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: as, German, Germans; Turcoman, Turcomans; Mussulman, Mussulmans; talisman, talismans; leman, lemans; caiman, caimans.
OBS. 21.--Compounds, in general, admit but one variation to form the plural, and that must be made in the principal word, rather than in the adjunct; but where the terms differ little in importance, the genius of the language obviously inclines to a variation of the last only. 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: as, fellow-servants, queen-consorts, three-per-cents, he-goats, she-bears, jack-a-dandies, jack-a-lanterns, piano-fortes. The following mode of writing is irregular in two respects; first, because the words are separated, and secondly, because both are varied: "Is it unreasonable to say with John Wesley, that 'men buyers are exactly on a level with men stealers?"--GOODELL'S LECT. II: Liberator, ix, 65. According to analogy, it ought to be: "Manbuyers are exactly on a level with manstealers." J. W. 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.'"--Philos. Gram., p. 222. From this opinion, I dissent: both authority and analogy favour the former mode of expressing the plural of such quantities.
OBS. 22.--There is neither difficulty nor uncertainty respecting the proper forms for the plurals of compound nouns in general; but the two irregular words man and woman are often varied at the beginning of the looser kind of compounds, contrary to what appears to be the general analogy of similar words. Of the propriety of this, the reader may judge, when I shall have quoted a few examples: "Besides their man-servants and their maid-servants."--Nehemiah, vii, 67. "And I have oxen and asses, flocks, and men-servants, and women-servants."--Gen., xxxii, 5. "I gat me men-singers, and women-singers, and the delights of the sons of men."--Ecclesiastes, ii, 8. "And she brought forth a man-child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron."--Rev., xii, 5.--"Why have ye done this, and saved the men-children alive?"--Exod., i, 18. 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."
OBS. 23.--Some foreign compound terms, consisting of what are usually, in the language from which they come, distinct words and different parts of speech, are made plural in English, by the addition of e or es at the end. 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: "Ave-Maries, Te-Deums, camera-obscuras, agnus-castuses, habeas-corpuses, scire-faciases, hiccius-docciuses, hocus-pocuses, ignis-fatuuses, chef-d'oeuvres, congé-d'élires, flower-de-luces, louis-d'-ores, tête-à-têtes."--Churchill's Gram., p. 62.
OBS. 24.--Some nouns, from the nature of the things meant, have no plural. 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: as, perry, cider, coffee, flax, hemp, fennel, tallow, pitch, gold, sloth, pride, meekness, eloquence. 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: as, dregs, or sediment; riches, or wealth; pains, or toil; ethics, or moral philosophy; politics, or the science of government; belles-lettres, or polite literature. So darkness, which in English appears to have no plural, is expressed in Latin by tenebræ, in French by ténèbres, which have no singular. 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. 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.
OBS. 25.--Nouns of multitude, when taken collectively, generally admit the regular plural form; which of course is understood with reference to the individuality of the whole collection, considered as one thing: but, when taken distributively, they have a plural signification without the form; and, in this case, their plurality refers to the individuals that compose the assemblage. 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."--"The commi
