“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.