whole number WAS two thousand and six hundred;” or a plural one, agreeing with it figuratively, virtually, ideally, according to Rule 15th; as, “The whole number WERE two thousand and six hundred.”—­2 Chron., xxvi, 12.  So, when the collective noun is an antecedent, the relative having in itself no distinction of the numbers, its verb becomes the index to the sense of all three; as, “Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that IS left.”—­Isaiah, xxxvii, 4.  “Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that ARE left.”—­2 Kings, xix, 4.  Ordinarily the word remnant conveys no idea of plurality; but, it being here applied to persons, and having a meaning to which the mere singular neuter noun is not well adapted, the latter construction is preferable to the former.  The Greek version varies more in the two places here cited; being plural in Isaiah, and singular in Kings.  The Latin Vulgate, in both, is, “pro reliquiis quae repertae sunt:”  i.e., “for the remains, or remnants, that are found.”

OBS. 2.—­Dr. Adam’s rule is this:  “A collective noun may be joined with a verb either of the singular or of the plural number; as, Multitudo stat, or stant; the multitude stands, or stand.”—­Latin and English Gram. To this doctrine, Lowth, Murray, and others, add:  “Yet not without regard to the import of the word, as conveying unity or plurality of idea.”—­Lowth, p. 74; Murray, 152.  If these latter authors mean, that collective nouns are permanently divided in import, so that some are invariably determined to the idea of unity, and others to that of plurality, they are wrong in principle; for, as Dr. Adam remarks, “A collective noun, when joined with a verb singular, expresses many considered as one whole; but when joined with a verb plural, it signifies many separately, or as individuals.”—­Adam’s Gram., p. 154.  And if this alone is what their addition means, it is entirely useless; and so, for all the purposes of parsing, is the singular half of the rule itself.  Kirkham divides this rule into two, one for “unity of idea,” and the other for “plurality of idea,” shows how each is to be applied in parsing, according to his “systematick order;” and then, turning round with a gallant tilt at his own work, condemns both, as idle fabrications, which it were better to reject than to retain; alleging that, “The existence of such a thing as ‘unity or plurality of idea,’ as applicable to nouns of this class, is doubtful.”—­Kirkham’s Gram., p. 59.[394] How then shall a plural verb or pronoun, after a collective noun, be parsed, seeing it does not agree with the noun by the ordinary rule of agreement?  Will any one say, that every such construction is bad English?  If this cannot be maintained, rules eleventh and fifteenth of this series are necessary.  But when the noun conveys the idea of unity or takes the plural form, the verb or pronoun has no other than a literal agreement by the common rule; as,