The Grammar of English Grammars

by Goold Brown

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XV.

OBS. 1.—To this rule there are no exceptions; because, the collective noun being a name which even in the singular number "signifies many," the verb which agrees with it, can never properly be singular, unless the collection be taken literally as one aggregate, and not as "conveying the idea of plurality." Thus, the collective noun singular being in general susceptible of two senses, and consequently admitting two modes of concord, the form of the verb, whether singular or plural, becomes the principal index to the particular sense in which the nominative is taken. After such a noun, we can use either a singular verb, agreeing with it literally, strictly, formally, according to Rule 14th; as, "The whole number WAS two thousand and six hundred;" or a plural one, agreeing with it figuratively, virtually, ideally, according to Rule 15th; as, "The whole number WERE two thousand and six hundred."—2 Chron., xxvi, 12. So, when the collective noun is an antecedent, the relative having in itself no distinction of the numbers, its verb becomes the index to the sense of all three; as, "Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that IS left."—Isaiah, xxxvii, 4. "Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that ARE left."—2 Kings, xix, 4. Ordinarily the word remnant conveys no idea of plurality; but, it being here applied to persons, and having a meaning to which the mere singular neuter noun is not well adapted, the latter construction is preferable to the former. The Greek version varies more in the two places here cited; being plural in Isaiah, and singular in Kings. The Latin Vulgate, in both, is, "pro reliquiis quæ repertæ sunt:" i.e., "for the remains, or remnants, that are found."

OBS. 2.—Dr. Adam's rule is this: "A collective noun may be joined with a verb either of the singular or of the plural number; as, Multitudo stat, or stant; the multitude stands, or stand."—Latin and English Gram. To this doctrine, Lowth, Murray, and others, add: "Yet not without regard to the import of the word, as conveying unity or plurality of idea."—Lowth, p. 74; Murray, 152. If these latter authors mean, that collective nouns are permanently divided in import, so that some are invariably determined to the idea of unity, and others to that of plurality, they are wrong in principle; for, as Dr. Adam remarks, "A collective noun, when joined with a verb singular, expresses many considered as one whole; but when joined with a verb plural, it signifies many separately, or as individuals."—Adam's Gram., p. 154. And if this alone is what their addition means, it is entirely useless; and so, for all the purposes of parsing, is the singular half of the rule itself. Kirkham divides this rule into two, one for "unity of idea," and the other for "plurality of idea," shows how each is to be applied in parsing, according to his "systematick order;" and then, turning round with a gallant tilt at his own work, condemns both, as idle fabrications, which it were better to reject than to retain; alleging that, "The existence of such a thing as 'unity or plurality of idea,' as applicable to nouns of this class, is doubtful."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 59.[394] How then shall a plural verb or pronoun, after a collective noun, be parsed, seeing it does not agree with the noun by the ordinary rule of agreement? Will any one say, that every such construction is bad English? If this cannot be maintained, rules eleventh and fifteenth of this series are necessary. But when the noun conveys the idea of unity or takes the plural form, the verb or pronoun has no other than a literal agreement by the common rule; as,

"A priesthood, such as Baal's was of old,
A people, such as never was till now."—Cowper.

OBS. 3.—Of the construction of the verb and collective noun, a late British author gives the following account: "Collective nouns are substantives which signify many in the singular number. Collective nouns are of two sorts: 1. Those which cannot become plural like other substantives; as, nobility, mankind, &c. 2. Those which can be made plural by the usual rules for a substantive; as, 'A multitude, multitudes; a crowd, crowds;' &c. Substantives which imply plurality in the singular number, and consequently have no other plural, generally require a plural verb. They are cattle, cavalry, clergy, commonalty, gentry, laity, mankind, nobility, peasantry people, populace, public, rabble, &c. [;] as, 'The public are informed.' Collective nouns which form a regular plural, such as, number, numbers; multitude, multitudes; have, like all other substantives, a singular verb, when they are in the singular number; and a plural verb, when they are in the plural number; as, 'A number of people is assembled; Numbers are assembled.'—'The fleet was dispersed; a part of it was injured; the several parts are now collected.'"— Nixon's Parser, p. 120. To this, his main text, the author appends a note, from which the following passages are extracted: "There are few persons acquainted with Grammar, who may not have noticed, in many authors as well as speakers, an irregularity in supposing collective nouns to have, at one time, a singular meaning, and consequently to require a singular verb; and, at an other time, to have a plural meaning, and therefore to require a plural verb. This irregularity appears to have arisen from the want of a clear idea of the nature of a collective noun. This defect the author has endeavoured to supply; and, upon his definition, he has founded the two rules above. It is allowed on all sides that, hitherto, no satisfactory rules have been produced to enable the pupil to ascertain, with any degree of certainty, when a collective noun should have a singular verb, and when a plural one. A rule that simply tells its examiner, that when a collective noun in the nominative case conveys the idea of unity, its verb should be singular; and when it implies plurality, its verb should be plural, is of very little value; for such a rule will prove the pupil's being in the right, whether he should put the verb in the singular or the plural."—Ibid.

OBS. 4.—The foregoing explanation has many faults; and whoever trusts to it, or to any thing like it, will certainly be very much misled. In the first place, it is remarkable that an author who could suspect in others "the want of a clear idea of the nature of a collective noun," should have hoped to supply the defect by a definition so ambiguous and ill-written as is the one above. Secondly, his subdivision of this class of nouns into two sorts, is both baseless and nugatory; for that plurality which has reference to the individuals of an assemblage, has no manner of connexion or affinity with that which refers to more than one such aggregate; nor is there any interference of the one with the other, or any ground at all for supposing that the absence of the latter is, has been, or ought to be, the occasion for adopting the former. Hence, thirdly, his two rules, (though, so far as they go, they seem not untrue in themselves,) by their limitation under this false division, exclude and deny the true construction of the verb with the greater part of our collective nouns. For, fourthly, the first of these rules rashly presumes that any collective noun which in the singular number implies a plurality of individuals, is consequently destitute of any other plural; and the second accordingly supposes that no such nouns as, council, committee, jury, meeting, society, assembly, court, college, company, army, host, band, retinue, train, multitude, number, part, half, portion, majority, minority, remainder, set, sort, kind, class, nation, tribe, family, race, and a hundred more, can ever be properly used with a plural verb, except when they assume the plural form. To prove the falsity of this supposition, is needless. And, finally, the objection which this author advances against the common rules, is very far from proving them useless, or not greatly preferable to his own. If they do not in every instance enable the student to ascertain with certainty which form of concord he ought to prefer, it is only because no rules can possibly tell a man precisely when he ought to entertain the idea of unity, and when that of plurality. In some instances, these ideas are unavoidably mixed or associated, so that it is of little or no consequence which form of the verb we prefer; as, "Behold, the people IS one, and they have all one language."—Gen., xi, 6.

"Well, if a king's a lion, at the least
The people ARE a many-headed beast."—Pope, Epist. i, l. 120.

OBS. 5.—Lindley Murray says, "On many occasions, where a noun of multitude is used, it is very difficult to decide, whether the verb should be in the singular, or in the plural number; and this difficulty has induced some grammarians to cut the knot at once, and to assert that every noun of multitude must always be considered as conveying the idea of unity."—Octavo Gram., p. 153. What these occasions, or who these grammarians, are, I know not; but it is certain that the difficulty here imagined does not concern the application of such rules as require the verb and pronoun to conform to the sense intended; and, where there is no apparent impropriety in adopting either number, there is no occasion to raise a scruple as to which is right. To cut knots by dogmatism, and to tie them by sophistry, are employments equally vain. It cannot be denied that there are in every multitude both a unity and a plurality, one or the other of which must be preferred as the principle of concord for the verb or the pronoun, or for both. Nor is the number of nouns small, or their use unfrequent, which, according to our best authors, admit of either construction: though Kirkham assails and repudiates his own rules, because, "Their application is quite limited."—Grammar in Familiar Lectures, p. 59.

OBS. 6.—Murray's doctrine seems to be, not that collective nouns are generally susceptible of two senses in respect to number, but that some naturally convey the idea of unity, others, that of plurality, and a few, either of these senses. The last, which are probably ten times more numerous than all the rest, he somehow merges or forgets, so as to speak of two classes only: saying, "Some nouns of multitude certainly convey to the mind an idea of plurality, others, that of a whole as one thing, and others again, sometimes that of unity, and sometimes that of plurality. On this ground, it is warrantable, and consistent with the nature of things, to apply a plural verb and pronoun to the one class, and a singular verb and pronoun to the other. We shall immediately perceive the impropriety of the following constructions: 'The clergy has withdrawn itself from the temporal courts;' 'The assembly was divided in its opinion;' &c."—Octavo Gram., p. 153. The simple fact is, that clergy, assembly, and perhaps every other collective noun, may sometimes convey the idea of unity, and sometimes that of plurality; but an "opinion" or a voluntary "withdrawing" is a personal act or quality; wherefore it is here more consistent to adopt the plural sense and construction, in which alone we take the collection as individuals, or persons.

OBS. 7.—Although a uniformity of number is generally preferable to diversity, in the construction of words that refer to the same collective noun: and although many grammarians deny that any departure from such uniformity is allowable; yet, if the singular be put first, a plural pronoun may sometimes follow without obvious impropriety: as, "So Judah was carried away out of their land."—2 Kings, xxv, 21. "Israel is reproved and threatened for their impiety and idolatry."—Friends' Bible, Hosea, x. "There is the enemy who wait to give us battle."—Murray's Introductory Reader, p. 36. When the idea of plurality predominates in the author's mind, a plural verb is sometimes used before a collective noun that has the singular article an or a; as, "There are a sort of authors, who seem to take up with appearances."— Addison. "Here are a number of facts or incidents leading to the end in view."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 296. "There are a great number of exceedingly good writers among the French."—Maunder's Gram., p. 11.

"There in the forum swarm a numerous train,
The subject of debate a townsman slain."
—Pope, Iliad, B. xviii, l. 578.

OBS. 8.—Collective nouns, when they are merely partitive of the plural, like the words sort and number above, are usually connected with a plural verb, even though they have a singular definitive; as, "And this sort of adverbs commonly admit of Comparison."—Buchanan's English Syntax, p. 64. Here, perhaps, it would be better to say, "Adverbs of this sort commonly admit of comparison." "A part of the exports consist of raw silk."—Webster's Improved Gram., p. 100. This construction is censured by Murray, in his octavo Gram., p. 148; where we are told, that the verb should agree with the first noun only. Dr. Webster alludes to this circumstance, in improving his grammar, and admits that, "A part of the exports consists, seems to be more correct."—Improved Gram., p. 100. Yet he retains his original text, and obviously thinks it a light thing, that, "in some cases," his rules or examples "may not be vindicable." (See Obs. 14th, 15th, and 16th, on Rule 14th, of this code.) It would, I think, be better to say, "The exports consist partly of raw silk." Again: "A multitude of Latin words have, of late, been poured in upon us."—Blair's Rhet., p. 94. Better, perhaps: "Latin words, in great multitude, have, of late, been poured in upon us." So: "For the bulk of writers are very apt to confound them with each other."—Ib., p. 97. Better: "For most writers are very apt to confound them with each other." In the following example, (here cited as Kames has it, El. of Crit., ii, 247,) either the verb is, or the phrase, "There are some moveless men" might as well have been used:

"There are a sort of men, whose visages
Do cream and mantle like a standing pond."—Shak.

OBS. 9.—Collections of things are much less frequently and less properly regarded as individuals, or under the idea of plurality, than collections of persons. This distinction may account for the difference of construction in the two clauses of the following example; though I rather doubt whether a plural verb ought to be used in the former: "The number of commissioned officers in the guards are to the marching regiments as one to eleven: the number of regiments given to the guards, compared with those given to the line, is about three to one."—Junius, p. 147. Whenever the multitude is spoken of with reference to a personal act or quality, the verb ought, as I before suggested, to be in the plural number; as, "The public are informed."—"The plaintiff's counsel have assumed a difficult task."—"The committee were instructed to prepare a remonstrance." "The English nation declare they are grossly injured by their representatives."—Junius, p. 147. "One particular class of men are permitted to call themselves the King's friends."—Id., p. 176. "The Ministry have realized the compendious ideas of Caligula."—Id., p. 177. It is in accordance with this principle, that the following sentences have plural verbs and pronouns, though their definitives are singular, and perhaps ought to be singular: "So depraved were that people whom in their history we so much admire."—HUME: M'Ilvaine's Lect., p. 400. "Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold."—Exodus, xxxii, 31. "This people thus gathered have not wanted those trials."—Barclay's Works, i, 460. The following examples, among others, are censured by Priestley, Murray, and the copyists of the latter, without sufficient discrimination, and for a reason which I think fallacious; namely, "because the ideas they represent seem not to be sufficiently divided in the mind:"—"The court of Rome were not without solicitude."—Hume. "The house of Lords were so much influenced by these reasons."—Id. See Priestley's Gram., p. 188; Murray's, 152; R. C. Smith's, 129; Ingersoll's, 248; and others.

OBS. 10.—In general, a collective noun, unless it be made plural in form, no more admits a plural adjective before it, than any other singular noun. Hence the impropriety of putting these or those before kind or sort; as, "These kind of knaves I know."—Shakspeare. Hence, too, I infer that cattle is not a collective noun, as Nixon would have it to be, but an irregular plural which has no singular; because we can say these cattle or those cattle, but neither a bullock nor a herd is ever called a cattle, this cattle, or that cattle. And if "cavalry, clergy, commonalty," &c., were like this word, they would all be plurals also, and not "substantives which imply plurality in the singular number, and consequently have no other plural." Whence it appears, that the writer who most broadly charges others with not understanding the nature of a collective noun, has most of all misconceived it himself. If there are not many clergies, it is because the clergy is one body, with one Head, and not because it is in a particular sense many. And, since the forms of words are not necessarily confined to things that exist, who shall say that the plural word clergies, as I have just used it, is not good English?

OBS. 11.—If we say, "these people," "these gentry," "these folk," we make people, gentry, and folk, not only irregular plurals, but plurals to which there are no correspondent singulars; but by these phrases, we must mean certain individuals, and not more than one people, gentry, or folk. But these names are sometimes collective nouns singular; and, as such, they may have verbs of either number, according to the sense; and may also form regular plurals, as peoples, and folks; though we seldom, if ever, speak of gentries; and folks is now often irregularly applied to persons, as if one person were a folk. So troops is sometimes irregularly, if not improperly, put for soldiers, as if a soldier were a troop; as, "While those gallant troops, by whom every hazardous, every laborious service is performed, are left to perish."—Junius, p. 147. In Genesis, xxvii, 29th, we read, "Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee." But, according to the Vulgate, it ought to be, "Let peoples serve thee, and nations bow down to thee;" according to the Septuagint, "Let nations serve thee, and rulers bow down to thee." Among Murray's "instances of false syntax," we find the text, "This people draweth near to me with their mouth," &c.—Octavo Gram., Vol. ii, p. 49. This is corrected in his Key, thus: "These people draw near to me with their mouth."—Ib., ii, 185. The Bible has it: "This people draw near me with their mouth."—Isaiah, xxix, 13. And again: "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth.,"—Matt., xv, 8. Dr. Priestley thought it ought to be, "This people draws nigh unto me with their mouths."—Priestley's Gram., p. 63. The second evangelist omits some words: "This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."—Mark, vii, 6. In my opinion, the plural verb is here to be preferred; because the pronoun their is plural, and the worship spoken of was a personal rather than a national act. Yet the adjective this must be retained, if the text specify the Jews as a people. As to the words mouth and heart, they are to be understood figuratively of speech and love; and I agree not with Priestley, that the plural number must necessarily be used. See Note 4th to Rule 4th.

OBS. 12.—In making an assertion concerning a number or quantity with some indefinite excess or allowance, we seem sometimes to take for the subject of the verb what is really the object of a preposition; as, "In a sermon, there may be from three to five, or six heads."—Blair's Rhet., p. 313. "In those of Germany, there are from eight to twelve professors."— Dwight, Lit. Convention, p. 138. "About a million and a half was subscribed in a few days."—N. Y. Daily Advertiser. "About one hundred feet of the Muncy dam has been swept off."—N. Y. Observer. "Upwards of one hundred thousand dollars have been appropriated."—Newspaper. "But I fear there are between twenty and thirty of them."—Tooke's Diversions, ii, 441. "Besides which, there are upwards of fifty smaller islands."—Balbi's Geog., p. 30. "On board of which embarked upwards of three hundred passengers."—Robertson's Amer., ii, 419. The propriety of using above or upwards of for more than, is questionable, but the practice is not uncommon. When there is a preposition before what seems at first to be the subject of the verb, as in the foregoing instances, I imagine there is an ellipsis of the word number, amount, sum or quantity; the first of which words is a collective noun and may have a verb either singular or plural: as, "In a sermon, there may be any number from three to five or six heads." This is awkward, to be sure; but what does the Doctor's sentence mean, unless it is, that there may be an optional number of heads, varying from three to six?

OBS. 13.—Dr. Webster says, "When an aggregate amount is expressed by the plural names of the particulars composing that amount, the verb may be in the singular number; as, 'There was more than a hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling.' Mavor's Voyages." To this he adds, "However repugnant to the principles of grammar this may seem at first view, the practice is correct; for the affirmation is not made of the individual parts or divisions named, the pounds, but of the entire sum or amount."—Philosophical Gram., p. 146; Improved Gram., p. 100. The fact is, that the Doctor here, as in some other instances, deduces a false rule from a correct usage. It is plain that either the word more, taken substantively, or the noun to which it relates as an adjective, is the only nominative to the verb was. Mavor does not affirm that there were a hundred and fitly thousand pounds; but that there was more—i.e., more money than so many pounds are, or amount to. Oliver B. Peirce, too. falls into a multitude of strange errors respecting the nature of more than, and the construction of other words that accompany these. See his "Analytical Rules," and the manner in which he applies them, in "The Grammar," p. 195 et seq.

OBS. 14.—Among certain educationists,—grammarians, arithmeticians, schoolmasters, and others,—there has been of late not a little dispute concerning the syntax of the phraseology which we use, or should use, in expressing multiplication, or in speaking of abstract numbers. For example: is it better to say, "Twice one is two," or, "Twice one are two?"—"Two times one is two," or, "Two times one are two?"—"Twice two is four," or, "Twice two are four?"—"Thrice one is or are, three?"—"Three times one is, or are, three?"—"Three times naught is, or are, naught?"—"Thrice three is, or are, nine?"—"Three times four is, or are, twelve?"—"Seven times three make, or makes, twenty-one?"—"Three times his age do not, or does not, equal mine?"—"Three times the quantity is not, or are not, sufficient?"—"Three quarters of the men were discharged; and three quarters of the money was, or were, sent back?"—"As 2 is to 4, so is 6 to 12;" or, "As two are to four, so are six to twelve?"

OBS. 15.—Most of the foregoing expressions, though all are perhaps intelligible enough in common practice, are, in some respect, difficult of analysis, or grammatical resolution. I think it possible, however, to frame an argument of some plausibility in favour of every one of them. Yet it is hardly to be supposed, that any teacher will judge them all to be alike justifiable, or feel no interest in the questions which have been raised about them. That the language of arithmetic is often defective or questionable in respect to grammar, may be seen not only in many an ill choice between the foregoing variant and contrasted modes of expression, but in sundry other examples, of a somewhat similar character, for which it may be less easy to find advocates and published arguments. What critic will not judge the following phraseology to be faulty? "4 times two units is 8 units, and 4 times 5 tens is twenty tens."—Chase's Common School Arithmetic, 1848, p. 42. Or this? "1 time 1 is l. 2 times 1 are 2; 1 time 4 is 4, 2 times 4 are 8."—Ray's Arithmetic, 1853. Or this? "8 and 7 is 15, 9's out leaves 6; 3 and 8 is 11, 9's out leaves 2."—Babcock's Practical Arithmetic, 1829, p. 22. Or this again? "3 times 3 is 9, and 2 we had to carry is 11."—Ib., p. 20.

OBS. 16.—There are several different opinions as to what constitutes the grammatical subject of the verb in any ordinary English expression of multiplication. Besides this, we have some variety in the phraseology which precedes the verb; so that it is by no means certain, either that the multiplying terms are always of the same part of speech, or that the true nominative to the verb is not essentially different in different examples. Some absurdly teach, that an abstract number is necessarily expressed by "a singular noun," with only a singular meaning; that such a number, when multiplied, is always, of itself the subject of the assertion; and, consequently, that the verb must be singular, as agreeing only with this "singular noun." Others, not knowing how to parse separately the multiplying word or words and the number multiplied, take them both or all together as "the grammatical subject" with which the verb must agree. But, among these latter expounders, there are two opposite opinions on the very essential point, whether this "entire expression" requires a singular verb or a plural one:—as, whether we ought to say, "Twice one is two," or, "Twice one are two;"—"Twice two is four," or, "Twice two are four;"—"Three times one is three," or, "Three times one are three;"—"Three times three is nine," or, "Three times three are nine." Others, again, according to Dr. Bullions, and possibly according to their own notion, find the grammatical subject, sometimes, if not generally, in the multiplying term only; as, perhaps, is the case with those who write or speak as follows: "If we say, 'Three times one are three,' we make 'times' the subject of the verb."—Bullions, Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 1849, p. 39. "Thus, 2 times 1 are 2; 2 times 2 are four; 2 times 3 are 6."—Chase's C. S. Arith., p. 43. "Say, 2 times O are O; 2 times 1 are 2."—Robinson's American Arith., 1825, p. 24.

OBS. 17.—Dr. Bullions, with a strange blunder of some sort in almost every sentence, propounds and defends his opinion on this subject thus: "Numeral adjectives, being also names of numbers, are often used as nouns, and so have the inflection and construction of nouns: thus, by twos, by tens, by fifties. Two is an even number. Twice two is four. Four is equal to twice two. In some arithmetics the language employed in the operation of multiplying—such as 'Twice two are four, twice three are six'—is incorrect. It should be, 'Twice two is four,' &c.; for the word two is used as a singular noun—the name of a number. The adverb 'twice' is not in construction with it, and consequently does not make it plural. The meaning is, 'The number two taken twice is equal to four.' For the same reason we should say, 'Three times two is six,' because the meaning is, 'Two taken three times is six.' If we say, 'Three times one are three,' we make 'times' the subject of the verb, whereas the subject of the verb really is 'one,' and 'times' is in the objective of number (§828). 2:4:: 6:12, should be read, 'As 2 is to 4, so is 6 to 12;' not 'As two are to four, so are six to twelve.' But when numerals denoting more than one, are used as adjectives, with a substantive expressed or understood, they must have a plural construction."—Bullions, Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 1849, p. 39.

OBS. 18.—Since nouns and adjectives are different parts of speech, the suggestion, that, "Numeral adjectives are also names, or nouns," is, upon the very face of it, a flat absurdity; and the notion that "the name of a number" above unity, conveys only and always the idea of unity, like an ordinary "singular noun," is an other. A number in arithmetic is most commonly an adjective in grammar; and it is always, in form, an expression that tells how many, or—"denotes how many things are spoken of."—Chase, p. 11. But the name of a number is also a number, whenever it is not made plural in form. Thus four is a number, but fours is not; so ten is a number, but tens is not. Arithmetical numbers, which run on to infinity, severally consist of a definite idea of how many; each is a precise count by the unit; one being the beginning of the series, and the measure of every successive step. Grammatical numbers are only the verbal forms which distinguish one thing from more of the same sort. Thus the word fours or tens, unless some arithmetical number be prefixed to it, signifies nothing but a mere plurality which repeats indefinitely the collective idea of four or ten.

OBS. 19.—All actual names of numbers calculative, except one, (for naught, though it fills a place among numbers, is, in itself, a mere negation of number; and such terms as oneness, unity, duality, are not used in calculation,) are collective nouns—a circumstance which seems to make the discussion of the present topic appropriate to the location which is here given it under Rule 15th. Each of them denotes a particular aggregate of units. And if each, as signifying one whole, may convey the idea of unity, and take a singular verb; each, again, as denoting so many units, may quite as naturally take a plural verb, and be made to convey the idea of plurality. For the mere abstractness of numbers, or their separation from all "particular objects," by no means obliges us to limit them always to the construction with verbs singular. If it is right to say, "Two is an even number;" it is certainly no error to say, "Two are an even number." If it is allowable to say, "As 2 is to 4, so is 6 to 12;" it is as well, if not better, to say, "As two are to four, so are six to twelve." If it is correct to say, "Four is equal to twice two;" it is quite as grammatical to say, "Four are equal to twice two." Bullions bids say, "Twice two is four," and, "Three times two is six;" but I very much prefer to say, "Twice two are four," and, "Three times two are six." The Doctor's reasoning, whereby he condemns the latter phraseology, is founded only upon false assumptions. This I expect to show; and more—that the word which he prefers, is wrong.

OBS. 20.—As to what constitutes the subject of the verb in multiplication, I have already noticed three different opinions. There are yet three or four more, which must not be overlooked in a general examination of this grammatical dispute. Dr. Bullions's notion on this point, is stated with so little consistency, that one can hardly say what it is. At first, he seems to find his nominative in the multiplicand, "used as a singular noun;" but, when he ponders a little on the text, "Twice two is four," he finds the leading term not to be the word "two," but the word "number," understood. He resolves, indeed, that no one of the four words used, "is in construction with" any of the rest; for he thinks, "The meaning is, 'The number two taken twice is equal to four.'" Here, then, is a fourth opinion in relation to the subject of the verb: it must be "number" understood. Again, it is conceded by the same hand, that, "When numerals denoting more than one, are used as adjectives, with a substantive expressed or understood, they must have a plural construction." Now who can show that this is not the case in general with the numerals of multiplication? To explain the syntax of "Twice two are four," what can be more rational than to say, "The sense is, 'Twice two units, or things, are four?'" Is it not plain, that twice two things, of any sort, are four things of that same sort, and only so? Twice two duads are how many? Answer: Four duads, or eight units. Here, then, is a fifth opinion,—and a very fair one too,—according to which we have for the subject of the verb, not "two" nor "twice" nor "twice two," nor "number," understood before "two," but the plural noun "units" or "things" implied in or after the multiplicand.

OBS. 21.—It is a doctrine taught by sundry grammarians, and to some extent true, that a neuter verb between two nominatives "may agree with either of them." (See Note 5th to Rule 14th, and the footnote.) When, therefore, a person who knows this, meets with such examples as, "Twice one are two;"—"Twice one unit are two units;"—"Thrice one are three;"—he will of course be apt to refer the verb to the nominative which follows it, rather than to that which precedes it; taking the meaning to be, "Two are twice one;"—"Two units are twice one unit;"—"Three are thrice one." Now, if such is the sense, the construction in each of these instances is right, because it accords with such sense; the interpretation is right also, because it is the only one adapted to such a construction; and we have, concerning the subject of the verb, a sixth opinion,—a very proper one too,—that it is found, not where it is most natural to look for it, in the expression of the factors, but in a noun which is either uttered or implied in the product. But, no doubt, it is better to avoid this construction, by using such a verb as may be said to agree with the number multiplied. Again, and lastly, there may be, touching all such cases as, "Twice one are two," a seventh opinion, that the subject of the verb is the product taken substantively, and not as a numeral adjective. This idea, or the more comprehensive one, that all abstract numbers are nouns substantive, settles nothing concerning the main question, What form of the verb is required by an abstract number above unity? If the number be supposed an adjective, referring to the implied term units, or things, the verb must of course be plural; but if it be called a collective noun, the verb only follows and fixes "the idea of plurality," or "the idea of unity," as the writer or speaker chooses to adopt the one or the other.

OBS. 22.—It is marvellous, that four or five monosyllables, uttered together in a common simple sentence, could give rise to all this diversity of opinion concerning the subject of the verb; but, after all, the chief difficulty presented by the phraseology of multiplication, is that of ascertaining, not "the grammatical subject of the verb," but the grammatical relation between the multiplier and the multiplicand—the true way of parsing the terms once, twice, three times, &c., but especially the word times. That there must be some such relation, is obvious; but what is it? and how is it to be known? To most persons, undoubtedly, "Twice two," and, "Three times two," seem to be regular phrases, in which the words cannot lack syntactical connexion; yet Dr. Bullions, who is great authority with some thinkers, denies all immediate or direct relation between the word "two," and the term before it, preferring to parse both "twice" and "three times" as adjuncts to the participle "taken," understood. He says, "The adverb 'twice' is not in construction with 'two,' and consequently does not make it plural." His first assertion here is, in my opinion, untrue; and the second implies the very erroneous doctrine, that the word twice, if it relate to a singular term, will "make it plural." From a misconception like this, it probably is, that some who ought to be very accurate in speech, are afraid to say, "Twice one is two," or, "Thrice one is three," judging the singular verb to be wrong; and some there are who think, that "usage will not permit" a careful scholar so to speak. Now, analysis favours the singular form here; and it is contrary to a plain principle of General Grammar, to suppose that a plural verb can be demanded by any phrase which is made collectively the subject of the assertion. (See Note 3d, and Obs. 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th, under Rule 14th.) Are is, therefore, not required here; and, if allowable, it is so only on the supposition that the leading nominative is put after it.

OBS. 23.—In Blanchard's small Arithmetic, published in 1854, the following inculcations occur: "When we say, 3 times 4 trees are 12 trees, we have reference to the objects counted; but in saying 3 times 4 is twelve, we mean, that 3 times the number 4, is the number 12. Here we use 4 and 12, not as numeral adjectives, but as nouns, the names of particular numbers, and as such, each conveys the idea of unity, and the entire expression is the subject of is, and conveys the idea of unity."—P. iv. Here we have, with an additional error concerning "the entire expression," a repetition of Dr. Bullions's erroneous assumption, that the name of a particular number, as being "a singular noun," must "convey the idea of unity," though the number itself be a distinct plurality. These men talk as if there were an absurdity in affirming that "the number 4" is plural! But, if four be taken as only one thing, how can three multiply this one thing into twelve? It is by no means proper to affirm, that, "Every four, taken three times, is, or are, twelve;" for three instances, or "times," of the figure 4, or of the word four, are only three 4's, or three verbal fours. And is it not because "the number 4" is plural—is in itself four units—and because the word four, or the figure 4, conveys explicitly the idea of this plurality, that the multiplication table is true, where it says, "3 times 4 are 12?" It is not right to say, "Three times one quaternion is twelve;" nor is it quite unobjectionable to say, with Blanchard "3 times the number 4, is the number 12." Besides, this pretended interpretation explains nothing. The syntax of the shorter text, "3 times 4 is 12," is in no way justified or illustrated by it. Who does not perceive that the four here spoken of must be four units, or four things of some sort; and that no such "four," multiplied by 3, or till "3 times," can "convey the idea of unity," or match a singular verb? Dr. Webster did not so conceive of this "abstract number," or of "the entire expression" in which it is multiplied; for he says, "Four times four amount to sixteen."—American Dict., w. Time.

OBS. 24.—In fact no phrase of multiplication is of such a nature that it can, with any plausibility be reckoned a composite subject of the verb. Once, twice, and thrice, are adverbs; and each of them may, in general, be parsed as relating directly to the multiplicand. Their construction, as well as that of the plural verb, is agreeable to the Latin norm; as, when Cicero says of somebody, "Si, bis bina quot essent, didicisset,"—"If he had learned how many twice two are."—See Ainsworth's Dict., w. Binus. The phrases, "one time," for once, and "two times" for twice, seem puerile expressions: they are not often used by competent teachers. Thrice is a good word, but more elegant than popular. Above twice, we use the phrases, three times, four times, and the like, which are severally composed of a numeral adjective and the noun times. If these words were united, as some think they ought to be, the compounds would be adverbs of time repeated; as, threetimes, fourtimes, &c., analogous to sometimes. Each word would answer, as each phrase now does, to the question, How often? These expressions are taken by some as having a direct adverbial relation to the terms which they qualify; but they are perhaps most commonly explained as being dependent on some preposition understood. See Obs. 1st on Rule 5th, and Obs. 6th on Rule 7th.

OBS. 25.—In multiplying one only, it is evidently best to use a singular verb: as, "Twice naught is naught;"—"Three times one is three." And, in multiplying any number above one, I judge a plural verb to be necessary: as, "Twice two are four;"—"Three times two are six;" because this number must be just so many in order to give the product. Dr. Bullions says, "We should say, 'Three times two is six,' because the meaning is, 'Two taken three times is six.'" This is neither reasoning, nor explanation, nor good grammar. The relation between "two" and "three," or the syntax of the word "times," or the propriety of the singular verb, is no more apparent in the latter expression than in the former. It would be better logic to affirm, "We should say, 'Three times two are six;' because the meaning is, 'Two (units), taken for, to, or till three times, are six.'" The preposition till, or until, is sometimes found in use before an expression of times numbered; as, "How oft shall I forgive? till seven times? I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven."—Matt., xviii, 21. But here is still a difficulty with repect to the multiplying term, or the word "times." For, unless, by an unallowable ellipsis, "seventy times seven," is presumed to mean, "seventy times of seven," the preposition Until must govern, not this noun "times." expressed, but an other, understood after "seven;" and the meaning must be, "Thou shalt forgive him until seventy-times seven times;" or—"until seven times taken for, to, or till, seventy times."

OBS. 26.—With too little regard to consistency. Dr. Bullions suggests that when "we make 'times' the subject of the verb," it is not "really" such, but "is in the objective of number." He is, doubtless, right in preferring to parse this word as an objective case, rather than as a nominative, in the construction to which he alludes; but to call it an "objective of number," is an uncouth error, a very strange mistake for so great a grammarian to utter: there being in grammar no such thing as "the objective of number:" nothing of the sort, even under his own "Special Rule," to which he refers us for it! And, if such a thing there were, so that a number could be "put in the objective case without a governing word," (see his §828,) the plural word times, since it denotes no particular aggregate of units, could never be an example of it. It is true that times, like days, weeks, and other nouns of time, may be, and often is, in the objective case without a governing word expressed; and, in such instances, it may be called the objective of repetition, or of time repeated. But the construction of the word appears to be such as is common to many nouns of time, of value, or of measure; which, in their relation to other words, seem to resemble adverbs, but which are usually said to be governed by prepositions understood: as, "Three days later;" i.e., "Later by three days."—"Three shillings cheaper;" i.e., "Cheaper by three shillings."—"Seven times hotter;" i.e., "Hotter by seven times."—"Four feet high;" i.e., "High to four feet."—"Ten years old;" i.e., "Old to ten years."—"Five times ten;" i.e., "Ten by five times;" or, perhaps, "Ten taken till five times."