and which are not. Hope, hardship, joy, colour, are abstract nouns which we use as concretes when we speak of hopes, hardships, joys, colours. On the other hand, manhood, indolence, goodness, freedom, are always abstract and singular.

We noticed also that though the names of many substances or materials are used in the plural number, signifying different kinds or different portions of the material, there are some names of this description which custom forbids us to use in this way. Granite, gold, potash, bread, hemp, are never plural. The names of some diseases also are always singular, e.g. gout, consumption, rheumatism.

(7) Some nouns have no Singular.

These nouns denote things composed of separate parts, and the complex character of the object makes the plural form appropriate. E.g. scissors, tweezers, trousers, entrails.

(8) Plural of Compound nouns.

i. When the combination of parts is so complete that we regard the compound as a single word, the sign of the plural is added at the end of the compound, although the last part of the word may be an adjective. Thus we say spoonfuls when the words form a compound, but spoons full when they are taken separately.

ii. But when the fact of composition is brought prominently before us by hyphens, as in brother-in-law, man-of-war, maid-of-honour, groom-of-the-chambers, the principal noun and not the qualifying adjunct usually takes the inflexion. Our practice however in this matter is by no means uniform. In spite of the hyphen in attorney-general, we speak of two attorney-generals, not attorneys-general, though these officials are not generals but attorneys. Again, lady superintendent becomes lady superintendents, not ladies superintendent, though the words are unconnected even by a hyphen. Notice that the 's of the possessive case is added at the end of the compound word. Thus we should say 'I have three brothers-in-law, and I am staying at my eldest brother-in-law's house.'

iii. In a very few instances, both parts of the compound take the sign of the plural: men-servants, lords-justices, knights-templars. We may regard this as apposition.

iv. In a few instances, in which the noun comes before the adjective, only the noun takes the sign of the plural: courts-martial, knightserrant.

v. Nouns compounded with man form their plural in men, with the exception of Norman. Notice however that several proper nouns with this ending are not compounds of man at all, and their plurals are therefore formed in s. German probably comes from a Keltic word which signifies 'one who shouts.' Brahman, Ottoman, Turcoman, Mussulman, are unconnected with man.

(9) How shall we form the Plural of (a) Miss Brown, and of (b) Mr Smith?

(a) We may say (1) The Miss Browns, or (2) The Misses Brown, or conceivably, though as a fact we never do say so, (3) The Misses Browns. The usual form is the first, 'The Miss Browns', in which we must regard Miss-Brown as a complete compound, like spoonful, which takes the sign of the plural at the end. The second form, 'The Misses Brown', corresponds in its type to courts-martial, Miss being regarded as the noun, and Brown dwindling away to an adjective in its force. In the third form, 'The Misses Browns', we have a mode of expression analogous to lords-justices, the two nouns being in apposition and each of them taking the inflection.

(b) Similarly we may say in practice either 'The Mr Smiths,' or 'The Messrs (Messieurs) Smith.' The grammatical justification of these alternative forms the reader can supply for himself.

QUESTIONS.

I. Write the plurals of German, Dutchman, Norman, story, storey, octavo, roof, reef, cuckoo, buffalo, formula, radius, crocus, datum, axis, appendix, genus, series, virtuoso, criterion, madam, dilettante.

2. The following nouns have two meanings in the plural but only one in the singular. Give their plural meanings:-custom, spectacle, manner, effect.

3. The following nouns vary in meaning according as they are singular or plural. What meaning has each of them in the plural? Salt, force, iron, content, draught, beef.

4. Greek adjectives supply us with the forms logic, dynamic, optic, metaphysic, rhetoric, physic, politic. To which of these is an s added to

make the name of a science?

5. Are the verbs right in these sentences?

The innings was finished at six o'clock-A gallows has been erected inside the prison-The tidings are false-The barracks has been burnt down-The odds is 7 to 2-The alms is distributed on Sunday—A summons has been issued. V

6. State and illustrate the rules for the formation of the plural of compound nouns.

7. Form the plural of pailful, forget-me-not, spendthrift, lordlieutenant, runaway, poet-laureate, hanger-on, maid-in-waiting, will-o'the-wisp, four-in-hand, valet-de-chambre, envoy extraordinary, minister plenipotentiary.

8. Is there anything wrong in speaking of 'a curious phenomena,' 'two octopi,' or in saying 'A rich strata of gold has been struck'?

CHAPTER XI.

INFLEXION OF NOUNS.-III. CASE.

#94. IF we examine the following sentences, we shall see that they contain various assertions about a thing called a town, which stands in different relations to other things called enemies, walls, or circumstances. The town admitted the enemy. The enemy took the town.' 'The walls of the O. town were destroyed.' 'This circumstance was beneficial Pob. to the town.' 'The enemy were driven away from the town.' Thus, in the first sentence we say that the town did something to the enemy,-not, of course, the word town to the word enemy; what occurred was done by a thing to a thing, not by a word to a word. In the second, we say that the town occupied a different relation towards the enemy, and the enemy did something to the town. Now, when we employ language to record these events,-when we make assertions about these things, we use nouns to name the things and verbs to make our statements, and we may then say that just as the things stand in different relations to other things and to acts, so our nouns stand in different relations to other nouns and to verbs. There is an indefinite number of these relations, expressed in English for the most part by prepositions. We can say in the town, through the town, across, down, up, over, under, round the town, and so on, marking in every instance some fresh relation.

Next let us write these sentences in Latin and notice the different method by which that language represents these various relations. Urbs admisit hostes. Hostes ceperunt

urbem. Moenia urbis diruta sunt. Haec res urbi utilis erat. Hostes urbe sunt expulsi. Here we find the relations expressed by inflexions, whereas in English they were expressed by prepositions, or by the position of the nouns in the sentence. When we said that the town did something to the enemy, we put the word town before the verb and the word enemy after it, and we reversed their places when we said that the enemy did something to the town. But a Roman was not tied down as we are to a fixed order of subject and object in his sentence: urbs would show itself as subject and urbem as object, whatever place they might occupy. Again, urbis, urbi, urbe, inflected forms of urbs, express the relations of urbs to the other words in the sentence, whilst the prepositions of, to, from, express the same relations of town.

If the student has obtained some notion of the meaning of the word relation (which is one of the vaguest words in the language), he will find but little difficulty in what remains to be said on the subject of case.

95. Case is the form of a noun, or pronoun, which shows its relation to other words in the sentence.

As we have said above, the relations in which a noun can stand are very many, but we do not call the expression of these relations by means of prepositions cases: if we did, we should have as many cases as we have prepositions. It is only when the relation is marked by the form of the noun that we can properly speak of case. Urbis, urbem, urbe, are cases in Latin: town, town's, are cases in English: but of a town, to a town, from a town, are no more cases than ad urbem, ex urbe, contra urbem, are cases.

96. How many cases have we then in English nouns and pronouns?

In answer to this question, let us write out the declension of town and he.

It is clear that the pronoun he is better off than the noun in its supply of case-inflexions. He, his, him, are three genuine cases, just as much as urbs, urbis, urbem, are genuine cases. But it is otherwise with the noun. Town, nominative, is indistinguishable in form from town, objective. The form of the word town does not show its relation to the rest of the sentence: the position of the word, or its context, shows its relation. We must not however interpret our definition too rigorously. If we found ourselves without the means of drawing the fundamental distinction between subject and object, because of the absence of an inflexion, parsing and analysis would be reduced to absurdity. The fact is, the definition suits an inflexional language like Latin much better than it suits a non-inflexional language like English. Even in Latin there are many nouns in which the strict application of the definition would land us in confusion. Neuter nouns of the Fourth Declension, like cornu, have an inflexion only in the genitive of the singular number, cornus: all the other singular forms are the same as the nominative. Yet we speak of the accusative, dative, and ablative cases of cornu, and in like manner we speak of the nominative and objective cases of English nouns, though there is but one form to express two relations.

97.

noun

The Nominative case is the form of a noun when it stands as subject of a verb.

'The town admitted the enemy: 'The town was taken.'