We say, “comply with;” therefore, by Rule xvii. “in compliance

with” is the analogical form of expression, and has the sanction of

classical usage.

“The fortitude of a man, who brings his will to the obedience of

his reason.”--_Steele._ Analogy requires “obedience to.” We say,

_obedient to command_: the person obeying is expressed in the

genitive, or with the preposition _of_; and the person or thing

obeyed with the preposition _to_, as, “a servant’s obedience,” or

“the obedience of a servant to the orders of his master.”

“Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.”--_Bible._

“Attendance” and “attention” are verbal nouns, derived from “attend.”

When the verb signifies “to regard,” or “to fix the mind upon,” it

is followed by _to_, as, “he attends to his studies,” and the verbal

noun is “attention,” construed, agreeably to Rule xvii. in the same

manner as the verb. Thus, “he gives attention to his studies.” But

when “to attend” signifies “to wait on,” or “be present at,” it is

followed by _on_, _upon_, or _at_, and is sometimes used without the

preposition.

Thus, “if any minister refused to admit a lecturer recommended to

him, he was required to attend _upon_ the committee.”--_Clarendon._

“He attended _at_ the consecration with becoming gravity.”--_Hume._

In this sense the verbal noun is “attendance,” and construed like the

verb, when it bears this signification. In the sentence, therefore,

last quoted, syntax requires, either “attendance at” or “attention

to.” The latter conveys the meaning of the original.

IMPROPRIETY.

“The observation of the Sabbath is a duty incumbent on every

Christian.” It should be, “the observance.” Both substantives are

derived from the verb “to observe.” When the verb means “to keep,”

or “obey,” the verbal noun is “observance;” when “to remark,” or “to

notice,” the noun is “observation.”

“They make such acquirements, as fit them for useful

avocations.”--_Staunton’s Embassy to China._

The word _avocation_ is frequently, as in the example before us,

confounded with _vocation_. By the latter is clearly signified

“calling,” “trade,” “employment,” “business,” “occupation;” and by

the former is meant whatever withdraws, distracts, or diverts us from

that business. No two words can be more distinct; yet we often see

them confounded.

“A supplication of twenty days was decreed to his honour.”--_Henry’s

History of Britain._ The term _supplication_ is in our language

confined to what Johnson calls “petitionary worship,” and always

implies request, entreaty, or petition. The Latin term _supplicatio_

has a more extensive meaning, and likewise _supplicium_, each

denoting not only _prayer_, strictly so called, but also

_thanksgiving_. The latter of these should have been employed by the

author.

“Our pleasures are purer, when consecrated by nations, and cherished

by the greatest _genii_ among men.”--_Blackwell’s Mythology._ _Genii_

means spirits. (See p. 18.) It ought to be _geniuses_.

I have already remarked (see p. 31), that, when the primary idea

implied in the masculine and feminine terms is the chief object

of attention, and when the sex does not enter as a matter of

consideration, the masculine term should be employed, even when the

female is signified. Thus, the Monthly Reviewer, in giving a critique

on the poems of Mrs. Grant, says, in allusion to that lady, “such

is the poet’s request.” This is strictly proper. He considers her

merely as a writer of poetry. But, were we to say, “as a poet she

ought not to choose for her theme the story of Abelard,” we should

be chargeable with error. For this would imply, that the story of

Abelard is not a fit subject for a poem,--a sentiment manifestly

false. There is no incongruity between the subject and poetry, but

between the subject and female delicacy. We ought, therefore, to say,

“as a poetess, she ought not to choose for her theme the story of

Abelard.”

“It was impossible not to suspect the veracity of this story.”

“Veracity” is applicable to persons only, and properly denotes that

moral quality or property, which consists in speaking truth, being

in its import nearly synonymous with the fashionable, but grossly

perverted term, _honour_: it is, therefore, improperly applied to

things. It should be “_the truth_ of this story.” The former denotes

moral, and the latter physical truth. We therefore say “the truth”

or “verity of the relation or thing told,” and “the veracity of the

relater.”

Pope has entitled a small dissertation, prefixed to his translation

of the Iliad, “A View of the Epic Poem,” misled, it is probable, by

Bossu’s title of a similar work, “Traité du Poëme Epique.” _Poem_

denotes the work or thing composed; “the art of making,” which is

here intended, is termed _poesy_.

An error similar to this occurs in the following passage: “I

apprehend that all the _sophism_ which has been or can be employed,

will not be sufficient to acquit this system at the tribunal of

reason.”--_Bolingbroke._ “Sophism” is properly defined by Johnson,

“a fallacious argument;” sophistry means “fallacious reasoning,”

or “unsound argumentation.” The author should have said “all the

sophistry,” or “all the sophisms.”

“The Greek is, doubtless, a language much superior in riches,

harmony, and variety to the Latin.”--_Campbell’s Rhet._ As the

properties or qualities of the languages are here particularly

compared, I apprehend, that the abstract “richness” would be a more

apposite term. “Riches” properly denotes “the things possessed,” or

“what constitutes the opulence of the owner;” “richness” denotes the

state, quality, or property of the individual, as possessed of these.

The latter, therefore, appears to me the more appropriate term.

“He felt himself compelled to acknowledge the justice of my remark.”

The _justness_ would, agreeably to Canon 1st, be the preferable word,

the former term being confined to persons, and the latter to things.

“The negligence of this leaves us exposed to an uncommon levity in

our usual conversation.”--_Spectator._ It ought to be “the neglect.”

“Negligence” implies a habit; “neglect” expresses an act.

“For I am of opinion that it is better a language should not be

wholly perfect, than it should be perpetually changing; and we must

give over at one time, or at length infallibly change for the worse;

as the Romans did when they began to quit their simplicity of style

for affected refinements, such as we meet with in Tacitus, and other

authors, which ended, by degrees, in many barbarities.” _Barbarity_,

in this sense, is obsolescent. The univocal term, _barbarism_, is

much preferable.

Gibbon, speaking of the priest, says, “to obtain the acceptation

of this guide to salvation, you must faithfully pay him tythes.”

_Acceptation_ in this sense is obsolete, or at least nearly out of

use; it should be _favour_ or _acceptance_.

“She ought to lessen the extravagant power of the duke and

duchess, by taking the disposition of employments into her own

hands.”--_Swift._ _Disposal_, for reasons already assigned[140], is

much better.

“The conscience of approving one’s self a benefactor to mankind, is

the noblest recompense for being so.” “Conscience” is the faculty

by which we judge our own conduct. It is here improperly used for

“consciousness,” or the perception of what passes within ourselves.

“If reasons were as plenty as blackberries, I would give no man a

reason on compulsion.”--_Shakspeare._ Here _plenty_, a substantive,

is improperly used for _plentiful_.

“It had a prodigious _quantity_ of windows.”--_Spence’s Excursions._

It should be _number_. This error frequently occurs in common

conversation. We hear of “a quantity of people,” of “a quantity of

troops,” “a quantity of boys and girls,” just as if they were to

be measured by the bushel, or weighed in the balance.--“To-morrow

will suit me equally well.” If we enquire here for a nominative to

the verb, we find none, _morrow_ being under the government of the

preposition. This error is so common, that we fear its correction

is hopeless. The translators of the Bible seem carefully to have

avoided this inaccuracy:--“_To_-morrow (_i.e._ ‘on the morrow’) the

Lord shall do this;” “And the Lord did that thing on _the_ morrow.”

Analogy requires, that we should say, “_The_ morrow will suit me

equally well.”

“I have the Dublin copy of Gibbon’s History.” This is a Scotticism

for _Dublin edition_; and so palpable, that I should not have

mentioned it, were it not found in authors of no contemptible merit.

“I have no right to be forced,” said a citizen to a magistrate, “to

serve as constable.” This perversion of the word _right_, originally,

we believe, a cockneyism, is gradually gaining ground, and is found

in compositions, into which nothing but extreme inattention can

account for its introduction. A _right_ implies a just claim, or

title to some privilege, freedom, property, or distinction, supposed

by the claimant to be conducive to his benefit. We should smile,

if we heard a foreigner, in vindication of his innocence, say, “I

have no right to be imprisoned;” “I have no right to be hanged.” The

perversion here is too palpable to escape our notice. But we hear a

similar, though not so ridiculous, an abuse of the word, in common

conversation without surprise. “I have no right,” says one, “to be

taxed with this indiscretion;” “I have no right,” says another, “to

be subjected to this penalty.” These phraseologies are absurd. They

involve a contradiction; they presume a benefit, while they imply an

injury. The correlative term on one side is _right_, and on the other

_obligation_; a creditor has a right to a just debt, and the debtor

is under an obligation to pay it. Instead of these indefensible

phraseologies we should say, “I am not bound,” or “I am under no

obligation to submit to this penalty;” “I ought not to be taxed with

this indiscretion,” or “you have no right to subject me,” “you have

no right to tax me.”

Robertson, when speaking of the Mexican form of government (Book

viith), says, “But the description of their policy and laws is so

inaccurate and contradictory, that it is difficult to delineate the

form of their constitution with any precision.” I should here prefer

the appropriate and univocal term _polity_, which denotes merely the

form of government; _policy_ means rather wisdom or prudence, or the

art of governing, which may exist where there is no settled _polity_.

“A letter relative to certain calumnies and misrepresentations which

have appeared in the Edinburgh Review, with an exposition of the

ignorance of the new critical junto.”--Here, agreeably to Canon I.

(see p. 229), I should prefer _exposure_, as being a word strictly

univocal. It would conduce to perspicuity were we to consider

_exposition_ as the verbal noun of _expound_, and confine it entirely

to _explanation_, and _exposure_ as the verbal noun of _expose_,

signifying the act of setting out, or the state of being set out or

exposed.

SECTION II.

THE ADJECTIVE.

BARBARISM.

“Instead of an able man, you desire to have him an insignificant

wrangler, opiniatre in discourse, and priding himself on

contradicting others.”--_Locke._ _Opiniatre_ is a barbarism; it

should be _opinionative_.

“And studied lines, and fictious circles draw.”--_Prior._

The word _fictious_ is of Prior’s own coining; it is barbarous.

“The punishment that belongs to that great and criminous guilt is

the forfeiture of his right and claim to all mercies.”--_Hammond._

_Criminous_ is a barbarism.

“Which, even in the most overly view, will appear incompatible with

any sort of music.”--_Kames’s Elements._ _Overly_ is a Scotticism;

in England it is now obsolete. The proper term is _cursory_ or

_superficial_.

“Who should believe, that a man should be a doctor for the cure

of bursten children?”--_Steele._ The participle _bursten_ is now

obsolete.

“Callisthenes, the philosopher, that followed Alexander’s court, and

hated the king, being asked, how one should become the _famousest_

man in the world, answered, By taking away him that is.”--_Bacon’s

Apophth._ The superlative is a barbarism; it should be, “most famous.”

SOLECISM.

“I do not like these kind of men.” Here the plural word _these_ is

joined to a noun singular; it should be, “this kind.” “Those sort,”

“these kind of things,” are gross solecisms.

“Neither do I see it is any crime, farther than ill manners, to

differ in opinion from the majority of either, or both houses; and

that ill manners I have often been guilty of.”--_Swift’s Examiner._

Here is another egregious solecism. He should have said, “those ill

manners,” or “that species of ill manners.”

“The landlord was quite unfurnished of every kind of

provision.”--_Sheridan’s Life of Swift._ We say, “to furnish _with_,”

not “to furnish _of_.” _Furnished_ and _unfurnished_ are construed in

the same manner. It should be, “unfurnished _with_.”

“A child of four years old was thus cruelly deserted by its parents.”

This form of expression frequently occurs, and is an egregious

solecism. It should be, “a child four years old,” or “aged four

years,” not “of four years.” Those who employ this incorrect

phraseology, seem misled by confounding two very different modes

of expression, namely, “a child of four years of age,” or “of the

age of four years,” and “a child four years old.” The preposition

_of_ is requisite in the two first of these forms, but inadmissible

in the third. They would not say, “I am of four years old,” but

“I am four years old;” hence, consistently, they ought to say, “a

child four years old.” “At ten years old, I was put to a grammar

school.”--_Steele._ Grammatically this is, “I old at ten years.”

“This account is very different _to_ what I told you.” “I found

your affairs had been managed in a different manner _than_ what I

advised.” Both these phraseologies are faulty. It should be in each,

“different _from_.” The verb “to differ” is construed with _from_

before the second object of disparity; the adjective therefore should

(by Rule xvii.) be construed in the same manner.

“These words have the same sense of those others.” _Same_ should be

followed with _as_, _with_, or the relatives _who_, _which_, _that_.

It ought, therefore, to be, “as those,” or “with those,” or “have the

sense of those others.”

“I shall ever depend on your constant friendship, kind memory, and

good offices, though I were never to see or hear the effects of them,

like the trust we have in benevolent spirits, who, though we never

see or hear them, we think are constantly serving and praying for

us.”--_Pope’s Letters to Atterbury._ _Like_ can have no grammatical

reference to any word in the sentence but _I_, and this reference

is absurd. He should have said, “_as_, or _just as_, we trust in

benevolent spirits.”

“This gentleman rallies the best of any man I know.”--_Addison._

The superlative must be followed by _of_, the preposition implying

_out of_ a plurality, expressed either by a collective noun, or a

plural number. But here we have a selection denoted by _of_, and

the selection to be made out of one. This is absurd. It should

be, “better than any other”--the best of all men--“I know;” “this

gentleman, of all my acquaintance, rallies the best;” or “of all my

acquaintance, there is no one, who rallies so well as this gentleman.”

“Besides, those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, are best,

of all others, qualified to revenge that defect with their

breath.”--_Preface to A Tale of a Tub._

“Here,” says Sheridan, “the disjunction of the word _best_ from the

word _qualified_ makes the sentence uncouth, which would run better

thus, ‘are, of all others, best qualified.’” So far Mr. Sheridan

is right; but he has left uncorrected a very common error. The

antecedent subject of comparison is here absurdly referred at once to

the same, and to a different aggregate, the word _of_ referring it to

_others_, to which it is opposed, and to which therefore it cannot,

without a contradiction, be said to belong. The sentence, therefore,

involves an absurdity: either the word _others_ should be expunged,

when the sentence would run thus, “Those, whose teeth are too rotten

to bite, are, of all, best qualified to revenge that defect;” or,

if the word _others_ be retained, the clause should be, “are better

qualified than all others.”[141]

The phraseology here censured is admissible in those cases only

where a previous comparison has been made. If we say, “To engage a

private tutor for a single pupil is, perhaps, of all others, the

least eligible mode of giving literary instruction,” (_Barrow on

Education_,) without making that previous discrimination, which

the word _others_ implies, we commit an error. But we may say with

propriety, “I prefer the mode of education adopted in our public

schools; and of all _other modes_, to engage a private tutor appears

to me the least eligible.”

IMPROPRIETY.

“They could easier get them by heart, and retain them in

memory.”--_Adams’s History of England._ Here the adjective is

improperly used for the adverb; it ought to be “more easily.” Swift

commits a similar error, when he says, “Ned explained his text so

full and clear,” for “so fully and clearly.”

“Thus much, I think, is sufficient to serve, by way of address, to

my patrons, the true modern critics, and may very well atone for my

past silence as well as for that, which I am like to observe for the

future.”--_Swift._ _Like_, or _similar_, is here improperly used for

_likely_, a word in signification nearly synonymous with _probable_.

We say, “he is likely to do it,” or “it is probable he will do it.”

“Charity vaunteth not itself, doth not behave itself unseemly.” Here

the adjective _unseemly_ is improperly used for the adverb, denoting

“in an unseemly manner.” _Unseemlily_ not being in use, the word

_indecently_ should be substituted.

“The Romans had no other subsistence but the scanty pillage of a

few farms.” _Other_ is redundant; it should be, “no subsistence

but,” or “no other subsistence than.” In the Saxon language, and the

earlier English writers, the word _other_ is not uniformly followed

by _than_, but sometimes with _but_, _before_, _save_, _except_[142],

thus, Mark xii. 32, “thær an God is, and nis other butan him,” thus

rendered in the Bishops’ Translation, “there is one God, and there

is none but he,” and in the common version, “none other but he.” In

the Book of Common Prayer we have, “Thou shalt have no other Gods

but me;” and the same form of expression occurs in Addison, Swift,

and other contemporary writers. Usage, however, seems of late to

have decided almost universally in favour of _than_. This decision

is not only consistent with analogy, if the word _other_ is to be

deemed a comparative, but may also, in some cases, be subservient to

perspicuity. _No other but_, _no other beside_, _no other except_,

are equivalent expressions, and do not perhaps convey precisely the

same idea with _none but_, _no other than_. Thus, if we take an

example similar to Baker’s, and suppose a person to say “A called

on me this morning,” B asks, “No one else?” “No other,” answers A,

“but my stationer.” Here the expression, as Baker remarks, seems

strictly proper, the words _no other_ having a reference to A. But

if the stationer had been the only visitor, he should say, “none

but,” or “no other _than_ the stationer called on me this morning.”

This is the opinion of Baker. The distinction, which he wishes to

establish, is sufficiently evident; but that it is warranted by

strict analysis, I do not mean to affirm.

“He has eaten no bread, nor drunk no water, these two days.” _No_ is

here improperly used for _any_, two negatives making an affirmative:

it should be, “nor drunk any water.”

“The servant must have an undeniable character.” _Undeniable_ is

equivalent to _incontrovertible_, or “not admitting dispute.”

An “undeniable character,” therefore, means, a character which

cannot be denied or disputed, whether good or bad: it should be

“unexceptionable.”

“But you are too wise to propose to yourselves an object inadequate

to your strength.”--_Watson’s History of Philip III._ _Inadequate_

means “falling short of due proportion,” and is here improperly used

in a sense nearly the reverse. It should be “to which your strength

is inadequate,” or “superior to your strength.”

“I received a letter to-day from our mutual friend.” I concur with

Baker in considering this expression to be incorrect. A may be a

friend to B, and also to C, and is therefore a friend common to both;

but not their mutual friend: for this implies reciprocity between

two individuals, or two parties. The individuals may be mutually

friends; but one cannot be the mutual friend of the other. Locke

more properly says, “I esteem the memory of our common friend.” This

is, doubtless, the correct expression; but, as the term _common_ may

denote “ordinary,” or “not uncommon,” the word _mutual_, though not

proper, may, perhaps, as Baker observes, be tolerated.

The superlatives _lowest_ and _lowermost_, _highest_ and _uppermost_,

appear to me to be frequently confounded. Thus we say, “the lowest

house in the street,” when we mean the lowest in respect to

measurement, from the basement to the top, and also the lowest in

regard to position, the inferiority being occasioned by declivity.

Now it appears to me, that when we refer to dimension, we should say,

_lowest_ or _highest_; and when we refer to site or situation, we

ought to say, _lowermost_ or _uppermost_.

“It was due, perhaps, more to the ignorance of the scholars, than to

the knowledge of the masters.”--_Swift._ It should be rather, “it

was owing,” or “it is ascribable.” The author had previously been

speaking of the first instructors of mankind, and questioning their

claim to the title of sages. To say, then, that their right to this

title, or that the appellation itself, “was due more to ignorance

than to knowledge,” is manifestly improper. Swift, however, was not

singular in using the adjective in this sense. Steele, and some

other contemporary writers, employed it in the same acceptation.

“The calamities of children are due to the negligence of the

parents.”--_Spectator_, No. 431. It is now seldom or never employed

as equivalent to “owing to,” or “occasioned by.”

“Risible,” “ludicrous,” and “ridiculous,” are frequently confounded.

_Risible_ denotes merely the capacity of laughing, and is applied

to animals having the faculty of laughter, as, “man is a risible

creature.” _Ludicrous_ is applicable to things exciting laughter

simply; _ridiculous_ to things exciting laughter with contempt. The

tricks of a monkey are _ludicrous_, the whimsies of superstition are

_ridiculous_. “The measure of the mid stream for salmon among our

forefathers is not less risible.”--_Kames’s Sketches._ He should have

said “ridiculous.”

We have already expressed our doubt of the propriety of using the

numeral adjective _one_, as referring to a plurality of individuals,

denoted by a plural noun. (_See_ p. 48.) There is something which is

not only strange to the ear, but also strikes us as ungrammatical,

in saying[143], “The Greeks and the Trojans continued the contest;

the one were favoured by Juno, the other by Venus.” At the same time,

it must be acknowledged, that there seems to be an inconsistency

in questioning this phraseology, and yet retaining some others,

which appear to be analogous to it, and can plead in their defence

reputable usage. We say, “The Romans and the Carthaginians contended

with each other;” and “The English, the Dutch, and the Spaniards

disputed, one with another, the sovereignty of the sea.” Here _each_

and _one_ clearly refer to a plurality, expressed by a noun plural.

A similar example occurs in the following sentence: “As the greatest

part of mankind are more affected by things, which strike the senses,

than by excellences, that are discovered by reason and thought, they

form very erroneous judgments, when they compare _one_ with the

other.”--_Guardian._ If we inquire, what one? we find the answer to

be “things.” Here is a manifest incongruity, which might have been

prevented, by saying, “one subject with the other,” or “when they

compare them together.” As this construction of _one_, referring to a

noun plural, seems irreconcilable with the notion of unity, and may

be avoided, it becomes a question, whether this phraseology ought to

be imitated. The subject, as far as I know, has not been considered

by any of our grammarians.

“That this was the cause of the disaster, was apparent to all.”

_Apparent_ is sometimes used in this sense. The word, however, is

equivocal, as it denotes _seeming_, opposed to _real_; and _obvious_,

opposed to _doubtful_ or _obscure_. “I consider the difference

between him and the two authors above mentioned, as more apparent

than real.”--_Campbell._ Here _apparent_ is opposed to _real_; and

to this sense it would be right to confine it, as thus all ambiguity

would be effectually prevented. “But there soon appeared very

apparent reasons for James’s partiality.”--_Goldsmith._ _Obvious_, or

_evident_, would unquestionably be preferable.

“How seldom, then, does it happen, that the mind does not find itself

in similar circumstances? Very rare indeed.”--_Trusler’s Preface to

Synon._ The adjective _rare_ is here improperly used for the adverb.

As the question, indeed, is adverbially proposed, it is somewhat

surprising that the author should answer _adjectively_: it ought to

be, “very rarely.”

“No man had ever _less_ friends, and more enemies.” _Less_ refers to

quantity, _fewer_ to number; it should be, “_fewer_ friends.”

“The mind may insensibly fall off from this relish of virtuous

actions, and by degrees exchange that pleasure, which it takes in the

performance of its duty, for delights of a much more inferior and

unprofitable nature.”--_Addison._ _Inferior_ implies comparison, but

it is grammatically a positive. When one thing is, in any respect,

lower than another, we say, “it is inferior to it;” and if a third

thing were still lower, we should say, “it is still more inferior.”

But the author is comparing only two subjects; he should therefore

have said, “of a much inferior, and more unprofitable nature.” The

expression “more preferable” is for the same reason faulty, unless

when two degrees of excess are implied.

The adjectives _agreeable_, _suitable_, _conformable_, _independent_,

_consistent_, _relative_, _previous_, _antecedent_, and many others,

are often used, where their several derivative adverbs would be

more properly employed; as, “he lives _agreeable_ to nature,” “he

wrote to me _previous_ to his coming to town,” “_tolerable_ good,”

“he acted _conformable_ to his promise.” It is worthy of remark,

however, that the idiom of our language is not repugnant to some of

these phraseologies; a circumstance which many of our grammarians

have overlooked, if we may judge from the severity with which they

have condemned them. If I say, “he acted according to nature,” the

expression is deemed unobjectionable: but is not _according_ a

participle, or, perhaps, here more properly a _participial_? “He

acted contrary to nature” is also considered as faultless; but is not

_contrary_ an adjective? Were we to reason on abstract principles, or

to adopt what is deemed the preferable phraseology, we should say,

“contrarily” and “accordingly to nature.” This, however, is not the

case. “Contrary to nature,” “according to nature,” and many similar

phraseologies, are admitted as good: why, then, is “conformable to

nature,” an expression perfectly analogous, so severely condemned?

Johnson has, indeed, uselessly enough, in my opinion, called

_according_ a preposition; fearful, however, of error, he adds, it

is properly a participle, for it is followed by _to_. _According_

is always a participle, as much as _agreeing_, and can be nothing

else. Because _secundum_ in Latin is termed a preposition, hence some

have referred _according_ to the same species of words. With equal

propriety might _in the power of_ be deemed a preposition, because

_penes_ in Latin is so denominated. Now, if “he acted contrary

to nature” and “according to nature” be deemed unexceptionable

expressions, with many others of the same kind, which might be

adduced, it follows that, “he acted agreeable,” “conformable,”

“suitable to nature,” may plead in their favour these analogous

phraseologies. I offer these observations, in order to show that,

misled by abstract reasonings, or by the servile imitation of another

language, we sometimes hastily condemn, as altogether inadmissible,

modes of expression, which are not repugnant to our vernacular idiom.

I would not, however, be understood to mean, that the adverb is

not, in these cases, much to be preferred, when it can be employed

consistently with good usage. For, if we say, “he acts agreeable

to the laws of reason,” the question is, who or what is agreeable?

the answer, according to the strict construction of the sentence,

is _he_; but it is not _he_, but _his mode of acting_, of which the

accordance is predicated; _agreeably_ is, therefore, the preferable

term.

I observe also, that, wherever the adjective is employed to

modify the meaning of another adjective, it becomes particularly

exceptionable, and can scarcely, indeed, plead aught in its favour,

as, “indifferent good,” “tolerable strong,” instead of “indifferently

good,” and “tolerably strong.” The following phraseology is

extremely inelegant, and is scarcely admissible on any principle

of analogy: “Immediately consequent to the victory, Drogheda was

invested.”--_Belsham’s History._ What was consequent? Grammatically

“Drogheda.”

“No other person, besides my brother, visited me to-day.” Here the

speaker means to say that no person, besides his brother, visited him

to-day; but his expression implies two exceptions from _none_, the

terms _other_ and _besides_ each implying one, and can, therefore, be

correct on this supposition only, that some one besides his brother

had visited him. It should be rather, “no person besides.”

“The old man had, some fifty years ago, been no mean performer

on the vielle.”--_Sterne._ This phraseology appears to me very

objectionable; and can be proper in no case, except when the date of

the period is to be expressed as uncertain. The word _some_ should be

cancelled. We may say, “I was absent some days,” because the period

is indefinite; but to say, “I was absent some five days,” either

involves an incongruity, representing a period as at once definite

and indefinite; or denotes “some five days or other,” a meaning

which the expression is rarely intended to signify.

“Brutus and Aruns killed one another.” It should be, “each other:”

“one another” is applied to more than two. “The one the other” would

be correct, though inelegant.

“It argued the most extreme vanity.”--_Hume._ _Extreme_ is derived

from a Latin superlative, and denotes “the farthest,” or “greatest

possible:” it cannot, therefore, be compared.

“Of all vices pride is the most universal.” _Universal_ is here

improperly used for _general_. The meaning of the latter admits

intension and remission, and may, therefore, be compared. The

former is an adjective, whose signification cannot be heightened or

lessened; it therefore rejects all intensive and diminutive words,

as, _so_, _more_, _less_, _least_, _most_. The expression should be,

“Of all vices pride is the most general.”

“Tho’ learn’d, well-bred; and tho’ well-bred, sincere:

Modestly bold, and humanly severe.”--_Pope._

_Human_ and _humane_, as Dr. Campbell observes, are sometimes

confounded. The former properly means “belonging to man;” the latter,

“kind and compassionate:” _humanly_, therefore, is improperly, in the

couplet now quoted, used for _humanely_.

SECTION III.

THE PRONOUN.

BARBARISM.

Pronouns are so few in number, and so simple, that this species

of error, in respect to them, can scarcely occur. To this class,

however, may perhaps be reduced such as, _his’n_, _her’n_, _our’n_,

_your’n_, _their’n_, for _his own_, _her own_, _our own_, &c., or for

_his one_, _her one_, &c.

SOLECISM.

“Who calls?” “’T is me.” This is a violation of that rule, by which

the verb _to be_ has the same case after it that it has before it. It

should be, “It is I.”

“You were the quarrel,” says Petulant in “The Way of the World.”

Millamant answers, “Me!” For the reason just given it should be “_I_.”

“Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults.” As the relative

refers to persons, it should be _who_.

“Nor is mankind so much to blame, in his choice thus determining

him.”--_Swift._ _Mankind_ is a collective noun, and is uniformly

considered as plural; _his_, therefore, is a gross solecism.

“By this institution, each legion, to whom a certain portion of

auxiliaries was allotted, contained within itself every species of

lighter troops, and of missile weapons.”--_Gibbon._ It ought to be,

_to which_--the pronoun _itself_, which follows, referring to a noun

of the neuter gender. _To whom_ and _itself_ cannot each agree with

one common antecedent.

“The seeming importance given to every part of female dress, each of

which is committed to the care of a different sylph.”--_Essay on the

Writings of Pope._ This sentence is ungrammatical. _Each_ implying

“one of two,” or “every one singly of more than two,” requires the

correlative to be considered as plural; yet the antecedent _part_,

to which it refers, is singular. It should be “all parts of female

dress.”

“To be sold, the stock of Mr. Smith, left off business.” This is an

ungrammatical and very offensive vulgarism. The verb _left off_, as

Baker observes, has no subject, to which it can grammatically belong.

It should be, “who has left off,” or “leaving off business” “A. B.

lieutenant, _vice_ C. D. resigned.” Here is a similar error. Is C. D.

resigned? or is it the office which has been resigned? An excessive

love of brevity gives occasion to such solecisms.

“He was ignorant, the profane historian, of the testimony which he is

compelled to give.”--_Gibbon’s Decline of the Roman Empire._

“The youth and inexperience of the prince, he was only fifteen years

of age, declined a perilous encounter.”--_Ib._

In the former sentence _the historian_ appears neither as the

nominative, nor the regimen to any verb. If it be intended to agree

with _he_ by apposition, it should have immediately followed the

pronoun. If it be designed emphatically, and ironically, to mark the

character of the historian, it should have been thrown into the form

of a parenthetic exclamation. In the latter sentence a phraseology

occurs, which, notwithstanding its frequency in Gibbon, is extremely

awkward and inelegant. The fault may be corrected either by throwing

the age of the prince into a parenthesis, or, preferably, by the

substitution of _who_ for _he_.

“Fare thee well” is a phraseology which, though sanctioned by the

authority of a celebrated poet, and also by other writers, involves

a solecism. The verb is intransitive, and its imperative is _fare

thou_. No one would say, “I fare me well,” “we fare us well.”

“That faction in England, who most powerfully opposed his arbitrary

pretensions.”--_Mrs. Macaulay._ It ought rather to be, “that faction

in England, _which_.” It is justly observed by Priestley, “that a

term, which only implies the idea of persons, and expresses them by

some circumstance or epithet, will hardly authorize the use of _who_.”

“He was certainly one of the most acute metaphysicians, one of the

deepest philosophers, and one of the best critics, and most learned

divines, which modern times have produced.”--_Keith on the Life and

Writings of Campbell._

“Moses was the mildest of all men, which were then on the face of the

earth.”--_Geddes._

“Lord Sidney was one of the wisest and most active governors, whom

Ireland had enjoyed for several years.”--_Hume._

In the two first of these passages, _which_ is improperly applied

to persons; in the last, the author has avoided this impropriety,

and used _whom_. The pronoun _that_, however, is much preferable to

_who_, or _which_, after a superlative.

“Such of the Morescoes might remain, who demeaned themselves

as Christians.”--_Watson’s Life of Philip III._ _Such_ is here

improperly followed by _who_ instead of _as_. The correlative terms

are _those who_, and _such as_.

“It is hard to be conceived, that a set of men could ever be chosen

by their contemporaries, to have divine honours paid to them,

while numerous persons were alive, who knew their imperfections,

and who themselves, or their immediate ancestors, might have as

fair a pretence, and come in competition with them.”--_Prideaux’s

Connexion._ The identity of subject, in the relative clauses of this

sentence, requires the repetition of the same pronoun. It should be,

“who themselves, or whose immediate ancestors.”

“If you were here, you would find three or four in the parlour,

after dinner, whom you would say past their afternoons very

agreeably.”--_Swift._ The pronoun _whom_ should not be under the

government of the verb _would say_, having no connection with it; but

should be a nominative to the verb _passed_; thus, “who, you would

say, passed their afternoons.”

“By these means, that religious princess became acquainted with

Athenias, whom she found was the most accomplished woman of her age.”

_Whom_, for the reason already assigned, should be _who_, being the

nominative to the verb _was_. If it were intended to be a regimen to

the verb _found_, the sentence should proceed thus, “whom she found

to be.”

“Solomon was the wisest man, him only excepted, who was much greater

and wiser than Solomon.” In English the absolute case is the

nominative; it should, therefore, be, “he only excepted.”

“Who, instead of being useful members of society, they are pests

to mankind.” Here the verb _are_ has two nominatives, _who_ and

_they_, each representing the same subjects of discourse. One of

them is redundant; and by the use of both, the expression becomes

solecistical, there being no verb to which the relative _who_ can be

a nominative.

“My banks, they are furnish’d with bees,”

is faulty for the same reason, though here, perhaps, the poetic

licence may be pleaded in excuse.

“It is against the laws of the realm, which, as they are preserved

and maintained by your majesty’s authority, so we assure ourselves,

you will not suffer them to be violated.” _Which_ is neither a

regimen nor a nominative to any verb; the sentence, therefore, is

ungrammatical--_Them_ is redundant.

“Whom do men say that I am?” The relative is here in the objective

case, though there be no word in the sentence by which it can be

governed. In such inverted sentences, it is a good rule for those who

are not well acquainted with the language to arrange the words in the

natural order, beginning with the nominative and the verbs, thus,

“men say, that I am who,” a sentence precisely analogous to “men say,

that I am he,” the verb requiring the same case after it, as before

it. Hence it is obvious, that it should be, “Who do men say that I

am?”

“Who do you speak to?” It ought to be _whom_, the relative being

under the government of the preposition, thus, “To whom do you speak?”

“Who she knew to be dead.”--_Henry’s Hist. of Britain._ Here also the

relative should be in the objective case, under the government of the

verb, thus, “whom she knew,” or “she knew whom to be dead.”

“Than whom, Satan except, none higher sat.”--_Milton._

“The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud,

With deeper sable blots the silver flood.”--_Pope._

This phraseology I have already examined. In answer to Mr. Baker’s

reason for condemning the phrase “than whom,” Story’s observations

betray, as I conceive, extreme ignorance, and require correction.

“The English,” says he, “is strictly good; for the relative _whom_

is not in the same case with _sluice_, (which is the nominative to

the verb _blots_,) but referring to its antecedent, _the king of

dykes_, is very properly in the objective case, even though the

personal pronoun _he_, if substituted in its place, would be in the

nominative.”

If Mr. Story conceives that the relative must agree with its

antecedent in case, he labours under an egregious mistake. Every page

of English evinces the contrary. Yet, such must be his opinion, or

his argument means nothing; for the only reason, which he offers for

_whom_, is, that its antecedent is in the objective case. Besides,

if _than whom_ be admissible, nay proper, he will have difficulty in

assigning a good reason, why it should not be also _than him_. But

Mr. Story should have known, that, when two nouns are coupled by a

conjunction, the latter term is not governed by the conjunction, but

is either the nominative to the verb, or is governed by it, or by the

preposition understood. The sentence proceeds thus, “no sluice of

mud blots with deeper sable, than _he_ or _who_ blots.”

“It is no wonder if such a man did not shine at the court of

Queen Elizabeth, who was but another name for prudence and

economy.”--_Hume._ The word _Elizabeth_, as represented in the

latter clause, is here a mere word, _nuda vox_, and not the sign

of a person; for it is said to be another name for _prudence_ and

_economy_. Not the person, but the word, is said to be significant of

this quality. The pronoun, therefore, should be _which_, not _who_.

The sentence, however, even thus corrected, would be inelegant.

Better thus, “Queen Elizabeth, whose name was but another word for

prudence and economy.”

“Be not diverted from thy duty by any idle reflections the silly

world may make upon you.” Consistency requires either “_your_ duty,”

or “upon _thee_.” _Thy_ and _your_, a singular and a plural pronoun,

each addressed to the same individual, are incongruous.

A similar error occurs in the following passage: “I pray _you_, tarry

all night, lodge here, that _thy_ heart may be merry.”--_Bible._

“It is more good to fall among crows than flatterers, for these only

devour the dead, those the living.” The pronoun _this_ always refers

to the nearer object, _that_ to the more remote. This distinction is

here reversed. It should be, “those (crows) devour the dead; these

(flatterers) the living.” I observe also, in passing, that those

adjectives, whose mode of comparison is irregular, are not compared

by _more_ and _most_. It ought to be, “it is better.”

“It is surprising, that this people, so happy in invention, have

never penetrated beyond the elements of geometry.” It should be

_has_, _this people_ being in the singular number. We may say,

“people have,” the noun being collective, but not “this people have.”

“I and you love reading.” This is a Latinism, and not accordant with

our mode of arrangement. Wolsey was right, when he said, “Ego, et rex

meus;” but in English we reverse the order. It should be, “you and

I.” We say also, “he and I,” “they and I.” _You_ always precedes.

“Each of the sexes should keep within its proper bounds, and

content themselves with the advantages of their particular

districts.”--_Addison._ Here the pronoun does not agree with the

word to which it refers, the word _each_ being singular; whereas

_themselves_ and _their_ are plural. It should be, _itself_ and _its_.

A similar error occurs in the following sentence: “Some of

our principal public schools have each a grammar of _their_

own.”--_Barrow on Education._ It ought to be, “each a grammar of

_its_ own.” The expression is elliptical, for “schools have each

(has) a grammar of its own.” Thus we say, “Simeon and Levi took each

man _his sword_,” not _their swords._--_Gen._ xxxiv. 25.

“Let each esteem other better than themselves.”--_Bible._ For the

reason just given, it ought to be _himself_.

“So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if

ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their

trespasses.”--_Bible._ Here is a manifest solecism, the pronoun

_their_ referring to “his brother,” a singular subject.

“I wonder that such a valiant hero as you should trifle away your

time in making war upon women.”--_Essay on the Writings of Pope._

Here the pronoun disagrees in person with the noun to which it

refers, _hero_ being of the third person, and _your_ of the second.

The connexion is, “I wonder that such a valiant hero should trifle

away _his_ time.”

“The venison, which I received yesterday, and was a present from

a friend,” &c. _Which_ is here in the objective case, and cannot

properly be understood as the nominative to the verb _was_: better,

therefore, “and which was a present.” The following sentence is

still more faulty: “It was happy for them, that the storm, in which

they were, and was so very severe, lasted but a short time.” This is

ungrammatical, the verb “was” having no nominative. It should be,

“which was.”

“There is not a sovereign state in Europe, but keeps a body of

regular troops in their pay.” This expression, to say the least of

it, is inelegant and awkward. Better, “its pay.” “Is any nation

sensible of the lowness of their own manners?”--_Kames. Nation_ is

here improperly construed as both singular and plural. It should be

rather “its own.”

“The treaty he concluded can only be considered as a temporary

submission, and of which he took no care to secure the continuance

of it.”--_Dryden._ The redundancy of the words _of it_, renders the

sentence somewhat ungrammatical. It should run thus, “The treaty he

concluded can only be considered as a temporary submission, of which

he took no care to secure the continuance.”

An improper reference occurs in the following sentence: “Unless

one be very cautious, he will be liable to be deceived.” _One_

here answers to the indefinite word _on_ in French, and cannot be

represented by any pronoun. It must, therefore, be repeated, thus,

“Unless one be very cautious, one will be liable to be deceived.”

IMPROPRIETY.

“Give me them books.” Here the substantive pronoun is used

adjectively, instead of the demonstrative _those_ or _these_.

The substantive pronouns, which are, strictly speaking, the

only pronouns, cannot be construed as adjectives agreeing with

substantives. We cannot say, “it book,” “they books,” “them books:”

but “this” or “that book,” “these” or “those books.” The former

phraseology may be deemed solecistical.

“Great numbers were killed on either side.”--_Watson’s Philip III._

“The Nile flows down the country above five hundred miles from the

tropic of Cancer, and marks on either side the extent of fertility by

the measure of its inundation.”--_Gibbon._

It has been already observed, that the Saxon word _ægther_ signifies

_each_, as Gen. vii. 2. “Clean animals thou shalt take by sevens

of each kind,” _ægthres gecyndes_. The English word _either_ is

sometimes used in the same sense. But as this is the only word in our

language, by which we can express “one of two,” “which of the two you

please,” and as it is generally employed in that sense, perspicuity

requires that it be strictly confined to this signification. For,

if _either_ be used equivocally, it must, in many cases, be utterly

impossible for human ingenuity to ascertain, whether only “one of

two,” or “both,” be intended. In such expressions, for example,

as “take either side,” “the general ordered his troops to march on

either bank,” how is the reader or hearer to divine, whether _both

sides_, _both banks_, or _only one_, be signified? By employing

_each_ to express “both,” taken individually, and _either_ to denote

“one of the two,” all ambiguity is removed.

“The Bishop of Clogher intends to call on you this morning, as well

as your humble servant, in my return from Chapel Izzard.”--_Addison

to Swift._ After the writer has spoken of himself in the third

person, there is an impropriety in employing the pronoun of the

first. Much better “in his return.”

“The ends of a divine and human legislator are vastly

different.”--_Warburton._ From this sentence it would seem, that

there is only one subject of discourse, _the ends_ belonging to one

individual, _a divine and human legislator_. The author intended to

express two different subjects, namely, “the objects of a divine,”

and “the objects of a human legislator.” The demonstrative _those_ is

omitted. It should be, “the ends of a divine, and those of a human

legislator, are vastly different.” This error consists in defect,

or an improper ellipsis of the pronoun: in the following sentence

the error is redundancy. “They both met on a trial of skill.” _Both_

means “they two,” as _ambo_ in Latin is equivalent to “οἱ δύο” It

should therefore be, “both met on a trial of skill.”

“These two men (A and B) are both equal in strength.” This, says

Baker, is nonsense; for these words signify only, that A is equal

in strength, and B equal in strength, without implying to whom; so

that the word _equal_ has nothing to which it refers. “A and B,”

says he, “are equal in strength,” is sense; this means, that they

are equal to each other. “A and B are both equal in strength to C,”

is likewise sense. It signifies, that A is equal to C, and that B

likewise is equal to C. Thus Mr. Baker. Now, it appears to me, that,

when he admits the expression, “are both equal,” as significant

of the equality of each, he admits a phraseology which does not

strictly convey that idea. For if we say, “A and B are both equal,”

it seems to me to imply, that the two individuals are possessed of

two attributes or qualities, one of which is here expressed; and in

this sense only, as I conceive, is this phraseology correct. Thus we

may say, with strict propriety, “A and B are both equal in strength,

and superior in judgment to their contemporaries.” Or it may denote,

that “they two together, namely, A and B, are equal to C singly.”

In the former case, _both_ is necessarily followed by _and_, which

is in Latin rendered by _et_. Thus, “A and B are the two things,

(both) _equal in strength_, and (add) _superior in judgment_ to their

contemporaries.” In the latter case, it is equivalent to _ambo_,

expressing two collectively, as, “they two _together_ are equal to C,

but not _separately_.” I am aware, that the word _both_ in English,

like _ambo_ in Latin, is an ambiguous term, denoting either “the two

collectively,” or “the two separately,” and that many examples of

the latter usage may be adduced. But that surely cannot be deemed

a correct or appropriate term, which, in its strict signification,

conveys an idea different from that intended by the speaker; or which

leaves the sentiment in obscurity, and the reader in doubt. The word

_each_, substituted for _both_, renders the expression clear and

precise, thus, “A and B are each equal to C, in strength.”[144]

An error the reverse of this occurs in the following sentence:

“This proves, that the date of each letter must have been nearly

coincident.” Coincident with what? Not surely with itself; nor can

the date of each letter be coincident with each other. It should be,

“that the dates of both letters must have been nearly coincident with

each other.”

“It’s great cruelty to torture a poor dumb animal.” Better, _’Tis_,

in order to distinguish the contraction from the genitive singular of

the pronoun _it_.

“Neither Lady Haversham, nor Miss Mildmay, will ever believe but

what I have been entirely to blame.” The pronoun _what_, equivalent

to _that which_, is here improperly used for _that_. This mode of

expression still obtains among the lower orders of the people, and is

not confined to them in the northern parts of the island. It should

be, “_that_ I have been.” The converse of this error occurs in the

following passages:

“That all our doings may be ordered by thy governance, to do always

that is righteous in thy sight.”--_Book of Common Prayer._

“For, if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted, according to

that a man hath.”--_Bible._

The pronouns _it_ and _that_ were formerly used as including the

relative. “This submission is it implieth them all.” “This is it men

mean by distributive justice.”--_Hobbes._ “To consider advisedly of

that is moved.”--_Bacon._ This usage is now obsolete. The clauses

should therefore proceed thus, “to do always what,” or “that, which

is righteous.” “According to what,” or “that, which a man hath.”

SECTION IV.

THE VERB.

BARBARISM.

“Thus did the French ambassadors, with great show of their king’s

affection, and many sugared words, seek to _addulce_ all matters

between the two kings.”--_Bacon._ The verb “to addulce” is obsolete.

“Do villany, do; since you profess to

Like workmen, I’ll example you with thievery.”

_Shakspeare._

The verb “to example,” as equivalent to the phrase “to set an

example,” is obsolete; and when used for “to exemplify,” may be

deemed obsolescent. “The proof whereof,” says Spencer in his _State

of Ireland_, “I saw sufficiently exampled;” better “exemplified.”

“I called at noon at Mrs. Masham’s, who desired me not to let the

prophecy be published, for fear of angering the queen.”--_Swift._ The

verb “to anger” is almost obsolete. In Scotland, and in the northern

part of England, it is still colloquially used; but in written

language, of respectable authority, it now rarely occurs. I have met

with it once or twice in Swift or Pope; since their time it appears

to have been gradually falling into disuse.

“Shall we once more go to fight against our brethren, or shall we

surcease?”--_Geddes’s Transl._ The verb to “surcease” is obsolete.

“And they and he, upon this incorporation and institution, and onyng

of themself into a realme, ordaynyd,” &c.--_Fortescue._ Here we have

the participle of the verb “to one,” now obsolete, for “to unite.”

“For it is no power to may alien, and put away; but it is a power

to may have, and kepe to himself. So it is no power to may syne,

and to do ill, or to may be syke, or wex old, or that a man may

hurt himself; for all thees powers comyne of impotencye.”--_Ib._ It

has been already observed, that the verb _may_ is derived from the

Saxon mægan, _posse_.--_See_ p. 97. From the passage before us it

appears, that in the time of Fortescue (anno 1440) the infinitive “to

may,” for “to be able,” was in use. It has now been long obsolete.

In the following passage, it forms what is called a compound

tense with the word _shall_, the sign of the infinitive being

suppressed. “Wherthorough the parlements schall may do more good in

a moneth.”--_Ib._ That is, “shall be able to do.”

“Wherefor al, that he dothe _owith_ to be referryed to his

kingdom.”--_Ib._ The verb to _owe_, as expressive of duty, is now

obsolete. It has been supplanted by _ought_, formerly its preterite

tense, and now used as a present. We should now say, “ought to be

referred.”

“Both these articles were unquestionably true, and could easily

have been proven.”--_Henry’s History of Britain._ “Admitting the

charges against the delinquents to be fully proven.”--_Belsham’s

History._ _Proven_ is now obsolete, having given place to the regular

participle. It is still, however, used in Scotland, and is therefore

deemed a Scotticism.

“Methoughts I returned to the great hall, where I had been the

morning before.” _Methoughts_ is barbarous, and also violates

analogy, the third person being _thought_, and not _thoughts_.

SOLECISM.

“You was busy, when I called.” Here a pronoun plural is joined with

a verb in the singular number. It should be, “you were.”

“The keeping good company, even the best, is but a less shameful

art of losing time. What we here call science and study are little

better.” _What_ is equivalent to _that which_. It should be _is_, and

not _are_; thus, “that, which we call ... is little better.”

“Three times three _is_ nine,” and “three times three are nine,” are

modes of expression in common use; and it has become a question,

which is the more correct. The Romans admitted both phraseologies.

“Quinquies et vicies duceni quadrageni singuli _fiunt_ sex millia

et viginti quinque.”--_Colum._ Here the distributive numerals

are the nominatives to the verb. “Ubi _est_ septies millies

sestertium.”--_Cic._ Here the adverbial numerals make the nominative,

and the verb is singular. Plurality being evidently implied, the

plural verb seems more consonant with our natural conception of

numbers, as well as with the idiom of our language.

“This is one of those highwaymen, that was condemned last sessions.”

According to the grammatical construction of this sentence, “one of

those highwaymen” is the predicate; for the syntactical arrangement

is, “This (highwayman), that was condemned last sessions, is one of

those highwaymen.” But this is not the meaning which this sentence

is in general intended to convey: for it is usually employed to

denote, that several highwaymen were condemned, and that this is one

of them. The sentence, therefore, thus understood, is ungrammatical;

for the antecedent is, in this case, not _one_, but _highwaymen_. The

relative, therefore, being plural, should be joined with a plural

verb, thus, “This is one of those highwaymen, that _were_ condemned

last sessions.”

“I had went to Lisbon, before you knew that I had arrived in

England.” This is an egregious solecism, the auxiliary verb _had_,

which requires the perfect participle, being here joined with the

preterite tense. It should be, “I had gone.”

“He would not fall the trees this season.” The verb “to fall” is

intransitive, and cannot therefore be followed by an objective case,

denoting a thing acted upon. It should be, “he would not fell.”

“Let him know, that I shall be over in spring, and that by all means

he sells the horses.”--_Swift._ Here we have in the latter clause a

thing expressed as done or doing, for a thing commanded. It should

be, “that he should sell;” or elliptically, “that he sell.”

“It is very probable that neither of these are the meaning of the

text.” Neither, means, “not the one, nor the other,” denoting the

exclusion of each of two things. It should, therefore, be, “neither

_is_ the meaning of the text.”

“He was a man, whose vices were very great, and had the art to

conceal them from the eyes of the public.” According to the

grammatical construction of this sentence, _vices_ understood is the

nominative to the verb _had_; thus, “whose vices were very great, and

whose vices had the art to conceal them.” It should be, “and who had

the art to conceal them.”

“At the foot of this hill was soon built such a number of houses,

that amounted to a considerable city.” Here the verb _amounted_ has

no nominative. To render the sentence grammatical, it should be,

“that they amounted,” or “as amounted to a considerable city.”

“It requires more logic than you possess, to make a man to believe

that prodigality is not a vice.” After the verb “to make,” the sign

of the infinitive should be omitted. _See_ Rule xv. note 3.

“He dare not,” “he need not,” may be justly pronounced solecisms, for

“he dares,” “he needs.”

“How do your pulse beat?” _Pulse_ is a noun singular, and is here

ungrammatically joined with a verb plural. It should be, “how _does_

your pulse beat?”

“The river had overflown its banks.” _Overflown_ is the participle of

the verb _to fly_, compounded with _over_. It should be “overflowed,”

the participle of “overflow.”

“They that sin rebuke before all.” The pronoun, which should be the

regimen of the verb _rebuke_, is here put in the nominative case. It

should, therefore, be _them_. The natural order is, “rebuke them,

that sin.”

“There are principles innate in man, which ever have, and ever will

incline him to this offence.” If the ellipsis be supplied, the

sentence will be found to be ungrammatical; thus “which ever have

incline, and ever will incline.” It should be, “which ever have

inclined, and ever will incline.”

“Nor is it easy to conceive that in substituting the manners of

Persia to those of Rome, he was actuated by vanity.”--_Gibbon._

“Substitute _to_,” is a Latinism. It should be, “substitute _for_.”

“I had rather live in forty Irelands, than under the frequent

disquiets of hearing, that you are out of order.”--_Swift’s Letters._

“You had better return home without delay.” In both these examples

_would_ is far preferable, thus, “I would rather live,” “you would

better return,” or “you would do better to return.”

“That he had much rather be no king at all, than have heretics for

his subjects.”--_Watson’s Philip III._ Here is involved the same

error. It should be, “he would.”

“The nobility of England consisted only of one duke, four earls, one

viscount, and twenty-nine barons, all the nobles of the Lancastrian

party having been either killed in battles, or on scaffolds, or

had fled into foreign parts.”--_Henry’s History._ This sentence is

ungrammatical. The word _nobles_ joined to the participle _having_

must be regarded as put absolutely, and therefore to the verb

_had_ there is strictly no nominative. But, even were a nominative

introduced, the structure of the sentence would be still highly

objectionable, the two last clauses, “having been killed,” and “they

had fled,” being utterly discordant one with the other. The primary

idea to be expressed is the _fewness of the nobility_; this forms

the subject of the principal clause. There are two reasons to be

assigned for this fewness, _their destruction_ and _their flight_;

these form the subjects of the two subordinate clauses. Between these

two, therefore, there should be the strictest congruity; and in this

respect the sentence is faulty. It ought to proceed either thus,

“The nobility of England consisted only of one duke, four earls,

one viscount, and twenty-nine barons; for all the nobles of the

Lancastrian party had either been killed in battles, or on scaffolds,

or had fled into foreign parts;” or thus, “all the nobles having been

killed, or having fled.” The latter is the preferable form.

“He neglected to profit of this occurrence.” This phraseology occurs

frequently in Hume. “To profit of,” is a Gallicism; it ought to be,

“to profit _by_ this occurrence.”

“The people of England may congratulate _to_ themselves, that

the nature of our government and the clemency of our king, secure

us.”--_Dryden._ “Congratulate to,” is a Latinism. The person

congratulated should be in the objective case governed by the verb;

the subject is preceded by the preposition _on_, as, “I congratulate

you _on_ your arrival.”

“You will arrive to London before the coach.”

“A priest newly arrived to the north-west parts of

Ireland.”--_Swift’s Sacr. Test._

In these examples the verb “to arrive,” is followed by _to_, instead

of _at_, an error which should be carefully avoided. Good writers

never construe it with the preposition significant of motion or

progression concluded, but with those prepositions which denote

propinquity or inclusion, namely, _at_ or _in_. Hence also to join

this verb with adverbs, expressive of motion to, or towards a place,

is improper. We should say, “he arrived _here_, _there_, _where_,”

not--“_hither_, _thither_, _whither_.”

“Elizabeth was not unconcerned; she remonstrated to

James.”--_Andrew’s Continuation of Henry’s History._ This is

incorrect. We remonstrate _with_ and not _to_ a person, and _against_

a thing.

“I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the

heavens alone, that spreadeth the earth abroad by myself.” According

to the structure of the second and third clauses of this sentence,

_the Lord_ is the antecedent to _that_, which is, therefore, properly

joined with the third person of the verbs following, “maketh,”

“spreadeth;” but the pronoun of the first person, _myself_, in the

last clause, does not accord with this structure; for as we cannot

say, “he spreadeth the earth by myself,” there being only one agent

implied, and where _he_ and _myself_ are supposed to allude to

one person, so we cannot say, “that (Lord) spreadeth the earth by

myself,” but “by himself,” an identity of person being indispensably

requisite. The sentence, therefore, should conclude thus, “that

spreadeth abroad the earth by himself.” If _myself_ be retained, the

pronoun _I_ must be considered as the antecedent, and the sentence

will then run thus: “I am the Lord, that make all things, that

stretch forth the heavens alone, that spread abroad the earth by

_myself_.”

“Thou great First Cause, least understood,

Who all my sense confin’d

To know but this, that thou art good,

And that myself am blind.”--_Pope._

The antecedent to the pronoun _who_ is the pronoun of the second

person singular. The relative, therefore, being of the same person,

should be joined to the second person singular of the verb, namely,

“confinedst.”

“The executive directory, to prove that they will not reject any

means of reconciliation, declares,” &c.--_Belsham’s Hist._ The

nominative is here joined to a verb singular, and at the same time

represented by a pronoun plural. The error may be corrected either

by the substitution of _it_ for _they_, or _declare_ instead of

_declares_.

“These friendly admonitions of Swift, though they might sometimes

produce good effects, in particular cases, when properly timed, yet

could they do but little towards eradicating faults.”--_Sheridan._

The nominative _admonitions_ is connected with no verb, the pronoun

_they_ being the nominative to the verb _could_. The sentence,

therefore, is ungrammatical; nor can the figure _hyperbaton_ be

here pleaded in excuse, as the simplicity and shortness of the

sentence render it unnecessary. _They_ in the third clause should be

suppressed.

“This dedication may serve for almost any book, that has, is, or

shall be published.”--_Bolingbroke._ _Has_ being merely a part of

a compound tense, conveys no precise meaning without the rest of

the tense. When joined, then, to the participle, here belonging to

the three auxiliaries, the sentence proceeds thus, “This dedication

may serve for almost any book, that _has_ published.” It ought to

be “has been, is, or shall be published.” The following sentence is

chargeable with an error of the same kind.

“This part of knowledge has been always growing, and will do so,

till the subject be exhausted.” Do what? The auxiliary cannot refer

to _been_, for the substantive verb, or verb of existence, does not

imply action, nor can we say, “do growing.” It ought to be, “has been

growing, and will still be so.”

“All that can be now urged, is the reason of the thing, and this I

shall do.”--_Warburton._ Here is a similar incongruity. He should

have said, “and this shall be done.”

Some of the preceding errors, with those which follow under this

head, may be denominated rather inaccuracies, than solecisms.

“’T was twenty years and more, that I have known him,” says Pope to

Gay, speaking of Congreve’s death. It ought to be, “It is twenty

years and more,” the period concluding with the present time, or the

time then present. He might have said, “It is now twenty years,”

where the adverb _now_, being obviously admissible, points to present

time, and necessarily excludes the preterite tense. Pope says, “’T

was twenty years.” When? not surely in some part of the past time,

but at the time of writing.

“It _were_ well for the insurgents, and fortunate for the king, if

the blood, that was now shed, had been thought a sufficient expiation

for the offence.”--_Goldsmith._ “It were,” which is equivalent to “it

would be,” is evidently incongruous with the following tense, “had

been thought.” It ought to be, as he was speaking of past time, “it

would have been,” or, “it had been, well for the insurgents.”

“Was man like his Creator in wisdom and goodness, I should be for

allowing this great model.”--_Addison._ This form of expression

cannot be pronounced entirely repugnant to analogy, the preterite

of the auxiliary “to have” being used in a similar sense. But

the verb “to be” having a mood appropriate to the expression of

conditionality, the author should have said, “Were man like his

Creator.”

“If you please to employ your thoughts on that subject, you

would easily conceive the miserable condition many of us are

in.”--_Steele._ Here there is obviously an incongruity of tense. It

should be either, “if you please to employ, you _will_ conceive,” or

“if it pleased you to employ, you _would_ conceive.”

“James used to compare him to a cat, who always fell upon her

legs.”--_Adam’s Hist. of England._ Here the latter clause, which is

intended to predicate an attribute of the species, expresses simply a

particular fact; in other words, what is intended to be signified as

equally true of all, is here limited to one of the kind. It should

be, “always _falls_ upon her legs.”

“This is the last time I shall ever go to London.” This mode of

expression, though very common, is certainly improper after the

person is gone, and can be proper only before he sets out. The French

speak correctly when they say, “la dernière fois que je vais,” _i.e._

the last time of my going. We ought to say, “this is the last time I

shall be in London.”

“He accordingly draws out his forces, and offers battle to Hiero,

who immediately accepted it.” Consistency requires, that the last

verb be in the same tense with the preceding verbs. The actions are

described as present; the language is graphical, and that which has

been properly enough denominated the “historical tense” should not be

employed. It ought to be, “who immediately accepts it.”

“I have lost this game, though I thought I should _have won_ it.” It

ought to be, “though I thought I should _win_ it.” This is an error

of the same kind, as, “I expected to have seen you,” “I intended

to have written.” The preterite time is expressed by the tenses

“expected,” “intended;” and, how far back soever that expectation or

intention may be referred, the seeing or writing must be considered

as contemporary, or as soon to follow; but cannot, without absurdity,

be considered as anterior. It should be, “I expected to see,” “I

intended to write.” Priestley, in defending the other phraseology,

appears to me to have greatly erred, the expression implying a

manifest impossibility. The action, represented as the object of

an expectation or intention, and therefore, in respect to these,

necessarily future, cannot surely, without gross absurdity, be

exhibited as past, or antecedent to these. In the following passage

the error seems altogether indefensible. “The most uncultivated

Asiatics discover that sensibility, which, from their situation on

the globe, we should expect them to have felt.”--_Robertson’s History

of America._ The author expresses himself, as if he referred to a

past sensation, while the introductory verb shows that he alludes

to a general fact. The incongruity is obvious. He should have said,

“expect them to feel.”

“Fierce as he moved, his silver shafts resound.”--_Pope._

Much better, “Fierce as he moves.” Congruity of tense is thus

preserved; and there is, besides, a peculiar beauty in employing the

present,--a beauty, of which the preterite is wholly incapable. The

former imparts vivacity to the expression; it presents the action,

with graphical effect, to the mind of the reader; and thus, by

rendering him a spectator of the scene, impresses the imagination,

and rouses the feelings with greater energy. Compared to the latter,

it is like the pencil of the artist to the pen of the historian.

“Jesus answering said unto him, What wilt thou, that I should do unto

thee?” The blind man said unto him: “Lord, that I might receive my

sight.” It ought to be, “that I may receive my sight,” _I will_ being

understood; thus, “I will, that I may receive my sight,” where the

present wish, and the attainment of it, are properly represented as

contemporary.

“These things have I spoken unto you, that your joy might be full.”

Better, “that your joy may be full.”

“If an atheist would peruse the volume of nature, he would confess,

that there was a God.” Universal, or abstract truths, require the

present tense; it should be, “that there _is_ a God.”

“ ... impresses us with a feeling, as if refinement was nothing,

as if faculties were nothing, as if virtue was nothing, as if all

that was sweetest, and all that was highest in human nature was

an idle show.”--_Godwin’s Life of Chaucer._ This sentence errs

at once against elegance and accuracy. The former offence may be

partly corrected, by substituting the conditional for the indicative

tense, in the hypothetical clauses. But the author’s principal error

consists in converting a general proposition into a particular fact,

by representing that as past which is always present and immutable.

The sentence should proceed thus: “Impresses us with a feeling, as

if refinement _were_ nothing, as if faculties _were_ nothing, as if

virtue _were_ nothing, as if all that _is_ sweetest, and all that

_is_ highest in human nature, _were_ an idle show.”

A similar error occurs in this passage: “He proceeded to demonstrate,

that death _was_ not an evil;” and also in this, “I have frequently

been assured by great ministers, that politics _were_ nothing, but

common sense.”

“Tom has wit enough to make him a pleasant companion, _was_ it

polished by good manners.” As the latter clause is intended to be

purely hypothetical, the verb should not be in the indicative mood.

“_Were_ it polished,” is the proper expression.

“He understood the language of Balnibarbi, although it were different

from that of this island.”--_Swift’s Voyage to Laputa._ From the

phraseology here employed, the reader might naturally infer, that

the language of the island, and that of Balnibarbi, were identical;

for a concessive term, as I have already said, when joined to what

is called the conjunctive form of the verb, implies pure hypothesis,

as contrary to fact; or, in other words, implies a negation of the

attribute expressed. The author’s intention was to signify, that

the languages _were not_ the same. He should, therefore, have said,

“although it _was_ different.”

“The circumstances were as follows.” Several grammarians and critics

have approved this phraseology; I am inclined, however, to concur

with those, who prefer “as follow.” To justify the former mode of

expression, the verb must be considered as impersonal. This, I own,

appears to me a very questionable solution of the difficulty; for

I am convinced, that we have no impersonal verbs in English, but

such as are uniformly preceded by _it_. We frequently, indeed, meet

with sentences, where verbs occur without a nominative, and in the

singular number. These are, by some, considered as impersonal verbs,

to which the nominative _it_ is understood. I apprehend, however,

that, on strict inquiry, some one or other of the preceding words,

which are now considered as conjunctions, adverbs, or particles, was

originally the nominative; and that it is only since the primitive

and real character of these words has been obliterated and lost, that

we have found it necessary to inquire for another nominative. Thus,

if the word _as_ be equivalent to _it_, _that_, or _which_[145],

then it is obvious, that, when we say, “the circumstances were _as

follows_,” there is no real ellipsis of the nominative involved, nor,

therefore, any ground for asserting the impersonality of the verb,

in order to explain the syntax, or construction of the phrase; for

the word _as_, equivalent to _it_, _that_, or _which_, is the true

nominative. It is evident, then, that this solution of the difficulty

must be rejected as false; and that the argument in favour of “as

follows,” resting on the supposed impersonality of the verb, and the

suppression of the pronoun, is entirely unfounded.

If _as_ then be the nominative to the verb, and be synonymous with

_it_, _that_, or _which_, it is of importance to determine, whether

_as_ be a singular, or a plural word; or whether it be either the

one, or the other. That it is construed as singular, there can be

no doubt. We say, “his insensibility is such, _as excites_ our

detestation.” That it is also joined to a verb plural is equally

certain, thus, “his manners are such, _as are_ universally pleasing.”

In the former example, _such as_ is equivalent to _that which_, and

in the latter to _those which_. If _as_, then, be either singular

or plural, and synonymous with _it_, _that_, or _which_, I conceive

that, when it refers to a plural antecedent, it must, like _which_,

be considered as plural, and joined to a plural verb. Now, it is

surely more consonant with analogy to say, “the circumstances were,

which follow,” than _it follows_, or _that follows_. Besides, when

the demonstrative _such_ precedes, and is joined to a plural noun, it

is universally admitted, that _as_ must then be followed by a plural

verb. If so, the construction of the word _as_ cannot, I apprehend,

be in the least degree affected by the ellipsis of the correlative

term. Let us now hear those who adopt the contrary opinion.

Baker prefers the verb singular, and remarks “that there are

instances in our language of verbs in the third person without a

nominative case, as, ‘he censures her, so far as regards.’” In

answer to this it may be observed, that, if the word _as_ is to be

considered in no other light, than as a conjunctive particle, it is

certainly true, that the verb _regards_ has no nominative. But I am

persuaded, no person who has examined the theory of Mr. Tooke can

entertain a doubt respecting the original and real character of this

word. Nay, if we investigate the true and primitive import of the

correspondent Latin terms _ut_ and _uti_, we shall find, that these,

which are termed adverbs, are, in fact, the pronouns ὅτι, ὁτ’, and

that _quod_ (anciently written _quodde_) is nothing else than καὶ

ὅττι, which, like our word _that_, is sometimes called a conjunction,

and sometimes a pronoun. Why the original character and real import

of the word _as_ have been completely merged in the name of adverb,

while the word _that_ has been assigned the double character of

pronoun and conjunction, it would be easy to show, if the discussion

were essential to the question before us. But in answer to Baker’s

remark, it is sufficient to observe, that _as_ means properly _it_,

_that_, or _which_.

Campbell adopts the opinion of Baker. “When a verb,” says he, “is

used impersonally, it ought undoubtedly to be in the singular

number, whether the neuter pronoun be expressed or understood.” But

a question naturally arises, whence has the author learned that the

verb is impersonal? There appears to me to be no more impersonality

in the verb, when we say, “it is as follows,” than when we say, “it

is such, as follows,” or, “they are such, as follow.” If _as_ be

admitted as the nominative in two of these examples, I can perceive

no reason for rejecting it in the third. But here lies, as will

presently appear, the author’s great error. Unacquainted with the

true meaning of the word _as_, he conceived it as incapable of

becoming a nominative to a verb, as _ut_ or _uti_ is deemed in Latin;

and he therefore immediately recurs to _ellipsis_.

“For this reason” (that is, because the verb is impersonal), he

proceeds to observe, “analogy as well as usage favour this mode of

expression, _The conditions of the agreement were as follows_, and

not _as follow_.”

How analogy favours this mode of expression, I am utterly at a loss

to conceive. The general rule surely is, that to every verb there

shall be a nominative, and that this nominative shall be expressed,

unless its presence in some preceding clause shall render the

repetition of it unnecessary. But how is it consonant with analogy,

that no nominative shall appear; or that the supposed nominative

shall not be found in any part of the sentence? This surely is

repugnant to analogy.

“A few late writers,” he observes, “have inconsiderately adopted

this last form (as follow) through a mistake of the construction.”

But, if the verb be not impersonal, the error is his, not theirs.

I must observe, likewise, that from the manner in which the author

expresses himself, one would naturally infer, that a few writers,

either contemporary, or immediately preceding his own time, had

inconsiderately introduced a solecism into our language. When he

offered this observation, he surely was not aware that Steele

and Addison, nearly seventy years before the publication of “The

Philosophy of Rhetoric,” used the plural form. “The most eminent

of the kennel,” says Steele, “are blood-hounds, which lead the

van, and are _as follow_.”--_Tatler_, No. 62. “The words were _as

follow_.”--_Ibid._ No. 104. “The words are _as follow_.”--_Addison_,

_Spectator_, No. 513.

“For the same reason,” continues he, still presuming the verb to

be impersonal, “we ought to say, _I shall consider his censures so

far only, as concerns my friend’s conduct_, not _concern_. It is

manifest,” he observes, “that the word _conditions_ in the first

case, and _censures_ in the second, cannot serve as nominatives.”

This observation demonstrates that the author’s argument is founded

in his ignorance of the real character of the word _as_. The most

extraordinary part of his reasoning follows. “But,” says he, “if we

give either sentence another turn, and instead of _as_, say _such

as_, the verb is no longer impersonal. The pronoun _such_ is the

nominative, whose number is determined by its antecedent. Thus we

must say, _they were such as follow_; _such of his censures only as

concern my friend_.” This is truly an extraordinary assertion. The

antecedent correlative term _such_ can have no connexion whatever

with the subsequent verb, but must agree with the principal subject

of discourse. Not only does analogy require this, but the usage of

every language with which I am acquainted. If we say, _Perseverantia

fuit tanta, quantus erat furor._ _Is est, quem dicimus._ _Talis est,

qualem esse creditis._ _Illæ erant conditiones, quæ sequuntur_,--the

antecedent correlative terms _tanta_, _is_, _talis_, _illæ_,--have no

connexion whatever with the verbs in the subsequent clause, _erat_,

_dicimus_, _creditis_, _sequuntur_. The truth of this observation

must be sufficiently obvious to every classical scholar.

But to illustrate the extreme inaccuracy of the learned author’s

opinion, let us change the correlative terms, and say, “I will

consider those censures only, which concern my friend.” In this

sentence it will not be questioned that _those_ and _censures_ are in

the objective case, under the government of the verb. And can it be

doubted, if we say, “I will consider such censures,” that _censures_

with its concordant adjective are in the same case? It is impossible,

I conceive, to make this plainer; but we shall suppose, for the sake

of illustration, if this should yet be deemed necessary, the example

in question to be thus rendered in Latin, _eas tantum reprehensiones

perpendam, quæ ad amicum meum attinent_. Now, what should we think

of his classical attainments who should contend that _eas_ or

_reprehensiones_ is the nominative to the verb? If we revert, then,

to the original terms, and say, “I will consider such of his censures

as concern my friend,” by what rule of grammar, by what principle of

analysis, can we suppose _such_ to be the nominative to the verb? For

let me ask, what is he to consider? Is it not _such censures_? And

are we, contrary to every principle of English grammar, to represent

the object or subject after an active verb, as in the nominative

case? The absurdity is too monstrous for a moment’s consideration.

The very argument, therefore, by which the author defends his

doctrine is founded in error, and involves an absurdity. Murray, as

usual, adopts the opinion of Campbell.

If it should be inquired how _as_, an adverb or a conjunctive

particle, can be the nominative to a verb, it may be answered, that

to whatever order of words we reduce this term, it was evidently at

first what we denominate a pronoun; and that it still so far retains

its primitive character as to supply the place of a nominative.

It is of little moment by what designation it be called, if its

character and real import are well understood, any more than it can

be of consequence whether we call _that_ a conjunction or a pronoun,

provided we know, that it is truly and essentially the same word in

the same meaning wherever it occurs. I would observe, also, though

my limits will not permit me to illustrate the principle, that those,

who disapprove the verb singular in the examples in question, may

notwithstanding admit it in such expressions as _so far as_, _so long

as_, and all similar phraseologies.

“To illustrate, and often to correct him, I have meditated Tacitus,

examined Suetonius, and consulted the following moderns.”--_Gibbon._

_To meditate_, when a regimen is assigned to it, as here, means _to

plot_, _to contrive_, as, “he meditated designs against the state.”

When it signifies _to ponder_, or _to reflect seriously_, it should

be followed by the preposition _on_, as, “he meditates _on_ the law

of God day and night.”

IMPROPRIETY.

“They form a procession to proceed the palanquin of the

ambassador.”--_Anderson’s Embassy to China._ Here the verb _to

proceed_, or _go forward_, is improperly used for _to precede_, or

_to go before_.

“He waved the subject of his greatness.”--_Dryden._ “To wave” is

properly “to move loosely,” and should be distinguished from “to

waive,” _i.e._ “to leave” or “to turn from.”--_See_ _Skinner’s Etym._

“It lays on the table; it laid on the table.” This error is very

common, and should be carefully avoided. The verb _to lay_ is an

active verb; _to lie_ is a neuter verb. When the subject of discourse

is active, the former is to be used; when the subject is neither

active nor passive, the latter ought to be employed. Thus, “he

lays down the book,” “he laid down the book,” where the nominative

expresses an agent, or a person acting. “The book lies there,” “the

book lay there,” where the nominative expresses something, neither

active, nor passive. When we hear such expressions as these, “he lays

in bed,” “he laid in bed,” a question naturally occurs, what does

he lay? what did he lay? This question demonstrates the impropriety

of the expressions. The error has originated, partly in an affected

delicacy, rejecting the verb “to lie,” as being synonymous with the

verb “to tell a falsehood wilfully,” and partly from the identity of

the one verb in the present with the other in the preterite sense;

thus, “_lay_,” “laid,” “laid;” “lie,” “_lay_,” “lain.”

“The child was overlain.” The participle, for the reason now given,

should be _overlaid_.

“It has been my brother you saw in the theatre, and not my cousin.”

This use of the preterite definite is, I believe, confined to

Scotland, where, in colloquial language, it is very common. The Scots

employ it in those cases, in which an Englishman uses either the

preterite indefinite, or the verb signifying necessity. Thus, in the

preceding instance, an Englishman would say, “it _must have been_ my

brother, you saw in the theatre.”

“Without having attended to this, we will be at a loss in

understanding several passages in the classics.”--_Blair’s Lectures._

“In the Latin language, there are no two words we would more readily

take to be synonymous, than _amare_ and _diligere_.”--_Ib._ This

error occurs frequently in Blair. In the former example it should be

_shall_, and in the latter _should_. (See p. 98.)

An error, the reverse of this, occurs in the following passage.

“There is not a girl in town, but let her have her will, in going

to a mask, and she shall dress like a shepherdess.”--_Spectator_,

No. 9. It should be, _she will_. The author intended to signify mere

futurity; instead of which he has expressed a command.

“He _rose_ the price of bread last week.” Here _rose_, the preterite

of the neuter verb _to rise_, and, therefore, unsusceptible of a

regimen, is ungrammatically joined with an objective case, instead of

_raised_, the preterite of the active verb _to raise_. This error,

therefore, involves a solecism, as well as an impropriety.

“Does the price of bread raise this week?” This error is the converse

of the former, the active verb being here used instead of the neuter.

The question, What does it raise? shows the impropriety of the

expression. It ought to be, “Does the price of bread rise this week?”

These verbs, like the verb _to lay_ and _to lie_, are very often

confounded in vulgar use.

“It would be injurious to the character of Prince Maurice, to

suppose, that he would demean himself so far, as to be concerned in

those anonymous pamphlets.”--_Watson’s Philip III._ Here the verb

_to demean_, which signifies “to behave,” is used as equivalent to

the verb _to debase_, or “to degrade.” This impropriety is now, I

believe, almost entirely confined to Scotland; it has, therefore,

been ranked in the number of Scotticisms. “I demean myself” is

equivalent to “I behave myself;” and in this sense the author last

quoted has, in another passage, very properly used it. “Such of the

Morescoes might remain, who, for any considerable time, demeaned

themselves as Christians.”--_Ibid._

“Considerable arrears being now resting to the soldiers.”--_Ibid._

“Resting,” which is equivalent to “being quiet,” or “remaining,” is,

in the sense in which it is here employed, a rank Scotticism: it

should be, “due,” or “owing.”

“The reason will be accounted for hereafter.”--_Warburton._

_Accounted for_ is here improperly used for _assigned_. “To account

for a reason,” is “to account for an account.”

“But no evidence is admitted in the house of lords, this being a

distinct jurisdiction, which differs it considerably from these

instances.”--_Blackstone._ The verb _to differ_ is a neuter verb,

and cannot admit a regimen. The author has improperly used it in

an active sense, for “to make to differ.” It should be, “by which

it differs,” or “which makes it differ considerably from these

instances.”[146]

“In order to have this project reduced to practice, there seems to

want nothing more, than to put those in mind,” &c.--_Swift._ Here,

“to want,” that is, “to need,” “to require,” is improperly used

for “to be wanting,” “to be required,” “to be wanted.” It should

be, “there seems to be nothing wanting.” The verb _to want_ was

frequently employed by Pope and Swift in the sense in which we here

find it. Johnson, likewise, in one or two passages, has adopted

the same usage, thus, “there had never wanted writers to talk

occasionally of Arcadia and Strephon.”--_Life of Phillips._ But in

this sense it may now be deemed obsolescent, if not entirely obsolete.

The reader will here permit me to observe, that there is an idiom

in our language, respecting the use of active for passive verbs,

which seems worthy of attention, and which I do not recollect to

have seen remarked by any of our grammarians. In the languages of

antiquity, the distinction between active and passive was strictly

observed; but in English the active is frequently employed for the

passive voice. Of this remarkable idiom numberless examples might

be produced; but the few following will suffice. Thus we say, “the

sentence _reads_ ill,” “the wine _drinks_ harsh,” “the grass _cuts_

easily,” “the apples _eat_ hard,” “the drum _beats_ to arms,” “the

metal _works_ well.” In these examples, the subject clearly is

acted upon; the verb, therefore, must be considered as having a

passive signification. It is almost unnecessary to observe, that

this phraseology should be avoided, whenever it is likely to create

ambiguity.

“Lead me forth in thy truth, and learn me.”--_Book of Common Prayer_,

Psal. xxv. The verb _to learn_ formerly denoted, either “to teach,”

or “to acquire knowledge.” In the former sense it is now obsolete. It

should therefore be, “lead me forth in thy truth, and _teach_ me.”

“Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings by thy most gracious

favour.”--_Book of Common Prayer._ “He had prevented the hour,

because we might have the whole day before us.”--_Bacon._ The verb

_to prevent_, as signifying “to go before,” or “come before,” is now

obsolete.

“There was no longer any doubt, that the king was determined to wreck

his resentment on all concerned.”--_Watson’s Philip II._

“They not only wrecked their vengeance on the living, but on the

ashes of the dead heretics.”--_Henry’s Britain._

Here the verb _to wreck_, or “to destroy, by dashing on rocks,”

is improperly used for “to wreak,” or “to discharge.” In the last

example the adverbs _not only_ are improperly placed. It should be,

“they wreaked their vengeance not only,” &c.

“We outrun our present income, not doubting to disburse ourselves out

of the profits of some future plan.”--_Addison._ “To disburse,” or

“to expend money,” is here improperly used for “to reimburse,” or “to

repay.”

“And wrought a great miracle conform to that of the

apostles.”--_Bacon._

“The last is the most simple, and the most perfect, as being conform

to the nature of knowledge.”--_Hutton’s Investigation_, vol. i. p.

643. _Conform_, here used for _conformable_, is, in this sense,

deemed a Scotticism.

SECTION V.

THE ADVERB.

BARBARISM.

“Friendship, a rare thing in princes, more rare between princes,

that so holily was observed to the last, of those two excellent

men.”--_Sidney on Government._ _Holily_ is obsolete.

“Enquire, what be the stones, that do easiliest melt.”--_Bacon._

The adverb _easily_ is not compared,--see p. 70. _Easiliest_ is,

therefore, a barbarism.

“Their wonder, that any man so near Jerusalem should be a stranger

to what had passed there, their acknowledgment to one they met

accidently, that they believed in this prophet,” &c.--_Guardian._

Steele has here used _accidently_, for _accidentally_. The former is

a barbarism, and its derivation is repugnant to analogy.

“Uneath may she endure the flinty street,

To tread them with her tender feeling feet.”--_Shakspeare._

_Uneath_ is now obsolete, and may therefore be deemed a barbarism.

“In northern clime, a val’rous knight

Did whilom kill his bear in fight,

And wound a fiddler.”--_Hudibras._

_Whilom_ is now entirely disused. The adverbs _whilere_, _erst_, and

perhaps also _anon_, may be ranked in the class of barbarisms.

“And this attention gives ease to the person, because the clothes

appear unstudily graceful.”--_Wollstonecraft’s Original Stories._ The

word _unstudily_ is barbarous, and its mode of derivation contrary to

analogy.

SOLECISM.

“Use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thine often

infirmities.” _Often_, an adverb, is here improperly used as an

adjective, in accordance with the substantive “infirmities.” It ought

to be “thy frequent infirmities.”

“We may cast in such seeds and principles, as we judge most likely to

take soonest and deepest root.” Here, as in the preceding example,

the adverb “soonest” is used as an adjective; for the connexion is,

“_soonest_ root,” and “_deepest_ root.” Now, we cannot say “soon

root,” the former term being incapable of qualifying the latter;

nor can we, therefore, say, “_soonest_ root.” It ought to be, “the

earliest and the deepest root.”

“After these wars, of which they hope for a soon and prosperous

issue.” _Soon issue_ is another example of the same error.

“His lordship inveighed, with severity, against the conduct of the

then ministry.” Here _then_, the adverb equivalent to _at that time_,

is solecistically employed as an adjective, agreeing with _ministry_.

This error seems to gain ground; it should therefore be vigilantly

opposed, and carefully avoided. “The ministry of that time,” would be

correct.

“He tells them, that the time should come, that the temple should be

graced with the presence of the Messias.” Here _that_ is incorrectly

used for _when_, _i.e._ “at which time the temple should be graced.”

IMPROPRIETY.

“By letters, dated the third of May, we learn that the West India

fleet arrived safely.” Here _safely_ is improperly used for _safe_.

The adverb is equivalent to “in a safe manner;” and when it is said,

“that the fleet arrived _safely_,” it signifies that the manner of

the arrival, rather than the fleet itself, was safe or free from

accident. If I say, “he carried the parcel as safely as possible,”

it implies merely his great attention to the manner of carrying it;

but this does not infallibly exclude accident; for I may add, “but

he unluckily fell,” or, “he was unfortunately thrown down, and the

glass was broken.” But if I say, “he carried it as safe as possible,”

or, “he carried it safe,” it implies that it came safe, or escaped

all accidents. We should, therefore, say “that the West India fleet

arrived safe.” In disapproving the expression, “he arrived _safely_,”

I concur with Baker; but the judicious reader will perceive, that my

reason for reprehending it, does not entirely coincide with his. The

author’s words are these: “If a man says, that he arrived safely, or

in a safe manner, he seems to suppose, that there is danger of some

mischance in arriving. But what danger is there to be apprehended in

the circumstance of arriving? The danger is only during the journey,

or voyage; in the arrival there is none at all. The proper way of

speaking is, therefore, ‘I arrived safe,’ that is, ‘having escaped

all the dangers of the passage.’”

“The poor woman carried them to the person to whom they were

directed; and when Lady Cathcart recovered her liberty, she received

her diamonds safely.” It should be, “she received her diamonds safe.”

Errors like the one on which I have now animadverted, frequently

arise from a desire to avoid the opposite mistake; I mean the

improper use of the adjective for the adverb.--_See_ _Syntax, Rule

V. Note_ 16. Hence many, when they employ such phraseologies as I

have here exemplified, conceive that they express themselves with the

strictest accuracy, thus verifying the poet’s observation,

“In vitium ducit culpæ fuga, si caret arte.”

In order to avoid this error, it should be remembered, that many

English verbs, while they affirm some action, passion, or state of

the subject, frequently serve as a copula, connecting the subject

with another predicate. This is one of those idioms, in the grammar

of our language, which demand the particular attention of the

classical scholar. For, though an acquaintance with the learned

languages will not seduce him into an improper use of an adjective

for the adverb, it may, as in the example now before us, betray

him into the converse error. And I am inclined to think, that

from a propensity almost irresistible in the classical scholar to

assimilate our language with the Latin tongue, our lexicographers

have designated many of our words as adverbs, which are strictly

adjectives. When it is said, for example, “it goes hard,” Johnson

considers _hard_ as an adverb. Yet when we say, “it goes contrary,”

he considers _contrary_ as an adjective. There appears to me to be

more of caprice than of reason, more of prejudice than of truth, in

this classification. Both words, I am persuaded, belong to one and

the same species. Nay, I might venture to assert, that no person,

who had studied the principles of the English language, and of that

only, would pronounce the one to be an adverb, and the other an

adjective. It is to be observed, likewise, that we have the regular

adverb _hardly_ to express the manner. When we say, “he reasoned

concerning the rule,” “we argued respecting the fact,” “he lives

according to nature,” is there not something extremely arbitrary and

unphilosophical, in calling _concerning_ a preposition, _according_

a preposition, followed by _to_, but properly a participle, and

_respecting_ a participle? Are not all the three participles? Yet

Johnson has classed them, as I have now mentioned. But the farther

illustration of this subject would lead us into a field much too

large for the limits of the present treatise. We must therefore

revert to our primary observation, in which we cautioned the reader

against the improper use of the adjective for the adverb. It should

be remembered that, when it is intended to predicate something

of the subject, beside the attribute of the verb, the adjective

should be employed; but, when it is intended to express merely some

modification of the attribute of the verb, we should then use the

adverb. The difference may be illustrated by the following examples.

When Gustavus says to his troops, “your limbs tread vigorous and your

breasts beat high,” he predicates with the act of treading their

physical strength; but had he said, “your limbs tread vigorously,”

it would merely modify their treading, and express an act, not a

constitutional habit. The same distinction may be made between saying

with Arnoldus in the same play, “the tear rolls graceful down his

visage,” and “the tear rolls gracefully.” The former predicates grace

of the tear itself, the latter merely of its rolling. When we say,

“he looks sly,” we mean he has the look or the appearance of being

a sly man; when it is said, “he looks slyly,” we signify that he

assumes a sly look. When we say, “it tastes good,” we affirm that

the subject is of a good quality, whether the taste be pleasant or

unpleasant; if we say, “it tastes well,” we affirm the taste of it to

be pleasant.

“The manner of it is thus.” The adverb _thus_ means “in this manner.”

The expression, therefore, amounts to “the manner of it is in this

manner.” It should be, “the manner of it is this,” or, “this is the

manner of it.” “This much is certain.” Better, “thus much,” or “so

much.”

“It is a long time since I have been devoted to your interest.”

_Since_ properly means “from the time when,” and not “during which

time.” The expression might be construed into a meaning the reverse

of that which is intended, implying, that the attachment had ceased

for a long time. It should be, “it is a long time since I became

devoted,” or, “it is a long time, that I have been devoted to your

interest.”

“It is equally the same.” _Equally_ is here redundant; it ought to

be, “it is the same.”

“Whenever I call on him, he always inquires for you.” _Whenever_

means “at what time soever,” “always when,” or “as often as;”

_always_, therefore, is redundant.

“They will not listen to the voice of the charmer, charm he never

so wisely.” _Never_ is here improperly used for _ever_. It ought to

be, “charm he ever so wisely;” that is, “_however wisely_,” or “_how

wisely soever_, he may charm.”

“And even in those characteristical portraits, on which he has

lavished all the decorations of his style, he is seldom or ever

misled.”--_Stewart’s Life of Robertson._ This error is the converse

of the former. It ought to be, “seldom or never;” that is, “seldom,

or at no time.” “Seldom or ever” is equivalent to “seldom or always,”

or to “seldom or at any time;” expressions evidently improper.

“Whether thou be my son or not.”--_Bible._ “Whether you will keep

his commandments, or no.” Both these phraseologies are in use; but I

am inclined to agree with those grammarians, who prefer the former,

as more consistent with the ellipsis--“Whether thou be, or be not.”

“Whether you will keep his commandments, or will not keep.”

“Some years after being released from prison, by reason of his

consummate knowledge of civil law, and military affairs, he was soon

exalted to the supreme power.” The first clause of this sentence is

ambiguous; for the sentence may imply, either that he gained the

supremacy, some years after he was released from prison, that period

being left indeterminate; or that some years after a time previously

mentioned, he was released from prison, and attained the chief

power. The latter being the author’s meaning, it ought to be, “some

years _afterwards_ being released from prison.” Another ambiguity is

here involved by improper arrangement; for, as the sentence stands,

it is somewhat doubtful, whether his consummate knowledge was the

cause of his releasement, or the cause of his elevation. This error,

however, belongs more to the rhetorician, than the grammarian. The

French term this ambiguity, “construction louche,” or a _squinting

construction_.

The following error consists in wrong collocation: “The Celtiberi in

Spain borrowed that name from the Celtæ and Iberi, from whom they

were jointly descended.” Jointly, with whom? It should be, “from whom

(the Celtæ and Iberi) jointly they were descended.”

“And the Quakers seem to approach nearly the only regular body of

Deists in the universe, the literati, or the disciples of Confucius

in China.”--_Hume’s Essays._ The adverb _nearly_, which is synonymous

with _almost_, is here improperly used for _near_[147]. It should be,

_approach near_.

“This is the Leviathan, from whence the terrible wits of our age are

said to borrow their weapons.”--_Swift._ _From_ is here redundant;

_whence_, denoting “from which place.”

“An ancient author prophecies from hence.”--_Dryden._ Here a similar

impropriety is involved. It should be, _hence_.

“E’er we can offer our complaints,

Behold him present with his aid.”

_E’er_, a contraction for _ever_, which is synonymous with _always_,

and also _at any time_, is here improperly used for _ere_ or _before_.

In the two following passages, there appears to me to be a similar

error: “Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl

be broken.”--_Bible._ “I was set up from everlasting, from the

beginning, or ever the earth was.”--_Ibid._

“And, as there is now never a woman in England, I hope, I may talk of

women without offence.”--_Steele._

“He spake never a word.”--_Bible._

This usage of the word “never,” is now, I believe, entirely confined

to the vulgar.

“As for conflagrations and great droughts, they do not merely

dispeople and destroy.”--_Bacon._ _Merely_ is here used, as it

is uniformly by Bacon, and very frequently by Shakspeare, for

_entirely_. In this sense, it is obsolete; and it now signifies

_purely_, _simply_, _only_, _nothing more than_. From inattention

to this, the passage, now quoted, has been corrupted in several

editions. They have it, “do not merely dispeople, but destroy,”

conveying a sentiment very different from what the author intended.

SECTION VI.

THE PREPOSITION.

SOLECISM.

“Who do you speak to?” Here the preposition is joined with the

nominative, instead of the objective case. It should be, “whom do you

speak to?” or “to whom do you speak?” _To who_ is a solecism.

“He talked to you and I, of this matter, some days ago.” It should

be, “to _you_ and _me_;” that is, “to you and to me.”

“Now Margaret’s curse is fallen upon our heads,

When she exclaim’d on Hastings you and I.”

_Shakspeare._

It ought to be, “on Hastings _you_ and _me_,” the pronouns being

under the government of the preposition understood.

“Neither do I think, that anything could be more entertaining, than

the story of it exactly told, with such observations, and in such a

spirit, style, and manner, as you alone are capable of performing

it.” This sentence is extremely faulty. “To perform a story” is not

English; and the relative clause is ungrammatical, the preposition

being omitted. It should be, “performing it in,” which would be

grammatically correct, but inelegant, as well as improper. It would

be better expressed thus, “in that spirit, style, and manner, in

which you alone are capable of narrating it.”

“Notwithstanding of the numerous panegyrics on the ancient English

liberty.”--_Hume’s Essays._ The error here in the use of the

preposition after _notwithstanding_, is, I believe, peculiar to

Scotland. _Notwithstanding_ is a compound word of the same import as

_not preventing_. The grammatical construction therefore is, “the

numerous panegyrics notwithstanding,” that is, “not hindering,” the

noun and the participle being in the absolute case. _Of_ renders the

expression solecistical.

IMPROPRIETY.

“If policy can prevail upon force.”--_Addison._ Here _upon_ is

improperly used for _over_. _To prevail on_, is “to persuade;” _to

prevail over_, is “to overcome.”

“I have set down the names of several gentlemen, who have been robbed

in Dublin streets, for these three years past.”--_Swift._ It should

be, “within these three years past.” Swift’s expression implies, as

Baker observes, that these gentlemen had been robbed during the whole

three years.

“Ye blind guides, who strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” In this

sentence, the preposition _at_ is very improperly used for _out_. It

should be, “strain out a gnat;” that is, exclude it from the liquor

by straining.

“Oliver Proudfute, a freeman and burgess, was slain upon the streets

of the city.”--_Scott._ This form of expression is almost universal

in Scotland. An Englishman says, “in the streets.”

“I have several times inquired of you without any

satisfaction.”--_Pope._ We say, “inquire of,” when we ask a

question; and “inquire for,” or “after,” when we desire to know the

circumstances, in which any object is placed. He should have employed

the latter expression.

“The greatest masters of critical learning differ among one

another.”--_Spectator._ If the ellipsis be supplied, the sentence

proceeds thus: “The greatest masters of critical learning differ, one

differs among another.” Here the preposition _among_, which implies

a number, or a plurality, is joined to a term significant of unity.

It ought to be, “from one another;” that is “one from another,” or

“differ among themselves.”

“I intended to wait _of_ you this morning.” The preposition _of_ is

here improperly used for _on_. We say, _to wait on_, not _to wait of_.

“He knows nothing _on_ it.” This is a vile vulgarism for “he knows

nothing _of_ it.”

“He is now much altered to the better.” _To_ is here improperly used

instead of _for_. “Altered to the better,” may, I believe, be deemed

a Scotticism. It ought to be, “he is altered for the better.”