Galsome. Here is a good, sonorous Anglo-Saxon word—meaning malignant, venomous, churlish—that has fallen into disuse.

Gentleman. Few things are in worse taste than to use the term gentleman, whether in the singular or plural, to designate the sex. "If I was a gentleman," says Miss Snooks. "Gentlemen have just as much curiosity as ladies," says Mrs. Jenkins. "Gentlemen have so much more liberty than we ladies have," says Mrs. Parvenue. Now, if these ladies were ladies, they would in each of these cases use the word man instead of gentleman, and woman instead of lady; further, Miss Snooks would say, "If I were." Well-bred men, men of culture and refinement—gentlemen, in short—use the terms lady and gentleman comparatively little, and they are especially careful not to call themselves gentlemen when they can avoid it. A gentleman, for example, does not say, "I, with some other gentlemen, went," etc.; he is careful to leave out the word other. The men who use these terms most, and especially those who lose no opportunity to proclaim themselves gentlemen, belong to that class of men who cock their hats on one side of their heads, and often wear them when and where gentlemen would remove them; who pride themselves on their familiarity with the latest slang; who proclaim their independence by showing the least possible consideration for others; who laugh long and loud at their own wit; who wear a profusion of cheap finery, such as outlandish watch-chains hooked in the lowest button-hole of their vests, Brazilian diamonds in their shirt-bosoms, and big seal-rings on their little fingers; who use bad grammar and interlard their conversation with big oaths. In business correspondence Smith is addressed as Sir, while Smith & Brown are often addressed as Gentlemen—or, vulgarly, as Gents. Better, much, is it to address them as Sirs.

Since writing the foregoing, I have met with the following paragraph in the London publication, "All the Year Round": "Socially, the term 'gentleman' has become almost vulgar. It is certainly less employed by gentlemen than by inferior persons. The one speaks of 'a man I know,' the other of 'a gentleman I know.' In the one case the gentleman is taken for granted, in the other it seems to need specification. Again, as regards the term 'lady.' It is quite in accordance with the usages of society to speak of your acquaintance the duchess as 'a very nice person.' People who would say 'very nice lady' are not generally of a social class which has much to do with duchesses; and if you speak of one of these as a 'person,' you will soon be made to feel your mistake."

Gents. Of all vulgarisms, this is, perhaps, the most offensive. If we say gents, why not say lades?

Gerund. "'I have work to do,' 'there is no more to say,' are phrases where the verb is not in the common infinitive, but in the form of the gerund. 'He is the man to do it, or for doing it.' 'A house to let,' 'the course to steer by,' 'a place to lie in,' 'a thing to be done,' 'a city to take refuge in,' 'the means to do ill deeds,' are adjective gerunds; they may be expanded into clauses: 'a house that the owner lets or will let'; 'the course that we should steer by'; 'a thing that should be done'; 'a city wherein one may take refuge'; 'the means whereby ill deeds may be done.' When the to ceased in the twelfth century to be a distinctive mark of the dative infinitive or gerund, for was introduced to make the writer's intention clear. Hence the familiar form in 'what went ye out for to see?' 'they came for to show him the temple.'"—Bain.

Get. In sentences expressing simple possession—as, "I have got a book," "What has he got there?" "Have you got any news?" "They have got a new house," etc.—got is entirely superfluous, if not, as some writers contend, absolutely incorrect. Possession is completely expressed by have. "Foxes have holes; the birds of the air have nests"; not, "Foxes have got holes; the birds of the air have got nests." Formerly the imperfect tense of this verb was gat, which is now obsolete, and the perfect participle was gotten, which, some grammarians say, is growing obsolete. If this be true, there is no good reason for it. If we say eaten, written, striven, forgotten, why not say gotten, where this form of the participle is more euphonious—as it often is—than got?

Goods. This term, like other terms used in trade, should be restricted to the vocabulary of commerce. Messrs. Arnold & Constable, in common with the Washington Market huckster, very properly speak of their wares as their goods; but Mrs. Arnold and Mrs. Constable should, and I doubt not do, speak of their gowns as being made of fine or coarse silk, cashmere, muslin, or whatever the material may be.

Gould against Alford. Mr. Edward S. Gould, in his review of Dean Alford's "Queen's English," remarks, on page 131 of his "Good English": "And now, as to the style[4] of the Dean's book, taken as a whole. He must be held responsible for every error in it; because, as has been shown, he has had full leisure for its revision.[5] The errors are, nevertheless, numerous; and the shortest way to exhibit them is[6] in tabular form." In several instances Mr. Gould would not have taken the Dean to task had he known English better. The following are a few of Mr. Gould's corrections in which he is clearly in the right:

Paragraph

4. "Into another land than"; should be, "into a land other than."