umber;" it is certainly no error to say, "Two _are_ an
even number." If it is allowable to say, "As 2 _is_ to 4, so _is_ 6 to 12;"
it is as well, if not better, to say, "As two _are_ to four, so _are_ six
to twelve." If it is correct to say, "Four _is_ equal to twice two;" it is
quite as grammatical to say, "Four _are_ equal to twice two." Bullions bids
say, "Twice two _is_ four," and, "Three times two _is_ six;" but I very
much prefer to say, "Twice two _are_ four," and, "Three times two _are_
six." The Doctor's reasoning, whereby he condemns the latter phraseology,
is founded only upon false assumptions. This I expect to show; and
more--that the word which he prefers, is wrong.

OBS. 20.--As to what constitutes the subject of the verb in multiplication,
I have already noticed _three different opinions_. There are yet three or
four more, which must not be overlooked in a general examination of this
grammatical dispute. Dr. Bullions's notion on this point, is stated with so
little consistency, that one can hardly say what it is. At first, he seems
to find his nominative in the multiplicand, "used as a singular noun;" but,
when he ponders a little on the text, "_Twice two is four_," he finds the
leading term not to be the word "_two_," but the word "_number_,"
understood. He resolves, indeed, that no one of the four words used, "is in
construction with" any of the rest; for he thinks, "The meaning is, '_The
number_ two _taken_ twice is _equal to_ four.'" Here, then, is a _fourth
opinion_ in relation to the subject of the verb: it must be "_number_"
understood. Again, it is conceded by the same hand, that, "When numerals
denoting more than one, are used as adjectives, with a substantive
expressed or understood, they must have a plural construction." Now who can
show that this is not the case in general with the numerals of
multiplication? To explain the syntax of "_Twice two are four_," what can
be more rational than to say, "The sense is, 'Twice two _units_, or
_things_, are four?'" Is it not plain, that twice two things, of any sort,
are four things of that same sort, and only so? Twice two duads are how
many? Answer: _Four duads_, or _eight units_. Here, then, is a _fifth
opinion_,--and a very fair one too,--according to which we have for the
subject of the verb, not "_two_" nor "_twice_" nor "_twice two_," nor
"_number_," understood before "_two_," but the plural noun "_units_" or
"_things"_ implied in or after the mult