"shallow" is unquestionably a noun-singular; and to the remaining
instances the following remarks will apply.

As it should be understood that my argument applies solely to the
_English_ language, I think I might fairly take exception to a string of
instances with which A.E.B. endeavours to refute me from a vocabulary of
a language very expressive, no doubt, yet commonly called "slang". The
words in question are not English: I never use them myself, nor do I
recognise the right or necessity for any one else to do so; and I might,
indeed, deem this a sufficient answer. But the fact is that the language
in some degree is losing its instincts, and liberties are taken with it
now that it would not have allowed in its younger days. Have we not seen
participial adjectives made from nouns? I shall therefore waive my
objection, and answer by saying that there is no analogy between the
instances given and the case in point. They are, one and all, elliptical
expressions signifying "black clothes, green vegetables, tight
pantaloons, heavy dragoons, odd chances," &c. "Blacks" and "whites" are
not in point, the singular of either being quite as admissible as the
plural. The rule, if it be worth while to lay down a rule for the
formation of such vulgarisms, appears to be {82} that characteristic
adjective, in constant conjunction with a noun in common use, may be
used alone, the noun being understood. Custom has limited in some
measure the use of these abridged titles to classes or collective
bodies, and the adjective takes the same form that the noun itself would
have had; but, in point of fact, it would be just as good English to say
"a heavy" as "the heavies" and they all become unintelligible when we
lose sight of the noun to which they belong. If A.E.B. should assert
that a glass of "cold without," _because_, by those accustomed to
indulge in such potations, it was understood to mean "brandy and _cold_
water, _without_ sugar," was really a draught from some "well of purest