like “the consideration of an object as more than one.” (10.) “Number distinguishes objects as one or more.”—­Cooper’s Murray, p. 21; Practical Gram., p. 18.  That is, number makes the plural to be either plural or singular for distinction’s sake! (11.) “Number is the distinction of nouns with regard to the objects signified, as one or more.”—­Fisk’s Murray, p. 19.  Here, too, number has “regard” to the same confusion:  while, by a gross error, its “distinction” is confined to “nouns” only! (12.) “Number is that property of a noun by which it expresses one or more than one.”—­Bullions’s E. Gram., p. 12; Analyt.  Gram., 25.  Here again number is improperly limited to “a noun;” and is said to be one sign of two, or either of two, incompatible ideas! (13.) “Number shows how many are meant, whether one or more.”—­Smith’s new Gram., p. 45.  This is not a definition, but a false assertion, in which Smith again confounds arithmetic with grammar! Wheat and oats are of different numbers; but neither of these numbers “means a sum that may be counted,” or really “shows how many are meant.”  So of “Man in general, Horses in general, &c.”—­Brightland’s Gram., p. 77. (14.) “Number is the difference in a noun or pronoun, to denote either a single thing or more than one.”—­Davenport’s Gram., p. 14.  This excludes the numbers of a verb, and makes the singular and the plural to be essentially one thing. (15.) “Number is a modification of nouns and verbs, &c. according as the thing spoken of is represented, as, one or more, with regard to number.”—­Burn’s Gram., p. 32.  This also has many faults, which I leave to the discernment of the reader. (16.) “What is number?  Number shows the distinction of one from many.”—­Wilcox’s Gram., p. 6.  This is no answer to the question asked; besides, it is obviously worse than the first form, which has “is,” for “shows.” (17.) “What is Number?  It is the representation of objects with respect to singleness, or plurality.” —­O.  B. Peirce’s Gram., p. 34.  If there are two numbers, they are neither of them properly described in this definition, or in any of the preceding ones.  There is a gross misconception, in taking each or either of them to be an alternate representation of two incompatible ideas.  And this sort of error is far from being confined to the present subject; it runs through a vast number of the various definitions contained in our grammars. (18.) “Number is the inflection of a noun, to indicate one object or more than one.  Or, Number is the expression of unity or of more than unity.”—­Hiley’s Gram., p. 14.  How hard this author laboured to think what number is, and could not! (19.) “Number