ent: 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