FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2358   2359   2360   2361   2362   2363   2364   2365   2366   2367   2368   2369   2370   2371   2372   2373   2374   2375   2376   2377   2378   2379   2380   2381   2382  
2383   2384   2385   2386   2387   2388   2389   2390   2391   2392   2393   2394   2395   2396   2397   2398   2399   2400   2401   2402   2403   2404   2405   2406   2407   >>   >|  
mber makes the plural to be either plural or singular for distinction's sake! (11.) "Number is the distinction of _nouns_ with regard to the _objects_ signified, _as one_ or more."--_Fisk's Murray_, p. 19. Here, too, number has "regard" to the same confusion: while, by a gross error, its "distinction" is confined to "_nouns_" only! (12.) "Number is _that property_ of a _noun_ by which it expresses _one_ or _more_ than one."--_Bullions's E. Gram._, p. 12; _Analyt. Gram._, 25. Here again number is improperly limited to "_a noun_;" and is said to be one sign of two, or either of two, incompatible ideas! (13.) "Number shows _how many_ are meant, whether one or more."--_Smith's new Gram._, p. 45. This is not a _definition_, but a false assertion, in which Smith again confounds arithmetic with grammar! _Wheat_ and _oats_ are of different numbers; but neither of these numbers "means _a sum that may be counted_," or really "shows _how many_ are meant." So of "_Man_ in general, _Horses_ in general, &c."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. 77. (14.) "Number is _the difference_ in a _noun or pronoun_, to denote either a single thing or more than one."--_Davenport's Gram._, p. 14. This excludes the numbers of a _verb_, and makes the singular and the plural to be essentially one thing. (15.) "Number is a modification of nouns and verbs, &c. according as the thing spoken of is represented, as, _one_ or _more_, with regard to number."--_Burn's Gram._, p. 32. This also has many faults, which I leave to the discernment of the reader. (16.) "What is number? Number _shows the distinction_ of one from many."--_Wilcox's Gram._, p. 6. This is no answer to the question asked; besides, it is obviously worse than the first form, which has "_is_," for "_shows_." (17.) "What is Number? It is _the_ representation of _objects_ with respect to singleness, or plurality." --_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p. 34. If there are two numbers, they are neither of them properly described in this definition, or in any of the preceding ones. There is a gross misconception, in taking each or either of them to be an alternate representation of two incompatible ideas. And this sort of error is far from being confined to the present subject; it runs through a vast number of the various definitions contained in our grammars. (18.) "_Number_ is _the inflection_ of a _noun_, to indicate _one object or more than one_. Or, _Number_ is _the expression_ of unity or of more than unity."--_Hil
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2358   2359   2360   2361   2362   2363   2364   2365   2366   2367   2368   2369   2370   2371   2372   2373   2374   2375   2376   2377   2378   2379   2380   2381   2382  
2383   2384   2385   2386   2387   2388   2389   2390   2391   2392   2393   2394   2395   2396   2397   2398   2399   2400   2401   2402   2403   2404   2405   2406   2407   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Number
 

number

 

numbers

 
distinction
 

plural

 
regard
 

definition

 

incompatible

 

general

 

representation


objects

 
singular
 

confined

 

discernment

 

plurality

 

Peirce

 

singleness

 

answer

 

question

 
Wilcox

reader

 

respect

 
definitions
 

contained

 

grammars

 

expression

 

object

 
inflection
 

subject

 
present

misconception

 

preceding

 

properly

 

taking

 
alternate
 

limited

 

improperly

 
Analyt
 

assertion

 

confounds


Bullions

 
expresses
 

Murray

 

signified

 

property

 

confusion

 

arithmetic

 

grammar

 

essentially

 

excludes