passions and moral qualities of man
the ancients formed deities, as they did of various other things: and, when
these are personified, they are usually made male or female, according as
they were gods or goddesses in the pagan mythology. The same rule applies
in other cases: and thus the planet Jupiter will be masculine; Venus,
feminine: the ocean, _Oce=anus_, masculine: rivers, months, and winds, the
same: the names of places, countries, and islands, feminine."--_Churchill's
Gram._, p. 71.

OBS. 18.--These suggestions are worthy of consideration, but, for the
gender which ought to be adopted in personifications, there seems to be no
absolute general rule, or none which English writers have observed with
much uniformity. It is well, however, to consider what is most common in
each particular case, and abide by it. In the following examples, the sex
ascribed is not that under which these several objects are commonly
figured; for which reason, the sentences are perhaps erroneous:--

   "_Knowledge_ is proud that _he_ has learn'd so much;
    _Wisdom_ is humble that _he_ knows no more."--_Cowper_.

    "But hoary _Winter_, unadorned and bare,
    Dwells in the dire retreat, and freezes there;
    There _she_ assembles all her blackest storms,
    And the rude hail in rattling tempests forms."--_Addison_.

    "_Her_ pow'r extends o'er all things that have breath,
    A cruel tyrant, and _her_ name is _Death_."--_Sheffield_.

CASES.

Cases, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish the relations of
nouns or pronouns to other words.

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

The _nominative case_ is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which
usually denotes the subject of a finite verb: as, The _boy_ runs; _I_ run.

The subject of a finite verb is that which answers to _who_ or _what_
before it; as, "The boy runs."--_Who_ runs? "The _boy_." Boy is therefore
here in the _nominative_ case.

The _possessive case_ is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which
usually denotes the relation of property: as, The _boy's_ hat; _my_ hat.

The possessive case of nouns is formed, in the singular number, by adding
to the nominative _s preceded by an apostrophe_; and, in the plural, when
the nominative ends in _s_, by adding _an apostrophe only_: as, singular,
_boy's_; plural, _boys'_;--sounded alike, but written differently.

The _objective case_ is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which
usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition: as, I
know the _boy_, having seen _him_ at _school_; and he knows _me_.

The object of a verb, participle, or preposition, is that which answers to
_whom_ or _what_ after it; as, "I know the boy."--I know _whom_? "The boy."
_Boy_ is therefore here in the _objective_ case.

The nominative and the objective of nouns, are always alike in form, being
distinguishable from each other only by their place in a sentence, or by
their simple dependence according to the sense.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The cases, in grammar, are founded on the different relations
under which things are represented in discourse; and from which the words
acquire correspondent relations; or connexions and dependences according to
the sense. In Latin, there are six cases; and in Greek, five. Consequently,
the nouns and pronouns of those languages, and also their adjectives and
participles, (which last are still farther inflected by the three genders,)
are varied by many different terminations unknown to our tongue. In
English, those modifications or relations which we call cases, belong only
to nouns and pronouns; nor are there ever more than three. Pronouns are not
necessarily like their antecedents in case.

OBS. 2.--Because the infinitive mood, a phrase, or a sentence, may in some
instances be made the subject of a verb, so as to stand in that relation in
which the nominative case is most commonly found; very many of our
grammarians have deliberately represented all terms used in this manner, as
being "_in the nominative case_:" as if, to sustain any one of the
relations which are usually distinguished by a particular case, must
necessarily constitute that modification itself. Many also will have
participles, infinitives, phrases, and sentences, to be occasionally "_in
the objective case_:" whereas it must be plain to every reader, that they
are, all of them, _indeclinable_ terms; and that, if used in any relation
common to nouns or pronouns, they assume that office, as participles, as
infinitives, as phrases, or as sentences, and not as _cases_. They no more
take the nature of cases, than they become nouns or pronouns. Yet Nixon, by
assuming that _of_, with the word governed by it, constitutes a _possessive
case_, contrives to give to participles, and even to the infinitive mood,
_all three of the cases_. Of the infinitive, he says, "An examination of
the first and second methods of parsing this mood, must naturally lead to
the inference that _it is a substantive_; and that, if it has the
nominative case, it must also have the possessive and objective cases of a
substantive. The fourth method proves its [capacity of] being in the
possessive case: thus, 'A desire _to learn_;' that is, '_of learning_.'
When it follows a participle, or a verb, as by the fifth or [the] seventh
method, it is in the objective case. Method sixth is analogous to the Case
Absolute of a substantive."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 83. If the infinitive
mood is really a _declinable substantive_, none of our grammarians have
placed it in the right chapter; except that bold contemner of all
grammatical and literary authority, Oliver B. Peirce. When will the cause
of learning cease to have assailants and underminers among those who
profess to serve it? Thus every new grammatist, has some grand absurdity or
other, peculiar to himself; and what can be more gross, than to talk of
English infinitives and participles as being in the _possessive case_?

OBS. 3.--It was long a subject of dispute among the grammarians, what
number of cases an English noun should be supposed to have. Some, taking
the Latin language for their model, and turning certain phrases into cases
to fill up the deficits, were for having _six_ in each number; namely, the
nominative, the genitive, the dative, the accusative, the vocative, and the
ablative. Others, contending that a case in grammar could be nothing else
than a terminational inflection, and observing that English nouns have but
one case that differs from the nominative in form, denied that there were
more than two, the nominative and the possessive. This was certainly an
important question, touching a fundamental principle of our grammar; and
any erroneous opinion concerning it, might well go far to condemn the book
that avouched it. Every intelligent teacher must see this. For what sense
could be made of parsing, without supposing an objective case to nouns? or
what propriety could there be in making the words, _of_, and _to_, and
_from_, govern or compose three different cases? Again, with what truth can
it be said, that nouns have _no cases_ in English? or what reason can be
assigned for making more than three?

OBS. 4.--Public opinion is now clear in the decision, that it is
_expedient_ to assign to English nouns three cases, and no more; and, in a
matter of this kind, what is expedient for the purpose of instruction, is
right. Yet, from the works of our grammarians, may be quoted every
conceivable notion, right or wrong, upon this point. Cardell, with Tooke
and Gilchrist on his side, contends that English nouns have _no cases_.
Brightland averred that they have neither cases nor genders.[162] Buchanan,
and the author of the old British Grammar, assigned to them _one_ case
only, the possessive, or genitive. Dr. Adam also says, "In English, nouns
have _only one case_, namely, the genitive, or possessive case."--_Latin
and Eng. Gram._, p. 7. W. B. Fowle has two cases, but rejects the word
_case_: "We use the simple term _agent_ for a _noun that acts_, and
_object_ for the object of an action."--_Fowle's True Eng. Gram._, Part II,
p. 68. Spencer too discards the word _case_, preferring "_form_," that he
may merge in one the nominative and the objective, giving to nouns _two_
cases, but neither of these. "Nouns have _two Forms_, called the _Simple_
and [the] _Possessive_."--_Spencer's E. Gram._, p. 30. Webber's Grammar,
published at Cambridge in 1832, recognizes but _two_ cases of nouns,
declaring the objective to be "altogether superfluous."--P. 22. "Our
substantives have no more cases than two."--_Jamieson's Rhet._, p. 14. "A
Substantive doth not properly admit of more than two cases: the Nominative,
and the Genitive."--_Ellen Devis's Gram._, p. 19. Dr. Webster, in his
Philosophical Grammar, of 1807, and in his Improved Grammar, of 1831,
teaches the same doctrine, but less positively. This assumption has also
had the support of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, Ash, Bicknell, Fisher,
Dalton, and our celebrated Lindley Murray.[163] In Child's or Latham's
English Grammar, 1852, it is said, "The cases in the present English are
three:--1. Nominative; 2. Objective; 3. Possessive." But this seems to be
meant of pronouns only; for the next section affirms, "The _substantives_
in English _have only two_ out of the three cases."--See pp. 79 and 80.
Reckless of the current usage of grammarians, and even of self-consistency,
both author and reviser will have no objective case of nouns, because this
is like the nominative; yet, finding an objective set after "the adjective
_like_," they will recognize it as "_a dative_ still existing in
English!"--See p. 156. Thus do they forsake their own enumeration of cases,
as they had before, in all their declensions, forsaken the new order in
which they had at first so carefully set them!

OBS. 5.--For the _true_ doctrine of _three_ cases, we have the authority of
Murray, in his later editions; of Webster, in his "Plain and Comp. Grammar,
grounded on _True Principles_," 1790; also in his "Rudiments of English
Grammar," 1811; together with the united authority of Adams, Ainsworth,
Alden, Alger, Bacon, Barnard, Bingham, Burr, Bullions, Butler, Churchill,
Chandler, Cobbett, Cobbin, Comly, Cooper, Crombie, Davenport, Davis, Fisk,
A. Flint, Frost, Guy, Hart, Hiley, Hull, Ingersoll, Jaudon, Kirkham,
Lennie, Mack, M'Culloch, Maunder, Merchant, Nixon, Nutting, John Peirce,
Perley, Picket, Russell, Smart, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith, Wilcox, and I
know not how many others.

OBS. 6.--Dearborn, in 1795, recognized _four_ cases: "the nominative, the
possessive, the objective, and the absolute."--_Columbian Gram._, pp. 16
and 20. Charles Bucke, in his work misnamed "A Classical Grammar of the
English Language," published in London in 1829, asserts, that,
"Substantives in English do not vary their terminations;" yet he gives them
_four_ cases; "the nominative, the genitive, the accusative, and the
vocative." So did Allen, in a grammar much more classical, dated, London,
1813. Hazen, in 1842, adopted "four cases; namely, the nominative, the
possessive, the objective, and the independent."--_Hazen's Practical
Gram._, p. 35. Mulligan, since, has chosen these four: "Nominative,
Genitive, Dative, Accusative."--_Structure of E. Lang._, p. 185. And yet
his case after _to_ or _for_ is _not_ "_dative_," but "_accusative!_"--
_Ib._, p. 239. So too, Goodenow, of Maine, makes the cases four: "the
_subjective_,[164] the _possessive_, the _objective_, and the
_absolute_."--_Text-Book_, p. 31. Goldsbury, of Cambridge, has also four:
"the Nominative, the Possessive, the Objective, and the Vocative."--_Com.
S. Gram._, p. 13. Three other recent grammarians,--Wells, of Andover,--
Weld, of Portland,--and Clark, of Bloomfield, N. Y.,--also adopt "_four_
cases;--the _nominative_, the _possessive_, the _objective_, and the
_independent_."--_Wells's Gram._, p. 57; _Weld's_, 60; _Clark's_, 49. The
first of these gentlemen argues, that, "Since a noun or pronoun, used
_independently_, cannot at the same time be employed as 'the subject of a
verb,' there is a manifest impropriety in regarding it as a _nominative_."
It might as well be urged, that a nominative after a verb, or in apposition
with an other, is, for this reason, not a _nominative_. He also cites this
argument: "'Is there not as much difference between the _nominative_ and
[the] _independent_ case, as there is between the _nominative_ and [the]
_objective?_ If so, why class them together as _one_ case?'--_S. R.
Hall_."--_Wells's School Gram._, p. 51. To this I answer, No. "The
nominative is that case which _primely denotes the name_ of any person or
thing;" (_Burn's Gram._, p. 36;) and _this only_ it is, that can be
absolute, or independent, in English. This scheme of four cases is, in
fact, a grave innovation. As authority for it, Wells cites Felton; and bids
his readers, "See also Kennion, Parkhurst, Fowle, Flint, Goodenow, Buck,
Hazen, Goldsbury, Chapin, S. Alexander, and P. Smith."--Page 57. But is the
fourth case of these authors _the same_ as his? Is it a case which "has
usually the nominative form," but admits occasionally of "_me_" and
"_him_," and embraces objective nouns of "_time, measure, distance,
direction_, or _place_?" No. Certainly one half of them, and probably more,
give little or no countenance to _such_ an independent case as he has
adopted. Parkhurst admitted but three cases; though he thought _two others_
"might be an improvement." What Fowle has said in support of Wells's four
cases, I have sought with diligence, and not found. Felton's "independent
case" is only what he absurdly calls, "_The noun or pronoun addressed_."--
Page 91. Bucke and Goldsbury acknowledge "_the nominative case absolute_;"
and none of the twelve, so far as I know, admit any objective word, or what
others call objective, to be independent or absolute, except perhaps
Goldsbury.

OBS. 7.--S. R. Hall, formerly principal of the Seminary for Teachers at
Andover, (but no great grammarian,) in 1832, published a manual, called
"The Grammatical Assistant;" in which he says, "There are _at least five
cases_, belonging to English nouns, differing as much from _each_ other, as
the cases of Latin and Greek nouns. They may be called Nominative,
Possessive, Objective, Independent and Absolute."--P. 7. O. B. Peirce will
have both nouns and pronouns to be used in _five cases_, which he thus
enumerates: "Four simple cases; the Subjective, Possessive, Objective, and
the Independent; and the Twofold case."--_Gram._, p. 42. But, on page 56th,
he speaks of a "twofold _subjective_ case," "the twofold _objective_ case,"
and shows how the _possessive_ may be twofold also; so that, without taking
any of the Latin cases, or even all of Hall's, he really recognizes as many
as seven, if not eight. Among the English grammars which assume all the
_six cases_ of the Latin Language, are Burn's, Coar's, Dilworth's,
Mackintosh's, Mennye's, Wm. Ward's, and the "Comprehensive Grammar," a
respectable little book, published by Dobson of Philadelphia, in 1789, but
written by somebody in England.

OBS. 8.--Of the English grammars which can properly be said to be _now in
use_, a very great majority agree in ascribing to nouns three cases, and
three only. This, I am persuaded, is the best number, and susceptible of
the best defence, whether we appeal to authority, or to other argument. The
disputes of grammarians make no small part of the _history of grammar_; and
in submitting to be guided by their decisions, it is proper for us to
consider what _degree of certainty_ there is in the rule, and what
difference or concurrence there is among them: for, the teaching of any
other than the best opinions, is not the teaching of science, come from
what quarter it may. On the question respecting the objective case of
nouns, Murray and Webster _changed sides with each other_; and that, long
after they first appeared as grammarians. Nor was this the only, or the
most important instance, in which the different editions of the works of
these two gentlemen, present them in opposition, both to themselves and to
each other. "What cases are there in English? The _nominative_, which
usually stands before a verb; as, the _boy_ writes: The _possessive_, which
takes an _s_ with a _comma_, and denotes property; as, _John's_ hat: The
_objective_, which follows a verb or preposition; as, he honors _virtue_,
or it is an honor to _him_."--_Webster's Plain and Comp. Gram., Sixth
Edition_, 1800, p. 9. "But for convenience, the two positions of nouns, one
_before_, the other _after_ the verb, are called _cases_. There are then
three cases, the _nominative, possessive_, and _objective_."--_Webster's
Rudiments of Gram._, 1811, p. 12. "In English therefore names have two
cases only, the _nominative_ or simple name, and the _possessive_."--
_Webster's Philosoph. Gram._, 1807, p. 32: also his _Improved Gram._, 1831,
p. 24.

OBS. 9.--Murray altered his opinion after the tenth or eleventh edition of
his duodecimo Grammar. His instructions stand thus: "In English,
substantives have but two cases, the nominative, and [the] possessive or
genitive."--_Murray's Gram. 12mo, Second Edition_, 1796, p. 35. "For the
assertion, that there are in English but two cases of nouns, and three of
pronouns, we have the authority of Lowth, Johnson, Priestley, &c. _names
which are sufficient_ to decide this point."--_Ib._, p. 36. "In English,
substantives have three cases, the nominative, the possessive, and the
objective."--_Murray's Gram., 12mo, Twenty-third Edition_, 1816, p. 44.
"The author of this work _long doubted_ the propriety of assigning to
English substantives an _objective case_: but a renewed critical
examination of the subject; an examination to which he was prompted by the
extensive and increasing demand for the grammar, has produced in his mind
_a full persuasion_, that the nouns of our language are entitled to this
comprehensive objective case."--_Ib._, p. 46. If there is any credit in
changing one's opinions, it is, doubtless, in changing them for the better;
but, of all authors, a grammarian has the most need critically to examine
his subject before he goes to the printer. "This case was adopted in the
_twelfth edition_ of the Grammar."--_Murray's Exercises_, 12mo, N. Y.,
1818, p. viii.

OBS. 10.--The _possessive case_ has occasioned no less dispute than the
objective. On this vexed article of our grammar, custom has now become much
more uniform than it was a century ago; and public opinion may be said to
have settled most of the questions which have been agitated about it. Some
individuals, however, are still dissatisfied. In the first place, against
those who have thought otherwise, it is determined, by infinite odds of
authority, that there _is such a case_, both of nouns and of pronouns. Many
a common reader will wonder, who can have been ignorant enough to deny it.
"The learned and sagacious Wallis, to whom every English grammarian owes a
tribute of reverence, calls this modification of the noun an _adjective
possessive_; I think, with no more propriety than he might have applied the
same to the Latin genitive."--_Dr. Johnson's Gram._, p. 5. Brightland also,
who gave to _adjectives_ the name of _qualities_, included all possessives
among them, calling them "_Possessive Qualities_, or _Qualities of
Possession_."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. 90.

OBS. 11.--This exploded error, William S. Cardell, a few years ago,
republished as a novelty; for which, among other pretended improvements of
a like sort, he received the ephemeral praise of some of our modern
literati. William B. Fowle also teaches the same thing. See his _Common
School Gram._, Part II, p. 104. In Felch's Grammar, too, published in
Boston in 1837, an attempt is made, to revive this old doctrine; but the
author takes no notice of any of the above-named authorities, being
probably ignorant of them all. His _reasoning_ upon the point, does not
appear to me to be worthy of a detailed answer.[165] That the possessive
case of nouns is not an adjective, is demonstrable; because it may have
adjectives of various kinds, relating to it: as, "_This old man's_
daughter."--_Shak._ It may also govern an other possessive; as, "_Peter's
wife's_ mother."--_Bible_. Here the former possessive is governed by the
latter; but, if both were adjectives, they would both relate to the noun
_mother_, and so produce a confusion of ideas. Again, nouns of the
possessive case have a distinction of number, which adjectives have not. In
gender also, there lies a difference. Adjectives, whenever they are varied
by gender or number, _agree with their nouns_ in these respects. Not so
with possessives; as, "In the _Jews'_ religion."--_Gal._, i. 13. "The
_children's_ bread."--_Mark_, vii, 27. "Some _men's_ sins."--_1 Tim._, v,
24. "Other _men's_ sins."--_Ib._, ver. 22.

OBS. 12.--Secondly, general custom has clearly determined that the
possessive case of _nouns_ is always to be written _with an apostrophe_:
except in those few instances in which it is not governed singly by the
noun following, but so connected with an other that both are governed
jointly; as, "_Cato the Censor's_ doctrine,"--"_Sir Walter Scott's_
Works,"--"_Beaumont_ and _Fletcher's Plays._" This custom of using the
apostrophe, however, has been opposed by many. Brightland, and Buchanan,
and the author of the British Grammar, and some late writers in the
Philological Museum, are among those who have successively taught, that the
possessive case should be formed _like the nominative plural_, by adding
_s_ when the pronunciation admits the sound, and _es_ when the word
acquires an additional syllable. Some of these approve of the apostrophe,
and others do not. Thus Brightland gives some examples, which are contrary
to his rule, adopting that strange custom of putting the _s_ in Roman, and
the name in Italic; "as, King _Charles_'s _Court_, and St. _James_'s
_Park._"--_Gram. of the English Tongue_, p. 91.

OBS. 13.--"The genitive case, in my opinion," says Dr. Ash, "might be much
more properly formed by adding _s_, or when the pronunciation requires it,
_es_, without an Apostrophe: as, _men, mens; Ox, Oxes; Horse, Horses; Ass,
Asses._"--_Ash's Gram._, p. 23. "To write _Ox's, Ass's, Fox's_, and at the
same time pronounce it _Oxes, Asses, Foxes_, is such a departure from the
original formation, at least in writing, and such an inconsistent use of
the Apostrophe, as cannot be equalled perhaps in any other
language."--_Ib._ Lowth, too, gives some countenance to this objection: "It
[i.e., _'God's grace'_] was formerly written _'Godis grace;'_ we now always
shorten it with an apostrophe; often _very improperly_, when we are obliged
to pronounce it fully; as, _'Thomas's_ book,' that is, '_Thomasis_ book,'
not '_Thomas his_ book,' as it is commonly supposed."--_Lowth's Gram._, p.
17. Whatever weight there may be in this argument, the objection has been
overruled by general custom. The convenience of distinguishing, even to the
eye alone, the numbers and cases of the noun, is found too great to be
relinquished. If the declension of English nouns is ever to be amended, it
cannot be done in this way. It is understood by every reader, that the
_apostrophic s_ adds a syllable to the noun, whenever it will not unite
with the sound in which the nominative ends; as, _torch's_, pronounced
_torchiz_.

   "Yet time ennobles or degrades each line;
    It brightened _Craggs's_, and may darken thine."--_Pope._

OBS. 14.--The English possessive case unquestionably originated in that
form of the Saxon genitive which terminates in _es_, examples of which may
be found in almost any specimen of the Saxon tongue: as, "On _Herodes_
dagum,"--"In _Herod's_ days;"--"Of _Aarones_ dohtrum,"--"Of _Aaron's_
daughters."--_Luke_, i, 5. This ending was sometimes the same as that of
the plural; and both were changed to _is_ or _ys_, before they became what
we now find them. This termination added a syllable to the word; and Lowth
suggests, in the quotation above, that the apostrophe was introduced to
shorten it. But some contend, that the use of this mark originated in a
mistake. It appears from the testimony of Brightland, Johnson, Lowth,
Priestley, and others, who have noticed the error in order to correct it,
that an opinion was long entertained, that the termination _'s_ was a
contraction of the word _his_. It is certain that Addison thought so; for
he expressly says it, in the 135th number of the Spectator. Accordingly he
wrote, in lieu of the regular possessive, "My paper is _Ulysses his_
bow."--_Guardian_, No. 98. "Of _Socrates his_ rules of prayer."--_Spect._,
No. 207. So Lowth quotes Pope: "By _young Telemachus his_ blooming
years."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 17.[166] There is also one late author who
says, "The _'s_ is a contraction of _his_, and was formerly written in
full; as, William Russell _his_ book."--_Goodenow's Gram._, p. 32. This is
undoubtedly bad English; and always was so, however common may have been
the erroneous notion which gave rise to it. But the apostrophe, whatever
may have been its origin, is now the acknowledged distinctive mark of the
possessive case of English nouns. The application of the _'s_, frequently
to feminines, and sometimes to plurals, is proof positive that it is _not a
contraction_ of the pronoun _his_; as,

   "Now Jove suspends his golden scales in air,
    Weighs the _men's_ wits against the _Lady's_ hair."
        --_Pope_, R. of L., C. v, l. 72.

OBS. 15.--Many of the old grammarians, and Guy, Pinneo, and Spencer, among
the moderns, represent the regular formation of the possessive case as
being the same in both numbers, supposing generally in the plural an
abbreviation of the word by the omission of the second or syllabic _s_.
That is, they suppose that such terms as _eagles' wings, angels' visits_,
were written for _eagles's wings, angels's visits_, &c. This odd view of
the matter accounts well enough for the fashion of such plurals as _men's,
women's, children's_, and makes them regular. But I find no evidence at all
of the fact on which these authors presume; nor do I believe that the
regular possessive plural was ever, in general, a syllable longer than the
nominative. If it ever had been so, it would still be easy to prove the
point, by citations from ancient books. The general principle then is, that
_the apostrophe forms the possessive case, with an s in the singular, and
without it in the plural_; but there are some exceptions to this rule, on
either hand; and these must be duly noticed.

OBS. 16.--The chief exceptions, or irregularities, in the formation of the
possessive _singular_, are, I think, to be accounted mere poetic licenses;
and seldom, if ever, to be allowed in prose. Churchill, (closely copying
Lowth,) speaks of them thus: "In poetry the _s_ is frequently omitted after
proper names ending in _s_ or _x_ as, 'The wrath of _Peleus'_ son.' _Pope._
This is scarcely allowable in prose, though instances of it occur: as,
'_Moses'_ minister.' _Josh._, i, 1. _'Phinehas'_ wife.' _1 Sam._, iv, 19.
'Festus came into _Felix'_ room.' _Acts_, xxiv, 27. It was done in prose
evidently to avoid the recurrence of a sibilant sound at the end of two
following syllables; but this may as readily be obviated by using the
preposition _of_, which is now commonly substituted for the possessive case
in most instances."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 215. In Scott's Bible,
Philadelphia, 1814, the texts here quoted are all of them corrected, thus:
"_Moses's_ minister,"--"_Phinehas's_ wife,"--"_Felix's_ room." But the
phrase, "for _conscience_ sake," (_Rom._, xiii, 5,) is there given without
the apostrophe. Alger prints it, "for _conscience'_ sake," which is better;
and though not regular, it is a common form for this particular expression.
Our common Bibles have this text: "And the weaned child shall put his hand
on the _cockatrice'_ den."--_Isaiah_, xi, 8. Alger, seeing this to be
wrong, wrote it, "on the _cockatrice-den_."--_Pronouncing Bible._ Dr.
Scott, in his Reference Bible, makes this possessive regular, "on the
_cockatrice's_ den." This is right. The Vulgate has it, "_in caverna
reguli_;" which, however, is not classic Latin. After _z_ also, the poets
sometimes drop the _s_: as,

   "Sad was the hour, and luckless was the day,
    When first from _Shiraz'_ walls I bent my way."--_Collins._

OBS. 17.--A recent critic, who, I think, has not yet learned to speak or
write the possessive case of _his own name_ properly, assumes that the
foregoing occasional or poetical forms are the only true ones for the
possessive singular of such words. He says, "When the name _does end_ with
the sound of _s_ or _z_, (no matter what letter represents the sound,) the
possessive form _is made_ by annexing only an apostrophe."--_O. B. Peirce's
Gram._, p. 44. Agreeably to this rule, he letters his work, "_Peirce'
Grammar_," and condemns, as bad English, the following examples and all
others like them: "James _Otis's_ letters, General _Gates's_ command,
General _Knox's_ appointment, Gov. _Meigs's_ promptness, Mr. _Williams's_
oration, The _witness's_ deposition."--_Ib._, p. 60. It is obvious that
this gentleman's doctrine and criticism are as contrary to the common
practice of all good authors, as they are to the common grammars, which he
ridicules. Surely, such expressions as, "_Harris's_ Hermes, _Philips's_
Poems, _Prince's_ Bay, _Prince's_ Island, _Fox's_ Journal, King _James's_
edict, a _justice's_ warrant, _Sphinx's_ riddle, the _lynx's_ beam, the
_lass's_ beauty," have authority enough to refute the cavil of this writer;
who, being himself wrong, falsely charges the older grammarians, that,"
their theories vary from the principles of the language correctly spoken or
written."--_Ib._, p. 60. A much more judicious author treats this point of
grammar as follows: "When the possessive noun is singular, and terminates
with an _s_, another _s_ is requisite after it, and the apostrophe must be
placed between the two; as, '_Dickens's_ works,'--'_Harris's_
wit.'"--_Day's Punctuation, Third London Edition_, p. 136. The following
example, too, is right: "I would not yield to be your _house's_
guest."--_Shakespeare_.

OBS. 18.--All _plural_ nouns that differ from the singular without ending
in _s_, form the possessive case in the same manner as the singular: as,
_man's, men's; woman's, women's j child's, children's; brother's, brothers'
or brethren's; ox's, oxen's; goose, geese's_. In two or three words which
are otherwise alike in both numbers, the apostrophe ought to follow the _s_
in the plural, to distinguish it from the singular: as, the _sheep's_
fleece, the _sheeps'_ fleeces; a _neat's_ tongue, _neats'_ tongues; a
_deer's_ horns, a load of _deers'_ horns.

OBS. 19.--Dr. Ash says, "Nouns of the plural number that end in _s_, will
not very properly admit of the genitive case."--_Ash's Gram._, p. 54. And
Dr. Priestley appears to have been of the same opinion. See his _Gram._, p.
69. Lowth too avers, that the sign of the possessive case is "never added
to the plural number ending in _s_."--_Gram._, p. 18. Perhaps he thought
the plural sign must involve an other _s_, like the singular. This however
is not true, neither is Dr. Ash's assertion true; for the New Testament
speaks as properly of "the _soldiers'_ counsel," as of the "_centurion's_
servant;" of "the scribes that were of the _Pharisees'_ part," as of
"_Paul's sister's_ son." It would appear, however, that the possessive
plural is less frequently used than the possessive singular; its place
being much oftener supplied by the preposition _of_ and the objective. We
cannot say that either of them is absolutely necessary to the language; but
they are both worthy to be commended, as furnishing an agreeable variety of
expression.

   "Then shall _man's_ pride and dulness comprehend
    His _actions', passions', being's_ use and end."--_Pope_.

OBS. 20.--The apostrophe was introduced into the possessive case, at least
for the singular number, in some part of the seventeenth century. Its
adoption for the plural, appears to have been later: it is not much used in
books a hundred years old. In Buchanan's "Regular English Syntax," which
was written, I know not exactly when, but near the middle of the eighteenth
century, I find the following paragraph: "We have certainly a Genitive
Plural, though there has been no Mark to distinguish it. The Warriors Arms,
i. e. the Arms of the Warriors, is as much a Genitive Plural, as the
Warrior's Arms, for the Arms of the Warrior is a Genitive Singular. To
distinguish this Genitive Plural, especially to Foreigners, we might use
the Apostrophe reversed, thus, the Warrior`s Arms, the Stone`s End, for the
End of the Stones, the Grocer`s, Taylor`s, Haberdasher`s, &c. Company; for
the Company of Grocers, Taylors, &c. The Surgeon`s Hall, for the Hall of
the Surgeons; the Rider`s Names, for the Names of the Riders; and so of all
Plural Possessives."--See _Buchan. Synt._, p. 111. Our present form of the
possessive plural, being unknown to this grammarian, must have had a later
origin; nor can it have been, as some imagine it was, an abbreviation of a
longer and more ancient form.

OBS. 21.--The apostrophic _s_ has often been added to nouns _improperly_;
the words formed by it not being intended for the possessive singular, but
for the nominative or objective plural. Thus we find such authors as
Addison and Swift, writing _Jacobus's_ and _genius's_, for _Jacobuses_ and
_geniuses_; _idea's, toga's_, and _tunica's_, for _ideas, togas_, and
_tunicas_; _enamorato's_ and _virtuoso's_, for _enamoratoes_ and
_virtuosoes_. Errors of this kind, should be carefully avoided.

OBS. 22.--The apostrophe and _s_ are sometimes added to mere characters, to
denote plurality, and not the possessive case; as, two _a_'s, three _b_'s,
four 9's. These we cannot avoid, except by using the _names_ of the things:
as, two _Aes_, three _Bees_, four _Nines_. "Laced down the sides with
little _c_'s."--_Steele_. "Whenever two _gg_'s come together, they are both
hard."--_Buchanan_. The names of _c_ and _g_, plural, are _Cees_ and
_Gees_. Did these authors _know_ the words, or did they not? To have
learned the _names_ of the letters, will be found on many occasions a great
convenience, especially to critics. For example: "The pronunciation of
these two consecutive _s's_ is hard."--_Webber's Gram._, p. 21. Better:
"_Esses_." "_S_ and _x_, however, are exceptions. They are pluralyzed by
adding _es_ preceded by a hyphen [-], as the _s-es_; the _x-es_."--_O. B.
Peirce's Gram._, p. 40. Better, use the _names, Ess_ and _Ex_, and
pluralize thus: "the _Esses_; the _Exes_."

   "Make Q's of answers, to waylay
    What th' other party's like to say."
        --_Hudibras_, P. III, C. ii, l. 951.

Here the cipher is to be read _Kues_, but it has not the meaning of this
name merely. It is put either for the plural of _Q._, a _Question_, like D.
D.'s, (read _Dee-Dees_,) for _Doctors of Divinity_; or else, more
erroneously, for _cues_, the plural of _cue_, a turn which the next speaker
catches.

OBS. 23.--In the following example, the apostrophe and _s_ are used to give
the sound of a _verb's_ termination, to words which the writer supposed
were not properly verbs: "When a man in a soliloquy reasons with himself,
and _pro's_ and _con's_, and weighs all his designs."--_Congreve_. But
here, "_proes_ and _cons_," would have been more accurate. "We put the
ordered number of _m's_ into our composing-stick."--_Printer's Gram._ Here
"_Ems_" would have done as well. "All measures for _folio's_ and
_quarto's_, should be made to _m's_ of the English body; all measures for
_octavo's_, to Pica _m's_."--_Ibid._ Here regularity requires, "_folios,
quartoes, octavoes_," and "_pica Ems_." The verb _is_, when contracted,
sometimes gives to its nominative the same form as that of the possessive
case, it not being always spaced off for distinction, as it may be; as,

   "A _wit's_ a feather, and a chief a rod;
    An honest _man's_ the noblest work of God."
        --_Pope, on Man_, Ep. iv, l. 247.

OBS. 24.--As the _objective case of nouns_ is to be distinguished from the
nominative, only by the sense, relation, and position, of words in a
sentence, the learner must acquire a habit of attending to these several
things. Nor ought it to be a hardship to any reader to understand that
which he thinks worth reading. It is seldom possible to mistake one of
these cases for the other, without a total misconception of the author's
meaning. The nominative denotes the agent, actor, or doer; the person or
thing that is made the subject of an affirmation, negation, question, or
supposition: its place, except in a question, is commonly _before_ the
verb. The objective, when governed by a verb or a participle, denotes the
person on whom, or the thing on which, the action falls and terminates: it
is commonly placed _after_ the verb, participle, or preposition, which
governs it. Nouns, then, by changing places, may change cases: as,
"_Jonathan_ loved _David_;" "_David_ loved _Jonathan_." Yet the case
depends not entirely upon position; for any order in which the words cannot
be misunderstood, is allowable: as, "Such tricks hath strong
imagination."--_Shak._ Here the cases are known, because the meaning is
plainly this: "Strong imagination hath such tricks." "To him give all the
prophets witness."--_Acts_, x, 43. This is intelligible enough, and more
forcible than the same meaning expressed thus: "All the prophets give
witness to him." The _order_ of the words never can affect the explanation
to be given of them in parsing, unless it change the sense, and form them
into a different sentence.

THE DECLENSION OF NOUNS.

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

EXAMPLE I.--FRIEND.

 Sing. Nom.   friend,      Plur. Nom.   friends,
       Poss.  friend's,          Poss.  friends',
       Obj.   friend;            Obj.   friends.

EXAMPLE II.--MAN.

 Sing. Nom.   man,         Plur. Nom.   men,
       Poss.  man's,             Poss.  men's,
       Obj.   man;               Obj.   men.

EXAMPLE III.--FOX.

 Sing. Nom.   fox,         Plur. Nom.   foxes,
       Poss.  fox's,             Poss.  foxes',
       Obj.   fox;               Obj.   foxes.

EXAMPLE IV.--FLY.

 Sing. Nom.   fly,         Plur. Nom.   flies,
       Poss.  fly's,             Poss.  flies',
       Obj.   fly;               Obj.   flies.

EXAMPLES FOR PARSING.

PRAXIS III.--ETYMOLOGICAL.

_In the Third Praxis, it is required of the pupil--to distinguish and
define the different parts of speech, and the classes and modifications of
the ARTICLES and NOUNS.

The definitions to be given in the Third Praxis, are two for an article,
six for a noun, and one for an adjective, a pronoun, a verb, a participle,
an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition, or an interjection. Thus_:--

EXAMPLE PARSED.

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

_The_ is the definite article. 1. An article is the word _the, an_, or _a_,
which we put before nouns to limit their signification. 2. The definite
article is _the_, which denotes some particular thing or things.

_Writings_ is a common noun, of the third person, plural number, neuter
gender, and nominative case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or
thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a
sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person is that
which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The plural number is
that which denotes more than one. 5. The neuter gender is that which
denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is
that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject
of a finite verb.

_Of_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some
relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally
placed before a noun or a pronoun.

_Hannah More_ is a proper noun, of the third person, singular number,
feminine gender, and objective case. 1. A noun is the name of any person,
place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A proper noun is the
name of some particular individual, or people, or group. 3. The third
person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The
singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The feminine gender is
that which denotes persons or animals of the female kind. 6. The objective
case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the
object of a verb, participle, or preposition.

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

_To_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some
relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally
placed before a noun or a pronoun.

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

_More_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle,
an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place,
degree, or manner.

_Praiseworthy_ is an adjective. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun
or pronoun, and generally expresses quality.

_Than_ is a conjunction. 1. A conjunction is a word used to connect words
or sentences in construction, and to show the dependence of the terms so
connected.

_Scott's_ is a proper noun, of the third person, singular number, masculine
gender, and possessive case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or
thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A proper noun is the name of some
particular individual, or people, or group. 3. The third person is that
which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number
is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which
denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The possessive case is that
form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the relation of
property.

LESSON I.--PARSING.

"The virtue of Alexander appears to me less vigorous than that of Socrates.
Socrates in Alexander's place I can readily conceive: Alexander in that of
Socrates I cannot. Alexander will tell you, he can subdue the world: it was
a greater work in Socrates to fulfill the duties of life. Worth consists
most, not in great, but in good actions."--_Kames's Art of Thinking_, p.
70.

"No one should ever rise to speak in public, without forming to himself a
just and strict idea of what suits his own age and character; what suits
the subject, the hearers, the place, the occasion."--_Blair's Rhetoric_, p.
260.

"In the short space of little more than a century, the Greeks became such
statesmen, warriors, orators, historians, physicians, poets, critics,
painters, sculptors, architects, and, last of all, philosophers, that one
can hardly help considering that golden period, as a providential event in
honour of human nature, to show to what perfection the species might
ascend."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 417.

   "Is genius yours? Be yours a glorious end,
    Be your king's, country's, truth's, religion's friend."--_Young_.

LESSON II.--PARSING.

"He that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman:
likewise also, he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant."--_1
Cor._, vii, 22.

"What will remain to the Alexanders, and the Cæsars, and the Jenghizes, and
the Louises, and the Charleses, and the Napoleons, with whose 'glories' the
idle voice of fame is filled?"--_J. Dymond_. "Good sense, clear ideas,
perspicuity of language, and proper arrangement of words and thoughts, will
always command attention."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 174.

"A mother's tenderness and a father's care are nature's gifts for man's
advantage.--Wisdom's precepts form the good man's interest and
happiness."--_Murray's Key_, p. 194.

"A dancing-school among the Tuscaroras, is not a greater absurdity than a
masquerade in America. A theatre, under the best regulations, is not
essential to our happiness. It may afford entertainment to individuals; but
it is at the expense of private taste and public morals."--_Webster's
Essays_, p. 86.

   "Where dancing sunbeams on the waters played,
    And verdant alders form'd a quivering shade."--_Pope_.

LESSON III.--PARSING.

"I have ever thought that advice to the young, unaccompanied by the routine
of honest employments, is like an attempt to make a shrub grow in a certain
direction, by blowing it with a bellows."--_Webster's Essays_, p. 247.

"The Arabic characters for the writing of numbers, were introduced into
Europe by Pope Sylvester II, in the eleventh century."--_Constable's
Miscellany_.

"Emotions raised by inanimate objects, trees, rivers, buildings, pictures,
arrive at perfection almost instantaneously; and they have a long
endurance, a second view producing nearly the same pleasure with the
first."--_Kames's Elements_, i, 108.

"There is great variety in the same plant, by the different appearances of
its stem, branches, leaves, blossoms, fruit, size, and colour; and yet,
when we trace that variety through different plants, especially of the same
kind, there is discovered a surprising uniformity."--_Ib._, i, 273.

   "Attitude, action, air, pause, start, sigh, groan,
    He borrow'd, and made use of as his own."--_Churchill_.

    "I dread thee, fate, relentless and severe,
    With all a poet's, husband's, father's fear!"--_Burns_.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

ERRORS OF NOUNS.

LESSON I.--NUMBERS.

"All the ablest of the Jewish Rabbis acknowledge it."--_Wilson's Heb.
Gram._, p. 7.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the word _Rabbi_ is here made plural by the
addition of _s_ only. But, according to Observation 12th on the Numbers,
nouns in _i_ ought rather to form the plural in _ies_. The capital _R_,
too, is not necessary. Therefore, _Rabbis_ should be _rabbies_, with _ies_
and a small _r_.]

"Who has thoroughly imbibed the system of one or other of our Christian
rabbis."--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 378. "The seeming singularitys of reason
soon wear off."--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 47. "The chiefs and arikis or
priests have the power of declaring a place or object taboo."--_Balbi's
Geog._, p. 460. "Among the various tribes of this family, are the
Pottawatomies, the Sacs and Foxes, or Saukis and Ottogamis."--_Ib._, p.
178. "The Shawnees, Kickapoos, Menomonies, Miamis and Delawares, are of the
same region."--_Ib._, p. 178. "The Mohegans and Abenaquis belonged also to
this family."--_Ib._, p. 178. "One tribe of this family, the Winnebagos,
formerly resided near lake Michigan."--_Ib._, p. 179. "The other tribes are
the Ioways, the Otoes, the Missouris, the Quapaws."--_Ib._, p. 179. "The
great Mexican family comprises the Aztecs, Toltecs, and Tarascos."--_Ib._,
p. 179. "The Mulattoes are born of negro and white parents; the Zambos, of
Indians and negroes."--_Ib._, p. 165. "To have a place among the
Alexanders, the Cæsars, the Lewis', or the Charles', the scourges and
butchers of their fellow-creatures."--_Burgh's Dignity_, i, 132. "Which was
the notion of the Platonic Philosophers and Jewish rabbii."--_Ib._, p. 248.
"That they should relate to the whole body of virtuosos."--_Gobbett's E.
Gram._, ¶ 212. "What thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love
them."--_Luke_, vi, 32. "There are five ranks of nobility; dukes,
marquesses, earls, viscounts, and barons."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 228. "Acts,
which were so well known to the two Charles's."--_Payne's Geog._, ii, 511.
"Court Martials are held in all parts, for the trial of the
blacks."--_Observer_, No. 458. "It becomes a common noun, and may have a
plural number; as, the two _Davids_; the two _Scipios_, the two
_Pompies_."--_Staniford's Gram._, p. 8. "The food of the rattlesnake is
birds, squirrels, hare, rats, and reptiles."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 177. "And
let fowl multiply in the earth."--_Genesis_, i, 22. "Then we reached the
hill-side where eight buffalo were grazing."--_Martineau's Amer._, i, 202.
"_Corset, n._ a pair of bodice for a woman."--_Worcester's Dict._, 12mo.
"As the _be's_; the _ce's_, the _doubleyu's_."--_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p.
40. "Simplicity is the means between ostentation and rusticity."--_Pope's
Pref. to Homer_. "You have disguised yourselves like tipstaves."--_Gil
Blas_, i, 111. "But who, that hath any taste, can endure the incessant
quick returns of the _also_'s, and the _likewise_'s, and the _moreover_'s,
and the _however_'s, and the _notwithstanding_'s?"--_Campbell's Rhet._, p.
439.

   "Sometimes, in mutual sly disguise,
    Let Aye's seem No's, and No's seem Aye's."--_Gay_, p. 431.

LESSON II.--CASES.

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

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the noun _name_, which is here meant for the
possessive case singular, has not the true form of that case. But,
according to a principle on page 258th, "The possessive case of nouns is
formed, in the singular number, by adding to the nominative _s preceded by
an apostrophe_; and, in the plural, when the nominative ends in _s_, by
adding _an apostrophe only_." Therefore, name should be _name's_; thus,
"For whose _name's_ sake, I have been made willing."]

"Be governed by your conscience, and never ask anybodies leave to be
honest."--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 105. "To overlook nobodies merit or
misbehaviour."--_Ib._, p. 9. "And Hector at last fights his way to the
stern of Ajax' ship."--_Coleridge's Introd._, p. 91. "Nothing is lazier,
than to keep ones eye upon words without heeding their meaning."--
_Philological Museum_, i, 645. "Sir William Joneses division of the
day."--_Ib., Contents_. "I need only refer here to Vosses excellent account
of it."--_Ib._, i, 465. "The beginning of Stesichoruses palinode has been
preserved."--_Ib._, i, 442. "Though we have Tibulluses elegies, there is
not a word in them about Glycera."--_Ib._, p. 446. "That Horace was at
Thaliarchuses country-house."--_Ib._, i, 451. "That Sisyphuses foot-tub
should have been still in existence."--_Ib._, i, 468. "How every thing went
on in Horace's closet, and in Mecenases antechamber."--_Ib._, i, 458. "Who,
for elegant brevities sake, put a participle for a verb."--_Walker's
Particles_, p. 42. "The countries liberty being oppressed, we have no more
to hope."--_Ib._, p. 73. "A brief but true account of this peoples'
principles."--_Barclay's Pref._ "As, the Churche's Peace, or the Peace of
the Church; Virgil's Eneid, or the Eneid of Virgil"--_British Gram._, p.
93. "As, Virgil's Æneid, for the Æneid of Virgil; the Church'es Peace, for
the Peace of the Church."--_Buchanan's Syntax_, p. 18. "Which, with
Hubner's Compend, and Wells' Geographia Classica, will be sufficient."--
_Burgh's Dignity_, i, 155. "Witness Homer's speaking horses, scolding
goddesses, and Jupiter enchanted with Venus' girdle."--_Ib._, i, 184. "Dr.
Watts' Logic may with success be read and commented on to them."--_Ib._, p.
156. "Potter's Greek, and Kennet's Roman Antiquities, Strauchius' and
Helvicus' Chronology."--_Ib._, p. 161. "_Sing_. Alice' friends, Felix'
property; _Plur._ The Alices' friends, The Felixes' property."--_O. B.
Peirce's Gram._, p. 46. "Such as Bacchus'es company,"--"at Bacchus'es
festivals."--_Ainsworth's Dict., w. Thyrsus._ "Burn's inimitable _Tam
o'Shanter_ turns entirely upon such a circumstance."--_Scott's Lay, Notes_,
p. 201. "Nominative, Men. Genitive, Mens. Objective, Men."--_Cutler's
Gram._, p. 20. "Mens Happiness or Misery is most part of their own
making."--_Locke, on Education_, p. 1. "That your Sons Cloths be never made
strait, especially about the Breast."--_Ib._, p. 15. "Childrens Minds are
narrow and weak."--_Ib._, p. 297. "I would not have little Children much
tormented about Punctilio's, or Niceties of Breeding."--_Ib._, p. 90. "To
fill his Head with suitable Idea's."--_Ib._, p. 113. "The Burgusdiscius's
and the Scheiblers did not swarm in those Days, as they do now."--_Ib._, p.
163. "To see the various ways of dressing--a calve's head!"--_Shenstone_,
Brit. Poets, Vol. vii, p. 143.

   "He puts it on, and for decorum sake
    Can wear it e'en as gracefully as she."--_Cowper's Task_.

LESSON III.--MIXED.

"Simon the witch was of this religion too."--_Bunyan's P. P._, p. 123.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the feminine name _witch_ is here applied to
a man. But, according to the doctrine of genders, on page 254th, "Names of
males are masculine; names of females, feminine;" &c. Therefore, _witch_
should be _wizard_; thus, "Simon the _wizard_," &c.]

"Mammodis, n. Coarse, plain India muslins."--_Webster's Dict._ "Go on from
single persons to families, that of the Pompeyes for instance."--_Collier's
Antoninus_, p. 142. "By which the ancients were not able to account for
phænomenas."--_Bailey's Ovid_, p. vi. "After this I married a wife who had
lived at Crete, but a Jew by birth."--_Josephus's Life_, p. 194. "The very
heathen are inexcusable for not worshipping him."--_Student's Manual_, p.
328. "Such poems as Camoen's Lusiad, Voltaire's Henriade, &c."--_Blair's
Rhet._, p. 422. "My learned correspondent writes a word in defence of large
scarves."--SPECT.: in _Joh. Dict._ "The forerunners of an apoplexy are
dulness, vertigos, tremblings."--ARBUTHNOT: _ib._ "_Vertigo_ changes the
_o_ into _~in=es_, making the plural _vertig~in=es_."--_Churchill's Gram._,
p. 59. "_Noctambulo_ changes the _o_ into _=on=es_, making the plural
_noctambul=on=es_."--_Ib._, p. 59. "What shall we say of
noctambulos?"--ARBUTHNOT: _in Joh. Dict._ "In the curious fretwork of rocks
and grottos."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 220. "_Wharf_ makes the plural
_wharves_."--_Smith's Gram._, p. 45; _Merchant's_, 29; _Picket's_, 21;
_Frost's_, 8. "A few cent's worth of maccaroni supplies all their
wants."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 275. "C sounds hard, like _k_, at the end of a
word or syllables."--_Blair's Gram._, p. 4. "By which the virtuosi try The
magnitude of every lie."--_Hudibras_. "Quartos, octavos, shape the
lessening pyre."--_Pope's Dunciad_, B. i, l. 162. "Perching within square
royal rooves."--SIDNEY: _in Joh. Dict._ "Similies should, even in poetry,
be used with moderation."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 166. "Similies should never
be taken from low or mean objects."--_Ib._, p. 167. "It were certainly
better to say, 'The house of lords,' than 'the Lord's house.'"--_Murray's
Gram._, 8vo, p. 177. "Read your answers. Unit figure? 'Five.' Ten's? 'Six.'
Hundreds? 'Seven.'"--_Abbott's Teacher_, p. 79. "Alexander conquered
Darius' army."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 58. "Three days time was requisite,
to prepare matters."--_Brown's Estimate_, ii, 156. "So we say that Ciceros
stile and Sallusts, were not one, nor Cesars and Livies, nor Homers and
Hesiodus, nor Herodotus and Theucidides, nor Euripides and Aristophanes,
nor Erasmus and Budeus stiles."--_Puttenham's Arte of English Poesie_, iii,
5. "_Lex_ (i.e. _legs_) is no other than our ancestors past participle
_læg, laid down_."--_Tooke's Diversions_, ii, 7. "Achaia's sons at Ilium
slain for the Atridæ' sake."--_Cowper's Iliad_. "The corpse[167] of half
her senate manure the fields of Thessaly."--_Addison's Cato_.

   "Poisoning, without regard of fame or fear:
    And spotted corpse are frequent on the bier."--_Dryden_.

CHAPTER IV.--ADJECTIVES.

An Adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses
quality: as, A _wise_ man; a _new_ book. You _two_ are _diligent_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--Adjectives have been otherwise called attributes, attributives,
qualities, adnouns; but none of these names is any better than the common
one. Some writers have classed adjectives with verbs; because, with a
neuter verb for the copula, they often form logical predicates: as, "Vices
_are contagious_." The Latin grammarians usually class them with nouns;
consequently their nouns are divided into nouns substantive and nouns
adjective. With us, substantives are nouns; and adjectives form a part of
speech by themselves. This is generally acknowledged to be a much better
distribution. Adjectives cannot with propriety be called _nouns_, in any
language; because they are not _the names_ of the qualities which they
signify. They must be _added_ to nouns or pronouns in order to make sense.
But if, in a just distribution of words, the term "_adjective nouns_" is
needless and improper, the term "_adjective pronouns_" is, certainly, not
less so: most of the words which Murray and others call by this name, are
not pronouns, but adjectives.

OBS. 2.--The noun, or substantive, is a _name_, which makes sense of
itself. The adjective is an adjunct to the noun or pronoun. It is a word
added to denote quality, situation, quantity, number, form, tendency, or
whatever else may characterize and distinguish the thing or things spoken
of. Adjectives, therefore, are distinguished _from_ nouns by their
_relation to_ them; a relation corresponding to that which qualities bear
to things: so that no part of speech is more easily discriminated than the
adjective. Again: English adjectives, as such, are all indeclinable. When,
therefore, any words usually belonging to this class, are found to take
either the plural or the possessive form, like substantive nouns, they are
to be parsed as nouns. To abbreviate expression, we not unfrequently, in
this manner, convert adjectives into nouns. Thus, in grammar, we often
speak of _nominatives, possessives_, or _objectives_, meaning nouns or
pronouns of the nominative, the possessive, or the objective case; of
_positives, comparatives_, or _superlatives_, meaning adjectives of the
positive, the comparative, or the superlative degree; of _infinitives,
subjunctives_, or _imperatives_, meaning verbs of the infinitive, the
subjunctive, or the imperative mood; and of _singulars, plurals_, and many
other such things, in the same way. So a man's _superiors_ or _inferiors_
are persons superior or inferior to himself. His _betters_ are persons
better than he. _Others_ are any persons or things distinguished from some
that are named or referred to; as, "If you want enemies, excel _others_; if
you want friends, let _others_ excel you."--_Lacon_. All adjectives thus
taken substantively, become _nouns_, and ought to be parsed as such, unless
this word _others_ is to be made an exception, and called a "_pronoun_."

   "Th' event is fear'd; should we again provoke
    Our _stronger_, some worse way his wrath may find."
        --_Milton, P. L._, B. ii, l. 82.

OBS. 3.--Murray says, "Perhaps the words _former_ and _latter_ may be
properly ranked amongst the demonstrative pronouns, _especially in many of
their applications_. The following sentence may serve as an example: 'It
was happy for the state, that Fabius continued in the command with
Minutius: the _former's_ phlegm was a check upon the _latter's_
vivacity.'"--_Gram._, 8vo, p. 57. This I take to be bad English. _Former_
and _latter_ ought to be adjectives only; except when _former_ means
_maker_. And, if not so, it is too easy a way of multiplying pronouns, to
manufacture two out of one single anonymous sentence. If it were said, "The
deliberation of _the former_ was a seasonable chock upon the fiery temper
of _the latter_" the words _former_ and _latter_ would seem to me not to be
pronouns, but adjectives, each relating to the noun _commander_ understood
after it.

OBS. 4.--The sense and relation of words in sentences, as well as their
particular form and meaning, must be considered in parsing, before the
learner can say, with certainty, to what class they belong. Other parts of
speech, and especially nouns and participles, by a change in their
construction, may become adjectives. Thus, to denote the material of which
a thing is formed, we very commonly make the name of the substantive an
adjective to that of the thing: as, A _gold chain_, a _silver spoon_, a
_glass pitcher_, a _tin basin_, an _oak plank_, a _basswood slab_, a
_whalebone rod_. This construction is in general correct, whenever the
former word may be predicated of the latter; as, "The chain is gold."--"The
spoon is silver." But we do not write _gold beater_ for _goldbeater_, or
_silver smith_ for _silversmith_; because the beater is not gold, nor is
the smith silver. This principle, however, is not universally observed; for
we write _snowball, whitewash_, and many similar compounds, though the ball
is snow and the wash is white; and _linseed oil_, or _Newark cider_, may be
a good phrase, though the former word cannot well be predicated of the
latter. So in the following examples: "Let these _conversation_ tones be
the foundation of public pronunciation."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 334. "A
_muslin_ flounce, made very full, would give a very agreeable _flirtation_
air."--POPE: _Priestley's Gram._, p. 79.

   "Come, calm Content, serene and sweet,
    O gently guide my _pilgrim_ feet
    To find thy _hermit_ cell."--_Barbauld_.

OBS. 5.--Murray says, "Various nouns placed before other nouns assume the
nature of adjectives: as, sea fish, wine vessel, corn field, meadow ground,
&c."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 48. This is, certainly, very lame instruction. If
there is not palpable error in all his examples, the propriety of them all
is at least questionable; and, to adopt and follow out their principle,
would be, to tear apart some thousands of our most familiar compounds.
"_Meadow ground_" may perhaps be a correct phrase, since the ground is
meadow; it seems therefore preferable to the compound word meadow-ground.
What he meant by "_wine vessel_" is doubtful: that is, whether a ship or a
cask, a flagon or a decanter. If we turn to our dictionaries, Webster has
_sea-fish_ and _wine-cask_ with a hyphen, and _cornfield_ without; while
Johnson and others have _corn-field_ with a hyphen, and _seafish_ without.
According to the rules for the figure of words, we ought to write them
_seafish, winecask, cornfield_. What then becomes of the thousands of
"adjectives" embraced in the "&c." quoted above?

OBS. 6.--The pronouns _he_ and _she_, when placed before or prefixed to
nouns merely to denote their gender, appear to be used adjectively; as,
"The male or _he_ animals offered in sacrifice."--_Wood's Dict., w. Males_.
"The most usual term is _he_ or _she, male_ or _female_, employed as an
adjective: as, a _he bear_, a _she bear_; a _male elephant_, a _female
elephant_."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 69. Most writers, however, think
proper to insert a hyphen in the terms here referred to: as, _he-bear,
she-bear_, the plurals of which are _he-bears_ and _she-bears_. And,
judging by the foregoing rule of predication, we must assume that this
practice only is right. In the first example, the word _he_ is useless; for
the term "_male animals_" is sufficiently clear without it. It has been
shown in the third chapter, that _he_ and _she_ are sometimes used as
nouns; and that, as such, they may take the regular declension of nouns,
making the plurals _hes_ and _shes_. But whenever these words are used
adjectively to denote gender, whether we choose to insert the hyphen or
not, they are, without question, indeclinable, like other adjectives. In
the following example, Sanborn will have _he_ to be a noun in the
_objective_ case; but I consider it rather, to be an adjective, signifying
_masculine_:

   "(_Philosophy_, I say, and call _it He_;
    For, whatsoe'er the painter's fancy be,
    It a male-virtue seems to me.")--_Cowley_, Brit. Poets, Vol. ii, p. 54.

OBS. 7.--Though verbs give rise to many adjectives, they seldom, if ever,
become such by a mere change of construction. It is mostly by assuming an
additional termination, that any verb is formed into an adjective: as in
_teachable, moveable, oppressive, diffusive, prohibitory_. There are,
however, about forty words ending in _ate_, which, without difference of
form, are either verbs or adjectives; as, _aggregate, animate, appropriate,
articulate, aspirate, associate, complicate, confederate, consummate,
deliberate, desolate, effeminate, elate, incarnate, intimate, legitimate,
moderate, ordinate, precipitate, prostrate, regenerate, reprobate,
separate, sophisticate, subordinate_. This class of adjectives seems to be
lessening. The participials in _ed_, are superseding some of them, at least
in popular practice: as, _contaminated_, for _contaminate_, defiled;
_reiterated_, for _reiterate_, repeated; _situated_, for _situate_, placed;
_attenuated_, for _attenuate_, made thin or slender. _Devote, exhaust_, and
some other verbal forms, are occasionally used by the poets, in lieu of the
participial forms, _devoted, exhausted_, &c.

OBS. 8.--Participles, which have naturally much resemblance to this part
of speech, often drop their distinctive character, and become adjectives.
This is usually the case whenever they stand immediately _before_ the nouns
to which they relate; as, A _pleasing_ countenance, a _piercing_ eye, an
_accomplished_ scholar, an _exalted_ station. Many participial adjectives
are derivatives formed from participles by the negative prefix _un_, which
reverses the meaning of the primitive word; as, _undisturbed, undivided,
unenlightened_. Most words of this kind differ of course from participles,
because there are no such verbs as _to undisturb, to undivide_, &c. Yet
they may be called participial adjectives, because they have the
termination, and embrace the form, of participles. Nor should any
participial adjective be needlessly varied from the true orthography of the
participle: a distinction is, however, observed by some writers, between
_past_ and _passed, staid_ and _stayed_; and some old words, as _drunken,
stricken, shotten, rotten_, now obsolete as participles, are still retained
as adjectives. This sort of words will be further noticed in the chapter on
participles.

OBS. 9.--Adverbs are generally distinguished from adjectives, by the form,
as well as by the construction, of the words. Yet, in instances not a few,
the same word is capable of being used both adjectively and adverbially. In
these cases, the scholar must determine the part of speech, by the
construction alone; remembering that adjectives belong to nouns or pronouns
only; and adverbs, to verbs, participles, adjectives, or other adverbs,
only. The following examples from Scripture, will partially illustrate this
point, which will be noticed again under the head of syntax: "Is your
father well?"--_Gen._, xliii, 27. "Thou hast well said."--_John_, iv, 17.
"He separateth very friends."--_Prov._, xvii, 9. "Esaias is _very_
bold."--_Rom._, x, 20. "For a pretence, ye make _long_ prayer."--_Matt._,
xxiii, 14. "They that tarry _long_ at the wine."--_Prov._, xxiii, 30. "It
had not _much_ earth."--_Mark_, iv, 5. "For she loved _much_."--_Luke_,
vii, 47.

OBS. 10.--Prepositions, in regard to their _construction_, differ from
adjectives, almost exactly as active-transitive participles differ
syntactically from adjectives: that is, in stead of being mere adjuncts to
the words which follow them, they govern those words, and refer back to
some other term; which, in the usual order of speech, stands before them.
Thus, if I say, "A spreading oak," _spreading_ is an adjective relating to
oak; if, "A boy spreading hay," _spreading_ is a participle, governing
_hay_, and relating to _boy_, because the boy is the agent of the action.
So, when Dr. Webster says, "The _off_ horse in a team," _off_ is an
adjective, relating to the noun _horse_; but, in the phrase, "A man _off_
his guard," _off_ is a preposition, showing the relation between _man_ and
_guard_, and governing the latter. The following are other examples: "From
the _above_ speculations."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 194. "An _after_ period
of life."--MARSHALL: _in Web. Dict._ "With some other of the _after_
Judaical rites."--_Right of Tythes_, p. 86. "Whom this _beneath_ world doth
embrace and hug."--_Shak._ "Especially is _over_ exertion made."--_Journal
of Lit. Conv._, p. 119. "To both the _under_ worlds."--_Hudibras_. "Please
to pay to A. B. the amount of the _within_ bill." Whether properly used or
not, the words _above, after, beneath, over, under, and within_, are here
unquestionably made _adjectives_; yet every scholar knows, that they are
generally prepositions, though sometimes adverbs.

CLASSES.

Adjectives may be divided into six classes; namely, _common, proper,
numeral, pronominal, participial_, and _compound_.

I. A _common adjective_ is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting
quality or situation; as, _Good, bad, peaceful, warlike--eastern, western,
outer, inner_.

II. A _proper adjective_ is an adjective formed from a proper name; as,
_American, English, Platonic, Genoese_.

III. A _numeral adjective_ is an adjective that expresses a definite
number; as, _One, two, three, four, five, six_, &c.

IV. A _pronominal adjective_ is a definitive word which may either
accompany its noun, or represent it understood; as, "_All_ join to guard
what _each_ desires to gain."--_Pope_. That is, "_All men_ join to guard
what _each man_ desires to gain."

V. A _participial adjective_ is one that has the form of a participle, but
differs from it by rejecting the idea of time; as, "An _amusing_
story,"--"A _lying_ divination."

VI. A _compound adjective_ is one that consists of two or more words joined
together, either by the hyphen or solidly: as, _Nut-brown, laughter-loving,
four-footed; threefold, lordlike, lovesick_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--This distribution of the adjectives is no less easy to be applied,
than necessary to a proper explanation in parsing. How many adjectives
there are in the language, it is difficult to say; none of our
dictionaries profess to exhibit all that are embraced in some of the
foregoing classes. Of the Common Adjectives, there are probably not fewer
than six thousand, exclusive of the common nouns which we refer to this
class when they are used adjectively. Walker's Rhyming Dictionary contains
five thousand or more, the greater part of which may be readily
distinguished by their peculiar endings. Of those which end in _ous_, as
_generous_, there are about 850. Of those in _y_ or _ly_, as _shaggy,
homely_, there are about 550. Of those in _ive_, as _deceptive_, there are
about 400. Of those in _al_, as _autumnal_, there are about 550. Of those
in _ical_, as _mechanical_, there are about 350. Of those in _able_, as
_valuable_, there are about 600. Of those in _ible_, as _credible_, there
are about 200. Of those in _ent_, as _different_, there are about 300. Of
those in _ant_, as _abundant_, there are about 170. Of those in _less_, as
_ceaseless_, there are about 220. Of those in _ful_, as _useful_, there are
about 130. Of those in _ory_, as _explanatory_, there are about 200. Of
those in _ish_, as _childish_, there are about 100. Of those in _ine_, as
_masculine_, there are about 70. Of those in _en_, as _wooden_, there are
about 50. Of those in _some_, as _quarrelsome_, there are about 30. These
sixteen numbers added together, make 4770.

OBS. 2.--The Proper Adjectives are, in many instances, capable of being
converted into declinable nouns: as, _European, a European, the Europeans;
Greek, a Greek, the Greeks; Asiatic, an Asiatic, the Asiatics_. But with
the words _English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish_, and in general
all such as would acquire an additional syllable in their declension, the
case is otherwise. The gentile noun has frequently fewer syllables than the
adjective, but seldom more, unless derived from some different root.
Examples: _Arabic, an Arab, the Arabs; Gallic, a Gaul, the Gauls; Danish, a
Dane, the Danes; Moorish, a Moor, the Moors; Polish, a Pole_, or _Polander,
the Poles; Swedish, a Swede, the Swedes; Turkish, a Turk, the Turks_. When
we say, _the English, the French, the Dutch, the Scotch, the Welsh, the
Irish_,--meaning, _the English people, the French people_, &c., many
grammarians conceive that _English, French_, &c., are _indeclinable nouns_.
But in my opinion, it is better to reckon them _adjectives_, relating to
the noun _men_ or _people_ understood. For if these words are nouns, so are
a thousand others, after which there is the same ellipsis; as when we say,
_the good, the great, the wise, the learned_.[168] The principle would
involve the inconvenience of multiplying our nouns of the singular form and
a plural meaning, indefinitely. If they are nouns, they are, in this sense,
plural only; and, in an other, they are singular only. For we can no more
say, _an English, an Irish_, or _a French_, for _an Englishman, an
Irishman_, or _a Frenchman_; than we can say, _an old, a selfish_, or _a
rich_, for _an old man, a selfish man_, or _a rich man_. Yet, in
distinguishing the _languages_, we call them _English, French, Dutch,
Scotch, Welsh, Irish_; using the words, certainly, in no plural sense; and
preferring always the line of adjectives, where the gentile noun is
different: as, _Arabic_, and not _Arab_; _Danish_, and not _Dane_;
_Swedish_, and not _Swede_. In this sense, as well as in the former,
Webster, Chalmers, and other modern lexicographers, call the words _nouns_;
and the reader will perceive, that the objections offered before do not
apply here. But Johnson, in his two quarto volumes, gives only two words of
this sort, _English_ and _Latin_; and both of these he calls _adjectives_:
"ENGLISH, _adj._ Belonging to England; hence English[169] is the language
of England." The word _Latin_, however, he makes a noun, when it means a
schoolboy's exercise; for which usage he quotes, the following inaccurate
example from Ascham: "He shall not use the common order in schools for
making of _Latins_."

OBS. 3.--Dr. Webster gives us explanations like these: "CHINESE, _n. sing._
and _plu._ A native of China; also the language of China."--"JAPANESE, _n._
A native of Japan; or the language of the inhabitants."--"GENOESE, _n. pl._
the people of Genoa in Italy. _Addison_."--"DANISH, _n._ The language of
the Danes."--"IRISH, _n._ 1. A native of Ireland. 2. The language of the
Irish; the Hiberno-Celtic." According to him, then, it is proper to say, _a
Chinese, a Japanese_, or _an Irish_; but not, _a Genoese_, because he will
have this word to be plural only! Again, if with him we call a native of
Ireland _an Irish_, will not more than one be _Irishes?_[170] If a native
of Japan be _a Japanese_, will not more than one be _Japaneses?_ In short,
is it not plain, that the words, _Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Maltese,
Genoese, Milanese_, and all others of like formation, should follow one and
the same rule? And if so, what is that rule? Is it not this;--that, like
_English, French_, &c., they are always _adjectives_; except, perhaps, when
they denote _languages_? There may possibly be some real authority from
usage, for calling a native of China _a Chinese_,--of Japan _a
Japanese_,--&c.; as there is also for the regular plurals, _Chineses,
Japaneses_, &c.; but is it, in either case, good and sufficient authority?
The like forms, it is acknowledged, are, on some occasions, mere
adjectives; and, in modern usage, we do not find these words inflected, as
they were formerly. Examples: "The _Chinese_ are by no means a cleanly
people, either in person or dress."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 415. "The
_Japanese_ excel in working in copper, iron, and steel."--_Ib._, p. 419.
"The _Portuguese_ are of the same origin with the Spaniards."--_Ib._, p.
272. "By whom the undaunted _Tyrolese_ are led."--_Wordsworth's Poems_, p.
122. Again: "Amongst the _Portugueses_, 'tis so much a Fashion, and
Emulation, amongst their Children, to _learn_ to _Read_, and Write, that
they cannot hinder them from it."--_Locke, on Education_, p. 271. "The
_Malteses_ do so, who harden the Bodies of their Children, and reconcile
them to the Heat, by making them go stark Naked."--_Idem, Edition of_ 1669,
p. 5. "CHINESE, _n. s_. Used elliptically for the language and people of
China: plural, _Chineses. Sir T. Herbert_."--_Abridgement of Todd's
Johnson_. This is certainly absurd. For if _Chinese_ is used _elliptically_
for the people of China, it is an _adjective_, and does not form the
plural, _Chineses_: which is precisely what I urge concerning the whole
class. These plural forms ought not to be imitated. Horne Tooke quotes some
friend of his, as saying, "No, I will never descend with him beneath even
_a Japanese_: and I remember what Voltaire remarks of _that
country_."--_Diversions of Purley_, i, 187. In this case, he ought,
unquestionably, to have said--"beneath even _a native of Japan_;" because,
whether _Japanese_ be a noun or not, it is absurd to call _a Japanese_,
"_that country_." Butler, in his Hudibras, somewhere uses the word
_Chineses_; and it was, perhaps, in his day, common; but still, I say, it
is contrary to analogy, and therefore wrong. Milton, too, has it:

   "But in his way lights on the barren plains
    Of Sericana, where Chineses[171]  drive
    With sails and wind their cany _waggons_ light."
        --_Paradise Lost_, B. iii, l. 437.

OBS. 4.--The Numeral Adjectives are of three kinds, namely, _cardinal,
ordinal_, and _multiplicative_: each kind running on in a series
indefinitely. Thus:--

1. _Cardinal_; One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten,
eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen,
nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, &c.

2. _Ordinal_; First, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth,
ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth,
sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first,
twenty-second, &c.

3. _Multiplicative_; Single or alone, double or twofold, triple or
threefold, quadruple or fourfold, quintuple or fivefold, sextuple or
sixfold, septuple or sevenfold, octuple or eightfold, &c. But high terms of
this series are seldom used. All that occur above decuple or tenfold, are
written with a hyphen, and are usually of round numbers only; as,
thirty-fold, sixty-fold, hundred-fold.

OBS. 5.--A cardinal numeral denotes the whole number, but the corresponding
ordinal denotes only the last one of that number, or, at the beginning of a
series, the first of several or many. Thus: "_One_ denotes simply the
number _one_, without any regard to more; but _first_ has respect to more,
and so denotes only the first one of a greater number; and _two_ means the
number _two_ completely; but _second_, the last one of _two_: and so of all
the rest."--_Burn's Gram._, p. 54. A cardinal number answers to the
question, "_How many_?" An ordinal number answers to the question, "_Which
one_?" or, "_What one_?" All the ordinal numbers, except _first, second,
third_, and the compounds of these, as _twenty-first, twenty-second,
twenty-third_, are formed directly from the cardinal numbers by means of
the termination _th_. And as the primitives, in this case, are many of them
either compound words, or phrases consisting of several words, it is to be
observed, that the addition is made to the last term only. That is, of
every compound ordinal number, the last term only is ordinal in form. Thus
we say, _forty-ninth_, and not _fortieth-ninth_; nor could the meaning of
the phrase, _four hundred and fiftieth_, be expressed by saying, _fourth
hundredth and fiftieth_; for this, if it means any thing, speaks of three
different numbers.

OBS. 6.--Some of the numerals are often used as _nouns_; and, as such, are
regularly declined: as, _Ones, twoes, threes, fours, fives_, &c. So,
_Fifths, sixths, sevenths, eighths, ninths, tenths_, &c. "The _seventy's_
translation."--_Wilson's Hebrew Gram._, p. 32. "I will not do it for