Q. Dec´orus or deco´rus, which?
A. Webster authorizes both, giving preference to the latter. The
former has the advantage of placing the accent on the root syllable, a
rule that is very helpful in settling questions of pronunciation, and
conforms to usage in the accentuation of cognate words, as “dec´orate,”
“dec´oration,” etc. We prefer it.
Q. What is the meaning of “liberal,” in the phrases, “liberal
education,” and “liberal religious views?”
A. An education extended much beyond the practical necessities of our
every-day business and social life, is liberal. It is not a possession
belonging alone to the alumni of colleges and universities. Any person
of culture, who, with or without the aid of teachers, has mastered
the curriculum of studies prescribed by colleges, or its equivalent,
is liberally educated. In the best sense, a man of “liberal religious
views” is generous, freely according to others the right to their
opinions on all subjects about which good men may differ. He is not
creedless, but not bigoted; and cordially approves “things that
are most excellent,” wherever they are found. The claim to great
liberality, set up by those who have no rule of faith, and no views
they are willing to formulate, does not seem well founded.
Q. Where is the line, “Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife”
found? and should not the word “madding” be “maddening?”
A. The line is from Gray’s Elegy (73). The adjective “mad” is made a
causative verb, without the usual suffix, “en.” We do not find the form
in prose, and would not use it.
Q. Are there any books purporting to prove scientifically the
immortality of the soul?
A. If by “scientifically,” the querist means, as we suppose,
rationally, philosophically, our answer is, yes, very many. More
books have been written upon this one subject than one could read
carefully in a lifetime. Several thousand distinct works, written in
Greek, Latin, English, and the principal languages of Europe, have
been catalogued by Ezra Abbott. The catalogue itself, published as
an appendix to Alger’s “Doctrine of a Future Life,” would make a
respectable volume, containing, as it does, a list of more than five
thousand books, by almost as many authors, who discuss, more or less
satisfactorily, the great problem of the soul. Some propose, not
argument, but only a history of the doctrine of a future, immortal
life as held by the different races of men, with various shades
of opinion respecting it. Some doubt, some disbelieve, and some,
discarding all rational processes, accept the dogma as a matter of
faith alone, lying beyond the field of our reason. But many Christian
writers, thankful for the “more sure word of prophecy,” and that
“life and immortality are brought to light by the gospel,” hold also
that outside the realm of faith, it is a fit subject for rational
investigation, and as capable of proof or demonstration as other
moral and psychical problems. Perhaps most of the works named in
the catalogue consulted, treat of the soul and its immortality in
connection with other principles and facts of the religious systems
accepted by the authors, and are too voluminous for common use. Drew’s
“Essay on the Immateriality and Immortality of the Soul” founded wholly
on psychological and rational principles is regarded a masterpiece of
metaphysical argument—clear, logical, satisfactory.
Q. Is the expression “as though” ever correct?
A. “Though” is often used in English, taking the place of the
conditional _if_, especially in the phrases _as though_ and _what
though_, which interchange with _as if_ and _what if_; _e. g._:
“If she bid me pack, I’ll give her thanks _as though_
she bid me stay by her a week.”—_Shakspere._
“A Tartar, who looked _as though_ the speed of thought
were in his limbs.”—_Byron._
Other examples need not be given. These approve the expression as
correct, though not much used at present.
Q. Will the firing of cannon over water bring a dead body at the bottom
to the surface; if so, why, or how?
A. The concussion or violent agitation of the water may loosen a body
slightly held at the bottom, when, if specifically lighter than water,
it will rise.
Q. In “Recreations in Astronomy,” p. 163, it is said 192 asteroides
have been discovered, with diameters from 20 to 400 miles; and on the
next page it is “estimated” that if all these were put into one planet,
it would not be over 400 miles in diameter. How can that be?
A. Allowing, as the author does, that the density of the masses remains
the same, it would, of course, be impossible. We have not the means
at hand to either verify or correct the diameters given, and can not
locate the error.