But we have not only the authority of almost every good writer in the language, for this use of _means_ in the singular as well as plural number, but we have the authority of almost unanimous national practice in speaking. It is rare to hear _mean_ used as a noun, and by those only who are fettered by the arbitrary rules of grammarians. I question whether the word, in the singular form, has obtained such an establishment, as to be entitled to a place among the English nouns. The use of it appears like pedantry. No man, whatever may be his rank and abilities, has a right to reject a mode of speech, established by immemorial usage and universal consent. Grammars should be formed on _practice_; for practice determines what a language is. I do not mean a _local_ practice, for this would subject us to perpetual variety and instability; but _national_ or _general_ practice. The latter, it has been remarked, is the standard of propriety, to which all local idioms and private opinions should be sacrificed. The business of a grammarian is not to examin whether or not national practice is founded on philosophical principles; but to _ascertain_ the national practice, that the learner may be able to weed from his own any local peculiarities or false idioms. If _this means_ and _a means_ are now, and have immemorially been, used by good authors and the nation in general, neither Johnson, Lowth, nor any other person, however learned, has a right to say that the phrases are not _good English_. That this is the fact, every person may satisfy himself, by consulting the good authors and observing the universal practice in discourse. Besides, the general practice of a nation is not easily changed, and the only effect that an attempt to reform it can produce, is, to make _many_ people doubtful, cautious, and consequently uneasy; to render a _few_ ridiculous and pedantic by following nice criticisms in the face of customary propriety; and to introduce a distinction between the learned and unlearned, which serves only to create difficulties for both. Dr. Priestley is the only writer upon this subject who seems to have been guided by just principles. He observes, with great propriety, that "Grammarians have leaned too much to the analogies of the Latin language, contrary to our mode of speaking and to the analogies of other languages, more like our own. It must be allowed, that the custom of speaking, is the original and only just standard of any language." Pref. to Gram. page 9. His criticisms are exceedingly judicious, and are entitled to the consideration of the student, in preference to those of Lowth, or any other English author. He considers _means_ as belonging "to that class of words which do not change their termination on account of number." It is used in both numbers, _a means_, or _these means_, with equal propriety.