CHAPTER II.CRITICAL REMARKS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
Having, in the preceding chapter, explained the nature of that usage which gives law to language; and having proposed a few rules for the student’s direction in cases where usage is divided, and also where her authority may be justly questioned and checked by criticism; I intend, in the following pages, to present the young reader with a copious exemplification of the three general species of error against grammatical purity, arranging the examples in the order of the parts of speech.
“I rode in a one-horse chay.” It ought to be “a one-horse chaise.” There is no such word aschay.
“That this has been the true and proper acception of this word, I shall testify by one evidence.”—Hammond.Acceptionis obsolete; it ought to beacceptation.
“Were the workmen to enter into a contrary combination of the same kind, not to accept of a certain wage.”—Wealth of Nations.Wageis obsolete; the plural only is used.
“Their alliance was sealed by the nuptial of Henry, with the daughter of the Italian prince.”—Gibbon.Nuptialhas not, I believe, been used as a substantive since the days of Shakspeare, and may be deemed obsolete. The pluralnuptialsis the proper word.
“He showed that he had a full comprehension of the whole of the plan, and of the judicious adaption of the parts to the whole.”—Sheridan’s Life of Swift.Adaptionis obsolescent, if not obsolete:adaptationis the proper term.Adaptionis frequently employed by Swift, from whom Sheridan seems to have copied it.
... “Which even his brother modernists themselves, like ungrates, whisper so loud that it reaches up to the very garret I am now writing in.”—Swift.“Ungrate” is a barbarism. “Ingrate” is to be found in some of our English poets as an adjective, and synonymous with “ungrateful;” but “ungrate,” as a substantive, is truly barbarous. Almost equally objectionable is Steele’s use ofstupidas a substantive plural. “Thou art no longer to drudge in raising the mirth of stupids.”—Spectator, No. 468. And also ofignorant, “the ignorants of the lowest order.”—Ibid.
Pope also says, in one of his letters, “We are curious impertinents in the case of futurity.” This employment of the adjective as a noun substantive, though never sanctioned by general use, is now properly avoided by our most reputable writers. It tends to confusion, where distinction is necessary.
“The Deity dwelleth between the cherubims.” The Hebrews form the plural of masculines by addingim; “cherubims,” therefore, is a double plural. “Seraphims,” for the same reason, is faulty. The singular of these words being “cherub” and “seraph,” the plural is either “cherubs” and “seraphs,” or “cherubim” and “seraphim.” Milton has uniformly avoided this mistake, which circumstance Addison, in his criticisms on that author, has overlooked; nay, he has, even with Milton’s correct usage before him, committed the error. “The zeal of theseraphim,” says he, “breaks forth in a becoming warmth of sentiments and expressions, as the character which is given ofhim,” &c. Here “seraphim,” a plural noun, is used as singular. It should be, “the zeal of the seraph.”
“Nothing can be more pleasant than to see virtuosoes about a cabinet of medals descanting upon the value, the rarity, and authenticalness of the several pieces.”Authenticalness, though used by Addison, is obsolescent, and may, perhaps, be deemed a barbarism. It may be properly dismissed, as a harsh and unnecessary term.
“He broke off with Lady Gifford, one of his oldest acquaintances in life.”—Sheridan’s Life of Swift.Acquaintancesis now deemed a Scotticism, being almost peculiar to the northern parts of the island. Johnson, however, did notdisclaim it. “A young student from the inns of court, who has often attacked the curate of his father’s parish, with such arguments as his acquaintances could furnish.”—Rambler.We find it also in Steele; thus, “she pays everybody their own, and yet makes daily new acquaintances.”—Tatler, No. 109.
“I am sure that the farmeress at Bevis would feel emotions of vanity ... if she knew you gave her the character of a reasonable woman.”—Lord Peterborough to Pope.This, I believe, is the only passage in whichfarmeressis to be found; but, though it may therefore be pronounced a barbarism, the author could not have expressed himself so clearly and so concisely, in any other way. We every now and then, as Johnson observes, feel the want of a feminine termination.
“The bellowses were broken.” The noun, as here inflected, is barbarous. “Bellows” is a plural word denoting a single instrument, though consisting of two parts. There is, therefore, no such word as “bellowses.”
“I have read Horace Art of Poetry.” This expression may be deemed solecistical, being a violation of that rule, by which one substantive governs another in the genitive. It should be, “Horace’s Art of Poetry.” “These are ladies ruffles,” “this is the kings picture,” are errors of the same kind, for “ladies’ ruffles,” “the king’s picture.”
“These three great genius’s flourished at the same time.” Here “genius’s,” the genitive singular, is improperly used for “geniuses,” the nominative plural.
“They have of late, ’tis true, reformed, in some measure, the gouty joints and darning work ofwhereunto’s,whereby’s,thereof’s,therewith’s, and the rest of this kind.”—Shaftesbury.Here also the genitive singular is improperly used for the objective case plural. It should be,whereuntos,wherebys,thereofs,therewiths.
“Both those people, acute and inquisitive to excess, corrupted the sciences.”—Adams’s History of England.
“Two rival peoples, the Jews and the Samaritans, have preserved separate exemplars of it.”—Geddes’ Preface to his Translation of the Bible.The former of these passages involves a palpable error, the word “people,” here equivalent tonation, and in the singular number, being joined withbothor “the two,” a term of plurality. In the latter, this error is avoided, the noun being employed in the plural number. This usage, however, though sanctioned by the authority of our translators of the Bible in two passages, seems now to be obsolete.States,tribes,nations, appear to be preferable.
“I bought a scissars,” “I want a tongs,” “it is a tattered colours,” involve a palpable solecism, the term significant of unity being joined with a plural word. It should be “a pair of scissars,” “a pair of tongs,” “a pair of colours.”
“They tell us, that the fashion of jumbling fifty things together in a dish was at first introduced, in compliance to a depraved and debauched appetite.”—Swift.
We say, “comply with;” therefore, by Rule xvii. “in compliance with” is the analogical form of expression, and has the sanction of classical usage.
“The fortitude of a man, who brings his will to the obedience of his reason.”—Steele.Analogy requires “obedience to.” We say,obedient to command: the person obeying is expressed in the genitive, or with the prepositionof; and the person or thing obeyed with the prepositionto, as, “a servant’s obedience,” or “the obedience of a servant to the orders of his master.”
“Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.”—Bible.“Attendance” and “attention” are verbal nouns, derived from “attend.” When the verb signifies “to regard,” or “to fix the mind upon,” it is followed byto, as, “he attends to his studies,” and the verbal noun is “attention,” construed, agreeably to Rule xvii. in the same manner as the verb. Thus, “he gives attention to his studies.” But when “to attend” signifies “to wait on,” or “be present at,” it is followed byon,upon, orat, and is sometimes used without the preposition.
Thus, “if any minister refused to admit a lecturer recommended to him, he was required to attenduponthe committee.”—Clarendon.
“He attendedatthe consecration with becoming gravity.”—Hume.In this sense the verbal noun is “attendance,” and construed like the verb, when it bears this signification. In the sentence, therefore, last quoted, syntax requires, either “attendance at” or “attention to.” The latter conveys the meaning of the original.
“The observation of the Sabbath is a duty incumbent on every Christian.” It should be, “the observance.” Both substantives are derived from the verb “to observe.” When the verb means “to keep,” or “obey,” the verbal noun is “observance;” when “to remark,” or “to notice,” the noun is “observation.”
“They make such acquirements, as fit them for useful avocations.”—Staunton’s Embassy to China.
The wordavocationis frequently, as in the example before us, confounded withvocation. By the latter is clearly signified “calling,” “trade,” “employment,” “business,” “occupation;” and by the former is meant whatever withdraws, distracts, or diverts us from that business. No two words can be more distinct; yet we often see them confounded.
“A supplication of twenty days was decreed to his honour.”—Henry’s History of Britain.The termsupplicationis in our language confined to what Johnson calls “petitionary worship,” and always implies request, entreaty, or petition. The Latin termsupplicatiohas a more extensive meaning, and likewisesupplicium, each denoting not onlyprayer, strictly so called, but alsothanksgiving. The latter of these should have been employed by the author.
“Our pleasures are purer, when consecrated by nations, and cherished by the greatestgeniiamong men.”—Blackwell’s Mythology.Geniimeans spirits. (Seep. 18.) It ought to begeniuses.
I have already remarked (seep. 31), that, when the primary idea implied in the masculine and feminine terms is the chief object of attention, and when the sex does not enter as a matter of consideration, the masculine term should be employed, even when the female is signified. Thus, the Monthly Reviewer, in giving a critique on the poems ofMrs. Grant, says, in allusion to that lady, “such is the poet’s request.” This is strictly proper. He considers her merely as a writer of poetry. But, were we to say, “as a poet she ought not to choose for her theme the story of Abelard,” we should be chargeable with error. For this would imply, that the story of Abelard is not a fit subject for a poem,—a sentiment manifestly false. There is no incongruity between the subject and poetry, but between the subject and female delicacy. We ought, therefore, to say, “as a poetess, she ought not to choose for her theme the story of Abelard.”
“It was impossible not to suspect the veracity of this story.” “Veracity” is applicable to persons only, and properly denotes that moral quality or property, which consists in speaking truth, being in its import nearly synonymous with the fashionable, but grossly perverted term,honour: it is, therefore, improperly applied to things. It should be “the truthof this story.” The former denotes moral, and the latter physical truth. We therefore say “the truth” or “verity of the relation or thing told,” and “the veracity of the relater.”
Pope has entitled a small dissertation, prefixed to his translation of the Iliad, “A View of the Epic Poem,” misled, it is probable, by Bossu’s title of a similar work, “Traité du Poëme Epique.”Poemdenotes the work or thing composed; “the art of making,” which is here intended, is termedpoesy.
An error similar to this occurs in the following passage: “I apprehend that all thesophismwhich has been or can be employed, will not be sufficient to acquit this system at the tribunal of reason.”—Bolingbroke.“Sophism” is properly defined by Johnson, “a fallacious argument;” sophistry means “fallacious reasoning,” or “unsound argumentation.” The author should have said “all the sophistry,” or “all the sophisms.”
“The Greek is, doubtless, a language much superior in riches, harmony, and variety to the Latin.”—Campbell’s Rhet.As the properties or qualities of the languages are here particularly compared, I apprehend, that the abstract “richness” would be a more apposite term. “Riches” properlydenotes “the things possessed,” or “what constitutes the opulence of the owner;” “richness” denotes the state, quality, or property of the individual, as possessed of these. The latter, therefore, appears to me the more appropriate term.
“He felt himself compelled to acknowledge the justice of my remark.” Thejustnesswould, agreeably to Canon 1st, be the preferable word, the former term being confined to persons, and the latter to things.
“The negligence of this leaves us exposed to an uncommon levity in our usual conversation.”—Spectator.It ought to be “the neglect.” “Negligence” implies a habit; “neglect” expresses an act.
“For I am of opinion that it is better a language should not be wholly perfect, than it should be perpetually changing; and we must give over at one time, or at length infallibly change for the worse; as the Romans did when they began to quit their simplicity of style for affected refinements, such as we meet with in Tacitus, and other authors, which ended, by degrees, in many barbarities.”Barbarity, in this sense, is obsolescent. The univocal term,barbarism, is much preferable.
Gibbon, speaking of the priest, says, “to obtain the acceptation of this guide to salvation, you must faithfully pay him tythes.”Acceptationin this sense is obsolete, or at least nearly out of use; it should befavouroracceptance.
“She ought to lessen the extravagant power of the duke and duchess, by taking the disposition of employments into her own hands.”—Swift.Disposal, for reasons already assigned[140], is much better.
“The conscience of approving one’s self a benefactor to mankind, is the noblest recompense for being so.” “Conscience” is the faculty by which we judge our own conduct. It is here improperly used for “consciousness,” or the perception of what passes within ourselves.
“If reasons were as plenty as blackberries, I would give no man a reason on compulsion.”—Shakspeare.Hereplenty, a substantive, is improperly used forplentiful.
“It had a prodigiousquantityof windows.”—Spence’s Excursions.It should benumber. This error frequently occurs in common conversation. We hear of “a quantity of people,” of “a quantity of troops,” “a quantity of boys and girls,” just as if they were to be measured by the bushel, or weighed in the balance.—“To-morrow will suit me equally well.” If we enquire here for a nominative to the verb, we find none,morrowbeing under the government of the preposition. This error is so common, that we fear its correction is hopeless. The translators of the Bible seem carefully to have avoided this inaccuracy:—“To-morrow (i.e.‘on the morrow’) the Lord shall do this;” “And the Lord did that thing onthemorrow.” Analogy requires, that we should say, “Themorrow will suit me equally well.”
“I have the Dublin copy of Gibbon’s History.” This is a Scotticism forDublin edition; and so palpable, that I should not have mentioned it, were it not found in authors of no contemptible merit. “I have no right to be forced,” said a citizen to a magistrate, “to serve as constable.” This perversion of the wordright, originally, we believe, a cockneyism, is gradually gaining ground, and is found in compositions, into which nothing but extreme inattention can account for its introduction. Arightimplies a just claim, or title to some privilege, freedom, property, or distinction, supposed by the claimant to be conducive to his benefit. We should smile, if we heard a foreigner, in vindication of his innocence, say, “I have no right to be imprisoned;” “I have no right to be hanged.” The perversion here is too palpable to escape our notice. But we hear a similar, though not so ridiculous, an abuse of the word, in common conversation without surprise. “I have no right,” says one, “to be taxed with this indiscretion;” “I have no right,” says another, “to be subjected to this penalty.” These phraseologies are absurd. They involve a contradiction; they presume a benefit, while they imply an injury. The correlative term on one side isright, and on the otherobligation; a creditor has a right to a just debt, and the debtor is under an obligation to pay it. Instead of these indefensible phraseologies we should say, “I am not bound,” or “I am under no obligation tosubmit to this penalty;” “I ought not to be taxed with this indiscretion,” or “you have no right to subject me,” “you have no right to tax me.”
Robertson, when speaking of the Mexican form of government (Book viith), says, “But the description of their policy and laws is so inaccurate and contradictory, that it is difficult to delineate the form of their constitution with any precision.” I should here prefer the appropriate and univocal termpolity, which denotes merely the form of government;policymeans rather wisdom or prudence, or the art of governing, which may exist where there is no settledpolity.
“A letter relative to certain calumnies and misrepresentations which have appeared in the Edinburgh Review, with an exposition of the ignorance of the new critical junto.”—Here, agreeably to Canon I. (seep. 229), I should preferexposure, as being a word strictly univocal. It would conduce to perspicuity were we to considerexpositionas the verbal noun ofexpound, and confine it entirely toexplanation, andexposureas the verbal noun ofexpose, signifying the act of setting out, or the state of being set out or exposed.
“Instead of an able man, you desire to have him an insignificant wrangler, opiniatre in discourse, and priding himself on contradicting others.”—Locke.Opiniatreis a barbarism; it should beopinionative.
“And studied lines, and fictious circles draw.”—Prior.
“And studied lines, and fictious circles draw.”—Prior.
“And studied lines, and fictious circles draw.”—Prior.
The wordfictiousis of Prior’s own coining; it is barbarous.
“The punishment that belongs to that great and criminous guilt is the forfeiture of his right and claim to all mercies.”—Hammond.Criminousis a barbarism.
“Which, even in the most overly view, will appear incompatible with any sort of music.”—Kames’s Elements.Overlyis a Scotticism; in England it is now obsolete. The proper term iscursoryorsuperficial.
“Who should believe, that a man should be a doctor forthe cure of bursten children?”—Steele.The participleburstenis now obsolete.
“Callisthenes, the philosopher, that followed Alexander’s court, and hated the king, being asked, how one should become thefamousestman in the world, answered, By taking away him that is.”—Bacon’s Apophth.The superlative is a barbarism; it should be, “most famous.”
“I do not like these kind of men.” Here the plural wordtheseis joined to a noun singular; it should be, “this kind.” “Those sort,” “these kind of things,” are gross solecisms.
“Neither do I see it is any crime, farther than ill manners, to differ in opinion from the majority of either, or both houses; and that ill manners I have often been guilty of.”—Swift’s Examiner.Here is another egregious solecism. He should have said, “those ill manners,” or “that species of ill manners.”
“The landlord was quite unfurnished of every kind of provision.”—Sheridan’s Life of Swift.We say, “to furnishwith,” not “to furnishof.”Furnishedandunfurnishedare construed in the same manner. It should be, “unfurnishedwith.”
“A child of four years old was thus cruelly deserted by its parents.” This form of expression frequently occurs, and is an egregious solecism. It should be, “a child four years old,” or “aged four years,” not “of four years.” Those who employ this incorrect phraseology, seem misled by confounding two very different modes of expression, namely, “a child of four years of age,” or “of the age of four years,” and “a child four years old.” The prepositionofis requisite in the two first of these forms, but inadmissible in the third. They would not say, “I am of four years old,” but “I am four years old;” hence, consistently, they ought to say, “a child four years old.” “At ten years old, I was put to a grammar school.”—Steele.Grammatically this is, “I old at ten years.”
“This account is very differenttowhat I told you.” “I found your affairs had been managed in a different mannerthanwhat I advised.” Both these phraseologies are faulty.It should be in each, “differentfrom.” The verb “to differ” is construed withfrombefore the second object of disparity; the adjective therefore should (by Rule xvii.) be construed in the same manner.
“These words have the same sense of those others.”Sameshould be followed withas,with, or the relativeswho,which,that. It ought, therefore, to be, “as those,” or “with those,” or “have the sense of those others.”
“I shall ever depend on your constant friendship, kind memory, and good offices, though I were never to see or hear the effects of them, like the trust we have in benevolent spirits, who, though we never see or hear them, we think are constantly serving and praying for us.”—Pope’s Letters to Atterbury.Likecan have no grammatical reference to any word in the sentence butI, and this reference is absurd. He should have said, “as, orjust as, we trust in benevolent spirits.”
“This gentleman rallies the best of any manI know.”—Addison.The superlative must be followed byof, the preposition implyingout ofa plurality, expressed either by a collective noun, or a plural number. But here we have a selection denoted byof, and the selection to be made out of one. This is absurd. It should be, “better than any other”—the best of all men—“I know;” “this gentleman, of all my acquaintance, rallies the best;” or “of all my acquaintance, there is no one, who rallies so well as this gentleman.”
“Besides, those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, are best, of all others, qualified to revenge that defect with their breath.”—Preface to A Tale of a Tub.
“Here,” says Sheridan, “the disjunction of the wordbestfrom the wordqualifiedmakes the sentence uncouth, which would run better thus, ‘are, of all others, best qualified.’” So far Mr. Sheridan is right; but he has left uncorrected a very common error. The antecedent subject of comparison is here absurdly referred at once to the same, and to a different aggregate, the wordofreferring it toothers, to which it is opposed, and to which therefore it cannot, without a contradiction, be said to belong. The sentence, therefore, involves an absurdity: either the wordothersshould be expunged,when the sentence would run thus, “Those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, are, of all, best qualified to revenge that defect;” or, if the wordothersbe retained, the clause should be, “are better qualified than all others.”[141]
The phraseology here censured is admissible in those cases only where a previous comparison has been made. If we say, “To engage a private tutor for a single pupil is, perhaps, of all others, the least eligible mode of giving literary instruction,” (Barrow on Education,) without making that previous discrimination, which the wordothersimplies, we commit an error. But we may say with propriety, “I prefer the mode of education adopted in our public schools; and of allother modes, to engage a private tutor appears to me the least eligible.”
“They could easier get them by heart, and retain them in memory.”—Adams’s History of England.Here the adjective is improperly used for the adverb; it ought to be “more easily.” Swift commits a similar error, when he says, “Ned explained his text so full and clear,” for “so fully and clearly.”
“Thus much, I think, is sufficient to serve, by way of address, to my patrons, the true modern critics, and may very well atone for my past silence as well as for that, which I am like to observe for the future.”—Swift.Like, orsimilar, is here improperly used forlikely, a word in signification nearly synonymous withprobable. We say, “he is likely to do it,” or “it is probable he will do it.”
“Charity vaunteth not itself, doth not behave itself unseemly.” Here the adjectiveunseemlyis improperly used for the adverb, denoting “in an unseemly manner.”Unseemlilynot being in use, the wordindecentlyshould be substituted.
“The Romans had no other subsistence but the scantypillage of a few farms.”Otheris redundant; it should be, “no subsistence but,” or “no other subsistence than.” In the Saxon language, and the earlier English writers, the wordotheris not uniformly followed bythan, but sometimes withbut,before,save,except[142], thus, Mark xii. 32, “thær an God is, and nis other butan him,” thus rendered in the Bishops’ Translation, “there is one God, and there is none but he,” and in the common version, “none other but he.” In the Book of Common Prayer we have, “Thou shalt have no other Gods but me;” and the same form of expression occurs in Addison, Swift, and other contemporary writers. Usage, however, seems of late to have decided almost universally in favour ofthan. This decision is not only consistent with analogy, if the wordotheris to be deemed a comparative, but may also, in some cases, be subservient to perspicuity.No other but,no other beside,no other except, are equivalent expressions, and do not perhaps convey precisely the same idea withnone but,no other than. Thus, if we take an example similar to Baker’s, and suppose a person to say “A called on me this morning,” B asks, “No one else?” “No other,” answers A, “but my stationer.” Here the expression, as Baker remarks, seems strictly proper, the wordsno otherhaving a reference to A. But if the stationer had been the only visitor, he should say, “none but,” or “no otherthanthe stationer called on me this morning.” This is the opinion of Baker. The distinction, which he wishes to establish, issufficiently evident; but that it is warranted by strict analysis, I do not mean to affirm.
“He has eaten no bread, nor drunk no water, these two days.”Nois here improperly used forany, two negatives making an affirmative: it should be, “nor drunk any water.”
“The servant must have an undeniable character.”Undeniableis equivalent toincontrovertible, or “not admitting dispute.” An “undeniable character,” therefore, means, a character which cannot be denied or disputed, whether good or bad: it should be “unexceptionable.”
“But you are too wise to propose to yourselves an object inadequate to your strength.”—Watson’s History of Philip III.Inadequatemeans “falling short of due proportion,” and is here improperly used in a sense nearly the reverse. It should be “to which your strength is inadequate,” or “superior to your strength.”
“I received a letter to-day from our mutual friend.” I concur with Baker in considering this expression to be incorrect. A may be a friend to B, and also to C, and is therefore a friend common to both; but not their mutual friend: for this implies reciprocity between two individuals, or two parties. The individuals may be mutually friends; but one cannot be the mutual friend of the other. Locke more properly says, “I esteem the memory of our common friend.” This is, doubtless, the correct expression; but, as the termcommonmay denote “ordinary,” or “not uncommon,” the wordmutual, though not proper, may, perhaps, as Baker observes, be tolerated.
The superlativeslowestandlowermost,highestanduppermost, appear to me to be frequently confounded. Thus we say, “the lowest house in the street,” when we mean the lowest in respect to measurement, from the basement to the top, and also the lowest in regard to position, the inferioritybeing occasionedby declivity. Now it appears to me, that when we refer to dimension, we should say,lowestorhighest; and when we refer to site or situation, we ought to say,lowermostoruppermost.
“It was due, perhaps, more to the ignorance of the scholars, than to the knowledge of the masters.”—Swift.Itshould be rather, “it was owing,” or “it is ascribable.” The author had previously been speaking of the first instructors of mankind, and questioning their claim to the title of sages. To say, then, that their right to this title, or that the appellation itself, “was due more to ignorance than to knowledge,” is manifestly improper. Swift, however, was not singular in using the adjective in this sense. Steele, and some other contemporary writers, employed it in the same acceptation. “The calamities of children are due to the negligence of the parents.”—Spectator, No. 431. It is now seldom or never employed as equivalent to “owing to,” or “occasioned by.”
“Risible,” “ludicrous,” and “ridiculous,” are frequently confounded.Risibledenotes merely the capacity of laughing, and is applied to animals having the faculty of laughter, as, “man is a risible creature.”Ludicrousis applicable to things exciting laughter simply;ridiculousto things exciting laughter with contempt. The tricks of a monkey areludicrous, the whimsies of superstition areridiculous. “The measure of the mid stream for salmon among our forefathers is not less risible.”—Kames’s Sketches.He should have said “ridiculous.”
We have already expressed our doubt of the propriety of using the numeral adjectiveone, as referring to a plurality of individuals, denoted by a plural noun. (Seep. 48.) There is something which is not only strange to the ear, but also strikes us as ungrammatical, in saying[143], “The Greeks and the Trojans continued the contest; the one were favoured by Juno, the other by Venus.” At the same time, it must be acknowledged, that there seems to be an inconsistency in questioning this phraseology, and yet retaining some others, which appear to be analogous to it, and can plead in their defence reputable usage. We say, “The Romans and the Carthaginians contended with each other;” and “The English, the Dutch, and the Spaniards disputed, one with another, the sovereignty of the sea.” Hereeachandoneclearly refer to a plurality, expressed by a noun plural. A similar example occurs in the following sentence: “As the greatest part of mankind are more affected by things, which strike the senses, than by excellences, that are discovered by reason and thought, they form very erroneous judgments, when they compareonewith the other.”—Guardian.If we inquire, what one? we find the answer to be “things.” Here is a manifest incongruity, which might have been prevented, by saying, “one subject with the other,” or “when they compare them together.” As this construction ofone, referring to a noun plural, seems irreconcilable with the notion of unity, and may be avoided, it becomes a question, whether this phraseology ought to be imitated. The subject, as far as I know, has not been considered by any of our grammarians.
“That this was the cause of the disaster, was apparent to all.”Apparentis sometimes used in this sense. The word, however, is equivocal, as it denotesseeming, opposed toreal; andobvious, opposed todoubtfulorobscure. “I consider the difference between him and the two authors above mentioned, as more apparent than real.”—Campbell.Hereapparentis opposed toreal; and to this sense it would be right to confine it, as thus all ambiguity would be effectually prevented. “But there soon appeared very apparent reasons for James’s partiality.”—Goldsmith.Obvious, orevident, would unquestionably be preferable.
“How seldom, then, does it happen, that the mind does not find itself in similar circumstances? Very rare indeed.”—Trusler’s Preface to Synon.The adjectiverareis here improperly used for the adverb. As the question, indeed, is adverbially proposed, it is somewhat surprising that the author should answeradjectively: it ought to be, “very rarely.”
“No man had everlessfriends, and more enemies.”Lessrefers to quantity,fewerto number; it should be, “fewerfriends.”
“The mind may insensibly fall off from this relish of virtuous actions, and by degrees exchange that pleasure, which it takes in the performance of its duty, for delights of a much more inferior and unprofitable nature.”—Addison.Inferiorimplies comparison, but it is grammatically a positive. Whenone thing is, in any respect, lower than another, we say, “it is inferior to it;” and if a third thing were still lower, we should say, “it is still more inferior.” But the author is comparing only two subjects; he should therefore have said, “of a much inferior, and more unprofitable nature.” The expression “more preferable” is for the same reason faulty, unless when two degrees of excess are implied.
The adjectivesagreeable,suitable,conformable,independent,consistent,relative,previous,antecedent, and many others, are often used, where their several derivative adverbs would be more properly employed; as, “he livesagreeableto nature,” “he wrote to mepreviousto his coming to town,” “tolerablegood,” “he actedconformableto his promise.” It is worthy of remark, however, that the idiom of our language is not repugnant to some of these phraseologies; a circumstance which many of our grammarians have overlooked, if we may judge from the severity with which they have condemned them. If I say, “he acted according to nature,” the expression is deemed unobjectionable: but is notaccordinga participle, or, perhaps, here more properly aparticipial? “He acted contrary to nature” is also considered as faultless; but is notcontraryan adjective? Were we to reason on abstract principles, or to adopt what is deemed the preferable phraseology, we should say, “contrarily” and “accordingly to nature.” This, however, is not the case. “Contrary to nature,” “according to nature,” and many similar phraseologies, are admitted as good: why, then, is “conformable to nature,” an expression perfectly analogous, so severely condemned? Johnson has, indeed, uselessly enough, in my opinion, calledaccordinga preposition; fearful, however, of error, he adds, it is properly a participle, for it is followed byto.Accordingis always a participle, as much asagreeing, and can be nothing else. Becausesecundumin Latin is termed a preposition, hence some have referredaccordingto the same species of words. With equal propriety mightin the power ofbe deemed a preposition, becausepenesin Latin is so denominated. Now, if “he acted contrary to nature” and “according to nature” be deemed unexceptionable expressions, with many others of the samekind, which might be adduced, it follows that, “he acted agreeable,” “conformable,” “suitable to nature,” may plead in their favour these analogous phraseologies. I offer these observations, in order to show that, misled by abstract reasonings, or by the servile imitation of another language, we sometimes hastily condemn, as altogether inadmissible, modes of expression, which are not repugnant to our vernacular idiom. I would not, however, be understood to mean, that the adverb is not, in these cases, much to be preferred, when it can be employed consistently with good usage. For, if we say, “he acts agreeable to the laws of reason,” the question is, who or what is agreeable? the answer, according to the strict construction of the sentence, ishe; but it is nothe, buthis mode of acting, of which the accordance is predicated;agreeablyis, therefore, the preferable term.
I observe also, that, wherever the adjective is employed to modify the meaning of another adjective, it becomes particularly exceptionable, and can scarcely, indeed, plead aught in its favour, as, “indifferent good,” “tolerable strong,” instead of “indifferently good,” and “tolerably strong.” The following phraseology is extremely inelegant, and is scarcely admissible on any principle of analogy: “Immediately consequent to the victory, Drogheda was invested.”—Belsham’s History.What was consequent? Grammatically “Drogheda.”
“No other person, besides my brother, visited me to-day.” Here the speaker means to say that no person, besides his brother, visited him to-day; but his expression implies two exceptions fromnone, the termsotherandbesideseach implying one, and can, therefore, be correct on this supposition only, that some one besides his brother had visited him. It should be rather, “no person besides.”
“The old man had, some fifty years ago, been no mean performer on the vielle.”—Sterne.This phraseology appears to me very objectionable; and can be proper in no case, except when the date of the period is to be expressed as uncertain. The wordsomeshould be cancelled. We may say, “I was absent some days,” because the period is indefinite; but to say, “I was absent some five days,” either involves an incongruity, representing a period as at once definite andindefinite; or denotes “some five days or other,” a meaning which the expression is rarely intended to signify.
“Brutus and Aruns killed one another.” It should be, “each other:” “one another” is applied to more than two. “The one the other” would be correct, though inelegant.
“It argued the most extreme vanity.”—Hume.Extremeis derived from a Latin superlative, and denotes “the farthest,” or “greatest possible:” it cannot, therefore, be compared.
“Of all vices pride is the most universal.”Universalis here improperly used forgeneral. The meaning of the latter admits intension and remission, and may, therefore, be compared. The former is an adjective, whose signification cannot be heightened or lessened; it therefore rejects all intensive and diminutive words, as,so,more,less,least,most. The expression should be, “Of all vices pride is the most general.”
“Tho’ learn’d, well-bred; and tho’ well-bred, sincere:Modestly bold, and humanly severe.”—Pope.
“Tho’ learn’d, well-bred; and tho’ well-bred, sincere:Modestly bold, and humanly severe.”—Pope.
“Tho’ learn’d, well-bred; and tho’ well-bred, sincere:
Modestly bold, and humanly severe.”—Pope.
Humanandhumane, as Dr. Campbell observes, are sometimes confounded. The former properly means “belonging to man;” the latter, “kind and compassionate:”humanly, therefore, is improperly, in the couplet now quoted, used forhumanely.
Pronouns are so few in number, and so simple, that this species of error, in respect to them, can scarcely occur. To this class, however, may perhaps be reduced such as,his’n,her’n,our’n,your’n,their’n, forhis own,her own,our own, &c., or forhis one,her one, &c.
“Who calls?” “’T is me.” This is a violation of that rule, by which the verbto behas the same case after it that it has before it. It should be, “It is I.”
“You were the quarrel,” says Petulant in “The Way ofthe World.” Millamant answers, “Me!” For the reason just given it should be “I.”
“Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults.” As the relative refers to persons, it should bewho.
“Nor is mankind so much to blame, in his choice thus determining him.”—Swift.Mankindis a collective noun, and is uniformly considered as plural;his, therefore, is a gross solecism.
“By this institution, each legion, to whom a certain portion of auxiliaries was allotted, contained within itself every species of lighter troops, and of missile weapons.”—Gibbon.It ought to be,to which—the pronounitself, which follows, referring to a noun of the neuter gender.To whomanditselfcannot each agree with one common antecedent.
“The seeming importance given to every part of female dress, each of which is committed to the care of a different sylph.”—Essay on the Writings of Pope.This sentence is ungrammatical.Eachimplying “one of two,” or “every one singly of more than two,” requires the correlative to be considered as plural; yet the antecedentpart, to which it refers, is singular. It should be “all parts of female dress.”
“To be sold, the stock of Mr. Smith, left off business.” This is an ungrammatical and very offensive vulgarism. The verbleft off, as Baker observes, has no subject, to which it can grammatically belong. It should be, “who has left off,” or “leaving off business” “A. B. lieutenant,viceC. D. resigned.” Here is a similar error. Is C. D. resigned? or is it the office which has been resigned? An excessive love of brevity gives occasion to such solecisms.
“He was ignorant, the profane historian, of the testimony which he is compelled to give.”—Gibbon’s Decline of the Roman Empire.
“The youth and inexperience of the prince, he was only fifteen years of age, declined a perilous encounter.”—Ib.
In the former sentencethe historianappears neither as the nominative, nor the regimen to any verb. If it be intended to agree withheby apposition, it should have immediately followed the pronoun. If it be designed emphatically, and ironically, to mark the character of the historian, it shouldhave been thrown into the form of a parenthetic exclamation. In the latter sentence a phraseology occurs, which, notwithstanding its frequency in Gibbon, is extremely awkward and inelegant. The fault may be corrected either by throwing the age of the prince into a parenthesis, or, preferably, by the substitution ofwhoforhe.
“Fare thee well” is a phraseology which, though sanctioned by the authority of a celebrated poet, and also by other writers, involves a solecism. The verb is intransitive, and its imperative isfare thou. No one would say, “I fare me well,” “we fare us well.”
“That faction in England, who most powerfully opposed his arbitrary pretensions.”—Mrs. Macaulay.It ought rather to be, “that faction in England,which.” It is justly observed by Priestley, “that a term, which only implies the idea of persons, and expresses them by some circumstance or epithet, will hardly authorize the use ofwho.”
“He was certainly one of the most acute metaphysicians, one of the deepest philosophers, and one of the best critics, and most learned divines, which modern times have produced.”—Keith on the Life and Writings of Campbell.
“Moses was the mildest of all men, which were then on the face of the earth.”—Geddes.
“Lord Sidney was one of the wisest and most active governors, whom Ireland had enjoyed for several years.”—Hume.
In the two first of these passages,whichis improperly applied to persons; in the last, the author has avoided this impropriety, and usedwhom. The pronounthat, however, is much preferable towho, orwhich, after a superlative.
“Such of the Morescoes might remain, who demeaned themselves as Christians.”—Watson’s Life of Philip III.Suchis here improperly followed bywhoinstead ofas. The correlative terms arethose who, andsuch as.
“It is hard to be conceived, that a set of men could ever be chosen by their contemporaries, to have divine honours paid to them, while numerous persons were alive, who knew their imperfections, and who themselves, or their immediate ancestors, might have as fair a pretence, and come in competitionwith them.”—Prideaux’s Connexion.The identity of subject, in the relative clauses of this sentence, requires the repetition of the same pronoun. It should be, “who themselves, or whose immediate ancestors.”
“If you were here, you would find three or four in the parlour, after dinner, whom you would say past their afternoons very agreeably.”—Swift.The pronounwhomshould not be under the government of the verbwould say, having no connection with it; but should be a nominative to the verbpassed; thus, “who, you would say, passed their afternoons.”
“By these means, that religious princess became acquainted with Athenias, whom she found was the most accomplished woman of her age.”Whom, for the reason already assigned, should bewho, being the nominative to the verbwas. If it were intended to be a regimen to the verbfound, the sentence should proceed thus, “whom she found to be.”
“Solomon was the wisest man, him only excepted, who was much greater and wiser than Solomon.” In English the absolute case is the nominative; it should, therefore, be, “he only excepted.”
“Who, instead of being useful members of society, they are pests to mankind.” Here the verbarehas two nominatives,whoandthey, each representing the same subjects of discourse. One of them is redundant; and by the use of both, the expression becomes solecistical, there being no verb to which the relativewhocan be a nominative.