VULGARISMS AND OTHER ERROES OF SPEECH. TO WHICH IS ADDED A EEYIEW OF MR. a. WASHINGTON MOON'S 'DEAN'S ENGLISH' AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' SECOND EDITION. y - PHILADELPHIA: CLAXTON, REMSEN, AND HAFFELFINQER. 1869. B'2-, Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by CLAXTON, EEAXSEN & HAFFELFINGER, in the Clerk's OfBce of the District Court, for the Eastern District of Penr sylvauia. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. Particularly in reference to a work of this kind is it the public's interest, as well as the author's, that the conclusions reached be just. For this rea- son his duty and his pleasure concur in prompting him to set at rest questions of moment wherein the public may have been misled by the reviewers. To 'The National Intelligencer,' in whose re- view of ' Vulgarisms and other Errors of Speech' fairness is conspicuous, the author is indebted for a correction regarding a verb which was irreconcila- ble with the sense of the passage in which it had been used, and he has made a corresponding cor- rection in this edition of the book. Two reviewers of two journals whose fairness was equally conspicuous with that of 'The National In- telligencer,' drew a conclusion against which the author protests as unwarranted by fact. They re- marked, that the author having said in his Preface, that an error of speech is not necessarily a vulgar- (iii) IV PEEFACE TO- THE SECOND EDITION". ism, nor a vulgarism necessarily an error of speech, had misnamed his work, ' Yulgarisms and other Errors of Speech.' The title, they said, implies that vulgarisms are errors of speech, and the asser- tion that vulgarisms are not necessarily errors of speech, therefore conflicts in sense with the title: The reviewers were mistaken as to the conclusion deducible from the passage from which they quoted, simply because they did not read on a little fur- ther. Had the author said no more than they quoted, their point would have been sustained; but their premises were false through incompleteness. The whole passage is this : " For, be it known, an error of speech is not necessarily a vulgarism, nor is a vulgarism necessarily an error of speech, although a vulgarism does generally combine with the fault of exclusive use hy the uneducated, tuat of being intrinsically wrong.''^ A vulgarism having been described by the author as being generally an error of speech, he was consistent in calling his work, * Yulgarisms and other errors of Speech.' The reviews throughout the country, however faulty occasionally, from want of knowledge or of acumen, were marked by the same spirit of fairness which characterized those mentioned, save in two instances, in which, two papers, of much more literary pretension than performance, condemned the au- thor's work as ill-executed and useless; both of them PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. V going even so far as to attempt to throw discredit on all verbal-criticism. One of these attacks, called through euphemism a review, was answered by the author, and the other was answered by a self-appointed champion, whom the author did not then know, but with whom he has since then had the pleasure of becoming acquainted. After all, it may well be questioned, as it has been by many men eminent in letters, whether it is ever worth an au- thor's while to answer any review, no matter how flagrantly unjust ; whether it is not better to re- member and act upon the teaching in Bentley's apophthegm — " no man was ever written out of reputation but by himself." An author's best an- swer to a malicious review is the sale of the first edition of his work, and the public's demand for the second. Criticism, if it but possesses the quality of fairness, is to a sensible author no source of re- gret, but on the contrary of gratulatiou. When correct, he receives instruction through it, and when incorrect, he should in consideration of its fairness be tolerant of it. Men should prize even the inten- tion to do justice, as they prize whatever is beauti- ful, the more that it is rare. Even unjust criticism every author should expect, should indeed desire, and, failing to draw it forth, feel that his work has been in a measure a failure. What higher praise can there be than the condemnation of certain VI PKEFACE TO THE SEC0:N'D EDITION. people, what deeper condemnation than their praise I To the present volume is appended a review of Mr. G. Washington Moon^s * Dean's English' and 'Bad English,' which the author believes will mate- rially enhance the value of his work. PREFACE. ' Many persons, although tliey have not enjoyed advantages early in life, have, through merit com- bined with the unrivalled opportunities which this country presents, risen to station in society. Few of them, it must be thought, even if unaware of the extent of their deficiency in knowledge of their lan- guage, are so obtuse as not to perceive their deficiency at all, and not to know that it often presents them in an unfavourable light in their association with the more favoured children of fortune. Few, it must be believed, would not from one motive or the other, from desire for knowledge, or from dread of ridicule, gladly avail themselves of opportunities for instruc- tion. And no one who has travelled, and has seen everywhere, in cars, steamboats, hotels, streets, crowds of well-dressed, presentable people murdering the King's English, will say that, with all that our Pub- lic Schools accomplish, there is not much room for improvement, and that much instruction is not still needed. In view of this, the author conceived that a small work, treating of the most prevalent and gross errors \n English, would be an acceptable addition to our VI PKEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. people, what deeper condemnation than their praise I To the present volume is appended a review of ^ Mr. G. Washington Moon's ' Dean's English' and 'Bad English,' which the author believes will mate- rially enhance the value of his work. PREFACE. * Many persons, although tliey have not enjoyed advantages early in life, have, through merit com- bined with the unrivalled opportunities which this country presents, risen to station in society. Few of them, it must be thought, even if unaware of the extent of their deficiency in knowledge of their lan- guage, are so obtuse as not to perceive their deficiency at all, and not to know that it often presents them in an unfavourable light in their association with the more favoured children of fortune. Few, it must be believed, would not from one motive or the other, from desire for knowledge, or from dread of ridicule, gladly avail themselves of opportunities for instruc- tion. And no one who has travelled, and has seen everywhere, in cars, steamboats, hotels, streets, crowds of well-dressed, presentable people murdering the King's English, will say that, with all that our Pub- lic Schools accomplish, there is not much room for improvement, and that much instruction is not still needed. In view of this, the author conceived that a small work, treating of the most prevalent and gross errors \n English, would be an acceptable addition to our books on education; especially, if incorporated in it were some information regarding certain improprie- ties of speech, which in one sense are not errors, but which, in another, are errors, and at once fix the speaker's grade as low in refinement. He thought, also, that the work might prove suggestive to other writers to occupy the same field. It is folly to suppose that the progress of error in language cannot be stayed, and that we mu?it give way to every innovation. Language, created by man in the exercise of the divine gift of the faculty of speech, is still a slave to execute his bidding. He can fashion it to serve his purpose in any direction that he sees fit ; and because, generally, he does not do so deliberately, with express purpose to accomplish each end in view, but does so mechanically, he is not less the absolute master of its destiny. It is a truism to say that, without innovation, there can be no pro- gress in language. It is not progress that any one should wish to impede. It is not innovation, there- fore, that is reprehensible, but innovation without good cause, and, worst of all, innovation for innova- tion's sake. There are, in language, progressive forces in the mass of the people ; conservative forces, in the body of the highly educated. The due pro- portional action of each is necessary to its salutary development and conservation. Witli few exceptions, the errors herein noticed are not only errors, but vulgarisms; for, be it known, an error of speech is not necessarily a vulgarism, nor is a vulgarism necessarily an error of speech, although a vulgarism does generally combine with the fault of exclusive use by the uneducated, that of being in- trinsically wrong. From an occasional lapse, no one, however well educated, is exempt; but such a mistake cannot properly be termed a vulgarism, unless it is one that is habitually made by the illiterate: it is an isolated blunder, associated with nothing but human fallibility. If, on the contrary, a word or a phrase, absolutely correct in itself, comes into use so current as to be associated with the illiterate only, it falls from its high estate and becomes a vulgarism; and its degradation cannot be in any degree redeemed, either by its intrinsic accuracy, or by the education of the utterer. A few years ago, no one of education would have scrupled to assent to an expression of opinion, by replying, " That is so ;'' but the use of the phrase, since that time, as a byword, has re- duced it to the level of the lowest vulgarism, and driven it out of correct usage. Throughout this work constantly occur the terms ''vulgarism,'' "the vulgar," ''vulgarity.'' The con- nection in which they are used together, and the similarity of the words, coming as they do from a common stock, may lead some readers to think that the author believes them to be correlative terms. This is not the case. The phrase 'Hhe vulgar" has two distinct meanings. In one, it signifies merely the illiterate; in the other, it signifies the preten- tious : those who, to whatever station they may claim to belong, are in a false position. One may be illit- erate and not be vulgar ; one may be literate and even highly gifted, and yet be vulgar 3 and lastly, one may be both illiterate and vulgar. One out of his sphere, occupying a position for which he is not fitted by nature or by education, or by both, is vulgar, whether he was born in a hovel or in a palace. Vulgarity depends entirely on the relative refinement of the sphere in which one moves. Complete immunity from it is the privilege of no society. Therefore, to one sense of the phrase " the vulgar," must the idea of 'Vulgarity" be attached. To the other sense, meaning merely the illiterate, belongs the word " vulgarisms/' which may more properly be termed illiteracies. The reason why those very errors which are not held to be disgraceful as belonging to one class of people are rightly imputed as disgraceful to another class, is solely because the sense of justice in all society holds none accountable for ignorance of what they never had an opportunity to learn, while it visits with ridicule those who, surrounded by all the usual accompaniments of high station and by facili- ties for acquiring education, seem not to notice that in the brilliant setting of their life is absent the jewel which, only, can confer lustre on rank. The world sees the sham, laughs at it, and probably will laugh at it to the end of time. If, before reading these lines, persons of more gen- eral information than those for whom this work is designed, should have chanced to read the introduc- tory chapter on ' The Study of English/ they may have been surprised that the author should not have qualified his praise of English erudition by mention- ing the fact that a late Report to. Parliament proves that, in the English Public Schools, Colleges, and Universities, there is no special training in the lan- guage of the country. * The author, deeming that the fact does not militate against the assertion which he made in that chapter, purposely omitted mention of it there, in order to avoid a long digression, and reserved his notice of it for this as the more appro- priate place. * The 'Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners ap- pointed to inquire into the management of certain Col- leges and Schools,' presented to Parliament, March, 1864. In tlie chapter on ' The Study of English' there is to be found no assertion that in English institutions of learning sufficient attention is paid to the study of the vernacular. Not entertaining that behef, the author could not have made that assertion. Long before the Report to Parliament made public the state of affairs, he was sure of the fact which the Report establishes. It had from time to time been de- plored by English writers. English schools, then, are admitted and always have been admitted by him to be lamentably deficient in affording special training in the native language. What he asserted was, that the thoroughness of English education (thorough except in the one particular under con- sideration), created a large body of conservatives in language, and this he reaffirms. Many believe that school is a great treasury of knowledge, whence each scholar bears away all the wealth of knowledge which he will ever be capable of transporting. Much more properly may it be likened to a mental gymnasium, whence the faculties, improved by daily exercise, go forth into the world and grapple with realities tasking all their powers and, after accomplishing wonders, still leave undescried possibilities for the efforts of future minds. Why is it that the study of the Greek lan- guage, for which few of those who learn it find use after quitting the academic halls, has always been held in high estimation ? Simply because the perfec- tion of its construction, and its philosophic genius, ren- der the study of it an admirable mental discipline. While one may admit, as the English themselves do, that their scholastic courses neglect the study of the native language, one may at the same time main- tain that the scholars themselves are a force conserva- tive of the language Leaving School, College, or University, the English youth leave them with no superficial instruction. In whatever they have learned, they are well grounded. The thoroughness of their training in the classical languages has been some train- ing in their own language ; the station which, as a mass, they occupy in society, is a still more efficient means of training in it; and many of them, after leav- ing the institutions -in which they were educated, pay special attention to it, their knowledge of other lan- guages being a basis for sure and rapid progress. In any case, being highly educated, they form necessarily a highly conservative body of men, and the literary power vested in them is more efficient from being centralized in large universities and cities, to which they, as educated men, naturally gravitate, and to which the country looks with deference as authority in language. That, in this condition of affairs, as compared with curs, corruption has less chance sue- cessfully to attack and injure the purity of the lan- guage, will probably be generally conceded. The author trusts that he does not flatter himself in thinking that his work is all that it professes to be. Whether it can effect any good, only the Public can decide, and to them he commits it in the hope of its meeting with their approbation. CONTENTS. Preface, CHAP. 1. The Study of English, . ^' 2. Slang, .... " 3. Want of Simplicity, " 4. Indelicacy, . '* 5. Vulgarisms consisting in the inappropriate use of words correct in themselves, . " 6. Vulgarisms consisting in the contraction of words, " 7. Vulgarisms consisting in using words in a wrong sense, " 8. Vulgarisms consisting in the mispronuncia- tion of anglicized words, . " 9. Grammatical errors, .... " 10. Grrammatical errors — continued, . " 11. Minor Grammatical errors, . " 12. Confounding of shall and loill, " 13. Use of the wrong verb, " 14. Use of the wrong noun, ^ " 15. Use of the wrong word (miscellaneous), " lA, Single negatives and double negatives, " 17. Obsolete, obsolescent, and local, . " 18. Tautological phrases, . *' 19. Miscellaneous words, phrases, etc., " 20. Taste, " 21. Examples of bad taste, " 22. Concluding remarks. PAGE. 3 22 34 108 117 128 134 136 142 153 160 179 A Review of Mr. G. Washington Moon's * Dean's Eng- lish ' and ' Bad English,' 185 A list of some of the most vulgar pronunciations, . 235 CHAPTER I. THE STUDY OP ENGLISH. The study of English by those whose native language it is, has increased in favour since, of late, in England and in the United States, the question has been discussed, Whether, even con- ceding that too much attention is not paid to Greek and Latin, too little is not paid to the modern languages, and especially to English. In England, when education was possessed by few, those, of course, belonged to the aristo- cracy, to the gentry, and to the ''middle classes," whose homes and society were schools of the na- tive language. Under the circumstances, it is natural that the classical languages should have unduly enlisted the attention of teachers, as necessary to be imparted to youth ; not only on account of their intrinsic beauty, and that of the works composed in them, but on account of the iuvsight which they give into English itself.* * " There be Uvo special considerations which keep the Latin aud other learned tongues, though chiefly the Latin, 6 VULGARISMS Such education, inapplicable in the course of time to England, — for, wi'>/li increased know- ledge among all classes, she has outgrown the ideas upon which it was based, — was always in-, applicable to this country, where stability of government depends, not on mere Democracy, but on an educated democracy; — the capacity of an educated ^eo^le to administer a Govern- ment "of the people, by the people, and for in great countenance among ns : the one is the knowledge which is registered in them ; the other is the conference which the learned of Europe do commonly use by them, both in speaking and writing. We seek them for profit, and keep them for that conference ; but whatever else may be done in our tongue, either to serve private use or the beautify- ing our speech, I do not see but it may well be admitted, even though in the end it displaced the Latin, as the Latin did others, and furnished itself by the Latin learning. ' For is it not indeed a marvellous bondage to become ser- vants to one tongue, for learning' sake, the most of our time, with loss of most time, whereas we may have the very same treasure in our own tongue, with the gain of most time ? — our own bearing the joyful title of our liberty and freedom, the Latin tongue remembering us of our thral- dom. I honour the Latin ; but I worship the English."— Mulcaster, Master of St. Paul's School, as quoted by Isaac Disraeli, in his ^ Amenities of Literature.' AND OTHEE ERRORS OF SPEECH. 7 the people ;" — where education must be general in its diffusion, and practical in its character. Nevertheless, education in this country, ex-- cept that in the Public Schools, partook of the English practice of cultivating the classical languages, and comparatively neglecting the vernacular; until within a very few years, when commenced a powerful and still progres- sive movement, in favour of introducing many practical branches of study. This movement has already effected great changes in the former scholastic courses, and one evidence of its power is to be found in the interest awakened to the study of English. Even within a few months, this interest has been manifested anew, by the publication of several works which have at- tracted attention both in England and in this country, and given increased impulse to the study. The first of these works, consisting of a series of articles contributed by the Rev. Henry Alford, Dean of Canterbury, to an English pe- riodical called ' Good Words,' and afterwards revised and published in a volume entitled ' The Queen's EngUsh,' brought out a host of critics 8 VULGARISMS in England and Scotland. An interesting liter- ary tournament ensued, in wliicli the lists were relinquished to Dean Alford, and a Mr. G, Washington Moon, now well-known, by whom- the Dean, after a spirited contest, was signally worsted. Yet, although Mr. Moon convicts the Dean of many flagrant errors, the work of the latter contains much valuable information. It is, however, a dangerous work to peruse, unless the reader possesses some critical knowledge. Dean Alford's book had also the effect of in- citing Mr. Edward S. Gould to publish his work entitled ' Good English.' Mr. Moon's new-gained celebrity led to his writing critical essays for ' The Round Table ; ' in the course of which essays, he criticised the style of the Hon. George P. Marsh's contributions to 'The Nation.'* That these writings have had, and will con- tinue to have, a beneficial effect, in instructing, and in leading to still farther study of our lan- guage, is very evident. But although, consider- * At the present writing, there is progressing, in 'The Round Table,' a controversy between Mr. Moon and Mr. Gould, in relation to the general accuracy of Mr. Gould's book. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. \) ing their character, they enjoy a wide circula- tion, it is relatively circumscribed, as is also the case with the standard works by Karnes, Camp- bell, Blair, Trench, Harrison, Lowth, Priestley, Walker, Sheridan, and others. Their influence on the people, to whatever degree existing, is indirect. In general, the points discussed con- sist of niceties in language, far above the popu- lar range. Most philologists suffer to pass un- noticed, as if unworthy of their attention, errors which they know must eventually establish them- selves in the language ; for none know so well as they, that language is made chiefly by the people,"^ and that whatever error in it the people definitively stamp with their approval, ceases to be spurious, and becomes genuine coin- age. Our language has heretofore sensibly im- proved, and it is now remarkable for its energy, copiousness, and elegance. It is important that, while we admit it may still farther advance, we should put in action forces conservative of its * The great philosoplier, the great man of science, the poet, and others, often coin words by the prescriptive right of genius. 10 VULGARISMS purity, and determine that, while it shall not be restricted in aught that will add to its power, it shall be kept from degradation. ^ To this point, Mr. Moon, in his Preface to the fourth edition of his book, approvingly quotes Schlegel, who says: ^'The care of the national language is at all times a sacred trust. Every man of education should make it the object of his unceasing concern to preserve his language pure." Dean Alford remarks, that " the language of a people is no trifle. The national mind is reflected in the national speech." It especially behooves us, who possess no Academy, like that of the French, no cities in which literary power is concentrated, to know, and to act upon the knowledge, that we lack the conservative elements which maintain the integ- rity of a language. Granting the continued ex- istence of Paris and tiie French Academy, and that of London and the English Universities, the people in the rest of the respective coun- tries containing those centres of learning might speak what jargon they please, the French lan- guage, and the English language, would be pre- served in their purity, although, necessarily, AND OTHER, ERRORS OF SPEECH. 11 they would cease to be progressive.* From such centres go forth the laws — not ajffirmed by decrees, but by usage — that regulate and con- 'trol the language of a country. They, in the * Dean Trenoh says : " The French Academyj contain- ing the great body of the distinguished literary men of France, once sought to exercise such a domination over their own language, and if any could have succeeded, might have hoped to do so. But the language recked of their decrees as little as the advancing ocean did of those of Canute. They were obliged to give way, and in each successive edition of their Dictionary to throw open its doors to words which had established themselves in the language, and would hold their ground, comparatively in- different whether they received the Academy's seal of allowance or no." The Academy, no doubt, expected and attempted too much; but that it exercises great influence on the lan- guage should be apparent. Is it to be supposed that works so admirable as the tomes which the Academy elaborates with the greatest care have no influence on French writers ! Through them, the influence of the Academy is felt. The Academy exercises just such a conservative influence as does any body of the educated — with this advantage, that it has the weight derived from the literary distinction of its members, from organization, and from publication. That it sways great power is sus- cept'ble of demonstration, but the fact stands to reason. 12 VULGARISMS cases instanced, may not be able to teach the cockney elegant English, nor the hadaud^ elegant French ; but, at least, the languages are safe from the illiterate of both capital and pro- vince. The provincial language of England and of France has never, as is the case in our coun- try, been the same as that of the great towns and cities ; but if pure language has not permeated the provinces, it has, to make amends, been pre- served in its own purity. In this country, the same language is spoken from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. What regulates it ? The best usage of the mother- country is not generally regarded as binding, and no city, no district of our own, can lay down law which will be obeyed. We are, at the same time, a people inhabiting a country vast in extent, vai*icd in climate, amid new scenes, and surrounded by un- precedented elements of progress: circumstan- ces, each of which is capable of causing great accessions to and alterations in language. All the causes which, unheeded, tend to degrade a * The Parisiau cockney. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 13 language, are in full action among us, and scarcely any of the conservative ones to keep them in check. We read and write prodigiously. ^ We are great talkers of slang and contemners of usage. We have no court of appeal.* This country is certainly destined to be inhab- ited by a greater number of English-speaking people than will occupy any other portion of the globe; judge then of the influence, for good or * When the writer remarks that there is, in this coun- try, no recognized authority in English, he refers merely to the non-recognition of a superior usage enia.nating from some city, district, or country. He does not mean to assert that there is among us no recognition of fixed gram- matical principles, which, saving some few trifling points unsettled, regulate the mutual dependence and arrange- ment of words and clauses, however much the rules de- duced from them may be infringed, and still leave the language comprehensible. To be explicit then : — Ameri- cans recognize, in pronunciation, no supreme authority or standard ; but, in the construction of their language, they recognize a standard of fixed grammatical principles and rules. In England, France, and the other countries of Europe, both are recognized. The reason for the dif- ference is that there is not, in this country, as there is in Europe, a distinct body of people of education ar d refine- ment, whose words make the law in words. 14 VULGAEISMS for evil, that it must exercise on our mother- tongue. Would it not he well if we, until there shall exist among us some recognized authority, some supreme arbiter in language, should individ- ually exercise greater care in it, and also invite discussion of it among ourselves, thereby ex- posing flagrant popular errors of the day, which otherwise will soon become engrafted on it. There is, in this country, attending the re- action in ideas about education, danger of tem- porary error, from which England is exempt, OY/ing to the conservative power mentioned, de- rived from the amount, character, and central- ization of education in that country. * * If we cousider the youth of this country, as compared with the age of England, we shall be able, without humili- ation, to acknowledge that, in the aggregate, the educa- tion here is inferior. But whether we can or cannot per- ceive it, will or will not acknowledge it, it is a fact. To use a homely illustration: — If education in the respective countries could be boiled down in separate pots, England's, or, more properly. Great Britain's would afford the larger yield. Her books, her newspapers, her magazines, show by their number, and by their character, that they cater for an ag:?r?'2:ate of cultivated taste greater than that in AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 15 The reaction unhappily chimes in with an idea too popular here, depreciatory of the higher orders of education. Owing to the circumstance that the people haye not realized the object to be attained by a finished education, because the education which generally they possess, answers their present needs, an undervaluation of it for its own sake, of all knowledge that is not con- sidered practical, — by which expression is meant, not directly convertible into money ^ — has become quite pi'evalent. This is an extreme to be as carefully avoided as the one which devotes to the study of the classics the greater portion of the time at the disposal of most of our youth, thereby neglecting the so-called practical, and really valuable, studies which are happily coming more and more into vogue. this country. Her ancient civilization, the structure of her society, her great seats of learning, the incentives which she holds forth to literary distinction, fully account for this fact. We have many people educated ; she has fewer, but better educated. Her education being central- ized in her Universities, and in her large towns and cities, exerts a commanding influence over the language and literature of the whole country. 16 VULaAHISMS Edward Everett said, in some remarks wliich he made before the Cambridge High School: "I hold, sir, that to read the English language well, . that is, with intelligence, feeling, spirit, and effect ; to write, with despatch, a neat, handsome, legible hand, (for it is, after all, a great object in writing to have others able to read what you write;) and to be master of the four rules of arithmetic, so as to dispose at once with accuracy of every question of figures which comes up in practical life,— I say I call this a good education ; and if you add the ability to write pure grammatical English, with the help of very few hard words, I regard it as an excellent education."* How many reach this standard? Even if many do, what might have been true, would, with a higher grade of general education, cease to be true. He ^ho thus defined educatioUj when it reached a certain point, to be good, and when it reached a certain other point, to l)e excellent, would have been one of the last men to argue that a higher education is not desirable, and that the opportunity to acquire it is not to be eagerly seized. * Everett's Works, Vol. IT., pp. GOl, G02. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 17 It is a great error to hold tliat all education beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic, is a waste of time. This observation may at first sight appear to the reader to ofier a gratuitous insult to the good sense of the people ; but it is nevertheless true, that thousands of persons who should know better entertain that opinion ; and this is the case among many of those constitu- ting what is called the business-community, a very large class in this country. All knowledge is practical. It is a chain con- sisting of an infinite number of links, of which we cannot precisely determine the relative value. Ignorance of this, conspiring with the reaction that has set in against "non-practical educa- tion," can hardly fail to prove gravely prejudi- cial to the cause of erdightenment in our country. VULGARISMS CHAPTER II. Before treating of errors in speech, the way for the subject should be prepared, by exposing certain practices which, although not errors in the sense in which the word was previously used, are hurtful to language. First in order among these shall be noticed — as it is first in importance — the language called slang, which pervades too much of the conversa- tion even of the refined. Harrison remarks, that " Colonization has a tendency not only to add to the words of a language, but also to corrupt it. New scenes, new objects, new habits of life, call forth new expressions, at the same time that words, in many cases, deviate from their original* signification. Many words have crept into the English language, in America, which are quite new to it; others have changed their meaning; others are merely fanciful. From America, we have adopted to progress, to effectuate. Clever, AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 19 in America, has gained a meaning "which it does not express in England ; as, a clever house, a clever son, a clever cargo. Slick, hedge, boss, absquatulate, are from America ; nor do we quite understand what is meant by a tall smell." It would be easy to cite many examples in which words have either deviated unwarrant- ably from their primitive meanings, or, retaining those meanings, have subserved the purpose of slang. It is not desirable that people should cease- lessly strive to speak with elegance every sentence which they utter ; if they did, all conversation would be stilted : but it certainly is desirable that slang should not be recognized as an accept- able addition to the language of the educated. In the writer's hearing, not long since, a very respectable man, who has some pretension to education, inasmuch as he is a publisher, found QO better expression to describe the position of an influential person in a certain business, than to say, that he was '' at the top of the heap." I Slang is especially offensive in woman, to whom I we are pleased to ascribe delicacy of taste. Yet how often do we not hear hei introduce it into 20 VULGARISMS conversation ! "He has the stamps," said, lately, in a public place, a young woman who would have been mortified to think that she had pro- " duced a bad impression even on a bystander. On occasions, very rarely, a slang expression may with propriety be used, to describe what is otherwise indescribable. Nothing but Mfalutin can at present convey to us the idea of the most vapid sort of bombast; nothing but spread- eagle, that of the style of the Fourth-of-July oration of the past; nothing but shoddy^ the grandeur of vulgar insignificance. But let even these, and similar words, die with the occasions that gave them birth. They may be tolerated in the conversation of friends. If they may be suf- fered to pass there, which is questionable, they are inadmissible in addressing a stranger, or a slight acquaintance. Familiarity is insulting, and slang is familiar. Let it never be considered as having a foothold in our language, but as separate and apart as is the cant of thieves and gypsies. "You git," and "I bet," may, in the frontier-like life of California, serve well enough to express "Get out,-' and "You may rest assured that I AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 21 will;" but a higher general civilization scorns such phrases.* Enough has been said on this topic. The memory of every one will suggest many examples in point. * Jfe must not be inferred from this remark, tliat civiliza- tion in California is of a low grade. A new country is necessarily settled by adventurers of an inferior as well as of a superior class. The former, in such a region, acquire a prominence which they can no longer maintain when it is well populated. Probably no city in the world, of equal size, can exhibit a population superior to that of San Francisco. VULGARISMS CHAPTER III. WANT OF SIMPLICITY. Next in faultiness to the use of slang, comes the practice of using exaggerated expressions, in speaking or in writing about the simplest subjects. In this, a certain allowance must be made in the case of youth, and in that of the language of compliment, by whomsoever used, young or old. Youth is so imaginative, that its enthusiasm irradiates whatever comes within its view ; so in- experienced, that it does not comprehend the relations of things. Compliment is so well-esta- blished as the language of insincerity, that, to < convey sincere praise, — to avoid the appearance of flattery, — it must be conveyed indirectly, by implication, or else with the frank assertion that what is said is not intended as a mere comjjU- ment. This is only another way of saying that compliment is the langua.ge of exaggeration, for truth is clothed only in the language of simplicity. Nevertheless, by one of those subtle processes by AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 23 •whicli the mind seeks to deceive itself, it is osten- sibly given and received as sometliing, while, really, it is regarded as nothing. With all due admission of the qualifications .noted, the use of inapplicable terms and exag- gerated expressions is far too common. ^'It was an aiufuUi/ hot day." ^' I suffered in the cars, frightfully, from heat." ^' When we reached our destination, we had a liorrihle dinner. ' ' Why not go a step farther, and say, ''I was obliged to occupy an appalling bed for the night ?" This extravagant style does not always pro- ceed from ine:iperience of life ; it is very fre- quently cultivated, under the impression that it enhances the interest of what is said. But what is the real effect ? All beauty in nature, all beauty in art, consist in proportion, in delicacy of light and shade and colour, judicious contrast, blending into one harmonious effect. In this style, the matter is obscured by incongruous materials. Besides, the word-painter has used them so lavishly, that they will not last him, however abundant they may be. In such a style, the words do not represent the ideas which the speaker should wish to convey. They have 24 VULGAKISMS no fixed value. They must be judged by tbe criterion of each individual's character and edu- cation, whereas they .should have a standard value. The most flagrant instance of this vicious* mode of expression, that ever came under the notice of the writer, was heard by him a few months ago, in a street-car. As the car rolled along, a young woman, bedizened with finery, and fluent in speech, descanted, partly for the benefit of her companion, and partly for that of the rest of the passengers, on the stores and other places of business on the route. Every thing attracted her attention, excited her enthu- siasm, and prompted her remarks. Her volu- bility was quite unequal to the task of keeping pace with the quick succession of her frivolous ideas. The first store to which she directed the at- tention of her companion, she called elegant. That was not very wrong, although the store was not elegant ; but, having employed a super- lative term to describe a thing of moderate pre- tensions, the next store, more attractive to her, received the compound epithet, splendid- elegant. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 25 Curious to know wliat expression could be in reserve, the writer listened attentively. The car soon passed a combined restaurant and confec- tionery. Doubtless, the pleasant recollection of some lunch after shopping, or supper after the theatre, flashed upon her ; for breaking forth into a clattering and incoherent eulogy on the place and its appointments, she ended breath- lessly with the words elegant-gorgeous. One of the most active agencies engaged in the degradation of our language is the style adopted by many reporters and correspondents for the press. It is not the stage only that possesses the fellow that tears a passion to tat- ters, to very rags. The fault, however, is not wholly chargeable to these writers ; part of it lies at the door of their public. The writers know — who, indeed, generally know so well? — what will please the majority of their patrons. Yet, not in every case, not in the greater number of cases, is this style adopted to please them. It is often the result — tolerated, if not countenanced, by many news- papers — of allowing e^nployes to make the most, in space, of every subiect on which they write: 3 26 VULGARISMS to dwell on petty details; to indulge in trite philosophical reflections; until the reader, in despair, mentally exclaims, "When shall I come to the point?" One species of this composition was called in a late numher of ' The Saturday Review,' tail- lashing. The youthful reporter is represented as a lion, which, having secured a precious mor- sel of something, it matters not what, takes it aside and gnaws and rends it, with growls and lashings of the tail. The awed spectators are to understand that this lion has a precious morsel, so precious that no lion ever had such a one; and, moreover, that this identical lion is the only one which could do adequate justice to its dissection. Such a writer is by a grain of sand reminded "of a desert; by a mouse, of the fur-trade. The subject having been chosen by him, or suggested to his mind by an occurrence, or forced on his at- tention by the revelation of a crime, — in any case, in all cases, — he opens the floodgates of his erudition, and deluges it with words. He "rides in the whirlwind, and directs the storm." AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 27 Another species of this composition is over- laden with petty and often incongruous details, in the statement of the simplest matters of fact. If even poor John Smith's house catches afire, and the fire is put out in a few minutes : — " Last evening, flames were discovered issuing from the portal of the residence of our respected fellow- citizen, John Smith, Esq. The firemen, with their usual alacrity, were promptly on the spot. The street was soon a scene of wild commotion and uproar, which, with the devouring element, formed a toute ensemble of grandeur and subli- mity. The coup d'oeil soon became truly mag- nificent, the flames having reached a small wood- en shanty, next door, in which was confined a remarkably fine poodle belonging to Mr. Simp- kins, the grocer opposite, favourably known to the public for his superior article of teas, whose howls awakened the sympathies of the by- standers."* * The introduction of petty details often results in the blundering exhibited; in which the coiip cVceil is de- scribed as magnificent, when a shanty catches afire, and the howls of teas awaken sympathy. Touie ensemble should be tout ensemble. 28 VULG-ARISMS Anotlier species of composition is in great favour with reporters, and with some of " our own correspondents" who write from watering- places, and consists chiefly of slang terms, stereo- typed phrases, and trite quotations. A man is a hiped. A woman is a feminine. A child is a juve- nile. A dog is a cam'^e. Fingers are c^z^zte. Feet are pedal extremities. Oysters are bivalves. A ball is a Jiop, where ''all went merry as a marriage-bell," while the guests "tripped it on the light fantas- tic toe,"* and did not separate until "the wee small hours ayont the twal. " f If a hotel-keeper is merely civil, he is "Mr. So-and-so, the gentle- manly proprietor." A ball was " the hop of the season." " The Ladies (God bless them !), were lovely" — "the elite and fashion" — "fair women and brave men" — "revelry by night" — "ban- quet-hall deserted." Fill up the spaces, and you will have such a letter, and perhaps many such letters are written on that plan. * *" The original is : — " Come, and trip it, as you go, On the light fantastic toe." t The original is : — " Some wee short honr ajont the twal.'' AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 29 In many theatrical criticisms, such a farrago ©f nonsense, foreign words, foreign phrases, puf- fery, fustian, never was strung together until these latter-days. The employment of a foreign word in con- versation, or in writing, is legitimate only when the writer has no equivalent in his own language. Why should we employ foreign words when we have equivalents in our language ? Why, generally, do our dramatic critics speak of an actor, or an actress, as an artiste f Why do they call the part of an actor, or an actress, a role? There is for using the word repertoire the valid excuse that we have nothing to substi- tute for it, except a periphrastic expression; but what excuse can there be for using the words artiste and rdle^ instead of our words, actor and >mctress, and part f Lately, there appeared a " theatrical notice " beginning thus : — " The Academy of Music was crowded last evening with an SUte and intelligent audience," etc. Here is a liberty ! JEUte, which is a noun, is transformed into an adjective by the writer of the notice. 30 VULGARISMS There is another ridiculous thing generally coupled with the use of French words in our newspapers. Not every journal possesses type with the French accents, or has compositors fa- miliar with the accents. In consequence of this, French words which have accents generally ap- pear shorn of those necessary adjuncts. The words, without appropriate accents, are not French, any more than our English '' ^ " is "" 2," without the dot, or our English '■H'' is "f," with- out the cross. Repertoire and rdle^ written, or printed, without their appropriate accents, are eyesores to pe;.'Sons familiar with French. The mania for introducing foreign words, and especially French words, into English composi- tion, renders itself ridiculous in a third way. The words are seldom even spelled correctly. Whether this originates with the writers, or with the compositors, is of little consequence — the words are wrong in print. Compositors often receive blame for what they are not responsible. In certain articles, they cannot be in fault ; for, in those, the writers always correct their ^'proofs." If a writer uses wordi with which he is not con- versant, whether with respect to their meaning, AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 31 their spelling, or their accentuation, the reason for his failure in all of these particulars is obvi- ous ; but what shall we think of his failure to em- ploy correctly foreign words and phrases, so common that they are met with every day? In many cases, we see printed in newspapers, aye! in books too, hors du combat, and esprit du corps. Yet, the simple preposition de, not the combined preposition and definite article — du, is to be found in all similar phrases in the French language. The French word sobriquet is frequently mis- spelled soubriquet; but this is not calculated to change its pronunciation materially. What has been said on this head, does not impugn our right to anglicize words as we please. If the French take the liberty of call- ing beef-steak, bifteek, and roast-beef, rosbif, as they do; the.y cannot take umbrage at our dis- figuring many of the words which we introduce into our language from theirs. But the cases of errors cited are not parallel to these, do not admit of this defence ; for the best English usage — in which the writer includes American — is to write esprit de corps^ hors de combat, sobriquet. 32 VULGARISMS The Frencli word materiel is freqaently used for the French word personnel. A few weeks - ago, under the head of " Sacred Concerts on Sun- day Evenings," appeared the following sentence: — "Again, all of our first-class churches would be comparatively deserted, except for the at- traction of the well-trained and talented choirs engaged by them, and, even among the most or- thodox members of our churches of all denomina- tions, the materiel of the choir is considered as only second in importance to an eloquent and popular pastor."* During the Rebellion, tlie writer took to a newspaper an article in which he described what constitutes good troops ; using, in that connection, the word material, in the sense with which we speak of the stuff i\i2ii a man is made of — meaning his manly qualities. To the editor's objection to the word material, the writer did not demur, for it had been loosely employed, but he remonstrated against the the editor's substitution of the French word materiel; inas- much as that word, when relating to armies, distinctively signifies all the appliances used by them, guns, waggons, everything, just as the French word personnel, when rela- ting to armies, distinctively signifies all the persons com- posing them. Demonstration and remonstrance were alike unavailing : and, with a sense of comfort that,at least, AND OTHER EREORS OF SPEECH. 33 There is a very common error in the arrange- ment of the words in a favourite Latin quotation, which generally appears in print as ^^id omne genus^' whereas, it should be ''''id genus omne.'' This error cannot possibly be ascribed to com- positors. his name was not to be appended to the article, he com- mitted it to the editorial hands. The following day it ap- peared in print, arid, as he had expected and feared, one of the constituents of good troops was described as their maUrid» VULaARISMS CHAPTER IV. INDELICACY. In the avoidance of certain proper words, and tlie substitution of other words for them, there is involved the admission of the existence of an indelicate thought. This practice, originating in the prurience of some people's imaginations, has, unhappily, so influenced many worthy people, that even they have contracted the habit of this avoidance, which they have the folly to consider an evidence of refinement. "A nice man," says Dean Swift, "is a man of nasty ideas ;" an apophthegm which conveys a keen satire. So far is it from being true, that the practice mentioned is delicate, it is the height of indelicacy. ; An Englishman, to whom an American woman should say, '' I have the rheumatism in one of my limbs," might inquire, "Which?" if he did not happen to know that many women in this country, in speaking of their sex's le^s to persons of the AND OTHER EERORS OF SPEECH. 35 other sex, call them distinctively limhs, and there drop the subject, although they might not drop their skirts a hair's breadth : such is consistency in the matter of legs. At a hotel, the writer heard a ladt/ direct a waiter to bring her the trotter of a chicken. He once met another who was all ankle to the waist, and all waist to the shoulders. Happening to converse with the latter regarding the relative symmetry of our countrywomen in different parts of the United States, she, wishing to express her belief that New England women, of whom she was one, had as delicately shaped limbs — by which the writer means arms as well as legs — as the women of other sections have, stammered out that they had very fine — ah-ah-ah — extremities. It is a shame that excellent words, which are a part of our language, and which served our ances- tors for hundreds of years, should be driven out of familiar use by prurient imaginations. Cock and ' Hen are generic names, distinguishing the male and the female of all kinds of birds ; but The Cock and The Hen are the distinctive appellations of the barn-door fowls. Why then should we substitute rooster for cockf Does not the hen of the same 36 VULGAHISMS species roost also ? We saj woodcoch, 'peacock^ weatliereoeky — althougli some persons object even to these, — why, then, should we not use the dis- tinctive name from which the compounds are derived ? One would suppose that a word which is not obsolete, or quaint, which was and is good enough in a translation of the Scriptures, would be good enough for every-daj use. Or shall we read, where Peter denies the Master — "the rooster crew?" The word rooster is an Americanism, which, the sooner we forget, the better ; not because it is an Americanism, but because the use of it, as is also the case in the other words criticised in this place, has an effect the very reverse of that alleged to be intended. In our translation of the Scriptures we read of an animal called The Ass. In the moral tales, entitled The Fables of iEsop, we read of the same animal, also called The Ass. But, in much modern speech and writing, the ass has become the donkey. Now, although a donkey must be either an ass or a mule^ neither an ass nor a mule is necessarily a donkey. An ass may be a wild-ass, or an un- AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 37 broken domestic one, and so may a mule be either wild, or unbroken. A donkey is an ass, or a mule, hrohen to the saddle, or to draught. The word, on account of which this is avoided, is not the isame in derivation, spelling, or pronunciation. * The length to which this spurious delicacy has proceeded in this country would astonish many who have given in their adherence to some of these affectations. The writer has visited and re- sided in many parts of it, and can vouch, from personal observation, for what he affirms. Among some country-people, he once accidentally dis- covered, to his surprise, that the children had been taught to call pismires, antmires. On one occasion, to his knowledge, when some little girls from the city were spending their summer-vacation at a farm-house, one of them, happening to speak of her being afraid of a bull in the neighbourhood, was frowned out of coun- tenance by the mistress of the house, who, taking her aside, chid her for using the word, telling her that it was indecent. It is a suggestive fact, that wherever education and refinement most prevail, there is the least of this practice. In witnessing cases of it. there 38 VTJLGAEISMS often comes into the mind of the writer the reply which a French teacher of his acquaintance once made to a female pupil, who, at recitation, hesi- tated to pronounce the AYord leg, where it occurred in an account of the wounding of Napoleon : — " ATi, Mademoiselle, la vraie delicatesse ne pense pas a de telles cJioses.'" True delicacy has no such ideas. It is a poor surgeon that, wishing to extirpate a blemish, scruples to use the knife boldly. With the originators and abettors of this false delicacy rest the responsibility for the need of using it at all! AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. CHAPTER V. VUXGARISMS CONSISTINa IN THE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF WORDS CORRECT IN THEMSELVES. Although in themselves correct, there are some words which, when inappropriately used, mark the speaker as ill-educated and underbred. The titles gentleman and lady are most sel- dom on the lips of those who have the best right to be dignified by them. Gentlemen and ladies assert their right to the distinction by their de- meanour, not by arrogating to themselves the titles. What constitutes propriety in the use of these two words can be determined by discussing one of them, for to each is applicable all that can be said of the other. Let us therefore choose for consideration the rather more misused word, lady. By common courtesy, ladies comprise all wo- men who conduct themselves with propriety, and possess certain conventional manners. In one's 40 VULGARISMS heart of hearts, however, one knows that all these are not ladies. Each person has some cri- terion hj which to distinguish those who are from those who are not. The object here is not to discuss what consti-fe tutes a ladj, but to define when the title which belongs to the character is appropriately used, and when misused. Granting, in any particular case, the right to the distinction, the title is not always properly employed. For instance, were one speaking of the admirable traits of char- acter possessed by a female acquaintance, it would be incorrect for one to say, " She is a fine lady." One should, in that case, say, "She is a fine wo- man." A fine woman is something infinitely superior to a fine lady. The works of Fielding abound with fine ladies, but they are not often fine "women. In the case supposed, the term fine be- longs to the idea of sex, not to that of station. Again, if one should v/ish to speak of the wit of a female acquaintance, it would be incorrect to say, " She is a witty lady." Wit, or any other attribute of the mind, does not belong distinct- ively to ladies, nor even to their sex, but to indi- AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 41 viclual men and womea. The same observation ap- plies wlien education and learning are concerned. Were one to say of a certain person, " She is a well-dressed lady," the expression would imply that ladies may not be well-dressed; which is not a fact, taste in dress being a characteristic of a lady, its appropriateness to occasion being its marked excellence : whereas a vulgar woman always supposes that she is well-dressed when she is much-dressed, and, in consequence, is gene- rally overdressed. Thousands of cases might be cited, in which the word is misused ; as, Avhen a person speaks of a good lady, a modest lady, a charitable lady, an amiable lady, a handsome lady, a graceful lady. In some of them the expression is wrong because the epithet is involved in the character ; and in others it is wrong because the epithet is applied to individuals as belonging to the female sex, not as restricted to those who are ladies. On inquiry's being made at a house for Mrs. , she sometimes introduces herself thus: — " I am the lady." She should say either, "I am Mrs. ," or else, '' I am the person." One who uses either of these expressions might be 4 42 VULGARISMS the lady of the house ; using the firjt one, she could not possibly be, although she might be the mistress of it. A laclj instinctively shrinks from a direct, personal announcement of station. Only in rare cases can she be forced to make it. To an in- timate friend, with whom she feels safe from the suspicion of vulgarity, she might say, or imply, on an occasion when warranted by the subject, that she is a lady. Tlius, for example: — "The pas- sengers consisted chiefly of rough, noisy people, among whom 1, of course, could not feel comfort- able." Or, she tells Mrs. , positively, that she can have nothing to do with the proceeding of writing their complaints in an anonymous note to their pastor. Mrs. answers, "why not?" "Because," returns she, mortified and insulted at Mrs. 's supposing her capable of the act, "I am a lady." Here is an extreme case — that of a person driven in self-defence to make, in one word, an announcement of her sentiments. \ All expressions which involve a claim to per- sonal distinction should be scrupulously avoided. Any woman can say, when referring to the ten- AND OTHER ERROES OF SPEECH. 43 derness of heart possessed by her in common with her sex, "I have the feelings of a woman;" he- cause she confesses to the possession of a charac- teristic accorded to the whole sex. But if she says, "I have the feelings of a lady^'' she singles herself out, by conferring on herself a title of dis- tinction. No woman of delicacy — lady^ can do that. A form of vulgarity in using the word lady is very common in advertisements: — "Wanted, a first-class saleslady/' — -''Wanted, a situation as saleslady," etc. Undoubtedly, a woman who sells may be a lady, but she is not one because she sells. She is a &d\Q&woman, the correlative of salesman. What should we say, if the latter styled himself a salesgentleman? The proper form for these advertisements is this : — "Wanted, a saleswoman, — Wanted, a situation as saleswo- man, — -Wanted, a situation as salesman." As an evidence of the loss of significance re- sulting from undiscriminating use of the titles under consideration, take the majority of ad- vertisements in which they appear, and do we not often see such as this? — "Boarding: Two respectable young ladies can find home 44 VULGAHISMS comforts in a private family," etc. As if ladies coiald be other than respectable ! Even in a leading editorial of a newspaper remark- able for its general ability, accuracy, and good taste, there lately appeared these phrases : " every well-bred gentleman," — '' every well-bred lady." As if, in either sex, to be well-bred, is not to be either a gentleman or a lady ! as if to be a gentleman or a lady, is not to be well-bred ! The introduction of the word ladjj into adver- tisements sometimes leads to ludicrous readings of the subject-matter, as in the following instance, which the writer noticed a few years ago : — "Wanted, by a young lady with a fine breast of milk, a situation as wet-nurse ;" by which phrase- ology was suggested to every reader's mind an idea foreign to the advertiser's thought, and, probably, to the truth. The expressions, "my gentleman-friend," — "my lady-friend," are vulgarisms. The pre- sumption is, when a gentleman or a lady speaks jf any one as being his or her friend, that it must be a lady, if a woman, and a gentleman, if a man. The station is taken for granted, and, AND OTHEE EERORS OF SPEECH. 45 generally, it is not necessary to specify the sex, "When necessary to do so, the object should be accomplished by . mentioning the name of the person, in connection with the word, friend. This may be done in three forms. First. My friend, Mr. (Mrs., Miss) . Second. A friend of mine, Mr. (Mrs., Miss) .• Third. Mi\ (Mrs., Miss) , a friend of mine. When it is necessary to distinguish friends as divisible into the sexes, the proper expressions to employ are, "my male friends," — " my female friends." What can be a greater vulgarity than a man's inquiring after the health of another's wife, thus: — "How is your Lady?" or than a man's entering his and his wife's name on a Hotel- Register, as Mr. So-and-so and Lady ? * In England, Lady is a title corresponding to Lord. In this country, it is not a title, except by courtesy. My Lord So-and-so, travelling with his Lady, is known to be travelling with his wife. * A vulgarity of the same sort is common in France. There, a gentleman always says, ma femme (my wife), but the vulgar, through affectation, often say, mon ejjoiise (my spouse). 46 VULGARISMS An untitled man travelling with his Lady is in a very equivocal position. A gentleman without rank, if accompanied by his wife, puts his name on a Hotel-Register, as Mr.- • — and wife. It is impossible to specify every case in which the terms gentleman and lady should be avoided, and every case in which they should be employed. The rule which one can deduce from the prin- ciples discussed, is, that as regards one's own personality, there should be an entire avoidance of them in self-application, and as regards others, an avoidance of them, ivlien they are not required as part of the language of courtesy^ nor as re- ferring to the distinctive traits appertaining to the stations.^" * The only exceptions are in the case of youth and of age. It is customary, in speaking of well-grown boys and girls of a certain station, to call them '"young gentle- men" and "young ladies." It is also customary, in speak- ing q/old men and old women of a certain station, to call them " old gentlemen" and " old ladies." An additional epithet is frequently applied to them, as when we speak of "a fine old gentleman," — '"a fine old lady," — "a nice old gentleman," — "a nice old lady." — "a cross old gentle- man," — "a cross old lady." AND OTHER EEROES OF SPEECH. 47 Moreover, there can be no verbal qualification of the terms, although there may be mental quali- fication of them. A gentleman is a gentleman, and a lady is a lady, irrespective of their position in the world. The elements are intrinsic. There- fore it is vulgar to say, "a first-class lady," — " very much of a lady," — or to speak in the same strain of a gentleman. In each sex, persons worthy of the titles exhibit individual difi*erences, being various in nature, birth, intellect, educa- tion, beauty, elegance, accomplishments, fortune ; but some of these possessions are accessory, not essential, to the composition of the lady and the gentleman. They add lustre to, but they cannot constitute the characters. The writer has dwelt at some length on this subject, because there is urgent need of reform in it. The undiscriminating use of the terms gentleman and lady has so prostituted them, that even in cases where they might with propriety be used, they are often shunned by the refined. We should take warning from the fate of gen- teel^ a word so much abused at one time that, araong refined people, it has become almost ob- solete. It never became so ofiensive to ears 48 VULGARISMS polite as the words last mentioned, for the rea- son that it never received the self-application which is fast rendering those words obnoxious. It was, however, applied so indiscriminately as to occasion disgust. There was not only a gen- teel man, or a genteel woman, but there were genteel hands, feet, noses, smiles, coaches, hats, gloves, boots, shawls, cloaks, genteel any thing and every thing. It is strange that the persons who are most addicted to the use of the word lady^ are also the very ones who do not scruple to apply the w^ord female to every degree of w^omankind. Yet, the words male and female are not properly used as nouns^ except in speaking of the lower animals. To the sexes of mankind, they are properly applied only as adjectives. We can say: — the male pupils, the female pupils, the male singers, the female singers, the male de- scendants, the female descendants, and so on; but we cannot say of a man, "He is a handsome male." But, is it any better to say of a woman, "She is a handsome female?" We often hear, and read, that a church, or other building, was crowded y^it\\ females ', that ^^ I'aQ females of the AND OTHER EEROES OF SPEECH. 49 Rev. 's congregation take mucli interest in the approaching Fair."* This is detestable! Let us speak of the whole range of beasts, birds, and fishes, as males and females ; but let us not derogate from our dignity. There are no words nobler than man and woman, not even the words gentleman and ladi/. The former and the latter have different spheres, and are not interchange- able terms. When describing mixed public assembly, it is in better taste to use the terms ladies and gentle- men, than to speak of males and females. But * The name " Female Institute " is incorrect. A sing- er, a descendant, and others, may be female. But, whether we mean to characterise an institution, or to char- acterize merely the building which it occupies, we cannot with propriety use the word female. Houses and institu- tions are of the neuter gender. The only possible con- structions that tliename " Female Institute" will bear are the following : — A house of the feminine gender, an insti- tution of the feminine gender, or a house for females — the last construction being the least in accordance with the literal reading of the words. " Women's Institute," — ■ " Girls' Institute," — are the best names by which to desig- nate Institutions for women and girls, and next to them come the names, "Ladies' Institute," — ''Young Ladies' Institute." 50 VULaARISMS it is in far better taste to say men and women ; especially, and from a higher motive than good taste, when we refer, however distantly, to divine worship. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. CHAPTER VL VULGARISMS CONSISTING IN THE CONTRACTION OF WORDS. The words which were discussed in the last chapter are legitimate words when legitimately used. We now come to the consideration of several contractions, which have not reached the dignity of being recognized as parts of our lan- guage. As remarked in the last chapter, the title of gentleman is most seldom on the lips of those who have the best right to the designation. When, however, they do have occasion to employ the word, they do so without contracting it. Gents may serve well enough for the signs of " Gentle- men's Furnishing Stores," or for the speech of hackney-coachmen, but it is inadmissible in the language of good society. From the Italian words, singular and plural, pantalone, pantaloni, we received through the French people — through whom we received the 52 VULGARISMS garment also — our word pantaloons. The word Las been anglicized in this form ; written and spelled thus, it preserves the sign of its deriva- tion ; it is easy to pronounce ; and it is not un- euphonious. In fact, there can be no objection to it. Why, then, is it ever contracted into pants? One's time must be precious if one contracts words to save it. Pants, as well as gents, will do well enough for signs, and among the uneducated ; but, in the conversation or in the writing of the educated and refined, the word should be eschewed. Trousers, or jjantaloo^is, is the proper name of the garment in question. Kids is another vile contraction. Habit blinds people to the unseemliness of a term like this. How would it sound if one should speak of silk gloves as silks There was some excuse, on account ot the length of the names, for contracting into gum- elastics, india-rabhers, and 7nibhers, the original names for gum shoes— india-7^uhber sJioes, or gum-elastic shoes; but there is no excuse for con- tracting the present name gum shoes into gums. We derive from the French lang;uao;e our word chemise — pronounced shcmmceze. In French, the AXD OTHER ERKORS OF SPEECH. 53 word denotes a man's shirt, as well as the under- garment worn by women. In this country, it is often pronounced by people who should know better — sliimmij. The word is degraded by this pronunciation, is as different in sound from the true word, as different in associations, as fiddle is from violin and from its associations. A lady invariably pronounces it sJiemmeeze. Rather than call it sJiimmi/, resume the use of the old English words, shift and smoch. The Yfriter will forestall the captious critic, by remarking that he is well aware of the word's not being used in public ; and will add, that it matters not, inasmuch as the lano-uage of the refined is not laid aside in private. That good usage does occasionally tolerate contractions has been admitted by the act of producing some of them. lYhether it is or is not justifiable in making exceptions is of no conse- quence in enabling us to arrive at a conclusion which shall guide our practice. The question as to the propriety of any given contraction is always one of fact as to its being authorized by good usage; and although, of course, there must some- tnnes be difference of opinion as to what, in- a 54 VULGARISMS particular case, good usage dictates, tliere can be no final appeal, as, in the case of the con- struction of sentences, may be made to grammar. In this matter, as well as in pronunciation, the decision of good usage is final. It unqualifiedly condemns gents, pants, kids, gums, and shimmy^ and, as a general rule, other contractions. AND OTHER EREORS OF SPEECH, CHAPTER VII. VULGARISMS CONSISTING IN USING WORDS IN A WRONG SENSE. A VERY prevalent error in the use of a word in a wrong sense is to be fovind in the expression, "our mutual friend." It is to be regretted that Dickens has contributed to give currency to this phrase, by calling his last novel, ^ Our Mutual Friend,' without adding one word, in the book itself, to indicate that its title is an in- correct expression. The presumption is that he did not believe the phrase to be erroneous. Yet the most correct speakers and writers unite in condemning it, Macaulay stigmatizing it as a "low vulgarism." Primarily, the word mutual relates to persons, and to two persons only. The idea that it conveys is reciprocity of sentiment or of action. Two persons may have a mutual affection or a mutual aversion, but how can a third person participate in that affection, or in that aversion? 56 VULGARISMS Two persons may mutually embrace, but tliej can- not mutually embrace some one else. Individually, every human being partakes of the lot of mutual dependence. Secondarily, the word may refer to many persons regarded as comprised in two divi- sions. The intercourse of two societies may be for their mutual advantage. Secondarily, and figuratively, the word relates to numbers of any things holding relations with each other. The arts show mutual dependence. But in none of these cases does the word signify possession. If people casting aside the idea of the sentiment uniting two persons supposed to be able to use the phrase, "our mutual friend," are reconciled to its signifying merely joint posses'sion of another friend, why may they not also adopt the phrases, "our mutual business," or, "our mutual house?" Our common friend, common enemy, common acquaintance, or w^hatever the case may be, are the proper expressions — meaning, the friend, enemy, acquaintance, common to both of us — our friend, enemy, acquaintance, in common."^ * A Lif3 xlssurance Company of the United States pub- hshes ' Our Mutual Friend,' a newspaper, the motto of i AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 57 The word 'party is now frequently used as synonymous with man, and is daily growing in favour. The use of it in this sense is quite an- cient, but never became common until of late years. The present use of it in this sense is so general as to seem to originate in some partic- ular affection for it. It is a pet word. This corruption has proceeded from the word in its signification of joint concern in any act; a meaning with which it is properly used in Law, where it so frequently occurs, that the people, having become habituated to it in its technical sense, adopted it, and conferred on it an ad- ditional meaning. It is very natural that this should have hap- pened; for, if two persons were the parties to a marriage, or other contract, if two or more per- sons were parties to a suit at law, or to pro- ceedings of any sort requiring combination or opposition, each of these persons was a 'party to that in which he or she was concerned. Hence the word came to be used to designate a single which is, " Ignorance is the curse of God, knowledge the wing whereby we fly to Heaven." 5 58 VULGARISMS individual, and, not only that, but strictly, a man. But it should not be associated with the idea of a single person, irrespectively of that person's relations with another, or with other persons. If, with a meaning restricted to designating a single person irrelatively to other persons, it were applied not only to men, but to women, it would be objectionable; but, as the case stands, it is doubly objectionable, on the score that it is not philosophically applied, as for mere consis- tency's sake it should be, equally to men and to women. It is not uncommon to hear persons who do not weigh their words, say : — " I just met a party from New York, who came on with a party con- sisting of several wealthy parties.'' Here we have a legitimate meaning of the word party — expressive of social assembly — used in connec- tion with the word with its illegitimate meaning ; and, as we constantly have occasion to speak of one man as well as of men in company with each other, the use of the same word for both ideas is creative of confusion in the mind. Why is it not better to say, "I met a man," or, ''I met a gen- A^D OTHER EERORS OF SPEECH. 59 tleman," or, ''I met a person;" instead of saying, ^' I met a party ?" Is the word ^arty a particu- larly sweet morsel to roll around the tongue ? Lest the writer be suspected of having set up a man of straw, for the greater facility with which it could be toppled over, he quotes, sup- pressing names, the following account of a late distressing railroad accident, rendered, by the mode of narration, almost ludicrous : — " Several other parties were quite badly, though not dangerously, injured by the shock which resulted from the collision. " The scene at the place of the accident was most heart-rending. We learn that the screams of the unfortunate parties in the sleeping-car, previous to their death, were beyond all descrip- tion. However, nothing could save them ; the flames spread on every hand, and to move was as certain death as to remain in the berths ; but a few moments only sufficed to end the terrible agonies of the unfortunate parties ; and save with respect to the unknown female from , little elae is left than the ashes of the doomed ones 60 VULGARISMS " We learn that one of the sisters reached the door of the car, and broke the window, but was unable to obtain an egress. Her situation was observed bj other 'parties, and an axe was procured from the train, and an effort made to relieve her ; but while the party was attempting to batter down the door of the car, a sudden burst of flames struck her, and she fell dead." .... Individual is another word frequently used in a wrong sense, or rather, restricted to meaning only a man ; whereas it is applicable as well to every human being, although it is seldom used in reference to persons not adults. It may be applied to beasts; as, for instance, a naturalist may speak of "an individual of any species of the brute creation." It may be applied even to the lowest and the most minute forms of animal life. The use of the word in the restricted sense mentioned is a vulgarism. Yet this use of it is quite common in the United States, and Dean Alford says, is quite common in England. As an adjective, the word sometimes has duty to do which no other word can perform. If, for in- stance, a traveller, looking from a mountain AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 61 towards a distant city, could see each of the houses, he could not otherwise communicate the fact so well as bv saying that he could " dis- tinguish the individual houses." This use of the word as an adjective, will give an idea of its projDer application as a noun, as which it means each and every living creature, although it is applied especially to men and women. VULGARISMS CHAPTER YIII. VULGARISMS CONSISTING IN THE MISPRONUNCIA- TION OF ANGLICIZED WORDS. It has previously been remarked that a for- eign word is not to be tolerated when an equiva- lent can be found in one's own language. It may be added that, when a foreign word is intro- duced into any language, it should be received and retained with its original spelling and pro- nunciation as much as possible unimpaired. This process, which in our language is termed anglicizing, was effected in the case of the following words, all originally in correct and daily use, but now fast settling into apparently irremediable corruption. The French word amateur — correctly pro- nounced ammatur — is often called ammaclioor. It is as easy to say ammatur as it is to say am- maclioor, and the corruption in the pronunciation probably originated in people's seeing the word's final syllable spelled teur, and presuming that it AND OTHER ERROES OF SPEECH. 63 was to be prouounced as we, in English, pro- nounce ture^ whereas teur^ in French, is always pronounced tur."^ The French word connoisseur — old French, modern French, eonnaisseur — was anglicized with that form when it was so spelled in France. Its last syllable is pronounced sur, and the whole word, Jconnessur — not honnayshoor and Iconnay- seer, as it is frequently mispronounced. The French word houqiiet has been adopted by us, with its spelling and its pronunciation un- changed ; yet it is frequently printed hoquet, and pronounced 5(?-kay. The true pronunciation is hoo-Jcay, which is just as easy to say as ho-'ko.j. Where is to be found the authority for changing the spelling and the pronunciation of this word ? Both Webster and Worcester write it bouquet, and pronounce it hoo-Jcay; and the English lexicographers do likewise. f The French words Deux Temps, although they ' have not yet found their way into our diction- * Even tlie Englisli syllable iure does not give the sound of choor. f WebsCfer and Worcester give also the pronunciation 5oo-kay. That given in the text is the correct one. In 64 VTJLGAEISMS aries, may, on account of the popularity of the waltz well known by that name, be considered anglicized. They are pronounced Durh Tongh, and mispronounced Dew Ton. The French word d^hut — correctly pro- nounced day-hu — is often called diQ-hut. An actor, or an actress, is sometimes said to have deSi^rted. The latter, however, is not the usual error, but the coining of a word. In France, an actor, or an actress, can make his or her debut (day-bu), or can dehut (day-bu); because the French have a verb, dehuter (day-bu-tay), mean- ing to make one's first appearance on the stage, or elsewhere in public. The French word etagey^e^ meaning the shelves for nicknacks, so frequently seen in parlours, is correctly pronounced a-tahj-ayre, and incor- rectly pronounced a-tahjer. The French word ruohe, correctly pro- nounced rewshy means heehivey from which — French, there is no accent in the sense with which we speak of accent, and as the second syllable of the word bouquet^ as represented by hay, can be pronounced either long or short, the effect of laying stress on th§ first sylla- ble, which is always long, is to make the word sound thus — Z)oo-keh. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 65 probably on account of the resemblance between the plaits of blondlace and the cells of the honey- comb — is named the delicate quilling used by women, sometimes inserted on the inside edge of the bonnet, sometimes serving as an ornamental covering for the throat, and sometimes as a trim- ming for ball-dresses. This word is incorrectly called rouge, the pronunciation and the use of which are very well known. The French word savant is, in the plural, savans — not savants, as we frequently see it printed. The word, in the singular number, is correctly pronounced savvonh ; in the plural-, savvonlis. La Fayette — anglicized Lafayette — is cor- rectly pronounced Laf-fi-yet, and often mispro- nounced Laffyet, sometimes Layfyet, These vulgar pronunciations have been so often criti- cized, they should be much less common than they are. The most devoted foreign friend of Washington, and of the United States, deserves better at our hands than to be known as Laffyet, or Layfyet. The Italian word^mwo is correctly pronounced peanno — not pi-anno, nor pianner. The third bb VULGARISMS is tlie lowest-known pronunciation ; the second, althougli onlj a grade above it, is entitled to the mention of that distinction. From the Latin word nuhes, signifying a cloud, we take the name of The Nuhe,'^'' or The Cloud, the hood of zephyr worsted, often worn by women for a head-dress in the streets at night. The name is very expressive, owing to the light, fleecy appearance of the hood. When, within a few years, this head-dress came into fashion — for zephyr worsteds, it would seem, are a modern invention — it was called The Nube. As soon, however, as the wearing of it became so general that instead of being as for- merly knit, it was generally woven by manufact- urers, and sold in large numbers, its name was corrupted into JSfuhia, The pasteboard boxes in which it was sent to market were always marked. Nubias. This labelling, and the result- ing mispronunciation of the word by most sales- ^ women who disposed of the article, were by many people regarded as high authority for the spelling and the pronunciation of the word, and, doubtless, have been the chief agencies in its cor- ruption. * Pronounce i nu^he. jl^b other errors of speech. 67 For the sake of precision, those of the pre- ceding words which in the originals have accents have been so marked. But, as those words have been anglicized, they do not ordinarily require either accents or italicizing. They are a part of our language. When it is said of a word, that it has been adopted from another language, with its spelling and its pronunciation unchanged, — as was re- marked of the word bouquet^ — the statement is not strictly true with regard to its pronunciation. There is, belonging to every language, an ac- cent, a complexional character which pervades the whole of it ; and this no foreigner can acquire, although some persons do fondly imagine that they have succeeded in the endeavour. VULGARISMS CHAPTER IX. GRAMMATICAL ERRORS.* This chapter must begin with a. defence of its title. The correctness of the expression "gram- matical errors" has been disputed. "How," it has been asked, " can an error be grammatical?" How, it may be replied, can we with propriety say, "grammatically incorrect?" Yet we can do BO. No one will question the propriety of saying, "grammatically correct." Yet the expression is the acknowledgment of the existence of things "grammatically mcorrect." Likewise, the phrase "grammatical correctness" implies the existence of "grammatical mcorrectness." If, then, a sentence is "grammatically incorrect," or, what is the same thing, has "grammatical incorrectness," it includes a grammatical error. "Grammatically incorrect," signifies incorrect * Vulgarisms and other errors. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 69 with relation to the rules of grammar, "Gram- matical errors," signifies errors ivith relation to the rules of grammar. The J who ridicule the phrase " grammatical errors/* and substitute the phrase " errors in 'grammar," make an egregious mistake. Can there, it may be asked with some show of reason, be an error in grammar ? Why, grammar is a science founded in our nature, referable to our ideas of time, relation, method; imperfect, doubtless, as to the system by which it is repre- sented ; but surely we cannot speak of error in that which is error's criterion ! All this is hy- percritical, but hyper criticism must be met with its own weapons. Of the two expressions, " a grammatical error," and "an error in grammar," the former is preferable. If one's judgment can accept neither, one must relinquish the belief in the possibility of tersely expressing the idea of an offence against grammatical rules. Indeed, it would be difficult to express the idea even by circumlocution. Should some one say, " This sentence is, according to the rules of grammar, incorrect." "What!" the hypercritic may ex- 70 VULGARISMS claim, "incorrect! and according to the rules of grammar !" " This sentence, then," the cor- rected person would reply, " contains an error in grammar." "Nonsense!" the hjpercritic may shout, " grammar is a science ; you may be wrong in its interpretation, but principles are immutable !" After this, it need scarcely be added that, grammatically, no one can make a mistake, that there can be no grammatical mistake, that there can be no bad grammar, and, consequently, no bad English: a very pleasant conclusion which would save us a great amount of trouble if it did not lack the insignificant quality of being true. A verb used as if governing the nominative case of a personal pronoun. "Let's you and I go." One person says to another, or to others, " Let us go ;" never, "let we go." The very same mis- take, however, is often concealed from him when he resolves us into its component ideas, — i/ou and /, — and says, "Let's you and I go." Yet the word I has, as he very well knows, another form — me. This form — the objective case, the same AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 71 case in which us a^id you are — must be used, and he should say, "Let you and 7ne go;" for let 's, also, is incorrect, being the contraction of * let us, and therefore a repetition of you and me, thus — "Let us you and me go," which is absurd. A preposition used as if governing the nom- inative case of personal pronouns. (No. 1.) "Between jou and I," etc. An error, even more common than the pre- ceding one, occurs in the expressions, "Between you and I," — " Between you and he (or she)," — "Between you and they." Here, /, he, s7ie, they, in the nominative case, should be in the objective case — me, him, her, them. The ex- pressions are therefore correct thus : — " Be- tween you and me," — "Between you and him (or her), " — " Between you and them." A preposition used as if governing the nom- inative case of personal pronouns. (No. 2.) '' From he who," etc- The phrase "from he v,^ho" is sometimes spoken, but oftener written, owing to the fact that the sentences in which it occurs are seldom used 72 VULGARISMS in conversation; as, "We expect most from lie wlio has had most advantages." The person who speaks or writes such a sentence imagines that the relative pronoun wlw cannot refer to Mm^ O! her (me, us, them), but must always refer to he, or she (I, we, they), or to the nouns which these words may represent. We cannot say from I, from he, from she, from tve, from the^/. The two following sentences exhibit the proper combinations : — " We expect most from him, or her (them) who has (have) had most advantages." " Expect nothing from me (us) who am (are) too poor to bestow." Remember that the word that is sometimes a mere substitute for who or which, and then ex- amine the following sentences : — "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me : And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments." A few weeks ago the writer met with this sentence in print : — " Ought we to esteem the man who faces danger, or he who deceives ? Es- teem he ! The last clause should be — "or him who deceives." AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 73 Personal pronouns used in the objective case, instead of in the nominative case. " It is me/' etc. The expressions, "It is (was) me," — "It is (was) him," — "It is (was) her,"— "It is (was) them," — are all incorrect. The verb To Be, of which is and tvas are parts, takes the same case after it as before it. The word it is nominative to is (was) -; and me, Mm, her, them, must there- fore be in the nominative case, respectively — I, he, she, they. "It is (was) I," — "It is (was) he," — "It is (was) she," — "It is (was) they," are correct expressions. We sometimes hear even the gross error of two words in the objective case, used as nomina- tives to a verb; as, " Him and me went." ISTo one ever says, " Us went," yet, " Him and me went," is the same mistake ; as him and me^ are equivalent to us — all three being in the objective case, instead of in the nominative case — he, I, we. The sentence should be, " He and I went." Personal pronouns used in the objective case, instead of in the possessive case. G 74 VULGARISMS " Him staying," etc. Me, Mm, and them, the objective cases of the personal pronouns I, he, and the^/, are often incorrectly used for the possessive cases, tut/, his, and thei?^; as, ''I do not like him staying out so late at night." The sentence should be, "I do not like his staying out so late at night." One sentence expresses an idea entirely different from that expressed by the other. The former states that the person referred to is not liked when staying out late at night, and implies that he is liked when not staying out late at night. But the liking or the disliking the person cannot depend on his staying out at night, and that is not the idea intended to be expressed. What the speaker dislikes is not the person when stay- ing out late at night, but the person's staying out late at night — the act. Whether we should use the word him, or them, or the word his, or their, depends upon what idea is intended to be conveyed. " I saw him skating," means that I saw him, and he was skating. "I saw his skating," means that I saw the quality of his skating. " We heard them singing," means that we heard them en- AND OTHER ERRORS OE SPEECH. 75 ga.ge(J in tlie act of singing. " We Heard their singing," means that our attention was particu- larly attracted to the singing. " I did not notice them passing," means that, as they passed, I took no notice of them. " I did not notice their passing," means that their passing escaped my observation. Her has not been introduced into the preced- ing examples, because her is the possessive case as well as the objective case of she: that is to say, more precisely, the possessive case and the objective case have, in this instance, the same form. A personal pronoun used instead of one of the demonstrative pronouns. '' Them things/' etc. The personal pronoun them is frequently used for the demonstrative pronouns these, those ; as, "them things," — "them people," — "them ap- ples," etc. One might as well say, "him car- riage," — "him store," — "him nose," — "me eye," — "me paper," — "me pen." The demonstrative pronouns distinguish be- tween two sets of things, mental, moral, or 76 VULGARISMS physical — these relating to the more near, those to the more remote. They is a personal pro- noun, and can be prefixed to nouns only when it is in the possessive case — their; as, their things, their apples, etc. We should say, these things, those things, these people, those people, these apples, those apples, etc. A relative as an interrogative pronoun, used in the nominative case, instead of in the object- ive case. Who used for lohom. " Who did you see ?" The error in this sen- tence will readily be perceived by putting it into another form; thus, "Who saw you?" — the very reverse of what is meant to be said. Put it into another form, by reversing the last, and it is, "You saw who ?" which, if correct, so is, "You saw he?" — "You saw she?'' etc. But it is not correct. It should be, " Whom did you see?" or, " Whom saw you?" or, "You saw ivhomT' Turn it as you please, you cannot now change the meaning of the sentence. A relative pronoun used in the objective case, instead of in the nominative case. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 77 Whom used for who. As in the expression, "Who did you see?" who is incorrectly used for wTiom^ so, in the fol- lowing one, tuliom is incorrectly used for wlio. From a newspaper — such expressions are common in print and in conversation— the follow- ing clause is taken : — " For the benefit of those whom she thought were his friends." The error in it can be at once rendered apparent by enclosing in brackets two words which are par- enthetical. It then reads: — "For the benefit of those whom [she thought] were his friends." Wliom were his friends! The wording should be, "wlio she thought were his friends." Of all the errors heretofore noticed, this is the one which most frequently escapes detection, because parenthetical words conceal it. A pronoun in the plural number used as if agree- ing with an antecedent in the singular number. "A person — ^if— they." It is incorrect to say, " A person must be very short-sighted if they cannot recognize a friend twenty feet off." Here we have, in the plural, they, referring to a pe7'son. The word one 78 VULGARISMS must be substituted for both a person and for they ; thus, '' One must be very short sighted if one cannot recognize a friend twenty feet off."* A verb in the singular number used as if agree- ing with a nominative in the plural number. ''It is one of tlie subjects that is," etc. '^It is one of the subjects that zs," etc. " In one of the houses that has,'' etc. In sentences like these, where the word orie is used, followed by several words, among the last of which are a noun in the nominative plural, and its relative pronoun, nominative to a verb immediately succeeding, it is quite common to hear the verb put in the singular number. In the first example given above, that relates to subjects, which is plural, and therefore requires are: — "It is one of the subjects that are,'' etc. In the second example, that relates to * Often we cannot without affectation avoid using the word he as relating to a 'person. It is probable that the perception of the incongruity resulting from applying a word indicative of sex to a,n antecedent not specifying it, is what has led to the use of the word tliey as a substitute. A persor.al pronoun which should be non-committal on the question of sex would be a great convenience. AND OTHER EERORS OF SPEECH. 79 houses, which, being plural, requires have : — " In one of the houses that have,'' etc. The examples cited are not at all like the fol- lowing: — " One of the most important things to be done is,'' etc. In this case, the whole of the preceding clause is regarded as conveying one comprehensive idea, which, represented by the singular number, forms the nominative to the verb is. In the sentences above, the pronoun that, in both instances, relates to the word immediately preceding it, and takes its plural character from that word. Violation of good usage with regard to ^ou and were. ^' You was." ^'You was' ' is frequently heard in New England, and, apparently, is gaining ground elsewhere. Its introduction originated in the reasoning, that, whereas i/ou is employed in the singular number, as well as in the plural, when so em- ployed it should not be applied to a verb in the plural. E'ow we cannot legislate in this way about language. You is employed for both the singular number and the plural number, and 80 VULGARISMS good usage says that in botli it shall have the verb in the plural form — ivere. It is by no means anomalous for a verb in the * plural number to be united with a noun or a pronoun in the singular number. We say, and correctly say: — "If the gardener were to do the transplanting now," — "If the letter were writ- ten," — "If it were to rain," — "If I were you," — "If I were going," — "If he were going." Here are nouns and pronouns, in the singular number, nominatives to a verb in the plural num- ber : a mode reserved for the expression of a cer- tain idea — contingency. To be consistent with you was, its advocates would not only have to abolish this subjunctive form of the verb, but also to say, in the verb To Have^ "You has,'' in the verb To Bo, "You does.'" No one is willing to go quite so far as that, except perhaps the negro-minstrels, who, in one of their burlesques, say, "You am n't;" it being a matter of indif- ference to them what they say, so that it is laughable. I AND OTHER ERR0T13 OF SPEECH. CHAPTER X. GRA^IMATICAL ERRORS — CONTINUED.* " I have saw," etc. Many persons -who do not saj "I done/' and "I s&en,'' do say, "I Jiave saw,'' This may be evidence of the truth of the hackneyed line from Pope — a little learning is a dangerous thing. Seeing, being a con- scious act more continuous than any other that human beings perform, and the recounting of what has been seen forming the staple of most conversation, it happens that in a community where general education is far above saying 1 seen, numbers of persons, having been corrected in it, fall headlong into the error of " I have saw." The same mistake is apparent in the following item from a late paper: " and family have arrived in Washington, and tooh (taken) up their quarters for the winter," etc. * Vulgarisms. — Confusion of tenses. 82 VULGARISMS ^'Have ivejit,'" as well as false collocation in other verbs, often escapes notice, owing to the circumstance that one part of the verb is in one clause of a sentence, and one part of it far reraoved in the other, or in another, if there are more than two clauses ; as, ^' I have walked four or five miles, and, although much fatigued, went to a dozen places." The same persons who could say this, without perceiving the error, would see and use the relation between have and been in the following similarly constructed, but correct sentence : — " I have walked four or five miles, and, although much fatigued, been enjoy- ing myself." If this is right, and it ilj right, the preceding sentence should be, *'I have walked four or five miles, and, although much fatigued, gone to a dozen places." In a late paper this passage occurs : — ^' Hold a mirror so that Planet Jupiter may be reflected in it, when two of the satellites may be' seen with the naked eye. So says a correspon- dent. We have tried it, and satv (seen) satellites of Jupiter," etc. In a late issue of an English magazine of note may be found the same erro- neous construction, with the verb To Come. ^'Gen- AND OTHER EEEORS OP SPEECH. 83 eral Hawley had, by the aid of our Higlilanders, heat down two little stone walls, and came (come) in upon the right flank of their second line." Saw is not preceded by an auxiliary verb. Seen must be preceded by some part either of the auxiliary verb To Mave^ or of the auxiliary verb To Be; as, I have seen, — He has seen, — She had seen, — We shall have seen, — It is seen, — It was seen, — We were seen, — They had been seen, — It should have been seen, — etc. Bid is not preceded by an auxiliary verb. Bone must be preceded by some part either of To Have, or of To Be ; as, I have done,— He has done, — They had done, — They will have done, — It may be done, — It is done, — -It shall be done, — It was done, etc. ''I done," — ''I seen," — "I have saw," — "I have went," — should be, "I did,'' — "I %aiv^' — "I have seew," — "I have gone'' I see for I saw. Persons sometimes say, "I see him yesterday," instead of, "I saw him yesterday." The words of the first example represent an impossible association of ideas. What happened yesterday, 84 VULGARISMS and what happens to-day, cannot be thus con- jomed. To see is present, yesterday is past. One might as well say, "I see him to-morrow," instead of saying, "I shall see him to-morrow," as say, "I see him yesterday." The error is precisely the same, although in the one case mention is made of yesterday^ and in the other, of to-morroio. There are, however, certain cases, Tvhere the ideas of frequent repetition, of constant presence, or of eminent existence, are involved, where the expression / see can be employed in speaking of what is temporarily past; as, "I see him about the city," — "I see by the papers," — "I see by Hume's History, that he says,'' etc. Of a distinguished author, we always say, " He tvrites,'" — "He says.'' Of such a one, we sup- pose that his works are animate with the spirit which he breathed into them, and that, through them, he still speaks. We may even say of the opinion of an ordinary person, " Mr. says ;" because the view reported is supposed to be based on a fixed opinion, and always to find utterance in the same expression. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 85 Come for came. One of tliG most common mistakes is the use of eome for came; as, ^'I come to town this morning," — " He co77ie to my store." Come is present, came is past. The sentences should be, ''I came to town this morning," — " He came to my store." Has hegan for Jias begun. Has hegan for has begun is frequently said ; and also begun for began; as, "He lias began to study German," — "He begun to get noisy." Began is the imperfect tense of the verb To Begin^ begun is its perfect participle. The sen- tences should be, "He has begun to study Ger- man," — " He began to get noisy." Were drank for loere drunk. A very common error is, "The following toasts were drank.'' The sentence should be: — "The following toasts were drunJc.'" Plead for Pleaded. Plead, mispronounced j^led, is frequently used for jyleaded; as, ^' He plead (pled) guilty to the indictment." The sentence should be, "He pleaded guilty to the indictment." To Plead is a regular verb. The present is plead (pronounced pleed), imperfect tense, 86 VULGARISMS pleaded (pronounced pleeded), perfect participle, pleaded (pronounced pleeded). " Had ought to," and '' Had n't ought to." Were it not that tlie writer is informed, on good authority, that the New Englandisms, Had ought to and Had nH ought to are making pro- gress among, us, he would not include them in his list of popular errors, from which were to be excluded those errors that are confined to one part of the country. Ought has only one m^GGiion—oughtest, which is seldom used, because it requires to be pre- ceded by thou, which, at present, is never em- ployed, except in the solemn style of writing. The idea conveyed by the word ought is posi- tive in its nature. We may with propriety say, ^'He ought to do so and so;" or, "He ought to have done so and so." The obligation implied / is specifib : it admits of no qualification. If a man ought to do so and so, he is under the obli- gation of doing it; if he ought to have done so and so, he ivas under the obligation of doing it. He cannot with propriety say, ''I had ought to do it," — " I had ought to have gone out," — "I hadn't ought to do it," — "I hadn't ought to have gone out," etc. I AND OTHEPt ERROllS OF SPEECH. CHAPTER XI. MINOR GRAMMATICAL ERRORS. "I wanted very mucli to have gone," etc. The next popular error to be treated of is not confined to the illiterate, but is often found even in the writings of good authors. It is the use of two verbs in the past time, when only one should be in that time. Lindley Murray says, " Expected to have found him, is irreconcilable alike to grammar and to sense Every person would perceive an error in this ex- pression: — ' It is long since I commanded him to have done it.' Yet 'expected to have founds' is no better. It is as clear that the finding must be posterior to the expectation, as that the obedience must be posterior to the command,"* There are sentences, of course, in which the use of the perfect infinitive is not only proper, * These remarks are taken by Murray from very nearly the exact words of Dr. Campbell, whom, with Dr. I owtb, he cites in support of his position. 88 VULGAEISMS but necessary ; as in the following one given by Murray: — "It would ever afterwards have been a source of pleasure to have found him wise and virtuous." But there are thousands of^ cases in which the perfect infinitive is employed, where the present infinitive should be sub- stituted. For instance, you will hear persons say, " I wanted very much to have gone," — or, " Hezt^as very glad to have been there." If these sen- tences are meant to express the idea that one had wished something disagreeable to be over, they are correct ; but if they are meant to ex- press the idea that the actions spoken of are agreeable to the persons, they do not express it, but, on the contrary, imply the very reverse. Yet it is ih.Q latter idea which they are generally intended to express. Let us analyze them. ^' I wanted very much to have gonej" — " He was very glad to have been there," In the first example, what I wanted was not to have gone, but to go^ because I had not gone. In the second example, he was not very glad to have been there, but to be there, because he was there. In such cases, the first AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 89 verb is sufficient to fix the time as past, and however long past, the associated verb must be 'present; thus, ''I ivanted nqyj mMoh to go^'' — '^ He was very glad to he there." The expression, ^'Ifeelyerj glad to have been there," or, " He is very glad to have been there," conveys ideas very different from those conveyed by the sentences which have been condemned. In these, the time is established with relation to the present^ and must be past. In those, the time is established with relation to the past, and must be present. Repetition of that. In a late paper the following sentence occurs : "It does not follow that, because there are no national banks of issue at the South, that there is necessarily an insufficiency of currency there. "^ In this sentence, there is an unnecessary repe- tition of the word that. It should read thus : — "• It does not follow that, because there are no national banks of issue at the South, there is necessarily an insufficiency of currency there;" or, "It does not follow, because there are no national banks of issue at the South, that there is necessarily an insufficiency of currency there." 90 VULGABISMS Sometimes the word that is improperly omitted. In the same paper occurs this expression: — " Such, at least, is the reasoning of the ladies, 'and we suppose they are right." The proper wording is, "we suppose that they are right." In conversation, however, omission of the word that^ if not too frequently indulged in, is not only correct, but preferable. Especially to fa- miliar conversation, which aims less at precision than at ease, many things are permitted that would be intolerable in writing. The manifest misuse of the word that, has no doubt led many persons to omit it where, other- wise, they would have employed it. Admirable practice with respect to its use, as well as with respect to English generally, is to be fcund in Macaulay's writings, which are models of con- ciseness and perspicuity in style. The postscript to the 80th number of the (Spectator, headed " The just Remonstrance of af- fronted That," and referring to the word that, not as a conjunction, as in the above-cited examples, but as supplying the places of the pronouns who and which, concludes thus: — "I am not against reforming the corruptions of speech you mention, AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 91 and own there are proper seasons for the intro- duction of other words besides That ; but I scorn as much to supply the place of a Who or a Which I at every turn, as they are unequal always to fill mine; and I expect good language and civil treatment, and hope to receive it for the future : That, That I shall only add is, That I am, "Yours, "That." VULGARISMS CHAPTER XII. CONFOUNDING OF SHALL AITD WILL, It is not within the scope of this work to treat of all the shades of meaning that can be expressed by the combination of the words shall and will with the pronouns only, and with the pronouns and the verbs. A few examples of the ordinary mistakes in the use of the words when used in the first person must suffice. Sliajl, in the first person, predicts. Will, in the first person, implies volition, certainty, power to perform.* * That the use of shall and will, in the first person, as difFering from their use in the other persons, is not founded on a purely arbitrary distinction, will be clear to the reader from the following considerations : The first person singular is always the speaJcer, Sut not always the agent. When the first person singular is not only the speaker, but the agent also, he can, in that double ca- pacity, not only predict, but he can promise. He can say either, ''I shall,'''' or "I ttu7?." But from the moment when he ceases to be the agent, the power of loilling departs from I AND OTHER ERRORS OP SPEECH. 93 When shall is used in the first person, it re- lates to what the us^r believes will come to pass, but what he does not assert his power to control ; as, "I shall be there to-morrow," — "I shall buy it," — " I shall find him prompt," — " I shall soon - be thirty years of age." Will, in the first person, asserts what, although it may prove to be out of the user's power to accomplish, is promised on the presumption that the power exists. One cannot, however, promise the accomplishment of what depends on him and resides in anotlier person, or in other persons, and he is constrained to say, thou wilt, he will, ye or you will, they will: except in one case, where he possesses power over another or others, and then he can say, thou SHALT, he SHALL, ye or you shall, they shall. To eon- dense : So long as the speaker, either as the agent or as the master of another, possesses power to control, he can say, I icill, you shall. When he is neither the agent, nor the master of another agent, he must say, you ivill. It only remains to add that, when used with shaU and ivill, the first person plural we is subject to the same rule as that controlling the first person singular I; because, although the word «t?e involves the idea of the existence and action of at least two free agents, their action is con- certed, and by means of the inclusive term loe, can be expressed even by one of the number. 94 VULGARISMS another free agent, or of what, by its nature, is immutable. Therefore, reverting to the above examples, although one can say, " I ivill be there to-morrow," — ^'Iwill buy it," one cannot say, *'I ivill find him prompt," — ''I will soon be thirty years of age." It should be evident that' the ascertaining of another to be what he is thought or hoped to be, is out of any one's power, and also, that controlling periodicity is equally out of any one's power. Whatever idea concerns one's beliefs, hopes, fears, pains, likes, and dislikes, cannot be ex- pressed in conjunction with the words I will. To demonstrate this, let us examine the three follow- ing sentences: — 1. I think that I will go, 2. I hope that I will be there. 3. I fear that I will drop it. 1. If one will go, he intends to go, and his going cannot be doubtful to his own mind, as the word think implies. If he is in doubt, as the word thinh implies, he cannot say, I will go, which indicates the determination to go. The first sentence, therefore, should be, "I think that I sliall go." AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 95 2. If one will be at a place, there is no use of his hoping that he shall be there, for he knows that he intends to be there, as he knows what is passing in his own mind. If he merely hopes to be there, which implies doubt, how can he saj^ that he will be there? The second sentence, therefore, should be, "I hope ih.d^i Ishcdl be there." 3. If one will drop a thing, how can he fear dropping it. If he fears dropping it, how can he say that he ivill drop it ? The third sentence, therefore, should be, " I fear that I shall drop it." The two ideas in each of the sentences, as first given, are incompatible with each other. If it seems rational that, in the case of what relates to beliefs, hopes, and fears, to which the three preceding examples respectively belong, we cannot properly use the expression Iiuill^ equally rational must it seem, that in the case of pains, likes, and dislikes, the other three circumstances enumerated, the expression is not applicable. How can one say, ^'I will have a headache," — "I will like the performance," — " I will dislike the city ?" Of tnese and such subjects, one may prophetically say, I shall^ but not I will. 96 VULGARISMS Except indirectly, tlie joo^er to control tlio result lies not in the speaker. Shall, is very seldom used for will. Scarcely any one would say, in answer to tlie question, ''Will you meet me at twelve o'clock to-morrow?" — "I sJialV The question calls for a promise by way of answer, not for a prophecy. It is will, as has been shown, that is frequently used for shall. The writer has in his possession a news- paper article, in which will for shall is used four times in two consecutive paragraphs, as follows: — "We will possess," — "We will find," —"We will have,"— "We will have" (No.2) ;- the word will being used in the sense of predic- ting, not of possessing power to control, and there- fore incorrectly used instead of shall. Confounding of sJiould and would. Used in the first person, as futures, in combi- nation with other verbs, should and would are analogous to shall and will — should correspond- ing to shall, and luould to will: should simply predicting, would asserting power to perform.* * SJioidd is often used in a sense which has been des- cribed as defining the requirement of custom, as contra- distinguished from the obligation of duti/, indicated by the I AND OTHER EREOHS OF SPEECH. 97 One should not saj, '* I knew that I ivould he sea-sick." What is intended to he expressed is a lively presentiment, which had mentally, and perhaps verhally, taken the form of a prediction. The sentence should he, " I knew that I sJiouId be sea-sick." ^'I would be pleased to have you dine with me," means that "I should like to be pleased to have you dine with me;" which is as much as to say, "As matters stand, I am 7iot pleased to have you dine with me." All such expressions as "I zuould like to go," — " I ivould. prefer to see it," — " I ivould be de- lighted," — are incorrect; all meaning the reverse of what the speaker intends to say. They should be, "I sJioidd like to go," — "I sJioiild prefer to see it," — " I sJiould be delighted." Just as, in the first person, in the case of shall and will, will is frequently used for sJiall, but not sJiall for will; so, in the first person, in the case of sJiould and would, ivould is fre- quently used for sJiould, but not should for would. word ought. "We say, '"I should not lose the opportunity of hearing so great a prima donna." " He should dress better," etc. Should, however, is frequently used in the stronger sense, implying didij. VULGARISMS CHAPTER XIII. USE or THE WRONG VERB* Lay for Lie. Lay is frequently used for lie ; as, " He laid down," — " He was laying down." The confounding of the two verbs To Lie and To Lay originates in the circumstance that the form lay belongs to both verbs. One can lay a thing down. The thing can be laid down. But it lies (not lays) on the table, ground, or wherever it may be placed. One can lay himself or herself down. But, in so doing, he or she lies (not lays) down. ^'He lay (not laid) down at three o'clock." " She was lying (not laying) down." ^'They had lain (not laid) down." In ^Childe Harold,' Byron says, " in some near port or bay, And dasliest him again to earth : — there let him Zay." That, however, was done, by poetic license, to get a rhyme for hay. * Vulgarisms and other errors. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 99 Set for Sit. Set is often used for sit; as, ''Set down for a moment." The sun sets^ but a human being sits. A hen is generally said to set, but she does not — she sits. Lit for Lighted. *' "The gas is lit,'' is often said, instead of, "The gas is lighted.'' The word lit may be used as a colloquialism, but it should not be writ- ten, unless in representing conversation. Lit for Lighted or Aliglited. Lit is frequently used for lighted or alighted; as, "The cat lit on its feet." The word is a colloquialism. Rise for Raise. i^ise is sometimes used for raise; as, "Help me to rise this chest." The sentence should be, "Help me to raise this chest." Raise for Rise. Raise is often used for rise ; as, " How many feet does the tide raise?" The sentence should be, "How many feet does the tide rise?" Wrench for Rinse. " Wreneh off those dishes," and similar ex- pressions, are constantly heard, not only among 100 VULGAllISMS servants, but among people who should know better tban to use tbem. Dr. Elwyn, in his ' Glossary of supposed Americanisms/ citing Brockett and Holloway as his authorities for the derivation of the word rench^ adds, "The New England pronunciation is hardly so strong, but is rens;" which remark agrees with tlie writer's observation. Dr. Elwyn and they, be it observed, do not suppose the word to be wrench, but re-nch, an old word with the same sound, and signifying to rinse. Whatever may formerly have been the case, the illiterate now say and intend to say wrencJi, for rinse."^ Allow for Say. " He allowed,'' is sometimes used for "hesofzt?;" but it seems to be employed as a more forcible expression than " lie said " — rather more in the sense of promised, asserted, affirmed; as, "He alloived that he would give me a ticket," — "He alloived that he could not be mistaken," — " He alloived that he would sooner die than do such a thing." In any one of these senses, ^'Brockett gives '^rencli to rinse. Isl. (Icelandic) hrein.'ici, to make clean. Dan. reuse, to clean. Swed. rensa, to cleanse." AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 101 or in that of to say, it is a Yulgarism of the deepest dje. These senses are corruptions of that meaning of the verb To Allow, which signifies to admit, to] achnoivledge. We can with propriety say/ "He allowed (admitted) that the arguments were forcibly presented," — "He allowed (ac- knowledged) that he had been in the wrong." Learn for Teach. Learn is frequently used for teach; as, "I will learn you how to do it." The verb To Learn, with that meaning, was used by Shakes- peare and other old writers, and when they wrote, was good English; but, among the edu- cated, it was obsolete even in Dr. Johnson's time, and it has not been revived. Love for Like. Although the word love may be applied t0| many things less exalted than those capable of inspiring the passion of love, there are limits beyond which it cannot properly be used. In its least strong sense, it signifies a lively afi'ection for an object. One may, without shame, say that he loves books, that he loves L. 102 VULGAKISMS the Fine Arts, that he loves Nature. All of these things concern one's mental being. We say of a miser, that he loves money ; not be- cause we recognize money as a proper object of love, but because we wish to convey the idea of the intensity of the passion mastering one who hoards. It is evident, therefore, that one cannot with propriety speak of loving food. If persons really mean what they say, when they speak of loving oysters, cake, ice-cream, etc., it is con- fessing a deplorable circumstance, which they would do better to keep to themselves. Like is the proper word to use of the best dish that ever came to table. And, well-cooked dishes are good, excellent, delicious^ exquisite, what you will — anything but elegant. " This pie is elegant,'" may be heard at half the hotels in the country. Magnificent beef and splendid coffee are not uncommon. Predicate for Base. How the word -predicate ever came to be used in the sense of to base as, " He predicated his opinion on the conviction," etc., is a mystery. The word affirms of somethino;, that it involves AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 103 something else. Contentment i^ predicated of virtue — that is, contentment is assumed to be the consequence of living virtuously. General good health may be "predicated of- a sound constitution. The word conveys the idea of the existence of an inseparable adjunct. Agreeahhj Disappointed for AgreeaMy Surprised. Some words, etymologically considered, have a right to a certain meaning, but do not possess that meaning. They have had it and lost it. There is no reason why one coming to an expected point {ad punctum), should not, on finding it more agreeable than anticipated, be agreeably ^appointed. But it so happens, that usage makes the verb To Disappoint mean, to encounter something contrary to our wish or desire, vexatious; and, consequently, we cannot be agreeably disappointed, although we may be agreeably surprised. Prejudiced for Prepossessed. *' Prejudiced in favour," is an expression to which, etymologically, there is no valid objection. Prejudice means, primitively, premature judg- ment. But although premature favourable judg- 104 VULGARISMS ment can be formed, as well as premature un- favourable judgment, for the word prejudice is reserved the expression of the idea of premature unfavourable judgment. Tell any man, literate or illiterate, that another "has a prejudice," or, ''is prejudiced'' (without saying favourably or unfavourably). and what does he understand ? — that the feel- ing in the mind of the one spoken of is ad- verse to the person or the thing mentioned. Under the same conditions, tell any man, literate or illiterate, that another "has a pre- possession," or, "is prepossessed," and he will understand just the reverse of the last concep- tion — that the sentiment is favourable. And J Qi prepossession means simply the ^r^-possession of the mind by a ^re-judgment. Of course, as there are two sides to every question, a prejudice, being adverse to one side, must necessarily be favourable to the other; but this action is indirect, and we cannot there- fore draw from the circumstance the inference that prejudice itself may be favourable. Etymol- ogically considered, as has been remarked, itmay be favourable, but usage makes it unfavourable. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 105 Prepossessed^ when used alone, is used in a good sense, and prejudiced^ when used alone, is used in a bad sense. We say also, " Prepossessed in his favour," — '^ Prejudiced against him." It therefore sounds like a contradiction in terms, to hear "Prejudiced in his favour.'' We hear, without violence to our idea of congruity, "pre- possessed against him." The reason of this is, that the word prepossessed is not employed so exclusively in a good sense, as the word preju- diced is in a bad one. Dickens, in his Preface to ' American Notes for General Circulation,' published in the 'Dia- mond Edition' of his works, says, "Prejudiced I am not, and never have been, otherwise than in favour of the United States." He therefore holds, if he wrote what he meant to write, that it is possible to be prejudiced in favour. How- ever, great as is the genius of Dickens, he cannot, ^s after deliberately endorsing "Our Mutual Eriend," besides other solecisms in English, be . reckoned in the category of very correct writers. Get Under Weigh for Get Under Way. We frequently see printed, " The ship was getting (or got) under iveigli.'' 106 VULGARISMS I To iveigh (heave up) the anchor of a vessel, is to perform an operation preliminary to putting her on her course. To get under way, is ^to execute the manoeuvre which includes the weighing of the anchor, the setting of the sails, — or, in the case of steamers, the movement of the engine, — the stationing of the helmsman, and, in fiict, all the operations incidental to a vessel's movement on her course. To have got under way, is to have completed all of these operations, and to have a vessel moving under the guidance of her helm. Signalize for Signal. It would be hazarding little to. say that, twenty years ago, the verb To Signal was em- ployed as descriptive of the telegraphing between vessels at sea; and that the verb To Signalize isj a substitute which has gained favour chieflyi since that time. To signalize should be reserved for the ex-1 pression of the idea of one's distinguishing one's J self by some glorious deed, or for that of an ^ action's enhancing the brilliancy of any attribute ] or lesser quality possessed by man, as '' Horatius j AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 107 Codes signalized himself by the exploit of de- fending, single-handed, the bridge over which Porsenna's army was endeavouring to advance," or, " He, on that occasion, signalized his valour and his skill in arms." The addition of the syllable ize to,.the verb To Signal, is even more objectionable than its ad- dition to the verb To Jeopard; because the change in the former, unlike that in the latter, makes the verb in appearance and in pronunciation identical with one of an entirely diiFerent signification, VULGAMSMS CHAPTER XIV. USE OP THE WRONG NOUN.* I Balance for Remainder. All expressions, in wliicli halanee is used instead of remainder, are incorrect; as, "The halanee of the morning," — " The halanee of the army retreated," etc. The word balance marks the relation between the two sides of the same thing. Etymologically, it relates to scales — balances. In correct usage, it is applied to the adjustment of accounts, or to things which from their nature may be likened to accounts ; as, " Our accounts balanced," — " There is a balance outstanding against him for his rascally behaviour." Remainder, on the contrary, relates to what is] left of a single thing, or set of things, persons, ideas, or whatever, in fact, is susceptible of being reckoned as a part or as particulars of one whole; as, " The remainder of the cake," — * Vulgarisms. AND OTHER EERORS OF SPEECH. 109 " The remainder of the trinkets," — ■" The re- mainder of the guests," — "The remainder of the arguments, speeches, toasts," etc. Balance, with its legitimate meaning, was and is used in the language of trade, and there ac- quired the corrupt meaning with which it has entered popular language. Reference for Recommendation. Reference is frequently used instead of recom- For instance : A servant girl, seeking a situa- tion, refers to some one with whom she has lived, as being willing to recommend her. In so doing, she gives her reference, not her recommendation. Yet the person who wishes to employ her, in case that the recommendation prove satisfactory, often speaks of " getting her reference,'' the very thing which had been obtained. Preventative for Preventive. No mistake is more common than the use of preventative for preventive ; as, " Quinine is a great preventative of Chills' and Fever, as well as a remedy for the disease." There is no word, 'preventative. We should say, " Quinine is a great preventive,'' etc. 110 VULGARISMS Notoriety for Distinction, The word notoriety^ when used in relation to persons, is restricted to a bad sense — the mean- ing of unenviable distinction. Yet it is some- times applied to a distinction which the user regards as praiseworthy ; as, " He attained great notoriety in the best society of London." Within a few days, the writer saw this sentence in print: "It (a play) brought him in what he then wanted, viz., notoriety.'' When applied to persons, the word notorious, even more than the word notoriety, emphatically marks a bad sense ; as, " His conduct Avas noto- rious.'' We can, without dispraising, employ these words, and also the word notoriously, in relation to alleged faets. Even then, however, they do not convey the idea of commendable prominence in the associated agents, but merely that of wide-spread public belief in occurrence. We can, for example,* say: — "lam surprised that you did not hear of the affair, considering its notoriety," — "That intel- ligence, not meant for the public ear, constantly transpires, is notorious," — "Measures for a suc- cessful outbreak had notoriously been precon- AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. Ill certed." The nature of the subjects generally- characterized by the words proves that, even ■when not applied to personal publicity, the bad sense of the words predominates. As applied to facts, the words are either con- demnatory or non-committal. As applied to persons, they are always condemnatory. Wife for Wo)nan, 'Girl, Ladij. " He married his wife lately." A man cannot marry his wife. He can marry a girl, he can marry a woman, he can marry a lady; but he cannot marry his wife. The woman is not his wife until he has married her, and as soon as she is his wife he cannot marry her. "He married a wife from New York." Well, then she with whom he went through the cere- mony is liable to prosecution for bigamy, and he is liable to prosecution for — something else, if he knew that she was married. "He married a Western woman," — "He married a girl from the East," — "He married a lady of this city," — "He married a widow," are all correct expressions, which may be varied still more, and, with appropriate changes for 112 VULGAllTSMS difference of sex, be applied to the expressions beginning with, " She married." Most readers probably remember the anecdote told ' of Sheridan, to the effect that, when coun- selled by his father " to take a wife," he replied, ^'Certainly,, father, whose wife shall I take?"* Hall for Entry. In feudal times, the hall was the great room of the castle, the place where its chief and his family eat their meals at the head of the table at which sat their retainers also, each placed according to his rank. The word has several other legitimate applications; as, for example, " The Hall,'' meaning the manor-house of large estates, — "The servants' hall,'' meaning the sitting-room allotted to servants, — "The Halls * The English Bible is high but not faultless authority in our language. We there find the expression, " married a wife." There seems to be no reason why, in that place, *the original Greek word yvvdiKa should not be translated woman. That is the primitive sense of the word, and we have no reason to believe that, in the passage alluded to, it was used in other than its primitive sense. The context is the only guide to indicate when the word should be translated looman, and wher it should be trans lated wife. i AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 113 of Congress," — "A Musical EaU/'—nny large room devoted to the purpose of assembly. In all applications of the word, size and adaptation to an assembly are indispensable to the constituting of a hall. The calling an entr^/ a hall is therefore a misapplication of the term. In this country there are, as a general rule, no halls in dwellings. When, however, a house is so constructed, as is sometimes the case, that there is a large room at the entrance, through which communication with the rest of the house is established, it may properly be styled a hall. But to apply the term to the largest entr^, is more absurd than to call it a corridor ; which at least means a passage-way in a building, although it does mean a magnificent passage-way, and the building in which it is must be an edifice. The misuse of the word hall has come from the petty motive of trying to exalt small things by high-sounding names. The eifect naturally produced is to debase them. Residence for House. The use of the phrase '^my residence,''^ for the phrase " my house,'' from whatever motive it may now proceed, originally proceeded from that 114 VULQAlilSMS attributed in the last paragraph ; people having been actuated in this case, as well as in the other, bj the desire to imply magnificent cir- cumstances. My residence is a grand name for my house.', "When thus used, as synonymous with house, the phrase is incorrectly used. A man may have many residences, but can divell only in one house. He may have many residences and diuell nowhere. Kearly every person has some one place which, however little he may stay there, he recognizes, . and others recognize, as his home. If he is in foreign parts, he, on being asked where he lives, mentions his country ; if in his country, he men- tions his city or his town ; if in his city or town, he mentions his domicile. It is evident, there- fore, that residence in a place, whatever duration it may have, does not, as long as it is regarded as temporary, constitute living in that place, in the sense with which we speak of one's living in such and such a country, or in such and such a city, or in such and such a house. What is true of the word residence, meaning the act of residing, is also true of its derivative, the word residence, meaning house — that is, as residing does not I ArD OTHER ERROES OF SPEECH. 115 mean living permanently, so neither does resi- dence mean liome. The difference between living or dwelling, and residing,ma,jhe thus exemplified : — " Mr. Jones lives in America, but he is residing abroad." "Many Southerners used to live, during the winter, on their plantations, and, during the summer, used to reside at the North," — "Mr. Brown's house is in this city, but, during a por- tion of the year, he occupies one of his country residences,'' — "Lord has four large estates, and an establishment in London, and he goes so constantly from one residence to another, that he may be said to have no home.'' It will be perceived that these terms are not interchangeable. In a word, when a person resides long enough in a house to constitute it a home, it ceases to be a residence, and becomes his dioelling, domicile, house, home. "My house," although it may also signify ''^mj property," is synonymous with "my home." We generally live (not reside) in this or that house (not residence). When we can properly use the words reside and residence, depends upon circumstances, and can in every case be easily 116 VULGARISMS ascertained, if considered in the light thrown on the subject by the preceding remarks and ex- amples.* * The only consideration tliat should reconcile us to the word residence, as synonymous with the words house and liome, is the circumstance that this use of the word may be regarded as presenting a truthful picture of the social as- pect of the United States. "With no law of primogeniture, and peopled by an energetic democracy, a country where success achieved by one generation of a family cannot be maintained without the personal exertions of their descend- ants^ presents a peculiar phase of civilization, in a nomadic social condition, in which the tenure of none is so secure as rightly to be deemed more than residence^ In the prevalent use of the word residence, in the for- mula of fdneral notices, there may lie a deeper meaning than we imagine. Certain it is, in view of the fact that, at longest, man's stay on earth is but a brief sojourn, nothing can be more appropriate than one's speaking of a person's being buried from his "late residence." AND OTHER ERROHS OF SPEECH. CHAPTER XV. USE OF THE WRONG WORD (MISCELLANEOUS).* OnJi/ for Except or Unless. Instead of the word expressive of a certain idea, another, expressive of a totally different idea, is sometimes employed. On a sign-post, near Albany, appears the fol- lowing notice : — " The ears will not stop at this station, only when the bell rings." It is clear that this wording informs the passengers that the cars will stop, not only at times when the bell rings, but also at other times ; from which intimation they would be justified in concluding that the cars would alivays stop at the station, whether the bell did or did not ring. The notice should be : — " The cars will not stop at this station, except when the bell rings ;" or, better still, '^unless the bell rings." If desired, the word only can be retained, merely by omitting the * Vulorarisms and other errors. 118 VULGARISMS negative; thus, " The cars will stop at this sta- tion, only when the bell rings. Contemptible for Contemptuous. A person sometimes says of another, "I have a very contemptible opinion of him." Under the circumstances, to laugh in one's sleeve is admissible, the difficulty is to avoid laughing out- right. A man once said to Dr. Parr :— '' Sir, I have a contemptible opinion of you." " Sir," replied the Doctor, "that does not surprise me : all your oj)inions are contemptible.""^ Contemptuous relates to the feeling of con- tempt experienced by the mind; contemjytible, to the object which excites contempt. Due for Oioing, The use of due for oiving is a very common mistake, and is sometimes made by good speakers and writers. We may say, "It is due to such and such a one, to state that he has," etc. This is a legi- timate use of the word due^ which, in the con- nection, refers to a verbal acknowledgment, the ^' The same anecdote is related of Porson. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 119 justness of making wliich resembles the obligation of a debt. But we sbould not say, " The success of the scheme was due solely to his exertions;" we should say, " The success of the scheme was owing (attributable) solely to his exertions." In for Into. The expressions " He walked in the house," — "He jumped in the cellar,"— and all similar expressions, are incorrect, with respect to the use of the word in instead of the word into. "When one is outside of a place, he may be able to get i^ito it ; but he cannot do any thing in it, until he has got into it. Quite for Considerable or Large. "He inherited quite a fortune," — "He has quite an amount of building materials on hand." All expressions like* the preceding ones, in which the word quite is used as if relating to a noun, are incorrect. It must relate to an adjective. We may say, " He inherited quite a large fortune;" or, " He has quite a large amount of building materials on hand." In these sentences, quite is an adverb, (qualifying the adjective large. In those, it was incorrectly used, as if qualifying the nouns fortune and amount. 120 VULGARISMS We can say quite tall, quite sJiortj quite hril- liant, quite insignificant, etc. ; but not quite an amount, quite a number, quite a fortune, quite a house, quite a ??za?z — tlie last a very common)- expression applied to big boys. Some for SomeioTiat. Some is often used for somewhat, especially in New England; as, "He is some better to-day," — " He reads some and writes some and walks some every day." ^?z?/ for At All. Any, in the sense of at all, can be used in sucli phrases as, " He does not feel any better (or any worse)," — " He does not ride aw^more," etc. ; but we should not say, "He does not write any,'' — "He cannot see any,'' — "At present, he does not walk any," — " She has not learned to dance any," Convenient for Near. The use of convenient, as signifying conducive to comfort, is a correct application of the word. As things which add to comfort must necessarily be easily obtainable, accessible, therefore near, a misuse of the word convenient, as a synonyme for near, has obtained currency. I AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 121 To say, "The provision store is very conve- nient/' meaning that it is very convenient to be able to avail one's self of the provision store in general, or of a provision store in particular, is correct; but to say, " The provision store is very convenient,'' or "^qyj convenient io i}iQ house," meaning that it is near the house, is incorrect : although it is true that the nearness of a store is an important element in its convenience. Nearness, or easiness of access, or general attainability, are, in all cases, merely incidental to the idea conveyed by the word convenient. Either, Or — Neither, Nor — Not, Nor. "It was neither for his benefit or for that of any one else," — " It was not done either for the one reason nor for the other," — '' She is not amiable or sincere." All of the preceding sentences are incorrect. Or is the correlative of either; and nor, of neither and not. The sentences should be : — " It was neither for his benefit, nor for that of any one else," — "It was not done either for the one reason or for the other," — " She is not amiable nor sincere." 9 152 VULGARISMS Bad for Badly» "He feeb very had,'' is sometimes said as descriptive of one's feeling very sick. To feel had is to feel conscious of depravity ; to feel hadly is to feel sick.* Good for Well, "He can do it as good as any one else can," is sometimes said instead of, "He can do it as well as any one else can." A person cannot do a thing good. The proper word to use is well. Eitlier for Each. Either is often improperly used instead of each. The following example of this is given by Mr. Seth T. Hurd, in his ' Grammatical Correc- tor:' "Suppose an engineer were ordered to erect a fort on eitlier side of the Hudson river, and he should build one upon its right bank only; would not all agree that he had complied with the order ? but not so, had he been directed to * It is frequently stated that tlie English never use the word sick in the sense which with us is attached to it. English literature proves the contrary : although it is true that the English do generally use the word ill to express the idea which we express by the word sick. AND OTHER ERRORS OP SPEECH. 123 build one on each side of the river ; for then he must build two forts, instead of oneJ" Both Lowth and Harrison give the following examples of the incorrect use of either : " They crucified two others with him, Dn either side one, and Jesus in the midst."* "On either side of the river was there the tree of life." f Like for As. Like is often improperly used for as» One can say — "Just like me," as a child answers its playmate's "I went up one pair of stairs." But one should not say — "Just like I didJ'^ Yet we hear such expressions as, " Like we used to do,'' — "Like toe did yesterday." Like is followed by an objective case, not by a nom- inative case and its verb. I Stopping for Staying, We read every day in the newspapers, or hear in conversation, that So-and-so is stopping at such and such a hotel. "* The Douay Bible has, " They crucified him, and with hiin two others, one on each side, and Jesus in the midst." t The Douay Bible has, '•' On hctli sides cf the river was the tree of life." 124 VULGARISMS To stop is to bring progress to an abrupt ter- mination. One can saj, "I stopped for a moment," indicating a pause of that duration. Strictly speaking, the pause cannot have longer ^ duration : it is convenience that dictates a modi- fication of the meaning of the word. "We may therefore say that a person stopped for -an hour or two. Manifestly, greater latitude of con- struction is inadmissible. The attempt to enforce it leads to a palpable violation of the idea which the word represents. A man cannot stop for a week or a day. If he stops^ he stays, until his journey, or his locomotion of whatever sort, is resumed. The proper expression therefore is, that So-and-so is staying at such and such a hotel. Hardly for Hard. The labourer is worthy of his hire, but he would not wittingly make the appeal that is sometimes made for him — to receive promptly his Aar(i??/-earned wages. ^arc?Z^-earned is scarcely earned — that is not earned. Hard-earned is the proper phrase. Occasionally we read even of a man's dying hardly. In the account of an execution is to be AND OTHER ERROHS OF SPEECH. 125 found the following sentence : — " He died rather hardly^ owing to the noose slipping after he had dropped," etc. If he died hardly, he hardly died, and was unmercifully hung. The writer of the description meant that the man died hard, which might, or might not, have been the exe- cutioner's fault. Minny for Minim, or Minnow. A very small fish is a minim, or a minnow, not a minny. The word in the best usage is minnow. Such for So. Such relates to quality ; so relates to degree. One can with propriety say, "I never saw such a man, such a house, such a view;'' because, the expressions involve the comparison of quality, not that of degree; but one cannot with pro- priety say, " I never saw such a handsome man, such a fine house, such a heautiful view, because the expressions involve the comparison of degree, not that of quality. One should say, " I never saw so handsome a man, so fine a house, so beau- tiful a view." The phrases, such a high, such a long, such a wide, such a narrow, and all similar ones, are incorrect, and should be, so high, so long, etc. 126 VULGAJRISMS Most for Almost. Most, as an adverb, means in the greatest degree. Almost, compounded of all and most, is an adverb, and means, very nearly. It is incorrect to say, " They see each other most every day." This implies tha,t they see each other less every night, instead of stating that they see each other nearly (or almost) every day. Couple for Two. Any two things of the same kind, joined naturally, artificially, or morally, can correctly be spoken of as a couple. The word is not appli- cable to two of the same kind of things, merely because they are two in number. The Siamese Twins are an unusual couple, but certainly a couple, besides being two. A man and his wife are a couple. A yoke of oxen is a couple. Even such things as two volumes of a work com- prised in two volumes may be called a couple. Ornary for Ordinary. Ornary is a corruption of the word ordinary. The writer's hearing it in early life was confined to its application by the low to the low, and to the restricted sense of lewd. Later in life, he again I AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 127 met witli the word, in one of the States which shall here be nameless, where it is habitually used by a very respectable class of people who apply it not only in the sense of lewd, but in that of ordinary and had. Thus used, its effect is at times somewhat startling; for a person will speak of another as being very ornary, meaning lewd, and will address his child reprovingly, with, "Oh, you ornary little thing," meaning simply "You naughty little thing." The word in either sense is shocking, and should never pass the lips of any one. VULGARISMS CHAPTER XVI. SINGLE NEGATIVES AND DOUBLE NEGATIVES * " Did not do (or say) nothing." The very head and front of the oifending in the use of two negatives must not be allowed to escape notice. In English two negatives make an affirmative. To do notJiing is to be in a state of inaction, not to be in that state is, of course, to be in a state of action. Therefore, to say, "I did not do notliing^' — "I did not say notJiing^'" — is to say, "I did something," — " I said something." There are cases in which it is proper to use two negatives. For if one be unjustly accused of having done nothing, he may with propriety reply, *'I did not do notliing^' — meaning, as shown above, "I did something." There are many sentences in which two nega- tives are used intentionally and correctly, and aid in forming a more elegant expression than an * Vulgarisms. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 129 equivalent affirmative proposition would form; as, " Do not think tliat he does not appreciate your kindness," the equivalent of which sentence is, "Think that he appreciates your kindness." Jn every case, however, two negatives form an affirmative proposition. The common mistake committed is in attempting to make thorn indi- cate a negative proposition. " He is not improving much, I don't think." The expression, " I think that he is not improv- ing much," means, " I do not think that he is im- proving much;" but the common expression, " He is not improving much, I don't think," means "I do not think that he is not improving," that is to say, "I think that he is improving," the reverse of what the speaker intends to say. " Did not see him but once," etc. The expressions, *'I did not see him hut once," — "I have not hut one," are incorrect; if the person who uses them intends to say, that he saw the other no more than once, or that he has only one of a certain kind of thing.* ^ If the word hut, in suck connections, retained the meaning of except, with which it was formerly used in 130 VULGAHISMS 4 To say that a person lias hut one, means that he has only one. To say that he has not only one, means that he has more than one. To say that a person saw another person hut once, means that he saw the person only once. To say that he did not see the person only once, means that he saw the person more than once. 1 The sentences should he, " I saw him but once," — "I have but one;" or, "I saw him only once,"— ''I have only one." "Had not hardly (or scarcely) a minute to spare." To say of some one that ''he had hardly (or scarcely) a minute to spare," means that he had less than a minute at his command ; but to say that "he had not hardly (or not scarcely) a them, it would be correctly used. In saying, " I have not but one," we should be saying, " I have not (any) except one," just as we now say, " It is nobody hut me," meaning it is nobody exsept me — not, " It is nobody only me." » That the word but in the above-cited examples is used in the sense of only, will be apparent to every one on a mo- ment's reflection ; for no one can fail to recollect having frequently heard a person say, " I have nH but one," and then, almost in the same breath, subjoin, " I tell you I liavenH only one." AND OTREii ERRORS OF SPEECH. 131 minute to spare," means that he had more than a minute at his command, and just what persons who say, " I had n't hardly (or scarcely) a minute to spare," do not mean to say. " Do not doubt but that," etc. When one says, " I do not know hut that I shall go to New York to-morrow," one uses, if not an elegant, a correct elliptical, idiomatic expression, which may be analyzed thus : — " I do not know of any obstacle to my going to New York to-morrow," — the other course (not going) presents no inducement to make me abstain from going. When, however, one says, "I do not douht hut that I shall go to New York to- morrow," one says the very reverse of what was intended, and states, that the only thing doubtful to his mind is the thing which he means to state is not doubtful. The uncertain tenure of life sometimes in- duces one to reflect that he may not see to-mor- row's sun, but that to-morrow's sun may not be seen by any one is a thought that rarely en- ters the mind. Suppose, then, that we say, " I doubt not that the sun will rise to-morrow." The sentence means, '' I firmly believe that the 132 VULGARISMS I sun will rise to-morrow." But if we say, " I do not doubt hut that the sun will rise to-morrow," we remark that the sun's rising to-morrow is the sole occurrence of which we doubt. It is plain, therefore, that we cannot, when we wish to speak of the probability of an occurrence, say, "I do not doubt hut tliat^'" etc., but must say, "I do not doubt that,'' etc. A late public telegram announced that "A care- ful canvass of the Senate leaves no doubt hut that the nomination of," etc. What purpose, except to mar the sense, is accomplished here by the use of hutf The wording should be, "A careful canvass of the Senate leaves no doubt that the nomination of, "etc. The following item, in which the same mistake occurs, will be recognized as an extract from a late paper : — '' There is no doubt hut that Mr. Gurr is a swimmer of great skill and powers of endurance." .... "Those who have actually witnessed the performance can have no reasonable doubt hut that it is all it professes to be," etc. Again the wording should be : — " There is no doubt that,'' etc. — "no reasonable doubt that." etc. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 133 There is a vulgarism in the use of hut what. With the view to simplicity, let us recur to the first example given, modifying it to suit the present purpose : — " I do not know hut what I shall go to New York to-morrow." What mean- ing, in this case, that which, and hut meaning exce'pt, the sentence signifies : — "I do not know except that which I shall go to New York to- morrow," which is nonsense. Were one to say, " I have nothing hut tvhat you see," or, "you have brought every thing hut what I wanted," one would speak correctly. These sentences mean, "I have nothing hut (or except) that ivhich you see," — "you have brought every thing hut (or except) that which I wanted." Are not these sentences quite dif- ferent from this sentence: — " I do not know hut what I shall go to New York to-morrow." VULGARISMS CHAPTER XYII. OBSOLETE, OBSOLESCENT, AND LOCAL.* M Disrememher for Do not Tememher, The word disrememher is obsolete. It is a low vulgarism. Despisahle for Despicable. Despisahle is an Englisli word, but it is not now used in the language of tbe educated. Des- picable is the word which they use. Gotten for Got. Cfotten is English still, but it is nearly obsolete. Yet some speakers and writers have an unac- countable partiality for it. Proven for Proved. Proven does not enjoy the wide use and sanction of good speakers and writers,that should ■^ Vulgarisms and other errors. The word local is here used as referring to the whole of the United States. Millions of people,elsewhcTe,spc'ak English. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 135 entitle it to take precedence of proved. It is used chiefly in Scotland. Illy for 111. Illy is often incorrectly used for ill. It lias not the authority derived from good usage. Overly for . Over. Overly for over is heard in such phrases as, "I do not think that he is overly bright," — "She is not overly nice," — "He is not overly particular in such matters." The word is obsolete, except among the vulgar. Biddable for Obedient. There is no such word as biddable. The word for which it sometimes does duty is obedient. Unbeknown for Unknown. Unbeknown is obsolete in good usage. f. Sett for Set. The connection in which sett is generally found is in advertisements of china, chairs, fur- niture, or any articles consisting of pieces of the same kind ; as a sett of chairs, o^sett of mirrors, a sett of china, etc. Set should in all cases be spelled s-e4. VULGAKISMS CHAPTER XVIII. TAUTOLOGICAL PHRASES.* "Prom hence," — ''from thence," — "from whence." In the words lienee, thence^ toJience, is included the idea conveyed by the word from. Hence means from this place, thence means from that place, whence means /rom which place. Probably no other mistake in English has been so frequently made, even by good speakers and writers of the language, as the use of the three words hence, thence, ivhence, preceded by from; many, knowing it to be a mistake, falling into it from the sheer force of habit. "New beginner." One may, after having failed in an attempt, make a new beginning, and analogy may per- haps be strained so far as to permit, us to consider such a person, on a renewal of his at- tempt, a neii) beginner. But it is unreasonable, although not unusual, to apply the phrase to one * Vulo^arisms and other errors. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 137 who is beginning for the first time. The ex- pressio^j is a pleonasm — a superfluity of words. " Equally as good as," — " equally as good." As good as means equally good; therefore, equally as good as means equally, equally good. As good, also, means equally good, and equally as good therefore means equally, equally good. In the common phrase, '^equally as good as,'* — one can strike out both as's, or else strike out equally. In the other common phrase, ^'equally as good," — one can strike out the as, or else strike out the equally. A thing is as good as another thing, or it is as good, or it is equally good with another thing, or it is equally good. For example : " This is as good as that," — "This is as good,'' — "This is equally good with that," — " This is equally good." " In any shape or form." ' How can any one suppose that he is adding to the force of his language, by saying, " In any shape or form," the meaning of the words shape and form being identical ? '' Robert he,"—'' Susan she." Some persons never use a personal proper name without adding to it the pronoun appropriate to 10 138 VULGARISMS the sex of the individual mentioned ; as, " Susan she was going down the street, and Robert he met her a few doors from her house." This is a ^ very inelegant, not to say vulgar mode of ex- pressing one's self. " This here,"—" that there." The use of this here, and of that there, instead of this and that, is incorrect. Alone, the word this, or the word that, relates to one of two things, this referring to the one near, that to the one more remote. In like manner, referring to two sets of things, these relates to the one near, and those to the one more remote. " For to go/' etc. The present infinitives to walk, to run, to see, to go, and all others, are not preceded by the word for; as, for to walk, for to run, for to see, for to eat, etc. We should say, " The child tried to walk,'' — "The horse started to run,'' — "What do you wish to see .^— " What is wholesome is not always what the palate decides to be fit to eat.'' " Natural talent." Talent is natural, there should not be the slight- est doubt of it, nor that talent cannot be acquired. It is absurd to say, natural talent. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 16\) Crabb, in his 'English Synonymes,' says: — "Talents are either natural or acquired, or in some measure of a mixed nature ; they denote '^ powers without specifying the source from which they proceed; a man may have a talent for music, for drawing, for mimickry, and the like ; but this talent may be the fruit of practice and experience, as much as of nature." This is a strange remark, as coming from an author of nice discrimination. Talent is not only in no degree the fruit of culture, but its absence is the more painfully manifest in proportion to the sedulousness of the endeavours at its cultivation by a person who mistakenly conceives himself to be its possessor. True, we speak of a person's im- proving his talents, but we do not mean that the talents themselves are improved ; we mean merely that they are turned to good account. Taking one of Crabb's illustrations : Suppose that a man has a talent for music, and that, throuorh devotion to the art, he becomes an adept as a performer. His talent is not a whit greater or less than when he commenced to study. What he has gained is the reward of his perseverance, his labour, his conscientiousness, in having tried to turn his 140 VULGARISMS I talent to good account, in having tried to render it productive. Just in this sense is the word used in the I Scriptures, in the Parable of the Talents, from , which we derive the sense with which the word ■. is currently accepted. There, talents themselves are represented as capable of increase,' because they are the principal and interest of money. The increase, owing to the symbol adopted by our Saviour, is necessarily of the same nature as the principal. The deep and beautiful significance that underlies the Parable, however, is that the gifts of God must, in proportion to their value, be turned to good account in His service, and that He will demand a final reckoning. What return will He demand ? The inevitable answer proves that this definition of talent is correct. He will demand, not the talents themselves, but the works that they enabled the possessor to per- form. The principal, in the spiritual sense of the Parable, is necessarily lost with life, but the interest in good works, although remaining on earth, is to the faithful servant treasures laid up in Heaven. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 141 Talent is far inferior to genius, still it is a gift of a high order, and therefore exceptional ; and, with respect to it, and from a worldly point of view, one may be absolutely destitute. If these reasons, carefully weighed, establish the impropriety of the expression "natural talent," with greater facility must they establish the impropriety of the expression, "natural gift.''' The word gift designates what, at the least, is natural, what is sometimes supernatural, as the " gift of tongues" to the disciples. Yet even the phrase "natural gift" is frequently used. Observe, in the contrast afforded by the two following sentences, what force is gained in one of them by the omission of a word: — "Elo- quence is a natural gift^'' — "Eloquence is a gift'^ Can any one doubt which to choose? VULGARISMS CHAPTER XIX. MISCELLANEOUS WORDS, PHRASES, ETC.* ^ " Extra nice." Uxtra, contracted from extraordinary/, is in- tolerable when not restricted to certain sub- jects. A man may with propriety say "I had to pay extra for baggage," "There was an extra charge for reserved seats," and so on. But if he says, " This house is extra nice," — "I do not consider him (or her) any thing extra," his language smacks of the shop. Now, the shop is a very good thing in its way. Most of us came from it, and are likely, either in our own persons, or through some of our descendants, to go back to it. Directly or indi- rectly, we live by it, or are benefited by it., Far be it from any one to impugn its merits or malign it. But the language of the shop never was and never will be the criterion of elegance. If we can speak of an ^' extra nice girl," why * Vulgarisms and other errors. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 143 not speak of an "excellent lim of people," or of an "-A No. 1 man," and, if some one has lost a fortune, saj, that he or she "has been marked down.'' The younger Dumas said, in reply to an artillery officer who at an evening party had begged him to recite one of his own compositions, "Certainly, if you will bring your park of ar- tillery here, and fire a salvo." In general society, one's language should be untechnical. The thoughts and the language of trade should be reserved for trade. In society, people meet, or should meet, on a broader plat- form. There, it is in extremely bad taste to " talk shop." "In our midst." This afflicting vulgarism is so common now, that one might imagine the phrase to be stereo- typed in some printing houses. It is a pet phrase. The expression is in the extreme in- correct and, from the immoderate use of it, ridiculous. Owing to the form of a similar expression in the Bible, and to the quaintness of it, charac- teristic of the whole style of the Sacred Writ- 144 VULGAPtlSMS ings, the expression there is neither incorrect nor inappropriate. "Now whilst they were speaking these things, Jesus stood in the ''midst of them, and saith to them: Peace be to you; it is I, fear not." — St. Luke xxiv. 36. "Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you." — St. John xx. 19. In the first passage quoted, it is to be ob- served that the expression is " in the midst of them,'' In the second passage quoted, the ex- pression is merely, "in the midst;" but the clause immediately preceding speaks of the dis- ciples as being gathered together, and "in the midst" means, as in the first sentence, in the midst of them, ■^ In the midst means in the middle. In our midst therefore means in our middle. If one should say, "In the midst of us (or of them)," the phrase may be tolerated ; though why one should choose an antiquated phraseology to ex- press what can readily be expressed by saying among us, or amongst us, is a mystery difficult to AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 145 solve.* Verily is a good word, but in ordinary converse, truly is preferable. To guard against possible misconstruction, it may be well to add, that there are certain con- nections in which the use of the phrase in the midst, and of the word amidst, is neither anti- quated nor vulgar; such as, "He fell fighting bravely in the midst of the enemy," — "It was a hut in the midst of a forest," — ^'Amidst great applause the speaker resumed his seat," — "Amidst the pleasant scenes of childhood." " To simply state," etc. The to of the infinitive mood is inseparable from the verb. Yet the liberty is frequently taken of interposing an adverb between it and the verb. The following are only a few of the examples of this mistake seen,in print, ■v\ithin a few weeks: — To boldly resist, — To seriously injure, — To le- gally acknowledge, — To simply state, — To deeply realize, — To still exhibit, — To ra'pidly recruit, — To gradually change, — To not only ruin: — the last one actually having two adverbs inter- posed between the particle to and the verb. * The phrase commonly and incorrectly used, expresses the idea of the presence of some one in a community. 146 VULGARISMS " I do not like too mucli siiga,r," etc. Siicli expressions as, "I do not like too much sugar," — "I do not like to walk too far," are supremely ridiculous. One does not like to have, or to do, too much of any thing. The proverbs, *' Enough is as good as a feast," — "Too much* of a good thing is good for nothing," show that the meaning of the word too is well understood. Why, then, will people use such expressions as those quoted ? "I seemed to think so and so." It is impossible, except to some metaphysicians, to doubt the existence of thinldng, or to doubt the existence of what is thougKi; and persons who use the above phrase are not metaphysicians. We think, when awake, always ; and that we think, and what we think, can never be doubtful to our own minds. Hence we cannot say, " I seemed to think." "He lias a right to do it," etc. Singular as the fact may appear to some per- sons, the phrases, "He has a right to do it," — "He has a right to see to it," and similar ones, are often used by others to signify, that a certain individual ought to do or to attend to a certain thinoj. AND OTHER ERIlOrvS OF SPEECH. 147 Between one's right to do a thing, and one's obligation to do it, there is a vast difference. One may have the right to do a thing, and not be under the slightest obligation to do it. This is too evident to need demonstration. '' Just as livs." JJivs is a corruption of lief, or rather, of the obsolete word lieve. '' I had as lief — " I would just as lief," are idiomatic expressions, in the first of which, the words I had are the cor- ruption of the words I would. ''I had just as livs,'' is vulgar. " A most a iDeautiful," etc. The expressions, "Jl most a beautiful," — "^ most a splendid," — ^'A most an elegant," — ^^A most an awful," fix the educational grade of the speaker at the lowest point known to our civilization. We should not even say, ^'A most beautiful," — "-4 most splendid," etc. Each of a number of objects cannot be most beautiful. Only one can be most beautiful, and that is necessarily the most beautiful. Most is, in the latter sen- tences, used improperly in the sense of very. 148 VULGARISMS Omission of the final '*^" in pronunciation. Many persons never pronounce " g " in words ending with that letter, but say Jiavin, taJcin, ^leavin, swimmin, etc., instead of having, taking, leaving, swimming, etc. Indiscriminate omission of the apostrophic "5." As in speech the adding of the sound of "s" to the end of a word in the singular number conveys to the ear the sign of the possessive case, so, in writing or in printing, the adding of the apostrophic "s" to that word conveys to the eye the sign of the possessive case. !N"ouns in the singular number, ending in s, ss, ce, X, sometimes form exceptions to the general rule for indicating the possessive case. Mr. John Wilson, in his ' Treatise on English Punctuation,' gives the following examples of this class of words: — '^ Moses' rod," — ^-for righteousness' sake," — " for conscience' sake," — "the administratrix' sale." He adds these observations : " This mode of punctuation holds good chiefly in proper names having a foreign termination, and in such common nouns as are seldom used in the plural, —an exception to the rule of forming the posT I AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 149 sessive singular, which is founded on the propriety of modifying the disagreeable nature of the hissing sound. " Recourse, however, should not be had to the principle laid down in the preceding remark, when its adoption would cause ambiguity, or when the addition of the s is not offensive to a refined ear. For instance, the Italic words in the phrases, ^ Burns' s Poems,' ^ James s book,' ' Thomas's cloak,' 'the fox's tail,' though they contain the hissing sound, are not particularly unpleasant, and are far more analogical and significant than the abbreviated forms, ' Burns' Poems,' ^James' hook,' ' TJiomas' cloak,' Uhe fox' tail.'" The test as to whether or not, in any given case in the singular number, the duplicate s should be used, is applied by the ear ; and, as the delicacy of that organ varies in different indi- viduals, practice also will vary : but there is no ^ reason why it should be discordant. To omit the s always, as some persons do in writing and in ^:?mifm^, is a barbarism as gross as the general omission of the duplicate sound would be in speech. 150 VULGARISMS The following examples of the proper use of the apostrophe^ in nouns in the singular number, ending in various letters, are taken from Mr. Wilson's book : ^'Adam's book, not Adams's: the book did not belong to Adams. John Quincy Adams's death was no common bereavement. "Sir Humphrey i>at;?/'s safety-lamp. — '^ Da- vis's Straits. "Josephus's 'History of the Jews' is a very interesting work. ''^Andrew's hat, not Andrews's. — Andrews's ' Latin Keader.' "For quietness' sake, the man would not enter into any dispute. "Col. Mathews's delivery. — Matthew's Gospel, not Matthews' s. " The witness's testimony agreed with the facts of the case. "Let Temperance' smile the cup of gladness cheer. " We will not shrink from life's severest due. " There is no impropriety in speaking of the cockatrice' s den. I AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 151 "A friend should bear 2^. friend's infirmities. "Like the silver crimson shroud, that Phcehus' smiling looks doth grace. "A man's manners not unfrequentlj indicate his morals. "After two years, Porcius Festus came into Felix s room."* In a noun in the plural number, ending in s, the apostrophe ( ' ) is placed after the s (s') witJiout the addition of another s. The possessive case of a noun in the plural number, ending in s,ca,n never be formed by adding an s preceded by an apostrophe. For example, we do not and could not say or write, " The witnesses's testi- mony," but "the witnesses' testimony" — the plural possessive case corresponding to the singular possessive case, " the witness's testi- mony." The following examples of the proper use of the apostrophe in nouns ending in s,m the plural number, are taken from Mr. Wilson's book : * On signs, the possessive case of the word cent is often put, instead of the plural number of the word. On cars, for example, we sometimes read, "Fare, 7 cent's," instead of, "Fare, 7 cents." 152 VULaAKISMS " On eagles' wings lie seemed to soar, — " Our enemies' resistance," — "The ladies^ gloves and shawls were exceedingly handsome," — " He must strike the second heat upon the Muses' anvil," — ? " Thy mercies' monument."* * The indication of tlie possessive case of nouns no^ end- ing in s in tlie plural is too variable to receive- complete notice in a work of tHs character. Some of these nouns in the plural, instead of being used in the possessive case? are used as parts of compound words, as dice-box. In the plural nouns men, women, oxen, and others termi- nating in 671, we form the possessive case regularly, thus : — ■ 7nen^s, women^s, oxen's. In the word people, — which is plural when it does not signify a nation, — although we form the possessive case people's, we not only do not form possessive cases mice's, geese^s, but we do not use the words in the possessive case otherwise marked. The words feet and teeth are not used in the possessive ease. These examples prove how variable is our practice in regard to the formation of the possessive case in nouns not ending in 5, in the plural number. However, the termination of s in the plural belongs to most of the nouns in our lan- guage, compared with which those terminating otherwise are not only relatively, but absolutely, few in number. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. CHAPTER XX. TASTE. On the authority of the proverb, " There is no accounting for tastes," many persons presume to say that there can be no standard of taste. Taste, however, is not a thing, here, there, any- where, and wherever it is, equally good. The faculty is common to mankind, but the de- velopment of it is possible only in civilization, and general excellence in its decisions attainable only by individuals of iBne organization, moving in the highest refinement of that civilization. Only the passions and the form of man are common to human beings. In all else there is divergence. Men are, first of all, stamped with the seal of their kind, then with that of their race, then with that of their civilization, then with that of their society. Despite of individu- ality, they receive the firm impress of every one of these. We therefore may observe, that all mankind have the same hopes and fears, pleasures 11 154 VULGARISMS I and pains ; that individuals of each race have the same tendencies ; that individuals of each nation have the same views and ambition; that individuals of each class of society have the same feelings and tastes. Civilization comprises many degrees of pro- gress, from brutish ignorance to the highest culture of which man is susceptible. The taste of the individual corresponds with the general perception of the sphere in which he moves. Each within that sphere acquires from others, and evolves from his own mind, what consti- tutes the standard of taste there. This is appa- rent from the fact that individuals belonging to different classes of society do not coalesce. They cannot enjoy companionship with each other, because they entertain different funda- mental beliefs. The maxims which they deduce from these, their habits of thought, their feelings, their tastes relating to all the minutiae of life, are at variance. Dickens has somewhere said that two counting-house clerks cannot long sit on adjacent stools without establishing with each other a freemasonry of ideas, thoughts, and pleasantry, which is unintelligible to others. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 155 So it is in all society. The assimilative process is unceasing. If like seeks like, not less does association produce like. 1 Taste, however, is not an arbitrary law im- posed on every one by the force of circumstances. This has already been conceded by the admission that every one exercises influence in the forma- tion of the standard of taste within the sphere in which he moves. With individuality, appear differences in taste among those who find the society of each other delightful. Certain differ- ences enhance instead of diminish the pleasure of social intercourse. They furnish subjects for thought and conversation, in the endle-ss com- parison of preferences. They who most study any one of the depart- ments of knowledge in which taste can be exer- cised, — and it is common to all except to science, — must, with the opportunity of examining the various . objects belonging to that department, make progress in ihe study. It would be in vain for one who has the finest natural perceptions, to hope to excel in taste, unless he has the oppor- tunity to make many comparisons. Reason regulates, but does not create taste. It is in 156 VULGARISMS the application of reason to the comparison of various sorts of things of the same kind, that the principle of taste, common to all mankind, is in some who are peculiarly gifted with intellecti, and sensibility, developed to a point of exquisite delicacy. The highest taste in the things which belong to social intercourse is attainable by those only who combine in their own persons, intellect, sen- sibility, and the opportunity to mingle with the best society: that society which is formed of the educated elements in a civilized community. That society which represents every position in life held by the educated, which includes a certain proportion of people who have travelled, and a certain proportion of people who have re- tired from active life, is the best. Travelling enlarges the views, retirement from business gives leisure for culture, participation in it develops energy and character. The whole mass of a society composed of individuals so circumstanced is leavened by its component elements. If, then, we have access to such a society, or, if not, have the opportunity of ascertain- ing the tastes of such a one, wo may consider AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 157 that we possess prima fade evidence of their correctness. We are justifiable in trying them by our own reason, to which all our decisions (must revert; but we should consider them the standard unless good cause can be shown why they should not be so considered. The probability is that any large number of persons, who, if only by the force of circumstances, must have devoted themselves to the amenities of life, have made progress in the study, beyond those who, being engrossed by more important cares, have had less leisure and opportunity for culti- vating them. Conspicuous, in one sense, in refinement, in which, in another sense, nothing can be con- spicuous, is the observance of those things which make no show. In nothing is refinement so surely tested as in habits of body and of mind. The refined are not nice in their persons be- cause they meet the world : cleanliness is a part of their education, and has become second nature. They do not express elevated sentiments because those sentiments are applauded, but because they entertain no others. A more just idea of a family's refinement can be obtained by a glance 158 VULGARISMS at their private rooms, tlian by a leisurely survey of tlieir parlours. At table, they instantly reveal its grade, for elegant habits of eating cannot be simulated, and the vulgar betray their ordinary ones, either by grossness, or by clumsy attempts ■ at delicacy and fastidiousness. Refinement scorns pretence. It is not given in any thing to display or to meretricious ornament, but is marked by its simplicity and its repose. Even manners and speech are important in its eyes, because chiefly through them is held communion of mind. It does not debase great things by ignoble names, nor seek to dignify little things with noble names, divest any thing of what belongs to it, nor invest any thing with false appearances. Vulgarity, on the contrary, loves show in every thing. It has its private thoughts, habits, actions, speech, entirely different from their pub- _ lie counterparts. For the public, it puts on its peacock-plumes, and trails them in the dust, opens its lips to pour forth diamonds, and show- ers toads. Yet the occupant of no station in life, from the loftiest to the lowliest, is necessarily vulgar. AND OTHER EHRORS OF SPEECH. 159 The dignity of human nature is the birthright of all: its tenure depends on their truth. Each actor on the world's stage has a part to play, which is well or ill sustained, none through life successfully acting any other than that of his j own character. The essence of vulgarity is pre- tence. In its falsity, to whatever degree exist- ing, lies that offensiveness which is so apparent to the world ; which is felt, ridiculed, and de- nounced, even by those who are utterly incapable of determining the nature of the cause in which their sentiments originate. VULaAEISMS CHAPTER XXI. EXAMPLES OF BAD TASTE.* "You know," and "says I," "says he," "says sLe." Very seldom does it happen tliat the educated contract the habit of interlarding their discourse with the phrases ?/ow Tcnotv, says I, says he, says she; but so common is the habit among the illiterate, and so frequent their introduction of the words, that the sound of their voices in conversation is often mainly composed of the buzz of these ac- companiments. f The phrase ''you know'' is allowable some- times, the other ones, never. Time past can- not be described with the language belonging to time present. It has previously been ex- plained, that there are exceptions to this rule : but they do not apply to the case now under * Vulgarisms. t The use of the phrase " at any rate,^^ is also very common. When the habit is confirmed, the three words are pronounced as if they were one — attenyrate. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 161 consideration. Even if it were not absolutely ■wrong to employ the phrases ''says 2," ''says 7ig," "says she,'' in referring to time which is i past, it is supremely ridiculous for one constantly ^ to repeat that he said what he said. The exceptional case in which the phrase "you hnow'' ma,j be used, is where one narrating some- thing, part of which he is aware is known to the hearer, indicates, complimentarily, his knowledge of the fact, by introducing the phrase in an appropriate place. But as a series of pegs on which to hang discourse, you hiow, you hiow, you Jcnow, is intolerable. Marryatt gives, in ' The Pacha of Many Tales,' a very good illustration of the absurdity and in- veteracy of the habit of interspersing a narrative with "you know,'' and "says I," "says he,*' "says she." A man, in telling a story to the pacha, has been continually interrupted on account of his introducing you knows, has been threatened with condign punishment for a repetition of the offence, and has finally been dismissed to be bastinadoed, it would hardly be fair to say for his disobedience — for his ina- bility to obey. The man's companion, witness 162 VULGARISMS of the scene, and interrupted in his story also, and cautioned to avoid his trick of introducing the phrase ^'says /," resumes the broken thread of his narrative, while an executioner stands pre- pared to cut off his head if he repeats '•'says T^ twice. Let us read the scene in Marry att's own words. Hussan, the story-teller, speaks : " I shall never be able to go on, your high- ness ; consider one moment how harmless my says Ts are to the detestable you knows of Ali. That's what I always told him; 'Ali,' says J, 'if you only knew,' says 7, 'how annoying you are!' ' Why there,' s^^s / ." At this moment the blow of the scimitar fell, and the head of Hussan rolled upon the floor; the lips, from the force of habit, still quivering in their convulsions with the motioning which would have produced says 7, if the channel of sound had not been so effectually interrupted. "That story's ended!" observed the pacha in a rage. " Of all the nuisances I ever en- countered, these two men have beat them all. Allah forbid that I should again meet with a says, Z, or you hnowP^ AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 168 "Your highness is all wisdom," observed Mustapha ; "may such ever be the fate of those who cannot tell their stories without saying what they said." Emphasizing some of tlie particles of speech. ^ No better criterion can be afforded of relative mental perception in different individuals, than their application of emphasis to what is read or spoken by them. Writers on elocution are prone to assert, without due qualification, that the rules of the art are deducible from nature; that emotion and passion always speak with just emphasis. That nature is the source whence those rules should be deduced, is not to be denied; but, unless we at the same time admit that, although the quality of the emotions and passions in all individuals is the same, the quality of their intel- lect and their training is widely different, we shall form no just rule for elocution. The language . of emotion and passion is shaped by the intellect and the training belonging to each individual. The truth of this assertion may very easily be subjected to test, by comparing the reading and speaking of the child and the illiterate, with the 164 VULGARISMS reading and speaking of the adult and the educated. This is not the place to pursue the topic. The intention of what has been said is answered by the bearing which it has on the common and flagrant error of emphasizing some of the par- ticles of speech. Dickens's burlesque on the practice, in the following passage, will aiford as good an example as any one that could be selected. "*I have draw'd upon A man, and fired upon A man for less,' said Chollop, frowning We are the intellect and virtue of the airth, the cream Of human natur', and the flower Of moral force.' " * Step in for Walk in. No one can walk without stepping ; so, in itself, there is no objection to the expression '''■step in.'' It is, however, one which, with the meaning of an invitation to enter, is never used by refined people. It is a euphemism, which, in that connection, is an afi'ectation of elegance ; as if, in using it, one meant to imply that stepping is easier than walking. * Martin Chuzzlevvit. AND OTHER ERRORS OP SPEECH. 165 There are many occasions on which the word step is the appropriate one to use. The fol- lowing examples will indicate the character of these occasions : — " Step on this chair, and you will obtain a better view of the procession," — ■ " No sooner had he stepped out of the door than he was attacked by three ruffians," — " Step under this shelter," — " Step aside, so that lean pass." On examining these, and all similar expressions in which the word step is correctly used, we shall find that the space of time occupied by the act is little more than momentary. Again, where particular attention is to be directed to the mode of walking, the word step is the proper one to use ; as, ^' He stepped along briskly," — ''He is so weak that he steps very slowly," — "In stepping along the tight -rope, she lost her balance and fell,"- — "In stepping over the curb-stone, he twisted and sprained his In extending an invitation to enter, or in speaking of a person's having gone out, we wish to draw particular attention neither to the time consumed in the act, nor to the mode .of its performance. We refer merely to the 1^6 VULaARISMS result. The simjDlest manner is to saj, " Walk (not step) up stairs," — "Will you not walk (not step) into the parlour, and wait for a few minutes?" — "So-and-so has just gone (not stepped) out for a few minutes," — " He has gone (not stepped) around the corner." "Pay a call" for "Pay a visit.". A person makes a call or pays a visit. As a call is a short visit, there is no reason why the ex- pression '^pay a calV is not, in itself, as correct as the expression "-pay a visit. ^' But the heau monde, whose practice is final in determining such matters, say, ^'pay a visit'' and ''make a call." "Free to say," — "Free to confess." Grandiloquent men are particularly fond of using the bywords, "I am free to say/' — "J am free to confess." If a man can say a thing, let him say it like a man, without telling people that he is free to say it. Tasti/ and tastily for Tasteful and tastefully. Although the words tasty and tastily have been used by some good writers, they have at present a decidedly vulgar twang. Their special application to the words lady^ dress, and furni- AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 167 ture^ affords more than an inkling of the cause. Tasteful and tastefully are correct words, with- out even the suspicion of vulgarity attached to fthem. Rig for Dress. In relation to using the verb To Hig, instead of the verb To Dress, Dr. Elwyn, in his ' Glossary of Supposed Americanisms,' says To Rig "is not in general use with any class, but, as a colloquial vulgarism, may be heard sometimes, though only in fun." This is an error. Many persons, as well as Dr. Elwyn, do suppose that To Rig is always used by way of pleasantry ; but the fact is that many girls never use any other word to signify making the toilet. Babe iov Bahy, The word hale, although perfectly correct, should be reserved for language above that of familiar conversation. We use it properly in speaking of the ' Babes in the Wood,' and we invariably find it in poetry. The household word being hahy, hahe sounds pretentious. Raised for Reared. Dr. Elwyn says, "Among the great mass of the people of this country, south of Philadelphia, 168 VULGARISMS this word (rear) has given way to raise. One seldom hears, ' I shall have difficulty in rearing that child/ but almost always, raising; and, 'where were you raised,' instead of brought up.'' The use of raise, in the sense of bring up, ^ or rear, is certainly no longer confined to the Southern States, as the preceding quotation implies, and both Webster and Worcester assert. In the phrases, '^to raise corn," — "^ raise wheat," — " to raise pigs" — " to raise chickens," etc., the word raise is correctly employed; but in speaking of the support and education of children, '•Ho bring u-p," or "to rear," is the preferable expression. Buried for Lost. To say, " I buried my youngest child last week," is surely an unrefined way of announcing so sad an event as its death. The fact can be more delicately communicated by a sentence of equivocal meaning. Even if a woman should say, "I lost my husband last year," no one would suppose that she meant to say she had dropped him in the street, or that he had run away. The phrase "Iburied" is coarse. It is the expression of the material instead of the morul aspect of AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 169 the loss sustained. It recalls, graphically, a hor- rible incident of death. Burial, when it is over, should appear the minor incident. The one that the mind should cherish, the one around which the affections should cling, is the departure of the spirit, and its life in the other world. Cashet for Coffin. The scenes of death, as well as of life, test refinement. The difference in the sentiments with which they inspire different persons is marked through the long interval that divides a decent funeral from an Irish wake. What trifling with a serious thing it is to call a coffin a casket! "Can flattery soothe the dull eold ear of death?" The pleasant name of a coffer for jewels does not reconcile man to death and burial. Dread of death, and repugnance to decay, are instinctive, and cannot be altered. The fate may be faced nobly, if not boldly, fear- fully though trustfully, as is fit in the appointed mystery ; but man cannot, without grievous harm to his moral nature, gloss the truth ard give the lie to his conscience. Embalming Surgeon for Umbalmer, The process of embalming, although it requires the use of the knife, cannot properly be called 12 170 VULGARISMS surgery, which is operation on the living body. It is therefore a misuse of the term surgeon to apply it to an embalmer. It is quite common now to see advertisements of " embalming sur- geons." "My husband," once said a woman to the writer, is an ^'embalming surgeon." This mode of speech does not elevate any pro- fession. It is too evident an attempt to confer dignity by a name, and is suggestive of the speaker's consciousness that the object lacks dignity. The assumption of the title of Professor, by quacks, and by others more respectable than quacks, is now so common that, unless the title is coupled with the name of a person known to have a right to it, or with mention of a professor- ship, it means any thing, from a professor of astronomy to an artist in whitewashing. " Not one of that kind." ''' I am not one of that kind,'' is a detestable vulgarism. A gentleman, or a lady, instinctively feeling self-description to be indelicate, never, directly or indirectly, except on compulsion, de- fines any point of his or her character. When he or she does, the language employed, not being AND OTHER ERKORS OP SPEECH. 171 stereotyped, proves that the necessity is unusual, the act not habitual. Either, if constrained to put into words the idea contained in the phrase, '''lam not one of that hind,'" would probably say, "I am not capable of such an act:" which ex- pression implies extremity, the repelling of a suspicion or an accusation. Independent of the deep taint of vulgarity belonging to this expression, acquired by its use in self-application, it is a low vulgarism, even as applied to other persons ; thus, " He is not one of that kind." It has been used so undiscrimi- natingly,— used as a byword by the uneducated, — that it is associated with them only. The phrase, " ^/ie^f.'6)rsf7i;^?^c?," is a vulgarism less offensive than the one last noticed, only because it does not relate to character. It is a pity that every one who uses it could not be punished as was the merchant who wrote for some flour, telling his correspondent that he wanted it ''the very worst kind." Sweat ioT Perspiration. In certain connections, the word sweat is pre- ferable to the word perspiration, but those cases are exceptional. They are where the subject is 172 VULGARISMS ^ serious, where the language is figurative, or where the lower animals are concerned. In speaking of a horse, it would be ridiculous I to employ the word perspiration, and say, for example, "That horse is in a perspiration." Every one feels this to be true. There is a reason for it. In relation to even the. grosser bodily functions and their play in the lower animals, we speak with comparative unreserve. We do not, without necessity, allude to the same when appertaining to mankind. We, regarding ourselves as vastly superior to the brute creation, habitually ignore in like attributes any similarity. We can with propriety speak of administering a sweat to a patient. We can speak of a per- son's being subject to night sweats, an accom- paniment of some diseases. In matters so grave as illness and disease, the mind rejects, as paltry, any refinement of language not concerning the: grosser functions of the body, and chooses the most forcible term at command. There is nothing offensive in the word siveat, in the passage beginning, "In the siveat of thy face shalt thou eat bread . . . . " The subject is not only solemn, but the language is figurative, AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 173 conveying the idea of hard labour. The figura- tive application of the word, derived from the original quoted, is constantly made in the ex- pression, "Living by the siveat of his brow." Again, in the history of the passion of our Saviour, we find the word used literally; we recognize it as the proper word, the only word that could convey the sense ; and we should reject the other with indignation. We find, then, that except in medical treat- ment, the word sweaty as applied to mankind, is ofiensive when it has direct personal application on ordinary occasions; as when one says, "I am in a violent sweat," — "You look as if you were in a sweat," — "He was in a sweaty condition." It expresses an extreme degree of the condition described by the word perspiration : a condition which is not agreeable to the sufierer, to the .witness, or as a picture presented to the mind. " Introduced to a gentleman." Many girls say, " I was introduced to a gentle- man," — "I had an introduction to a gentleman." Courtesy, derived from the chivalrous estima- tion in which the stronger sex holds the weaker, dictates its conceding to the weaker the privilege 174 VULGARISMS of conferring obligation. A gentleman is intro- duced to a lady, she is not introduced to him.* The fact is that, inasmuch as they are made ac- quainted with each other, the introduction is of each to each. But politeness ignores that cir- cumstance; and a gentleman, being introduced to a lady, she graciously accepts him as an ac- quaintance. There are exceptions. A lady, unless she is an empress or a queen, is presented to an em- peror, a king, or any other potentate, or any high dignitary. It would be disrespectful to introduce a distinguished man to any ordinary lady, or to introduce an elderly man to a young lady. In these cases, the ceremony is reversed, the lady being introduced to the gentleman. It is impossible to arrive at a just conclusion regarding the correct application of the word * Althougli the -woxdi^ present and presentaUo7i, as well as tlie words introduce and introduction, are often em- ployed in speaking of the ceremony under consideration, present and presentation should be reserved for the most ceremonious kinds of introduction ; in which persons are presented to others of rank, as at court. Persons are also properly said to be presented to untitled men and women of distinction AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 175 introduction^ unless we possess a correct idea of tlie significance of the ceremony. Is intro- duction merely a ceremony which makes per- sons acquainted with each other's names, and constrains them thenceforward to observe certain forms to each other when they meet? To make introduction complete, something more is necessary — the affirmation of the fitness of the introduced for each other's society; and this the introducer, if not the mere agent by mutual desire of the introduced, should tacitly guarantee. Introduction, save presentation at Court, which is only remotely like the private ceremony, takes place for two purposes. Persons may be in- troduced for the purpose of transacting business with each other, or for social intercourse, tem- porary or permanent. The unsolicited intro- ducer takes upon himself a responsibility which, according to circumstances, is either justifiable or unjustifiable. For either of the purposes for which his introduction is made, it is endorse- ment. He tacitly says, either "This person is desirable for you to treat with on business," or else, " This person is a desirable acquaintance for you in society." Yet how often is not this 176 VULGAEISMS propriety ignored ! . Casual acquaintances intro- duce to each other their casual acquaintances. If a person stops to say half a dozen words to one in company with another, the form of intro- duction is often employed before escape is pos- sible. Through male and female acquaintances, of whom they know little or nothing, girls are often brought into contact with other persons equally or more objectionable; the security in the introduc- tion diminishing in inverse ratio to the numbers composing the widening circle of acquaintance. Many persons can bear witness that, from this freedom of manners, unpleasant and sometimes disastrous consequences flow. The rule for the unsolicited introducer to ob- serve is very simple : In business, not to intro- duce any one with whom he himself would not negotiate; and, as a general rule in society, not to introduce persons who are not likely to see each other again, to meet often, or who, if they are personally unacquainted with each other, may rationally be presumed not to wish to be made ac- quainted. Unless the formula of the introducer discriminates, and affords these guarantees, his action should be resented, as wantino^ in the AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECU. 177 essence of the thing typified : not resented at the time and place, — that would be in worse taste than his, — but simply by avoidance of an em- barrassing acquaintance. '■ 'John Phoenix' hits well the prevalence of street introductions everywhere, when he says, speaking of San Francisco: — "You meet Brown on Montgomery street: 'Good morning. Brown;' 'How are you, Smith?' 'Let me introduce you to Mr. Jones' — and you forthwith shake hands with a seedy individual, who has been boring Brown for the previous hour, for a small loan probably — an individual you never saw before, never had the slightest desire to see, and never w^ish to see again "Each gentleman to whom you have been introduced, wherever you may meet thereafter, in billiard-room, tenpin-alley, hot-house, or church, introduces you to somebody else, and so the list increases in geometrical progression. .... In this manner you form a crowd of ac- quaintances, of the majority of whom you recol- lect neither names nor faces, but being continually assailed by bows and smiles on all sides, from 178 VULGARISMS unknown gentlemen, you are forced, to avoid the appearance of rudeness, to go bowing and smirk- ing down tlie street, like a distinguished charac- ter in a public procession, or one of those graven images at Tobin and Duncan's, which are eternally wagging their heads with no definite object in view " In good society, there are occasions, both in- door and out-door, on which persons, in every respect qualified to know each other, meet and converse without the ceremony of introduction; and to know when, and when not, to introduce persons to each other, is one of the signs of good-breeding. 1 AND OTIIEll ERLOllS OF SPEECH. CHAPTER XXII. CONCLUDING REMARKS. The desire to possess the mastery of one's mother-tongue may be stimulated by a higher motive than that which prompts to the acquisition of an accomplishment, or even to the attainment of what we call information. Far more inti- mately than most of us are aware, language is interwoven with our inner life. Our knowledge of it has grown with our growth ; our ideas have been shaped and fixed by its symbols ; our affec- tions are entwined with its endearing terms. It has ministered to our ennoblement, or assisted in our degradation. It both bears and returns the impress of the individual and the public mind. If men wish to debase objects, to disguise un- pleasant facts, to appease their consciences, they compass all these ends by words. Great is the relief in words ministering to failings and sins — most lenient father-confessors ! Through lan- guage comes also to men every elevated senti- 180 VULGARISMS ment that thej possess, their experience of the past, their hope for the future. They cannot afford to dispense with seeing clearly through the medium through which they view all that it is possible for them to learn, and communicate all that it is possible for them to impart; and just in proportion to the clearness of that medium to their mental vision is their ability to discover and to reveal truth. In the course of time it comes to pass that virtues, vices, even follies set their seal on lan- guage; that in proportion to the truthfulness with which it has been used, certain words have retained their significance, or with it impaired, and sometimes lost, present under transparent disguises men's secret springs of action.* When the present era belongs to the past, and the educated of future generations look back on our civilization as transmitted through our language and literature, how, mingled with its progress and attainment in every department of know- ledge, will vulgarity be exhibited in the degrada- * For an interesting elucidation of this subject, tlie reader is referred to Dean Trench's work ' On the Study of Words.' AND OTHER ERKORS OF SPEECH. 181 tion of many words by Tvliich the attempt has been made to substitute the shadow for the substance of things! To penetrate no more deeply into the subject, let us see how even folly may for some write its history, and for others inculcate its lesson, by a change in words. For the purpose of illustration^ we need not seek for an example beyond the pale of our own civilization. Chief among these words, as offering evidence of the degradation of words by usage, and of the degrading reaction of that usage, are the terms gentleman and lady. What a longing for and an unworthy assumption of a mantle which cannot be snatched, but which falls unsought on the shoulders of those worthy to grace it, are shown by their loss of significance ! What pernicious effect their reaction has had on many, in- appreciative of their import, blinding them to the dignity of labour, sire of Independence, "lord of the lion-heart," causing them to im- agine that with it refinement is incompatible, and associating it in their minds with degradation! How little must the import of the words be appreciated by thousands of both sexes, by whom gentility is thought to centre in money, and by 182 VULGARISMS other thousands of both sexes, by whom it is thought to centre in dress ! The sign is ominous when votaries of gentility are ashamed of the names of men and women. How ignorant must they be not to know that all human worth is based on true manhood and true womanhood ! How little must they reason not to perceive that, if so, all their existence is the veriest sham ! But if they cannot perceive this, how can they be expected to see, that, although manhood and womanhood constitute all respecta- bility, of themselves they do not create the higher rank of which they are the indispensable basis? that it is derived from nature and educa- tion, so subtly blended, that whether it was born, or whether it grew, is impossible to discover in the effect. / There never was and there never can be a nation composed wholly of ladies and gentlemen. The sooner the fact is realized and tacitly ac- knowledged, the sooner will the titles be raised from the mire in which they have been trampled by a multitude of pretenders ; the sooner will they cease to mislead and degrade the ignorant, who, unable to discriminate between the essence AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 183 of a tiling and its usual accompaniments, sink in the mire, in the vain attempt to sustain too weighty a dignity. Of one thing we may rest assured. If the character of gentleman or lady cannot be ex- tracted from every nature, is not latent in every breast, and we may safely affirm that it is not, naught but education can bring it to light in whomsoever it does lie concealed. And education does not signify mere book-knowledge : that is the least of its constituents, and may more prop- erly be termed a concomitant. In proportion to opportunity enjoyed, — careful observation, asso- ciation, and study are in the path that, under Providence, terminates in the vista of a well- spent life, whence to the traveller lingering on the confines of two worlds, the retrospect may well afford contentment, and the prospect, hope. A REYIEW MK G. ¥ASHmGTON MOOI'S 'DEAFS ENGLISH' AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' 13 ( 185 ) 'THE DEAN'S EKGLISH' AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' My intention is to review the two critical works of Mr. Moon — 'The Dean's English,' and ' Bad English.' I premise that I enter- tain a high opinion of his correctness as a writer, and that the object which I have in view, in calling attention to the errors in those works, is public instruction. I coin- cide with Mr. Moon, when he says, that " the faults of teachers, if suffered to pass unre- proved, soon become the teachers of faults ;" and that, " he who assumes the office of public critic, should himself be prepared to submit to the ordeal of public criticism through which he has made others pass." Mr. Moon, great as is his skill in criticism, possesses, if he knows himself, more modesty than that which falls to the lot of many critics, for he says also : — *'I no more lay claim to infallibility than I do to omniscience. I endeavour to impart to others whatever knowledge I have acquired ; and I am always glad to receive instruction in return." (187) 188 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' The books" from wliicli 1 shall draw my material for the criticisms which I am about to make, are of English editions; — 'The Dean's English,' of the fourth and sixth editions ; and ' Bad English,' of the first edition. As the paging of the fourth and sixth editions of ' The Dean's English' differs, I shall content myself with giving the numbers of the pages on which errors may be found, in the fourth edition. In 'Bad English,' Mr. Moon takes Lindley Murray to task, for employing the subjunc- tive mood in places where he should have employed the indicative mood ; yet he him- self, in ' The Dean's English,' employs the subjunctive mood in places where he should have employed the indicative mood. On pages 7 and 8 of ' Bad English,' Mr. Moon remarks, that " Some persons, intending to be strictly accurate in their expressions, always say ; — * if it 6e,' ' tliough it loere ;' never, ' if it is,^ ' though it loas.^ Tliey imagine that ' if, ^though,'' and certain other conjunctions which imply contingency, ought always to be followed by a verb in the subjunctive mood. But it is only when such words imply a concurrence of contingency and futurity, that the verb should be in the subjunctive mood. When there is either contingency without futurity, or futurity without contiu- AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 189 gency, the verb must be in the indicative mood ; as Liudley Murray himself says, on page 307." After thus expressing himself, Mr. Moon censures Lindley Murray for writing, " A consonant is not of itself a distinct articulate voice ; and its iufiuence in varying the tones of language is not clearly perceived, unless it he accompanied by an opening of the mouth, that is, by a vowel." (p. 51.) " If this he admitted, it follows, that the noun and the verb are the only parts of speech, which are essentially necessary." (p. 64.) *' When a discourse is not well connected, the senti- ments, however just, are easily forgotten ; or, if a few he remembered, yet their general scope and tendency, hav- ing never been clearly apprehended, is [are] not remem- bered at all." (p. 193.) Mr. Moon is rigTit in censuring Lindley Murray for using the subjunctive mood in the preceding sentences. But how does his own rule in 'Bad English,' how does his own practice in ' The Dean's English,' agree with his strictures? We refer the reader to the following sentences from ' The Dean's Eng- lish' :— "I submit it to the reviewers whether your sentence he not altogether faulty." (p. 10.) " Whether my application of the rule he fallacious or not, let others judge from this letter ; and as to whether the rule itself he only a supposed rule," etc. (p. 13.) 190 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' " To differ where tlie wise are not agreed, if it he a fault," etc. (p. 22.) "Yet if this be not what the preface means," etc. (p. 48.) " If this 6e correct," etc. (p. 98.) These errors, if thej are (not he) errors, re- main in the sixth edition of ' The Dean's English.' Mr. Moon, omitting, in the sixth edition, the passage in the fourth edition ; — "You tell us that Hhan' governs an accusative case. What nonsense !", substituted this for it ; — " You tell us that ' than' governs an accusative case. If that he so, why did you," etc. The conclusion is inevitable, that it is Mr. Moon's practice to employ the subjunc- tive mood where, according to his teaching, the indicative mood should be employed. I shall now notice some other errors, which occur in the fourth edition of ' The Dean's English,' and which reappear in the sixth edition. Mr. Moon, addressing Dean Alford, says : — "So also, on page 195, 'a journal published by these people.' By what people ? Where is the noun to which this relative pronoun I AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' 191 refers?" (p. 35.) ^^ Tliese^^ is not a relative pronoun ; it is a demonstrative pronoun. "We read: — "I must leave it to the public to decide whether I have deserved siich a dis- tinguished title ;" — " With all due deference to such a high authority on such a very im- ^ portant matter." (pp. 43, 44, 45.) I sub- mit it to the critics to decide, whether Mr. Moon should not have said,—" so distinguished a title;" and "50 high an authority on so very important a subject." On page 48 we fiud a sentence beginning with, — " I guess you do not mean to imply that it is with poems as with people," etc. The sentence should be worded thus: — '^I guess that you do not mean to imply that it is with poems as with people," etc. The inter- polation of " thaf renders it more precise and perspicuous ; and the repetition of the word is not offensive to the ear. On page 108, in the following sentence, " that'^ is improperly omitted, — " I see [that] you still say 'treated,' rather than ' treated of,' " etc. Of the following two errors in the fourth edition of ' The Dean's English,' the first is corrected in the sixth edition, and the second 192 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' does not appear tliere, in consequence of the intentional omission of a long passage in whicli it occurred, 1. "I wished to show, bj your own writings, that so far were you from being competent to teach others English composition, that you had need," etc. (pp. 43, 44.) The second " ^Aa^" is redundant. 2. "We should, perhaps, ultimately find ourselves, for brevity's sake, adopting the style exemplified in the anecdote given by Farrar, and which runs thus." (p. 110.) What Mr. Moon thinks of the use of ^'' and which^^ under such circumstances, may be found on page 22 of 'Bad English,' where he says : — " Another, almost equally common, is the ' and which} error. This con- sists in the words * and whicW being employed in a sentence not containing, in the previous part of it, the word ''which^'' either expressed or understood. The error is one that young writers frequently fall into ; and, strange to sa}^, it is found in some of even Lindley Murray's sentences." Some persons may think that, in the sentence quoted, the word " which'^ is understood. Mr. Moon, probably, does not refer to such sentences. However, in the AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' 193 sentence quoted, the use of " and icltidt^ is wrong ; for the words " and which^'' require the word " uihkli^^ preceding and expressed. The reader will scarcely think that, after I had concluded my strictures upon ' The Dean's English,' I ought to have particula- rized its merits. Its reputation is established. It has received approval from authorities whose judgment is unimpeachable. In the late editions, it appears with many and great improvements. It is, however, to be regretted that Mr. Moon has in the late editions intro- duced a final letter addressed to Dean Alford, in which letter he insinuates in the plainest possible manner, that the Dean, in his ' Plea for the Queen's English,' plagiarized from 'Bentley's Quarterly Eeview.' The charge is substantiated by many collated passages, which are printed in a separate part of ' The Dean's English.' But the truth or the falsity of the charge does not enter into the question which we are about to touch. It may be right, indeed it may properly be deemed obligatory on those who have in charge the interests and therefore the honour of literature, to arraign the Dean for his misdemeanour ; but 194 THE dean's ENGLISH' Mr. Moon should not be cliief-prosecntor. The Dean had been his adversary, and had been sorely humiliated by him. There are tasks which duty sets vaguely, to be executed by some one ; but there are also instruments which, by executing them, err most grievously. From the disgrace of a recognized enemy, a noble mind averts its gaze, and casts the mantle of silence over his act. Mr. Moon's work, entitled 'Bad English,' consists of three distinct parts. I was some- what disappointed when, on receiving the long-promised volume, I found that the only new matter contained in it is the first part, which is a criticism of certain errors Lindley Murray's ' Glrammar.' The second and third parts are two series of criticisms, which, originally, were published in ' The Eound Table.' The first of these is directed chiefly against the Hon. George P. Marsh's * Notes on the New Edition of Webster's Dic- tionary,' and the second, against Mr. Edward S. Gould's work, entitled ' Good English.' On page 2 of 'Bad English,' Mr. Moon, preparing to criticize Lindley Murray's Ian- i AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 195 guage, says: — "Well, it is the pupil's turn now ; and notwithstanding that the old gram- marian was a personal friend of my family's^ I cannot resist the temptation to take up the pen against him," etc. Throughout the book, Mr. Moon uses the double genitive case, as in the preceding sentence, and in the following examples : — "This is an excellent rule of Lindley Murray's, (p. 20.) " Of what use is the word in the following sentence of Mr. Marsh's?" (p. 81.) "Elsewhere Mr. Gould censures me for not exposing what he calls an error of Dean Alford's." (p. 126.) " Certain expressions of Dean Trench's and of Dean Alford's" etc. (p. 140.) "Concerning a sentence of Dean Trench's," etc. (p. 146.) " In a sentence of Dean Trench's ; .... in a sentence of Mr. Gould's," etc. (p. 164.) " Of all the outrageously extravagant examples of this kind of error, I never met with one that equals this of Mr. Gould's." (p. 180.) On page 72, Mr. Moon says: "'0/' relates to source. . . . Mr. S. [a person who criticized Mr. Moon's language] seems to know of only one meaning to the word ' o/,' namely, that of possession. . . . '0/' has at least a dozen sig- nifications." True. But if " o/" has great 196 'the dean's ENGLISH' latitude of signification, depending upon tlie idea to be expressed, wliy does Mr. Moon, by always employing in conjunction with "o/" tlie sign of the possessive case, always ensure that only possession shall be signified ? Why should we not say : " This is an excellent rule of Lindley Murray," which means that the source of the rule is Lindley Murray ; rather than say, as Mr. Moon does, this is an excellent rule of Lindley Murray's, which means that the rule is one of many rules laid down by Lindley Murray. A noun, if belonging more distinct- ively to that which originates, than to tha which possesses, should generally be put id the objective case; as, " A prescription of Dr3 Smith;" "A native of Scotland." We sayj that, generally, it should be put in the ob- jective case: the rule has many exceptions. If, wishing to speak of Mr. Moon's work called ' The Dean's English,' we say, — that book of Mr. Moon's, we exhibit a clear case of source^ indicated by the possessive case. We cannot, under any circumstances, say, — " That book of Mr. Moon." Yet we say, "the poems of Byron;" "the essays of Macaulay ;" the writ- ings of any one. Ambiguity in these three AND ' BAD e:tglish.' 197 sentences does not exist, but it does exist in the sentence — " That book of Mr. Moon." On the other hand, possession must sometimes be exhibited by the employment of the objective case. If, instead of saying with Mr. Moon, ' ' The !*» old grammarian was a personal friend of my family's," we say, " The old grammarian was a personal friend of my family," we exhibit a clear case of p>ossession indicated by the ob- jective case. Let me, before proceeding, define what I mean by source, in contradistinction to pos- session. I choose, for the purpose of illus- tration, two examples in which the idea of source may not be so clear to the reader as is the idea of source contained in the example immediately following; — "A child of my friend." Ex. 1. "A likeness of Jones." Is Jones the source of the likeness, or is the artist the source of it ? Without Jones, the artist could have jDainted a picture, but not that picture ; therefore Jones is the source of the picture. The source of copies of a pic- ture is the first picture — the original. Ex. 2. "An anecdote of Dr. Johnson" — that is, a story about Dr. Johnson, not one told by 198 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' liim. Is tlie narrator tlie source of the anec- dote ? An anecdote may have thousands of narrators, but the source of it is the thing described. In certain sentences, although we may, by employing the objective case to indicate source, succeed in our purpose, we should, to avoid the possible suggestion of an idea for- eign to the subject, employ in them the posses- sive case. Two such sentences occur among those last quoted from 'Bad English.' In them, Mr. Moon is right in employing the possessive case. In speaking of language, we should not say, — A sentence " of Mr. Grould," — " of Dean Trench,"—" of Mr. Marsh,"— or of any one else. We might not be misunder- stood ; but, by the use of the phrase, an idea foreign to our intention might be suggested. A judicial sentence, by a person, or on a person, is equally termed the sentence of that person. Lindley Murray, whom, even in criticizing Mr. Moon's language, I have no scruple in quoting, seeing that Mr. Moon makes occa- sional use of him as an authority, says : — " When tMs double genitive, as some grammarians term it, is not necessary to distinguish the sense, and AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 199 especially in a grave style, it is generally omitted. Ex- cept to prevent ambiguity, it seems to be allowable only in cases which, suppose the existence of a plurality of subjects of the same kind. In the expressions, ' A sub- ject of the emperor's;' 'A sentiment of my brother's;' more than one subject, and one sentiment, are supposed to belong to the possessor. But when this plurality is neither intimated, nor necessarily supposed, the double genitive, except as before mentioned, should not be used : as, 'This house of the governor is very commodious;' 'The crown of the king was stolen;' 'That privilege of the scholar was never abused.' But after all that can be said for this double genitive, as it is termed, some grammarians think, that it would be better to avoid the use of it altogether, and to give the sentiment another form of expression." In some sentences, the double genitive must be employed to indicate possession, even if no idea of the plurality of subjects is involved in wbat is intended to be expressed. We can- not say, — "that dog of William," we must say that dog of William's ; — but we can say, — "that child of William,"— " that invention of William." By this illustration we perceive how stringent the reference of the objective case is to source^ and how stringent the refer- ence of the possessive case is to possession. When we come to consider the use of pro- nouns, under conditions analogous to those 200 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' which we have been discussing, we find that, excepting " ?"^," the idiom of our language does not allow us to put them in the objective case. " An opinion of him," for instance, is not his opinion, but the opinion of some one else in regard to him. " A house of them" does not mean a house belonging to them; but means, if it means anything, a house full of them. "We saj, — "that child of his;" "that idea of hers;" — "that library of theirs;" — " that horse of mine." The objective cases of /, /le, s/ie, they^ preceded by " o/," being re- served for certain meanings, we are con- strained to employ in those pronouns the possessive case, in order to indicate the idea either of source or of possession. When, however, we consider our corresponding use of "z^," we find that we recur to the objective case. " n^ being used (if we except infants), only of non-sentient objects, there is no dan- ger of ambiguity's arising from our employ- ment of the word in the objective case only. In a true sense, an object to which ^^ if is applicable cannot be said to possess. We never wish to say, — "that opinion of its;" because " if cannot possess an opinion. On AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 201 the other hand, we are in no danger of being misunderstood if we say, — ''that opinion of it." The opinion, evidently, is not an emana- tion of the existence to which " ^Y" is applied, but that of some sentient being in regard to " ^7." So, although we do, for convenience' sake, in speaking of inanimate objects, use " iV in the possessive case ; as, for instance, speaking of a city, we say, — its fountains, its squares, its churches, etc. ; yet, whenever we can escape from this necessity, we use the ob- jective case, and say, "that beauty of it;" " those features of it." No precise rule for the guidance of our choice between the objective, and the posses- sive case, in nouns, can be given. This, how- ever, we have seen, that, generally, the double genitive case implies possession; and the objective case, source. In deciding, under given circumstances, which of the two forms to employ, we, individually, must rely on our discrimination. Sometimes it is immaterial which form shall be employed, the ideas of source and possession are so nicely balanced. An observation of Mr. Moon's (not here, of Mr. Moon; because that might be scrutiny . 14 202 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' made by anotlier person), in the sixth edition of 'The Dean's English' suggests to me a parallel one. He says : — " It is not the cir- cumstance that the pronoun is preceded by ' than^'' that determines whether the pronoun is to be in the nominative or in the accusative case. It is the meaning which the writer intends to convey, that determines in which case the pronoun must be." So, likewise, in reference to the two forms of expression of which I have been speaking, I say : — It is not the circumstance that the preposition " q/"" precedes a noun, that determines whether the noun is to be in the possessive or in the objective case. It is the meaning which the writer intends to convey, that determines in which case the noun must be. Mr. Moon says: — " Let us now look at some of Lindley Murray's sentences in which, the adverb *6of^,' is used; and we shall find that he is at fault in those also." (p. 14.) Mr. Moon ought to have said, " in fault," instead of "a^ fault." To be " ai fault" is to be nonplussed. A schoolboy is " at fault" when he cannot answer a question asked from his lesson. He is " at fault" for a reply, when AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 203 his teacher has found him "m fault" for not knowing his lesson. On pages 17 and 50, Mr. Moon nses the . word '■'' firstly ^^'' and, on page 187, thus defends the use of the word: — *' I do not object to the occasional use of ^JirsV, as an adverb ; but, in sentences where it would be followed by * secondly,'' Uhirdly,^ etc., I think that the adverbial form Is preferable." However desirable it maj be to employ the word '^^ firstly'^ on certain occasions, the fact remains, that the employment of it on any occasion is not the best usage. Mr. Moon's sentence last quoted is faulty in construction. Mr. Moon does not mean to say, that he thinks^ in certain sentences^ that the adverbial form is preferable. He means to say that, he thinks that^ in certain sentences, the adverbial form is 'preferable. Mr. Moon says : — " On page 320 he [Lindley Murray] tells us that it is incorrect to say ; — ' A house and orchard;' and so it is ; because as there is, in the sentence, but one article, it is understood as referring to both nouns; and though we may say ; — '■A house,' we may not say; — * J. orchard.' " (pp. 30, 31.) The use of ^^may^^ in the sense of " can^^ is 204 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' obsolete. It is proper to nse " ma?/" in the phrase, — '' and thougli we may say ;" because " may^^ there refers to permissibility. But it is not proper to use " ma?/" in the phrase, — " we may not say ;" because " ma?/" there refers to inability — what amounts to inability, on ac- count of the great impropriety of doing the thing forbidden. Sir Walter Scott, -writing before '•'- may^^ in the sense of '•'' can'^ became obsolete, frequently used the word in that sense. In Ivanhoe, in the interview between Kebecca and Eowena, occurs this passage : — " ' No, lady,' answered Eebecca, the same calm melancholy reigning in her soft voice and beautiful features — 'that may not be. I may not change the faith of my fathers like a gar- ment unsuited to the climate in which I seek to dwell, and unhappy, lady, I will not be.' " Mr. Moon, correcting Lindley Murray's phrase, — " Independently on the rest of the sentence," substitutes for it, — " Independently of the rest of the sentence." (p. 40.) Neither the one nor the other form is right. The wording should be, — ^'' Independent of the rest of the sentence." Webster, although full of vagaries, had some excellent ideas, and on the AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' • 205 use of the adjective instead of the adverb, under the circumstances exhibited by the ex- ample adduced, he always strongly insisted. The best English usage shows that he was right ; although modern practice seems to be departing from the desirable form which he and others prescribed. If a single word is to be qualified, we should employ an adverb ; if, on the contrary, a clause is to be qualified, we should employ an adjective. Although he dwelt less upon the subject, Murray enter- tained in regard to it the same views as Web- ster held. Mr. Moon, criticising a passage from Lindley Murray's ' Grammar,' says : — " The concluding sentence is as follows : — * But most of all, in a single sentence, is required the strictest unity.' Why all this inversion ? Why not say ; — But the strictest unity is required in a single sentence ; or, But unity is required most of all in a single sentence ?" (p. 43.) Why not ? — because the change would make wretchedly weak what was remarkably forci- ble. Examine the whole passage. Murray says : — " In every composition, there is always some connecting principle among the partSe 206 ■ ' THE dean's ENGLISH' Some one object must reign and be predomi- nant. But most of all, in a single sentence, is required tlie strictest unity." I bave notbing to do witb tbe question wbetber verbal improvements migbt, or migbt not, be made in tbese sentences. Tbe question before me * is as to tbe propriety of tbe inversion in tbe last sentence, and as to Mr. Moon's suggested cbanges' being improvements. I say decid- edly, tben, not only tbat Mr. Moon's cbanges are not improvements, but tbat tbe removal of tbe inversion in tbe last sentence would ruin tbe effect of tbe passage. In tbe tbree sen- tences combined in tbeir present order, tbere is a regular crescendo. In every composition, tbere is a connecting principle . . . one object must reign . . . but, most of all, in a single sentence, is required tbe strictest unity. Murray baving written : — " Tbe order in wbicb the two last words are placed, etc." Mr. Moon corrects bim by interpolating, " the last two^ (p. 45.) I am aware tbat, in any eitber pbysical or mental arrangement, two tbings cannot eacb be last. But I know anotber tbing, witbout considering wbicb I cannot, in any given case, properly decide wbetber to AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 207 give preference to " the last two^^ or to '' the two lasty It is, that the expressions, " the last two^''^ and " the two lasf,^^ are all that we have to en- able us to distinguish between two independent ideas. If we say, — " the last two,^^ we, by implication, make stringent reference to ''the first twOj''^ which do not always exist, or, if they do exist, which we often have no inten- tion to refer to ; and, in consequence, we often mislead as to our meaning. It is therefore preferable, whenever the absolute position of only two things is to be mentioned, to speak of them, as the case may be, as ^Uhe two first ^^^ or " ^/le two lastf^ but whenever the relative position of four things, considered as two pairs, each pair either first or last, is to be mentioned, to speak of them as ''^ the first two^\ and " tlie last twoP Mr. Moon concludes his criticism of errors • in ' Murray's Grammar,' by remarking, that "Almost every kind of fault in composition may be found in Lindley Murray's own writings ; and yet he is not more incorrect in his language, than are ninety-nine men out of every hundred. He knew what was right ; but his practice was strangely at variance with his precepts." 208 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' Is not this judgment more severe tlian that whicli is warranted by the. facts of the case ? Lindley Murray, compared with verbal-critics, is perhaps not more correct in his language than are ninety-nine men of- every hundred ; compared with mere literary men, perhaps not more correct than are the best of them. But, compared with the educated, .neither verbal- critics nor mere literary men, he is more correct than are thousands; and, com- pared with the mass of people, more correct than are millions. Mr. Moon says : — "His words [a certain clergyman's] were the procla- mation of a proposal." (p. 52.) [Review of the Hon. George P. Marsh's ' Notes on the New Edition of Webster's Dictionary.'] I can conceive the propriety of this ex- pression, under the circumstances that one person proclaims the proposal of another ; or even under those in which the proposal, being fixed in verbal form, as, for instance, in a quack's advertisement of a panacea, the pro- clamation is an independent act, consisting merely of the constant repetition of the same set terms. But neither these circumstances, AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 209 nor similar ones, are represented by the pas- sage from which the sentence above-quoted is taken ; and consequently, the sentence is pleo- nastic ; a proposal being, in itself, a procla- mation of intention. Mr. Moon says : — One of the most frequently recurring errors in Mr. Marsh's * Notes' is," etc. (p. 63.) Here again is a pleonastic expression. "i?e- curring''' means " occurring againj'' at least once ; and, generally, it is employed to indi- cate many repetitions of like occurrence. Mr. Moon should therefore have written : — " One of the most frequently occurring errors in Mr. Marsh's ' Notes ;' or else, — " One of the most recurring errors," etc. Mr. Moon, in criticising the language of a person who signed himself S., and who con- stituted himself Mr. Marsh's champion, quotes from him, as follows : — " Mr. Marsh is, of course, quite able to carry on a con- test with Mr. Moon triumphantly, if he would he at the trouble to do it." (p. 68.) In his remarks on this passage, Mr. Moon makes several fair strictures; but, when he says, — " How can Mr. Marsh's ability to carry 2 10 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' on a contest be dependent on his willV\ he indulges in a specious argument. We say, — " He will if lie can ;" — " He would if he could ;^^ — and conversely, we say, — " He can if he ivillf^ — ''he could if he wouldP Although mankind admit that, in the abstract, ahiliiy* does not depend upon will ; yet, as a part of their daily experience, they recognize the fact, that, as they are constituted, the action of the will may be in abeyance. Therefore, as they can think that a person " can if he ^^•^7^," or " could if he would^'' they have incorporated in language an expression corresponding to the idea. Mr. Moon says that " It is not tintil we are satisfied that Mr. Marsh doe3 not mean ; — ' belonging to the vocabulary of our moral and intellectual nature by description,' that we perceive that the last two words are misplaced, and that what is meant is, that there is," etc. (pp. 77, 78.) It would have been much better to say : — . ^Hliat we perceive the last two pt^o last\ words to he misplaced, and the meaning to he^ that there is," etc. Mr. Moon, contrasting that usage which, he says, is the best, with that which, he says, had AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 211 passed away, makes the following observa- tion: — "But DOW,. the "best writers, when speaking of inani- mate objects, use '■of which' instead of ^ whose;' and I am surprised to find Mr. Marsh saying," etc. (p. 80.) Doubtless, Mr. Moon's reading covers very extensive fields of literature, but bis conclu- sion here is not that which I believe to be in accordance with fact. Harrison says: — *' Custom has, however, authorized the use of ** whose'"' when we speak of men, brutes, or inanimate things." Dr. Campbell, in speaking on the same subject, says: — "Some gramma- rians remonstrate. But it ought to be remem- bered, that use well established must give law to grammar, and not grammar to use. Nor is this acceptation of the word ' ivliose' of recent introduction into the language. It occurs even in Shakspeare, and almost uni- formly in authors of any character since his time. Neither does there appear to be any inconvenience arising from this usage. The connection with the antecedent is commonly so close as to remove all possible ambiguity. If, however, in any instance, the application should appear ambiguous ; in that instance, 212 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' witHout question, tlie periphrasis ougTit to be preferred. But the term thus applied to things could not be considered as improper any longer than it was by general use pecu- liarly appropriated to persons, and, therefore, considered merely as an inflection of the pro- noun ' who.'' Now that cannot be affirmed to be the case at present." Mr. Moon, who, as his writings prove,, re- gards Dr. Campbell as high authority in English ; who must know what wide differ- ence of opinion exists in reference to the ques- tion at issue ; and who, in fine, must at least occasionally experience the difficulty, not to say, impossibility, of avoiding the use of "t(;/iose" as the possessive case of "^^/^^■c^," was rash to make the unqualified assertion which I quote. The state of the case, as it presents itself to me, is, that good usage regards the application of " of which'''' to in- animate things, as generally preferable to the application of " whose^'' to them ; but that, farther than expressing this general prefer ence, good usage does not go. "The fruit Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought," etc. AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' 213 The fact that everybody knows of the ex- istence of ''poetic license" is insufficient to account for the fact that everybody reads the above lines, without having the attention in the slightest degree arrested by the presence of the word " whose J^ Mr. Moon says : — " Tliere is a specious fallacy here wliicli must be ex- posed." (p. 114.) [Criticism of Mr. S.'s language.] Here is an egregious pleonasm. The very nature of a fallacy is to be specious. A fallacy is a sophistical argument couched in a few words. The speciousness of one argument may be either greater or less than that of another argument, but speciousness in an argument is essential to constituting it a fallacy. Hence, although we can say, — " This is a more specious fallacy than any that I ever heard ;" we cannot say, — " There is a specious fallacy here which must be exposed." Mr. Moon, referring to Mr. Edward S. Gould, says: — " He might, perhaps, think that I were jesting if I asked him whether he meant a little deal, or a great deal." (pp. 143, 144.) ^^MighV belongs to a past tense; and al» 214 *THE dean's exglish' tliougli it is often employed to denote present time, it can never be employed to denote future time. For example, we cannot say : — " Man 1 labors that he might obtain the means of sub- sistence, and that he might add to the enjoy- ments of life." We must say : — '' Man labors that he may obtain the means of subsistence, and that he may add to the enjoyments of life." "J-sZ^ec?," also, belongs to a past tense. We cannot say : — " If I ashed you to go with me, would you consent?" We must say; — "If I (should) ask to go with me, would you con- sent?" It would be absurd to say : — " What luoidd you do, if you wenty (go). Mr. Moon, although his use of" might,^^ and of " asJced,^^ does not show it, evidently in- tends to speak of the future, throughout the sentence; for he uses the words, "that I were ^jesting ;" which include the imperfect tense of the subjunctive mood, and suggest the idea of futurity. Let us, for his sake, suppose that he employs "mz'^/z^" to represent present time. If we should suppose that he employs it to represent past time, the supposition would be only the worse for him. Eeferring to Mr. Gould, he says :- — " He might, perhaps, think i AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' 215 [that is, at present], that I were jesting [an oc- currence which had not taken place], if I asked him [a contingent occurrence relating to the past], whether he meant a little deal, or a great tdeal." If the sentence must throughout express the idea of futurity, it should be framed thus : — "He may, perhaps, think [future], that I were jesting [future], if I should ask him [future], whether he meant a little deal, or a great deal." But that is not good English. How can a person think that I " were jesting ?" A person ^'- can think" thatl"a?72 jesting;" or ''''may think" that I " am (or was) jesting;" or might think that I am (or luas) jesting; or " would think" that I loas jesting. The expression of the idea of futurity, throughout the sentence, is not warranted by the circumstances of the case. Mr. Moon ^was writing, in London, an article which he knew would not for many days meet the eye of Mr. Grould. Why, therefore, did he speak of the immediate effect of a prospec- ttive remark of his to Mr. Grould ? Mr, Gould could not have experienced the effect of the remark before it had been made. The remark was in fact written in Mr. Moon's 216 'the dean's ENGLISH' article. The idea of futurity, except as far as Mr. Gould's reading the remark was con- cerned, is inadmissible in the sentence. Upon the determination of the question, whether we ought to regard the making of the j jest, and the effect of the jest, as nearly coinci- dent in time, or ought to regard them as sepa- rated by a considerable interval of time, must depend the particular form of the sentence. First, I shall frame a sentence which shall re- cognize the circumstance that an ocean inter- vened between Mr. Moon and Mr. Gould ; and, secondly, another sentence, in which I shall ignore that circumstance. 1. " He may, perhaps, think [future], that I was jesting [past], if I should ask him [future], whether he meant a little deal, or a great deal." By inversion of the sentence, the re- lation of time to be expressed is rendered even more apparent. Here it is inverted : — "If I should ask him [future — immediate future], whether he meant a little deal, or great deal, he may, perhaps, think [future — - that is, when my words reach him in New York], that I was jesting," [past — that is, when I wrote the jest in London]. AXD 'BAD ENGLISH.' 217 2. " He may, perhaps, think that I am jest- ing if I should ask him whether he meant a little deal, or a great deal." That is, "If I should ask him [now], whether he meant a little deal, or a great deal, he may, perhaps, think [now], that I am jesting" [now]. In order clearly to impress on the reader's mind the idea of subjunctivity (that is, future contingency), in places where the words used ought to express it, I have introduced the word "sAoiiZc/," wherever, if it is not ex- pressed, grammatically it is understood. " If I ask," equally with " if he ask," belongs to the subjunctive mood. But as, in the first *' as^," there is no change of termination in changing from the indicative to the sub- junctive mood, whereas, there is, in the case of the second "as^;" the subjunctivity of the first is not so perceptible as that of the second. Therefore I have always written, — ^^ii I should ask," just as, if I had had occasion to do it, I could have written, " if Ae should ask," instead of, " if he askr Besides those exhibited, several other com- binations of tenses, which would include the idea to be expressed, might be devised. I 15 218 ' THE dean's ENGLISH* might say, instead of, — " if I should ask" — '' if I were to ask." I might say, instead of, — " he may, perhaps, think" — " he would, perhaps, think," etc. etc. It is relevant to what has been said, to add a few remarks on the imperfect tense of the subjunctive mood of the verb TO BE. Much confusion exists in the minds of many persons, with regard to the use of this tense. Lindley Murray does not seem fully to have understood its character; for, after having dwelt throughout several pages of his ' Gram- mar,' on the necessity for the concurrence of contingency and futurity, in constituting the subjunctive mood of all verbs, he added, " ex- cept the imperfect of the verb to he, which, in cases denoting contingency, is varied in all the persons of the singular number." The im- perfect of the verb to be does, it is true, some- times denote only contingency ; as, " if it were not so, I would not have made the statement." A contingency which relates, not to future occurrence, but which exists only in the speaker's mind, in regard to an occurrence which he concedes either to have, or not to have, taken place, is clearly indicative in its I AND 'bad ENGLISH.' 219 mental form. Therefore, indicative conditions being implied by the circumstances involved in the illustration adduced, and the phrases, , " if it is not so,^^ and " if it was not so^^^ not being applicable to the idea to be expressed, we clearly perceive, that as the expression, " if it were not so^^^ cannot, in the context, re- late to the future^ it must express contingency as to the present. Generally, however, the im- perfect subjunctive of the verb to be combines a present, with a future-contingent, signifi- cance; as, "He is not here, but if he were to come ;" " Were you to go^ you certainly would he much pleased." Even in such expressions as, — " If I were you, I would go," the idea both of the present and of the future is in- volved. ^'-IflwerejovC implies, first of all, that I am not you ; and then, that if I, ceasing to be myself, could be you, I would either be or do something — in this case, "would go." Perhaps there is no disputed point in our language, about which exists so great a diverg- ence of opinion, as that in relation to the government of the possessive case by the present participle. Mr. Moon takes that which, as well as I can perceive, is the weaker 220 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' side of the question. Speaking of a sentence of his, which I shall presently quote, he says: "Had I to rewrite the sentence, which is at present under consideration, I should slightly alter the wording, and omit the sign of the possessive case before the present participle ; .... for I agree with the author of ' The Grammar of English Grammars', that it is gen- erally better to avoid that construction." (p. 174.) This is the sentence to which Mr. Moon refers : — *' We might as well speak of the breadth of a man's sympathies' being as great as the breadth of the Missis- sippi ; or the depth of a woman's affections' being as great as the depth of the Atlantic ; as speak of a difference of opinions' being comparable to the difference between cer- tain points of the compass." (p. 173.) I freely admit that the preceding sentence has a certain awkward appearance. It arises from the circumstance that two pairs of words, each Avord of those pairs having the sign of the possessive case, follow each other in close succession — "man's sympathies' being" — • " woman's affections' being." However, upon a possible construction, whether agreeable or disagreeable to the eye, grammatical propriety does not depend. Besides, Mr. Moon's sen- I AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 221 tence is not a fair example to adduce for the discussion of the question at issue ; yet he, after exhibiting that sentence, and no other, remarks that it is generally better to avoid the construction of the possessive case with the participle. Naturally, the general reader receives a false impression on the subject. Dr. Campbell concludes his argument against Dr. Lowth's views on this subject, by remark- ing: — "I am of opinion, therefore, upon the whole, that as the idiom in question is analo- gical, supported by good use, and sometimes very expedient, it ought not to be entirely reprobated." Mr. Moon, it should be observed, does not reprobate the idiom. Indeed, on pages 169 and 170, of 'Bad English,' he says: — "There are passages in ' The Dean's English' which I had considered would be better with the noun in the possessive case ; and, in the present Eng- lish edition of the work, they stand so." Yet, immediately afterwards, he quotes with entire approval Goold Brown's opinion that, "the kitchen too now begins to give dreadful note of preparation, .... from the shopmaidCs chopping force-meat, the aj^j^r entice! s cleaning 222 'THE dean's ENGLISH' knives, and the journeyman's Teceivrng a prac- tical lesson in the art of waiting at table," should be, "the kitchen too now begins to give dreadful note of preparation, .... from the shopmaid chopping force-meat, the appren- tice cleaning knives, and the journeyman re- ceiving a practical lesson in the art of waiting at table." Now, if there can be a clear case for the employment of the participle in its gerundive character, it is this case. "The dreadful note of preparation" was not from the " shopmaid chopping." If she had called lustily to her fellow-servants to hurry, the dreadful note of preparation might be said to have come from the '-^shopmaid chopping;" but it was the "shopmaid's chopping^'' her chop- ping, that formed part of the dreadful note of preparation. I will not weary the reader by applying the same reasoning to the other clauses of the sentence quoted. Any one must see at a glance that it is applicable. In ' The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review,' of May, 1818, — a magazine formerly published in New York, — is an arti- cle from which I extract the following exam- ples illustrating the incorrectness of not em- AXD ' BAD ENGLISH.' 223 ploying the possessive case, in certain con- structions. " The possession of the goods was altered hy the owner taking them into his own custody." [Marshall on Insu- rance.] " In consequence of the King of Prussia invading Saxony and Bohemia, the Aulic Council voted his con- duct to be a breach of the public peace." [Edinburgh Encyclopedia.] " The secretary wearing a sword and uniform was a cir- cumstance which added greatly to his natural awkward- ness." [Notices of Mr. Hume.] " Many valuable lives are lost by reason of studious men indulging too much in sedentary habits." [Anon.] The writer of the article, after inveighing against the growing practice of omitting the sign of possessive case in nouns preceding present participles, in such sentences as the preceding, remarks, that ** if any one can doubt the justness of these strictures, he may bring them to a very simple and decisive test, by substituting pronouns for nouns, in each of the passages cited. Thus : ' The possession of one's goods is altered bv him taking them into his own custody.' ' The Aulic Council voted the king's conduct to be a breach of the public peace, in consequence of him invad- ing Saxony,' etc. ^He wearing a sword and 224 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' uniform was a circumstance wliicli added to his natural awkwardness.' ' Tlie lives of many studious men are lost, by reason of them indulging,' etc. This, it will readily be agreed by every reader, is absolutely intolerable ; and yet it does not at all surpass, in grossness of inaccuracy, any one of the original passages cited." The London ' Athenaeum,' of January 23d, says of Mr. Moon : — " He seems to have little knowledge of the philology and early condi- tion of our language, otherwise he would hardly have confounded together the present participle and the gerund or verbal noun, which, though now identical in form, are very different in origin and force." I do not, by quoting this passage, intend to be understood as assenting to the opinion expressed in it. I do not concur in opinion Avith ' The Athe- naeum,' even to the extent of thinking that Mr. Moon confounds the participle with the gerund. I think that Mr. Moon clearly shows that he understands the difference be- tween them. What I consider remiss in Mr. Moon is, that, after citing an authority in favour of his" views, he dismissed the question AXD ' BAD EN-QLISH.' 225 with tlie mere expression of his opinion, that the construction of which he had been speak- ing should generally be avoided. I quote the opinion of ' The Athenaeum,' in order to show that, in England, there is at least one high authority on that side of the question which I have been advocating, and that, there, even Mr. Moon's opinions are not considered incon- trovertible. For my part, I stronglj^ suspect that, in the construction which I have been discussing, convenience formerly induced many printers to omit the sign of the possessive case, and that hence, the majority of the people, having become habituated to 'its absence in print, re- linquished in oral speech the corresponding sound. I think that the same motive is now inducing printers to drop the apostrophic "s," rightfully belonging to proper names ending with "5," when they are in the possessive case ; and I am confirmed in my impression, by observing that printers of just the class which one might expect would be influenced by convenience, to violate any linguistic pro- priety, are the very ones engaged in the inno- Ivation. Examination of books printed in 226 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' olden times will prove that tlie sign of tlie possessive case was then constantly used in nouns preceding participles, and that the apos- trophic "5" wasr never omitted in the posses- sive case of proper names ending with "s." If these are facts in relation to former usage in books, thej do not, it is true, establish the correctness of the view that the linguistic change which has taken place proceeded from books, for it may have proceeded from the people, and been reflected by books ; but it establishes the fact that, in olden times, the usage, in the particulars which I have specified as correct, was common both to oral and to written speech. Mr. Moon does not make the proper distinc- tion between the exclamation " 0," the sense of which may pervade a whole sentence, and the mere interjection " OA," the sense of which is dependent upon the context. This distinction is a decidedly modern usage, and an admirable - one. The " (9" communicates meaning to the words associated with it ; the " Oh" receives meaning from the words associated with it. The exclamation " 0," belongs to a direct ad- dress ; as, " grave, where is thy victory I AND ' BAD E^s-QLISH.' 227 death, where is thy sting !" In the following passage from ' Paradise Lost,' the interjection "OA" is not applied to any particular word, nor to any particular clause, nor to the whole pas- sage, and therefore it should be written " OA;" although in some editions of ' Paradise Lost' it is not so written. " Oh unexpected stroke, worse than of death 1 Must I thus leave thee, Paradise I thus leave Thee, native soil !".... Sometimes there arises a case which is in- termediate in relation to the direct address and the mere interjection ; as in the following passage from ' Henry Y .' " 0, for a Muse of fire, that would descend The hrightest heaven of invention ; A kingdom for a stage, princes to act, And monarchs to behold the swelling scene!'* "No one can doubt, however, that this is an aspiration, almost an invocation of some mys- terious power,- and that, if the distinction which I have drawn is a correct one, the passage should be preceded by "0." Sometimes the ^7iote of exclamatio7i'' is plsLced immediately after the word ^^Ohf^ as, "Oh! he has fallen." Sometimes it is placed at the 228 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' end of a plirase beginning with ^^Oh f as, Oli, yon don't tell me so! But the ''note of excla- mation^ should never be placed immediatelj after the word "0," because the sense of "0" pervades one or more of the words following it. Mr. Moon is therefore right, where, on page 72, he says, — " fie !", because there the name of a person is understood ; but wrong, where, on page 164, he says, — " that is quite another thing!" because, there, "0" stands for a mere ejaculation. On page 62, Mr. Moon says: — "In Mr. Marsh's next sentence there should be a comma after the word ' language ;' and then Ave should not read of — ' A word-book of a living language not extending beyond a single volume.' " Mr. Moon sometimes over-punc- tuates. An instance of his doing so may be found on page 65, as follows : — " An exception wliich. Mr. MarsTi has, evidently, over- looked." Why are we called upon to make a mental pause at the adverb " evidently ^^^ as though it had great significance ? If Mr. Moon had in- tended it to be emphatic, he would have placed it after " wliich,^^ and then he ouo;ht to have I AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 229 set it off with commas ; thus, — " An exception wMcli, evidently, Mr. Marsh has overlooked." That, however, was not Mr. Moon's intention. The adverb stands unemphatically, as far as its position is concerned, and coalesces with ^' the clause in which it is placed. On page 76, Mr. Moon says : — " are nnable to express their meaning, with clearness and accuracy." Is it possible that punctuation must be as close as it is in that sentence, in order to prevent people from understanding it to read, — "to express their . . . meaning with clearness and accuracy ;" instead of, " to express . . . with clearness and accuracy . . . their meaning" Suppose that, for the words " their meaning^'' we substitute the word, " themselves ^ Should we then be obliged to write, — " are unable to express themselves, with clearness and ac- curacy" ? The reader may ask, "What are Mr. Moon's general merits as a writer ? Wot having read his lately published poem, 'Elijah the Pro- phet,' I am not prepared to speak of Mr. Moon, except as a prose writer, and of him, even in that capacity, I cannot speak categorically^ A 230 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' writer treating of verbal-criticism labours ander a great disadvantage. The range of ex- pression in language is as wide as the range of thought, but is restricted more or less by the natural bounds of every subject, perhaps by none more than by those of a treatise on ver- bal-criticism. Besides, even within the bounds of verbal-criticism, a writer is sometimes ob- liged to discard a felicitous expression, rather than, by employing it, excite comment from a minority of educated people, however small, who deny its accuracy. A verbal- critic may be either a much supe- rior, or a much inferior, writer to what he seems to be if judged by his essays on verbal criticism. His subject limits perception of his merits, as well as of his demerits, as a writer. He may exhibit all the range possi- ble within the bounds of his subject, and yet he cannot prove himself to be more than a correct writer, which is very far from being an able or a great writer. Yerbal-criticism instructs in the mechanism of language, how to use it effectively. No one who is competent to sit in judgment on the question, would for a moment hesitate to AND 'bad ENGLISH.' 231 decide that, other things being equal, the man who best understands the mechanism of lan- guage, will wield it to the best advantage. In fact, to say so, is to utter a truism of which one might well be ashamed, were it not that, truism as it is, it is often disputed. But the study of language does not endow a man with plenitude of power in expression ; it merely improves, and enables him to exercise to the fullest extent, the faculty with which he was endowed by nature. Great prose-writing is trained intellectual expression. Mr. Moon proves himself to be, as far as the limits of his subject admit, an admirable writer. He has done yeoman's service in the field of verbal-criticism. In that field he is probably unsurpassed. If he has a fault, it is that he sometimes indulges in hypercriticism. This is a fault into which masters in the art of verbal-criticism are apt to fall, and, there- fore, one against which every student of the art should be sedulously on his guard. Mr. Moon's language is perspicuous and pure, and his style easy, if not flowing. Let me say what I think that I have ac- complished. I have merely justified anew 282 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' the concl-usion which, experience furnishes — . that it is not possible to write with absolute correctness. Mr. Moon, owing to the fact of his great precision as a writer, affords only a more striking illustration of that which has been proved over and over again. If any one supposes that he shall ever be able to write perfectly correct English, let him disabuse his mind of the idea. The shallow critic is the only person who is sure that he can reach perfection in the art. He does not, of course, always find an error in the composition of another person, when he thinks that he detects one; but when he does, he assumes that whatever else in it passed his inspection unchallenged, is correct; and complacently takes to himself credit for acu- men and skill which he does not possess. It needs no argument to prove, that what he tacitly approves, is neither necessarily right, nor necessarily within his power to execute as well. Only when, by study, he has ceased to be his former self, does he realize what men have found to be true of the ascent to every kind of knowledge — that " hills peep o'er hills and Alps on Alps arise," k AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 233 and forever bound the intellectual horizon. He, then, risen into brighter day, rejects as fallacious the tests which he once regarded as final ; the broader his view, the less is he inclined to doubt that more may lie beyond. Strange it is, at the first glance, that in the art of using language, the most difficult of all arts, the plastic art of the intellect, by which, out of airy nothing, every idea from the meanest to the noblest can be presented, men are apt to hold in too high estimation their skill in criticism and in performance! Yet on a slight examination of the subject, the strangeness vanishes. In this art, but not in any other, the veriest simpleton who speaks or writes, daily uses the same instruments, and the same materials, that are at the dispo- sal of the greatest genius. Each trifier knows, as he daily passes off his uncouth little images of ideas, that his modelling is recognized. But he never knows that he cannot produce, nor evert appreciate, linguistic forms of beauty; because he never knows that he lives in the great Studio of Nature, and that what he practises is not with him, but is with some of his fellow-men, an art. 16 THE END. I A LIST OF SOME OF THE MOST VULGAR PEONUNCIATIONS.* Word. Again, Apparent, Asparagus, Arab, False Pronunciatioai. True Pronunciation. Ag-gane', f Ap-pali'rent, [ Ap-pere'rent, As-pali'ro-gras, Spah'ro-gras, Gras, A'rab, Boil, (small abscess) Bile, Boil, (to boil) Bile, Ag-gen'. > Ap-pare'rent. As-pali'ra-gus. Ali'rab. Boyl. Boyl. ■^ No orthoepic notation is complete without indicating both the primary and the secondary accent of words, and without appropriating certain arbitrary signs to letters, of which, when so marked, the exact sound, the distinctness, indistinctness, or silence, is indicated by their reference to well-known words. The author has at- tempted to give, by indicating the primary accent only, by the insertion of the hyphen, and by the use of the generally discarded phonetic spelling, a tolerably correct pronunciation of each word in this vocabulary. As this book is not intended for foreigners, and the words in the vocabulary are in common use wherever English is spoken, he believes the plan which he has pursued to be the best for the occasion. A regular system of notation would not here be read and applied, and if he used it, his pre- cision would defeat its own object. Imperfectly as, from the imperfection of the mode adopted, the pronunciation may here be construed, the resulting sounds cannot ap- proach the low pronunciation of the words, which, although marked by the same imperfect notation, are recognizable in all their hideousness. 235 236 VULGAR PRONUNCIATIONS. Carriage, Catcli, Chair, China, Cincinnati, Column, Contrary, Courier, Cover, Cupola, Bel-lo'ne, KeVridge, Ketch, Cheer, Chay'ne, Sin-sin-nat'ah, Kol'yoom, Kon-tray're, Kur're-er, Kiv'er, Kupe'o-lo, Bo-lo'nah. Kah'ridge. Katch. Chare. Chi'nah. Sin-sin-nat'e. Korum. Kont'rah-re. Koo're-er.' Kuv'er. Kupe'o-lah. Dagguerreotype, Dag-geh're-o-tipe, Daggeh'ro-tipe. TlonrlT»iTpr T^oT>'^OT» Tion'rlT'nT Deaf, Decrepit, Disappointed, Drowned, Duty, Engine, Extempore, Favourite, February, Figure, Finale, Forward, Fragile, Girard, Deef, Dee-crep'id, Dis-ap-pine'ted, Drown'ded, Doo'ty, Ju'ty, Enj'ine, Ex-tem'pore, Fave'o-rite, C Feb'u-erry, < Feb'u-werry, (^ Feb'oo-erry, [ Fig'ger, Fine-ale', Fow'ward, Fraj'-ile, Jir-rad', Def. Dee-crep'it. Dis-ap-point'ed. Drownd. Du'te* Enj'in. Ex-tem'po-re. Fave'o-rit. ■ Feb'ru-erry. Fig'yur. Fine-al'le. For'ward. Fraj'il. Jir-rard'. * For the pronunciaiion of words like those marked with a star, see the remarks at the end of the list. VULGAR PRONUNCIATIONS. 237 0-rievous, Gum Arabic, Guardian, Greev'yus, Gree'vus. Gum Ah-ray'bic, Gum Ah'rab-ic. Gar-deen', Gard'e-an. Hoist, Height, Hyst, Hite-th, Hoyst. Hite. Idea, Individual, Italian, Ide'yah, I-de'ah. In-div-vid'oo-al, In-div-vid'u-al.* I-tal'yan, It-taVyan. Kettle, Keg, Kept, Kittle, Kag, Kep, Kettle. Keg. Kept. Lilac, Lineaments, La/lok, Lin'ne-ments, Li'lak. Lin'ne-a-ments. Mantua, Man'cher, Man'chu-ah. Mercantile, 1 Mer'can-tle, Mer'can-teel, Mer'can-til. Mer'can-tile. Memoir, Militia, Mem'more, Mil-lish'e, MemVahr. Mil-lish'ah. Mischievous, f Mis-cheVus, \ Mis-che've-us, ■ Mis'chiv-us Missouri, Mosquitoes, Mis-soor'ah, Mus-keet'ers, Mis-soo're. Mus-keet'oze. Muskmelon, C Mus'mel-un, ( Mush'mel-un, !■ Musk'mel-un. Mussulmans, Mustache, Mus'sul-men, Mus'tatch, Mus'sul-mans. Mus-tash'. New Orleans, News, New Or-leens' Nooz, , New Orl'yans. Nuze. Opponent, Op'o-nent, Op-pone'ent. 238 VULGAR P?tONUl\CIATIONS. Pattern, Pantomime, Philadelphia, Piazza, Pat'ron, Pant'o-min 3, Eil-lah-del'fe, Pi-az'zah, Pat'ern. Pant'o-mime. Fil-lah-del'fe-ah, Pee-az'zah. Poem, r Poy'em, < Pome, (Porm, [ Po'em Poet, r Poy'et, ] Po:e, (Port, - Po'et. 1 Poetry, ( Po/tre, ] Po'tre, (Por'tre, [ Po'et-re. Potatoes, Prairie, Presumptuous, Po-ta/ters, Per-rare'rah, Pre-zump'chus, Po-ta/toze. Pray're. Pre-zump'tu-us. Quoits, Quates, Quoyts. Radish, Real, Really, Rosin, Red'ish, Reel, Roe'ly, Roz'om, Rad'ish. Ree'al. Ree'al-ly. Roz'in. Sausage, Shampoo, Stamp, (verb) Sword, Swollen, Sos'-ege, Sham-poon', Stomp, Sword, Swul'ii, Saw'sege. Sham-poo'. Stami). Sord: Swole'n. Tassel, Terrible, Theatre, Tos'l, Tur'rib-bl, The B-a'ter, Tas'l. Ter'rib-bl. Thee'et-er. {Th pronoTXEced as in Theodore.) VULGAR PKONUNCIATIOXS. 239 Traverse, Tra-verse'. Trav'erse. Tremendous, Tre-men'jus, Tre-men'dus. Tomatoes, r To-mats', 1 To-mat'esses, I To-mat'oze. Tour, Tower, Toor. Tuesday, ( Tooz'day, \ Tchuze'day, 1 Tuze'day.* Tussle, Tos'l, Tus'l. Tribune, Tribe'une, Trib'une. Turpentine, Tur'pen-time, ' Um-ber-rel', Um-ber-rerah, Tur'pen-tine. Umbrella, New England. Um'bril, • Um-brel'ah. ^ Am'bril, ^ Watermelon, War'ter-mil-yun, War'ter-mel-un Yacbt, Yat, Yot. ^^When the long u is preceded, in the same syllable, by any one of the consonants d, tj /, w, s, and th, it is peculiarly difficult to introduce the sound of y ; and hence negligent speakers omit it en- tirely, pronouncing duty, dooty ; tune, toon ; lute, loot ; nuisance, noosance ; suit, soot ; thurible, thoori- ble, etc. The reason is, that in forming these con- sonants the organs are in a position to pass with perfect ease to the sound of oo, while it is veiy diffi- cult in doing so to touch the intermediate y; hence the y in such cases is very apt to be dropped. On this point Smart remarks, ' To say tube (tyoob), lucid (lyoocid), with the u as perfect [i. e , with a distinct bound of// prefixed to oo] as in cube, cubic, mute, etc.. 210 VULGAR PRONUNCIATIONS. is either northern or laboriously pedantic/ — a des- cription which applies to the vulgar in our Eastern States, and to those who are over-nice at the South. The practice of good society is to let the y sink into a very brief sound of long e or of short i^ both of which have a very close organic relationship to con- sonant y. Special care must be taken not only to make this sound as brief as possible, but to pronounce it in the same syllable with the oo. "We thus avoid the two extremes, of overdoing, on the one hand, by making too much of the y^ and, on the other hand, of sounding only the oo after the manner of careless speakers." — Principles of Pronunciation, Webster's Dictionary. INDEX. "Agreeably disappoint- ed," 103 Alford, Rev. Henry, Dean of Canterbury, 7,10 Allow iov say, 100,101 Amateur, 62,63 " A most a beautiful," etc., 147 Announcement of sta- tion, 42,43 Any for at all, 120 A person — if — they, 77,78 Artiste for actor or ac- tress, 29 B Babe for hdby, 167 Bad for hadly, 122 Balance for remain- der, 108,109 Begun for began, 85 "Between you and I," 71 Biddable, 135 Bouquet, 63 Buried for lost, 168,169 " But that,"—" But what," 131-133 C Casket for coffin, 169 Centralization of edu- cation in European cities, 10-12 Come for came, 85 Connoisseur, G3 Contemptible for C07i- temptuous, 118 Convenient fov near, 120,121 Couple for ^zoo, 126 D D^Szi^f, 64 Despisable, 134 Deux Temps, 63,64 " Did not see him but once," 129,130 "Did not do (or say) nothing," 128,129 "Died hardly," 124,125 Disremember, 134 "Do not like too much," 146 DonTcey for ass, 36,37 "Do not doubt but that," 131,132 Due for owing, 118,119 E Either,— or, 121 Either for each, 122,123 lllite, 29 "Embalming surgeon," 169,170 Emphasizing some of the particles of speech, 163,164 England, cultivation of the classics in, 5,6 English, the study of, 5-17 " Equally as good," 137 241 242 INDEX. " Equally as good' as," 137 Esprit de corps, 31 Etagtre, 64 Everett, Edward — views on education, 16 '^ Extra nice," 142,143 F Female, 48-50 '•' For to go," etc., 138 " Free to say," — " Free to confess," 166 French Academy, 10,11 " From lie who," 71,72 o Genteel, 47,48 Gentleman, well-bred, 44 Gentleman (gentleman friend), 44,45 Gents, 51 ''Get under weigh," 105,106 Good for ivell, 122 Gotten for got, 134 Gould, Mr .'Edwards., 8 Gums for gum-shoes, 52 H '^Had not hardly," 130,131 " Had ought to," 86 Hall iov entry, 112,113 " Hardly for hard,'' 124,125 Harrison, Rev. Mat- thew, 9,18 ''Has a right to do it," 146,147 " Has Ijegan," 85 "Heap, top of the," 19 Hence, from, 136 " Him and me went." 73 " Him staying," etc., Hors de combat. 74 31 " Id omne genus," 33 " I have saw," 81-83 Illy for ill, 135 " In any shape or form," 137 In for into, 119 Individual for man, 60,61 "In our midst," - 143-145 " Introduced to a gen- tleman," • 173,174 " I seemed to think," 146 "I seen," 83 I see for I saw, 83,84 "Is not improving much, I don't think," 129 " It is me," 73 '' It is one of the sub- jects that is," 78,79 "I wanted very much to have gone," 87-89 Jeopardize, 107 "Justaslivs," 147 K Kids for kid-gloves, 52 L Lady, fine, witty, chari- table, etc, 40,41 Lady, first-class, 47 Lady, how is your ? 45 Lady, I am the, 41,42 Lady (lady-fi-iend). 44,45 Lady, Mr. So^and- 30 and; 45,46 INDEX. 243 Lady, respectable, 43,44 Lady, sales-, 43 Lady, very Piuch of, 47 Lady, well-bred. 44 Lady, wet-nurse, 44 Lay for lie, 98 Lafayette, 65 Learn for teach. 101 " Let's you and I,' 70,71 Like for as, 123 Limbs for legs, 34,35 Lit for lighted. 99 Lit for alighted, 99 Love for like. 101,102 M Marsh, Hon. Greor^e P., 8 Materiel, 32 Minny for minim or mwi?iow. 125 Moon,Mr.G.Wasliin.c:- ton, F. R. S. L., 8,10,185 il/bsi^ for almost, 126 " Mutual friend," 55,56 N ■ "Natural talent," 138-141 Neither — nor. 121 *' New beginner." 136,137 Non-practical ed uca- tion, 14-17 Not— Nor, 121 "Not one of that kind," 170,171 Notoriety for distinc- tion, 110,111 Nubia for nuhe, ee Omission of the apos- trophic "s," 148-152 Omission of the final "g" in pronunciatioQ, 148 G-nly for except or unless, 117 Ornary, 126,127 Overly, 135 P Pants, 51,52 Party ^ov person, 57-60 "Pay a call," for "pay a visit," 166 Piano, 65,66 Plead ^ox pleaded, 85,86 Predicate for base, 102,103 Prejudiced for prepos- sessed, 103-105 Press, some of the re- porters for and cor- respondents of, 25-29 Preventative for pre- ventive, 109 Professor, 170 Proven iov proved, 134 Q Quite for considerable or large, 119,120 R Raise iov rise, 99 Raised ior reared, 167,168 Reference for recom- mendation, 109 Refinement, the basis of, 182 Residence for house, 113-116 Rig for dress, 167 Rise for 7'aise, 99 " Robert he," — " Susan she," 137,138 Role fov part, 29 Rooster, 35,36 Rur.he, 64,65 244 INDEX. S Savants for savant, 65 ^'Seemed to think," 146 Set for sit, 99 Sett for set, 135 Shall and will, con- founding of, 92-96 Should and would, con- founding of, 96,97 Signalize for signal, 106,107 Simplicity, want of, 22,33 Slang, 18-21 Some for somewhat, 120 Sobriquet, 31 Stamps, he has the, 20 Step in for walk in, 164-166 Stopping for staying, 123,124 Such for so, 125 Sweat for perspiration, 171-173 T Taste, a standard of, 153-159 Taste, not an arbitra- ry law, 155 Taste, in social inter- course, 156,157 Tasty and tastily, 166,167 That, that, that, 89-91 "Them things," 75,76 Thence, from, 136 "This here,"— "that there," 138 " To simply state," etc., 145 u Unbeknown, , 135 w " Were drank," 85 Whence, from, 136 Who for whom, 76 Whom for who, 77 Wife for woman, girl, lady, 111,112 Wilson, Mr. John, 148,150 Wrench for rinse, 99,100 Y " You know," and "says I," "says he," "says she," 160-163 "You was," 79,80 NOTICES OF THE PRESS. The New York Times, * Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech' is a neat little > book, containing much good sense. Its author, whose name is not given, makes no pretensions to have contributed any great wisdom to the subject, but modestly attempts to draw public attention to many errors into which all are apt to wander, through the inattention of free conversation or gen- eral habits of carelessness — some of the evils pointed out being, as the title suggests, absolute vulgarisms, tolerated because they have, unfortunately, become familiar, and others, the mistakes of even well-educated persons, and made falsely respectable by reckless repetition. We should think this chatty, pleasant volume might do much good, as, while it deals with many errors that most readers will deem unnecessary to be warned against, there are few people who will not be able to recognize at least a few of their own lia- bilities to inaccurate speech, in its pages. The National Intelligencer. The small volume, consisting of some two hundred duo- decimo pages, is much more useful for general use than either of the volumes we have mentioned, being less rigidly critical, and perhaps less captious than those, and more plain and practical. The work is marked by good sense throughout, and is very valuable to all who desire to improve their style of composition. **The Newspaper Keporters" are treated to some valuable counsel, and the illustrations of their errors, with appropriate practical advice, form some of the most excellent passages in the volume. ^l NOTICES OF THE PRESS. The volume is written in a very concise and perspicuous style, and we cordially commend it to the attention of the classes for which it is intended. The New York Independent. A treatise on 'Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech* contains much that is very valuable. Godey's Lady's Book. The author of this book is the champion of good English. He does not write for philologists nor for the readers of Max Miiller ; but he steps forth like a true knight of chivalry to give his help where it is needed. He writes for the large and respectable classes, including most of our people, who have not had the privilege of thorough education or of high culture. All his counsel may be taken without any excep- tion. He is judicious, and understands his own purpose, which is to root out "slang" from the conversation of edu- cated Americans. There is much that will interest and amuse while it ins^tructs ; refinement of feeling and delicacy of taste so mark even the severest touches of criticism, that the work cannot fail of a welcome wherever it is read. There is a satisfaction in the admiration of the learned ; but he who instructs and elevates "the masses" is the greatest bene- factor of mankind. The North American and United States Gazette, It is written in a quiet and by no means hypercritical spirit. While particularly intended for those of small cul- ture, many, of its facts and hints will be useful to scholars. The Age. This is not one of those learnedly critical treatises on the correct and incorrect uses of words in the English language, NOTICES OF THE TRESS. 3 of which several have beea published during a few years past, but is an attempt to present simply and practically the common faults and errors of every-day conversation, which have crept likewise into the literary efforts of experienced writers. The Press. 'Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech, including a Chapter on Taste, and one containing Examples of Bad Taste' (IGmo. pp. 194), is a little volume in the right direc- tion. Colloquial and other vulgarisms are pointed out. The Inquirer. That "the pure wells of English"' should remain "undefiled" is the anxious and laudable desire of the author of this pithy little book. Murderers of the " King's English" are his spe- cial aversion ; he boldly points out their misdeeds, and advises them how to reform their grievous faults of grammar. The Evening Bulletin. A very handy phrase-book for ordinary American homes is the neat little treatise on 'Vulgarisms,' recently issued by Claxton, Remsen & HAFfELFiNQEB, 819 and 821 Market Street, Philadelphia. The Evening Telegraph. The work before us is excellent. It is a clear and brief Btatement of the many errors which have been gradually growing up in society, and which, wherever tolerated, are certainly inelegant. The Evening Star. We would especially commend it to those who desire to cultivate an avoidance of the slang and vulgar words and expressions which, within a few years, have crept into our 4 NOTICES OF THE PRESS. language, and -which, by slow but certain degrees, are being thoroughly incorporated with it. The City Item. This is a hand-book which will be found of great value by the speaker and writer as well as by the man of business. There are few people who are not puzzled now and then as to the correctness of a phrase as well as in regard to the spelling of a word. With a good dictionary and this little work, we should ask no further help in the proper use of our language. The Sunday Dispatch. This is a plainly written, analytic, sensible, and most useful volume. It is difficult to escape the utterance of vul- garisms, particularly in the haste and partial excitement of animated conversation. The Episcopalian. We believe this is the first publication of the new and en- terprising firm whose imprint it bears. We are gratified to find the work is not a novel, but a good and useful book on language. Methodist Home Journal. To people who are either unwittingly, or through sheer carelessness in their habits and modes of expression, trifling with our correct and elegant Anglo-Saxon language, this book will prove highly serviceable as a needed monitor. With a just appreciation of pure good English, the author proceeds to expose the unpardonable slang, indelicacy, and vulgarism so common and popular at the present day. Gram- matical errors, obsolete phrases, and the whole tribe of tau- tological terms, are also reviewed, and examples given of what is rated in bad taste. We wish this book great success in the cause of reform. NOTICES OF THE PEESS. 5 York True Democrat. The little book before us aims to give an insight into what is required to correct the abuses of speech, into which many have fallen, by copious examples of a vitiated style of con- versation, and its proper correction. The use of slang phraseology, now so common, is commented upon most ap- propriately, and is at once amusing and instructive. A care- ful study of this entertaining book would be productive of pleasure as well as profit to all. The Muncey Summary. As its title indicates, it is chiefly devoted to vulgarisms and other errors of speech, and may be read and studied with interest and profit by all classes. The Bloomsburgh Republican. This is a little volume as full of interest as it is valuable. It is got up in neat style and should be read by all plasses. The Washington Eeporter (Pa.) We have read it with interest and profit. . . . The study of this book, or one like it, will do much for any one, and especially for those who have either never learned grammar, or having learned it have forgotten it. There is no pedantry about it. It is simple, plain, and clear, yet establishes what it asserts. There are hundreds of per- sons who are daily, in all their conversation and writing, violating the plainest rules of grammar, who by a little at- tention, with a good boolr, could soon vastly improve them- selves. To such we would commend this book on vulgarisms. It would be a good one to have lying on the drawing-room table of every home, to be consulted in every doubtful case by old and young. 17 6 NOTICES OF THE PEESS. The Daily State Guard. The author has produced a very readable and work, even those who are classed among the refined and well educated may find abundant limits for the improvement of their modes of expressing themselves, from these recorded results of the well-applied observation of the editor. The Nashville Eepublican Banner. It is one of the most sensible books of the day, and one that every young man, and especially every young writer, should study carefully. The Springfield Daily Republican. Claxton, Remsbn & Haffelfinger, of Philadelphia, pub- lish a little book that should be studied carefully by all young writers, and a thorough perusal of which would do many older ones good ; a book that ought to be the constant com- panion of all shoddy aristocrats, and which would be a val- uable text-book in all our public schools. It is entitled ' Vul- garisnfs and Other Errors of Speech,' and includes a chapter on Taste, and one containing examples of bad Taste. "We don't know where better advice, or more of it, upon the proper use of our language, can be found in the same com- pass as in this little volume. The Geoi'getown Press (Del.) This work treats of erroi-s and the improprieties of speech, 'so prevalent and yet so offensive to good taste, the incorpo- ration of which into our language must be resisted. De- signed to maintain the purity of the English, the book is worthy of a kind reception, and ought to be circulated. The Proof Sheet, Philadelphia. He who has the discernment to perceive the inaccuracies and inelegancies of speech, more or less prevalent even among NOTICES OF THE PRESS. 7 people who claim to be somewhat educated and refined, does not always possess the industry and care requisite for point- ing them out. Accordingly, we have a kindly feeling for one who executes such a task with patience and judgment. The little work just named brings together, concisely and happily, the principal verbal errors and vulgarisms which are too frequently exhibited in a large part of the society in which the best educated among us more or less move. The Publisher and Bookseller. Claxtox, Remsen & Haffelfinger are publishing some very excellent books. "We have from them ' Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech.' It is a most useful little work, wherein a considerable amount of valuable information is done up in a very small compass. It is a veritable multum in parvo, showing the many and gross errors of speech in which even those who have some pretensions to education are wont to fall. The Western Bookseller. The title of this little volume fully explains its character. It is, at the same time, good reading, and a serviceable book for every one, as its perusal will serve to correct many of the common errors or vulgarisms of speech which result from ignorance or carelessness. It will be largely sought by those who have not enjoyed the advantages of early education. The Chicago Evening Jaurnal. Twenty chapters are devoted to an exposition of common slang phrases and corruptions of various languages, princi- pally our own, and these are written in a manner that all may understand wherein the errors lie, and how they should be corrected. 8 NOTICES OF THE PEESS. The Chicago Post. One of a class of books which is now becoming very pop- ular. We are all much given to license in matters of speech, and need such correctives. This volume does not profess to enter deeply into the study of words, but calls attention, in a familiar way, to many common errors in language. We were about to commend particularly the chapters on Gram- matical Errors and on the use of shall and will, but every chapter is so replete with good sense and useful information that we refrain from discriminating. The Hnntingdou Globe (Pa.) We have received a book entitled 'Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech,' which, if placed in the hands of many ■ who murder the King's English, would be a material aid in teaching them to avoid the popular vulgarisms and use of improper words. The Farm Journal. 'Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech' is the title of a neat volume just issued from the press of our friends Clax- TON, E,emsp:n & Haffelfinger, of this city. While this volume may not be said to be faultless, it nevertheless abounds in so much that is truthful, and what a large ma- jority of the world should know, that we cannot commend it too strongly to general attention. Its object, as its name implies, is to point out the many broad vulgarisms and glar ing errors of speech, which are in such every day use, and by a process of simple but convincing reasoning, demonstrate the fact that it is just as easy to avoid these vulgarisms, and to speak grammatically, as it is to use them and indulge in inaccuracies of speech, always harsh and grat'ng to refined ears. We commend this volume to young men especially. A perusal of it can do no harm, even though the reader should not stand open to the reproofs it administers. i.^^iZi/- ' ^ V^ '^^^ ^--'^-^ -^^ s. ^^ '' -0^ UBRARVOFCONCRESS