CORRESPONDENCE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1512, 13 April 1885, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

We do not hold ourselves responsible lor the opinions expressed by our correspondents. To the Editor. Sir, — A week or ao ago I was asked which was it moro correct to say, in speaking of gloves, two pair, or two pairs, to which I replied two pairs, giving the following reasons : Where a word. — meaning an exact number of persons or things, more than one—can be used in the singular number its plural would be the same, and I instanced—pair, couple, brace, dozen, score, gross, hundred, thousand, etc. ; the plural of which would in all cases remain the same, Where, however, a word meaning a number of persona or things, but not an exact number, the plural would be formed by the addition of s or ies, viz.:—army, armies; fl-et, fleets ; covey, coveys ; crowd, crowds ; multitude, multitudes, etc. ; be* cause in none of these instances does it take an exact number to form an army, fleet, covey, crowd or multitude, etc. The same question appears to have been asked and answered in your columns, and the answer was the reverse of mine, viz.;— That it was correct to say “ two pairs.” As one or other of us must be in the wrong, may I ask you to say whether mine was not the correct ans wer. lam. etc,, J.W.J. Ashburton, April 9.

[Our correspondent's conclusion is better than his argument. Pairs is certainly the plural of po.ir and must in many instances be employed, but it is not incorrect to say “two pair of glovs ; perhaps’ it is more euphonious than “ two pairs of gloves,”—Ed. CL]

THE ACCIDENT ON THE ALFORD FOREST ROAD. To the Editor. Sir, — Id your account of the accident which occurred on Friday night last, and which appeared in Saturday’s asue, I have to state that you have been misinformed as to the cause of the accident. It would infer that ray trap caused the accident, whereas the rider of the injured horse, through careless riding, crossed over the wrong aide to the right side of the road, and came into contact with my vehicle, in which were my wife and son, fortunately doing no other damage than killing his own horse. I am etc., W. 0. Page. [We did not intend to attribute any blame to the driver of the trap, but even after Mr Page’s explanation we think the vehicle bore a very prominent part in the catastrophe.— Ed. G ]