WIGEOX. 



Valentine's day ; and therefore killing many at a shot, 

 after this time, is generally only to be done when they 

 are fighting together, or in the event of cold weather. 



among those who have any thing to do with wildfowl, to leave out 

 the s here, that the introduction of it feels to me like hearing a 

 "flock of partridges," or a "fox's tail." Let me, therefore, see if I 

 can scrape up any authority for having thus deviated from the rules 

 of our language. Yes! by the way; the plural of substantives 

 ending in out should have an s; and yet, by habit, all modern sports- 

 men say, for the plural, " trout" and not " trouts." Well then, 

 let the shooter, as \vell as the fisherman, appeal for a licence to kill 

 languages. 



Now therefore to the comparison : It may be argued, that al- 

 though in old works we read of " fishe*," yet in modern language, 

 or rather by habit, which gives u sort of licence, the word t fish, 

 speaking collectively, is generally used without a plural. Most 

 people, for instance, would say " a basket of fish" or " the river is 

 full tfjish" notwithstanding the plural of other nouns ending in sh 

 should have the addition of es to distinguish it from the singular 

 number. For instance, " dishes," " wishes," and so on. Again, 

 speaking of them separately, some fish have, and some have not, 

 an s for their plural ; as, for instance, " herrings," " pilchards," 

 u sprats j" on the other hand, t( carp," " tench," u mackerel." 



In comparison, too, I observe, that the word " wildfowl" is used 

 without a plural (and yet translated in Latin, vohtcrzs palustms), 

 notwithstanding we put a plural when the first syllable, or rather 

 the adjective, is not used. For example, in speaking of poultry, we 

 should say " a couple of fowls." We have, it is presumed, there- 

 fore an equal right to say " wigeon^ " teal" "plover," though, 

 on the other hand, we should say " wild-duck*," " dun-bird*," 

 " curlew*." 



Our lexicographers it appears still spell WtDgeon with a d; I 

 suppose, because birds of this kind are not so much in the fashion- 

 able world as pigeons, and therefore the word has escaped the 

 modern polish, or been neglected, which is the case with most things 

 that belong to absentees. Mr. Bewick spells " wigeon" without the 

 d. I shall, therefore, take the liberty of following his example, 

 under the idea that lexicographers are not gods, but men ; and 



