CHAPTER I.OF THE NOUN.
Noun (Nomen) is that part of speech which expresses the subject of discourse, or which is the name of the thing spoken of, as,table,house,river.
Of nouns there are two kinds, proper and appellative.
A proper noun, or name, is the name of an individual, asAlexander,London,Vesuvius.
An appellative, or common noun, expresses a genus, or class of things, and is common or applicable to every individual of that class.
Nouns or Substantives (for these terms are equivalent) have also been divided into natural, artificial, and abstract. Of the first class,man,horse,tree, are examples. The names of things of our own formation are termed artificial substantives, as,watch,house,ship. The names of qualities or properties, conceived as existing by themselves, or separated from the substances to which they belong, are called abstract nouns; while Adjectives, expressing these qualities as conjoined with their subjects, are called concretes.Hard, for example, is termed the concrete,hardnessthe abstract.
Nouns have also been considered as denoting genera, species, and individuals. Thusmanis a generic term,an Englishmana special term, andGeorgean individual. Appellative nouns being employed to denote genera or species, and these orders comprising each many individuals, hence arises that accident of a common noun, called Number, by which we signify, whether one or more individuals of any genus or species be intended.
In English there are two numbers, the singular and theplural. The singular, expressing only one of a class or genus, is the noun in its simple form, as,river; the plural, denoting more than one, is generally formed by adding the letter s to the singular, as,rivers[9]. To this rule, however, there are many exceptions.
Nouns ending inch,sh,ss, orx, form their plural by adding the syllableesto the singular number, as,church, churches. Dr. Whately, (Archbishop of Dublin,) in violation of this universal rule, writespremissin the singular number, andpremisesin the plural. (See his Logic, pp. 25, 26.)Premise, likepromise, is the proper term, and makespremisesin the plural.Premissandpremisesare repugnant to all analogy.—Chhard takessfor the plural termination, and notes, aspatriarch, patriarchs;distich, distichs.
Nouns ending inforfe, make their plural by changingforfeintoves, as,calf, calves;knife, knives. Excepthoof,roof,grief,dwarf,mischief,handkerchief,relief,muff,ruff,cuff,snuff,stuff,puff,cliff,skiff, with a few others, which in the formation of their plurals follow the general rule.
Nouns inoimpure form their plural by addinges, as,hero, heroes;echo, echoes: those which end inopure, by addings, as,folio, folios.
Some nouns have their plural inen, thus following the Teutonic termination, as,ox, oxen;man, men.
Some are entirely anomalous, as,die, dice;penny, pence;goose, geese;sow, swine; andbrothermakesbrethren[10], when denoting persons of the same society or profession.Die, a stamp for coining, makesdiesin the plural.
Indexmakes in the pluralindexes, when it expresses a table of contents, andindices, when it denotes the exponent of an algebraic quantity.
Some are used alike in both numbers, as,hose[11],deer,sheep, these being either singular or plural.
Nouns expressive of whatever nature or art has made double or plural have no singular, as,bowels,lungs,scissors,ashes,bellows.
Nouns ending inyimpure form their plural by changingyintoies, asquality, qualities.
Nouns purely Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, &c., retain their original plurals.
when denoting aërial spirits; but when signifyingmen of genius, or employed to express the plural of that combination of mental qualities which constitutes genius, it follows the general rule.
A proper name has a plural number when it becomes the name of more individuals than one, as,the two Scipios;the twelve Cæsars. It is to be observed, however, that it ceases then to be, strictly speaking, a proper name.
Some nouns have no plural. 1st. Those which denote things measured or weighed, unless when they express varieties, as,sugar, sugars;wheat, wheats;oil, oils;wine, wines. Here, not numbers of individuals, but different species or classes, are signified. In this sense the nouns are used plurally.
2d. Names of abstract, and also of moral qualities, as,hardness,softness,prudence,envy,benevolence, have no plural. It is to be observed, however, that several nouns of this class ending iny, when they do not express the quality or property in the abstract, but either its varieties or its manifestations, are used plurally. Thus we say,levities,affinities,gravities, &c. There may be different degrees and different exhibitions of the quality, but not a plurality.
Where displays of the mental quality are to be expressed, it is better in all cases to employ a periphrasis. Thus, instead of using with Hume (vol. vii. p. 411) the pluralinsolences, the expressionacts of insolence, would be preferable.
Some of those words which have no singular termination are names of sciences, as,mathematics,metaphysics,politics,ethics,pneumatics, &c.
Of these, the termethicsis, I believe, considered as either singular or plural.
Mathematicsis generally construed as plural; sometimes, however, we find it as singular. “It is a great pity,” says Locke, (vol. iii. p. 427, 8vo. 1794,) “Aristotle had not understood mathematics, as well as Mr. Newton, and made use ofitin natural philosophy.”
“But when mathematics,” says Mr. Harris, “instead of being applied to this excellent purpose,areused not to exemplify logic, but to supply its place, no wonder if logic pass into contempt.”
Bacon improperly uses the word as singular and plural in the same sentence. “If a child,” says he, “be bird-witted, that is, hath not the faculty of attention, the mathematicsgivetha remedy thereunto; for inthem, if the wit be caught away but a moment, one is new to begin.” He likewise frequently gives to some names of sciences a singular termination;and Beattie, with a few others, have, in some instances, followed his example.
“Thus far we have argued for the sake of argument, and opposedmetaphysicto metaphysic.”—Essay on Truth.
“See physic beg the Stagyrite’s defence,See metaphysic call for aid on sense.”—Pope.
“See physic beg the Stagyrite’s defence,See metaphysic call for aid on sense.”—Pope.
“See physic beg the Stagyrite’s defence,
See metaphysic call for aid on sense.”—Pope.
This usage, however, is not general.
Metaphysicsis used both as a singular and plural noun.
“Metaphysicshasbeen defined, by a writer deeply read in the ancient philosophy, ‘The science of the principles and causes of all things existing.’”—Encyc. Brit.Here the word is used as singular; as likewise in the following example:
“Metaphysicshasbeen represented by painters and sculptors as a woman crowned and blindfolded, holding a sceptre in her hand, and having at her feet an hour-glass and a globe.”
“Metaphysicsisthat science, in which are understood the principles of other sciences.”—Hutton.
In the following examples it is construed as a plural noun.
“Metaphysicstendonly to benight the understanding in a cloud of its own making.”—Knox.
“Here, indeed, lies the justest and most plausible objection against a considerable part of metaphysics, thattheyare not properly a science.”—Hume.
The latter of these usages is the more common, and more agreeable to analogy. The same observation is applicable to the termspolitics,optics,pneumatics, and other similar names of sciences.
“But in order to prove more fully that politicsadmitof general truths.”—Hume.
Here the term is used as plural.
Folkandfolksare used indiscriminately; but the plural termination is here superfluous, the wordfolkimplying plurality.
Meansis used both as a singular and plural noun. Lowth recommends the latter usage only, and admits mean as the singular of means. But notwithstanding the authority ofHooker, Sidney, and Shakspeare, for the expressionsthis mean,that mean, &c., and the recommendation they receive from analogy, custom has so long decided in favour ofmeans, repudiating the singular termination, that it may seem, perhaps, idle, as well as fastidious, to propose its dismission.
It is likewise observable, that the singular form of this noun is not to be found in our version of the Bible; a circumstance which clearly shows, that the translators preferred the plural termination.
That the nounmeanshas been used as a substantive singular by some of our best writers, it would be easy to prove by numberless examples. Let a few suffice.
“Bythismeans it became every man’s interest, as well as his duty, to prevent all crimes.”—Temple, vol. iii. p. 133.
“And bythismeans I should not doubt.”—Wilkins’s real Character.
“He bythatmeans preserves his superiority.”—Addison.
“Bythismeans alone the greatest obstacles will vanish.”—Pope.
“Bythismeans there was nothing left to the parliament of Ireland.”—Blackstone, vol. i. p. 102.
“Faith is not onlyameans of obeying, but a principal act of obedience.”—Young.
“Everymeans was lawful for the public safety.”—Gibbon.
That this word is also used as plural, the most inattentive English reader must have frequently observed.
“He was careful to observe what meanswereemployed by his adversaries to counteract his schemes.”
While we offer these examples to show that the term is used either as a singular or as a plural noun, we would at the same time remark, that though the expression “a mean” is at present generally confined to denote “a middle, or medium, between two extremes,” we are inclined to concur with the learned Dr. Lowth, and to recommend a more extended use of the noun singular. This usage was common in the days of Shakspeare.
“I’ll devise ameanto draw the Moor out of the way.”—Othello.
“Pamela’s noble heart would needs gratefully make known the valiantmeanof her safety.”—Sidney.
“Their virtuous conversation was ameanto work the Heathen’s conversion unto Christ.”—Hooker.
Melmoth, Beattie, and several other writers, distinguished by their elegance and accuracy of diction, have adopted this usage.A means, indeed, is a form of expression which, though not wholly unsupported by analogy, is yet so repugnant to the general idiom of our language, and seems so ill adapted to denote the operation of a single cause, that we should be pleased to see it dismissed from use. If we say, “This wasone of the meanswhich he employed to effect his purpose,” analogy and metaphysical propriety concur in recommendinga mean, orone mean, as preferable toa means.News,alms,riches,pains, have been used as either singular or plural; but we never say, “one of the news,” “one of the alms,” “one of the riches,” “one of the pains,” as we say “one of the means;” we may, therefore, be justified, notwithstanding the authority of general usage, in pronouncing “a means” a palpable anomaly.
Newsis likewise construed sometimes as a singular, and sometimes as a plural noun. The former usage, however, is far the more general.
“A general joy atthisglad news appeared.”—Cowley.
“No news so bad asthisat home.”—Shakspeare,Richard III.
“The amazing news of Charles at oncewasspread.”—Dryden.
“The king was employed in his usual exercise of besieging castles, when the newswasbrought of Henry’s arrival.”—Swift.
“The only news you can expect from meisnews from heaven.”—Gay.
“Thisis all the news talked of.”—Pope.
Swift, Pope, Gay, with most other classic writers of that age, seem to have uniformly used it as singular.
A few examples occur of a plural usage.
“When Rhea heardthesenews.”—Raleigh,Hist. World.
“Arethere any news of his intimate friend?”—Smollett.
“Newswerebrought to the queen.”—Hume.
The same rule as that just now recommended in regard to the nounmeansmight perhaps be useful here also, namely, to consider the word as singular when only one article of intelligence is communicated, and as plural when several new things are reported.
Painsis considered as either singular or plural, some of our best writers using it in either way. This word is evidently of French extraction, being the same withpeine, pains or trouble, and was originally used in a singular form thus, “Which may it please your highness to take thepaynefor to write.”—Wolsey’s Letter to Henry VIII.It seems probable, that this word, after it assumed a plural form, was more frequently used as a singular than as a plural noun. Modern usage, however, seems to incline the other way. A celebrated grammarian indeed, has pronounced this noun to be in all cases plural; but this assertion might be proved erroneous by numberless examples[12].
“The pains they had takenwasvery great.”—Clarendon.
“Great painshasbeen taken.”—Pope.
“No painsistaken.”—Pope.
In addition to these authorities in favour of a singular usage, it may be observed, that the wordmuch, a term of quantity, not of number, is frequently joined with it, as,
“I found much art and pains employed.”—Middleton.
“He will assemble materials with much pains.”—Bolingbroke on History.
The wordmuchis never joined to a plural noun;much labours,much papers, would be insufferable[13].
Richesis generally now considered as a plural noun; though it was formerly used either as singular or plural. This substantive seems to have been nothing but the French wordrichesse; and therefore no more a plural thangentlenesse, distresse, and many others of the same kind. In this form we find it in Chaucer:
“But for ye spoken of swiche gentlenesse,As is descended out of old richesse.And he that ones to love doeth his homage,Full often times dere bought is the richesse.”
“But for ye spoken of swiche gentlenesse,As is descended out of old richesse.And he that ones to love doeth his homage,Full often times dere bought is the richesse.”
“But for ye spoken of swiche gentlenesse,
As is descended out of old richesse.
And he that ones to love doeth his homage,
Full often times dere bought is the richesse.”
Accordingly he gives it a plural termination, and uses it as a plural word.
“Thou hast dronke so much hony of swete temporal richesses, and delices, and honours of this world.”
It seems evident, then, that this word was originally construed as a substantive singular, and even admitted a plural form. The orthography varying, and the noun singular assuming a plural termination, it came in time to be considered by some as a noun plural.
In our translation of the Bible, it is construed sometimes as a singular, but generally as a plural noun.
“In one hour is so great riches come to nought.”—Bible.
“Riches take to themselves wings, and fly away.”—Ibid.
Modern usage, in like manner, inclines to the plural construction; there are a few authorities, however, on the other side, as,
“Wasever riches gotten by your golden mediocrities?”—Cowley.
“The envy and jealousy which great richesisalways attended with.”—Moyle.
Almswas also originally a noun singular, being a contraction of the old Norman Frenchalmesse, the plural of which wasalmesses.
“This almesse shouldst thou do of thy proper things.”—Chaucer.
“These ben generally the almesses and workes of charity.”—Ibid.
Johnson says this word has no singular. It was, in truth, a first a noun singular, and afterwards, by contraction, receiving a plural form, it came to be considered by some as a noun plural. Johnson would have had equal, nay, perhaps, better authority for saying that this word has no plural.Our translators of the Bible seem to have considered it as singular. “To askanalms,” “to givemuchalms,” and other similar phraseologies, occur in Scripture. Nay, Johnson himself has cited two authorities, in which the indefinite article is prefixed to it.
... “My arm’d knees,Which bow’d but in my stirrup, bend like hisThat hath receivedanalms.”—Shakspeare.
... “My arm’d knees,Which bow’d but in my stirrup, bend like hisThat hath receivedanalms.”—Shakspeare.
... “My arm’d knees,
Which bow’d but in my stirrup, bend like his
That hath receivedanalms.”—Shakspeare.
“The poor beggar hath a just demand ofanalms from the rich man.”—Swift.
Lowth objected to the phraseologya means, for this reason, thatmeans, being a plural noun, cannot admit the indefinite article, or name of unity. The objection would be conclusive, if the expressionsthis means, that means, did not oppose the learned author’s opinion, thatmeansis a noun plural. To the substantivealms, as represented by Johnson to have no singular, the objection is applicable.
Thanksis considered to be a plural noun, though denoting only one expression of gratitude. It occurs in Scripture as a substantive singular. “What thank have ye?”
It has been observed, that many of those words which have no singular denote things consisting of two parts, and therefore have a plural termination. Hence the wordpairis used with many of them, as, “a pair of bellows,a pair of scissors,a pair of colours,a pair of drawers.”