I. A _common adjective_ is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation; as, _Good, bad, peaceful, warlike--eastern, 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, laughter-loving, 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_.[168] 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 adjectives, 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[169] 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?_[170] 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, 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 some 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[171] drive With sails and wind their cany _waggons_ light."

--_Paradise Lost_, B. iii, l. 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.

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. But 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.

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._, ver. 32. "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 say, _the twenty-first, the twenty-second_, &c.; using the hyphen in all compounds till we arrive at _one hundred_, or _one hundredth_, and then first introducing the word _and_; as, _one hundred and one_, or _one hundred and first_, &c.

OBS. 7.--The Pronominal Adjectives are comparatively very few; but frequency of use gives them great importance in grammar. The following words are perhaps all that properly belong to this class, and several of these are much oftener something else: _All, any, both, certain, divers, each, either, else, enough, every, few, fewer, fewest, former, first, latter, last, little, less, least, many, more, most, much, neither, no_ or _none, one, other, own, only, same, several, some, such, sundry, that, this, these, those, what, whatever, whatsoever, which, whichever, whichsoever_.[172] Of these forty-six words, seven are always singular, if the word _one_ is not an exception; namely, _each, either, every, neither, one, that, this_: and nine or ten others are always plural, if the word _many_ is not an exception; namely, _both, divers, few, fewer, fewest, many, several, sundry, these, those_. All the rest, like our common adjectives, are applicable to nouns of either number. _Else, every, only, no_, and _none_, are definitive words, which I have thought proper to call pronominal adjectives, though only the last can now with propriety be made to represent its noun understood. "Nor has Vossius, or _any else_ that I know of, observed it."--_Johnson's Gram. Com._, p. 279. Say, "or any _one_ else." Dr. Webster explains this word _else_ thus: "ELSE, _a._ or _pron._ [Sax. _elles_] Other; one or something _beside_; as, Who _else_ is coming?"--_Octavo Dict._ "Each and _every_ of them," is an old phrase in which _every_ is used pronominally, or with ellipsis of the word to which it refers; but, in common discourse, we now say, _every one, every man_, &c., never using the word _every_ alone to suggest its noun. _Only_ is perhaps most commonly an adverb; but it is still in frequent use as an adjective; and in old books we sometimes find an ellipsis of the noun to which it belongs; as, "Neither are they the _only_ [verbs] in which it is read."--_Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries_, p. 373. "But I think he is the _only_ [one] of these Authors."--_Ib._, p. 193. _No_ and _none_ seem to be only different forms of the same adjective; the former being used before a noun expressed, and the latter when the noun is understood, or not placed after the adjective; as, "For _none_ of us liveth to himself, and _no_ man dieth to himself."--_Romans_, xiv, 7. _None_ was anciently used for _no_ before all words beginning with a vowel sound; as, "They are sottish children; and they have _none_ understanding."--_Jeremiah_, iv, 22. This practice is now obsolete. _None_ is still used, when its noun precedes it; as,

"Fools! who from hence into the notion fall, That _vice_ or _virtue_ there is _none_ at all."--_Pope_.

OBS. 8.--Of the words given in the foregoing list as pronominal adjectives, about one third are sometimes used _adverbially_. They are the following: _All_, when it means _totally; any_, for _in any degree; else_, meaning _otherwise; enough_, signifying _sufficiently; first_, for _in the first place; last_, for _in the last place; little_, for _in a small degree; less_, for _in a smaller degree; least_, for _in the smallest degree; much_, for _in a great degree; more_, for _in a greater degree; most_, for _in the greatest degree; no_, or _none_, for _in no degree; only_, for _singly, merely, barely; what_, for _in what degree_, or _in how great a degree_.[173] To these may perhaps be added the word _other_, when used as an alternative to _somehow_; as, "_Somehow_ or _other_ he will be favoured."--_Butler's Analogy_, p. 89. Here _other_ seems to be put for _otherwise_; and yet the latter word would not be agreeable in such a sentence. "_Somewhere or other_," is a kindred phrase equally common, and equally good; or, rather, equally irregular and puzzling. Would it not be better, always to avoid both, by saying, in their stead, "_In some way or other_,"--"_In someplace or other?_" In the following examples, however, _other_ seems to be used for _otherwise_, without such a connection: "How is THAT used, _other_ than as a Conjunction?"--_Ainsworth's Gram._, p. 88.

"Will it not be receiv'd that they have done 't?

--Who dares receive it _other?_"--SHAK.: _Joh. Dict., w. Other_.

OBS. 9.--_All_ and _enough, little_ and _much, more_ and _less_, sometimes suggest the idea of quantity so abstractly, that we can hardly consider them as adjuncts to any other words; for which reason, they are, in this absolute sense, put down in our dictionaries as _nouns_. If nouns, however, they are never inflected by cases or numbers; nor do they in general admit the usual adjuncts or definitives of nouns.[174] Thus, we can neither say, _the all_, for _the whole_, nor _an enough_, for _a sufficiency_. And though _a little, the more_, and _the less_, are common phrases, the article does not here prove the following word to be a noun; because the expression may either be elliptical, or have the construction of an adverb: as, "Though _the more_ abundantly I love you, _the less_ I be loved."--_2 Cor._, xii, 15. Dr. Johnson seems to suppose that the partitive use of these words makes them nouns; as, "They have _much of the poetry_ of Mecaenas, but _little of his liberality_."--DRYDEN: _in Joh. Dict._ Upon this principle, however, adjectives innumerable would be made nouns; for we can just as well say, "_Some of the poetry_,"--"_Any of the poetry_,"--"_The best of Poetry_," &c. In all such expressions, the name of the thing divided, is understood in the partitive word; for a part of any thing must needs be of the same species as the whole. Nor was this great grammarian sufficiently attentive to adjuncts, in determining the parts of speech. _Nearly all, quite enough, so little, too much, vastly more, rather less_, and an abundance of similar phrases, are familiar to every body; in none of which, can any of these words of quantity, however abstract, be very properly reckoned nouns; because the preceding word is an adverb, and adverbs do not relate to any words that are literally nouns. All these may also be used partitively; as, "_Nearly all of us_."

OBS. 10.--The following are some of Dr. Johnson's "_nouns_;" which, in connexion with the foregoing remarks, I would submit to the judgement of the reader: "'Then shall we be news-crammed.'--'_All_ the better; we shall be the more remarkable.'"--SHAK.: _in Joh. Dict._ "_All_ the fitter, Lentulus; our coming is not for salutation; we have business."--BEN JONSON: _ib._ "'Tis _enough_ for me to have endeavoured the union of my country."--TEMPLE: _ib._ "Ye take too _much_ upon you."--NUMBERS: _ib._ "The fate of love is such, that still it sees too _little_ or too _much_."--DRYDEN: _ib._ "He thought not _much_ to clothe his enemies."--MILTON: _ib._ "There remained not so _much_ as one of them."--_Ib., Exod._, xiv, 28. "We will cut wood out of Lebanon, as _much_ as thou shalt need."--_Ib._, _2 Chronicles_. "The matter of the universe was created before the flood; if any _more_ was created, then there must be as _much_ annihilated to make room for it."--BURNET: _ib._ "The Lord do so, and much _more_, to Jonathan."--1 SAMUEL: _ib._ "They that would have _more_ and _more_, can never have _enough_; no, not if a miracle should interpose to gratify their avarice."--L'ESTRANGE: _ib._ "They gathered some _more_, some _less_."--EXODUS: _ib._ "Thy servant knew nothing of this, _less_ or _more_."--1 SAMUEL: _ib._ The first two examples above, Johnson explains thus: "That is, '_Every thing is the better_.'--_Every thing is the fitter_."--_Quarto Dict._ The propriety of this solution may well be doubted; because the similar phrases, "_So much_ the better,"--"_None_ the fitter," would certainly be perverted, if resolved in the same way: _much_ and _none_ are here, very clearly, adverbs.

OBS. 11.--Whatever disposition may be made of the terms cited above, there are instances in which some of the same words can hardly be any thing else than nouns. Thus _all_, when it signifies _the whole_, or _every thing_, may be reckoned a noun; as, "Our _all_ is at stake, and irretrievably lost, if we fail of success."--_Addison_. "A torch, snuff and _all_, goes out in a moment, when dipped in the vapour."--_Id._ "The first blast of wind laid it flat on the ground; nest, eagles, and _all_."--_L'Estrange_.

"Finding, the wretched _all_ they here can have, But present food, and but a future grave."--_Prior_.

"And will she yet debase her eyes on me; On me, whose _all_ not equals Edward's moiety?"--_Shak_.

"Thou shalt be _all_ in _all_, and I in thee, Forever; and in me all whom thou lov'st."--_Milton_.

OBS. 12.--There are yet some other words, which, by their construction alone, are to be distinguished from the pronominal adjectives. _Both_, when it stands as a correspondent to _and_, is reckoned a conjunction; as, "For _both_ he that sanctifieth, _and_ they who are sanctified, are all of one."--_Heb._, ii, 11. But, in sentences like the following, it seems to be an adjective, referring to the nouns which precede: "Language and manners are _both_ established by the usage of people of fashion."--_Amer.

Chesterfield_, p. 83. So _either_, corresponding to _or_, and _neither_, referring to _nor_, are conjunctions, and not adjectives. _Which_ and _what_, with their compounds, _whichever_ or _whichsoever, whatever_ or _whatsoever_, though sometimes put before nouns as adjectives, are, for the most part, relative or interrogative pronouns. When the noun is used after them, they are adjectives; when it is omitted, they are pronouns: as, "There is a witness of God, _which witness_ gives true judgement."--_I.

Penington_. Here the word _witness_ might be omitted, and _which_ would become a relative pronoun. Dr. Lowth says, "_Thy, my, her, our, your, their_, are pronominal adjectives."--_Gram._, p. 23. This I deny; and the reader may see my reasons, in the observations upon the declension of pronouns.

OBS. 13.--The words _one_ and _other_, besides their primitive uses as adjectives, in which they still remain without inflection, are frequently employed as nouns, or as substitutes for nouns; and, in this substantive or pronominal character, they commonly have the regular declension of nouns, and are reckoned such by some grammarians; though others call them indefinite pronouns, and some, (among whom are Lowth and Comly,) leave them with the pronominal adjectives, even when they are declined in both numbers. Each of them may be preceded by either of the articles; and so general is the signification of the former, that almost any adjective may likewise come before it: as, _Any one, some one, such a one, many a one, a new one, an old one, an other one, the same one, the young ones, the little ones, the mighty ones, the wicked one, the Holy One, the Everlasting One_.

So, like the French _on_, or _l'on_, the word _one_, without any adjective, is now very frequently used as a general or indefinite term for any man, or any person. In this sense, it is sometimes, unquestionably, to be preferred to a personal pronoun applied indefinitely: as, "Pure religion, and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep _himself_ [better, _one's self_]

unspotted from the world."--_James_, i, 27. But, as its generality of meaning seems to afford a sort of covering for egotism, some writers are tempted to make too frequent a use of it. Churchill ridicules this practice, by framing, or anonymously citing, the following sentence: "If _one_ did but dare to abide by _one's_ own judgement, _one's_ language would be much more refined; but _one_ fancies _one's_ self obliged to follow, whereever the many choose to lead _one_."--See _Churchill's Gram._, p. 229. Here every scholar will concur with the critic in thinking, it would be better to say: "If _we_ did but dare to abide by _our_ own judgement, _our_ language would be much more refined; but _we_ fancy _ourselves_ obliged to follow wherever the many choose to lead _us_."--See _ib._

OBS. 14.--Of the pronominal adjectives the following distribution has been made: "_Each, every_, and _either_, are called _distributives_; because, though they imply all the persons or things that make up a number, they consider them, not as one whole, but as taken separately. _This, that, former, latter, both, neither_, are termed _demonstratives_; because they point out precisely the subjects to which they relate. _This_ has _these_ for its plural; _that_ has _those_. _This_ and _that_ are frequently put in opposition to each other; _this_, to express what is nearer in place or time; _that_, what is more remote. _All, any, one, other, some, such_, are termed _indefinite_. _Another_ is merely _other_ in the singular, with the indefinite article not kept separate from it.[175] _Other_, when not joined with a noun, is occasionally used both in the possessive case, and in the plural number: as,

'Teach me to feel _an other's_ wo, to hide the fault I see; That mercy I to _others_ show, that mercy show to me.'--_Pope_.

_Each other_ and _one another_, when used in conjunction, may be termed _reciprocals_; as they are employed to express a reciprocal action; the former, between two persons or things; the latter, _between_[176] more than two. The possessive cases of the personal pronouns have been also ranked under the head of pronominal adjectives, and styled possessives; but for this I see no good reason."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 76.

OBS. 15.--The reciprocal terms _each other_ and _one an other_ divide, according to some mutual act or interchangeable relation, the persons or things spoken of, and are commonly of the singular number only. _Each other_, if rightly used, supposes two, and only two, to be acting and acted upon reciprocally; _one an other_, if not misapplied, supposes more than two, under like circumstances, and has an indefinite reference to all taken distributively: as, "Brutus and Aruns killed _each other_." That is, _Each combatant_ killed _the other_. "The disciples were commanded to love _one an other_, and to be willing to wash _one an other's_ feet." That is, _All_ the disciples were commanded to love _mutually_; for both terms, _one_ and _other_, or _one disciple_ and _an other disciple_, must be here understood as taken indefinitely. The reader will observe, that the two terms thus brought together, if taken substantively or pronominally in parsing, must be represented as being of _different cases_; or, if we take them adjectively the noun, which is twice to be supplied, will necessarily be so.

OBS. 16.--Misapplications of the foregoing reciprocal terms are very frequent in books, though it is strange that phrases so very common should not be rightly understood. Dr. Webster, among his explanations of the word _other_, has the following: "Correlative to _each_, and applicable to _any number_ of individuals."--_Octavo Dict._ "_Other_ is used as a substitute for a noun, and in this use has the plural number and the sign of the possessive case."--_Ib._ Now it is plain, that the word _other_, as a "correlative to _each_," may be so far "a substitute for a noun" as to take the form of the possessive case singular, and perhaps also the plural; as, "Lock'd in _each other's_ arms they lay." But, that the objective _other_, in any such relation, can convey a plural idea, or be so loosely applicable--"to _any number_ of individuals," I must here deny. If it were so, there would be occasion, by the foregoing rule, to make it plural in form; as, "The ambitious strive to excel _each others_." But this is not English. Nor can it be correct to say of more than two, "They all strive to excel _each other_." Because the explanation must be, "_Each_ strives to excel _other_;" and such a construction of the word _other_ is not agreeable to modern usage. _Each other_ is therefore not equivalent to _one an other_, but nearer perhaps to _the one the other_: as, "The two generals are independent _the one of the other_."--_Voltaire's Charles XII_, p. 67.

"And these are contrary _the one to the other_."--_Gal._, v, 17. "The necessary connexion _of the one with the other_."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 304.

The latter phraseology, being definite and formal, is now seldom used, except the terms be separated by a verb or a preposition. It is a literal version of the French _l'un l'autre_, and in some instances to be preferred to _each other_; as,

"So fellest foes, whose plots have broke their sleep, To take _the one the other_, by some chance."--_Shak_.

OBS. 17.--The Greek term for the reciprocals _each other_ and _one an other_, is a certain plural derivative from [Greek: allos], _other_; and is used in three cases, the genitive, [Greek: allaelon], the dative, [Greek: allaelois], the accusative, [Greek: allaelous]: these being all the cases which the nature of the expression admits; and for all these we commonly use the _objective_;--that is, we put _each_ or _one_ before the objective _other_. Now these English terms, taken in a reciprocal sense, seldom, if ever, have any plural form; because the article in _one an other_ admits of none; and _each other_, when applied to two persons or things, (as it almost always is,) does not require any. I have indeed seen, in some narrative, such an example as this: "The two men were ready to cut _each others' throats_." But the meaning could not be, that each was ready to cut "_others' throats_;" and since, between the two, there was but one throat for _each_ to cut, it would doubtless be more correct to say, "_each other's throat_." So Burns, in touching a gentler passion, has an inaccurate elliptical expression:

"'Tis when a youthful, loving, modest pair, In _others'_ arms, breathe out the tender tale."

--_Cotter's Sat. Night_.

He meant, "In _each other's_ arms;" the apostrophe being misplaced, and the metre improperly allowed to exclude a word which the sense requires. Now, as to the plural of _each other_, although we do not use the objective, and say of many, "They love _each others_," there appear to be some instances in which the possessive plural, _each others'_, would not be improper; as, "Sixteen ministers, who meet weekly at _each other's_ houses."--_Johnson's Life of Swift_. Here the singular is wrong, because the governing noun implies a plurality of owners. "The citizens of different states should know _each others characters_."--_Webster's Essays_, p. 35. This also is wrong, because no possessive sign is used. Either write, "_each others'

characters_," or say, "_one an other's character_."

OBS. 18.--_One_ and _other_ are, in many instances, terms relative and partitive, rather than reciprocal; and, in this use, there seems to be an occasional demand for the plural form. In French, two parties are contrasted by _les uns--les autres_; a mode of expression seldom, if ever imitated in English. Thus: "Il les separera _les uns_ d'avec _les autres_."

That is, "He shall separate them _some_ from _others_;"--or, literally, "_the ones_ from _the others_." Our version is: "He shall separate them _one from an other_."--_Matt._, xxv, 32. Beza has it: "Separabit eos _alteros ab alteris_." The Vulgate: "Separabit eos _ab invicem_." The Greek: "[Greek: Aphoriei autous ap allaelon]." To separate many "_one from an other_," seems, literally, to leave none of them together; and this is not, "as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." To express such an idea with perfect propriety, in our language, therefore, we must resort to some other phraseology. In Campbell's version, we read: "And _out of them_ he will separate _the good from the bad_, as a shepherd separateth _the_ sheep from the goats." Better, perhaps, thus: "And he shall separate them, _the righteous from the wicked_, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats."

OBS. 19.--Dr. Bullions says, "_One_ and _other_ refer to _the singular only_."--_Eng. Gram._, p. 98. Of _ones_ and _others_ he takes no notice; nor is he sufficiently attentive to usage in respect to the roots. If there is any absurdity in giving a _plural_ meaning to the singulars _one_ and _other_, the following sentences need amendment: "_The one_ preach Christ of contention; but _the other_, of love."--_Philippians_, i, 16. Here "_the one_" is put for "the one _class_," and "_the other_" for "the other _class_;" the ellipsis in the first instance not being a very proper one.

"The confusion arises, when _the one_ will put _their_ sickle into _the other's_ harvest."--LESLEY: _in Joh. Dict._ This may be corrected by saying, "_the one party_," or, "_the one nation_," in stead of "_the one_."

"It is clear from Scripture, that Antichrist shall be permitted to work false miracles, and that they shall so counterfeit the true, that it will be hard to discern _the one_ from _the other_."--_Barclay's Works_, iii, 93. If in any ease we may adopt the French construction above, "_the ones_ from the _others_," it will be proper here. Again: "I have seen _children_ at a table, who, whatever was there, never asked for any thing, but contentedly took what was given them: and, at an other place, I have seen _others_ cry for every thing they saw; they must be served out of every dish, and that first too. What made this vast difference, but this: That _one was_ accustomed to have what _they_ called or cried for; _the other_ to go without it?"--_Locke, on Education_, p. 55. Here, (with _were_ for _was_,) the terms of contrast ought rather to have been, _the ones--the others_; _the latter--the former_; or, _the importunate--the modest_.