INTRODUCTION.
The aim of this book, by correcting a multitude of common errors in the use of language, is mainly to offer assistance to such persons as need greater facilities for accurate expression in ordinary conversation. It is not designed to suggest topics of talk, nor to give rules or examples pointing out the proper modes of arranging them; but simply to insure persons who often have a good thing to say, from the confusion and mortification of improperly saying it. This chapter of introduction will not, therefore, be expected to present an essay on the general subject of conversation.
It may be remarked, however, by way of admonitory hint to some, that the most prominent error in the conversation of those who commit the most blunders, does not consist in saying too little that amounts to much, but too much that amounts to little; talkativeness is a characteristic more commonly of the ignorant, than of the wise. Shenstone says, “The common fluency of speech in many men, and most women, is owing to a scarcity of matter and a scarcity of words; for whoever is master of a language, and moreover has a mind full of ideas, will be apt, in speaking, to hesitate upon the choice of both; but common speakers have only one set of ideas and one set of words to clothe them in,—and these are always ready at the mouth. Just so, people can come faster out of a church when it is almost empty, than when a crowd is at the door!” But although, according to the old proverb, “a still tongue denotes a wise head,” the faculty of speech should not be neglected, merely because it may be misused.
Conversation is not a gift bestowed only upon those whom genius favors; on the contrary, many men eminent for their fluency of style in writing, have been noted for habitual taciturnity in their intercourse with society. Hazlitt remarked, that “authors should be read, not heard!” Charles II. of England, not only the wittiest of monarchs, but one of the liveliest of men, is said to have been so charmed in reading the humor of Butler’s “Hudibras,” that he disguised himself as a private gentleman, and was introduced to the author, whom, to his astonishment, he found to be one of the dullest of companions. On the other hand, some of the humblest men with whom one falls into company, possessed of but little variety, and less extent of information, are highly entertaining talkers. The particular topic of remark does not form so essential a part of an interesting conversation, as the words and manner of those who engage in it. Robert Burns, sitting down on one occasion to write a poem, said:
“Which way the subject theme may gang,
Let time or chance determine;
Perhaps it may turn out a sang,—
Or probably a sermon.”
In the same manner, the subject of a conversation need not be made a matter of study, or special preparation. Men may talk of things momentous or trivial, and in either strain be alike attractive and agreeable.
But quitting the consideration of the thought, to refer to the mode of its expression, it must be remarked and insisted, that to “murder the king’s English” is hardly less a crime, than to design against one of the king’s subjects. If committed from ignorance, the fault is at least deplorable; but if from carelessness, it is inexcusable. The greatest of sciences is that of language; the greatest of human arts is that of using words. No “cunning hand” of the artificer can contrive a work of mechanism that is to be compared, for a moment, with those wonderful masterpieces of ingenuity, which may be wrought by him who can skilfully mould a beautiful thought into a form that shall preserve, yet radiate its beauty. A mosaic of words may be made more fair, than of inlaid precious stones. The scholar who comes forth from his study, a master of the English language, is a workman who has at his command hardly less than a hundred thousand finely-tempered instruments, with which he may fashion the most cunning device. This is a trade which all should learn, for it is one that every individual is called to practise. The greatest support of virtue in a community is intelligence; intelligence is the outgrowth of knowledge; and the almoner of all knowledge is language. The possession, therefore, of the resources, and a command over the appliances of language, is of the utmost importance to every individual. Words are current coins of the realm, and they who do not have them in their treasury, suffer a more pitiable poverty than others who have not a penny of baser specie in their pocket; and the multitude of those who have an unfailing supply, but which is of the wrong stamp, are possessed only of counterfeit cash, that will not pass in circles of respectability. The present work therefore is, in some respects, not unlike the “Detector” issued for the merchants, to indicate the great amount of worthless money that is in general circulation with the good.
It is not to be supposed that all the mistakes of daily occurrence in the use of language, are to be numbered by “five hundred”—possibly not by five thousand; but it is evident that he who is instructed against five hundred of his habitual blunders, and enabled to steer clear of every one of them, has in no slight degree improved his conversation, and thereby increased his importance. As a prefix, or accompaniment, to this catalogue of corrected mistakes, the presentation of a few rules or principles of language, which, strictly observed, might guard against numerous general classes of errors, would not be thought misplaced, or undesirable. Some suggestions on points most prominent are accordingly given among these introductory remarks—not in formal statements of grammatical rules, but in examples in which the spirit of such rules is revealed.
Not the least glaring among the many misuses of words and forms of expression in conversation, occur by incorrectly employing the pronouns—who, which, what, and that. It may be remarked, that who should be applied exclusively to persons. Which usually refers to animals and inanimate objects, except in such an expression as, “Tell me which of the two men was chosen?” What, means that which: thus, “This is the book what I wanted,” should read, “This is the book that (or which) I wanted.”
Among interrogatives, who? inquires for the name; which? for the individual; what? for the character, or occupation. Thus, “Who built the bridge?” “Mr. Blake.” “Which of the Blakes?” “Charles Blake.” “What was he?” “A distinguished civil engineer.”
The title of a small book for young people, recently published, was—“The Way that Little Children enter Heaven:” the word that is here incorrectly used as a substitute for in which, or by which.
When this and that, and their plurals, are used in the sense of latter and former, this and these signify the latter, and that and those the former. Thus, in the following couplet from Burns:
“Farewell my friends, farewell my foes,
My peace with these, my love with those.”
these refers to “foes,” and those to “friends.”
In the possessive case of nouns, some instances occur in which a wise choice may be made, but in respect to which usage is divided. Thus, we may say, “They called at Walton’s the bookseller’s,” or, with equal propriety, as far as custom is concerned, “at Walton the bookseller’s.” The first form, however, is preferable.
The use of the hyphen [-] is frequently disregarded in epistolary correspondence, occasioning not only a blemish but a blunder. Its importance may be seen by comparing the meaning of “glass house” with “glass-house;” the former may mean the Crystal Palace, while the latter is a manufactory of glass-ware.
Adjectives are often improperly used for adverbs: as, “extreme bad weather,” for “extremely bad weather.”
It is sometimes difficult to choose between such phrases as “the first three,” and “the three first.” To say first three when there is no second three is inelegant, because superfluous; and three first is absurd, because impossible. The most successful pupil in each of two classes at school would not improperly be called “the two first boys;” while propriety would require that the first and second boys of the same class should be called “the first two boys.” As a general rule, and easy to be recollected, let “first” be first.
The use of some for about is by many writers thought to be awkward: as, “Some fifty years ago,” instead of “About Fifty years.”
An ambiguity occasionally arises in employing the adjective no. Thus, “No money is better than gold,” may mean either that gold is the best kind of money, or that gold is not so good as no money at all!
After numerals, the words couple, pair, dozen, score, hundred, thousand, and a few others, need not take the plural form: thus, custom first, and finally grammar, have sanctioned such uses as, “three pair of shoes,” “nine dozen bushels,” “four couple of students;” also, “forty sail of vessels,” “seventy head of cattle.”
The article (a or an) renders an important service in such expressions as, “A few followed their leader throughout the long struggle.” To say, “Few followed him,” would imply, unlike the former phrase, that he was almost deserted.
“A black and a white horse,” suggests the idea of two horses; while “a black and white horse,” refers to but one—as if written “a black-and-white horse.”
“The red and white dahlias were most admired,” properly means the dahlias in which both these colors were blended. “The red and the white dahlias,” implies two species.
The grammatical number of a verb should agree with that of its subject, and not of its predicate. Thus, the sentences, “Death is the wages of sin,” and “The wages of sin are death,” are properly written.
In changing from a past tense to the present, when the same nominative remains, the form of the verb should continue unaltered. Thus, instead of saying “He was traveling and travels,” say “He was traveling and is traveling.”
When a verb has both a singular and a plural nominative, separated by or, its number agrees with that of the nearer: as, “the cup or his billiards were his ruin;” or, “his billiards or the cup was his ruin.”
Custom—which, when crystallized, becomes grammar—allows expressions like “The linen tears,” and “The meadow plows well,” although they should not be frequently employed, and should be more seldom coined.
A fruitful source of mistakes in language, is in the linking together of two or more inappropriate tenses, or in the misuse of one. Many among the learned and refined commit blunders of these kinds. A few corrected examples of such are here given:
“His text was, that God was love;” the sentence should be written, “His text was, that God is love.”
“The Lord hath given, and the Lord hath taken away;” say, “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away.”
“They arrived before we left the city:” say, “they had arrived.”
“All the brothers have been greatly indebted to their father:” say, “are indebted.”
“This painting was preserved and exhibited for the last century:” say, “has been preserved and exhibited.”
“It was the last act he intended to have performed.” say, “to perform.”
“He drinks wine at dinner,” means that such is his habit; “he is drinking wine at dinner,” refers to one particular time and occasion.
Adverbs are often inelegantly used instead of adjectives; as, “the then ministry,” for “the ministry of that time.”
Of the phrases “never so good,” or, “ever so good,” as to whether one is preferable to the other, authority is divided. Modern usage inclines to the latter, while ancient preferred the former, as in the Scriptural expression, “charm he never so wisely.”
Yea and nay are not equivalent to yes and no; the latter are directly affirmative and negative, while the former are variously employed.
Of prepositions, it has been frequently said, that no words in the language are so liable to be incorrectly used. For example, “The love of God,” may mean either “His love to us,” or, “our love to Him.”
Many more of these particles are inelegantly, if not ambiguously used. Instead of “the natives were a different race to what they are now,” say, “different from.”
“He was made much on in the country:” say, “made much of.”
“In compliance of your request:” say, “in compliance with.”
“He doubts if his friend will come,” is not so elegant and accurate as, “He doubts whether his friend will come.”
More instances might be given, setting forth other frequent errors of speaking and writing, at the risk, however, of destroying the due proportion which should exist between the size of a work and the length of the Introduction. But a good heed to what has been said in the few preceding paragraphs, will enable a person who carefully reads this work to mend his modes of expression, to no inconsiderable degree. It is well known that there is no “royal road to learning,” but if there were, it could hardly be expected that such a little book as this would afford a passport to the end of the course. About two hundred years ago, a small volume was put forth by one “John Peters, learned scholar and author,” which had the following long-winded title: “A New Way to make Latin Verses, whereby any one of ordinary capacity, that only knows the A, B, C and can count nine, though he understands not one word of Latin, or what a verse means, may be plainly taught to make thousands of Hexameter and Pentameter Verses, which shall be true Latin, true Verse, and Good Sense!” The present volume must not be expected to accomplish so great a result as this—not having so comprehensive an aim, nor possessing so great a secret of success. But it is hoped that it may incite some who are unfortunately deficient in education, to seek so much additional knowledge as shall enable them at least to converse in a dialect which is within the compass of the language of their country, and free them from the imputation of belonging to another tribe of men, speaking another tongue.
A Welshman, residing near Caermarthon, who was seldom seen at the only church in the parish of his residence, was one day accosted by the worthy clergyman with the question, “My friend—to what church do you belong?” He responded, “To the Church of England.” “Ah,” replied the pastor, “I was sure that it must be some church out of Wales!” There are not a few persons who speak the English language about as truly as the Caermarthon Welshman attended the English Church!