from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, as _physic_, _logic_; in the second place a plural form, as _mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _optics_. In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs to be, is a point of syntax. s. 285. The plural form _children_ (_child-er-en_) requires particular notice. In the first place it is a double plural: the _-en_ being the _-en_ in _oxen_, whilst the simpler form _child-er_ occurs in the old English, and in certain provincial dialects. Now, what is the _-er_ in _child-er_? In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than {231} that in _-r_; as _geisl-ar_=_flashes_, _tung-ur_=_tongues_, &c. Nevertheless, it is not the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question. Besides the word _childer_, we collect from the other Gothic tongue the following forms in _-r_.-- Hus-er, _Houses_. Old High German. Chalp-ir, _Calves_. ditto. Lemp-ir, _Lambs_. ditto. Plet-ir, _Blades of grass_. ditto. Eig-ir, _Eggs_. ditto. and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being _of the neuter gender_. The particular Gothic dialect wherein they occur most frequently is the Dutch of Holland. Now, the theory respecting the form so propounded by Grimm (D. G. iii. p. 270) is as follows:-- 1. The _-r_ represents an earlier _-s_. 2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number. 3. In this form it appears in the Moeso-Gothic: _ag-is_=_fear_ (whence _ague_=_shivering_), _hat-is_=_hate_, _rigv-is_=_smoke_ (_reek_). In none of these words is the _-s_ radical, and in none is it limited to the singular number. To these views Bopp adds, that the termination in question is the Sanskrit _-as_, a neuter affix; as in _t[^e]j-as_=_splendour_, _strength_, from _tij_=to _sharpen_.--V. G. pp. 141-259, Eastwick's and Wilson's translation. To these doctrines of Grimm and Bopp, it should be added, that the reason why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most probably, in the _collective_ nature of the words in which it occurs: _Husir_=_a collection of houses_, _eigir_=_a collection of eggs, eggery _or_ eyry_. For further observations on the power of _-r_, and for reasons for believing it to be the same as in the words _Jew-r-y_, _yeoman-r-y_, see a paper of Mr. Guest's, Philol. Trans., May 26, 1843. There we find the remarkable form _lamb-r-en_, from Wicliffe, Joh. xxi. _Lamb-r-en_ : _lamb_ :: _child-r-en_ : _child_. {232}