which end in ous, as generous, there are about 850.  Of those in y or ly, as shaggy, homely, there are about 550.  Of those in ive, as deceptive, there are about 400.  Of those in al, as autumnal, there are about 550.  Of those in ical, as mechanical, there are about 350.  Of those in able, as valuable, there are about 600.  Of those in ible, as credible, there are about 200.  Of those in ent, as different, there are about 300.  Of those in ant, as abundant, there are about 170.  Of those in less, as ceaseless, there are about 220.  Of those in ful, as useful, there are about 130.  Of those in ory, as explanatory, there are about 200.  Of those in ish, as childish, there are about 100.  Of those in ine, as masculine, there are about 70.  Of those in en, as wooden, there are about 50.  Of those in some, as quarrelsome, there are about 30.  These sixteen numbers added together, make 4770.

OBS. 2.—­The Proper Adjectives are, in many instances, capable of being converted into declinable nouns:  as, European, a European, the Europeans; Greek, a Greek, the Greeks; Asiatic, an Asiatic, the Asiatics.  But with the words English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish, and in general all such as would acquire an additional syllable in their declension, the case is otherwise.  The gentile noun has frequently fewer syllables than the adjective, but seldom more, unless derived from some different root.  Examples:  Arabic, an Arab, the Arabs; Gallic, a Gaul, the Gauls; Danish, a Dane, the Danes; Moorish, a Moor, the Moors; Polish, a Pole, or Polander, the Poles; Swedish, a Swede, the Swedes; Turkish, a Turk, the Turks.  When we say, the English, the French, the Dutch, the Scotch, the Welsh, the Irish,—­meaning, the English people, the French people, &c., many grammarians conceive that English, French, &c., are indeclinable nouns.  But in my opinion, it is better to reckon them adjectives, relating to the noun men or people understood.  For if these words are nouns, so are a thousand others, after which there is the same ellipsis; as when we say, the good, the great, the wise, the learned.[168] The principle would involve the inconvenience of multiplying our nouns of the singular form and a plural meaning, indefinitely.  If they are nouns, they are, in this sense, plural only; and, in an other, they are singular only.  For we can no more say, an English, an Irish, or a French, for an Englishman, an Irishman, or a Frenchman; than we can say, an old, a selfish, or a rich, for an old man, a selfish man, or a rich man.  Yet, in distinguishing the languages, we call them English, French,