it."-Ib. "If thou couldst convince him, he would not act accordingly."-Murray's Key, p. 209. "If there was no liberty, there would be no real crime."-Formey's Belles-Lettres, p. 118. "If the house was burnt down, the case would be the same."-Foster's Report, i, 89. "As if the mind was not always in action, when it prefers any thing!"- West, on Agency, p. 38. "Suppose I was to say, 'Light is a body." "-Harris's Hermes, p. 78. "If either oxygen or azote was omitted, life would be destroyed."—Gurney's Evidences, p. 155. "The verb dare is sometimes used as if it was an auxiliary."-Priestley's Gram., p. 132. "A certain lady, whom I could name, if it was necessary."-Spectator, No. 536. "If the e was dropped, c and g would assume their hard sounds."-Buchanan's Syntax, p. 10. "He would no more comprehend it, than if it was the speech of a Hottentot."-Neef's Sketch, p. 112. "If thou knewest the gift of God," &c. -John, iv, 10. "I wish I was at home."-O. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 260. "Fact alone does not constitute right; if it does, general warrants were lawful."-Junius, Let. xliv, p. 205. look'st upon thy boy as though thou guessest it."-Putnam's Analytical Reader, p. 202. look'st upon thy boy as though thou guessedst it."-Cobb's N. A. Reader, p. 320. as if he had contended for life."-Hiley's Gram., p. 92. "He fought as if he had been contending for his life."—Ib., 92.

"The dewdrop glistens on thy leaf,

As if thou seem'st to shed a tear;

As if thou knew'st my tale of grief,

"Thou

"Thou

"He fought

Felt all my sufferings severe."-Alex. Letham.

Last Clause of Note IX-For the Indicative Mood.

"If he know the way, he does not need a guide.”—Brown's Institutes, p. 191.

[FORMULE-Not proper, because the verb know, which is used to express a conditional circumstance assumed as a fact, is in the subjunctive mood. But, according to the last clause of Note 9th to Rule 14th, "A conditional circumstance assumed as a fact, requires the indicative mood." Therefore, know should be knows; thus, "If he knows the way, he does not need a guide."]

66

"And if there be no difference, one of them must be superfluous, and ought to be rejected."Murray's Gram., p. 149. "I cannot say that I admire this construction, though it be much used." -Priestley's Gram., p. 172. "We are disappointed, if the verb do not immediately follow it."Ib., p. 177. "If it were they who acted so ungratefully, they are doubly in fault."-Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 223. "If art become apparent, it disgusts the reader."-Jamieson's Rhet., p. 80. Though perspicuity be more properly a rhetorical than a grammatical quality, I thought it better to include it in this book."-Campbell's Rhet., p. 238. Although the efficient cause be obscure, the final cause of those sensations lies open."-Blair's Rhet., p. 29. "Although the barrenness of language, and the want of words be doubtless one cause of the invention of tropes."—Ib., p. 135. Though it enforce not its instructions, yet it furnishes us with a greater variety."—Ib., p. 353. "In other cases, though the idea be one, the words remain quite separate."-Priestley's Gram., p. 140. "Though the Form of our language be more simple, and has that peculiar Beauty."-Buchanan's Syntax, p. v. "Human works are of no significancy till they be completed."-Kames, El. of Crit., i, 245. "Our disgust lessens gradually till it vanish altogether."Ib., i, 338. "And our relish improves by use, till it arrive at perfection."-Ib., i, 338. "So long as he keep himself in his own proper element."-COKE: ib., i, 233. "Whether this translation were ever published or not I am wholly ignorant."-Sale's Koran, i, 13. "It is false to affirm, 'As it is day, it is light,' unless it actually be day."-Harris's Hermes, p. 246. "But we may at midnight affirm, 'If it be day, it is light."-Ibid. "If the Bible be true, it is a volume of unspeakable interest."-Dickinson. Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered."-Heb., v, 8. "If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?"Matt., xxii, 45.

"Tis hard to say, if greater want of skill

Appear in writing or in judging ill."-Pope, Ess. on Crit.

UNDER NOTE X.-FALSE SUBJUNCTIVES.

"If a man have built a house, the house is his."-Wayland's Moral Science, p. 286.

[FORMULE-Not proper, because the verb hare built, which extends the subjunctive mood into the perfect tense, has the appearance of disagreeing with its nominative man. But according to Note 10th to Rule 14th, "Every such use or extension of the subjunctive mood, as the reader will be likely to mistake for a discord between the verb and its nominative, ought to be avoided as an impropriety." Therefore, have built should be has built; thus, "If a man has built a house, the house is his."]

"If God have required them of him, as is the fact, he has time."—Ib., p. 351. “Unless a previous understanding to the contrary have been had with the Principal."-Berrian's Circular, p. 5. "O if thou have Hid them in some flowery cave."-Milton's Comus, 1. 239. "O if Jove's will Have linked that amorous power to thy soft lay."-Milton, Sonnet 1. "SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD: If thou love, If thou loved, If thou have loved, If thou had loved, If thou shall or will love, If thou shall or will have loved."-L. Murray's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 71; Cooper's Murray, 58; D. Adams's Gram., 48; and others. "Till religion, the pilot of the soul, have lent thee her unfathomable coil."-Tupper's Thoughts, p. 170. "Whether nature or art contribute most to form an orator, is a trifling inquiry."-Blair's Rhet., p. 338. "Year after year steals something from us; till the decaying fabric totter of itself, and crumble at length into dust."-Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 225. "If spiritual pride have not entirely vanquished humility."- West's Letters, p. 184. "Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter."-Exodus, xxi, 31. "It is doubtful

whether the object introduced by way of simile, relate to what goes before, or to what follows." -Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 45.

"And bridle in thy headlong wave,

Till thou our summons answer'd have."-Milt., Comus, 1. 887.

RULE XV.—FINITE VERBS.

When the nominative is a collective noun conveying the idea of plurality, the Verb must agree with it in the plural number: as, "The council were divided."—" The college of cardinals are the electors of the pope."-Murray's Key, p. 176. "Quintus Curtius relates, that a number of them were drowned in the river Lycus."-Home's Art of Thinking, p. 125.

"Yon host come learn'd in academic rules."-Rowe's Lucan, vii, 401. "While heaven's high host on hallelujahs live."-Young's N. Th., iv, 378.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XV.

OBS. 1.-To this rule there are no exceptions; because, the collective noun being a name which even in the singular number "signifies many," the verb which agrees with it, can never properly be singular, unless the collection be taken literally as one aggregate, and not as "conveying the idea of plurality." Thus, the collective noun singular being in general susceptible of two senses, and consequently admitting two modes of concord, the form of the verb, whether singular or plural, becomes the principal index to the particular sense in which the nominative is taken. After such a noun, we can use either a singular verb, agreeing with it literally, strictly, formally, according to Rule 14th; as, "The whole number was two thousand and six hundred or a plural one, agreeing with it figuratively, virtually, ideally, according to Rule 15th; as, "The whole number WERE two thousand and six hundred."-2 Chron., xxvi, 12. So, when the collective noun is an antecedent, the relative having in itself no distinction of the numbers, its verb be comes the index to the sense of all three; as, "Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that IS left."-Isaiah, xxxvii, 4. "Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that ARE left."-2 Kings, xix, 4. Ordinarily the word remnant conveys no idea of plurality; but, it being here applied to persons, and having a meaning to which the mere singular neuter noun is not well adapted, the latter construction is preferable to the former. The Greek version varies more in the two places hore cited; being plural in Isaiah, and singular in Kings. The Latin Vulgate. in both, is, "pro reliquiis quæ repertæ sunt:" i. e., "for the remains, or remnants, that are found."

OBS. 2.-Dr. Adam's rule is this: "A collective noun may be joined with a verb either of the singular or of the plural number; as, Multitudo stat, or stunt; the multitude stands, or stand." -Latin and English Gram., p. 154. To this doctrine, Lowth, Murray, and others, add: "Yet not without regard to the import of the word, as conveying unity or plurality of idea."-Lowth, p. 74; Murray, 152. If these latter authors mean, that collective nouns are permanently divided in import, so that some are invariably determined to the idea of unity, and others to that of plurality, they are wrong in principle; for, as Dr. Adam remarks, "A collective noun, when joined with a verb singular, expresses many considered as one whole; but when joined with a verb plural, it signifies many separately, or as individuals."-Adam's Gram., p. 154. And if this alone is what their addition means, it is entirely useless; and so, for all the purposes of parsing, is the singular half of the rule itself. Kirkham divides this rule into two, one for "unity of idea," and the other for "plurality of idea," shows how each is to be applied in parsing, according to his "systematick order;" and then, turning round with a gallant tilt at his own work, condemns both, as idle fabrications, which it were "better to reject than to retain ;" alleging that, "The existence of such a thing as unity or plurality of idea,' as applicable to nouns of this class, is doubtful."-Kirkham's Gram., p. 59.* How then shall a plural verb or pronoun, after a collective noun, be parsed, seeing does not agree with the noun by the ordinary rule of agreement? Will any one say, that every such construction is bad English? If this cannot be maintained, rules eleventh and fifteenth of this series are necessary. But when the noun conveys the idea of unity or takes the plural form, the verb or pronoun has no other than a literal agreement by the common rule; as,

"A priesthood, such as Baal's was of old,

A people, such as never was till now."-Couper.

OBS. 3.-Of the construction of the verb and collective noun, a late British author gives the following account: "Collective nouns are substantives which signify many in the singular number. Collective nouns are of two sorts: 1. Those which cannot become plural like other substantives; as, nobility, mankind, &c. 2. Those which can be made plural by the usual rules for a

Taking this allegation in one sense, the reader may see that Kirkham was not altogether wrong here; and that, had he condemned the solecisms adopted by himself and others, about "unity of idea" and "plurality of idea," in stead of condemning the things intended to be spoken of, he might have made a discovery which would have set him wholly right. See a footnote on page 703, under the head of Absurdities.

substantive; as, 'A multitude, multitudes; a crowd, crowds;' &c. Substantives which imply plurality in the singular number, and consequently have no other plural, generally require a plural verb. They are cattle, cavalry, clergy, commonalty, gentry, laity, mankind, nobility, peasantry, people, populace, public, rabble, &c. [;] as, 'The public are informed.' Collective nouns

which form a regular plural, such as, number, numbers; multitude, multitudes; have, like all other substantives, a singular verb, when they are in the singular number; and a plural verb, when they are in the plural number; as, 'A number of people is assembled; Numbers are assembled. The fleet was dispersed; a part of it was injured; the several parts are now collected.'"-Nixon's Parser, p. 120. To this, his main text, the author appends a note, from which the following passages are extracted: "There are few persons acquainted with Grammar, who may not have noticed, in many authors as well as speakers, an irregularity in supposing collective nouns to have, at one time, a singular meaning, and consequently to require a singular verb; and, at an other time, to have a plural meaning, and therefore to require a plural verb. This irregularity appears to have arisen from the want of a clear idea of the nature of a collective noun. This defect the author has endeavoured to supply; and, upon his definition, he has founded the two rules above. It is allowed on all sides that, hitherto, no satisfactory rules have been produced to enable the pupil to ascertain, with any degree of certainty, when a collective noun should have a singular verb, and when a plural one. A rule that simply tells its examiner, that when a collective noun in the nominative case conveys the idea of unity, its verb should be singular; and when it implies plurality, its verb should be plural, is of very little value; for such a rule will prove the pupil's being in the right, whether he should put the verb in the singular or the plural."-Ibid.

OBS. 4.-The foregoing explanation has many faults; and whoever trusts to it, or to any thing like it, will certainly be very much misled. In the first place, it is remarkable that an author who could suspect in others "the want of a clear idea of the nature of a collective noun," should have hoped to supply the defect by a definition so ambiguous and ill-written as is the one above. Secondly, his subdivision of this class of nouns into two sorts, is both baseless and nugatory; for that plurality which has reference to the individuals of an assemblage, has no manner of connexion or affinity with that which refers to more than one such aggregate; nor is there any interference of the one with the other, or any ground at all for supposing that the absence of the latter is, has been, or ought to be, the occasion for adopting the former. Hence, thirdly, his two rules, (though, so far as they go, they seem not untrue in themselves,) by their limitation under this false division, exclude and deny the true construction of the verb with the greater part of our collective nouns. For, fourthly, the first of these rules rashly presumes that any collective noun which in the singular number implies a plurality of individuals, is consequently destitute of any other plural; and the second accordingly supposes that no such nouns as, council, committee, jury, meeting, society, assembly, court, college, company, army, host, band, retinue, train, multitude, number, part, half, portion, majority, minority, remainder, set, sort, kind, class, nation, tribe, family, race, and a hundred more, can ever be properly used with a plural verb, except when they assume the plural form. To prove the falsity of this supposition, is needless. And, finally, the objection which this author advances against the common rules, is very far from proving them useless, or not greatly preferable to his own. If they do not in every instance enable the student to ascertain with certainty which form of concord he ought to prefer, it is only because no rules can possibly tell a man precisely when he ought to entertain the idea of unity, and when that of plurality. In some instances, these ideas are unavoidably mixed or associated, so that it is of little or no consequence which form of the verb we prefer; as, "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language."-Gen., xi, 6.

"Well, if a king's a lion, at the least

The people ARE a many-headed beast."-Pope, Epist. i, 1. 120.

OBS. 5.-Lindley Murray says, "On many occasions, where a noun of multitude is used, it is very difficult to decide, whether the verb should be in the singular, or in the plural number; and this difficulty has induced some grammarians to cut the knot at once, and to assert that every noun of multitude must always be considered as conveying the idea of unity."-Octavo Gram., p. 153. What these occasions, or who these grammarians, are, I know not; but it is certain that the difficulty here imagined does not concern the application of such rules as require the verb and pronoun to conform to the sense intended; and, where there is no apparent impropriety in adopting either number, there is no occasion to raise a scruple as to which is right. To cut knots by dogmatism, and to tie them by sophistry, are employments equally vain. It cannot be denied that there are in every multitude both a unity and a plurality, one or the other of which must be preferred as the principle of concord for the verb or the pronoun, or for both. Nor is the number of nouns small, or their use unfrequent, which, according to our best authors, admit of either construction; though Kirkham assails and repudiates his own rules, because, "Their application is quite limited.”—Grammar in Familiar Lectures, p. 59.

OBS. 6.-Murray's doctrine seems to be, not that collective nouns are generally susceptible of two senses in respect to number, but that some naturally convey the idea of unity, others, that of plurality, and a few, either of these senses. The last, which are probably ten times more numerous than all the rest, he somehow merges or forgets, so as to speak of two classes only say. ing, "Some nouns of multitude certainly convey to the mind an idea of plurality, others, that of a whole as one thing, and others again, sometimes that of unity, and sometimes that of plurality. On this ground, it is warrantable, and consistent with the nature of things, to apply a

plural verb and pronoun to the one class, and a singular verb and pronoun to the other. We shall immediately perceive the impropriety of the following constructions: The clergy has withdrawn itself from the temporal courts; 'The assembly was divided in its opinion;' &c."—Octavo Gram. p. 153. The simple fact is, that clergy, assembly, and perhaps every other collective noun, may sometimes convey the idea of unity, and sometimes that of plurality; but an “opinion” or a ver untary "withdrawing" is a personal act or quality; wherefore it is here more consistent to adopt the plural sense and construction, in which alone we take the collection as individuals, cr persons.

OBS. 7.—Although a uniformity of number is generally preferable to diversity, in the construc tion of words that refer to the same collective noun; and although many grammarians deny that any departure from such uniformity is allowable; yet, if the singular be put first, a plural pronon: may sometimes follow without obvious impropriety: as, "So Judah was carried away out of ther land."-2 Kings, xxv, 21. "Israel is reproved and threatened for their impiety and idolatry. -Friends' Bible, Hosea, x. "There is the enemy who wait to give us battle.”—Murray's Introductory Reader, p. 36. When the idea of plurality predominates in the author's mind, a plural verb is sometimes used before a collective noun that has the singular article an or a; as, "There are a sort of authors, who seem to take up with appearances."—Addison. "Here are a number of facts or incidents leading to the end in view."-Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 296. "There are a great number of exceedingly good writers among the French."-Maunder's Gram., p. 11.

"There in the forum swarm a numerous train,

The subject of debate a townsman slain."-Pope, Iliad, B. xviii, 1. 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 defititive; 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 comparison." "A part of the exports consist of raw silk."-Webster's Improved Gram., p. 103. 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 impres ing 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." Sɔ: "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 tic 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 individoals, or under the idea of plurality, than collections of persons. This distinction may account fir the difference of construction in the two clauses of the following example; though I rather dout whether a plural verb ought to be used in the former: "The number of commissioned officers 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. Wher ever 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 plain's counsel have assumed a difficult task."-"The committee were instructed to prepare a renonstrance." "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."-1, 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 that people whom in their history we so much admire."-HUME: MIlvaine's Lect., p. 400. "Ch this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold."—Exodus, xxxii 31. Tast people thus gathered have not wanted those trials."-Barlcay's Works, i, 460. The following examples, among others, are censured by Priestley, Murray, and the copyists of the latter, with out 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 tr not without solicitude."-Hume. "The house of Lords were so much influenced by these ret sons."-Id. See Priestley's Gram., p. 188; Murray's, 152; R. C. Smith's, 129; Ingersoll's, 245; and others.

OBS. 10.-In general, a collective noun, unless it be made plural in form, no more admits a pit ral adjective before it, than any other singular noun. Hence the impropriety of putting these t those before kind or sort; as, "These kind of knaves I know."-Shakspeare. Hence, too, I LST that cattle is not a collective noun, as Nixon would have it to be, but an irregular plural which Las no singular; because we can say these cattle or those cattle, but neither a bullock nor a herd is eve? 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?

In

ODS. 11.-If we say, "these people," "these gentry," "these folk," we make people, gentry, and k, not only irregular plurals, but plurals to which there are no correspondent singulars; for, 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. 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 e 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 emits 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.

Ons. 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 proposition; 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., i, 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, 1 imagine there is an ellipsis of the word number, amount, sum cr 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?

Ors. 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 fifty 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: 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;