“Uneath may she endure the flinty street,To tread them with her tender feeling feet.”—Shakspeare.
“Uneath may she endure the flinty street,To tread them with her tender feeling feet.”—Shakspeare.
“Uneath may she endure the flinty street,
To tread them with her tender feeling feet.”—Shakspeare.
Uneathis now obsolete, and may therefore be deemed a barbarism.
“In northern clime, a val’rous knightDid whilom kill his bear in fight,And wound a fiddler.”—Hudibras.
“In northern clime, a val’rous knightDid whilom kill his bear in fight,And wound a fiddler.”—Hudibras.
“In northern clime, a val’rous knight
Did whilom kill his bear in fight,
And wound a fiddler.”—Hudibras.
Whilomis now entirely disused. The adverbswhilere,erst, and perhaps alsoanon, may be ranked in the class of barbarisms.
“And this attention gives ease to the person, because the clothes appear unstudily graceful.”—Wollstonecraft’s Original Stories.The wordunstudilyis barbarous, and its mode of derivation contrary to analogy.
“Use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thine often infirmities.”Often, an adverb, is here improperly used asan adjective, in accordance with the substantive “infirmities.” It ought to be “thy frequent infirmities.”
“We may cast in such seeds and principles, as we judge most likely to take soonest and deepest root.” Here, as in the preceding example, the adverb “soonest” is used as an adjective; for the connexion is, “soonestroot,” and “deepestroot.” Now, we cannot say “soon root,” the former term being incapable of qualifying the latter; nor can we, therefore, say, “soonestroot.” It ought to be, “the earliest and the deepest root.”
“After these wars, of which they hope for a soon and prosperous issue.”Soon issueis another example of the same error.
“His lordship inveighed, with severity, against the conduct of the then ministry.” Herethen, the adverb equivalent toat that time, is solecistically employed as an adjective, agreeing withministry. This error seems to gain ground; it should therefore be vigilantly opposed, and carefully avoided. “The ministry of that time,” would be correct.
“He tells them, that the time should come, that the temple should be graced with the presence of the Messias.” Herethatis incorrectly used forwhen,i.e.“at which time the temple should be graced.”
“By letters, dated the third of May, we learn that the West India fleet arrived safely.” Heresafelyis improperly used forsafe. The adverb is equivalent to “in a safe manner;” and when it is said, “that the fleet arrivedsafely,” it signifies that the manner of the arrival, rather than the fleet itself, was safe or free from accident. If I say, “he carried the parcel as safely as possible,” it implies merely his great attention to the manner of carrying it; but this does not infallibly exclude accident; for I may add, “but he unluckily fell,” or, “he was unfortunately thrown down, and the glass was broken.” But if I say, “he carried it as safe as possible,” or, “he carried it safe,” it implies that it came safe, or escaped all accidents. We should, therefore, say “that the West India fleet arrived safe.” In disapproving the expression, “he arrivedsafely,” I concur with Baker; but the judicious reader will perceive, that my reason for reprehending it, doesnot entirely coincide with his. The author’s words are these: “If a man says, that he arrived safely, or in a safe manner, he seems to suppose, that there is danger of some mischance in arriving. But what danger is there to be apprehended in the circumstance of arriving? The danger is only during the journey, or voyage; in the arrival there is none at all. The proper way of speaking is, therefore, ‘I arrived safe,’ that is, ‘having escaped all the dangers of the passage.’”
“The poor woman carried them to the person to whom they were directed; and when Lady Cathcart recovered her liberty, she received her diamonds safely.” It should be, “she received her diamonds safe.”
Errors like the one on which I have now animadverted, frequently arise from a desire to avoid the opposite mistake; I mean the improper use of the adjective for the adverb.—SeeSyntax, Rule V. Note16. Hence many, when they employ such phraseologies as I have here exemplified, conceive that they express themselves with the strictest accuracy, thus verifying the poet’s observation,
“In vitium ducit culpæ fuga, si caret arte.”
“In vitium ducit culpæ fuga, si caret arte.”
“In vitium ducit culpæ fuga, si caret arte.”
In order to avoid this error, it should be remembered, that many English verbs, while they affirm some action, passion, or state of the subject, frequently serve as a copula, connecting the subject with another predicate. This is one of those idioms, in the grammar of our language, which demand the particular attention of the classical scholar. For, though an acquaintance with the learned languages will not seduce him into an improper use of an adjective for the adverb, it may, as in the example now before us, betray him into the converse error. And I am inclined to think, that from a propensity almost irresistible in the classical scholar to assimilate our language with the Latin tongue, our lexicographers have designated many of our words as adverbs, which are strictly adjectives. When it is said, for example, “it goes hard,” Johnson considershardas an adverb. Yet when we say, “it goes contrary,” he considerscontraryas an adjective. There appears to me to be more of caprice than of reason, more of prejudice than of truth, in this classification. Both words, I am persuaded, belong to one and the same species. Nay, I might venture to assert, that no person, who had studied theprinciples of the English language, and of that only, would pronounce the one to be an adverb, and the other an adjective. It is to be observed, likewise, that we have the regular adverbhardlyto express the manner. When we say, “he reasoned concerning the rule,” “we argued respecting the fact,” “he lives according to nature,” is there not something extremely arbitrary and unphilosophical, in callingconcerninga preposition,accordinga preposition, followed byto, but properly a participle, andrespectinga participle? Are not all the three participles? Yet Johnson has classed them, as I have now mentioned. But the farther illustration of this subject would lead us into a field much too large for the limits of the present treatise. We must therefore revert to our primary observation, in which we cautioned the reader against the improper use of the adjective for the adverb. It should be remembered that, when it is intended to predicate something of the subject, beside the attribute of the verb, the adjective should be employed; but, when it is intended to express merely some modification of the attribute of the verb, we should then use the adverb. The difference may be illustrated by the following examples. When Gustavus says to his troops, “your limbs tread vigorous and your breasts beat high,” he predicates with the act of treading their physical strength; but had he said, “your limbs tread vigorously,” it would merely modify their treading, and express an act, not a constitutional habit. The same distinction may be made between saying with Arnoldus in the same play, “the tear rolls graceful down his visage,” and “the tear rolls gracefully.” The former predicates grace of the tear itself, the latter merely of its rolling. When we say, “he looks sly,” we mean he has the look or the appearance of being a sly man; when it is said, “he looks slyly,” we signify that he assumes a sly look. When we say, “it tastes good,” we affirm that the subject is of a good quality, whether the taste be pleasant or unpleasant; if we say, “it tastes well,” we affirm the taste of it to be pleasant.
“The manner of it is thus.” The adverbthusmeans “in this manner.” The expression, therefore, amounts to “the manner of it is in this manner.” It should be, “the mannerof it is this,” or, “this is the manner of it.” “This much is certain.” Better, “thus much,” or “so much.”
“It is a long time since I have been devoted to your interest.”Sinceproperly means “from the time when,” and not “during which time.” The expression might be construed into a meaning the reverse of that which is intended, implying, that the attachment had ceased for a long time. It should be, “it is a long time since I became devoted,” or, “it is a long time, that I have been devoted to your interest.”
“It is equally the same.”Equallyis here redundant; it ought to be, “it is the same.”
“Whenever I call on him, he always inquires for you.”Whenevermeans “at what time soever,” “always when,” or “as often as;”always, therefore, is redundant.
“They will not listen to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely.”Neveris here improperly used forever. It ought to be, “charm he ever so wisely;” that is, “however wisely,” or “how wisely soever, he may charm.”
“And even in those characteristical portraits, on which he has lavished all the decorations of his style, he is seldom or ever misled.”—Stewart’s Life of Robertson.This error is the converse of the former. It ought to be, “seldom or never;” that is, “seldom, or at no time.” “Seldom or ever” is equivalent to “seldom or always,” or to “seldom or at any time;” expressions evidently improper.
“Whether thou be my son or not.”—Bible.“Whether you will keep his commandments, or no.” Both these phraseologies are in use; but I am inclined to agree with those grammarians, who prefer the former, as more consistent with the ellipsis—“Whether thou be, or be not.” “Whether you will keep his commandments, or will not keep.”
“Some years after being released from prison, by reason of his consummate knowledge of civil law, and military affairs, he was soon exalted to the supreme power.” The first clause of this sentence is ambiguous; for the sentence may imply, either that he gained the supremacy, some years after he was released from prison, that period being left indeterminate; or that some years after a time previously mentioned, he was released from prison, and attained the chief power.The latter being the author’s meaning, it ought to be, “some yearsafterwardsbeing released from prison.” Another ambiguity is here involved by improper arrangement; for, as the sentence stands, it is somewhat doubtful, whether his consummate knowledge was the cause of his releasement, or the cause of his elevation. This error, however, belongs more to the rhetorician, than the grammarian. The French term this ambiguity, “construction louche,” or asquinting construction.
The following error consists in wrong collocation: “The Celtiberi in Spain borrowed that name from the Celtæ and Iberi, from whom they were jointly descended.” Jointly, with whom? It should be, “from whom (the Celtæ and Iberi) jointly they were descended.”
“And the Quakers seem to approach nearly the only regular body of Deists in the universe, the literati, or the disciples of Confucius in China.”—Hume’s Essays.The adverbnearly, which is synonymous withalmost, is here improperly used fornear[147]. It should be,approach near.
“This is the Leviathan, from whence the terrible wits of our age are said to borrow their weapons.”—Swift.Fromis here redundant;whence, denoting “from which place.”
“An ancient author prophecies from hence.”—Dryden.Here a similar impropriety is involved. It should be,hence.
“E’er we can offer our complaints,Behold him present with his aid.”
“E’er we can offer our complaints,Behold him present with his aid.”
“E’er we can offer our complaints,
Behold him present with his aid.”
E’er, a contraction forever, which is synonymous withalways, and alsoat any time, is here improperly used forereorbefore.
In the two following passages, there appears to me to be a similar error: “Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken.”—Bible.“I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.”—Ibid.
“And, as there is now never a woman in England, I hope, I may talk of women without offence.”—Steele.
“He spake never a word.”—Bible.
This usage of the word “never,” is now, I believe, entirely confined to the vulgar.
“As for conflagrations and great droughts, they do not merely dispeople and destroy.”—Bacon.Merelyis here used, as it is uniformly by Bacon, and very frequently by Shakspeare, forentirely. In this sense, it is obsolete; and it now signifiespurely,simply,only,nothing more than. From inattention to this, the passage, now quoted, has been corrupted in several editions. They have it, “do not merely dispeople, but destroy,” conveying a sentiment very different from what the author intended.
“Who do you speak to?” Here the preposition is joined with the nominative, instead of the objective case. It should be, “whom do you speak to?” or “to whom do you speak?”To whois a solecism.
“He talked to you and I, of this matter, some days ago.” It should be, “toyouandme;” that is, “to you and to me.”
“Now Margaret’s curse is fallen upon our heads,When she exclaim’d on Hastings you and I.”Shakspeare.
“Now Margaret’s curse is fallen upon our heads,When she exclaim’d on Hastings you and I.”Shakspeare.
“Now Margaret’s curse is fallen upon our heads,
When she exclaim’d on Hastings you and I.”
Shakspeare.
It ought to be, “on Hastingsyouandme,” the pronouns being under the government of the preposition understood.
“Neither do I think, that anything could be more entertaining, than the story of it exactly told, with such observations, and in such a spirit, style, and manner, as you alone are capable of performing it.” This sentence is extremely faulty. “To perform a story” is not English; and the relative clause is ungrammatical, the preposition being omitted. It should be, “performing it in,” which would be grammatically correct, but inelegant, as well as improper. It would be better expressed thus, “in that spirit, style, and manner, in which you alone are capable of narrating it.”
“Notwithstanding of the numerous panegyrics on the ancient English liberty.”—Hume’s Essays.The error here inthe use of the preposition afternotwithstanding, is, I believe, peculiar to Scotland.Notwithstandingis a compound word of the same import asnot preventing. The grammatical construction therefore is, “the numerous panegyrics notwithstanding,” that is, “not hindering,” the noun and the participle being in the absolute case.Ofrenders the expression solecistical.
“If policy can prevail upon force.”—Addison.Hereuponis improperly used forover.To prevail on, is “to persuade;”to prevail over, is “to overcome.”
“I have set down the names of several gentlemen, who have been robbed in Dublin streets, for these three years past.”—Swift.It should be, “within these three years past.” Swift’s expression implies, as Baker observes, that these gentlemen had been robbed during the whole three years.
“Ye blind guides, who strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” In this sentence, the prepositionatis very improperly used forout. It should be, “strain out a gnat;” that is, exclude it from the liquor by straining.
“Oliver Proudfute, a freeman and burgess, was slain upon the streets of the city.”—Scott.This form of expression is almost universal in Scotland. An Englishman says, “in the streets.”
“I have several times inquired of you without any satisfaction.”—Pope.We say, “inquire of,” when we ask a question; and “inquire for,” or “after,” when we desire to know the circumstances, in which any object is placed. He should have employed the latter expression.
“The greatest masters of critical learning differ among one another.”—Spectator.If the ellipsis be supplied, the sentence proceeds thus: “The greatest masters of critical learning differ, one differs among another.” Here the prepositionamong, which implies a number, or a plurality, is joined to a term significant of unity. It ought to be, “from one another;” that is “one from another,” or “differ among themselves.”
“I intended to waitofyou this morning.” The prepositionofis here improperly used foron. We say,to wait on, notto wait of.
“He knows nothingonit.” This is a vile vulgarism for “he knows nothingofit.”
“He is now much altered to the better.”Tois here improperly used instead offor. “Altered to the better,” may, I believe, be deemed a Scotticism. It ought to be, “he is altered for the better.”
Ambiguity is sometimes produced by putting the preposition in an improper place. “A clergyman is, by the militia act, exempted from both serving and contributing.” This, though intended to express a different meaning, strictly implies, that he is not obliged both to serve and to contribute, but does not exclude his liability to do the one, or the other. If we say, “he is exempted both from serving and contributing,” we express an exemption from both.
“Such of my readers, as have a taste of fine writing.”—Addison’s Spect.“To have a taste of a thing,” is “to feel how it affects the sensitive or perceptive faculty;” “to have a taste for a thing,” is “to relish its agreeable qualities;” “to have a taste in a thing,” which is the expression used by Addison in the same paper, is “to have a discriminative judgment in examining the object.” The first expression is incorrect, as not conveying his meaning.
Swift, speaking of Marlborough’s dismission from the queen’s ministry, as a bad requital of his public services, says, “If a stranger should hear these furious outcries of ingratitude against our general, he would be apt to inquire,” &c. One would naturally conclude from the author’s expression, that Marlborough, and not the nation, was charged with ingratitude. He should have said, “ingratitude towards our general.”
“I received the sword in a present from my brother.” This is a very common colloquial Scotticism, and occurs occasionally in written language. The sword was not receivedin, butasa present.
In the use of prepositions, a distinction is properly made between their literal and figurative meaning. “Wit,” says Shakspeare, “dependsondilatory time.” Here the verb isemployed figuratively, and the idea involved in the primitive meaning is dismissed.
“From gilded roofs depending lamps display.”—Dryden.
“From gilded roofs depending lamps display.”—Dryden.
“From gilded roofs depending lamps display.”—Dryden.
Here the verb is used in its literal acceptation, denoting “to hang,” and is followed, therefore, byfrom.
To the same purpose it has been remarked by Campbell, that the verb “to found,” used literally, is followed byonpreferably toin, as, “the house was foundedona rock;” but, when employed metaphorically, is better followed byin, as, “dominion is founded in grace.”
“There is no needforyour assistance.” It should be, “ofyour assistance.” We say, “occasionfor,” and “needof.”Need formay likewise be pronounced a Scotticism, as, I believe, this phraseology is seldom or never used by English writers.
“For, what chiefly deters the sons of science and philosophy from reading the Bible, and profiting of that lecture, but the stumbling-block of absolute inspiration?”—Geddes.“To profit of” is a Gallicism; it should be, “profiting by.”
“A system of theology, involving such absurdities, can be maintained, I think, by no rational man, much less by so learned a man as him.” Conjunctions having no government, the wordasought not to be joined with an objective case. It should be, “so learned a man ashe,” the verbisbeing understood.
“Tell the cardinal, that I understand poetry better than him.”—Smollett.According to the grammatical construction of the latter clause, it means, “I understand poetry better than I understand him.” This, however, is not the sentiment which the writer intended to convey. The clause should proceed thus, “I understand poetry better thanhe;” that is,“thanheunderstands it.” Those who contend for the use ofthanas a preposition, and justify the phraseology which is here censured, must at least admit, that to construethanas a preposition, creates ambiguity. Thus, when it is said, “you think him handsomer thanme,” it would be impossible to determine whether the meaning is, “you think him handsomer than I think him,” or “you think him handsomer than you think me.”
“There is nothing more pleases mankind, as to have others to admire and praise their performances, though they are never so trivial.” Here there are two errors. The comparativemoreis followed byas, instead ofthan; and the adverbneveris improperly used forever. “How trivial so ever.” It should be, “There is nothing that pleases mankind more, than,” &c.
Conjunctions having no government, the scholar, desirous to avoid error, should carefully observe, whether the predicate be applicable to the two subjects, connected by the conjunction, or, to speak more generally, whether the two nouns be dependent on the same verb or preposition, expressed or understood. “The lover got a woman of greater fortune than her he had missed.”—Addison,Guardian. This sentence, if not acknowledged to be ungrammatical, is at least inelegant. The pronoun should have been introduced. Ifthanbe considered as having the power of a preposition, the charge of solecism is precluded; but ifthanbe a conjunction, he should have said, “than she, whom he had missed.” For, as Lowth observes, there is no ellipsis of the verbgot, so that the pronounhercannot be under its government. The meaning is not, “The lover got a woman of greater fortune, than he got her, whom he missed,” for this would be a contradiction, but, “of greater fortune, than she was.” In like manner, in the following passage:
“Nor hope to be myself less miserable,By what I seek, butothersto makeSuchas I.”—Milton.
“Nor hope to be myself less miserable,By what I seek, butothersto makeSuchas I.”—Milton.
“Nor hope to be myself less miserable,
By what I seek, butothersto make
Suchas I.”—Milton.
Bentley says, that it should beme. We concur with Dr. Lowth in rejecting this correction, and approving the expressionof Milton. There is no ellipsis of the verbmake;othersandIare not under the government of the same word. The meaning is not, “to make others such, as to make me,” but, “such as Iam” the substantive verb being understood.
In the following passage, on the contrary, the ellipsis seems evident: “I found none so fit ashimto be set in opposition to the father of the renowned city of Rome.” It has been contended, that the author should have said, “as he,” and not “as him:” but it appears to me, that the verbfoundis understood in the secondary clause, and that the expression is correct, the sense being, “I found none so fit, as I found him.”
In the following passage the two subjects belong to the same verb:
“The sun, upon the calmest sea,Appears not half so bright as thee.”—Prior.
“The sun, upon the calmest sea,Appears not half so bright as thee.”—Prior.
“The sun, upon the calmest sea,
Appears not half so bright as thee.”—Prior.
It ought to be, “as thou;” that is, “as thou appearest.”
“So as,” and “as, as,” though frequently, have not always the same import. “These things,” said Thales to Solon, who was lamenting the supposed death of his son, “which strike downso firm a man as you, have deterred me from marriage.” The expression clearly refers to Solon; but, if he had said “as firm a man as you,” it might have referred to a different person from Solon, but a man of equal fortitude.
“For ever in this humble cell,Let thee and I, my fair one, dwell.”
“For ever in this humble cell,Let thee and I, my fair one, dwell.”
“For ever in this humble cell,
Let thee and I, my fair one, dwell.”
The second line of the couplet is ungrammatical, the conjunction connecting an objective with a nominative case, or, to speak more correctly, the pronoun of the first person, which should be a regimen to the verb understood, being here in the nominative case. Thus, “let thee,” and, “let I, my fair one, dwell,” instead of “letthee, and letme.”
“Let us make a covenant, I and thou.”—Bible.The error here, though similar, does not come under precisely the same predicament with the former. The pronounusis very properly in the objective case, after the verblet;Iandthoushould therefore be in the same case, according to Rule vii. of Syntax. The expression is in fact elliptical, and whencompleted proceeds thus, “Let us make a covenant: let me and thee make.”
“Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.” The first clause is intended to express a fact, not a hypothesis; the verb, therefore, should be in the indicative mood. Conjunctions have no government, either of cases or moods.
“If in case he come, all will be well.”Ifandin caseare synonymous, the one meaning “suppose,” and the other, “on the supposition.” One of them, therefore, is redundant.
“The reason of my desiring to see you was, because I wanted to talk with you.”Becausemeans “by reason;” the expression, therefore, is chargeable with redundancy. It should be, “that I wanted to talk with you.”
“No sooner was the cry of the infant heard, but the old gentleman rushed into the room.”—Martinus Scrib.The comparative is here improperly followed bybut, instead ofthan.
“Scarce had the Spirit of Laws made its appearance, than it was attacked.”Thanis employed after comparatives only, and the wordother. It ought to be “scarce,” or, for reasons formerly given, “scarcely had the Spirit of Laws made its appearance,whenit was attacked,” or “no sooner—than.”
“The resolution was not the less fixed, that the secret was as yet communicated to very few, either in the French or English court.” This passage from Hume I have not been able to find. Priestley observes, that it involves a Gallicism, the wordthatbeing used instead ofas. If the meaning intended be, that some circumstances, previously mentioned, had not shaken the resolution, because the secret was as yet known to few, then Priestley’s observation was correct, and the wordasshould be substituted forthat, to express the cause of the firmness. But, if the author intended to say, that the very partial discovery of the secret had not shaken the resolution, the clause is then perfectly correct. According to the former phraseology, the circumstance subjoined operated as a cause, preventing the resolution from beingshaken: according to the latter, it had no effect, or produced no change of the previous determination. In other words, “the less fixed that,” implies that the subject of the following clause did not affect that of the preceding; “the less fixedas” denotes, that the latter circumstance contributed to the production of the former. As it is obvious, that, in such examples, the definite article may refer either to the antecedent or the subsequent clause, the distinction, here specified, should, for the sake of perspicuity, be carefully observed[148].
“His donation was the more acceptable, that it was given without solicitation.” That the wordthatis frequently used forbecausecannot be questioned; thus, “I am gladthatyou have returned safe,” that is, “becauseyou have returned safe.”
“’T is notthatI love you lessThan whenbefore your feetI lay.”—Waller.
“’T is notthatI love you lessThan whenbefore your feetI lay.”—Waller.
“’T is notthatI love you less
Than whenbefore your feetI lay.”—Waller.
Herethatis equivalent tobecause. English writers, however, after a comparative, employasorbecause, to denote that the circumstance subjoined was the cause of the preceding one. The use ofthatin such examples is accounted a Scotticism; it should, therefore, be, “his donation was the more acceptable,as” or “becauseit was given without solicitation.”
“His arguments on this occasion had, it may be presumed, the greater weight, that he had never himself entered within the walls of a playhouse.”—Stewart’s Life of Robertson.
“A mortification, the more severe, that the joint authority of the archduke and the infanta governed the Austrian Netherlands.”—Thomson’s Continuation of Watson’s History.
These sentences are chargeable with the same error; and, it is not a little remarkable, though the impropriety has beenpointed out again and again, that there is scarcely a Scotch writer, not even among those of the highest name, who is not chargeable with the frequent commission of this error.
“On the east and west sides, it (America) is washed by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.”—Robertson.This mode of expression is incorrect; and, though to the geographer intelligible, it strictly conveys a conception not intended by the author. The copulative joins the two sides, which ought to be separated; and combines the two seas, instead of the two facts, implying, that both sides are washed by the same two oceans. It should be rather, “On the east side it is washed by the Atlantic, and on the west (is washed) by the Pacific ocean.”
“Will it be believed, that the four Gospels are as old, or even older than tradition?”—Bolingbroke.Here there is a faulty omission of the particle corresponding toas; for the positive and comparative cannot be followed by the same conjunction. It ought to be, “as oldas, or even olderthantradition;” or, perhaps, better, “as old as tradition, or even older.”
“The books were to have been sold as this day.” This is a most offensive vulgarism. The conjunctionascan have no regimen; nor can it be properly used as equivalent toon. It ought to be, “sold this day,” or “on this day.”
“It is supposed, that he must have arrived at Paris as yesterday.” This sentence is chargeable with the same error. Construed strictly, it is, “he must have arrived at Parisas, orin like manner as, he arrived yesterday.”
“The duke had not behaved with that loyalty, as he ought to have done.” Propriety of correspondence here requireswith thatto be followed bywith which, instead ofas. The sentence, even thus corrected, would be still inelegant and clumsy. “The duke had not behaved with becoming loyalty,” would be much better.
“Intheorderasthey lie in his preface.” This involves a similar impropriety. It should be, “in order as,” or “in the order, in which they lie in his preface.”
“No; this is not always the case neither.”—Beattie.
“Men come not to the knowledge of ideas which arethought innate, till they come to the use of reason; nor then neither.”—Locke.
In old English two negatives denied; hence, perhaps, this phraseology originated. Johnson remarks, that the use ofneither, after a negative, and at the end of a sentence, though not grammatical, renders the expression more emphatic. Analogy, however, is decidedly in favour of the affirmative term; I, therefore, prefer the word “either.” Were Johnson’s argument admitted, such expressions as these, “I forbade younotto go;” “I won’t suffer no such thing;” “He would not have none of my assistance,” might, I apprehend, be justified on the same principle. Those who employ them, doubtless, believe them to be more emphatic, than if they included a single negative.
“This I am the rather disposed to do, that it will serve to illustrate the principles above laid down.”—Campbell on Rhetoric.This sentence involves an error, on which I have already animadverted. “The rather” should be followed byas, notthat.
“This is another use, that in my opinion contributes rather to make a man learned than wise: and is neither capable of pleasing the understanding, or imagination.” Lowth justly observes, thatoris here improperly used fornor, the correlative words beingneither,nor. In addition to this observation, I remark, that the wordneitheris erroneously placed. To render this collocation of the conjunction correct, there should be another attributive opposed to the word “capable,” as, “neither capable of pleasing the understanding, nor calculated to gratify the imagination.” But, as the author intended to exclude two subjects, these should have been contrasted by the exclusive conjunctions, thus, “is capable of pleasing neither the understanding, nor the imagination.”
A similar error occurs in the following sentence: “Adversity both taught you to think and reason.”—Steele.The conjunction, which is, in truth, the adjectiveboth, is improperly placed. It should be, “taught you both,”i.e.the two things, “to think and reason.”
It has been already observed, that the conjunctionoris used disjunctively, and subdisjunctively, sometimes denotinga diversity of things, and sometimes merely a difference of names. Hence often arises ambiguity, where the utmost precision of expression is necessary[149]. When Ruddiman delivers it as a rule, that “verbal adjectives,orsuch as signify an affection of the mind, require the genitive,” I have known the scholar at a loss to understand, whether there be two distinct classes of adjectives, here intended, or one class under two designations. The ambiguity might here be avoided, by usingandorwithinstead ofor. It may also be prevented in many cases, by more forcibly marking the distinction by the use ofeither. Thus, if we say, “whosoever shall cause, or occasion a disturbance,” it may be doubtful, whether the latter of the two verbs be not designed as explanatory of the former, they, though their meanings be distinct, being often used as synonymous terms. If we say, “shall either cause or occasion,” all doubt is removed. Sometimes ambiguity may be precluded either by the insertion, or the omission, of the article. Thus, if we say, “a peer, or lord of parliament,”[150]meaning to designate only one individual, or one order, the expression is correct. But if it be intended to signify two individuals, every peer not being a lord of parliament, and every lord of parliament not being a peer, we should say, “a peer, or a lord of parliament,” or “either a peer, or lord of parliament.”
Having now endeavoured to explain and illustrate the etymology and syntax of the English language, I cannot dismiss the subject without earnestly recommending to the classical student to cultivate a critical acquaintance with his native tongue. It is an egregious, but common error, to imagine, that a perfect knowledge of Greek and Latin precludes the necessity of studying the principles of English grammar. The structure of the ancient, and that of modern languages, are very dissimilar. Nay, the peculiar idioms of any language,how like soever in its general principles to any other, must be learned by study, and an attentive perusal of the best writers in that language. Nor can any imputation be more reproachful to the proficient in classical literature, than, with a critical knowledge of Greek and Latin, which are now dead languages, to be superficially acquainted with his native tongue, in which he must think, and speak, and write.
The superiority of Greek and Latin over the English language in respect of harmony, graceful dignity, conciseness, and fluency, will be readily admitted. Our language is, comparatively, harsh and abrupt. It possesses strength, indeed; but unaccompanied with softness, with elegance, or with majesty. It must be granted also, that the Greek is, perhaps, a more copious, and is certainly a more ductile[151]and tractable language. But though, in these respects, the English be inferior to the languages of Greece and Rome, yet in preciseness of expression, diversity of sound, facility of communication, and variety of phrase, it may claim the pre-eminence. It would be easy to evince the truth of this assertion, did the limits, which I have prescribed to myself permit. The fact is, that analogous languages almost necessarily possess a superiority in these respects over those, which are transpositive.
It is to be remembered, also, that our language is susceptible of high improvement; and though its abrupt and rugged nature cannot be entirely changed, much may be done to smooth its asperities and soften its harshness.
As a further inducement to the study of the English language, I would assure the young reader, that a due attention to accuracy of diction is highly conducive to correctness of thought. For, as it is generally true, that he, whose conceptions are clear, and who is master of his subject, delivers hissentiments with ease and perspicuity[152]; so it is equally certain, that, as language is not only the vehicle of thought, but also an instrument of invention, if we desire to attain a habit of conceiving clearly and thinking correctly, we must learn to speak and write with accuracy and precision.
It must, at the same time, be remembered, that to give our chief attention to mere phraseology, or to be more solicitous about the accuracy of the diction than the value of the sentiment, is a sure indication of a nerveless and vacant mind. As we estimate a man, not by his garb, but by his intellectual and moral worth, so it is the sentiment itself, not the dress in which it is exhibited, that determines its character, and our opinion of its author.
“True expression, like th’ unchanging sun,Clears and improves whate’er it shines upon;It gilds all objects,but it alters none.”—Pope.
“True expression, like th’ unchanging sun,Clears and improves whate’er it shines upon;It gilds all objects,but it alters none.”—Pope.
“True expression, like th’ unchanging sun,
Clears and improves whate’er it shines upon;
It gilds all objects,but it alters none.”—Pope.
In short, the precept of Quintilian should be studiously observed: “curam ergo verborum, rerum volo esse solicitudinem.”—Inst. Orat.lib. viii.
THE END.
G. Woodfall and Son, Printers, Angel Court, Skinner Street, London.