Part 289 (2/2)
”And ocean written o'er would not afford space for the _annal_, yet it shall go forth”
[145] ”They never yet had separated for their daylight beds, without a cli like the present scene”--_The Crock of Gold_, p 13 ”And straps never called upon to di whity-brown interval between shoe and _trowser_”--_Ib_, p 24 ”And he gave them _victual_ in abundance”--_2 Chron_, xi, 23 ”Store of _victual_”--_Ib_, verse 11
[146] The noun _physic_ properly signifies medicine, or the science of medicine: in which sense, it seems to have no plural But Crombie and the others cite one or two instances in which _physic_ and _metaphysic_ are used, not very accurately, in the sense of the singular of _physics_ and _rammarians also quote some examples in which _physics, metaphysics, politics, optics_, and other similar naular number; but Dr
Crombie justly says the plural construction of such words, ”is y”--_On Etym and Syntax_, p 27
[147] ”Benja the occupation of a coe_,” &c--_Chaes, hire The singular nuht it obsolete”--_Glossary of Craven_ 1828
[148] Our lexicographers generally treat the word _firearular But soular is so it is unsettled Dr Johnson, in his Dictionary, defines a _carbine_ as, ”a sun, or _fire arm_;”
Worcester, ”a small _fire-arm_;” Cobb, ”a sort of s ”_stock_”
[149] ”But, soon afterwards, he lorious _amend_ for his fault, at the battle of Plataea”--_Hist Reader_, p 48
[150] ”There not _a dreg_ of guilt defiles”--_Watts's Lyrics_, p 27
[151] In Young's Night Thoughts, (N vii, l 475) _lee_, the singular of _lees_, is found; Churchill says, (Graular of _lees_;” Webster and Bolles have also both forms in their dictionaries:--
”Refine, exalt, thron their poisonous _lee_, And _
[152] ”The 'Procrustean bed' has been a myth heretofore; it prohterhouse in reality”--_St Louis Deht remarks, ”Some nouns adar, tea, tioodness, happiness, and perhaps all nouns ending in _ness_”--_Philos Graht up in the _woods_, and had never read of Murray's ”richer _wines_,” or heard of Solomon's ”dainty _ars_ and _teas_, or read in Isaiah that ”all our _righteousnesses_ are as filthy rags,” or avowed, like Tiht 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 ti, or misapplied by himself seven times in the ten
[154] ”I will not suppose it possible for e of those persons who talk, and even write, about _barleys, wheats, clovers, flours, grasses_, and _eneral rule, that all nahed, have no plural; for in _thearded: 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 Graular plural of _pain_, and, by Johnson, Webster, and other lexicographers, is recognized only as plural; but Worcester inserts it a 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 forular, 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 ano short of a very clear decision of Custoular concord, can well justify the exception Many such examples may be cited, but are they not exae” would still make all these verbs plural Dr Johnson cites the first exareat
_Clarendon_”--_Quarto Dict, w Pain_ And the following recent exaht: ”_Pains have_ been taken to collect the infore_, 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 theseems 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 soes, 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] Soive to _mere words_ the construction of plural nouns, are in the habit of writing theular; as, ”They have of late, 'tis true, refor work of _whereunto's, whereby's, thereof's, therewith's_, and the rest of this kind”--_Shaftesbury_ ”Here,” says Dr
Croular is _improperly_ used for the objective case plural It should be, _whereuntos, wherebys, thereofs, therewiths_”-- _Treatise on Ety to our rules, these words should rather be, _whereuntoes, wherebies_, _thereofs, therewiths_ ”Any word, when used as the name of itself, becorammarians 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 _'s_?'--CAMPBELL”--_Wells's School Graether in favour of this principle, and perhaps it would be better to decide with Crombie that such a use of the apostrophe is i (_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, sorammar, that are too heterodox to be cited or criticised here See _O B Peirce's Graive them sex, if weexample, 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 knohat a _witch_ is, or what _it_ was then”--_N P Rogers's Writings_, p 154
[161] There is the sa the _d_ in _Goddess_ See Rule 3d for Spelling Yet Johnson, Todd, Webster, Bolles, Worcester, and others, spell it _citess_, with one _t_
”Cits and _citesses_ raise a joyful strain”--DRYDEN: _Joh Dict_
[162] ”But in the _English_ we have _no Genders_, as has been seen in the foregoing Notes The sahtland's Gram_, Seventh Edition, Lond, 1746, p 85
[163] The Rev David Blair so palpably contradicts himself in respect to this matter, that I know not which he favours most, two cases or three In histo the _sense_ or _relation_ in which nouns are used, they are in the NOMINATIVE or [the]
POSSESSIVE CASE, thus, _noinal note: ”In the English language, the distinction of the objective case is observable only in the pronouns _Cases_ being nothing but _inflections_, where inflections do not exist, there can be no grammatical distinction of cases, for the terms _inflection_ and _case_ are _perfectly synonylish noun has _only one change_ of termination, _so no other case_ is here adopted The _objective_ case is noticed in the _pronouns_; and _in parsing nouns_ it is easy to distinguish _subjects_ frooverns the verb_ overned by the verb, or following a preposition, as in the _objective_ case”--_Blair's Practical Gram, Seventh Edition_, London, 1815, p 11 The terms _inflection_ and _case_ are not practically synonye from which they are derived The lish nouns, because it has not a form peculiar to itself alone, must reject the accusative and the vocative of all neuter nouns in Latin, for the saeneral be discarded on the same principle In some other parts of his book, Blair speaks of the objective case of nouns as familiarly as do other authors!
[164] This author says, ”We choose to use the term _subjective_ rather than _nominative_, because it is shorter, and because it conveys itsby its sound, whereas the latter wordin itself”--_Text-Book_, p 88 This appears to me a foolish innovation, too much in the spirit of Oliver B Peirce, who also adopts it The person who knows not theof the word _nominative_, will not be very likely to find out what is rammarians, even such men as Dr Crombie and Professor Bullions, often erroneously call the hich is governed by the verb its _subject_