vowel, and is of Anglo-Saxon origin, the plural is formed by the addition of the sound of the z in zeal.

To this rule there are two exceptions.

1. Dwarf; a word of Anglo-Saxon origin, but which forms its plural by means of the sound of s-dwarfs (pronounced dwarfce).

2. Beef; a word not of Anglo-Saxon origin, but which forms its plural by means of the sound of z-beeves (pronounced beevz).

If we ask the reason of this peculiarity in the formation of the plurals of these words in -f, we shall find reason to believe that it lies with the singular rather than the plural forms. In Anglo-Saxon, f at the end of a word was sounded as v; and it is highly probable that the original singulars were sounded loav, halv, wive, calv, leav.

Can this be explained? Perhaps it can. In the Swedish language the letter f has the sound of v; so that staf is sounded

stav.

Again, in the allied languages the words in question end in the flat (not the sharp) mute,-weib, laub, calb, halb, stab, &c. =wife, leaf, calf, half, staff.

Hence, the plural is probably normal; it being the singular form on which the irregularity lies.

Pence. The peculiarity of this word consists in having a flat liquid followed by the sharp sibilant s (spelt ce), contrary to the rule given above. In the first place, it is a contracted form from pennies; in the second place, its sense is collective rather than plural; in the third place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it from pens, sounded penz. That its sense is collective rather than plural (a distinction to which the reader's attention is directed), we learn from the word sixpence, which, compared with sixpences, is no plural, but a singular form.

Dice. In respect to its form, peculiar for the reason that pence is peculiar. We find the sound of s after a vowel, where that of is expected. This distinguishes dice for play, from dies (diez) for coining. Dice, perhaps, like pence, is collective rather than plural.

In geese, lice, and mice, we have, apparently, the same phe

nomenon as in dice, viz. a sharp sibilant (s) where a flat one (*) is expected. The s, however, in these words is not the sign of the plural, but the last letter of the original word.

1. Alms.—Some say, these alms are useful; in which case the word alms is plural. Others say, this alms is useful; in which case the word alms is singular. Now in the word alms the -s is no sign of the plural number, but part of the original singular, like the s in goose or loss. The Anglo-Saxon form was almesse. Notwithstanding this, we cannot say alms-es in

the same way that we can say loss-es. Hence the word alms is, in respect to its original form, singular; in respect to its meaning, either singular or plural.

2. Riches. Most writers say, riches are useful; in which case the word riches is plural. Still there are a few who say, riches is useful; in which case the word riches is singular. Now in the word riches the -s is no sign of the plural number, since there is no such substantive as rich; on the contrary, it is part of the original singular, like the s in distress. The form in the original French, from which language it was derived, was richesse. Notwithstanding this, we cannot say richess-es in the same way that we can say distress-es. Hence the word riches is, in respect to its original form, singular; in respect to its meaning, either singular or plural, most frequently the latter.

3. News. Some say, this news is good; in which case the word news is singular. More rarely we find the expression these news are good; in which case the word news is plural. Now in the word news the -s (unlike the s in alms and riches) is no part of the original singular, but the sign of the plural, like the s in trees. Notwithstanding this, we cannot subtract S, and say new, in the same way that we can form tree from trees. Hence the word news is, in respect to its original form, plural; in respect to its meaning, either singular or plural, most frequently the former.

the

4. Means.—Some say, these means are useful; in which case the word means is plural. Others say, this means is useful; in which case the word means is singular. Now in the word means the -s (unlike the s in alms and riches, but like the s in news) is no part of the original singular, but the sign of the

plural, like the s in trees. The form in the original French, from which language the word is derived, is moyen, singular; moyens, plural. If we subtract from the word means the letter s, we say mean. Now as a singular form of the word means, with the sense it has in the phrase ways and means, there is, in the current English, no such word as mean, any more than there is such a word as new from news. But, in a different sense, there is the singular form mean; as in the phrase the golden mean, meaning middle course. Hence the word means is, in respect to its form, plural; in respect to its meaning, either singular or plural.

5. Pains. Some say, these pains are well-taken; in which case the word pains is plural. Others say, this pains is welltaken; in which case the word pains is singular. The form in the original French, from which language the word is derived, is peine. The reasoning that has been applied to the word means is closely applicable to the word pains.

6. The same also applies to the word amends. The form in French is amende, without the s.

7, 8, &c. Mathematics, metaphysics, politics, ethics, optics, physics. The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each is the name of some department of study, of some art, or of some science. As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they denote either of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let the arts and sciences of Greece be expressed, in Greek, rather by a substantive and an adjective combined, than by a simple substantive; for instance, let it be the habit of the language to say the musical art, rather than music. Let the Greek for art be a word in the feminine gender; e. g. réxvn (tekhnæ), so that the musical art be nuovσíkη Téxνn (hæ mousika tekhnæ). Let, in the progress of language (as was actually the case in Greece), the article and substantive be omitted, so that, for the musical art, or for music, there stand only the feminine adjective, μovoíên. Let there be, upon a given art or science, a series of books, or treatises; the Greek for book, or treatise, being a neuter substantive, ßißiov (biblion). Let the sub

stantive meaning treatise be, in the course of language, omitted, so that whilst the science of physics is called quoíên (fysikæ), physic, from pvoíkn téxvn, a series of treatises (or even chapters) upon the science shall be called púoika (fysika) or physics. Now all this was what happened in Greece. The science was denoted by a feminine adjective singular, as quoíên (fysica), and the treatises upon it, by the neuter adjective plural, as púσika (fysica). The treatises of Aristotle are generally so named. To apply this, I conceive that, in the middle ages, a science of Greek origin might have its name drawn from two sources, viz. from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, as physic, logic; in the second place a plural form, as mathematics, metaphysics, optics. In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs to be, is a point of syntax.

§ 348. The plural form children (child-er-en) requires particular notice.

In the first place it is a double plural: the -en being the -en in oxen, whilst the simpler form child-er occurs in the Old English, and in certain provincial dialects.

Now, what is the -er in child-er?

In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than that in -r; as geisl-ar flashes, tung-ur tongues, &c. Nevertheless, it is not the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question.

Besides the word childer, we collect from the other Gothic tongue the following forms in -:

and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being of the neuter gender. The particular Gothic dialect wherein they occur most frequently is the Dutch of Holland.

Now, the theory respecting this form, as propounded by Grimm (D. G. iii. p. 270), is as follows:

1. The represents an earlier -8.

2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number.

3. In this form it appears in the Moeso-Gothic: ag-is fear (whence ague = shivering), hat-is = hate, rigv-is = smoke (reek). In none of these words is the -s radical, and in none is it limited to the singular number.

It should be added, that the reason why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most probably, in the collective nature of the words in which it occurs :—Husir = a collection of houses, eigir = a collection of For further observations on the power of eggs, eggery or eyry. -r, and for reasons for believing it to be the same as in the words Jew-r-y, yeoman-r-y, see a paper of Mr. Guest's, Philol. Trans., May 26, 1843. There we find the remarkable form lamb-r-en, from Wicliffe, Joh. xxi. Lamb-r-en: lamb :: child-ren: child.

§ 349. The form in -en.-In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural number is more common than -n: tungan, tongues; steorran, stars.

In the present English the word oxen is the only specimen of this form in current use. In the old and middle English stages of our language the number of words in -en was much greater than at present.

Men, feet, teeth, mice, lice, geese.-In these we have some of the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a cer