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

of no great reputation for his dainty taste. It is noted that roaches recover strength and grow a fortnight after spawning."—WALTON: ib., w. Roach. "A friend of mine stored a pond of three or four acres with carps and tench."—HALE: ib., w. Carp. "Having stored a very great pond with carps, tench, and other pond-fish, and only put in two small pikes, this pair of tyrants in seven years devoured the whole."—Id., ib., w. Tench. "Singular, tench; plural, tenches."—Brightland's Gram., p. 78. "The polar bear preys upon seals, fish, and the carcasses of whales."—Balbi's Geog., p. 172. "Trouts and salmons swim against the stream."—BACON: Ward's Gram., p. 130.

   "'Tis true no turbots dignify my boards,
    But gudgeons, flounders, what my Thames affords."—Pope.

OBS. 38.—Prom the foregoing examples it would seem, if fish or fishes are often spoken of without a regular distinction of the grammatical numbers, it is not because the words are not susceptible of the inflection, but because there is some difference of meaning between the mere name of the sort and the distinct modification in regard to number. There are also other nouns in which a like difference may be observed. Some names of building materials, as brick, stone, plank, joist, though not destitute of regular plurals, as bricks, stones, planks, joists, and not unadapted to ideas distinctly singular, as a brick, a stone, a plank, a joist, are nevertheless sometimes used in a plural sense without the s, and sometimes in a sense which seems hardly to embrace the idea of either number; as, "Let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly."—Gen., xi, 3. "And they had brick for stone."—Ib. "The tale of bricks."—Exod., v, 8 and 18. "Make brick."—Ib., v, 16. "From your bricks."—Ib., v, 19. "Upon altars of brick."—Isaiah. lxv, 3. "The bricks are fallen down."—Ib., ix, 10. The same variety of usage occurs in respect to a few other words, and sometimes perhaps without good reason; as, "Vast numbers of sea fowl frequent the rocky cliffs."—Balbi's Geog., p. 231. "Bullocks, sheep, and fowls."—Ib., p. 439. "Cannon is used alike in both numbers."—Everest's Gram., p. 48. "Cannon and shot may be used in the singular or plural sense."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 37. "The column in the Place Vendome is one hundred and thirty-four feet high, and is made of the brass of the cannons taken from the Austrians and Prussians."—Balbi's Geog., p. 249. "As his cannons roar."—Dryden's Poems, p. 81. "Twenty shot of his greatest cannon."—CLARENDON: Joh. Dict. "Twenty shots" would here, I think, be more proper, though the word is not made plural when it means little balls of lead. "And cannons conquer armies."—Hudibras, Part III, Canto iii, l. 249.

   "Healths to both kings, attended with the roar
    Of cannons echoed from th' affrighted shore."—Waller, p. 7.

OBS. 39.—Of foreign nouns, many retain their original plural; a few are defective; and some are redundant, because the English form is also in use. Our writers have laid many languages under contribution, and thus furnished an abundance of irregular words, necessary to be explained, but never to be acknowledged as English till they conform to our own rules.

1. Of nouns in a, saliva, spittle, and scoria, dross, have no occasion for the plural; lamina, a thin plate, makes laminæ; macula, a spot, maculæ; minutia, a little thing, minutiæ; nebula, a mist, nebulæ; siliqua, a pod, siliqiuæ. Dogma makes dogmas or dogmata; exanthema, exanthemas or exanthemata; miasm or miasma, miasms or miasmata; stigma, stigmas or stigmata.

2. Of nouns in um, some have no need of the plural; as, bdellium, decorum, elysium, equilibrium, guaiacum, laudanum, odium, opium, petroleum, serum, viaticum. Some form it regularly; as, asylums, compendiums, craniums, emporiums, encomiums, forums, frustums, lustrums, mausoleums, museums, pendulums, nostrums, rostrums, residuums, vacuums. Others take either the English or the Latin plural; as, desideratums or desiderata, mediums or media, menstruums or menstrua, memorandums or memoranda, spectrums or spectra, speculums or specula, stratums or strata, succedaneums or succedanea, trapeziums or trapezia, vinculums or vincula. A few seem to have the Latin plural only: as, arcanum, arcana; datum, data; effluvium, effluvia; erratum, errata; scholium, scholia.

3. Of nouns in us, a few have no plural; as, asparagus, calamus, mucus. Some have only the Latin plural, which usually changes us to i; as, alumnus, alumni; androgynus, androgyni; calculus, calculi; dracunculus, dracunculi; echinus, echini; magus, magi. But such as have properly become English words, may form the plural regularly in es; as, chorus, choruses: so, apparatus, bolus, callus, circus, fetus, focus, fucus, fungus, hiatus, ignoramus, impetus, incubus, isthmus, nautilus, nucleus, prospectus, rebus, sinus, surplus. Five of these make the Latin plural like the singular; but the mere English scholar has no occasion to be told which they are. Radius makes the plural radii or radiuses. Genius has genii, for imaginary spirits, and geniuses, for men of wit. Genus, a sort, becomes genera in Latin, and genuses in English. Denarius makes, in the plural, denarii or denariuses.

4. Of nouns in is, some are regular; as, trellis, trellises: so, annolis, butteris, caddis, dervis, iris, marquis, metropolis, portcullis, proboscis. Some seem to have no need of the plural; as, ambergris, aqua-fortis, arthritis, brewis, crasis, elephantiasis, genesis, orris, siriasis, tennis. But most nouns of this ending follow the Greek or Latin form, which simply changes is to =es: as, amanuensis, amanuenses; analysis, analyses; antithesis, antitheses; axis, axes; basis, bases; crisis, crises; diæresis, diæreses; diesis, dieses; ellipsis, ellipses; emphasis, emphases; fascis, fasces; hypothesis, hypotheses; metamorphosis, metamorphoses; oasis, oases; parenthesis, parentheses; phasis, phases; praxis, praxes; synopsis, synopses; synthesis, syntheses; syrtis, syrtes; thesis, theses. In some, however, the original plural is not so formed; but is made by changing is to ~ides; as, aphis, aphides; apsis, apsides; ascaris, ascarides; bolis, bolides; cantharis, cantharides; chrysalis, chrysalides; ephemeris, ephemerides; epidermis, epidermides. So iris and proboscis, which we make regular; and perhaps some of the foregoing may be made so too. Fisher writes Praxises for praxes, though not very properly. See his Gram, p. v. Eques, a Roman knight, makes equites in the plural.

5. Of nouns in x, there are few, if any, which ought not to form the plural regularly, when used as English words; though the Latins changed x to ces, and ex to ices, making the i sometimes long and sometimes short: as, apex, apices, for apexes; appendix, appendices, for appendixes; calix, calices, for calixes; calx, calces, for calxes; calyx, calyces, for calyxes; caudex, caudices, for caudexes; cicatrix, cicatrices, for cicatrixes; helix, helices, for helixes; index, indices, for indexes; matrix, matrices, for matrixes; quincunx, quincunces, for quincunxes; radix, radices, for radixes; varix, varices, for varixes; vertex, vertices, for vertexes; vortex, vortices, for vortexes. Some Greek words in x change that letter to ges; as, larynx, larynges, for larinxes; phalanx, phalanges, for phalanxes. Billet-doux, from the French, is billets-doux in the plural.

6. Of nouns in on, derived from Greek, the greater part always form the plural regularly; as, etymons, gnomons, ichneumons, myrmidons, phlegmons, trigons, tetragons, pentagons, hexagons, heptagons, octagons, enneagons, decagons, hendecagons, dodecagons, polygons. So trihedrons, tetrahedrons, pentahedrons, &c., though some say, these last may end in dra, which I think improper. For a few words of this class, however, there are double plurals in use; as, automata or atomatons, criteria or criterions, parhelia or parhelions; and the plural of phenomenon appears to be always phenomena.

7. The plural of legumen is legumens or legumina; of stamen, stamens or stamina: of cherub, cherubs or cherubim; of seraph, seraphs or seraphim; of beau, beaus or beaux; of bandit, bandits or banditti. The regular forms are in general preferable. The Hebrew plurals cherubim and seraphim, being sometimes mistaken for singulars, other plurals have been formed from them; as, "And over it the cherubims of glory."—Heb. ix, 5. "Then flow one of the seraphims unto me."—Isaiah, vi, 6. Dr. Campbell remarks: "We are authorized, both by use and by analogy, to say either cherubs and seraphs, according to the English idiom, or cherubim and seraphim, according to the oriental. The former suits better the familiar, the latter the solemn style. I shall add to this remark," says he, "that, as the words cherubim and seraphim are plural, the terms cherubims and seraphims, as expressing the plural, are quite improper."—Phil. of Rhet., p. 201.

OBS. 40.—When other parts of speech become nouns, they either want the plural, or form it regularly,[158] like common nouns of the same endings; as, "His affairs went on at sixes and sevens."—Arbuthnot. "Some mathematicians have proposed to compute by twoes; others, by fours; others, by twelves."—Churchill's Gram., p. 81. "Three fourths, nine tenths."—Ib., p. 230. "Time's takings and leavings."— Barton. "The yeas and nays."—Newspaper. "The ays and noes."—Ib. "Oes and spangles."—Bacon. "The ins and the outs."—Newspaper."—We find it more safe against outs and doubles."—Printer's Gram. "His ands and his ors."—Mott. "One of the buts."—Fowle. "In raising the mirth of stupids."—Steele. "Eatings, drinkings, wakings, sleepings, walkings, talkings, sayings, doings—all were for the good of the public; there was not such a things as a secret in the town."—LANDON: Keepsake, 1833. "Her innocent forsooths and yesses."—Spect., No. 266.

   "Henceforth my wooing mind shall be expressed
    In russet yeas and honest kersey noes."
        —SHAK. See Johnson's Dict., w. Kersey.

GENDERS.

Genders, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish objects in regard to sex.

There are three genders; the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter.

The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind; as, man, father, king.

The feminine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the female kind; as, woman, mother, queen.

The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female; as, pen, ink, paper.

Hence, names of males are masculine; names of females, feminine; and names of things inanimate, literally, neuter.

Masculine nouns make regular feminines, when their termination is changed to ess: as, hunter, huntress; prince, princess; lion, lioness.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—The different genders in grammar are founded on the natural distinction of sex in animals, and on the absence of sex in other things. In English, they belong only to nouns and pronouns; and to these they are usually applied, not arbitrarily, as in some other languages, but agreeably to the order of nature. From this we derive a very striking advantage over those who use the gender differently, or without such rule; which is, that our pronouns are easy of application, and have a fine effect when objects are personified. Pronouns are of the same gender as the nouns for which they stand.

OBS. 2.—Many nouns are equally applicable to both sexes; as, cousin, friend, neighbour, parent, person, servant. The gender of these is usually determined by the context; and they are to be called masculine or feminine accordingly. To such words, some grammarians have applied the unnecessary and improper term common gender. Murray justly observes, "There is no such gender belonging to the language. The business of parsing can be effectually performed, without having recourse to a common gender."—Gram., 8vo. p. 39. The term is more useful, and less liable to objection, as applied to the learned languages; but with us, whose genders distinguish objects in regard to sex, it is plainly a solecism.

OBS. 3.—A great many of our grammars define gender to be "the distinction of sex," and then speak of a common gender, in which the two sexes are left undistinguished; and of the neuter gender, in which objects are treated as being of neither sex. These views of the matter are obviously inconsistent. Not genders, or a gender, do the writers undertake to define, but "gender" as a whole; and absurdly enough, too; because this whole of gender they immediately distribute into certain other genders, into genders of gender, or kinds of gender, and these not compatible with their definition. Thus Wells: "Gender is the distinction of objects, with regard to sex. There are four genders;—the masculine, the feminine, the common, and the neuter."—School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 49. [Those] "Nouns which are applicable alike to both sexes, are of the common gender."—Ib. This then is manifestly no gender under the foregoing definition, and the term neuter is made somewhat less appropriate by the adoption of a third denomination before it. Nor is there less absurdity in the phraseology with which Murray proposes to avoid the recognition of the common gender: "Thus we may say, Parents is a noun of the masculine and feminine gender; Parent, if doubtful, is of the masculine or feminine gender; and Parent, if the gender is known by the construction, is of the gender so ascertained."—Gram., 8vo, p. 39. According to this, we must have five genders, exclusive of that which is called common; namely, the masculine, the feminine, the neuter, the androgynal, and the doubtful.

OBS. 4.—It is plain that many writers on grammar have had but a confused notion of what a gender really is. Some of them, confounding gender with sex, deny that there are more than two genders, because there are only two sexes. Others, under a like mistake, resort occasionally, (as in the foregoing instance,) to an androgynal, and