OBS. 26.—­With too little regard to consistency.  Dr. Bullions suggests that when “we make ‘times’ the subject of the verb,” it is not “really” such, but “is in the objective of number.”  He is, doubtless, right in preferring to parse this word as an objective case, rather than as a nominative, in the construction to which he alludes; but to call it an “objective of number,” is an uncouth error, a very strange mistake for so great a grammarian to utter:  there being in grammar no such thing as “the objective of number:”  nothing of the sort, even under his own “Special Rule,” to which he refers us for it!  And, if such a thing there were, so that a number could be “put in the objective case without a governing word,” (see his Sec.828,) the plural word times, since it denotes no particular aggregate of units, could never be an example of it.  It is true that times, like days, weeks, and other nouns of time, may be, and often is, in the objective case without a governing word expressed; and, in such instances, it may be called the objective of repetition, or of time repeated.  But the construction of the word appears to be such as is common to many nouns of time, of value, or of measure; which, in their relation to other words, seem to resemble adverbs, but which are usually said to be governed by prepositions understood:  as, “Three days later;” i.e., “Later by three days.”—­“Three shillings cheaper;” i.e., “Cheaper by three shillings.”—­“Seven times hotter;” i.e., “Hotter by seven times.”—­“Four feet high;” i.e., “High to four feet.”—­“Ten years old;” i.e., “Old to ten years.”—­“Five times ten;” i.e., “Ten by five times;” or, perhaps, “Ten taken till five times.”

NOTE TO RULE XV.

A collective noun conveying the idea of unity, requires a verb in the third person, singular; and generally admits also the regular plural construction:  as, “His army was defeated.”—­“His armies were defeated.”

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XV.

UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.—­THE IDEA OF PLURALITY.

“The gentry is punctilious in their etiquette.”

[FORMULE.—­Not proper, because the verb is is of the singular number, and does not correctly agree with its nominative gentry, which is a collective noun conveying rather the idea of plurality.  But, according to Rule 15th, “When the nominative is a collective noun conveying the idea of plurality, the verb must agree with it in the plural number.”  Therefore, is should be are; thus, “The gentry are punctilious in their etiquette.”]