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.
SECTION I.
THE NOUN.
BARBARISM.
“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 Acception is obsolete; it ought to be acceptation.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 Wage is obsolete; the plural only is used.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.