What to Do If a Bird Flies in the House: And 72 Other Things You Ought to Know By Now

---

Persons, in grammar, are modifications that distinguish the speaker, the hearer, and the person or thing merely spoken of. The first person is that which denotes the speaker or writer; as, " I Paul have written it. The second person is that which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed; as, " Robert , who did this? The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of; as, " James loves his book.

The speaker or writer, being the mover and maker of the communication, of course stands in the nearest or first of these relations. The hearer or hearers, being personally present and directly addressed, evidently sustain the next or second of these relations; this relation is also that of the reader, when he peruses what is addressed to himself in print or writing. Lastly, whatsoever or whosoever is merely mentioned in the discourse, bears to it that more remote relation which constitutes the third person.

The distinction of persons belongs to nouns, pronouns, and finite verbs; and to these it is always applied, either by peculiarity of form or construction, or by inference from the principles of concord. Pronouns are like their antecedents, and verbs are like their subjects, in person.

Hence, it is necessary that our definitions of these things be such as will apply to each of them in full, or under all circumstances; for the definitions ought to be as general in their application as are the things or properties defined. Any person, number, gender, case, or other grammatical modification, is really but one and the same thing, in whatever part of speech it may be found.

This is plainly implied in the very nature of every form of syntactical agreement; and as plainly contradicted in one half, and probably more, of the definitions usually given of these things. But persons, in common parlance, or in ordinary life, are intelligent beings , of one or the other sex. These objects, different as they are in their nature, are continually confounded by the makers of English grammars: So Bicknell, of London: The second person has the speech directed to him , and is supposed to be present; as, Thou Harry art a wicked fellow.

The third person is spoken of, or described, and supposed to be absent ; as, That Thomas is a good man. And in the same manner the plural pronouns are used, when more than one are spoken of. And how can the first person be "the person WHO speaks ," when every word of this phrase is of the third person? Most certainly, it is not HE, nor any one of his sort. If any body can boast of being " the first person in grammar ," I pray, Who is it? Is it not I , even I? Many grammarians say so.

What to Do If a Bird Flies in the House: And 72 Other Things You Ought to Know By Now

Charles Adams, with infinite absurdity, makes the three persons in grammar to be never any thing but three nouns , which hold a confabulation thus: The noun that speaks [,] is the first person; as, I, James , was present. The noun that is spoken to, is the second person; as, James , were you present? The noun that is spoken of is the third person; as, James was present.

What can be a greater blunder, than to call the first person of a verb, of a pronoun, or even of a noun, " the noun that speaks? Nouns are of the second person when addressed or spoken to. Thou is the second person, singular. He, she , or it , is the third person, singular. We is the first person, plural. Ye or you is the second person, plural. They is the third person, plural. Murray's Grammar , p. Adams's , 37; A. Flint's , 18; Kirkham's , 98; Cooper's , 34; T. Now there is no more propriety in affirming, that " I is the first person ," than in declaring that me, we, us, am, ourselves, we think, I write , or any other word or phrase of the first person, is the first person.

Yet Murray has given us no other definitions or explanations of the persons than the foregoing erroneous assertions; and, if I mistake not, all the rest who are here named, have been content to define them only as he did. Some others, however, have done still worse: I, who is the person speaking ; 2d thou, who is spoken to; 3d he, she , or it, who is spoken of, and their plurals, we, ye or you, they.

Here the two kinds of error which I have just pointed out, are jumbled together. It is impossible to write worse English than this! Nor is the following much better: I , in the first person, speaking; Thou , in the second person, spoken to; and He, she, it , in the third person, spoken of. This exception takes place more particularly in the writing of dialogues and dramas; in which the first and second persons are abundantly used, not as the representatives of the author and his reader, but as denoting the fictitious speakers and hearers that figure in each scene.

But, in discourse, the grammatical persons may be changed without a change of the living subject. In the following sentence, the three grammatical persons are all of them used with reference to one and the same individual: Consequently, nouns are rarely used in the first person; and when they do assume this relation, a pronoun is commonly associated with them: But some grammarians deny the first person to nouns altogether; others, with much more consistency, ascribe it;[] while very many are entirely silent on the subject.

Yet it is plain that both the doctrine of concords, and the analogy of general grammar, require its admission. The reason of this may be seen in the following examples: Again, if the word God is of the second person, in the text, " Thou, God , seest me," why should any one deny that Paul is of the first person, in this one? And so of the plural: How can it be pretended, that, in the phrase, " I Paul ," I is of the first person, as denoting the speaker, and Paul , of some other person, as denoting something or somebody that is not the speaker?

Let the admirers of Murray, Kirkham, Ingersoll, R. Smith, Comly, Greenleaf, Parkhurst, or of any others who teach this absurdity, answer. In the following example, the patriarch Jacob uses both forms; applying the term servant to himself, and to his brother Esau the term lord: For when a speaker or writer does not choose to declare himself in the first person, or to address his hearer or reader in the second , he speaks of both or either in the third.

So Judah humbly beseeches Joseph: And Abraham reverently intercedes with God: And the Psalmist prays: So, on more common occasions: Ye mountains , that ye skipped like rams; and ye little hills , like lambs? Tremble, thou earth , at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob.

The plural number is that which denotes more than one; as, "The boys learn. The plural number of nouns is regularly formed by adding s or es to the singular: When the singular ends in a sound which will unite with that of s , the plural is generally formed by adding s only , and the number of syllables is not increased: But when the sound of s cannot be united with that of the primitive word, the regular plural adds s to final e , and es to other terminations, and forms a separate syllable: In some languages, as the Greek and the Arabic, there is a dual number, which denotes two , or a pair ; but in ours, this property of words, or class of modifications, extends no farther than to distinguish unity from plurality, and plurality from unity.

It belongs to nouns, pronouns, and finite verbs; and to these it is always applied, either by peculiarity of form, or by inference from the principles of concord. Pronouns are like their antecedents, and verbs are like their subjects, in number. The terminations which always make the regular plural in es , with increase of syllables, are twelve; namely, ce, ge, ch soft, che soft, sh, ss, s, se, x, xe, z , and ze: All other endings readily unite in sound either with the sharp or with the flat s , as they themselves are sharp or flat; and, to avoid an increase of syllables, we allow the final e mute to remain mute after that letter is added: In some instances, however, usage is various in writing, though uniform in speech; an unsettlement peculiar to certain words that terminate in vowels: There are also some other difficulties respecting the plurals of nouns, and especially respecting those of foreign words; of compound terms; of names and titles; and of words redundant or deficient in regard to the numbers.

What is most worthy of notice, respecting all these puzzling points of English grammar, is briefly contained in the following observations.

To this rule, the plurals of words ending in quy , as alloquies, colloquies, obloquies, soliloquies , are commonly made exceptions; because many have conceived that the u , in such instances, is a mere appendage to the q , or is a consonant having the power of w , and not a vowel forming a diphthong with the y. See Rule 12th for Spelling. So nouns in i , so far as we have any that are susceptible of a change of number, form the plural regularly by assuming es: Common nouns ending in y preceded by a consonant, are numerous; and none of them deviate from the foregoing rule of forming the plural: The termination added is es , and the y is changed into i , according to the general principle expressed in Rule 11th for Spelling.

See a Problem?

But, to this principle, or rule, some writers have supposed that proper nouns were to be accounted exceptions. And accordingly we sometimes find such names made plural by the mere addition of an s ; as, "How come the Pythagoras' , [it should be, the Pythagorases ,] the Aristotles , the Tullys , the Livys , to appear, even to us at this distance, as stars of the first magnitude in the vast fields of ether?

This doctrine, adopted from some of our older grammars, I was myself, at one period, inclined to countenance; see Institutes of English Grammar , p. To pronounce the final a flat, as Africay for Africa , is a mark of vulgar ignorance. This class of words being anomalous in respect to pronunciation, some authors have attempted to reform them, by changing the e to y in the singular, and writing ies for the plural: A reformation of some sort seems desirable here, and this has the advantage of being first proposed; but it is not extensively adopted, and perhaps never will be; for the vowel sound in question, is not exactly that of the terminations y and ies , but one which seems to require ee --a stronger sound than that of y , though similar to it.

In words of this class, the e appears to be useful as a means of preserving the right sound of the o ; consequently, such of them as are the most frequently used, have become the most firmly fixed in this orthography. In practice, however, we find many similar nouns very frequently, if not uniformly, written with s only; as, cantos, juntos, grottos, solos, quartos, octavos, duodecimos, tyros. So that even the best scholars seem to have frequently doubted which termination they ought to regard as the regular one.

The whole class includes more than one hundred words. Some, however, are seldom used in the plural; and others, never. Wo and potato are sometimes written woe and potatoe. This may have sprung from a notion, that such as have the e in the plural, should have it also in the singular. But this principle has never been carried out; and, being repugnant to derivation, it probably never will be. The only English appellatives that are established in oe , are the following fourteen: The last is pronounced dip'-lo-e by Worcester; but Webster, Bolles, and some others, give it as a word of two syllables only.

Nay, for lack of a rule to guide his pen, even Johnson himself could not remember the orthography of the common word mangoes well enough to copy it twice without inconsistency.

This may be seen by his example from King, under the words mango and potargo. Since, therefore, either termination is preferable to the uncertainty which must attend a division of this class of words between the two; and since es has some claim to the preference, as being a better index to the sound; I shall make no exceptions to the principle, that common nouns ending in o preceded by a consonant take es for the plural. Murray says, " Nouns which end in o have sometimes es added, to form the plural; as, cargo, echo, hero, negro, manifesto, potato, volcano, wo: This amounts to nothing, unless it is to be inferred from his examples , that others like them in form are to take s or es accordingly; and this is what I teach, though it cannot be said that Murray maintains the principle.

These, however, may still be called proper nouns , in parsing; because they are only inflections, peculiarly applied, of certain names which are indisputably such. So likewise when such nouns are used to denote character: The proper names of nations, tribes , and societies , are generally plural; and, except in a direct address, they are usually construed with the definite article: And those which are only or chiefly plural, have, or ought to have, such terminations as are proper to distinguish them as plurals, so that the form for the singular may be inferred: Here the singular must certainly be a Tungoose.

Here the singulars may be supposed to be a Pawnee , an Arrapaho , and a Cumanche. Here all are regular plurals, except the last; and this probably ought to be Natchezes , but Jefferson spells it Natches , the singular of which I do not know. Sometimes foreign words or foreign terminations have been improperly preferred to our own; which last are more intelligible, and therefore better: As any vowel sound may be uttered with an s , many writers suppose these letters to require for plurals strictly regular, the s only; and to take es occasionally, by way of exception.

Others, perhaps with more reason, assume, that the most usual, regular, and proper endings for the plural, in these instances, are ies, oes, and ues: This, I think, is right for common nouns. How far proper names are to be made exceptions, because they are proper names, is an other question. It is certain that some of them are not to be excepted: So the names of tribes; as, The Missouries , the Otoes , the Winnebagoes.

Likewise, the houries and the harpies ; which words, though not strictly proper names, are often written with a capital as such. Like these are rabbies, cadies, mufties, sophies , from which some writers omit the e. Johnson, Walker, and others, write gipsy and gipsies ; Webster, now writes Gipsey and Gipseys ; Worcester prefers Gypsy , and probably Gypsies: Webster once wrote the plural gypsies ; see his Essays , p. Yet there seems to be the same reason for inserting the e in these, as in other nouns of the same ending; namely, to prevent the o from acquiring a short sound.

Harris says very properly, 'We have our Marks and our Antonies: Whatever may have been the motive for it, such a use of the apostrophe is a gross impropriety. The word India , commonly makes the plural Indies , not Indias ; and, for Ajaxes , the poets write Ajaces. For example--in speaking of two young ladies whose family name is Bell--whether to call them the Miss Bells , the Misses Bell , or the Misses Bells. To an inquiry on this point, a learned editor, who prefers the last, lately gave his answer thus: This puts the words in apposition; and there is no question, that it is formally correct.

But still it is less agreeable to the ear, less frequently heard, and less approved by grammarians, than the first phrase; which, if we may be allowed to assume that the two words may be taken together as a sort of compound, is correct also. The following quotations show the opinions of some other grammarians: The foregoing opinion from Crombie, is quoted and seconded by Maunder, who adds the following examples: Stone, the editor above quoted, nor would his reasoning apply well to several of their examples.

Yet both opinions are right, if neither be carried too far. For when the words are in apposition, rather than in composition, the first name or title must be made plural, if it refers to more than one: Nor is that which varies the first only, to be altogether condemned, though Dr. Priestley is unquestionably wrong respecting the " strict analogy " of which he speaks. The joining of a plural title to one singular noun, as, " Misses Roy ,"--" The Misses Bell ,"--" The two Misses Thomson ," produces a phrase which is in itself the least analogous of the three; but, " The Misses Jane and Eliza Bell ," is a phrase which nobody perhaps will undertake to amend.

It appears, then, that each of these forms of expression may be right in some cases; and each of them may be wrong, if improperly substituted for either of the others. Sells; the two Miss Browns ; or, without the numeral, the Miss Roys. But in addressing letters in which both or all are equally concerned, and also when the names are different, we pluralize the title , Mr.

If we wish to distinguish these Misses from other Misses, we call them the Misses Howard. The elliptical meaning is, the Misses and Messrs, who are named Story. To distinguish unmarried from married ladies, the proper name , and not the title , should be varied; as, the Miss Clarks. When we mention more than one person of different names, the title should be expressed before each; as, Miss Burns, Miss Parker, and Miss Hopkinson, were present.

In the following examples from Pope's Works, the last word only is varied: Three others in fe are similar: These are specific exceptions to the general rule for plurals, and not a series of examples coming under a particular rule; for, contrary to the instructions of nearly all our grammarians, there are more than twice as many words of the same endings, which take s only: The plural of wharf is sometimes written wharves ; but perhaps as frequently, and, if so, more accurately, wharfs.

Nouns in ff take s only; as, skiffs, stuffs, gaffs. But the plural of staff has hitherto been generally written staves ; a puzzling and useless anomaly, both in form and sound: Staffs is now sometimes used; as, "I saw the husbandmen bending over their staffs. In one instance, I observe, a very excellent scholar has written selfs for selves , but the latter is the established plural of self:. The word brethren is now applied only to fellow-members of the same church or fraternity; for sons of the same parents we always use brothers ; and this form is sometimes employed in the other sense.

Dice are spotted cubes for gaming; dies are stamps for coining money, or for impressing metals. Pence , as six pence , refers to the amount of money in value; pennies denotes the corns themselves. This last anomaly, I think, might well enough "be spared; the sound of the word being the same, and the distinction to the eye not always regarded. In this way, these irregularities extend to many words; though some of the metaphorical class, as kite's-foot, colts-foot, bear's-foot, lion's-foot , being names of plants, have no plural.

The word man , which is used the most frequently in this way, makes more than seventy such compounds. But there are some words of this ending, which, not being compounds of man , are regular: Thus we write fathers-in-law, sons-in-law, knights-errant, courts-martial, cousins-german, hangers-on, comings-in, goings-out, goings-forth , varying the first; and manhaters, manstealers, manslayers, maneaters, mandrills, handfuls, spoonfuls, mouthfuls, pailfuls, outpourings, ingatherings, downsittings, overflowings , varying the last.

So, in many instances, when there is a less intimate connexion of the parts, and the words are written with a hyphen, if not separately, we choose to vary the latter or last: The following mode of writing is irregular in two respects; first, because the words are separated, and secondly, because both are varied: Liberator , ix, According to analogy, it ought to be: Wright alleges, that, "The phrase, 'I want two spoonfuls or handfuls ,' though common, is improperly constructed;" and that, "we should say, 'Two spoons or hands full.

From this opinion, I dissent: Of the propriety of this, the reader may judge, when I shall have quoted a few examples: Such terms as these, if thought objectionable, may easily be avoided, by substituting for the former part of the compound the separate adjective male or female ; as, male child, male children. Or, for those of the third example, one might say, " singing men and singing women ," as in Nehemiah , vii, 67; for, in the ancient languages, the words are the same. Alger compounds " singing-men and singing-women.

But, in all such cases, I think the hyphen should be inserted in the compound, though it is the practice of many to omit it. Of this odd sort of words, I quote the following examples from Churchill; taking the liberty to insert the hyphen, which he omits: For, as there ought to be no word, or inflection of a word, for which we cannot conceive an appropriate meaning or use, it follows that whatever is of such a species that it cannot be taken in any plural sense, must naturally be named by a word which is singular only: But there are some things, which have in fact neither a comprehensible unity, nor any distinguishable plurality, and which may therefore be spoken of in either number; for the distinction of unity and plurality is, in such instances, merely verbal; and, whichever number we take, the word will be apt to want the other: It is necessary that every noun should be understood to be of one number or the other; for, in connecting it with a verb, or in supplying its place by a pronoun, we must assume it to be either singular or plural.

And it is desirable that singulars and plurals should always abide by their appropriate forms, so that they may be thereby distinguished with readiness.

Navigation menu

But custom, which regulates this, as every thing else of the like nature, does not always adjust it well; or, at least, not always upon principles uniform in themselves and obvious to every intellect. Thus, a council , a committee , a jury , a meeting , a society , a flock , or a herd , is singular; and the regular plurals are councils, committees, juries, meetings, societies, flocks, herds. But these, and many similar words, may be taken plurally without the s , because a collective noun is the name of many individuals together.

Hence we may say, "The council were unanimous. Where a purer concord can be effected, it may be well to avoid such a construction, though examples like it are not uncommon: Thus, cattle , for beasts of pasture, and pulse , for peas and beans, though in appearance singulars only, are generally, if not always, plural; and summons, gallows, chintz, series, superficies, molasses, suds, hunks, jakes, trapes , and corps , with the appearance of plurals, are generally, if not always, singular.

Webster says that cattle is of both numbers; but wherein the oneness of cattle can consist, I know not. The Bible says, "God made-- cattle after their kind. Here kind is indeed singular, as if cattle were a natural genus of which one must be a cattle ; as sheep are a natural genus of which one is a sheep: Gillies says, in his History of Greece, " cattle was regarded as the most convenient measure of value. Sheep is not singular, unless limited to that number by some definitive word; and cattle I conceive to be incapable of any such limitation.

Summonses is given in Cobb's Dictionary as the plural of summons ; but some authors have used the latter with a plural verb: Johnson says this noun is from the verb to summon ; and, if this is its origin, the singular ought to be a summon , and then summons would be a regular plural. But this "singular noun with a plural termination," as Webster describes it, more probably originated from the Latin verb submoneas , used in the writ, and came to us through the jargon of law, in which we sometimes hear men talk of " summonsing witnesses. Chints is called by Cobb a "substantive plural " and defined as "cotton cloths , made in India;" but other lexicographers define it as singular, and Worcester perhaps more properly writes it chintz.

Johnson cites Pope as speaking of " a charming chints ," and I have somewhere seen the plural formed by adding es. Walker, in his Elements of Elocution, makes frequent use of the word " serieses ," and of the phrase " series of serieses. This, however, is no rule for writing English. Blair has used the word species in a plural sense; though I think he ought rather to have preferred the regular English word kinds: Specie , meaning hard money, though derived or corrupted from species , is not the singular of that word; nor has it any occasion for a plural form, because we never speak of a specie.

The plural of gallows , according to Dr. Webster, is gallowses ; nor is that form without other authority, though some say, gallows is of both numbers and not to be varied: Some nouns, because they signify such things as nature or art has made plural or double; some, because they have been formed from other parts of speech by means of the plural ending which belongs to nouns; and some, because they are compounds in which a plural word is principal, and put last, are commonly used in the plural number only, and have, in strict propriety, no singular.

Though these three classes of plurals may not be perfectly separable, I shall endeavour to exhibit them in the order of this explanation. Plurals in meaning and form: Plurals by formation, derived chiefly from adjectives: To these may be added the Latin words, aborigines, antipodes, antes, antoeci, amphiscii, anthropophagi, antiscii, ascii, literati, fauces, regalia , and credenda , with the Italian vermicelli , and the French belles-lettres and entremets. Of this class are the following: The fact is, that these words have, or ought to have, the singular, as often as there is any occasion to use it; and the same may, in general terms, be said of other nouns, respecting the formation of the plural.

But the nature of a mass, or of an indefinite multitude taken collectively, is not found in individuals as such; nor is the name, whether singular, as gold , or plural, as ashes , so understood. Hence, though every noun must be of one number or the other, there are many which have little or no need of both. Thus we commonly speak of wheat, barley, or oats , collectively; and very seldom find occasion for any other forms of these words. But chafferers at the corn-market, in spite of Cobbett,[] will talk about wheats and barleys , meaning different kinds[] or qualities; and a gardener, if he pleases, will tell of an oat , as does Milton, in his Lycidas, meaning a single seed or plant.

But, because wheat or barley generally means that sort of grain in mass, if he will mention a single kernel, he must call it a grain of wheat or a barleycorn. And these he may readily make plural, to specify any particular number; as, five grains of wheat , or three barleycorns. The word amends is represented by Murray and others, as being singular as well as plural; but Webster's late dictionaries exhibit amend as singular, and amends as plural, with definitions that needlessly differ, though not much.

I judge " an amends " to be bad English; and prefer the regular singular, an amend.

The word is of French origin, and is sometimes written in English with a needless final e ; as, "But only to make a kind of honourable amende to God. The word remains Dr. Webster puts down as plural only, and yet uses it himself in the singular: There are also other authorities for this usage, and also for some other nouns that are commonly thought to have no singular; as, "But Duelling is unlawful and murderous, a remain of the ancient Gothic barbarity. It is some poor fragment, some slender ort of his remainder.

Thus, deer, folk, fry, gentry, grouse, hose, neat, sheep, swine, vermin , and rest , i. Again, alms, aloes, bellows, means, news, odds, shambles , and species , are proper plurals, but most of them are oftener construed as singulars. Folk and fry are collective nouns. Folk means people ; a folk, a people: Folks , which ought to be the plural of folk , and equivalent to peoples , is now used with reference to a plurality of individuals, and the collective word seems liable to be entirely superseded by it.

A fry is a swarm of young fishes, or of any other little creatures living in water: Several such swarms might properly be called fries ; but this form can never be applied to the individuals, without interfering with the other. Formerly, the plural was hosen: Of sheep , Shakspeare has used the regular plural: Thus means is the regular plural of mean ; and, when the word is put for mediocrity, middle point, place, or degree, it takes both forms, each in its proper sense; but when it signifies things instrumental, or that which is used to effect an object, most writers use means for the singular as well as for the plural: Johnson says the use of means for mean is not very grammatical; and, among his examples for the true use of the word, he has the following: Lowth also questioned the propriety of construing means as singular, and referred to these same authors as authorities for preferring the regular form.

Buchanan insists that means is right in the plural only; and that, "The singular should be used as perfectly analogous; by this mean , by that mean. Lord Kames, likewise, appears by his practice to have been of the same opinion: Caleb Alexander, too, declares " this means ," " that means. But common usage has gone against the suggestions of these critics, and later grammarians have rather confirmed the irregularity, than attempted to reform it. Principle is for the regular word mean , and good practice favours the irregularity, but is still divided.

Cobbett, to the disgrace of grammar, says, " Mean , as a noun, is never used in the singular. It, like some other words, has broken loose from all principle and rule. By universal consent, it is become always a plural , whether used with singular or plural pronouns and articles, or not. This is as ungrammatical, as it is untrue. Both mean and means are sufficiently authorized in the singular: Chalmers, Sermons , p.

Adams's Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory , i, Thus manner makes the plural manners , which last is now generally used in the peculiar sense of behaviour, or deportment, but not always: But manner has often been put for sorts , without the s ; as, "The tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits. Milton used kind in the same way, but not very properly; as, " All kind of living creatures. This irregularity it would be well to avoid. Manners may still, perhaps, be proper for modes or ways; and all manner , if allowed, must be taken in the sense of a collective noun; but for sorts, kinds, classes, or species, I would use neither the plural nor the singular of this word.

The word heathen , too, makes the regular plural heathens , and yet is often used in a plural sense without the s ; as, "Why do the heathen rage? The word youth , likewise, has the same peculiarities. Hence some grammarians affirm, that salmon, mackerel, herring, perch, tench , and several others, are alike in both numbers, and ought never to be used in the plural form.

I am not so fond of honouring these anomalies. Usage is here as unsettled, as it is arbitrary; and, if the expression of plurality is to be limited to either form exclusively, the regular plural ought certainly to be preferred. But, for fish taken in bulk , the singular form seems more appropriate; as, "These vessels take from thirty-eight to forty-five quintals of cod and pollock , and six thousand barrels of mackerel , yearly.

In quoting, at second-hand, I generally think it proper to make double references; and especially in citing authorities after Johnson, because he so often gives the same passages variously. But he himself is reckoned good authority in things literary.

I regret the many proofs of his fallibility. The quantity of ; as, a mease of herrings. Gay has improperly mackarels. It is noted that roaches recover strength and grow a fortnight after spawning. 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.

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. 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. Dogma makes dogmas or dogmata ; exanthema, exanthemas or exanthemata ; miasm or miasma, miasms or miasmata ; stigma, stigmas or stigmata.

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: 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: 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. Of nouns in is , some are regular; as, trellis, trellises: Some seem to have no need of the plural; as, ambergris, aqua-fortis, arthritis, brewis, crasis, elephantiasis, genesis, orris, siriasis, tennis. 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. Eques , a Roman knight, makes equites in the plural. 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: 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. 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. Formby rated it it was ok Sep 18, Kristy rated it liked it Oct 24, Linda Calk rated it liked it Sep 29, Msbookgal rated it liked it Mar 19, Sharon rated it liked it Sep 08, Heather Cummings rated it it was ok Dec 12, Megan rated it it was amazing Mar 19, ReD rated it liked it Aug 24, Kari marked it as to-read Mar 15, Alea added it Jul 13, Karen marked it as to-read Dec 16, Theacrob marked it as to-read Nov 08, Meredith added it May 22, Amanda added it Oct 04, Kayla Davis marked it as to-read Jan 13, Emilie marked it as to-read May 21, Cristina marked it as to-read Jan 03, Katie marked it as to-read Feb 29, Beth marked it as to-read Mar 29, Charmaign Mauren added it May 14, And everything about it is a love song.

Before our lives divide for ever, While time is with us and hands are free , Time, swift to fasten and swift to sever Hand from hand, as we stand by the sea I will say no word that a man might say Whose whole life's love goes down in a day; For this could never have been; and never, Though the gods and the years relent, shall be.

Is it worth a tear, is it worth an hour, To think of things that are well outworn? Of fruitless husk and fugitive flower, The dream foregone and the deed forborne? Though joy be done with and grief be vain, Time shall not sever us wholly in twain; Earth is not spoilt for a single shower; But the rain has ruined the ungrown corn. I had grown pure as the dawn and the dew, You had grown strong as the sun or the sea.

But none shall triumph a whole life through: For death is one, and the fates are three. At the door of life, by the gate of breath, There are worse things waiting for men than death; Death could not sever my soul and you, As these have severed your soul from me. You have chosen and clung to the chance they sent you, Life sweet as perfume and pure as prayer. But will it not one day in heaven repent you? Will they solace you wholly, the days that were? Will you lift up your eyes between sadness and bliss, Meet mine, and see where the great love is, And tremble and turn and be changed?

Content you; The gate is strait; I shall not be there. The pulse of war and passion of wonder, The heavens that murmur, the sounds that shine, The stars that sing and the loves that thunder, The music burning at heart like wine, An armed archangel whose hands raise up All senses mixed in the spirit's cup Till flesh and spirit are molten in sunder — These things are over, and no more mine.

These were a part of the playing I heard Once, ere my love and my heart were at strife; Love that sings and hath wings as a bird, Balm of the wound and heft of the knife. Fairer than earth is the sea, and sleep Than overwatching of eyes that weep, Now time has done with his one sweet word, The wine and leaven of lovely life. Sweet is true love though given in vain , in vain; And sweet is death who puts an end to pain: I know not which is sweeter, no, not I.

Love, art thou sweet? Love, thou art bitter; sweet is death to me.

O Love, if death be sweeter, let me die. Here her hand Grasped, made her vail her eyes: O shut me round with narrowing nunnery-walls, Meek maidens, from the voices crying 'shame. I must not scorn myself: Let no one dream but that he loves me still. Love lifts us up where we belong Far from the world we know Up where the clear winds blow. A song fluttered down in the form of a dove, And it bore me a message, the one word—Love! Wikipedia has an article about: Look up Love in Wiktionary , the free dictionary. Wikimedia Commons has media related to: At Wikiversity, you can learn about: A World of Peace, Love and Happiness.

Retrieved from " https: Love Emotions Interpersonal relationships Virtues.

• Finding Anna Bee
• Split (The Eternal War (Shorts) Book 1)
• The Vietnam Vet With 9 Lives
• Le musée de lhomme (Littérature Française) (French Edition)
• Mighty Is Our God