ll
have hewed the _timbers_ of some rude cabin, and partaken of the wild
_fruits_ which nature affords. If these nine plurals are right, his
assertion is nine times wrong, or misapplied by himself seven times in the
ten.

[154] "I will not suppose it possible for my dear James to fall into either
the company or the language of those persons who talk, and even write,
about _barleys, wheats, clovers, flours, grasses_, and _malts_."--
_Cobbett's E. Gram._, p. 29.

[155] "It is a general rule, that all names of things measured or weighed,
have no plural; for in _them_ not number, but quantity, is regarded: as,
_wool, wine, oil_. When we speak, however, of different kinds, we use the
plural: as, the coarser _wools_, the richer _wines_, the finer
_oils_."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 41.

[156] So _pains_ is the regular plural of _pain_, and, by Johnson, Webster,
and other lexicographers, is recognized only as plural; but Worcester
inserts it among his stock words, with a comment, thus: "Pains, _n._ Labor;
work; toil; care; trouble. [Fist] According to the best usage, the word
_pains_, though of plural form, is used in these senses as singular, and is
joined with a singular verb; as, 'The pains they had taken _was_ very
great.' _Clarendon_. 'No pains _is_ taken.' _Pope_. 'Great pains _is_
taken.' _Priestley_. '_Much_ pains.' _Bolingbroke_."--_Univ. and Crit.
Dict._ The multiplication of anomalies of this kind is so undesirable, that
nothing short of a very clear decision of Custom, against the use of the
regular concord, can well justify the exception. Many such examples may be
cited, but are they not examples of false syntax? I incline to think "the
best usage" would still make all these verbs plural. Dr. Johnson cites the
first example thus: "The _pains_ they had taken _were_ very great.
_Clarendon_."--_Quarto Dict., w. Pain_. And the following recent example is
unquestionably right: "_Pains have_ been taken to collect the information
required."--_President Fillmore's Message_, 1852.

[157] "And the _fish_ that _is_ in the river shall die."--_Exod._, vii, 18.
"And the _fish_ that _was_ in the river died."--_Ib._, 21. Here the
construction is altogether in the singular, and yet the meaning seems to be
plural. This construction appears to be more objectionable, than the use of
the word _fish_ with a plural verb. The French Bible here corresponds with
ours: but the Latin Vulgate, and the Greek Septuagint, have both the noun
and t