"A glory gilds the sacred page,Majestic like the sun!It gives a light to every age;It gives, but borrows none."
And in that book of books there are four short but most mighty narratives. And each of those narratives contains the one most important record which ever had to be told upon this earth. Each of them gives one concurrent history; namely, that of the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, with his sayings and his deeds. And of conversation these holy narratives are full. God has chosen this mode of reaching our minds and influencing our hearts, by large—very large—portions of them written after this fashion. Cowper felt this so deeply, that, in his poem on our present subject, he has beautifully told and paraphrased all that went on when Jesus met and talked with the two disciples on the way to Emmaus. Moreover, in those gospels, there is one, penned by that "disciple whom Jesus loved;" and if there is much conversation in all four of them, in it especially—in the gospel of St. John—conversation appears in all its full and continued glory. Take one or two examples. Mankind, all mankind, had to be taught about the complete atonement for our sins made by our Saviour on thecross. Where is it more clearly, more mightily told than in the third chapter of St. John's gospel? But what is that chapter? Is it a law prescribed in set terms?—No. Is it a sermon?—No. Is it a mere address?—No. You will all remember it is a conversation,—Christ's conversation with Nicodemus by night. And so it is again in the very next chapter, where a subject of no less importance—I say it advisedly, no less importance—is set forth, viz. the work of the Holy Spirit in man's heart; and that is portrayed for us in a conversation with the woman of Samaria, at Sychar's well. What striking instances are these! And many others might be added to them. And thus we have before us even the sanction and proof from the Word of God, that the most mighty and transcendent truth can reach us in no better form than that which conversation gives, and also that Jesus Christ put his own royal stamp of glory on it, by employing it Himself continually, when upon the earth among men, though he was their Lord and their God.
Having thus been led on,—I think very naturally, and, as I think, quite appropriately, too, for one of my office and position, at any time or place, or on any subject,—I will not return to any lighter theme. I do not in the least regret that I have selected my present topic out of very many which suggested themselves to my mind, when I was asked to exercise the privilege of thus addressing you, as I have now done for these four years. I might have chosen others farmore entertaining, and, no doubt, some far more kindling and exciting at this present time,[C]when our thoughts and our feelings are all so concentrated on one distant spot of strife and of contest, and of danger, and of bravery, and wounds, and deaths, and bereavements,—and amidst all, of honor unexampled to our brave brethren in arms. But, for many reasons, I have done otherwise. I have chosen, as usual, a subject of general, of national, of wide-world, of never-failing interest, from day to day, from week to week, from month to month, from year to year, among the vast race of our fellows,—born social creatures, born for mutual sympathy, with interchanged utterance, speech, and conversation. Strongly do I feel its importance, and I cannot help expressing my surprise that so little, so very little, has systematically been written or said upon it. I have found it no ordinary theme, I assure you; and, though it is one on which we all instinctively are interested in any circle, or with whomsoever we may at any time be, still it is not one on which the arrangement and classification of thought is an easy thing. I therefore shall not feel disappointed, nor, do I trust, will you be disappointed either, in that good employment of your time which you have a right to expect from me, as your lecturer to-night here, if I shall have set before you any thoughts, for your attention, which may improve, in the least degree, the course and the current of ordinaryconversation. When we remember how much of our innocent gratification,—how much of our daily harmony one with another,—how much of our mutual improvement,—depends on the right exercise of this goodly gift,—then, I am sure, you will not consider that the subject is one to be neglected or ignored. I verily believe that I do not over-state the fact, in asserting that for one time when we are liable to hurt, or distress, or offend another by our acts and deeds, there are fifty or an hundred, or perhaps more, occasions, when we are liable to do so by our words, and demeanor, and utterance. And again, for once that we can do kind and profitable actions to those around us, and associating with us, there are fifty or an hundred,—perhaps more occasions still,—when we can please or profit another by our words. I ask you, as those who can judge in this matter for yourselves, "Is it not so? Is it not so most undeniably?" Well, then, if I have been successful in laying down any right principles, in exposing anything disadvantageous, or in presenting any available means for rendering your daily intercourse more evidently kind, more evidently sympathizing, more evidently, in a word, such as that which every good man would wish to exhibit, and which must render him not only welcome and not only useful, but a real and true ornament of society in the best sense of the word; if I have shown you anything whatever available to this end, whether for your use at home or abroad, in thecottage or the shop, in the humblest abode or in the noblest and in the wealthiest, then surely I shall not have spoken in vain. I speak on no narrow topic, and I speak for all. Truly it is one which touches all; and in this lies its strength and its interest. There is no one, I believe, who does not intuitively and instinctively feel either his gain or his loss in conversation,—the effect of it on his own mind and on his own feelings at the time and afterwards,—either its harms or its charms. All must feel this, though unable perhaps to classify their thoughts or express them on it, and perhaps they have never thought of so doing. And I, for one, will not hesitate to say that, it having been my lot to mix much, and willingly, in all the various classes of society,—and having endeavored, so far as in my power has been, to cultivate and show a true brotherly and friendly spirit, both to high and low,—I have met nothing to confer more pleasure and more advantage in daily life than fit conversation. I have found it from the poorest. I have found it from those of middle station. I have found it among the noble and the rich. And, while without it the hours of social and of family life may drag on heavily, and in a wearisome and worthless way, under the roofs of splendor and magnificence, and in the midst of feasts, and pomp, and parade, with it, freely interchanged from well-informed heads and cordial hearts, expressing what they know and telling what they feel, without any restraint except that of love, and tact, andpropriety,—with it, I say, the simplest home may be one of enjoyment and improvement every recurring day, and each coming guest will share its attractions,—and therefore I say to every one present, "Despise not this gift, and try to improve it; and seek Divine help for its right regulation, as well as for its use; and be well assured that, under God's blessing, in its direction you will gain for yourself, and promote for your fellow-creatures, no slight share of true enjoyment, no slight benefits both for this world and for the world to come."
BYPARRY GWYNNE.
Itis readily acknowledged, by all well educated foreigners, that English Grammar is very easy to learn, the difficulties of the language lying in the numberless variations and licenses of its pronunciation. Since to us then, children of the soil, pronunciation has no difficulties to offer, is it not a reproach that so many speak their own language in an inelegant and slatternly manner,—either through an inexcusable ignorance of grammatical rules, or a wanton violation of them? There are two sorts of bad speakers,—the educated and the uneducated. I write for the former, and I shall deal the less leniently with them, because "where much is given, much will be expected." Ay, and where much has been achieved too, and intellectual laurels have been gathered, is it not a reproach that aslatternlymode of expression should sometimes deteriorate from the eloquence of the scholar, and place the accomplished man or woman, inthisrespect, on a level with the half-educated or the illiterate?
Some one, I think it is Lord Chesterfield, has wisely said, "Whatever is worth doing, is worth doing well." Then, if our native language is worth studying, surely it is worthspeaking well, and as there is no standing still in excellence of any kind, so, even in language,—in so simple a thing as the expression of our thoughts by words,—if we do not improve we shall retrograde.
It is a common opinion that a knowledge of Latin supersedes the necessity of the study of English grammar. This must entail a strong imputation of carelessness on our Latin students, who sometimes commit such solecisms in English as make us regret they did notonce, at least, peruse the grammatical rules of their native language.
We laugh at the blunders of a foreigner, but perpetrate our own offences with so much gravity that an observer would have a right to suppose we consider them what they really are,—no laughing matter.
I.
Some people speak of "so manyspoonsfull," instead of "so many spoonfuls." The rule on this subject says: "Compounds ending inful, and all those in which the principal word is put last, form theplural in the same manner as other nouns,—as 'handfuls, spoonfuls, mouthfuls,'" &c., &c.
Logic will demonstrate the propriety of this rule. Are you measuring by a plurality of spoons? If so, "so manyspoonsfull" must be the correct term; but if the process of measuring be effected byrefilling the same spoon, then it becomes evident that the precise idea meant to be conveyed is, thequantitycontained in the vessel by which it is measured, which is a "spoonful."
II.
It is a common mistake to speak of "a disagreeable effluvia." This word iseffluviumin the singular, andeffluviain the plural. The same rule should be observed withautomaton,arcanum,erratum,phenomenon,memorandum, and several others which are less frequently used, and which change theumoronintoa, to form the plural. It is so common a thing, however, to saymemorandums, that I fear it would sound a little pedantic, in colloquial style, to use the wordmemoranda;and it is desirable, perhaps, that custom should make an exception of this word, as well as ofencomium, and allow two terminations to it, according to the taste of the speaker and the style of the discourse,—memorandumsormemoranda, likeencomiumsorencomia.
III.
We have heardpulseandpatiencetreated as pluralities, much to our astonishment.
IV.
It seems to be a position assumed by all grammarians, that their readers already understand the meaning of the word "case," as applied to nouns and pronouns; hence they never enter into a clear explanation of the simple term, but proceed at once to a discussion of its grammatical distinctions, in which it frequently happens that the student, for want of a little introductory explanation, is unable to accompany them. But I am not going to repeat to the scholar how the term "case" is derived from a Latin word signifying "to fall," and is so named because all the other casesfallordeclinefrom the nominative, in order to express the various relations of nouns to each other,—which in Latin they do by a difference of termination, in English by the aid of prepositions,—and that an orderly arrangement of all these different terminations is called the declension of a noun, &c. I am not going to repeat to the scholar the things he already knows; but to you, my gentle readers, to whom Latin is still an unknown tongue, to whom grammars are become obsolete things, and grammatical definitions would be bewildering preliminaries, "more honored in the breach than in the observance,"—to you I am anxious to explain, in theclearest manner practicable, all the mysteries of this case, because it was a cruel perplexity to myself in days of yore. And I will endeavor to make my lecture as brief and clear as possible, requesting you to bear in mind that no knowledge is to be acquired without a little trouble; and that whosoever may consider it too irksome a task to exert the understanding for ashortperiod, must be content to remain in inexcusable and irremediable ignorance. Though, I doubt not, when you come to perceive how great the errors are which you daily commit, you will not regret having sat down quietly for half an hour to listen to an unscholastic exposition of them.
V.
We all understand the meaning of the word "case," as it is applied to the common affairs of life; but when we meet with it in our grammars, we view it as an abstruse term. We will not consent to believe that it means nothing more thanposition of affairs,condition, orcircumstances, any one of which words might be substituted for it with equal propriety, if it were not indispensable in grammar to adhere strictly to the same term when we wish to direct the attention unerringly to the same thing, and to keep the understanding alive to the justness of its application; whilst a multiplicity of names to one thing would be likely to create confusion. Thus, if one were to say, "This is a very hard case," or "A singular case occurredthe other day," or "That poor man's case is a very deplorable one," we should readily comprehend that by the word "case" was meant "circumstance" or "situation;" and when we speak, in the language of the grammar, of "a noun in the nominative case," we only mean a person or thing placed in such circumstances as to become merely named, or named as the performer of some action,—as "the man," or "the man walks." In both these sentences, "man" is in the nominative case; because in the first he is simplynamed, without reference to any circumstance respecting him, and in the second he is named as the performer of theactofwalkingmentioned. When we speak of a noun in the possessive case, we simply mean a person or thing placed under such circumstances as to become named as thepossessorof something; and when we speak of a noun in the objective case, we only intend to express a person or thing standing in such a situation as to be, in some way or other, affected by the act of some other person or thing,—as "Henry teaches Charles." Here Henry is, by an abbreviation of terms, calledthe nominative case, (instead of thenounin the nominative case,) because he stands in that situation in which it is incumbent on us to name him as theperformerof the act of teaching; and Charles is, by the same abbreviating license, called theobjective case, because he is in such a position of affairs as toreceivethe act of teaching which Henry performs. I will now tell youhow you may always distinguish the three cases. Read the sentence attentively, and understand accurately what the nouns are represented as doing. If any person or thing be represented asperforminganaction, that person or thing is a noun in the nominative case. If any person or thing be represented aspossessing something, that person or thing is a noun in the possessive case. And if any person or thing be represented as neither performing nor possessing, it is a noun in the objective case, whether directly or indirectly affected by the action of the nominative; because, as we have in English butthreecases, which contain the substance of thesix Latincases,whatever is neither nominative nor possessive must be objective. Here I might wander into a long digression on passive and neuter verbs, which I may seem to have totally overlooked in the principle just laid down; but I am not writing a grammar,—not attempting to illustrate the various ramifications of grammatical laws to people who know nothing at all about them,—any more than I am writing for the edification of the accomplished scholar, to whom purity of diction is already familiar. I am writing, chiefly, for that vast portion of the educated classes who have never looked into a grammar since their school days were over, but who have ingeniously hewn out for themselves a middle path between ignorance and knowledge, and to whom certain little hillocks in their way have risen up, under a dense atmosphere, to the magnitude of mountains.I merely wish to give to them, since they will not take the trouble to search for themselves, one broad and general principle, unclogged by exceptions, to guide them to propriety of speech; and should they afterwards acquire a taste for grammatical disputation, they will of course apply to more extensive sources for the necessary qualifications.
VI.
It is scarcely possible to commit any inaccuracy in the use of these cases when restricted to nouns, but in the application of them to pronouns a woful confusion often arises; though even in this confusion exists a marked distinction between the errors of the ill-bred and those of the well-bred man. To use the objective instead of the nominative is avulgarerror; to use the nominative instead of the objective is agenteelerror. No person of decent education would think of saying, "Him and me are going to the play." Yet how often do we hear even well educated people say, "They were coming to see my brother andI,"—"The claret will be packed in two hampers for Mr. Smith andI,"—"Let you andItry to move it,"—"Let him andIgo up and speak to them,"—"Between you andI," &c. &c.;—faults as heinous as that of the vulgarian who says, "Him and me are going to the play," and with less excuse. Two minutes' reflection will enable the scholar to correct himself, and a little exercise of memory will shield him from a repetitionof the fault; but, for the benefit of those who maynotbe scholars, we will accompany him through the mazes of his reflections. Who are the persons that are performing the act of "coming to see"? "They." Then the pronountheymust stand in the nominative case. Who are the persons to whom the act of "coming to see" extends? "My brother and I." Then "my brother and I," being theobjects affectedby the act of the nominative, must be a noun and pronoun standing in the objective case; and as nouns are not susceptible of change on account of cases, it is only thepronounwhich requires alteration to render the sentence correct: "They were coming to see my brother andme." The same argument is applicable to the other examples given. In the English language, the imperative mood of a verb is never conjugated with a pronoun in the nominative case, therefore, "Let you andItry to move it," "Let him andIgo up and speak to them," are manifest improprieties. A very simple test may be formed by taking away the first noun or pronoun from the sentence altogether, and bringing the verb or preposition right against that pronoun which you use to designate yourself: thus, "They were coming to seeI," "The claret will be packed in two hampers forI," "LetItry to move it," &c. By this means your own ear will correct you, without any reference to grammatical rules. And bear in mind that the number ofnounsit may benecessary to press into the sentence will not alter thecaserespecting the pronouns.
"Between you and I" is as erroneous an expression as any. Change the position of the pronouns, and say, "Between I and you;" or change the sentence altogether, and say, "Between I and the wall there was a great gap;" and you will soon see in what case the first person should be rendered. "Prepositions govern the objective case," therefore it is impossible to put a nominativeaftera preposition without a gross violation of a rule which ought to be familiar to everybody.
VII.
The same mistake extends to the relative pronouns "who" and "whom." We seldom hear the objective case used either by vulgar or refined speakers. "Who did you give it to?" "Who is this for?" are solecisms of daily occurrence; and when the objective "whom"isused, it is generally put in the wrong place; as, "The person whom I expected would purchase that estate," "The man whom they intend shall execute that work." This intervening verb in each sentence, "I expected" and "they intend," coming between the last verb and its own nominative (the relative pronoun), has no power to alter the rule, and no right to violate it; but as the introduction of an intervening verb, in such situations, is likely to beguile the ear and confuse the judgment, it would be betterto avoid such constructions altogether, and turn the sentence in a different way; as, "The person whom I expectedto bethe purchaser of that estate," "The man whom they intendtoexecute that work." If the reader will cut off the intervening verb, which has nothing to do with the construction of the sentence, except to mystify it, he will perceive at a glance the error and its remedy: "The personwhomwould purchase that estate," "The manwhomshall execute that work."
VIII.
It is very easy to mistake the nominative when another noun comes between it and the verb, which is frequently the case in the use of the indefinite and distributive pronouns; as, "One of those housesweresold last week," "Each of the daughtersareto have a separate share," "Every tree in those plantationshavebeen injured by the storm," "Either of the childrenareat liberty to claim it." Here it will be perceived that the pronouns "one," "each," "every," "either," are the true nominatives to the verbs; but the intervening noun in the plural number, in each sentence, deludes the ear, and the speaker, without reflection, renders the verb in the plural instead of the singular number. The same error is often committed when no second noun appears to plead an apology for the fault; as, "Each cityhave theirpeculiar privileges," "Everybody has a right to look aftertheirown interest," "Eitherareat liberty to claim it." This is the effect of pure carelessness.
IX.
There is another very common error, the reverse of the last mentioned, which is that of rendering the adjective pronoun in thepluralnumber instead of the singular in such sentences as the following: "Thesekind of entertainments are not conducive to general improvement," "Thosesort of experiments are often dangerous." This error seems to originate in the habit which people insensibly acquire of supposing the prominent noun in the sentence (such as "entertainments" or "experiments") to be the noun qualified by the adjective "these" or "those;" instead of which it is "kind," "sort," or any word of that descriptionimmediately followingthe adjective, which should be so qualified, and the adjective must be made to agree with it in the singular number. We confess it is not so agreeable to the ear to say, "Thiskind of entertainments," "Thatsort of experiments;" but it would be easy to give the sentence a different form, and say, "Entertainments of this kind," "Experiments of that sort," by which the requisitions of grammar would be satisfied, and those of euphony too.
X.
But the grand fault, the glaring impropriety, committed by "all ranks and conditions of men," richand poor, high and low, illiterate and learned,—except, perhaps, one in twenty,—and from which not even the pulpit or the bar is totally free,—is, the substitution of the active verblayfor the neuter verblie(to lie down). The scholarknowsthat "active verbs govern the objective case," and thereforedemandan objective case after them; and that neuter verbswill not admitan objective case after them,exceptthrough the medium of a preposition.He, therefore, has no excuse for his error, it is a wilful one; for him the following is not written. And here I may as well say, once for all, that whilst I wouldremindthescholarof his lapses, my instructions and explanations are offeredonlyto the class which requires them.
"To lay" is an active transitive verb, likelove,demandingan objective case after it,without the intervention of a preposition. "To lie" is a neuter verb,not admitting an objective case after it, except through the intervention of a preposition;—yet this "perverse generation"willgo on substituting the former for the latter. Nothing can be more erroneous than to say, as people constantly do, "I shall go and lay down." The question which naturally arises in the mind of the discriminating hearer is, "Whatare you going to lay down,—money, carpets, plans, or what?" for, as a transitive verb is used, an object is wanted to complete the sense. The speaker means, in fact, to tell us that he (himself) is going toliedown, instead of which he gives us to understand that he is going tolaydown orputdown something which he has not named, but which it is necessary to name before we can understand the sentence; and this sentence, when completed according to the rules of grammar, will never convey the meaning he intends. One might as well use the verb "to put" in this situation, as the verb "to lay," for each is a transitive verb, requiring an objective case immediately after it. If you were to enter a room, and, finding a person lying on the sofa, were to address him with such a question as "What are you doing there?" you would think it ludicrous if he were to reply, "I amputtingdown;" yet it would not be more absurd than to say, "I amlayingdown;" but custom, whilst it fails to reconcile us to the error, has so familiarized us with it, that we hear it without surprise, and good breeding forbids our noticing it to the speaker. The same mistake is committed through all the tenses of the verb. How often are nice ears wounded by the following expressions,—"My brotherlaysill of a fever,"—"The vessellaysin St. Katharine's Docks,"—"The books werelayingon the floor,"—"Helaidon a sofa three weeks,"—"After I hadlaiddown, I remembered that I had left my pistolslayingon the table." You must perceive that, in every one of these instances, the wrong verb is used; correct it, therefore, according to the explanation given; thus, "My brotherliesill of a fever,"—"The vesselliesin St Katherine'sDocks,"—"The books werelyingon the floor,"—"Helayon a sofa three weeks,"—"After I hadlaindown, I remembered that I had left my pistolslyingon the table."
It is probable that this error has originated in the circumstance of the present tense of the verb "to lay" being conjugated precisely like the imperfect tense of the verb "to lie," for they are alike in orthography and sound, and different only in meaning; and in order to remedy the evil which this resemblance seems to have created, I have conjugated at full length the simple tenses of the two verbs, hoping the exposition may be found useful; for it is an error whichmustbe corrected by all who aspire to the merit of speaking their own languagewell.
Verb Active.To lay.Present tense.
I layBracketThou layestmoney,He layscarpets,We layplans,—anyYou laything.They lay
Imperfect tense.
I laidBracketThou laidestmoney,He laidcarpets,We laidplans,—anyYou laidthing.They laid
Present Participle, Laying.Perfect Participle, Laid.
Verb Neuter.To lie.Present tense.
I lieBracketThou liestdown,He liestoo long,We lieon a sofa,—anyYou liewhere.They lie
Imperfect tense.
I layBracketThou layestdown,He laystoo long,We layon a sofa,—anyYou laywhere.They lay
Present Participle, Lying,Perfect Participle, Lain.
In such sentences as these, wherein the verb is used reflectively,—"If I lay myself down on the grass I shall catch cold," "He laid himself down on the green sward,"—the verb "to lay" is with propriety substituted for the verb "to lie;" for the addition of the emphatic pronounmyself, orhimself, constituting an objective case, and comingimmediately afterthe verb,without the intervention of a preposition, renders it necessary that the verb employed should beactive, notneuter, because "active verbs govern the objective case." But this is the only construction in which "to lay" instead of "to lie" can be sanctioned by the rules of grammar.
XI.
The same confusion often arises in the use of the verbssitandset,riseandraise.Sitis a neuter verb,setan active one; yet how often do people most improperly say, "I havesetwith him for hours," "Heseton the beach till the sun went down," "Shesetthree nights by the patient's bedside." What did they set,—potatoes, traps, or what? for as an objective case is evidently implied by the use of an active verb, an object is indispensable to complete the sense. No tense whatever of the verb "to sit" is rendered "set," which has butone wordthroughout the whole verb, except the active participle "setting;" and "sit" has but two words, "sit" and "sat," except the active participle "sitting;" therefore it is veryeasy to correct this error by the help of a little attention.
XII.
Raiseis the same kind of verb asset,—active-transitive, requiring an objective case after it; and it contains only two words,raiseandraised, besides the active participleraising.Riseis a neuter verb, not admitting an objective case. It contains two words,riseandrose;besides the two participles,risingandrisen. It is improper, therefore, to say, "Herosethe books from the floor," "Herisesthe fruit as it falls," "After she hadrisenthe basket on her head," &c. In all such cases use the other verbraise. It occurs to me, that if people would take the trouble to reckon how many different words a verb contains, they would be in less danger of mistaking them. "Lay" contains two words, "lay" and "laid," besides the active participle "laying." "Lie" has also two words, "lie" and "lay," besides the two participles "lying" and "lain;" and from this second word "lay" arises all the confusion I have had to lament in the foregoing pages.
XIII.
To the scholar I would remark the prevalent impropriety of adopting the subjunctive instead of the indicative mood, in sentences where doubt or uncertainty is expressed, although the former can only beused in situations in which "contingency and futurity" are combined. Thus, a gentleman, giving an order to his tailor, may say, "Make me a coat of a certain description, if itfitme well I will give you another order;" because the "fit" alluded to is a thing which the future has to determine. But when the coat is made and brought home, he cannot say, "If this clothbe goodI will give you another order," for the quality of the cloth isalreadydetermined; the future will not alter it. It may be good, it may be bad, but whatever itmay beit alreadyis;therefore, as contingency only is implied,without futurity, it must be rendered in the indicative mood, "If this clothisgood," &c. We may with propriety say, "If the book be sent in time, I shall be able to read it to-night," because the sending of the book is an event which thefuturemust produce; but we must not say, "If this book be sent for me, it is a mistake," because here the act alluded to is already performed,—the book has come. I think it very likely that people have been beguiled into this error by the prefix of the conjunction, forgetting that conjunctions may be used with the indicative as well as with the subjunctive mood.
XIV.
Some people use the imperfect tense of the verb "to go," instead of the past participle, and say, "I should havewent," instead of "I should have gone."This isnota very common error, but it is a very great one; and I should not have thought it could come within the range of the class for which this book is written, but that I have heard the fault committed by people of even tolerable education. One might as well say, "I should havewasat the theatre last night," instead of "I should havebeenat the theatre," &c., as say, "I should havewent" instead of "I should havegone."
XV.
Others there are who invert this error, and use the past participle of the verb "to do" instead of a tense of the verb, saying, "Idone" instead of "Idid." This is inadmissible. "Ididit," or "Ihave doneit," is a phrase correct in its formation, its application being, of course, dependent on other circumstances.
XVI.
There are speakers who aretoo refinedto use the past (or perfect) participle of the verbs "to drink," "to run," "to begin," &c., and substitute theimperfect tense, as in the verb "to go." Thus, instead of saying, "I have drunk," "he has run," "they have begun," they say, "I havedrank" "he hasran," "they havebegan" &c. These are minor errors, I admit; still, nice ears detect them.
XVII.
I trust it is unnecessary to warn any of my readers against adopting the flagrant vulgarity of saying "don'tought," and "hadn'tought," instead of "oughtnot." It is also incorrect to employnofornotin such phrases as, "If it is true orno(not)," "Is it so orno(not)?"
XVIII.
Many people have an odd way of saying, "I expect," when they only mean "I think," or "I conclude;" as, "I expect my brother is gone to Richmond to-day," "I expect those books were sent to Paris last year." This is wrong.Expectcan relate only tofuturetime, and must be followed by a future tense, or a verb in the infinitive mood; as, "I expect my brotherwill goto Richmond to-day," "I expectto findthose books were sent to Paris last year." Here the introduction of a future tense, or of a verb in the infinitive mood, rectifies the grammar without altering the sense; but such a portion of the sentence must not be omitted in expression, as no such ellipsis is allowable.
XIX.
The majority of speakers use the imperfect tense and the perfect tense together, in such sentences as the following,—"I intended tohave calledon him last night," "I meant tohave purchasedone yesterday,"—or a pluperfect tense, and a perfect tensetogether I have sometimes heard, as, "You shouldhave writtentohave toldher." These expressions are illogical, because, as theintentionto perform an actmustbepriorto the act contemplated, the act itself cannot with propriety be expressed by a tense indicating a period of timepreviousto the intention. The three sentences should be corrected thus, placing the second verb in the infinitive mood, "I intendedto callon him last night," "I meantto purchaseone yesterday," "You should have writtento tellher."
But the imperfect tense and the perfect tense are to be combined in such sentences as the following, "I remarked that they appeared to have undergone great fatigue;" because here the act of "undergoing fatigue"musthave taken placepreviousto the period in which you have had the opportunity of remarking its effect on their appearance; the sentence, therefore, is both grammatical and logical.
XX.
Another strange perversion of grammatical propriety is to be heard occasionally in the adoption of the present tense of the verb "to have," most probably instead of the past participle, but in situations in which the participle itself would be a redundance; such as, "If I hadhaveknown," "If he hadhavecome according to appointment," "If you hadhavesent me that intelligence," &c. Of what utility is the word "have" in the sentence at all? What officedoes it perform? If it stands in place of any other word, that other word would still be an incumbrance; but the sentence being complete without it, it becomes an illiterate superfluity. "If I hadhaveknown that you would have been there before me, I would have written to you tohavewaited till I hadhavecome." What a construction from the lips of an educated person! and yet we do sometimes hear thisslip-sloputtered by people who are considered to "speak French and Italianwell," and who enjoy the reputation of being "accomplished!"
XXI.
It is amusing to observe the broad line of demarcation which exists betweenvulgarbad grammar andgenteelbad grammar, and which characterizes the violation of almost every rule of syntax. The vulgar speaker uses adjectives instead of adverbs, and says, "This letter is writtenshocking;" the genteel speaker uses adverbs instead of adjectives, and says, "This writing looksshockingly." The perpetrators of the latter offence may fancy they can shield themselves behind the grammatical law which compels the employment of an adverb, not an adjective, to qualify a verb, and behind the first rule of syntax, which says "a verb must agree with its nominative." But whichisthe nominative in the expression alluded to?Whichperforms the act of looking,—the writing or the speaker? To say that a thinglookswhenwelookatit, is an idiom peculiar to our language, and some idioms are not reducible to rules; they are conventional terms which pass current, like bank notes, for the sterling they represent, but must not be submitted to the test of grammatical alchymy. It is improper, therefore, to say, "The queen looks beautifully," "The flowers smell sweetly," "This writing looks shockingly;" because it is the speaker that performs the act of looking, smelling, &c., not the noun lookedat;and though, by an idiomatical construction necessary to avoid circumlocution, the sentenceimputes the actto thething beheld, the qualifying word must express the quality of the thing spoken of,adjectively, instead of qualifying the act of the nominative understood,adverbially. What an adjective is to a noun, an adverb is to a verb; an adjective expresses the quality of a thing, and an adverb the manner of an action. Consider what it is you wish to express, thequality of a thing, or themanner of an action, and use an adjective or adverb accordingly. But beware that you discriminate justly; for though you cannot say, "The queen lookedmajesticallyin her robes," because here the act oflookingis performed by the spectator, who looksather, you can andmustsay, "The queen lookedgraciouslyon the petitioner," "The queen lookedmercifullyon his prayer," because here theactoflookingis performedbythe queen. You cannot say, "These flowers smell sweetly," because it isyouthat smell, and not theflowers; but you can say, "These flowers perfume the air deliciously," because it istheywhich impart the fragrance, not you. You cannot say, "This dress looks badly," because it is you that look, not the dress; but you can say, "This dressfitsbadly," because it is the dress that performs the act of fitting either well or ill. There are some peculiar idioms which it would be better to avoid altogether, if possible; but if you feel compelled to use them, take them as they are,—you cannot prune and refine them by the rules of syntax, and to attempt to do so shows ignorance as well as affectation.
XXII.
There is a mistake often committed in the use of the adverbs of place,hence,thence,whence. People are apt to say, "He will gofrom thenceto-morrow," &c. The preposition "from" is included in these adverbs, therefore it becomes tautology in sense when prefixed to them.