to the terms which they qualify; but they are
perhaps most commonly explained as being dependent on some preposition
understood. See Obs. 1st on Rule 5th, and Obs. 6th on Rule 7th.

OBS. 25.--In multiplying one only, it is evidently best to use a singular
verb: as, "Twice _naught_ is naught;"--"Three times _one is_ three." And,
in multiplying any number above _one_, I judge a plural verb to be
necessary: as, "Twice _two are_ four;"--"Three times _two are six_;"
because this number must be just _so many_ in order to give the product.
Dr. Bullions says, "We should say, 'Three times two _is_ six,' because the
meaning is, 'Two _taken_ three times _is_ six.'" This is neither reasoning,
nor explanation, nor good grammar. The relation between "_two_" and
"_three_," or the syntax of the word "_times_," or the propriety of the
_singular verb_, is no more apparent in the latter expression than in the
former. It would be better logic to affirm, "We should say, 'Three times
two _are_ six;' because the meaning is, 'Two (_units_), taken _for, to_, or
_till_ three times, are six.'" The preposition _till_, or _until_, is
sometimes found in use before an expression of _times numbered_; as, "How
oft shall I forgive? _till_ seven times? I say not unto thee, _Until_ seven
times; but, _Until_ seventy times seven."--_Matt._, xviii, 21. But here is
still a difficulty with repect to the _multiplying_ term, or the word
"_times_." For, unless, by an unallowable ellipsis, "_seventy times
seven_," is presumed to mean, "seventy times _of_ seven," the preposition
_Until_ must govern, not this noun "_times._" expressed, but an other,
understood after "_seven_;" and the meaning must be, "Thou shalt forgive
him until _seventy-times_ seven times;" or--"until seven _times taken for,
to_, or _till_, seventy times."

OBS. 26.--With too little regard to consistency. Dr. Bullions suggests that
when "we make '_times_' the subject of the verb," it is not "really" such,
but "is in _the objective of number_." He is, doubtless, right in
preferring to parse this word as an objective case, rather than as a
nominative, in the construction to which he alludes; but to call it an
"objective of _number_," is an uncouth error, a very strange mistake for so
great a grammarian to utter: there being in grammar no such thing as "_the
objective of number_:" nothing of the sort, even under his own "Special
Rule," to which he refers us for it! And, if such a thing there were, s