"While heaven's high host on hallelujahs live."
—Young's N. Th., iv, 378.
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.