"There in the forum _swarm a numerous train_, The subject of debate a townsman slain."
--_Pope, Iliad_, B. xviii, l. 578.
OBS. 8.--Collective nouns, when they are merely _partitive_ of the plural, like the words _sort_ and _number_ above, are usually connected with a plural verb, even though they have a singular definitive; as, "And _this sort of_ adverbs commonly _admit_ of Comparison."--_Buchanan's English Syntax_, p. 64. Here, perhaps, it would be better to say, "_Adverbs of this sort_ commonly admit of comparison." "_A part_ of the exports _consist_ of raw silk."--_Webster's Improved Gram._, p. 100. This construction is censured by Murray, in his octavo Gram., p. 148; where we are told, that the verb should agree with the first noun only. Dr. Webster alludes to this circumstance, in _improving_ his grammar, and admits that, "A part of the exports _consists_, seems to be more correct."--_Improved Gram._, p. 100.
Yet he retains his original text, and obviously thinks it a light thing, that, "in some cases," his rules or examples "may not be vindicable." (See Obs. 14th, 15th, and 16th, on Rule 14th, of this code.) It would, I think, be better to say, "The exports consist _partly_ of raw silk." Again: "_A multitude_ of Latin words _have_, of late, been poured in upon us."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 94. Better, perhaps: "_Latin words, in great multitude_, have, of late, been poured in upon us." So: "For _the bulk_ of _writers_ are very apt to confound them with each other."--_Ib._, p. 97.
Better: "For _most writers_ are very apt to confound them with each other."
In the following example, (here cited as _Kames_ has it, _El. of Crit._, ii, 247,) either the verb _is_, or the phrase, "_There are some moveless men_" might as well have been used:
"There _are a sort_ of men, whose visages Do cream and mantle like a standing pond."--_Shak._
OBS. 9.--Collections of _things_ are much less frequently and less properly regarded as individuals, or under the idea of plurality, than collections of _persons_. This distinction may account for the difference of construction in the two clauses of the following example; though I rather doubt whether a plural verb ought to be used in the former: "The _number_ of commissioned _officers_ in the guards _are_ to the marching regiments as one to eleven: the _number_ of _regiments_ given to the guards, compared with those given to the line, _is_ about three to one."--_Junius_, p. 147.
Whenever the multitude is spoken of with reference to a personal act or quality, the verb ought, as I before suggested, to be in the plural number; as, "The public _are informed_."--"The plaintiff's counsel _have assumed_ a difficult task."--"The committee _were instructed_ to prepare a remonstrance." "The English nation _declare_ they are grossly injured by _their_ representatives."--_Junius_, p. 147. "One particular class of men _are_ permitted to call _themselves_ the King's friends."--_Id._, p. 176.
"The Ministry _have_ realized the compendious ideas of Caligula."--_Id._, p. 177. It is in accordance with this principle, that the following sentences have plural verbs and pronouns, though their definitives are singular, and perhaps ought to be singular: "So depraved _were that people_ whom in their history we so much admire."--HUME: _M'Ilvaine's Lect._, p.
400. "Oh, _this people have sinned_ a great sin, and have made them gods of gold."--_Exodus_, xxxii, 31. "_This people_ thus gathered _have_ not wanted those trials."--_Barclay's Works_, i, 460. The following examples, among others, are censured by Priestley, Murray, and the copyists of the latter, without sufficient discrimination, and for a reason which I think fallacious; namely, "because the ideas they represent seem not to be sufficiently divided in the mind:"--"The court of Rome _were_ not without solicitude."--_Hume_. "The house of Lords _were_ so much influenced by these reasons."--_Id._ See _Priestley's Gram._, p. 188; _Murray's_, 152; _R. C. Smith's_, 129; _Ingersoll's_, 248; and others.
OBS. 10.--In general, a collective noun, unless it be made plural in form, no more admits a plural adjective before it, than any other singular noun.
Hence the impropriety of putting _these_ or _those_ before _kind_ or _sort_; as, "_These kind_ of knaves I know."--_Shakspeare_. Hence, too, I infer that _cattle_ is not a collective noun, as Nixon would have it to be, but an irregular plural which has no singular; because we can say _these cattle_ or _those cattle_, but neither a bullock nor a herd is ever called _a cattle, this cattle_, or _that cattle_. And if "_cavalry, clergy, commonalty_," &c., were like this word, they would all be plurals also, and not "substantives which imply plurality in the singular number, and consequently have no other plural." Whence it appears, that the writer who most broadly charges others with not understanding the nature of a collective noun, has most of all misconceived it himself. If there are not _many clergies_, it is because _the clergy_ is one body, with one Head, and not because it is in a particular sense many. And, since the forms of words are not necessarily confined to things that exist, who shall say that the plural word _clergies_, as I have just used it, is not good English?
OBS. 11.--If we say, "_these people_," "_these gentry_," "_these folk_," we make _people, gentry_, and _folk_, not only irregular plurals, but plurals to which there are no correspondent singulars; but by these phrases, we must mean certain individuals, and not more than one people, gentry, or folk. But these names are sometimes collective nouns singular; and, as such, they may have verbs of either number, according to the sense; and may also form regular plurals, as _peoples_, and _folks_; though we seldom, if ever, speak of _gentries_; and _folks_ is now often irregularly applied to persons, as if one person were _a folk_. So _troops_ is sometimes irregularly, if not improperly, put for _soldiers_, as if a soldier were _a troop_; as, "While those gallant _troops_, by _whom_ every hazardous, every laborious service is performed, are left to perish."--_Junius_, p. 147. In Genesis, xxvii, 29th, we read, "Let _people_ serve thee, and nations bow down to thee." But, according to the Vulgate, it ought to be, "Let _peoples_ serve thee, and nations bow down to thee;" according to the Septuagint, "Let _nations_ serve thee, and _rulers_ bow down to thee."
Among Murray's "instances of false syntax," we find the text, "This people draweth near to me with their mouth," &c.--_Octavo Gram._, Vol. ii, p. 49.
This is corrected in his Key, thus: "_These_ people _draw_ near to me with their mouth."--_Ib._, ii, 185. The Bible has it: "This people _draw near me_ with their mouth."--_Isaiah_, xxix, 13. And again: "This people _draweth nigh unto_ me with their mouth.,"--_Matt._, xv, 8. Dr. Priestley thought it ought to be, "This people _draws_ nigh unto me with their _mouths_."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 63. The second evangelist omits some words: "This people _honoureth_ me with their lips, but _their heart_ is far from me."--_Mark_, vii, 6. In my opinion, the plural verb is here to be preferred; because the pronoun _their_ is plural, and the worship spoken of was a personal rather than a national act. Yet the adjective _this_ must be retained, if the text specify the Jews as a people. As to the words _mouth_ and _heart_, they are to be understood figuratively of _speech_ and _love_; and I agree not with Priestley, that the plural number must necessarily be used. See Note 4th to Rule 4th.
OBS. 12.--In making an assertion concerning a number or quantity with some indefinite excess or allowance, we seem sometimes to take for the subject of the verb what is really the object of a preposition; as, "In a sermon, there _may be_ from three to five, or six heads."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 313.
"In those of Germany, there _are_ from eight to twelve professors."-- _Dwight, Lit. Convention_, p. 138. "About a million and a half _was subscribed_ in a few days."--_N. Y. Daily Advertiser_. "About one hundred feet of the Muncy dam _has been swept off_."--_N. Y. Observer_. "Upwards of one hundred thousand dollars _have been appropriated_."--_Newspaper_. "But I fear there _are_ between twenty and thirty of them."--_Tooke's Diversions_, ii, 441. "Besides which, there _are_ upwards of fifty smaller islands."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 30. "On board of which _embarked_ upwards of three hundred passengers."--_Robertson's Amer._, ii, 419. The propriety of using _above_ or _upwards of_ for _more than_, is questionable, but the practice is not uncommon. When there is a preposition before what seems at first to be the subject of the verb, as in the foregoing instances, I imagine there is an ellipsis of the word _number, amount, sum_ or _quantity_; the first of which words is a collective noun and may have a verb either singular or plural: as, "In a sermon, there may be _any number_ from three to five or six heads." This is awkward, to be sure; but what does the Doctor's sentence _mean_, unless it is, that there _may be an optional number_ of heads, varying from three to six?
OBS. 13.--Dr. Webster says, "When an aggregate amount is expressed by the plural names of the particulars composing that amount, the verb may be in the singular number; as, 'There _was_ more than a hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling.' _Mavor's Voyages_." To this he adds, "However repugnant to the principles of grammar this may seem at first view, the practice is correct; for the affirmation is not made of the individual parts or divisions named, the _pounds_, but of the entire sum or amount."--_Philosophical Gram._, p. 146; _Improved Gram._, p. 100. The fact is, that the Doctor here, as in some other instances, deduces a false rule from a correct usage. It is plain that either the word _more_, taken substantively, or the noun to which it relates as an adjective, is the only nominative to the verb _was_. Mavor does not affirm that there _were_ a hundred and fitly thousand pounds; but that there _was more_--i.e., more _money_ than so many pounds _are_, or _amount to_. Oliver B. Peirce, too.
falls into a multitude of strange errors respecting the nature of _more than_, and the construction of other words that accompany these. See his "Analytical Rules," and the manner in which he applies them, in "_The Grammar_," p. 195 _et seq._
OBS. 14.--Among certain educationists,--grammarians, arithmeticians, schoolmasters, and others,--there has been of late not a little dispute concerning the syntax of the phraseology which we use, or should use, in expressing _multiplication_, or in speaking of _abstract numbers_. For example: is it better to say, "Twice one _is_ two," or, "Twice one _are_ two?"--"Two times one _is_ two," or, "Two times one _are_ two?"--"Twice two _is_ four," or, "Twice two _are_ four?"--"Thrice one _is_ or _are_, three?"--"Three times one _is_, or _are_, three?"--"Three times naught _is_, or _are_, naught?"--"Thrice three _is_, or _are_, nine?"--"Three times four _is_, or _are_, twelve?"--"Seven times three _make_, or _makes_, twenty-one?"--"Three times his age _do_ not, or _does_ not, equal mine?"--"Three times the quantity _is_ not, or _are_ not, sufficient?"--"Three quarters of the men were discharged; and three quarters of the money _was_, or _were_, sent back?"--"As 2 _is_ to 4, so _is_ 6 to 12;" or, "As two _are_ to four, so _are_ six to twelve?"
OBS. 15.--Most of the foregoing expressions, though all are perhaps intelligible enough in common practice, are, in some respect, difficult of analysis, or grammatical resolution. I think it possible, however, to frame an argument of some plausibility in favour of every one of them. Yet it is hardly to be supposed, that any _teacher_ will judge them all to be alike justifiable, or feel no interest in the questions which have been raised about them. That the language of arithmetic is often defective or questionable in respect to grammar, may be seen not only in many an ill choice between the foregoing variant and contrasted modes of expression, but in sundry other examples, of a somewhat similar character, for which it may be less easy to find advocates and published arguments. What critic will not judge the following phraseology to be faulty? "4 times two units _is_ 8 units, and 4 times 5 tens _is_ twenty tens."--_Chase's Common School Arithmetic_, 1848, p. 42. Or this? "1 time 1 is l. 2 times 1 are 2; 1 time 4 is 4, 2 times 4 are 8."--_Ray's Arithmetic_, 1853. Or this? "8 and 7 _is_ 15, 9's out leaves 6; 3 and 8 _is_ 11, 9's out leaves 2."--_Babcock's Practical Arithmetic_, 1829, p. 22. Or this again? "3 times 3 _is_ 9, and 2 we had to carry _is_ 11."--_Ib._, p. 20.
OBS. 16.--There are several different opinions as to what constitutes the grammatical subject of the verb in any ordinary English expression of multiplication. Besides this, we have some variety in the phraseology which precedes the verb; so that it is by no means certain, either that the multiplying terms are always of the same part of speech, or that the true nominative to the verb is not essentially different in different examples.
Some absurdly teach, that an abstract number is necessarily expressed by "_a singular noun_," with only a singular meaning; that such a number, when multiplied, is always, of itself the subject of the assertion; and, consequently, that the verb must be singular, as agreeing only with this "singular noun." Others, not knowing how to parse separately the multiplying word or words and the number multiplied, take them both or all together as "the grammatical subject" with which the verb must agree. But, among these latter expounders, there are two opposite opinions on the very essential point, whether this "_entire expression_" requires a singular verb or a plural one:--as, whether we ought to say, "Twice one _is_ two,"
or, "Twice one _are_ two;"--"Twice two _is_ four," or, "Twice two _are_ four;"--"Three times one _is_ three," or, "Three times one _are_ three;"--"Three times three _is_ nine," or, "Three times three _are_ nine."
Others, again, according to Dr. Bullions, and possibly according to their own notion, find the grammatical subject, sometimes, if not generally, in the multiplying term only; as, perhaps, is the case with those who write or speak as follows: "If we say, 'Three times one _are_ three,' we make '_times_' the subject of the verb."--_Bullions, Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, 1849, p. 39. "Thus, 2 times 1 _are_ 2; 2 times 2 _are_ four; 2 times 3 _are_ 6."--_Chase's C. S. Arith._, p. 43. "Say, 2 times O _are_ O; 2 times 1 _are_ 2."--_Robinson's American Arith._, 1825, p. 24.
OBS. 17.--Dr. Bullions, with a strange blunder of some sort in almost every sentence, propounds and defends his opinion on this subject thus: "Numeral _adjectives_, being _also names_ of numbers, are often used as nouns, and so have the inflection and construction of nouns: thus, by _twos_, by _tens_, by _fifties_. _Two_ is an even number. Twice _two_ is four. Four _is_ equal to twice two. In some arithmetics the language employed in the operation of multiplying--such as 'Twice two _are_ four, twice three _are_ six'--is incorrect. It should be, 'Twice two _is_ four,' &c.; for the word _two_ is used as a singular noun--the name of a number. The adverb '_twice_' is _not in construction with it_, and consequently does not make it plural. The meaning is, 'The number two taken twice is equal to four.'
For the same reason we should say, 'Three times _two_ is six,' because the meaning is, 'Two taken three times _is_ six.' If we say, 'Three times one _are_ three,' we make '_times_' the subject of the verb, whereas the subject of the verb really is '_one_,' and '_times_' is in the _objective of number_ (--828). 2:4:: 6:12, should be read, 'As 2 _is_ to 4, so _is_ 6 to 12;' not 'As two _are_ to four, so _are_ six to twelve.' But when numerals denoting more than one, are used as adjectives, with a substantive expressed or understood, they must have a plural construction."--_Bullions, Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, 1849, p. 39.
OBS. 18.--Since nouns and adjectives are different parts of speech, the suggestion, that, "Numeral _adjectives_ are _also names_, or _nouns_," is, upon the very face of it, a flat absurdity; and the notion that "the name of a number" above unity, conveys only and always the idea of unity, like an ordinary "singular noun," is an other. A number in arithmetic is most commonly an _adjective_ in grammar; and it is always, in form, an expression that tells _how many_, or--"denotes _how many things_ are spoken of."--_Chase_, p. 11. But the _name_ of a number is also a number, whenever it is _not made plural_ in form. Thus _four_ is a number, but _fours_ is not; so _ten_ is a number, but _tens_ is not. Arithmetical numbers, which run on to infinity, severally _consist_ of a _definite idea of how many_; each is a _precise count_ by the unit; _one_ being the beginning of the series, and the measure of every successive step. Grammatical numbers are only the verbal forms which distinguish one thing from more of the same sort. Thus the word _fours_ or _tens_, unless some arithmetical number be prefixed to it, signifies nothing but a mere plurality which repeats indefinitely the collective idea of _four_ or _ten_.
OBS. 19.--All actual _names_ of numbers calculative, except _one_, (for _naught_, though it fills a place among numbers, is, in itself, a mere negation of number; and such terms as _oneness, unity, duality_, are not used in calculation,) are _collective nouns_--a circumstance which seems to make the discussion of the present topic appropriate to the location which is here given it under Rule 15th. Each of them denotes a particular aggregate _of units_. And if each, as signifying one whole, may convey the idea of unity, and take a singular verb; each, again, as denoting so many units, may quite as naturally take a plural verb, and be made to convey the idea of plurality. For the mere abstractness of numbers, or their separation from all "_particular objects_," by no means obliges us to limit them always to the construction with verbs singular. If it is right to say, "Two _is_ an even number;" it is certainly no error to say, "Two _are_ an even number." If it is allowable to say, "As 2 _is_ to 4, so _is_ 6 to 12;"
it is as well, if not better, to say, "As two _are_ to four, so _are_ six to twelve." If it is correct to say, "Four _is_ equal to twice two;" it is quite as grammatical to say, "Four _are_ equal to twice two." Bullions bids say, "Twice two _is_ four," and, "Three times two _is_ six;" but I very much prefer to say, "Twice two _are_ four," and, "Three times two _are_ six." The Doctor's reasoning, whereby he condemns the latter phraseology, is founded only upon false assumptions. This I expect to show; and more--that the word which he prefers, is wrong.
OBS. 20.--As to what constitutes the subject of the verb in multiplication, I have already noticed _three different opinions_. There are yet three or four more, which must not be overlooked in a general examination of this grammatical dispute. Dr. Bullions's notion on this point, is stated with so little consistency, that one can hardly say what it is. At first, he seems to find his nominative in the multiplicand, "used as a singular noun;" but, when he ponders a little on the text, "_Twice two is four_," he finds the leading term not to be the word "_two_," but the word "_number_,"
understood. He resolves, indeed, that no one of the four words used, "is in construction with" any of the rest; for he thinks, "The meaning is, '_The number_ two _taken_ twice is _equal to_ four.'" Here, then, is a _fourth opinion_ in relation to the subject of the verb: it must be "_number_"
understood. Again, it is conceded by the same hand, that, "When numerals denoting more than one, are used as adjectives, with a substantive expressed or understood, they must have a plural construction." Now who can show that this is not the case in general with the numerals of multiplication? To explain the syntax of "_Twice two are four_," what can be more rational than to say, "The sense is, 'Twice two _units_, or _things_, are four?'" Is it not plain, that twice two things, of any sort, are four things of that same sort, and only so? Twice two duads are how many? Answer: _Four duads_, or _eight units_. Here, then, is a _fifth opinion_,--and a very fair one too,--according to which we have for the subject of the verb, not "_two_" nor "_twice_" nor "_twice two_," nor "_number_," understood before "_two_," but the plural noun "_units_" or "_things"_ implied in or after the multiplicand.
OBS. 21.--It is a doctrine taught by sundry grammarians, and to some extent true, that a neuter verb between two nominatives "may agree with either of them." (See Note 5th to Rule 14th, and the footnote.) When, therefore, a person who knows this, meets with such examples as, "Twice one _are_ two;"--"Twice one unit _are_ two units;"--"Thrice one _are_ three;"--he will of course be apt to refer the verb to the nominative which follows it, rather than to that which precedes it; taking the meaning to be, "_Two are_ twice one;"--"_Two units are_ twice one unit;"--"_Three are_ thrice one."
Now, if such is the sense, the construction in each of these instances is right, because it accords with such sense; the interpretation is right also, because it is the only one adapted to such a construction; and we have, concerning the subject of the verb, a _sixth opinion_,--a very proper one too,--that it is found, not where it is most natural to look for it, in the expression of the _factors_, but in a noun which is either uttered or implied in the _product_. But, no doubt, it is better to avoid this construction, by using such a verb as may be said to agree with the number multiplied. Again, and lastly, there may be, touching all such cases as, "Twice _one are_ two," a _seventh opinion_, that the subject of the verb is the product taken _substantively_, and not as a numeral _adjective_. This idea, or the more comprehensive one, that all abstract numbers are nouns substantive, settles nothing concerning the main question, What form of the verb is required by an abstract number above unity? If the number be supposed an adjective, referring to the implied term _units_, or _things_, the verb must of course be plural; but if it be called a _collective noun_, the verb only follows and fixes "the idea of plurality," or "the idea of unity," as the writer or speaker chooses to adopt the one or the other.
OBS. 22.--It is marvellous, that four or five monosyllables, uttered together in a common simple sentence, could give rise to all this diversity of opinion concerning the subject of the verb; but, after all, the chief difficulty presented by the phraseology of multiplication, is that of ascertaining, not "the grammatical subject of the verb," but the grammatical relation between the multiplier and the multiplicand--the true way of parsing the terms _once, twice, three times_, &c., but especially the word _times_. That there must be some such relation, is obvious; but what is it? and how is it to be known? To most persons, undoubtedly, "_Twice two_," and, "_Three times two_," seem to be _regular phrases_, in which the words cannot lack syntactical connexion; yet Dr. Bullions, who is great authority with some thinkers, denies all immediate or direct relation between the word "_two_," and the term before it, preferring to parse both "_twice_" and "_three times_" as adjuncts to the participle "_taken_,"
understood. He says, "The adverb '_twice_' is not in construction with '_two_,' and consequently does not make it plural." His first assertion here is, in my opinion, untrue; and the second implies the very erroneous doctrine, that the word _twice_, if it relate to a singular term, _will "make it plural_." From a misconception like this, it probably is, that some who ought to be very accurate in speech, are afraid to say, "Twice one _is_ two," or, "Thrice one _is_ three," judging the singular verb to be wrong; and some there are who think, that "_usage_ will not permit" a careful scholar so to speak. Now, analysis favours the singular form here; and it is contrary to a plain principle of General Grammar, to suppose that a _plural_ verb can be demanded by any phrase which is made _collectively_ the subject of the assertion. (See Note 3d, and Obs. 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th, under Rule 14th.) _Are_ is, therefore, _not required here_; and, if allowable, it is so only on the supposition that the leading nominative is put after it.
OBS. 23.--In Blanchard's small Arithmetic, published in 1854, the following inculcations occur: "When we say, 3 times 4 trees are 12 trees, we have reference to the _objects_ counted; but in saying 3 times 4 _is_ twelve, we mean, that 3 times the _number_ 4, _is the number_ 12. Here we use 4 and 12, not as numeral _adjectives_, but as _nouns_, the _names_ of particular _numbers_, and as such, each conveys the idea of _unity_, and _the entire expression_ is the subject of _is_, and conveys the _idea of unity_."--P.
iv. Here we have, with an additional error concerning "the entire expression," a repetition of Dr. Bullions's erroneous assumption, that the name of a particular number, as being "a singular noun," must "convey the idea of unity," though the number itself be a distinct plurality. These men talk as if there were an absurdity in affirming that "the number 4" is _plural_! But, if _four_ be taken as only one thing, how can _three_ multiply this one thing into _twelve_? It is by no means proper to affirm, that, "_Every_ four, taken three times, _is_, or _are_, twelve;" for three instances, or "_times_," of the _figure_ 4, or of the _word four_, are only three 4's, or three verbal _fours_. And is it not _because_ "_the number_ 4" _is plural--is in itself four units_--and because the word _four_, or the figure 4, conveys explicitly the _idea of this plurality_, that the multiplication table is true, where it says, "3 times 4 _are_ 12?" It is not right to say, "Three times one quaternion is twelve;" nor is it quite unobjectionable to say, with Blanchard "3 _times the number_ 4, _is the number_ 12." Besides, this pretended interpretation explains nothing. The syntax of the shorter text, "3 times 4 _is_ 12," is in no way justified or illustrated by it. Who does not perceive that _the four_ here spoken of must be four _units_, or four _things_ of some sort; and that no _such_ "four," multiplied by 3, or _till_ "3 _times_," can "convey the idea of unity," or match a singular verb? Dr. Webster did not so conceive of this "abstract number," or of "the entire expression" in which it is multiplied; for he says, "Four times four _amount_ to sixteen."--_American Dict., w.
Time._
OBS. 24.--In fact no phrase of multiplication is of such a nature that it can, with any plausibility be reckoned a composite subject of the verb.
_Once, twice_, and _thrice_, are adverbs; and each of them may, in general, be parsed as relating directly to the multiplicand. Their construction, as well as that of the plural verb, is agreeable to the Latin norm; as, when Cicero says of somebody, "Si, _bis bina_ quot _essent_, didicisset,"--"If he had learned how many _twice two are_."--See _Ainsworth's Dict., w.
Binus._ The phrases, "_one time_," for _once_, and "_two times_" for _twice_, seem puerile expressions: they are not often used by competent teachers. _Thrice_ is a good word, but more elegant than popular. Above _twice_, we use the phrases, _three times, four times_, and the like, which are severally composed of a numeral adjective and the noun _times_. If these words were united, as some think they ought to be, the compounds would be _adverbs_ of _time repeated_; as, _threetimes, fourtimes_, &c., analogous to _sometimes_. Each word would answer, as each phrase now does, to the question, _How often?_ These expressions are taken by some as having a direct adverbial relation to the terms which they qualify; but they are perhaps most commonly explained as being dependent on some preposition understood. See Obs. 1st on Rule 5th, and Obs. 6th on Rule 7th.
OBS. 25.--In multiplying one only, it is evidently best to use a singular verb: as, "Twice _naught_ is naught;"--"Three times _one is_ three." And, in multiplying any number above _one_, I judge a plural verb to be necessary: as, "Twice _two are_ four;"--"Three times _two are six_;"
because this number must be just _so many_ in order to give the product.
Dr. Bullions says, "We should say, 'Three times two _is_ six,' because the meaning is, 'Two _taken_ three times _is_ six.'" This is neither reasoning, nor explanation, nor good grammar. The relation between "_two_" and "_three_," or the syntax of the word "_times_," or the propriety of the _singular verb_, is no more apparent in the latter expression than in the former. It would be better logic to affirm, "We should say, 'Three times two _are_ six;' because the meaning is, 'Two (_units_), taken _for, to_, or _till_ three times, are six.'" The preposition _till_, or _until_, is sometimes found in use before an expression of _times numbered_; as, "How oft shall I forgive? _till_ seven times? I say not unto thee, _Until_ seven times; but, _Until_ seventy times seven."--_Matt._, xviii, 21. But here is still a difficulty with repect to the _multiplying_ term, or the word "_times_." For, unless, by an unallowable ellipsis, "_seventy times seven_," is presumed to mean, "seventy times _of_ seven," the preposition _Until_ must govern, not this noun "_times._" expressed, but an other, understood after "_seven_;" and the meaning must be, "Thou shalt forgive him until _seventy-times_ seven times;" or--"until seven _times taken for, to_, or _till_, seventy times."
OBS. 26.--With too little regard to consistency. Dr. Bullions suggests that when "we make '_times_' the subject of the verb," it is not "really" such, but "is in _the objective of number_." He is, doubtless, right in preferring to parse this word as an objective case, rather than as a nominative, in the construction to which he alludes; but to call it an "objective of _number_," is an uncouth error, a very strange mistake for so great a grammarian to utter: there being in grammar no such thing as "_the objective of number_:" nothing of the sort, even under his own "Special Rule," to which he refers us for it! And, if such a thing there were, so that a _number_ could be "_put in the objective case without a governing word_," (see his --828,) the plural word _times_, since it denotes no particular aggregate of units, could never be an example of it. It is true that _times_, like _days, weeks_, and other nouns of _time_, may be, and often is, in the objective case without a governing word _expressed_; and, in such instances, it may be called the objective of _repetition_, or of _time repeated_. But the construction of the word appears to be such as is common to many nouns of time, of value, or of measure; which, in their relation to other words, seem to resemble adverbs, but which are usually said to be governed by prepositions understood: as, "Three _days_ later;"
i.e., "Later _by_ three days."--"Three _shillings_ cheaper;" i.e., "Cheaper _by_ three shillings."--"Seven _times_ hotter;" i.e., "Hotter _by_ seven times."--"Four _feet_ high;" i.e., "High _to_ four feet."--"Ten _years_ old;" i.e., "Old _to_ ten years."--"Five _times_ ten;" i.e., "Ten _by_ five times;" or, perhaps, "Ten _taken till_ five times."
NOTE TO RULE XV.
A collective noun conveying the idea of unity, requires a verb in the third person, singular; and generally admits also the regular plural construction: as, "His _army was_ defeated."--"His _armies were_ defeated."
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.
FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XV.
UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.--THE IDEA OF PLURALITY.
"The gentry is punctilious in their etiquette."
[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the verb _is_ is of the singular number, and does not correctly agree with its nominative _gentry_, which is a collective noun conveying rather the idea of plurality. But, according to Rule 15th, "When the nominative is a collective noun conveying the idea of plurality, the verb must agree with it in the plural number." Therefore, _is_ should be _are_; thus, "The gentry _are_ punctilious in their etiquette."]
"In France the peasantry goes barefoot, and the middle sort makes use of wooden shoes."--HARVEY: _Priestley's Gram._, p. 188. "The people rejoices in that which should cause sorrow."--See _Murray's Exercises_, p. 49. "My people is foolish, they have not known me."--_Jer._, iv, 22; _Lowth's Gram._, p. 75. "For the people speaks, but does not write."--_Philological Museum_, i, 646. "So that all the people that was in the camp, trembled."--_Exodus_, xix, 16. "No company likes to confess that they are ignorant."--_Student's Manual_, p. 217. "Far the greater part of their captives was anciently sacrificed."--_Robertson's America_, i, 339. "Above one half of them was cut off before the return of spring."--_Ib._, ii, 419.
"The other class, termed Figures of Thought, supposes the words to be used in their proper and literal meaning."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 133; _Murray's Gram._, 337. "A multitude of words in their dialect approaches to the Teutonic form, and therefore afford excellent assistance."--_Dr. Murray's Hist of Lang._, i, 148. "A great majority of our authors is defective in manner."--_James Brown's Crit._ "The greater part of these new-coined words has been rejected."--_Tooke's Diversions_, ii, 445. "The greater part of the words it contains is subject to certain modifications and inflections."--_The Friend_, ii, 123. "While all our youth prefers her to the rest."--_Waller's Poems_, p. 17. "Mankind is appointed to live in a future state."--_Butler's Analogy_, p. 57. "The greater part of human kind speaks and acts wholly by imitation."--_Wright's Gram._, p. 169. "The greatest part of human gratifications approaches so nearly to vice."--_Ibid._
"While still the busy world is treading o'er The paths they trod five thousand years before."--_Young._
UNDER THE NOTE.--THE IDEA OF UNITY.
"In old English this species of words were numerous."--_Dr. Murray's Hist.
of Lang._, ii, 6. "And a series of exercises in false grammar are introduced towards the end."--_Frost's El. of E. Gram._, p. iv. "And a jury, in conformity with the same idea, were anciently called _homagium_, the homage, or manhood."--_Webster's Essays_, p. 296. "With respect to the former, there are indeed plenty of means."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 319.
"The number of school districts have increased since the last year."--_Governor Throop_, 1832. "The Yearly Meeting have purchased with its funds these publications."--_Foster's Reports_, i, 76. "Have the legislature power to prohibit assemblies?"--_Wm. Sullivan_. "So that the whole number of the streets were fifty."--_Rollin's Ancient Hist._, ii, 8.
"The number of inhabitants were not more than four millions."--SMOLLETT: see _Priestley's Gram._, p. 193. "The House of Commons were of small weight."--HUME: _Ib._, p. 188. "The assembly of the wicked have enclosed me."--_Psal._ xxii, 16; _Lowth's Gram._, p. 75. "Every kind of convenience and comfort are provided."--_Com. School Journal_, i, 24. "Amidst the great decrease of the inhabitants of Spain, the body of the clergy have suffered no diminution; but has rather been gradually increasing."--_Payne's Geog._, ii, 418. "Small as the number of inhabitants are, yet their poverty is extreme."--_Ib._, ii, 417. "The number of the names were about one hundred and twenty."--_Ware's Gram._, p. 12; see _Acts_, i, 15.