NOUNS.
Writers upon the subject of propriety in our language, have objected to the use of means, with the article a and the definitive pronouns singular, this and that. The objection made is, that as this word ends in s, it must be plural, and cannot be joined in construction with words in the singular. This objection supposes that all nouns ending with s are plural; but this would perhaps prove too much, and make it necessary to consider all nouns, not ending in s, as singular, which cannot be true, even on the principles of those who bring the objection. The supposition in both cases would be equally well founded.
It appears to me however, that the sense of the word, and particularly the universal practice of the English nation, ought to have induced the critical grammarian, who wished to reduce the language to some certainty, to suppress the objection. The word means, applied to a single instrument of action, or cause, conveys a single idea; and I presume, was generally used for this purpose, till Bishop Lowth questioned the propriety of the practice; at least mean is scarcely used as a noun, in any author from Chaucer to Lowth. On the contrary, the best writers have used means either in the singular or plural number, according as they had occasion to express by it an idea of one cause or more.
"By this means, it became every man's interest, as well as his duty to prevent all crimes."——Temple, Works, vol. 3. p. 133.
"And by this means I should not doubt," &c.—— Wilkins Real Character, book 1.
"And finding themselves by this means to be safe."——Sidney on Gov. chap. 3. sect. 36.
"For he hopeth by this means to acquit himself."——Rawley's Sylva Sylvarum.
"And by that means they lost their barrier."——Moyle on the Lacedem. Gov.
"Clodius was now quæstor and by that means a senator."——Middleton L. of Cic. vol. 1. p. 261.
"By this means however, there was nothing left to the Parliament of Ireland."——Blackstone's Com. vol. 1. p. 102.
In this manner was the word used by the elegant writers in Queen Anne's reign.
But we have not only the authority of almost every good writer in the language, for this use of means in the singular as well as plural number, but we have the authority of almost unanimous national practice in speaking. It is rare to hear mean used as a noun, and by those only who are fettered by the arbitrary rules of grammarians. I question whether the word, in the singular form, has obtained such an establishment, as to be entitled to a place among the English nouns. The use of it appears like pedantry. No man, whatever may be his rank and abilities, has a right to reject a mode of speech, established by immemorial usage and universal consent. Grammars should be formed on practice; for practice determines what a language is. I do not mean a local practice, for this would subject us to perpetual variety and instability; but national or general practice. The latter, it has been remarked, is the standard of propriety, to which all local idioms and private opinions should be sacrificed. The business of a grammarian is not to examin whether or not national practice is founded on philosophical principles; but to ascertain the national practice, that the learner may be able to weed from his own any local peculiarities or false idioms.
If this means and a means are now, and have immemorially been, used by good authors and the nation in general, neither Johnson, Lowth, nor any other person, however learned, has a right to say that the phrases are not good English. That this is the fact, every person may satisfy himself, by consulting the good authors and observing the universal practice in discourse.
Besides, the general practice of a nation is not easily changed, and the only effect that an attempt to reform it can produce, is, to make many people doubtful, cautious, and consequently uneasy; to render a few ridiculous and pedantic by following nice criticisms in the face of customary propriety; and to introduce a distinction between the learned and unlearned, which serves only to create difficulties for both.
Dr. Priestley is the only writer upon this subject who seems to have been guided by just principles. He observes, with great propriety, that "Grammarians have leaned too much to the analogies of the Latin language, contrary to our mode of speaking and to the analogies of other languages, more like our own. It must be allowed, that the custom of speaking, is the original and only just standard of any language." Pref. to Gram. page 9. His criticisms are exceedingly judicious, and are entitled to the consideration of the student, in preference to those of Lowth, or any other English author. He considers means as belonging "to that class of words which do not change their termination on account of number." It is used in both numbers, a means, or these means, with equal propriety.
To the same class of words belong pains, news, and perhaps some others. Every person who has read good English authors, or lived where the language is spoken in purity, must have observed that the word pains is usually preceded by much, and followed by a verb in the singular number; much pains was taken. If the word is a plural noun, it should neither be followed by a singular verb, nor preceded by much; for we never prefix much to plurals. The most untutored ear would be offended at much papers, much labors. But do we not always say much pains? Do we ever say many pains were taken? I confess I never yet heard or saw the expression. Yet Lowth contends that pains is plural. This criticism upon the word is an authority in vindication of an erroneous practice of using it with a plural verb, even when it is preceded by much. So in Sheridan's Art of Reading, we observe these words; "If so much pains were thought necessary among them," &c. Temple indulges the same mistake; "I know how much pains have been taken to deduce the words Baro and feudum from the Latin and Greek, and even from the Hebrew and Egyptian tongue." Works, vol. 3. p. 365.
Might not these writers have used, much sheep were killed, with the same propriety?
The sense of the word pains does not require that we should consider it as a plural; for it signifies labor or fatigue, in contradistinction to those uneasy sensations, each of which singly is called a pain, and to express a number of which pains is used as a plural. On the other hand we have the authority of general practice for uniting with it much, which can in no case be used with a plural, and also a verb in the singular number.
—"And taken much pains so to proportion the powers of the several magistrates."——Sidney on Gov. sect. I.
"I found much art and pains employed."——Middleton.
"He will assemble materials with much pains."——Bolling. on Hist. letter 4.
"As to our own language, several persons have taken much pains about the orthography of it."——Wilkins Real Char. book I. chap. 5.
There are a few instances in which good authors have considered news as a plural; as
"From all regions where the best news are made."——B. Johnson, Staple of News.
"And seal the news and issue them."——The same.
But can an English ear relish this affected correctness? Hear the language of Cowley and Shakespear, who wrote as the nation spoke:
"A general joy at this glad newes appear'd."
Cowley's Davideis, book 1.
"Now by St. Paul this news is bad indeed!"
The same.
"No news so bad abroad as this at home."
Rich. III. scene 1.
Such is the language at this day, and a man would expose himself to ridicule, who should say, these news are good.
Late writers seem to consider riches as plural; but erroneously. It is merely a contraction of richesse, the French singular, which was probably introduced into England under the Norman kings. Chaucer uses richesse as the singular:
"But for ye speken of swiche gentillesse,
As is descended out of old richesse."
Cant. Tales, 6691.
—"And he that ones to love doeth his homage
Full oftentymes dere bought is the richesse."
La Belle Dame sans mercy, 323.
The word richesse here is no more plural than gentilnesse, distresse, doublenesse, which the author uses in the same poem; and riches now, in strictness of speech, is no more plural than gentleness, distress, or any other word of similar ending. When Chaucer had occasion for a plural, he wrote the word richesses; as in the Tale of Melibeus: "Thou hast dronke so muche hony of swete temporal richesses and delices and honors of this world," &c.—— Works, vol. 4. p. 170. Bell's edit.
The word riches therefore is in the singular number and merely an abbreviation of richesse; as distress is of distresse; weakness, of weaknesse, &c. and the reason why the plural richesses has been neglected, may be, that the idea it conveys does not admit of number any more than that of wealth, which is also destitute of a plural form.
"Was ever riches gotten by your golden mediocrities?"——Cowley on Cromwell's Gov.
"When love has taken all thou hast away,
His strength by too much riches will decay."
Cowley.
"The envy and jealousy which great riches is always attended with."——Moyle's Essay on Lacedem. Gov. 48.
"In one hour is so great riches come to nought."——Bible.
Here riches is considered in its true light. Notwithstanding this, the termination of the word has led late writers into the opinion, that it is plural; so that we generally see it followed by a plural verb: Should this become the unanimous opinion and a general correspondent practice ensue, riches will be established as a plural, contrary to etymology and ancient usage.
Alms is also in the singular number; being a contraction of the old Norman French, almesse, the plural of which was almesses. So in Chaucer:
"Ye knowen wel that I am poure and olde, Kithe (show) your almesse upon me poure wretche."
Freres Tale, 7190.
"This almesse shouldest thou do of thy propre thinges," &c.—— Vol. 5. p. 217. Bell.
"These ben generally the almesses and werkes of charitie of hem that have temporel richesses."——The same.
Alms is used as a noun singular in the Bible; "To ask an alms." "He gave much alms;" that is, almesse, or charity. The plural of this word is not used.
Largess is a word of this class. It is from the old French largesse; but the idea admits of number, and accordingly we find the plural, largesses, still in use.
Laches, from the French lachesse, is still retained in the law stile; but custom has abbreviated the word into lache, a single syllable.
Amends may properly be considered as in the singular number, and so it is used by one of our best writers. "They must needs think that this honor to him, when dead, was but a necessary amends for the injury which they had done him, when living."——Middleton's L. of Cic. vol. 3. p. 131.
The idea here conveyed by amends is as single as that expressed by compensation. The word has no change of termination, and may be considered as singular or plural, at the choice of the writer.
Wages is a word of the same kind.
Victuals is derived from the old French vitaille,[97] and was formerly used in the singular form, victual. But the latter is now wholly disused, and victuals generally used with a singular verb and pronoun. So Swift uses the word. "We had such very fine victuals that I could not eat it."[98] The editor of his works remarks, that here is false concord; but I believe Swift has followed the general practice of the English. The word seems to have lost the plurality of ideas, annexed to many different articles included in the term, and to have assumed the general meaning of the word food, which does not admit of the plural.
The word odds seems to be of the same kind. We sometimes find a plural verb united to it, as in Pope's translation of Homer:
"On valor's side the odds of combat lie,
The brave live glorious, or lamented die."
Iliad, b. 15. l. 670.
But in common practice odds is considered as in the singular number. We always say, "What is the odds;" and I should rank this among the words, which, altho they have the termination of regular plurals, more properly belong to the singular number.
The word gallows is evidently of this class. "Let a gallows be made," say the translators of the Bible, with perfect propriety. Indeed I cannot conceive how any man who has read English authors, can consider this word as in the plural.
Bellows, tongs, sheers, scissors, snuffers, pincers, have no change of termination, and it is the practice to prefix to them the word pair. Yet notwithstanding these articles are composed of two principal parts, both are necessary to form a single indivisible instrument, and the names might have been considered as nouns in the singular.[99] Pair is more properly applied to two separate articles of the same kind, and used together; a pair of shoes, or gloves. Custom, however, has sanctioned the use of it before the words just enumerated, and therefore a pair of tongs, &c. must be admitted as good English.[100]
There are many other words in our language which have the plural termination; as billiards, ethics, metaphysics, mathematics, measles, hysterics, and many others; which properly belong to the singular number. Ethics is a science, is better English than ethics are.
On the other hand, there are many words, which, without ever taking the plural termination, often belong to the plural. Sheep, deer and hose, are often mentioned as belonging to this description. To these we may add many names of fish; as trout, salmon, carp, tench and others, which are in fact names of species; but which apply equally to the individuals of the species. We say a trout, or five trout; but never five trouts.