Having, in the preceding chapter, explained the nature of that usage which gives law to language; and having proposed a few rules for the student’s direction in cases where usage is divided, and also where her authority may be justly questioned and checked by criticism; I intend, in the following pages, to present the young reader with a copious exemplification of the three general species of error against grammatical purity, arranging the examples in the order of the parts of speech.
“I rode in a one-horse chay.” It ought to be “a one-horse chaise.” There is no such word as chay.
“That this has been the true and proper acception of this word, I shall testify by one evidence.”—Hammond. Acception is obsolete; it ought to be acceptation.
“Were the workmen to enter into a contrary combination of the same kind, not to accept of a certain wage.”—Wealth of Nations. Wage is obsolete; the plural only is used.
“Their alliance was sealed by the nuptial of Henry, with the daughter of the Italian prince.”—Gibbon. Nuptial has not, I believe, been used as a substantive since the days of Shakspeare, and may be deemed obsolete. The plural nuptials is the proper word.
“He showed that he had a full comprehension of the whole of the plan, and of the judicious adaption of the parts to the whole.”—Sheridan’s Life of Swift. Adaption is obsolescent, if not obsolete: adaptation is the proper term. Adaption is frequently employed by Swift, from whom Sheridan seems to have copied it.
... “Which even his brother modernists themselves, like ungrates, whisper so loud that it reaches up to the very garret I am now writing in.”—Swift. “Ungrate” is a barbarism. “Ingrate” is to be found in some of our English poets as an adjective, and synonymous with “ungrateful;” but “ungrate,” as a substantive, is truly barbarous. Almost equally objectionable is Steele’s use of stupid as a substantive plural. “Thou art no longer to drudge in raising the mirth of stupids.”—Spectator, No. 468. And also of ignorant, “the ignorants of the lowest order.”—Ibid.
Pope also says, in one of his letters, “We are curious impertinents in the case of futurity.” This employment of the adjective as a noun substantive, though never sanctioned by general use, is now properly avoided by our most reputable writers. It tends to confusion, where distinction is necessary.
“The Deity dwelleth between the cherubims.” The Hebrews form the plural of masculines by adding im; “cherubims,” therefore, is a double plural. “Seraphims,” for the same reason, is faulty. The singular of these words being “cherub” and “seraph,” the plural is either “cherubs” and “seraphs,” or “cherubim” and “seraphim.” Milton has uniformly avoided this mistake, which circumstance Addison, in his criticisms on that author, has overlooked; nay, he has, even with Milton’s correct usage before him, committed the error. “The zeal of the seraphim,” says he, “breaks forth in a becoming warmth of sentiments and expressions, as the character which is given of him,” &c. Here “seraphim,” a plural noun, is used as singular. It should be, “the zeal of the seraph.”
“Nothing can be more pleasant than to see virtuosoes about a cabinet of medals descanting upon the value, the rarity, and authenticalness of the several pieces.” Authenticalness, though used by Addison, is obsolescent, and may, perhaps, be deemed a barbarism. It may be properly dismissed, as a harsh and unnecessary term.
“He broke off with Lady Gifford, one of his oldest acquaintances in life.”—Sheridan’s Life of Swift. Acquaintances is now deemed a Scotticism, being almost peculiar to the northern parts of the island. Johnson, however, did not disclaim it. “A young student from the inns of court, who has often attacked the curate of his father’s parish, with such arguments as his acquaintances could furnish.”—Rambler. We find it also in Steele; thus, “she pays everybody their own, and yet makes daily new acquaintances.”—Tatler, No. 109.
“I am sure that the farmeress at Bevis would feel emotions of vanity ... if she knew you gave her the character of a reasonable woman.”—Lord Peterborough to Pope. This, I believe, is the only passage in which farmeress is to be found; but, though it may therefore be pronounced a barbarism, the author could not have expressed himself so clearly and so concisely, in any other way. We every now and then, as Johnson observes, feel the want of a feminine termination.
“The bellowses were broken.” The noun, as here inflected, is barbarous. “Bellows” is a plural word denoting a single instrument, though consisting of two parts. There is, therefore, no such word as “bellowses.”
“I have read Horace Art of Poetry.” This expression may be deemed solecistical, being a violation of that rule, by which one substantive governs another in the genitive. It should be, “Horace’s Art of Poetry.” “These are ladies ruffles,” “this is the kings picture,” are errors of the same kind, for “ladies’ ruffles,” “the king’s picture.”
“These three great genius’s flourished at the same time.” Here “genius’s,” the genitive singular, is improperly used for “geniuses,” the nominative plural.
“They have of late, ’tis true, reformed, in some measure, the gouty joints and darning work of whereunto’s, whereby’s, thereof’s, therewith’s, and the rest of this kind.”—Shaftesbury. Here also the genitive singular is improperly used for the objective case plural. It should be, whereuntos, wherebys, thereofs, therewiths.
“Both those people, acute and inquisitive to excess, corrupted the sciences.”—Adams’s History of England.
“Two rival peoples, the Jews and the Samaritans, have preserved separate exemplars of it.”—Geddes’ Preface to his Translation of the Bible. The former of these passages involves a palpable error, the word “people,” here equivalent to nation, and in the singular number, being joined with both or “the two,” a term of plurality. In the latter, this error is avoided, the noun being employed in the plural number. This usage, however, though sanctioned by the authority of our translators of the Bible in two passages, seems now to be obsolete. States, tribes, nations, appear to be preferable.
“I bought a scissars,” “I want a tongs,” “it is a tattered colours,” involve a palpable solecism, the term significant of unity being joined with a plural word. It should be “a pair of scissars,” “a pair of tongs,” “a pair of colours.”
“They tell us, that the fashion of jumbling fifty things together in a dish was at first introduced, in compliance to a depraved and debauched appetite.”—Swift.
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.
“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.
“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.
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.”
“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.”
“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.”
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.
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.
“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.