GENERAL REMARKS ON WORDS, ETC.--_continued._
In the periodical and light literature of the day, we frequently
meet with forms of language which have been expressively called
‘slipshod English.’ These are of various kinds--uncertain
reference, superfluous words, incompatible terms, ungrammatical
forms, &c. &c.
Of the first class may be quoted the tailor’s advertisement, in
which it was stated that ‘Gentlemen’s materials are made up,
and waited on at their own houses,’ where there is a glorious
uncertainty as to who or what may be waited on.
The following is of the same nature:--In an examination in the
House of Commons, in 1809, a member said that ‘the witness had
been ordered to withdraw from the bar, in consequence of being
intoxicated by the motion of an honourable member.’ The word
‘intoxicated’ was here, perhaps, the right word; but it was
certainly not in the right place.
A word is often written which has no function to perform in the
sentence, and therefore no business on the paper. These are
superfluous words; they occupy space, but, instead of assisting,
they rather clog the sense of the passage. The often-used
expression, ‘final completion,’ is a case in point. Every
‘completion’ is ‘final;’ the idea of ‘final’ is involved in the
word ‘completion,’ and therefore this is a wrong expression.
Another of these superabundant forms is where we find ‘universal’
and ‘all’ brought into the same construction. A man is sometimes
said to be ‘universally’ beloved by ‘all’ his friends. Here either
‘universally’ or ‘all’ should be taken out. If the love for him is
‘universal,’ of course ‘all’ love him; and the converse is equally
true.
Sometimes words are found together which contradict each other. Of
this class of faults we may quote the not unfrequent form ‘further
backwards.’ ‘Further’ means more in advance, and ‘backwards’ has a
directly contrary meaning. It is impossible to go ‘further’ and,
at the same time, ‘backwards,’ and therefore the two words should
never be used together.
‘Either’ and ‘neither’ cannot be properly applied to more than
two persons or things. Speaking of three or four people, it is
incorrect to say that ‘neither’ of them is clever, though we may
say that ‘none,’ or ‘no one,’ of them is clever. Nor would it be
good grammar to say, ‘either of the six children may go;’ we must
here say ‘any one.’
‘_All of them._’ This is a form which some critics have attacked,
and not without reason. They say that ‘_of_’ here means ‘out of;’
that it corresponds exactly with the Latin preposition _e_, or
_ex_, and that therefore the expression must be incorrect. We do
not take ‘all of them,’ but we take ‘them all.’ We may correctly
say one, two, three, &c., or most of them, but when there is
question of _all_, no preposition should be used.
‘_Equanimity of mind._’ As equanimity means evenness of mind, why
should ‘of mind’ be repeated? ‘Anxiety of mind’ is, of course, open
to the same objection.
‘_Incorrect orthography._’ The fault in this very common expression
arises from the idea that ‘orthography’ means merely spelling
(good or bad), whereas the true meaning of the word is ‘_correct_
spelling.’ Now, spelling cannot be correct and at the same time
incorrect, and therefore the two terms are incompatible. We may say
‘incorrect spelling,’ but we must not say ‘incorrect orthography.’
‘_A confirmed invalid._’ What is this? one who is strengthened
in his weakness? There is certainly here a contradiction, for no
weakness can be strong.
‘_Old news_’ is another contradictory form, where the terms are
incompatible with each other. It may be placed in the same class
with ‘enjoying bad health.’
It is inaccurate to say that a man’s ‘_defects are improved_.’ A
defect means the want of some good quality, and to ‘improve’ means
‘to make better.’ Wants may be ‘decreased’ or ‘supplied,’ but they
cannot be made better; and, therefore, the two terms should not be
used together.
It is a common error to use ‘quantity’ for ‘number.’ The former can
only be said of a collection or mass. A ‘quantity’ of meat or a
‘quantity’ of milk is good English, but not a quantity of pens or
books, &c. To separate individual objects we must apply ‘number,’
but to a collected mass ‘quantity.’ We may say a ‘quantity’ of
wood, but it must be a ‘number’ of faggots.
In many cases the wrong preposition is used; and, indeed, there
are few writers or speakers who are invariably correct in this
respect. The very common fault, ‘different to,’ we need hardly stop
to inquire into, but we often find equally wrong forms which pass
unnoticed. Occasionally we meet with ‘to disagree _from_,’ though
in general the form used is ‘to disagree _with_.’ Here the ‘dis’
in ‘disagree’ and the preposition ‘with’ seem to pull two ways.
Which, then, is right--to disagree _from_ or _with_? The proper
phrase is to ‘assent _to_’ and to ‘dissent _from_;’ and if the
latter is correct, why not also ‘to disagree _from_?’
As it is admitted that ‘different _to_’ is wrong, on the same
principle, ‘averse _to_’ must be wrong. No one can go two ways at
once. The _a_ in ‘averse’ certainly means ‘from;’ and therefore the
word should be followed by ‘_from_,’ and not ‘_to_.’ The first is
already adopted by many good writers.
The conjunction ‘than’ should not be used except after a
comparative adjective. ‘Soon_er_ than;’ ‘better than;’ ‘rather
than,’ &c., are correct; but ‘scarcely had he uttered these words
_than_,’ is bad English. ‘Hardly had he attained his majority
_than_’ is equally wrong. For ‘_than_’ we should here use ‘_when_.’
‘But’ should not be used for ‘than,’ as, ‘no sooner had he finished
his work _but_.’
Another common mistake is to use ‘except’ for ‘unless.’ The former
is a preposition, and must be followed not by a proposition, but by
a noun or pronoun. It is bad grammar to say ‘no one should aspire
to this situation, _except_ he is competent to fulfil its duties.’
(Here, we should read ‘unless’ for ‘except.’)
‘Like’ is also frequently confounded with ‘as.’ The former is a
preposition, and should not be used as a conjunction. ‘Do you write
_like_ I do?’ is wrong. It should be ‘_as_ (not _like_) I do.’
‘Notwithstanding he thought so,’ is bad English. We should here use
‘although.’ ‘Notwithstanding’ is a preposition, and is followed by
its object. We say correctly, ‘notwithstanding his objections,’ but
not properly, ‘notwithstanding he objected.’
‘But’ is often redundant after the word ‘doubt.’ We continually
meet with ‘I have no doubt _but_ that,’ &c. This is a wrong form:
the ‘but’ should be omitted.
As an example of a loose sentence; i.e. where the connection of the
parts is not sufficiently clear, the following advertisement of a
hair-dresser may be quoted:--
‘Seven lessons in hair-dressing may be had for one guinea, which
(?) _being imparted on a system_ entirely new, will enable any one
_so instructed_ to give the most complete satisfaction!’
The Anglo-Saxon ‘tíd’ meant ‘time’ (compare the German ‘Zeit’);
whence to ‘betide’ means to happen in time. The ‘tide’ is the
_time_ at which the water rises and falls. ‘Tidy,’ also, in old
English, signified properly ‘timely.’
In old English, we meet with the form ‘ton,’ which is for ‘the
one;’ and this may probably account for ‘t’other,’ or ‘the
t’other,’ which is, in fact, a contraction of ‘that other.’ But
‘t’other’ is now accounted a vulgarism.
There is some difference of practice in the use of the article (a,
an). The rule is, that ‘an’ must be used before a vowel, or _h_
mute. This is, in general, a good rule; but there is one vowel,
which must be sometimes considered an exception, viz. ‘_u_.’ It is
right to say ‘an apple,’ ‘an evil,’ ‘an idler,’ and ‘an orange;’
but before _u_ we must pause; for here there is a double practice.
Now, this vowel has two sounds; open, as in ‘_u_nion;’ and close,
as in ‘_u_gly.’ Before the long sound, we should use the article
‘a;’ as ‘a unit,’ ‘a union,’ ‘a uniform,’ &c. But before the short
sound of ‘u,’ the article ‘an’ should be used; as ‘an uncle,’
‘an ugly object,’ &c. Many good writers, however, use ‘an’ even
before a long _u_. We often meet with ‘_an_ united family,’ ‘_an_
universal practice,’ &c. The question is here one of harmony;
and the best practice seems to be, to adopt the softer sound. No
one ever thinks of saying or writing ‘_an_ youth,’ or ‘_an_ yew
tree;’ and yet the sound in ‘_an_ uniform,’ or ‘_an_ universe,’ is
precisely the same, and of course equally harsh.
Another case belonging to this question is the use of the article
in the frequently-seen expression ‘_such an one_.’ This form is
disagreeably harsh and unmusical. We might as well say: ‘such _an_
woman,’ or ‘such _an_ wonder.’ It is true there are authorities for
both these forms--‘such a one,’ and ‘such an one;’ but in a case of
this sort, we had better adopt the more harmonious form; good taste
and a delicate ear will direct us to ‘such a one,’ rather than
‘such _an_ one.’
It has been remarked that there is a strong tendency in English to
get rid of inflections. Many of these were found in old English
which have now fallen off. The old infinitive-ending _en_ is now
altogether gone, though some adjectives in _en_ still remain; viz.
those which denote material, such as ‘golden,’ ‘earthen,’ ‘oaten,’
&c. We had at one time ‘rosen,’ ‘silvern,’ ‘tinnen,’ ‘boxen,’ and
many others. These are now gone; and there seems to be a prevalent
disposition to cut off the endings of those which remain. Instead
of ‘a golden watch,’ we now say ‘a gold watch,’ using the noun
for the adjective. In the same way, we have ‘earthworks’ for
‘earthen works;’ though we still keep ‘earthenware.’ Many of these
adjectives in _en_ still hold their ground, though most of those
which are retained have lost a part of their sense. ‘Brazen’ has
now only a secondary meaning; and stands for ‘bold’ or ‘impudent.’
In a concrete sense, the noun is used instead of the adjective. We
say a ‘brazen face,’ for an ‘impudent face;’ but ‘a brass knob,’
or ‘a brass candlestick.’ Again: we have ‘a golden rule,’ in a
secondary; but a ‘gold’ ring in a primary sense.
The word ‘pigmy’--derived from the Greek πυγμὴ, the fist--was first
spelled ‘p_y_gmy.’ It meant one whose stature was no higher than
from the elbow to the fist. The change from _y_ to _i_ was probably
caused by the dislike of the printers to _y_ in the middle of a
word. But it has here as good a right to its place as the _y_ in
‘h_y_mn,’ or ‘t_y_pe.’ It is, however, gone; and we must submit.
Hundreds of words might be cited which have been brought into their
present forms by the influence of corruption. The now generally
received explanation of ‘Rotten Row’ is, that it is a corruption of
‘Route du Roi,’ originally the private road used by King William
III. when going from Piccadilly to Kensington. The old form
‘diamant’ was preferable to the more modern ‘diamond,’ because it
told its story more clearly. It was an inversion of ‘adamant,’ the
untameable, or invincible, so called because it is the hardest of
stones, and cannot be cut except by one of its own species.
The modern spelling of the word ‘height’ is a corruption. We have
‘wid_th_,’ from ‘wide;’ ‘leng_th_,’ from ‘long;’ and ‘bread_th_,’
from ‘broad.’ Why, then, not ‘highth,’ from ‘high?’ In the writings
of the seventeenth century we meet with various spellings of this
word. It is found ‘highth’ in the first edition of ‘Paradise Lost;’
and also ‘heigth’ and ‘heygth.’ Now the inversion of _ht_ for _th_
has corrupted it into ‘heig_ht_;’ and so, for the present, it will
probably remain. The _d_ in ‘admiral’ appears to be a corruption.
All our dictionaries give the derivation of this word from the
Arabic ‘amir,’ or ‘emir,’ a lord, or commander. Neither the French
‘amiral,’ nor the Italian ‘ammiraglio,’ has the _d_. Milton writes
the word ‘ammiral:’
the tallest pine
Hewn on Norwegian hills, to be the mast
Of some great _ammiral_,--
though in this passage, the word means a ship, and not its
commander. Mr. Wedgewood says that, in many cases in Arabic, the
article is placed after the noun; and that the _ad_ initial is a
mere corruption of the first syllable of ‘amir’ or ‘emir.’
It was a fanciful etymology which gave us the word ‘Tartar.’ The
incorrect spelling ‘Tartars’ for ‘Tatars’ occurs at the same time
with the appearance of the Mongols in Europe, in the thirteenth
century; and was probably introduced by the superstitious monks
and writers who, struck with the seeming analogy between ‘Tatar’
and Tartarus (the hell of the ancients), believed that these
ferocious invaders had come from the infernal regions.
We are told by some writers that there are between 2,000 and 3,000
words in the English language, for which there is no recognised
standard of spelling. Though this number is probably exaggerated,
there are, no doubt, many in this condition; and it naturally
becomes a question which of two forms is to be preferred. Here,
we should be at least consistent; we should hold to the one, and
altogether reject the other.
The two forms, ‘chemist’ and ‘chymist’ arose from the word having
a disputed derivation; but the first is now received as correct.
Of course, its derivatives will therefore be spelled ‘chemical,’
‘chemistry,’ &c.
There was, at one time, a confusion between ‘choir’ and ‘quire.’
The second word has no connection, except in sound, with the first,
which is from the Latin ‘chorus,’ through the French ‘chœur.’
As ‘quire,’ in the sense of a number singing together, is now
obsolete, so is ‘quirister,’ which must be spelled ‘chorister.’
There are two forms--‘coit,’ and ‘quoit.’ The derivation of
this word is somewhat obscure; but if, as some suggest, it is
connected with _cut_, the form ‘coit’ is preferable to the other.
Another argument in favour of this form is that the word is always
pronounced as if beginning with a _c_ hard, or _k_; and not as if
with _qu_.
There has been a rather sharp controversy lately concerning the two
forms ‘diocess’ and ‘diocese.’ The ‘Times’ adopts ‘diocess.’ Dr.
Latham says under the word, ‘diocese, frequently but improperly,
diocess.’ Webster says, ‘the orthography of “diocess” is opposed to
the derivation, and is against the best English usage.’ There is
little doubt that ‘diocess’ is the older, and ‘diocese’ the newer
form of the word: and there is also little doubt, in spite of the
‘Times,’ that ‘diocese’ is the proper form.
Between ‘intire’ and ‘entire’ there is still a divided practice.
The word is a contraction of the Latin ‘integer,’ which will
account for the initial _i_. But it comes to us directly from the
French ‘entier.’ So that ‘entire’ will probably supplant ‘intire,’
though we still have ‘Barclay and Co.’s _intire_.’
There are two forms of the word--‘referrible,’ and ‘referable.’
These are both in common use, and both are given in the
dictionaries; but the second, ‘referable,’ is the proper form.
There was no Latin adjective ‘referibilis.’ Our word is a later
formation, where _a_ in such cases is always used rather than _i_;
and, therefore, it is better spelled ‘referable.’ Besides, this
form is in analogy with ‘preferable,’ ‘inferable,’ &c.
Some still write ‘sirname’ incorrectly for ‘surname,’ probably from
an idea that the word means sire-name, or a name received from a
sire (father). But its real meaning is an added name; one name
added _to_ another. It is from the French ‘surnom,’ and should be
always spelled ‘surname.’
Between a ‘serjeant’-at-law, and a military ‘sergeant’ there is
this difference: that the first must be written with a _j_, and the
second with a _g_. The word is derived from the Latin ‘serviens,’
and means, in both cases, one who serves; but the words are spelled
somewhat differently, to make a distinction in their application.
A difference should be made between ‘story’ and ‘storey.’ The first
means an account of facts, and is a contraction of ‘history.’ It
is a history on a small scale. But ‘storey’ is a contraction of
‘stagery,’ and means the landing in a house; as in ‘first storey,’
‘second storey,’ &c. Of course, the plural form of the first word
should be ‘stories,’ and of the second, ‘storeys.’