SOME CORRECTIONS
(To the Editor of The London Mercury)
Sir,—The London Mercury sets so refreshing a standard of English, by precept, and still more by example, that it is with some temerity that I venture (1) a correction, (2) a criticism, and (3) a query.
1. Major and minor Elizabethan and "Georgian" poets receive full and correct designation. Could not the same be spared for Canon Ottley, of Oxford, who on p. 128 appears as Attley? It might be granted in recognition of his Chancellor's Prize for Latin Verse, the award of which demands, I imagine, a certain measure of poetical feeling in addition to the mathematically stressed rhythms of our schooldays.
2. There may be subtle and political humour intended in the word dignatories (p. 236), but with my last breath I would protest the better (and only) spelling to be "dignitaries," take it derivatively or euphonically as you will.
3. Is the sentence considerable interest has been evinced at the large majority (p. 235) English at all? Should it not be either:
"Considerable interest has been evinced in the ..." Or
"Considerable interest has been evinced by the ..."?
But here, like Rosa Dartle, I merely ask for information—not being a competent grammarian—and leave it to fair judgment.
Could you not follow up the article on "Particles" with one on "Split Infinitives"? We were always taught that they were the unforgivable sin. Yet I have just found two unblushing examples in one of Mr. Thomas Hardy's novels. If he may use them, why may not the children in our village school?—Yours, etc.,
C. A. Tait.
Meopham, Kent.
December 13th, 1919.
[In answer to the first and second charges we plead guilty to misprints; the third error was due to a slip of the pen.—Editor.]