The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

we speak of more than one person of the same name; as, the Henries, the Edwards."—Cobbetts E. Gram., ¶ 40. "She was descended from the Percies and the Stanleys."—Loves of the Poets, ii, 102. "Naples, or the Two Sicilies."—Balbi's Geog., p. 273. The word India, commonly makes the plural Indies, not Indias; and, for Ajaxes, the poets write Ajaces. But Richard Hiley says, "Proper nouns, when pluralized, follow the same rules as common nouns; as, Venus, the Venuses; Ajax, the Ajaxes; Cato, the Catoes; Henry, the Henries."—Hiley's E. Gram., p. 18.

   "He ev'ry day from King to King can walk,
    Of all our Harries, all our Edwards talk."—Pope's Satires, iv.

OBS. 15.—When a name and a title are to be used together in a plural sense, many persons are puzzled to determine whether the name, or the title, or both, should be in the plural form. For example—in speaking of two young ladies whose family name is Bell—whether to call them the Miss Bells, the Misses Bell, or the Misses Bells. To an inquiry on this point, a learned editor, who prefers the last, lately gave his answer thus: "There are two young ladies; of course they are 'the Misses.' Their name is Bell; of course there are two 'Bells.' Ergo, the correct phrase, in speaking of them, is—'the Misses Bells.'"—N. Y. Com. Adv. This puts the words in apposition; and there is no question, that it is formally correct. But still it is less agreeable to the ear, less frequently heard, and less approved by grammarians, than the first phrase; which, if we may be allowed to assume that the two words may be taken together as a sort of compound, is correct also. Dr. Priestley says, "When a name has a title prefixed to it, as Doctor, Miss, Master, &c., the plural termination affects only the latter of the two words; as, 'The two Doctor Nettletons'—'The two Miss Thomsons;' though a strict analogy would plead for the alteration of the former word, and lead us to say, 'The two Doctors Nettleton'—'The two Misses Thomson.'"—Priestley's Gram., p. 59. The following quotations show the opinions of some other grammarians: "Two or more nouns in concordance, and forming one complex name, or a name and a title, have the plural termination annexed to the last only; as, 'The Miss Smiths'—'The three Doctor Simpsons'—'The two Master Wigginses.' With a few exceptions, and those not parallel to the examples just given, we almost uniformly, in complex names, confine the inflection to the last or the latter noun."—Dr. Crombie. The foregoing opinion from Crombie, is quoted and seconded by Maunder, who adds the following examples: "Thus, Dr. Watts: 'May there not be Sir Isaac Newtons in every science?'—'You must not suppose that the world is made up of Lady Aurora Granvilles.'"—Maunder's Gram., p. 2.

OBS. 16.—These writers do not seem to accord with W. L. Stone, the editor above quoted, nor would his reasoning apply well to several of their examples. Yet both opinions are right, if neither be carried too far. For when the words are in apposition, rather than in composition, the first name or title must be made plural, if it refers to more than one: as, "The Misses Bell and Brown,"—"Messrs. Lambert and Son,"—"The Lords Calthorpe and Erskine,"—"The Lords Bishops of Durham and St. David's,"—"The Knights Hospitalers,"—"The Knights Templars,"—"The Knights Baronets." But this does not prove the other construction, which varies the last word only, to be irregular; and, if it did, there is abundant authority for it. Nor is that which varies the first only, to be altogether condemned, though Dr. Priestley is unquestionably wrong respecting the "strict analogy" of which he speaks. The joining of a plural title to one singular noun, as, "Misses Roy,"—"The Misses Bell,"—"The two Misses Thomson," produces a phrase which is in itself the least analogous of the three; but, "The Misses Jane and Eliza Bell," is a phrase which nobody perhaps will undertake to amend. It appears, then, that each of these forms of expression may be right in some cases; and each of them may be wrong, if improperly substituted for either of the others.

OBS. 17.—The following statements, though erroneous in several particulars, will show the opinions of some other grammarians, upon the foregoing point: "Proper nouns have the plural only when they refer to a race or family; as, The Campbells; or to several persons of the same name; as, The eight Henrys; the two Mr. Sells; the two Miss Browns; or, without the numeral, the Miss Roys. But in addressing letters in which both or all are equally concerned, and also when the names are different, we pluralize the title, (Mr. or Miss,) and write, Misses Brown; Misses Roy; Messrs, (for Messieurs, Fr.) Guthrie and Tait."—Lennie's Gram., p. 7. "If we wish to distinguish the unmarried from the married Howards, we call them the Miss Howards. If we wish to distinguish these Misses from other Misses, we call them the Misses Howard."—Fowle's Gram. "To distinguish several persons of the same name and family from others of a different name and family, the title, and not the proper name, is varied to express the distinction; as, the Misses Story, the Messrs. Story. The elliptical meaning is, the Misses and Messrs, who are named Story. To distinguish unmarried from married ladies, the proper name, and not the title, should be varied; as, the Miss Clarks. When we mention more than one person of different names, the title should be expressed before each; as, Miss Burns, Miss Parker, and Miss Hopkinson, were present."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 79. In the following examples from Pope's Works, the last word only is varied: "He paragons himself to two Lord Chancellors for law."—Vol. iii, p. 61. "Yearly panegyrics upon the Lord Mayors."—Ib., p. 83.

   "Whence hapless Monsieur much complains at Paris
    Of wrongs from Duchesses and Lady Maries."—Dunciad, B. ii, L 135.

OBS. 18.—The following eleven nouns in f, change the f into v and assume es for the plural: sheaf, sheaves; leaf, leaves; loaf, loaves; leaf, beeves; thief, thieves; calf, calves; half, halves; elf, elves; shelf, shelves; self, selves; wolf, wolves. Three others in fe are similar: life, lives; knife, knives; wife, wives. These are specific exceptions to the general rule for plurals, and not a series of examples coming under a particular rule; for, contrary to the instructions of nearly all our grammarians, there are more than twice as many words of the same endings, which take s only: as, chiefs, kerchiefs, handkerchiefs, mischiefs, beliefs, misbeliefs, reliefs, bassreliefs, briefs, feifs, griefs, clefs, semibrefs, oafs, waifs, coifs, gulfs, hoofs, roofs, proofs, reproofs, woofs, califs, turfs, scarfs, dwarfs, wharfs, fifes, strifes, safes. The plural of wharf is sometimes written wharves; but perhaps as frequently, and, if so, more accurately, wharfs. Examples and authorities: "Wharf, wharfs."—Brightland's Gram., p. 80; Ward's, 24; Goar's, 26; Lennie's, 7; Bucke's, 39. "There were not in London so many wharfs, or keys, for the landing of merchants' goods."—CHILD: in Johnson's Dict. "The wharfs of Boston are also worthy of notice."—Balbi's Geog., p. 37. "Between banks thickly clad with dwelling-houses, manufactories, and wharfs."—London Morn. Chronicle, 1833. Nouns in ff take s only; as, skiffs, stuffs, gaffs. But the plural of staff has hitherto been generally written staves; a puzzling and useless anomaly, both in form and sound: for all the compounds of staff are regular; as, distaffs, whipstaffs, tipstaffs, flagstaffs, quarterstaffs; and staves is the regular plural of stave, a word now in very common use with a different meaning, as every cooper and every musician knows. Staffs is now sometimes used; as, "I saw the husbandmen bending over their staffs."—Lord Carnarvon. "With their staffs in their hands for very age."—Hope of Israel, p. 16. "To distinguish between the two staffs."—Comstock's Elocution, p. 43. In one instance, I observe, a very excellent scholar has written selfs for selves, but the latter is the established plural of self:

   "Self-love would cease, or be dilated, when
    We should behold as many selfs as men."—Waller's Poems, p. 55.

OBS. 19.—Of nouns purely English, the following thirteen are the only simple words that form distinct plurals not ending in s or es, and four of these are often regular: man, men; woman, women; child, children; brother, brethren or brothers; ox, oxen; goose, geese; foot, feet; tooth, teeth; louse, lice; mouse, mice; die, dice or dies; penny, pence or pennies; pea, pease or peas. The word brethren is now applied only to fellow-members of the same church or fraternity; for sons of the same parents we always use brothers; and this form is sometimes employed in the other sense. Dice are spotted cubes for gaming; dies are stamps for coining money, or for impressing metals. Pence, as six pence, refers to the amount of money in value; pennies denotes the corns themselves. "We write peas, for two or more individual seeds; but pease, for an indefinite number in quantity or bulk."—Webster's Dict. This last anomaly, I think, might well enough "be spared; the sound of the word being the same, and the distinction to the eye not always regarded." Why is it not as proper, to write an order for "a bushel of peas," as for "a bushel of beans?" "Peas and beans may be severed from the ground before they be quite dry."—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 31.

OBS. 20.—When a compound, ending with any of the foregoing irregular words, is made plural, it follows the fashion of the word with which it ends: as, Gentleman, gentlemen; bondwoman, bondwomen; foster-child, foster-children; solan-goose, solan-geese; eyetooth, eyeteeth; woodlouse, woodlice;[143] dormouse, dormice; half-penny, halfpence, half-pennies. In this way, these irregularities extend to many words; though some of the metaphorical class, as kite's-foot, colts-foot, bear's-foot, lion's-foot, being names of plants, have no plural. The word man, which is used the most frequently in this way, makes more than seventy such compounds. But there are some words of this ending, which, not being compounds of man, are regular: as, German, Germans; Turcoman, Turcomans; Mussulman, Mussulmans; talisman, talismans; leman, lemans; caiman, caimans.

OBS. 21.—Compounds, in general, admit but one variation to form the plural, and that must be made in the principal word, rather than in the adjunct; but where the terms differ little in importance, the genius of the language obviously inclines to a variation of the last only. Thus we write fathers-in-law, sons-in-law, knights-errant, courts-martial, cousins-german, hangers-on, comings-in, goings-out, goings-forth, varying the first; and manhaters, manstealers, manslayers, maneaters, mandrills, handfuls, spoonfuls, mouthfuls, pailfuls, outpourings, ingatherings, downsittings, overflowings, varying the last. So, in many instances, when there is a less intimate connexion of the parts, and the words are written with a hyphen, if not separately, we choose to vary the latter or last: as, fellow-servants, queen-consorts, three-per-cents, he-goats, she-bears, jack-a-dandies, jack-a-lanterns, piano-fortes. The following mode of writing is irregular in two respects; first, because the words are separated, and secondly, because both are varied: "Is it unreasonable to say with John Wesley, that 'men buyers are exactly on a level with men stealers?"—GOODELL'S LECT. II: Liberator, ix, 65. According to analogy, it ought to be: "Manbuyers are exactly on a level with manstealers." J. W. Wright alleges, that, "The phrase, 'I want two spoonfuls or handfuls,' though common, is improperly constructed;" and that, "we should say, 'Two spoons or hands full.'"—Philos. Gram., p. 222. From this opinion, I dissent: both authority and analogy favour the former mode of expressing the plural of such quantities.

OBS. 22.—There is neither difficulty nor uncertainty respecting the proper forms for the plurals of compound nouns in general; but the two irregular words man and woman are often varied at the beginning of the looser kind of compounds, contrary to what appears to be the general analogy of similar words. Of the propriety of this, the reader may judge, when I shall have quoted a few examples: "Besides their man-servants and their maid-servants."—Nehemiah, vii, 67. "And I have oxen and asses, flocks, and men-servants, and women-servants."—Gen., xxxii, 5. "I gat me men-singers, and women-singers, and the delights of the sons of men."—Ecclesiastes, ii, 8. "And she brought forth a man-child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron."—Rev., xii, 5.—"Why have ye done this, and saved the men-children alive?"—Exod., i, 18. Such terms as these, if thought objectionable, may easily be avoided, by substituting for the former part of the compound the separate adjective male or female; as, male child, male children. Or, for those of the third example, one might say, "singing men and singing women," as in Nehemiah, vii, 67; for, in the ancient languages, the words are the same. Alger compounds "singing-men and singing-women."

OBS. 23.—Some foreign compound terms, consisting of what are usually, in the language from which they come, distinct words and different parts of speech, are made plural in English, by the addition of e or es at the end. But, in all such cases, I think the hyphen should be inserted in the compound, though it is the practice of many to omit it. Of this odd sort of words, I quote the