The two positions thus distinguished, are these: _First_, That the noun _means_ is necessarily singular as well as plural, so that one cannot with propriety use the singular form, _mean_, to signify that by which an end is attained; _Second_, That the subjective mood, to which he himself had previously given all the tenses without inflection, is not different in form from the indicative, except in the present tense.

With regard to the later point, I have shown, in its proper place, that he taught erroneously, both before and after he changed his opinion; and concerning the former, the most that can be proved by quotation, is, that both _mean_ and _means_ for the singular number, long have been, and still are, in good use, or sanctioned by many elegant writers; so that either form may yet be considered grammatical, though the irregular can claim to be so, only when it is used in this particular sense.

As to his second reason for the suppression of names, to wit, "the _uncertainty to whom_ the passages originally belonged,"-- to make the most of it, it is but partial and relative; and, surely, no other grammar ever before so multiplied the difficulty in the eyes of teachers, and so widened the field for commonplace authorship, as has the compilation in question.

The origin of a sentiment or passage may be uncertain to one man, and perfectly well known to an other.

The embarrassment which a _compiler_ may happen to find from this source, is worthy of little sympathy.