erefore lift up thy prayer for the
_remnant that_ ARE _left_."--_2 Kings_, xix, 4. Ordinarily the word
_remnant_ conveys no idea of plurality; but, it being here applied to
persons, and having a meaning to which the mere singular neuter noun is not
well adapted, the latter construction is preferable to the former. The
Greek version varies more in the two places here cited; being plural in
Isaiah, and singular in Kings. The Latin Vulgate, in both, is, "_pro
reliquiis quae repertae sunt_:" i.e., "for the _remains_, or _remnants_, that
are found."

OBS. 2.--Dr. Adam's rule is this: "A collective noun may be joined with a
verb either of the singular or of the plural number; as, _Multitudo stat_,
or _stant_; the multitude stands, or stand."--_Latin and English Gram._ To
this doctrine, Lowth, Murray, and others, add: "Yet not without regard to
the _import of the word_, as conveying _unity or plurality of
idea_."--_Lowth_, p. 74; _Murray_, 152. If these latter authors mean, that
collective nouns are permanently divided in import, so that some are
invariably determined to the idea of unity, and others to that of
plurality, they are wrong in principle; for, as Dr. Adam remarks, "A
collective noun, when joined with a verb singular, expresses many
considered as one whole; but when joined with a verb plural, it signifies
many separately, or as individuals."--_Adam's Gram._, p. 154. And if this
alone is what their addition means, it is entirely useless; and so, for all
the purposes of parsing, is the singular half of the rule itself. Kirkham
divides this rule into two, one for "unity of idea," and the other for
"plurality of idea," shows how each is to be applied in parsing, according
to his "_systematick order_;" and then, turning round with a gallant tilt
at his own work, condemns both, as idle fabrications, which it were better
to reject than to retain; alleging that, "The existence of such a thing as
'unity or plurality of idea,' as applicable to nouns of this class, is
_doubtful_."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 59.[394] How then shall a plural verb
or pronoun, after a collective noun, be parsed, seeing it does not agree
with the noun by the ordinary rule of agreement? Will any one say, that
every such construction is _bad English_? If this cannot be maintained,
rules eleventh and fifteenth of this series are necessary. But when the
noun conveys the idea of unity or takes the plural form, the verb or
pronoun has no other than a literal