CHAPTER III.
THE NUMBERS.
[§ 194]. In the Greek language the word patær signifies a father, denoting one, whilst patere signifies two fathers, denoting a pair, and thirdly, pateres signifies fathers, speaking of any number beyond two. The three words, patær, patere, and pateres, are said to be in different numbers, the difference of meaning being expressed by a difference of form. These numbers have names. The number that speaks of one is the singular, the number that speaks of two is the dual (from the Latin word duo = two), and the number that speaks of more than two is the plural.
All languages have numbers, but all languages have not them to the same extent. The Hebrew has a dual, but it is restricted to nouns only. It has, moreover, this peculiarity; it applies, for the most part, only to things which are naturally double, as the two eyes, the two hands, &c. The Latin has no dual number, except the natural one in the words ambo and duo.
[§ 195]. The question presents itself,—to what extent have we numbers in English? Like the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, we have a singular and a plural. Like the Latin, and unlike the Greek and Hebrew, we have no dual.
[§ 196]. Different from the question, to what degree have we numbers? is the question,—over what extent of
our language have we numbers? This distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who said typtô = I beat, typteton = ye two beat, typtomen = we beat, had a dual number for their verbs as well as their nouns; while the Hebrew dual was limited to the nouns only. In the Greek, then, the dual number is spread over a greater extent of the language than in the Hebrew.
There is no dual in the present English. It has been seen, however, that in the Anglo-Saxon there was a dual. But the Anglo-Saxon dual, being restricted to the personal pronouns (wit = we two; git = ye two), was not co-extensive with the Greek dual.
There is no dual in the present German. In the ancient German there was one.
In the present Danish and Swedish there is no dual. In the Old Norse and in the present Icelandic a dual number is to be found.
From this we learn that the dual number is one of those inflections that languages drop as they become modern.
[§ 197]. The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and the plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural? The Latins say bonus pater = a good father; boni patres = good fathers. In the Latin, the adjective bonus changes its form with the change of number of the substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive that is changed. Hence we see that in the Latin language the numbers were extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the substantives and pronouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present English is in the same relation as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon there were plural forms for the adjectives.
[§ 198]. Respecting the formation of the plural, the current rule is, that it is formed from the singular by adding s, as father, fathers. This, however, is by no means a true expression. The letter s added to the word father, making it fathers, is s to the eye only. To the ear it is z. The word sounds fatherz. If the s retained its sound the spelling would be fatherce. In stags, lads, &c., the sound is stagz, ladz. The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously, though somewhat lengthily expressed, is as follows.—The plural is formed from the singular, by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibilant (s): e.g. (the sound of the word being expressed), pea, peaz; tree, treez; day, dayz; hill, hillz; hen, henz; gig, gigz; trap, traps; pit, pits; stack, stacks.
[§ 199]. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary.
a. In the case of words ending in b, v, d, the th in thine = ð, or g, a change either of the final flat consonant, or of the sharp s affixed, was not a matter of choice but of necessity; the combinations abs, avs, ads, aðs, ags, being unpronounceable.
b. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second (aps, afs, ats, aþs, aks), or the second to the first (abz, avz, adz, aðz, agz), is determined by the habit of the particular language in question; and, with a few apparent exceptions it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not vice versâ.
c. Such combinations as peas, trees, hills, hens, &c., (the s preserving its original power, and being sounded as if written peace, treece, hillce, hence), being pronounceable, the change from s to z, in words so ending, is not a
matter determined by the necessity of the case, but by the habit of the English language.
d. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in s, but in z, the original addition was not z, but s. This we infer from three facts: 1. From the spelling; 2. from the fact of the sound of z being either rare or non-existent in Anglo-Saxon; 3. from the sufficiency of the causes to bring about the change.
It may now be seen that some slight variations in the form of our plurals are either mere points of orthography, or else capable of being explained on very simple euphonic principles.
[§ 200]. Boxes, churches, judges, lashes, kisses, blazes, princes.—Here there is the addition, not of the mere letter s, but of the syllable -es. As s cannot be immediately added to s, the intervention of a vowel becomes necessary; and that all the words whose plural is formed in -es really end either in the sounds of s, or in the allied sounds of z, sh, or zh, may be seen by analysis; since x = ks, ch = tsh, and j or ge = dzh, whilst ce, in prince, is a mere point of orthography for s.
Monarchs, heresiarchs.—Here the ch equals not tsh, but k, so that there is no need of being told that they do not follow the analogy of church, &c.
Cargoes, echoes.—From cargo and echo, with the addition of e; an orthographical expedient for the sake of denoting the length of the vowel o.
Beauty, beauties; key, keys.—Like the word cargoes, &c., these forms are points, not of etymology, but of orthography.
Pence.—The peculiarity of this word consists in having a flat liquid followed by the sharp sibilant s (spelt ce), contrary to the rule given above. In the first place, it is a contracted form from pennies; in the second place, its
sense is collective rather than plural; in the third place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it from pens, sounded penz. That its sense is collective rather than plural, we learn from the word sixpence, which, compared with sixpences, is no plural, but a singular form.
Dice.—In respect to its form, peculiar for the reason that pence is peculiar.—We find the sound of s after a vowel, where that of z is expected. This distinguishes dice for play, from dies (diz) for coining. Dice, perhaps, like pence, is collective rather than plural.
In geese, lice, and mice, we have, apparently, the same phenomenon as in dice, viz., a sharp sibilant (s) where a flat one (z) is expected. The s, however, in these words is not the sign of the plural, but the last letter of the original word.
Alms.—This is no true plural form. The s belongs to the original word, Anglo-Saxon, ælmesse; Greek, ἐλεημοσύνη; just as the s in goose does. How far the word, although a true singular in its form, may have a collective signification, and require its verb to be plural, is a point not of etymology, but of syntax. The same is the case with the word riches, from the French richesse. In riches the last syllable being sounded as ez, increases its liability to pass for a plural.
News, means, pains.—These, the reverse of alms and riches, are true plural forms. How far, in sense, they are singular is a point not of etymology, but of syntax.
Mathematics, metaphysics, politics, ethics, optics, physics.—The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each is the name of some department of study, of some art, or
of some science. As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they denote, either of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let the arts and sciences of Greece be expressed in Greek, rather by a substantive and an adjective combined, than by a simple substantive; for instance, let it be the habit of the language to say the musical art, rather than music. Let the Greek for art be a word in the feminine gender; e.g., τέχνη (tekhnæ), so that the musical art be ἡ μουσίκη τέχνη (hæ mousikæ tekhnæ). Let, in the progress of language (as was actually the case in Greece), the article and substantive be omitted, so that, for the musical art, or for music, there stand only the feminine adjective, μουσίκη. Let there be, upon a given art or science, a series of books, or treatises; the Greek for book, or treatise, being a neuter substantive, βίβλιον (biblion). Let the substantive meaning treatise be, in the course of language, omitted, so that whilst the science of physics is called φυσίκη (fysikæ), physic, from ἡ φυσίκη τέχνη, a series of treatises (or even chapters) upon the science shall be called φύσικα (fysika) or physics. Now all this was what happened in Greece. The science was denoted by a feminine adjective singular, as φυσίκη (fysicæ), and the treatises upon it, by the neuter adjective plural, as φύσικα (fysika). The treatises of Aristotle are generally so named. To apply this, I conceive, that in the middle ages a science of Greek origin might have its name drawn from two sources, viz., from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, as physic, logic; in the second place a plural form, as mathematics, metaphysics, optics.
In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs to be, is a point of syntax.
[§ 201]. The plural form children (child-er-en) requires particular notice.
In the first place it is a double plural; the -en being the -en in oxen, whilst the simpler form child-er occurs in the old English, and in certain provincial dialects.
Now, what is the -er in child-er?
In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than that in -r; as geisl-ar = flashes, tung-ur = tongues, &c. Nevertheless, it is not the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question.
Besides the word childer, we collect from the Old High German the following forms in -r:—
| Hus-ir, | Houses, |
| Chalp-ir, | Calves, |
| Lemp-ir, | Lambs, |
| Plet-ir, | Blades of grass, |
| Eig-ir, | Eggs, |
and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being of the neuter gender.
Now, the theory respecting this form which is propounded by Grimm is as follows:—
1. The -r represents an earlier -s.
2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number.
3. In this form it appears in the Mœso-Gothic: ag-is = fear (whence ague = shivering), hat-is = hate, riqv-is = smoke (reek). In none of these words is the -s radical, and in none is it limited to the singular number.
To these doctrines, it should be added, that the reason why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most probably, in the collective nature of the words in which it occurs: Husir = a collection of houses, eiger = a collection of eggs, eggery
or eyry. In words like yeoman-r-y and Jew-r-y, the -r has, probably, the same origin, and is collective.
In Wicliffe we find the form lamb-r-en, which is to lamb as children is to child.
[§ 202]. The form in -en.—In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural number is more common than -n: tungan, tongues; steorran, stars. Of this termination we have evident remains in the words oxen, hosen, shoon, eyne, words more or less antiquated. This, perhaps, is no true plural. In welk-in = the clouds, the original singular form is lost.
[§ 203]. Men, feet, teeth, mice, lice, geese.—In these we have some of the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a certainty, true plurals, we should have an appearance somewhat corresponding to the so-called weak and strong tenses of verbs; viz., one series of plurals formed by a change of the vowel, and another by the addition of the sibilant. The word kye, used in Scotland for cows, is of the same class. The list in Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that of the present English.
| Sing. | Plur. | |
| Freónd | Frýnd | Friends. |
| Feónd | Fynd | Foes. |
| Niht | Niht | Nights. |
| Bóc | Béc | Books. |
| Burh | Byrig | Burghs. |
| Bróc | Bréc | Breeches. |
| Turf | Týrf | Turves. |
[§ 204]. Brethren.—Here there are two changes. 1. The alteration of the vowel. 2. The addition of -en. Mr. Guest quotes the forms brethre and brothre from the Old English. The sense is collective rather than plural.
Peasen = pulse.—As children is a double form of one
sort (r + en), so is peasen a double form of another (s + en); pea, pea-s, pea-s-en. Wallis speaks to the singular power of the form in -s;—"Dicunt nonnulli a pease, pluraliter peasen; at melius, singulariter a pea, pluraliter pease."—P. 77. He might have added, that, theoretically, pease was the proper singular form; as shown by the Latin pis-um.
Pullen = poultry.
Lussurioso.—What? three-and-twenty years in law!
Vendice.—I have known those who have been five-and-fifty, and all about pullen and pigs.—"Revenger's Tragedy," iv. 1.
If this were a plural form, it would be a very anomalous one. The -en, however, is no more a sign of the plural than is the -es in rich-es (richesse.) The proper form is in -ain or -eyn.
A false theefe,
That came like a false fox, my pullain to kill and mischeefe.
"Gammer Gurton's Needle," v. 2.
Chickens.—A third variety of the double inflection (en + s), with the additional peculiarity of the form chicken being used, at present, almost exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was, probably, the plural of chick. So Wallis considered it:—"At olim etiam per -en vel -yn formabant pluralia; quorum pauca admodum adhuc retinemus. Ut, an ox, a chick, pluralitur oxen, chicken (sunt qui dicunt in singulari chicken, et in plurali chickens)." Chick, chick-en, chick-en-s.
Fern.—According to Wallis the -n in fer-n is the -en in oxen, in other words a plural termination:—"A fere (filix) pluraliter fern (verum nunc plerumque fern utroque numero dicitur, sed et in plurali ferns); nam fere et feres prope obsoleta sunt." Subject to this view, the word fer-n-s would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word
chicken-s. It is doubtful, however, whether Wallis's view be correct. A reason for believing the -n to be radical is presented by the Anglo-Saxon form fearn, and the Old High German, varam.
Women.—Pronounced wimmen, as opposed to the singular form woomman. Probably an instance of accommodation.
Houses.—Pronounced houz-ez. The same peculiarity in the case of s and z, as occurs between f and v in words like life, lives, &c.
Paths, youths.—Pronounced padhz, yoodhz. The same peculiarity in the case of þ and ð, as occurs between s and z in the words house, houses. "Finita in f plerumque alleviantur in plurali numero, substituendo v; ut wife, wives, &c. Eademque alleviatio est etiam in s et th, quamvis retento charactere, in house, cloth, path."
[§ 205]. The words sounded houz-ez, padh-z, yoodh-z, taken along with the extract from Wallis, lead us to an important class of words.—§ [199] b.
[§ 206]. Certain words ending in f, like loaf, wife, &c.
The regular plural of these would be loafs, wifes, pronounced loafce, wifce, &c.
But this is not the case. The sound added to the final f is the sound of z, not that of s.
And the plurals are sounded loavz, wivz (wivez, weivz).
Furthermore, the sound of the final f is changed to that of v; in other words, the first of the two letters is accommodated to the second, in violation to the rule of § [199] b.
Can this be explained? Perhaps it can. In the Swedish language the letter f has the sound of v; so that staf is sounded stav.
Again, in the allied languages the words in question
end in the flat (not the sharp) mute,—weib, laub, calb, halb, stab, &c. = wife, leaf, calf, half, staff.
This makes it probable that, originally, the f in wife, loaf, &c. was sounded as v; so that the singular forms were wive, loav.
If so, the plural is perfectly normal; it being the singular form on which the irregularity lies.