The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (read books for money TXT) 📖

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; and three quarters of the money was, or were, sent back?"—"As 2 is to 4, so is 6 to 12;" or, "As two are to four, so are six to twelve?"

OBS. 15.—Most of the foregoing expressions, though all are perhaps intelligible enough in common practice, are, in some respect, difficult of analysis, or grammatical resolution. I think it possible, however, to frame an argument of some plausibility in favour of every one of them. Yet it is hardly to be supposed, that any teacher will judge them all to be alike justifiable, or feel no interest in the questions which have been raised about them. That the language of arithmetic is often defective or questionable in respect to grammar, may be seen not only in many an ill choice between the foregoing variant and contrasted modes of expression, but in sundry other examples, of a somewhat similar character, for which it may be less easy to find advocates and published arguments. What critic will not judge the following phraseology to be faulty? "4 times two units is 8 units, and 4 times 5 tens is twenty tens."—Chase's Common School Arithmetic, 1848, p. 42. Or this? "1 time 1 is l. 2 times 1 are 2; 1 time 4 is 4, 2 times 4 are 8."—Ray's Arithmetic, 1853. Or this? "8 and 7 is 15, 9's out leaves 6; 3 and 8 is 11, 9's out leaves 2."—Babcock's Practical Arithmetic, 1829, p. 22. Or this again? "3 times 3 is 9, and 2 we had to carry is 11."—Ib., p. 20.

OBS. 16.—There are several different opinions as to what constitutes the grammatical subject of the verb in any ordinary English expression of multiplication. Besides this, we have some variety in the phraseology which precedes the verb; so that it is by no means certain, either that the multiplying terms are always of the same part of speech, or that the true nominative to the verb is not essentially different in different examples. Some absurdly teach, that an abstract number is necessarily expressed by "a singular noun," with only a singular meaning; that such a number, when multiplied, is always, of itself the subject of the assertion; and, consequently, that the verb must be singular, as agreeing only with this "singular noun." Others, not knowing how to parse separately the multiplying word or words and the number multiplied, take them both or all together as "the grammatical subject" with which the verb must agree. But, among these latter expounders, there are two opposite opinions on the very essential point, whether this "entire expression" requires a singular verb or a plural one:—as, whether we ought to say, "Twice one is two," or, "Twice one are two;"—"Twice two is four," or, "Twice two are four;"—"Three times one is three," or, "Three times one are three;"—"Three times three is nine," or, "Three times three are nine." Others, again, according to Dr. Bullions, and possibly according to their own notion, find the grammatical subject, sometimes, if not generally, in the multiplying term only; as, perhaps, is the case with those who write or speak as follows: "If we say, 'Three times one are three,' we make 'times' the subject of the verb."—Bullions, Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 1849, p. 39. "Thus, 2 times 1 are 2; 2 times 2 are four; 2 times 3 are 6."—Chase's C. S. Arith., p. 43. "Say, 2 times O are O; 2 times 1 are 2."—Robinson's American Arith., 1825, p. 24.

OBS. 17.—Dr. Bullions, with a strange blunder of some sort in almost every sentence, propounds and defends his opinion on this subject thus: "Numeral adjectives, being also names of numbers, are often used as nouns, and so have the inflection and construction of nouns: thus, by twos, by tens, by fifties. Two is an even number. Twice two is four. Four is equal to twice two. In some arithmetics the language employed in the operation of multiplying—such as 'Twice two are four, twice three are six'—is incorrect. It should be, 'Twice two is four,' &c.; for the word two is used as a singular noun—the name of a number. The adverb 'twice' is not in construction with it, and consequently does not make it plural. The meaning is, 'The number two taken twice is equal to four.' For the same reason we should say, 'Three times two is six,' because the meaning is, 'Two taken three times is six.' If we say, 'Three times one are three,' we make 'times' the subject of the verb, whereas the subject of the verb really is 'one,' and 'times' is in the objective of number (§828). 2:4:: 6:12, should be read, 'As 2 is to 4, so is 6 to 12;' not 'As two are to four, so are six to twelve.' But when numerals denoting more than one, are used as adjectives, with a substantive expressed or understood, they must have a plural construction."—Bullions, Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 1849, p. 39.

OBS. 18.—Since nouns and adjectives are different parts of speech, the suggestion, that, "Numeral adjectives are also names, or nouns," is, upon the very face of it, a flat absurdity; and the notion that "the name of a number" above unity, conveys only and always the idea of unity, like an ordinary "singular noun," is an other. A number in arithmetic is most commonly an adjective in grammar; and it is always, in form, an expression that tells how many, or—"denotes how many things are spoken of."—Chase, p. 11. But the name of a number is also a number, whenever it is not made plural in form. Thus four is a number, but fours is not; so ten is a number, but tens is not. Arithmetical numbers, which run on to infinity, severally consist of a definite idea of how many; each is a precise count by the unit; one being the beginning of the series, and the measure of every successive step. Grammatical numbers are only the verbal forms which distinguish one thing from more of the same sort. Thus the word fours or tens, unless some arithmetical number be prefixed to it, signifies nothing but a mere plurality which repeats indefinitely the collective idea of four or ten.

OBS. 19.—All actual names of numbers calculative, except one, (for naught, though it fills a place among numbers, is, in itself, a mere negation of number; and such terms as oneness, unity, duality, are not used in calculation,) are collective nouns—a circumstance which seems to make the discussion of the present topic appropriate to the location which is here given it under Rule 15th. Each of them denotes a particular aggregate of units. And if each, as signifying one whole, may convey the idea of unity, and take a singular verb; each, again, as denoting so many units, may quite as naturally take a plural verb, and be made to convey the idea of plurality. For the mere abstractness of numbers, or their separation from all "particular objects," by no means obliges us to limit them always to the construction with verbs singular. If it is right to say, "Two is an even number;" it is certainly no error to say, "Two are an even number." If it is allowable to say, "As 2 is to 4, so is 6 to 12;" it is as well, if not better, to say, "As two are to four, so are six to twelve." If it is correct to say, "Four is equal to twice two;" it is quite as grammatical to say, "Four are equal to twice two." Bullions bids say, "Twice two is four," and, "Three times two is six;" but I very much prefer to say, "Twice two are four," and, "Three times two are six." The Doctor's reasoning, whereby he condemns the latter phraseology, is founded only upon false assumptions. This I expect to show; and more—that the word which he prefers, is wrong.

OBS. 20.—As to what constitutes the subject of the verb in multiplication, I have already noticed three different opinions. There are yet three or four more, which must not be overlooked in a general examination of this grammatical dispute. Dr. Bullions's notion on this point, is stated with so little consistency, that one can hardly say what it is. At first, he seems to find his nominative in the multiplicand, "used as a singular noun;" but, when he ponders a little on the text, "Twice two is four," he finds the leading term not to be the word "two," but the word "number," understood. He resolves, indeed, that no one of the four words used, "is in construction with" any of the rest; for he thinks, "The meaning is, 'The number two taken twice is equal to four.'" Here, then, is a fourth opinion in relation to the subject of the verb: it must be "number" understood. Again, it is conceded by the same hand, that, "When numerals denoting more than one, are used as adjectives, with a substantive expressed or understood, they must have a plural construction." Now who can show that this is not the case in general with the numerals of multiplication? To explain the syntax of "Twice two are four," what can be more rational than to say, "The sense is, 'Twice two units, or things, are four?'" Is it not plain, that twice two things, of any sort, are four things of that same sort, and only so? Twice two duads are how many? Answer: Four duads, or eight units. Here, then, is a fifth opinion,—and a very fair one too,—according to which we have for the subject of the verb, not "two" nor "twice" nor "twice two," nor "number," understood before "two," but the plural noun "units" or "things" implied in or after the multiplicand.

OBS. 21.—It is a doctrine taught by sundry grammarians, and to some extent true, that a neuter verb between two nominatives "may agree with either of them." (See Note 5th to Rule 14th, and the footnote.) When, therefore, a person who knows this, meets with such examples as, "Twice one are two;"—"Twice one unit are two units;"—"Thrice one are three;"—he will of course be apt to refer the verb to the nominative which follows it, rather than to that which precedes it; taking the meaning to be, "Two are twice one;"—"Two units are twice one unit;"—"Three are thrice one." Now, if such is the sense, the construction in each of these instances is right, because it accords with such sense; the interpretation is right also, because it is the only one adapted to such a construction; and we have, concerning the subject of the verb, a sixth opinion,—a very proper one too,—that it is found, not where it is most natural to look for it, in the expression of