making the plural vertiginės."—Churchill's Gram., p. 59. "Noctambulo changes the o into ónés, making the plural noctambulonēs."-Ib., p. 59. "What shall we say of noctambulos?"—ARBUTHNOT: in Joh. Dict. "In the curious fretwork of rocks and grottos."-Blair's Rhet., p. 220. Wharf makes the plural wharves.”—Smith's Gram., p. 45; Merchant's, 29; Picket's, 21; Frost'&, 8. "A few cent's worth of maccaroni supplies all their wants."-Balbi's Geog., p. 275. “C sounds hard, like k, at the end of a word or syllables."-Blair's Gram., p. 4. "By which the virtuosi try The magnitude of every lie."-Hudibras. Quartos, octavos, shape the lessening pyre."-Pope's Dunciad, B. i, 1. 162. "Perching within square royal rooves."-SIDNEY: in Joh. Dict. "Similies should, even in poetry, be used with moderation."-Blair's Rhet., p. 166. "Similies should never be taken from low or mean objects."—Ib., p. 167. "It were certainly better to say, 'The house of lords,' than 'the Lord's house.'"-Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 177. "Read your answers. Unit figure? 'Five.' Ten's? 'Six.' Hundreds? Seven.'"-Abbott's Teacher, p. 79. Alexander conquered Darius' army."-Kirkham's Gram., p. 58. "Three days

66

time was requisite, to prepare matters."-Brown's Estimate, ii, 156. "So we say that Ciceros stile and Sallusts, were not one, nor Cesars and Livies, nor Homers and Hesiodus, nor Herodotus and Theucidides, nor Euripides and Aristophanes, nor Erasmus and Budeus stiles."-Puttenham's Arte of English Poesie, iii, 5. "Lex (i. e. legs) is no other than our ancestors past participle leg, laid down."- Tooke's Diversions, ii, 7. "Achaia's sons at Ilium slain for the Atridae' sake."Cowper's Iliad. "The corpse of half her senate manure the fields of Thessaly."—Addison's Cato.

"Poisoning, without regard of fame or fear:

And spotted corpse are frequent on the bier."-Dryden.

CHAPTER IV.-ADJECTIVES.

An Adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality: as, A wise man; a new book. You two are diligent.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.-Adjectives have been otherwise called attributes, attributives, qualities, adnouns; but none of these names is any better than the common one. Some writers have classed adjectives with verbs; because, with a neuter verb for the copula, they often form logical predicates: as, "Vices are contagious." The Latin grammarians usually class them with nouns; consequently their nouns are divided into nouns substantive and nouns adjective. With us, substantives are nouns; and adjectives form a part of speech by themselves. This is generally acknowledged to be a much better distribution. Adjectives cannot with propriety be called nouns, in any language; because they are not the names of the qualities which they signify. They must be added to nouns or pronouns in order to make sense. But if, in a just distribution of words, the term "adjective nouns" is needless and improper, the term adjective pronouns" is, certainly, not less so most of the words which Murray and others call by this name, are not pronouns, but adjectives.

OBS. 2. The noun, or substantive, is a name, which makes sense of itself. The adjective is an adjunct to the noun or pronoun. It is a word added to denote quality, situation, quantity, number, form, tendency, or whatever else may characterize and distinguish the thing or things spoken of Adjectives, therefore, are distinguished from nouns by their relation to them; a relation corresponding to that which qualities bear to things: so that no part of speech is more easily discriminated than the adjective. Again English adjectives, as such, are all indeclinable. When, therefore, any words usually belonging to this class, are found to take either the plural or the possessive form, like substantive nouns, they are to be parsed as nouns. To abbreviate expression, we not unfrequently, in this manner, convert adjectives into nouns. Thus, in grammar, we often speak of nominatives, possessives, or objectives, meaning nouns or pronouns of the nom inative, the possessive, or the objective case; of positives, comparatives, or superlatives, meaning adjectives of the positive, the comparative, or the superlative degree; of infinitives, subjunctives, or imperatives, meaning verbs of the infinitive, the subjunctive, or the imperative mood; and of singulars, plurals, and many other such things, in the same way. So a man's superiors or inferi ors are persons superior or inferior to himself. His betters are persons better than he. Others are any persons or things distinguished from some that are named or referred to; as, "If you want enemies, excel others; if you want friends, let others excel you."-Lacon. All adjectives thus taken substantively, become nouns, and ought to be parsed as such, unless this word others is to be made an exception, and called a "pronoun."

"Th' event is fear'd; should we again provoke

Our stronger, some worse way his wrath may find."-Milton, P. L., B. ii, 1. 82. Corpse forms the plural regularly, corpses; as in 2 Kings, xix, 35: "In the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses."

OBS. 3.-Murray says, "Perhaps the words former and latter may be properly ranked amongst the demonstrative pronouns, especially in many of their applications. The following sentence may serve as an example: 'It was happy for the state, that Fabius continued in the command with Minutius: the former's phlegm was a check upon the latter's vivacity. "—Gram., 8vo, p. 57. This I take to be bad English. Former and latter ought to be adjectives only; except when former means maker. And, if not so, it is too easy a way of multiplying pronouns, to manufacture two out of one single anonymous sentence. If it were said, "The deliberation of the former was a seasonable check upon the fiery temper of the latter," the words former and latter would seem to me not to be pronouns, but adjectives, each relating to the noun commander understood after it.

OES. 4.-The sense and relation of words in sentences, as well as their particular form and meaning, must be considered in parsing, before the learner can say, with certainty, to what class they belong. Other parts of speech, and especially nouns and participles, by a change in their construction, may become adjectives. Thus, to denote the material of which a thing is formed, we very commonly make the name of the substantive an adjective to that of the thing: as, A gold chain, a silver spoon, a glass pitcher, a tin basin, an oak plank, a basswood slab, a whalebone rod. This construction is in general correct, whenever the former word may be predicated of the latter; as, "The chain is gold."-"The spoon is silver." But we do not write gold beater for goldbeater, or silver smith for silversmith; because the beater is not gold, nor is the smith silver. This principle, however, is not universally observed; for we write snowball, whitewash, and many similar compounds, though the ball is snow and the wash is white; and linseed oil, or Newark cider, may be a good phrase, though the former word cannot well be predicated of the latter. So in the following examples: "Let these conversation tones be the foundation of public pronunciation."-Blair's Rhet., p. 334. "A muslin flounce, made very full, would give a very agreeable flirtation air."-POPE: Priestley's Gram., p. 79.

68 Come, calm Content, serene and sweet,

O gently guide my pilgrim feet

To find thy hermit cell.”—Barbauld.

OES. 5.-Murray says, "Various nouns placed before other nouns assume the nature of adjectives: as, sea fish, wine vessel, corn field, meadow ground, &c."-Octavo Gram., p. 48. This is, certainly, very lame instruction. If there is not palpable error in all his examples, the propriety of them all is at least questionable; and, to adopt and follow out their principle, would be, to tear apart some thousands of our most familiar compounds. "Meadow ground" may perhaps be a correct phrase, since the ground is meadow; it seems therefore preferable to the compound word meadow-ground. What he meant by "wine vessel" is doubtful: that is, whether a ship or a cask, a flagon or a decanter. If we turn to our dictionaries, Webster has sea-fish and wine-cask with a hyphen, and cornfield without; while Johnson and others have corn-field with a hyphen, and seafish without. According to the rules for the figure of words, we ought to write them seafish, winecask, cornfield. What then becomes of the thousands of "adjectives" embraced in the "&c." quoted above?

OBS. 6.-The pronouns he and she, when placed before or prefixed to nouns merely to denote their gender, appear to be used adjectively; as, "The male or he animals offered in sacrifice."Wood's Dict., w. Males. "The most usual term is he or she, male or female, employed as an adjective: as, a he bear, a she bear; a male elephant, a female elephant."-Churchill's Gram., p. 69. Most writers, however, think proper to insert a hyphen in the terms here referred to: as, he-bear, she-bear, the plurals of which are he-bears and she-bears. And, judging by the foregoing rule of predication, we must assume that this practice only is right. In the first example, the word he is useless; for the term "male animals" is sufficiently clear without it. It has been shown in the third chapter, that he and she are sometimes used as nouns; and that, as such, they may take the regular declension of nouns, making the plurals hes and shes. But whenever these words are used adjectively to denote gender, whether we choose to insert the hyphen or not, they are, without question, indeclinable, like other adjectives. In the following example, Sanborn will have he to be a noun in the objective case; but I consider it rather, to be an adjective, signifying masculine :

"(Philosophy, I say, and call it He;

For, whatsoe'er the painter's fancy be,

It a male-virtue seems to me.")—Cowley, Brit. Poets, Vol. ii, p. 54.

ÕES. 7.—Though verbs give rise to many adjectives, they seldom, if ever, become such by a mere change of construction. It is mostly by assuming an additional termination, that any verb is formed into an adjective: as in teachable, moveable, oppressive, diffusive, prohibitory. There are, however, about forty words ending in ate, which, without difference of form, are either verbs or adjectives; as, aggregate, animate, appropriate, articulate, aspirate, associate, complicate, confederate, consummate, deliberate, desolate, effeminate, elate, incarnate, intimate, legitimate, moderate, ordinate, precipitate, prostrate, regenerate, reprobate, separate, sophisticate, subordinate. This class of adjectives seems to be lessening. The participials in ed, are superseding some of them, at least in popular practice: as, contaminated, for contaminate, defiled; reiterated, for reiterate, repeated ; situated, for situate, placed; attenuated, for attenuate, made thin or slender. Devote, exhaust, and some other verbal forms, are occasionally used by the poets, in lieu of the participial forms, devoted, exhausted, &c.

OBS. 8.-Participles, which have naturally much resemblance to this part of speech, often drop their distinctive character, and become adjectives. This is usually the case whenever they stand immediately before the nouns to which they relate; as, A pleasing countenance, a piercing eye, an accomplished scholar, an exalted station. Many participial adjectives are derivatives formed from participles by the negative prefix un, which reverses the meaning of the primitive word; as, undisturbed, undivided, unenlightened. Most words of this kind difler of course from participles, because there are no such verbs as to undisturb, to undivide, &c. Yet they may be called participial adjectives, because they have the termination, and embrace the form, of participles. Nor should any participial adjective be needlessly varied from the true orthography of the participle: a distinction is, however, observed by some writers, between past and passed, staid and stayed; and some old words, as drunken, stricken, shotten, rotten, now obsolete as participles, are still retained as adjectives. This sort of words will be further noticed in the chapter on participles.

OBS. 9.-Adverbs are generally distinguished from adjectives, by the form, as well as by the construction, of the words. Yet, in instances not a few, the same word is capable of being used both adjectively and adverbially. In these cases, the scholar must determine the part of speech, by the construction alone: remembering that adjectives belong to nouns or pronouns only; and adverbs, to verbs, participles, adjectives, or other adverbs, only. The following examples from Scripture, will partially illustrate this point, which will be noticed again under the head of syntax: "Is your father well ?"-Gen., xliii, 27. "Thou hast well said."-John, iv, 17. "He separateth very friends."-Prov., xvi, 9. "Esaias is very bold.”—Rom., x, 20. "For a pretence, ye make long prayer."-Matt., xxiii, 14. "They that tarry long at the wine."-Prov., xxiii, 30. "It had not much earth."-Mark, iv, 5. "For she loved much."-Luke, vii, 47. OBS. 10.-Prepositions, in regard to their construction, differ from adjectives, almost exactly as active-transitive participles differ syntactically from adjectives: that is, in stead of being mere adjuncts to the words which follow them, they govern those words, and refer back to some other term; which, in the usual order of speech, stands before them. Thus, if I say, "A spreading oak," spreading is an adjective relating to oak; if, "A boy spreading hay," spreading is a participle, governing hay, and relating to boy, because the boy is the agent of the action. So, when Dr. Webster says, "The off horse in a team," off is an adjective, relating to the noun horse; but, in the phrase, “A man off his guard," off is a preposition, showing the relation between man and guard, and governing the latter. The following are other examples : "From the above speculations."-Harris's Hermes, p. 194. "An after period of life."-MARSHALL: in Web. Dict. With some other of the after Judaical rites."-Right of Tythes, p. 86. "Whom this beneath world doth embrace and hug."-Shak. Especially is over exertion made."-Journal of Lit. Conv., p. 119. "To both the under worlds."-Hudibras. "Please to pay to A. B. the amount of the within bill." Whether properly used or not, the words above, after, beneath, over, under, and within, are here unquestionably made adjectives; yet every scholar knows, that they are generally prepositions, though sometimes adverbs.

CLASSES.

Adjectives may be divided into six classes; namely, common, proper, numeral, pronominal, participial, and compound.

I. A common adjective is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation; as, Good, bad, peaceful, warlike-castern, western, outer, inner.

II. A proper adjective is an adjective formed from a proper name; as, American, English, Platonic, Genoese.

III. A numeral adjective is an adjective that expresses a definite number; as, One, two, three, four, five, six, &c.

IV. A pronominal adjective is a definitive word which may either accompany its noun, or represent it understood; as, "All join to guard what each desires to gain."-Pope. That is, "All men join to guard what each man desires to gain."

V. A participial adjective is one that has the form of a participle, but differs from it by rejecting the idea of time; as, "An amusing story," "A lying divination."

VI. A compound adjective is one that consists of two or more words joined together, either by the hyphen or solidly: as, Nut-brown, laughterloving, four-footed; threefold, lordlike, lovesick.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.-This distribution of the adjectives is no less easy to be applied, than necessary to a proper explanation in parsing. How many adjectives there are in the language, it is difficult to

say; none of our dictionaries profess to exhibit all that are embraced in some of the foregoing" classes. Of the Common Adjectives, there are probably not fewer than six thousand, exclusive of the common nouns which we refer to this class when they are used adjectively. Walker's Rhyming Dictionary contains five thousand or more, the greater part of which may be readily distinguished by their peculiar endings. Of those which end in ous, as generous, there are about 850. Of those in y or ly, as shaggy, homely, there are about 550. Of those in ive, as deceptive, there are about 400. Of those in al, as autumnal, there are about 550. Of those in ical, as mechanical, there are about 350. Of those in able, as valuable, there are about 600. Of those in ible, as credible, there are about 200. Of those in ent, as different, there are about 300. Of those in ant, as abundant, there are about 170. Of those in less, as ceaseless, there are about 220. Of those in ful, as useful, there are about 130. Of those in ory, as explanatory, there are about 200. Of those in ish, as childish, there are about 100. Of those in ine, as masculine, there are about 70. Of those in en, as wooden, there are about 50. Of those in some, as quarrelsome, there are about 30. These sixteen numbers added together, make 4770.

OBS. 2.-The Proper Adjectives are, in many instances, capable of being converted into declinable nouns: as, European, a European, the Europeans; Greek, a Greek, the Greeks; Asiatic, an Asiatic, the Asiatics. But with the words English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish, and in general all such as would acquire an additional syllable in their declension, the case is otherwise. The gentile noun has frequently fewer syllables than the adjective, but seldom more, unless derived from some different root. Examples: Arabic, an Arab, the Arabs; Gallic, a Gaul, the Gauls; Danish, a Dane, the Danes; Moorish, a Moor, the Moors; Polish, a Pole, or Polander, the Poles; Swedish, a Swede, the Swedes; Turkish, a Turk, the Turks. When we say, the English, the French, the Dutch, the Scotch, the Welsh, the Irish,-meaning, the English people, the French people, &c., many grammarians conceive that English, French, &c., are indeclinable nouns. But in my opinion, it is better to reckon them adjectives, relating to the noun men or people understood. For if these words are nouns, so are a thousand others, after which there is the same ellipsis; as when we say, the good, the great, the wise, the learned.* The principle would involve the inconvenience of multiplying our nouns of the singular form and a plural meaning, indefinitely. If they are nouns, they are, in this sense, plural only; and, in an other, they are singular only. For we can no more say, an English, an Irish, or a French, for an Englishman, an Irishman, or a Frenchman; than we can say, an old, a selfish, or a rich, for an old man, a selfish man, or a rich man. Yet, in distinguishing the languages, we call them English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish; using the words, certainly, in no plural sense; and preferring always the line of adjec tives, where the gentile noun is different: as, Arabic, and not Arab; Danish, and not Dane; Swedish, and not Swede. In this sense, as well as in the former, Webster, Chalmers, and other modern lexicographers, call the words nouns; and the reader will perceive, that the objections offered before do not apply here. But Johnson, in his two quarto volumes, gives only two words of this sort, English and Latin; and both of these he calls adjectives: "ENGLISH, adj. Belonging to England; hence English+ is the language of England." The word Latin, however, he makes a noun, when it means a schoolboy's exercise; for which usage he quotes, the following inaccurate example from Ascham: "He shall not use the common order in schools for making of Latins."

OBS. 3.-Dr. Webster gives us explanations like these: "CHINESE, n. sing. and plu. A native of China; also the language of China."-"JAPANESE, n. A native of Japan; or the language of the inhabitants."—"GENOESE, n. pl. the people of Genoa in Italy. Addison."-" DANISH, n. The language of the Danes."-"IRISH, n. 1. A native of Ireland. 2. The language of the Irish; the Hiberno-Celtic." According to him, then, it is proper to say, a Chinese, a Japanese, or an Irish; but not, a Genoese, because he will have this word to be plural only! Again, if with him we call a native of Ireland an Irish, will not more than one be Irishes ? If a native of Japan be a Japanese, will not more than one be Japaneses? In short, is it not plain, that the words, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Maltese, Genoese, Milanese, and all others of like formation, should follow one and the same rule? And if so, what is that rule? Is it not this;-that, like English,

Murray says, "An adjective put without a substantive, with the definite article before it, becomes a substantive in sense and meaning, and is written as a substantive: as, Providence rewards the good, and punishes the bad."" If I understand this, it is very erroneous, and plainly contrary to the fact. I suppose the author to speak of good persons and bad persons; and, if he does, is there not an ellipsis in his language? How can it be said, that good and bad are here substantives, since they have a plural meaning and refuse the plural form? A word "written as a substantive," unquestionably is a substantive; but neither of these is here entitled to that name. Yet Smith, and other satellites of Murray, endorse his doctrine; and say, that good and bad in this example, and all adjectives similarly circumstanced, "may be considered nouns in parsing."-Smith's New Gram., p. 52. "An adjective with the definite article before it, becomes a noun, (of the third person, plural number,) and must be parsed as such."-R. G. Greene's Grammatical Text-Book, p. 55.

Here the word English appears to be used substantively, not by reason of the article, but rather because it has no article; for, when the definite article is used before such a word taken in the singular number, it seems to show that the noun language is understood. And it is remarkable, that before the names or epithets by which we distinguish the languages, this article may, in many instances, be either used or not used, repeated or not repeated, without any apparent impropriety: as, "This is the case with the Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish."--Murray's Gram., i, p. 38. Better, perhaps: "This is the case with the Hebrew, the French, the Italian, and the Spanish." But we may say: "This is the case with Hebrew, French, Italian, and Spanish." In the first of these forms, there appears to be an ellipsis of the plural noun languages, at the end of the sentence; in the second, an ellipsis of the singular noun language, after each of the national epithets; in the last, no ellipsis, but rather a substantive use of the words in question.

The Doctor may, for aught I know, have taken his notion of this "noun," from the language "of Dugald Dalgetty, boasting of his 5000 Irishes' in the prison of Argyle." See Letter of Wendell Phillips, in the Liberator, Vol. xi, p. 211.

French, &c., they are always adjectives; except, perhaps, when they denote languages? There may possibly be some real authority from usage, for calling a native of China a Chinese,-of Japan a Japanese,-&c.; as there is also for the regular plurals, Chineses, Japaneses, &c. ; but is it, in either case, good and sufficient authority? The like forms, it is acknowledged, are, on somo occasions, mere adjectives; and, in modern usage, we do not find these words inflected, as they were formerly. Examples: "The Chinese are by no means a cleanly people, either in person or dress."-Balbi's Geog., p. 415. "The Japanese excel in working in copper, iron, and steel.”—Ib., p. 419. "The Portuguese are of the same origin with the Spaniards."-Ib., p. 272. "By whom the undaunted Tyrolese are led."—Wordsworth's Poems, p. 122. Again: "Amongst the Portugueses, 'tis so much a Fashion, and Emulation, amongst their Children, to learn to Read, and Write, that they cannot hinder them from it."-Locke, on Education, p. 271. "The Malteses do so, who harden the Bodies of their Children, and reconcile them to the Heat, by making them go stark Naked."-Idem, Edition of 1669, p. 5. "CHINESE, n. s. Used elliptically for the language and people of China: plural, Chineses. Sir T. Herbert."—Abridgement of Todd's Johnson. This is certainly absurd. For if Chinese is used elliptically for the people of China, it is an adjective, and does not form the plural, Chineses: which is precisely what I urge concerning the whole class. These plural forms ought not to be imitated. Horne Tooke quotes some friend of his, as saying, "No, I will never descend with him beneath even a Japanese: and I remember what Voltaire remarks of that country."-Diversions of Purley, i, 187. In this case, he ought, unquestionably, to have said—“ beneath even a native of Japan;" because, whether Japanese be a noun or not, it is absurd to call a Japanese, "that country." Butler, in his Hudibras, somewhere uses the word Chineses; and it was, perhaps, in his day, common; but still, I say, it is contrary to analogy, and therefore wrong. Milton, too, has it:

"But in his way lights on the barren plains

Of Sericana, where Chineses* drive

With sails and wind their cany waggons light.”—Paradise Lost, B. iii, 1. 437.

OBS. 4.-The Numeral Adjectives are of three kinds, namely, cardinal, ordinal, and multiplicative: each kind running on in a series indefinitely. Thus:

1. Cardinal; One two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, &c. 2. Ordinal; First, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, &c.

But

3. Multiplicative; Single or alone, double or twofold, triple or threefold, quadruple or fourfold, quintuple or fivefold, sextuple or sixfold, septuple or sevenfold, octuple or eightfold, &c. high terms of this series are seldom used. All that occur above decuple or tenfold, are written with a hyphen, and are usually of round numbers only; as, thirty-fold, sixty-fold, hundred-fold. OBS. 5.-A cardinal numeral denotes the whole number, but the corresponding ordinal denotes only the last one of that number, or, at the beginning of a series, the first of several or many. Thus: "One denotes simply the number one, without any regard to more; but first has respect to more, and so denotes only the first one of a greater number; and two means the number two completely; but second, the last one of two: and so of all the rest."-Burn's Gram., p. 54. A cardinal number answers to the question, "How many?" An ordinal number answers to the question, "Which one?" or, "What one?" All the ordinal numbers, except first, second, third, and the compounds of these, as twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, are formed directly from the cardinal numbers by means of the termination th. And as the primitives, in this case, are many of them either compound words, or phrases consisting of several words, it is to be observed, that the addition is made to the last term only. That is, of every compound ordinal number, the last term only is ordinal in form. Thus we say, forty-ninth, and not fortieth-ninth; nor could the meaning of the phrase, four hundred and fiftieth, be expressed by saying, fourth hundredth and fiftieth; for this, if it means any thing, speaks of three different numbers.

ver. 32.

44

OBS. 6. Some of the numerals are often used as nouns; and, as such, are regularly declined: as, Ones, twoes, threes, fours, fives, &c. So, Fifths, sixths, sevenths, eighths, ninths, tenths, &c. "The seventy's translation."-Wilson's Hebrew Gram, p. 32. "I will not do it for forty's sake."Gen., xviii, 29. "I will not destroy it for twenty's sake."-Ib., ver. 31. "For ten's sake."-Ib., They sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties."-Mark, vi, 40. "There are millions of truths that a man is not concerned to know."-Locke. With the compound numerals, such a construction is less common; yet the denominator of a fraction may be a number of this sort: as, seven twenty-fifths. And here it may be observed, that, in stead of the ancient phraseology, as in 1 Chron., xxiv, 17th, "The one and twentieth to Jachin, the two and twentieth to Gamul, the three and twentieth to Delaiah, the four and twentieth to Maaziah," we now generally

Lindley Murray, or some ignorant printer of his octavo Grammar, has omitted this s; and thereby spoiled the prosody, if not the sense, of the line: "Of Sericana, where Chinese drive," &c.-Fourth American Ed., p. 345.

If there was a design to correct the error of Milton's word, something should have been inserted. The common phrase, the Chinese," would give the sense, and the right number of syllables, but not the right accent. It would be sufficiently analogous with our mode of forming the words, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Scotchmen, Dutchmen, and Irishmen, and perhaps not unpoetical, to say: