[152] "The 'Procrustean bed' has been a myth heretofore; it promises soon to be a shamble and a slaughterhouse in reality."—St. Louis Democrat, 1855.
[153] J. W. Wright remarks, "Some nouns admit of no plural distinctions: as, wine, wood, beer, sugar, tea, timber, fruit, meat, goodness, happiness, and perhaps all nouns ending in ness."—Philos. Gram., p. 139. If this learned author had been brought up in the woods, and had never read of Murray's "richer wines," or heard of Solomon's "dainty meats,"—never chaffered in the market about sugars and teas, or read in Isaiah that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags," or avowed, like Timothy, "a good profession before many witnesses,"—he might still have hewed the timbers of some rude cabin, and partaken of the wild fruits which nature affords. If these nine plurals are right, his assertion is nine times wrong, or misapplied by himself seven times in the ten.
[154] "I will not suppose it possible for my dear James to fall into either the company or the language of those persons who talk, and even write, about barleys, wheats, clovers, flours, grasses, and malts."— Cobbett's E. Gram., p. 29.
[155] "It is a general rule, that all names of things measured or weighed, have no plural; for in them not number, but quantity, is regarded: as, wool, wine, oil. When we speak, however, of different kinds, we use the plural: as, the coarser wools, the richer wines, the finer oils."—Murray's Gram., p. 41.
[156] So pains is the regular plural of pain, and, by Johnson, Webster, and other lexicographers, is recognized only as plural; but Worcester inserts it among his stock words, with a comment, thus: "Pains, n. Labor; work; toil; care; trouble. [Fist] According to the best usage, the word pains, though of plural form, is used in these senses as singular, and is joined with a singular verb; as, 'The pains they had taken was very great.' Clarendon. 'No pains is taken.' Pope. 'Great pains is taken.' Priestley. 'Much pains.' Bolingbroke."—Univ. and Crit. Dict. The multiplication of anomalies of this kind is so undesirable, that nothing short of a very clear decision of Custom, against the use of the regular concord, can well justify the exception. Many such examples may be cited, but are they not examples of false syntax? I incline to think "the best usage" would still make all these verbs plural. Dr. Johnson cites the first example thus: "The pains they had taken were very great. Clarendon."—Quarto Dict., w. Pain. And the following recent example is unquestionably right: "Pains have been taken to collect the information required."—President Fillmore's Message, 1852.
[157] "And the fish that is in the river shall die."—Exod., vii, 18. "And the fish that was in the river died."—Ib., 21. Here the construction is altogether in the singular, and yet the meaning seems to be plural. This construction appears to be more objectionable, than the use of the word fish with a plural verb. The French Bible here corresponds with ours: but the Latin Vulgate, and the Greek Septuagint, have both the noun and the verb in the plural: as, "The fishes that are in the river,"—"The fishes that were," &c. In our Bible, fowl, as well fish, is sometimes plural; and yet both words, in some passages, have the plural form: as, "And fowl that may fly," &c.—Gen., i, 20. "I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea."—Zeph., i, 3.
[158] Some authors, when they give to mere words the construction of plural nouns, are in the habit of writing them in the form of possessives singular; as, "They have of late, 'tis true, reformed, in some measure, the gouty joints and darning work of whereunto's, whereby's, thereof's, therewith's, and the rest of this kind."—Shaftesbury. "Here," says Dr. Crombie, "the genitive singular is improperly used for the objective case plural. It should be, whereuntos, wherebys, thereofs, therewiths."— Treatise on Etym. and Synt., p. 338. According to our rules, these words should rather be, whereuntoes, wherebies, thereofs, therewiths. "Any word, when used as the name of itself, becomes a noun."—Goodenow's Gram., p. 26. But some grammarians say, "The plural of words, considered as words merely, is formed by the apostrophe and s; as, 'Who, that has 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."—Wells's School Gram., p. 54. Practice is not altogether in favour of this principle, and perhaps it would be better to decide with Crombie that such a use of the apostrophe is improper.
[159] "The Supreme Being (God, [Greek: Theos], Deus, Dieu, &c.) is, in all languages, masculine; in as much as the masculine sex is the superior and more excellent; and as He is the Creator of all, the Father of gods and men."—Harris's Hermes, p. 54. This remark applies to all the direct names of the Deity, but the abstract idea of Deity itself, [Greek: To Theion], Numen, Godhead, or Divinity, is not masculine, but neuter. On this point, some notions have been published for grammar, that are too heterodox to be cited or criticised here. See O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 208.
[160] That is, we give them sex, if we mean to represent them as persons. In the following example, a character commonly esteemed feminine is represented as neuter, because the author would seem to doubt both the sex and the personality: "I don't know what a witch is, or what it was then."—N. P. Rogers's Writings, p. 154.
[161] There is the same reason for doubling the t in cittess, as for doubling the d in goddess. See Rule 3d for Spelling. Yet Johnson, Todd, Webster, Bolles, Worcester, and others, spell it citess, with one t.