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: seven monosyllables, doe, foe, roe, shoe, sloe, soe, toe; and seven longer words, rockdoe, aloe, felloe, canoe, misletoe, tiptoe, diploe. The last is pronounced dip'-lo-e by Worcester; but Webster, Bolles, and some others, give it as a word of two syllables only.[142]
OBS. 9.--Established exceptions ought to be enumerated and treated as
exceptions; but it is impossible to remember how to write some scores of
words, so nearly alike as fumadoes and grenados, stilettoes and
palmettos, if they are allowed to differ in termination, as these
examples do in Johnson's Dictionary. 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: and sometimes only s; as, folio, nuncio, punctilio,
seraglio."--Octavo Gram., p. 40. 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.
OBS. 10.--Proper names of individuals, strictly used as such, have no plural. But when several persons of the same name are spoken of, the noun becomes in some degree common, and admits of the plural form and an article; as, "The Stuarts, the Cæsars."--W. Allen's Gram., p. 41. 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: as, "Solomons, for wise men; Neros, for tyrants."--Ib. "Here we see it becomes a doubt which of the two Herculeses, was the monster-queller."--Notes to Pope's Dunciad, iv, 492. 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: as, "The Greeks, the Athenians, the Jews, the Jesuits." But such words may take the singular form with the indefinite article, as often as we have occasion to speak of an individual of such a people; as, "A Greek, an Athenian, a Jew, a Jesuit." These, too, may be called proper nouns; because they are national, patrial, or tribal names, each referring to some place or people, and are not appellatives, which refer to actual sorts or kinds, not considered local.
OBS. 11.--Proper names, when they form the plural, for the most part form it regularly, by assuming s or es according to the termination: as, Carolina, the Carolinas; James, the Jameses. 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: as, "The Tungooses occupy nearly a third of Siberia."--Balbi's Geog., p. 379. Here the singular must certainly be a Tungoose. "The principal tribes are the Pawnees, the Arrapahoes, and the Cumanches, who roam through the regions of the Platte, the Arkansaw, and the Norte."--Ib., p. 179. Here the singulars may be supposed to be a Pawnee, an Arrapaho, and a Cumanche. "The Southern or Floridian family comprised the Cherokees, Creeks, Chickasaws, Choctaws, Seminoles, and Natchez."--Ib., p. 179. 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, Esquimaux, to Esquimaus; Knistenaux, to Knistenaus, or Crees; Sioux, to Sious, or Dahcotahs; Iroquois, to Iroquoys, or Hurons.
OBS. 12.--Respecting the plural of nouns ending in i, o, u, or y, preceded by a consonant, there is in present usage much uncertainty. 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: as, alkali, alkalies; halo, haloes; gnu, gnues; enemy, enemies. 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: as, for instance, Alleghany, the Alleghanies; Sicily, the Two Sicilies; Ptolemy, the Ptolemies; Jehu, the Jehues. 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
