The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

   "Well, if a king's a lion, at the least
    The people ARE a many-headed beast."—Pope, Epist. i, l. 120.

OBS. 5.—Lindley Murray says, "On many occasions, where a noun of multitude is used, it is very difficult to decide, whether the verb should be in the singular, or in the plural number; and this difficulty has induced some grammarians to cut the knot at once, and to assert that every noun of multitude must always be considered as conveying the idea of unity."—Octavo Gram., p. 153. What these occasions, or who these grammarians, are, I know not; but it is certain that the difficulty here imagined does not concern the application of such rules as require the verb and pronoun to conform to the sense intended; and, where there is no apparent impropriety in adopting either number, there is no occasion to raise a scruple as to which is right. To cut knots by dogmatism, and to tie them by sophistry, are employments equally vain. It cannot be denied that there are in every multitude both a unity and a plurality, one or the other of which must be preferred as the principle of concord for the verb or the pronoun, or for both. Nor is the number of nouns small, or their use unfrequent, which, according to our best authors, admit of either construction: though Kirkham assails and repudiates his own rules, because, "Their application is quite limited."—Grammar in Familiar Lectures, p. 59.

OBS. 6.—Murray's doctrine seems to be, not that collective nouns are generally susceptible of two senses in respect to number, but that some naturally convey the idea of unity, others, that of plurality, and a few, either of these senses. The last, which are probably ten times more numerous than all the rest, he somehow merges or forgets, so as to speak of two classes only: saying, "Some nouns of multitude certainly convey to the mind an idea of plurality, others, that of a whole as one thing, and others again, sometimes that of unity, and sometimes that of plurality. On this ground, it is warrantable, and consistent with the nature of things, to apply a plural verb and pronoun to the one class, and a singular verb and pronoun to the other. We shall immediately perceive the impropriety of the following constructions: 'The clergy has withdrawn itself from the temporal courts;' 'The assembly was divided in its opinion;' &c."—Octavo Gram., p. 153. The simple fact is, that clergy, assembly, and perhaps every other collective noun, may sometimes convey the idea of unity, and sometimes that of plurality; but an "opinion" or a voluntary "withdrawing" is a personal act or quality; wherefore it is here more consistent to adopt the plural sense and construction, in which alone we take the collection as individuals, or persons.

OBS. 7.—Although a uniformity of number is generally preferable to diversity, in the construction of words that refer to the same collective noun: and although many grammarians deny that any departure from such uniformity is allowable; yet, if the singular be put first, a plural pronoun may sometimes follow without obvious impropriety: as, "So Judah was carried away out of their land."—2 Kings, xxv, 21. "Israel is reproved and threatened for their impiety and idolatry."—Friends' Bible, Hosea, x. "There is the enemy who wait to give us battle."—Murray's Introductory Reader, p. 36. When the idea of plurality predominates in the author's mind, a plural verb is sometimes used before a collective noun that has the singular article an or a; as, "There are a sort of authors, who seem to take up with appearances."— Addison. "Here are a number of facts or incidents leading to the end in view."—Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 296. "There are a great number of exceedingly good writers among the French."—Maunder's Gram., p. 11.

   "There in the forum swarm a numerous train,
    The subject of debate a townsman slain."
        —Pope, Iliad, B. xviii, l. 578.

OBS. 8.—Collective nouns, when they are merely partitive of the plural, like the words sort and number above, are usually connected with a plural verb, even though they have a singular definitive; as, "And this sort of adverbs commonly admit of Comparison."—Buchanan's English Syntax, p. 64. Here, perhaps, it would be better to say, "Adverbs of this sort commonly admit of comparison." "A part of the exports consist of raw silk."—Webster's Improved Gram., p. 100. This construction is censured by Murray, in his octavo Gram., p. 148; where we are told, that the verb should agree with the first noun only. Dr. Webster alludes to this circumstance, in improving his grammar, and admits that, "A part of the exports consists, seems to be more correct."—Improved Gram., p. 100. Yet he retains his original text, and obviously thinks it a light thing, that, "in some cases," his rules or examples "may not be vindicable." (See Obs. 14th, 15th, and 16th, on Rule 14th, of this code.) It would, I think, be better to say, "The exports consist partly of raw silk." Again: "A multitude of Latin words have, of late, been poured in upon us."—Blair's Rhet., p. 94. Better, perhaps: "Latin words, in great multitude, have, of late, been poured in upon us." So: "For the bulk of writers are very apt to confound them with each other."—Ib., p. 97. Better: "For most writers are very apt to confound them with each other." In the following example, (here cited as Kames has it, El. of Crit., ii, 247,) either the verb is, or the phrase, "There are some moveless men" might as well have been used:

   "There are a sort of men, whose visages
    Do cream and mantle like a standing pond."—Shak.

OBS. 9.—Collections of things are much less frequently and less properly regarded as individuals, or under the idea of plurality, than collections of persons. This distinction may account for the difference of construction in the two clauses of the following example; though I rather doubt whether a plural verb ought to be used in the former: "The number of commissioned officers in the guards are to the marching regiments as one to eleven: the number of regiments given to the guards, compared with those given to the line, is about three to one."—Junius, p. 147. Whenever the multitude is spoken of with reference to a personal act or quality, the verb ought, as I before suggested, to be in the plural number; as, "The public are informed."—"The plaintiff's counsel have assumed a difficult task."—"The committee were instructed to prepare a remonstrance." "The English nation declare they are grossly injured by their representatives."—Junius, p. 147. "One particular class of men are permitted to call themselves the King's friends."—Id., p. 176. "The Ministry have realized the compendious ideas of Caligula."—Id., p. 177. It is in accordance with this principle, that the following sentences have plural verbs and pronouns, though their definitives are singular, and perhaps ought to be singular: "So depraved were that people whom in their history we so much admire."—HUME: M'Ilvaine's Lect., p. 400. "Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold."—Exodus, xxxii, 31. "This people thus gathered have not wanted those trials."—Barclay's Works, i, 460. The following examples, among others, are censured by Priestley, Murray, and the copyists of the latter, without sufficient discrimination, and for a reason which I think fallacious; namely, "because the ideas they represent seem not to be sufficiently divided in the mind:"—"The court of Rome were not without solicitude."—Hume. "The house of Lords were so much influenced by these reasons."—Id. See Priestley's Gram., p. 188; Murray's, 152; R. C. Smith's, 129; Ingersoll's, 248; and others.

OBS. 10.—In general, a collective noun, unless it be made plural in form, no more admits a plural adjective before it, than any other singular noun. Hence the impropriety of putting these or those before kind or sort; as, "These kind of knaves I know."—Shakspeare. Hence, too, I infer that cattle is not a collective noun, as Nixon would have it to be, but an irregular plural which has no singular; because we can say these cattle or those cattle, but neither a bullock nor a herd is ever called a cattle, this cattle, or that cattle. And if "cavalry, clergy, commonalty," &c., were like this 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