some such relation, is obvious; but
what is it? and how is it to be known? To most persons, undoubtedly,
"_Twice two_," and, "_Three times two_," seem to be _regular phrases_, in
which the words cannot lack syntactical connexion; yet Dr. Bullions, who is
great authority with some thinkers, denies all immediate or direct relation
between the word "_two_," and the term before it, preferring to parse both
"_twice_" and "_three times_" as adjuncts to the participle "_taken_,"
understood. He says, "The adverb '_twice_' is not in construction with
'_two_,' and consequently does not make it plural." His first assertion
here is, in my opinion, untrue; and the second implies the very erroneous
doctrine, that the word _twice_, if it relate to a singular term, _will
"make it plural_." From a misconception like this, it probably is, that
some who ought to be very accurate in speech, are afraid to say, "Twice one
_is_ two," or, "Thrice one _is_ three," judging the singular verb to be
wrong; and some there are who think, that "_usage_ will not permit" a
careful scholar so to speak. Now, analysis favours the singular form here;
and it is contrary to a plain principle of General Grammar, to suppose that
a _plural_ verb can be demanded by any phrase which is made _collectively_
the subject of the assertion. (See Note 3d, and Obs. 13th, 14th, 15th, and
16th, under Rule 14th.) _Are_ is, therefore, _not required here_; and, if
allowable, it is so only on the supposition that the leading nominative is
put after it.

OBS. 23.--In Blanchard's small Arithmetic, published in 1854, the following
inculcations occur: "When we say, 3 times 4 trees are 12 trees, we have
reference to the _objects_ counted; but in saying 3 times 4 _is_ twelve, we
mean, that 3 times the _number_ 4, _is the number_ 12. Here we use 4 and
12, not as numeral _adjectives_, but as _nouns_, the _names_ of particular
_numbers_, and as such, each conveys the idea of _unity_, and _the entire
expression_ is the subject of _is_, and conveys the _idea of unity_."--P.
iv. Here we have, with an additional error concerning "the entire
expression," a repetition of Dr. Bullions's erroneous assumption, that the
name of a particular number, as being "a singular noun," must "convey the
idea of unity," though the number itself be a distinct plurality. These men
talk as if there were an absurdity in affirming that "the number 4" is
_plural_! But, if _four_ be taken as only one thing, how can _