OBS. 23.--In Blanchard's small Arithmetic, published in 1854, the following inculcations occur: "When we say, 3 times 4 trees are 12 trees, we have reference to the objects counted; but in saying 3 times 4 is twelve, we mean, that 3 times the number 4, is the number 12. Here we use 4 and 12, not as numeral adjectives, but as nouns, the names of particular numbers, and as such, each conveys the idea of unity, and the entire expression is the subject of is, and conveys the idea of unity."--P. iv. Here we have, with an additional error concerning "the entire expression," a repetition of Dr. Bullions's erroneous assumption, that the name of a particular number, as being "a singular noun," must "convey the idea of unity," though the number itself be a distinct plurality. These men talk as if there were an absurdity in affirming that "the number 4" is plural! But, if four be taken as only one thing, how can three multiply this one thing into twelve? It is by no means proper to affirm, that, "Every four, taken three times, is, or are, twelve;" for three instances, or "times," of the figure 4, or of the word four, are only three 4's, or three verbal fours. And is it not because "the number 4" is plural--is in itself four units--and because the word four, or the figure 4, conveys explicitly the idea of this plurality, that the multiplication table is true, where it says, "3 times 4 are 12?" It is not right to say, "Three times one quaternion is twelve;" nor is it quite unobjectionable to say, with Blanchard "3 times the number 4, is the number 12." Besides, this pretended interpretation explains nothing. The syntax of the shorter text, "3 times 4 is 12," is in no way justified or illustrated by it. Who does not perceive that the four here spoken of must be four units, or four things of some sort; and that no such "four," multiplied by 3, or till "3 times," can "convey the idea of unity," or match a singular verb? Dr. Webster did not so conceive of this "abstract number," or of "the entire expression" in which it is multiplied; for he says, "Four times four amount to sixteen."--American Dict., w. Time.
OBS. 24.--In fact no phrase of multiplication is of such a nature that it can, with any plausibility be reckoned a composite subject of the verb. Once, twice, and thrice, are adverbs; and each of them may, in general, be parsed as relating directly to the multiplicand. Their construction, as well as that of the plural verb, is agreeable to the Latin norm; as, when Cicero says of somebody, "Si, bis bina quot essent, didicisset,"--"If he had learned how many twice two are."--See Ainsworth's Dict., w. Binus. The phrases, "one time," for once, and "two times" for twice, seem puerile expressions: they are not often used by competent teachers. Thrice is a good word, but more elegant than popular. Above twice, we use the phrases, three times, four times, and the like, which are severally composed of a numeral adjective and the noun times. If these words were united, as some think they ought to be, the compounds would be adverbs of time repeated; as, threetimes, fourtimes, &c., analogous to sometimes. Each word would answer, as each phrase now does, to the question, How often? These expressions are taken by some as having a direct adverbial relation to the terms which they qualify; but they are perhaps most commonly explained as being dependent on some preposition understood. See Obs. 1st on Rule 5th, and Obs. 6th on Rule 7th.
OBS. 25.--In multiplying one only, it is evidently best to use a singular verb: as, "Twice naught is naught;"--"Three times one is three." And, in multiplying any number above one, I judge a plural verb to be necessary: as, "Twice two are four;"--"Three times two are six;" because this number must be just so many in order to give the product. Dr. Bullions says, "We should say, 'Three times two is six,' because the meaning is, 'Two taken three times is six.'" This is neither reasoning, nor explanation, nor good grammar. The relation between "two" and "three," or the syntax of the word "times," or the propriety of the singular verb, is no more apparent in the latter expression than in the former. It would be better logic to affirm, "We should say, 'Three times two are six;' because the meaning is, 'Two (units), taken for, to, or till three times, are six.'" The preposition till, or until, is sometimes found in use before an expression of times numbered; as, "How oft shall I forgive? till seven times? I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven."--Matt., xviii, 21. But here is still a difficulty with repect to the multiplying term, or the word "times." For, unless, by an unallowable ellipsis, "seventy times seven," is presumed to mean, "seventy times of seven," the preposition Until must govern, not this noun "times." expressed, but an other, understood after "seven;" and the meaning must be, "Thou shalt forgive him until seventy-times seven times;" or--"until seven times taken for, to, or till, seventy times."
OBS. 26.--With too little regard to consistency. Dr. Bullions suggests that when "we make 'times' the subject of the verb," it is not "really" such, but "is in the objective of number." He is, doubtless, right in preferring to parse this word as an objective case, rather than as a nominative, in the construction to which he alludes; but to call it an "objective of number," is an uncouth error, a very strange mistake for so great a grammarian to utter: there being in grammar no such thing as "the objective of number:" nothing of the sort, even under his own "Special Rule," to which he refers us for it! And, if such a thing there were, so that a number could be "put in the objective case without a governing word," (see his §828,) the plural word times, since it denotes no particular aggregate of units, could never be an example of it. It is true that times, like days, weeks, and other nouns of time, may be, and often is, in the objective case without a governing word expressed; and, in such instances, it may be called the objective of repetition, or of time repeated. But the construction of the word appears to be such as is common to many nouns of time, of value, or of measure; which, in their relation to other words, seem to resemble adverbs, but which are usually said to be governed by prepositions understood: as, "Three days later;" i.e., "Later by three days."--"Three shillings cheaper;" i.e., "Cheaper by three shillings."--"Seven times hotter;" i.e., "Hotter by seven times."--"Four feet high;"
