Substantives are distinguished by grammarians into appellatives or general names of things common to many individuals, as _man_, _river_, _month_, _wind_; and proper names, appropriated only to individuals, as, _George_, _Britain_, _London_, _October_, _Libs_, which admit of neither articles or plurality of numbers. But all words, excepting one or an, according to their natural meaning seem to me to be appellative and capable of being applied to things of a plural nature, were their primitive sense understood, as for instance, _George_, which originally signified _a chief of the circle nation_, as an appellative name of a magistrate, in the same manner as King, Prince, Duke, or any other; but when its original meaning was lost, and it came to be adopted as a Christian name by different families, it was thence supposed to be a mere arbitrary term, imposed as the name of an individual; and so as to Britain, London, October, Libs, Thames, Avon, which were originally appellatives or common expressions for _the sea coast_, _long towns_, _the eighth month from the spring_, _the west south-west, or Libian wind_, _the limits of the Iceni_, and _Rivers_. So that these names, so long as their original meanings were understood, were as much appellative or common expressions, as man, river, month, wind, or any other common names, and as capable too of a plural or singular sense, in concord with the articles or demonstrative pronouns; as, _a_, _the_, _this_, or _that_, chief of the circle nation or long town, &c. Hence the distinction of common and proper names seems to be frivolous and unnecessary. All substantives were originally appellative and plural, and the articles and demonstrative pronouns were set in apposition or as terminations thereto, to determine their singular nature as well as the identity of the individual. But as they are now mostly understood as the signs of single things, the English method of adding s or es as a plural termination, should be generally followed as the best method; unless substantives and their articles should be restored to their original sense and use; but in either case the particles, an or en, as terminations of plural names, when the sense will admit of their being singular, and en does not express the male and female of the same kind, as men does both man and woman, seem to be improper. Nor is it best so to continue the use of such plurals, as mice, lice, teeth, feet, geese, but rather mus, lus, toth, fot, gus, which are so in their nature, as expressing the little eaters, the little family, the grinders, the movers and the water nation. It is however certain that the numbers of nouns are in their nature but two, singular and plural, one and two or many, but whether they are expressed by one or an, and two or as and es seems not to be very material, tho’ as and es were the primitive signs, as, _as_ signified the masculine gender, and _es_ the feminine. And numbers and genders ought to be the same.