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;
