More anon.
Ever yours faithfully,
Edward A. Spring.
WINTER SPORTS IN CANADA.
Winter undoubtedly has its hygienic value; and a part of this value we get without effort. It is not only a comfort to be freed from the annoyances of insect life, but it is also a gain for health that many of the atmospheric impurities are removed by frost. But to get the largest value from winter as a frost cure, we need to avail ourselves of the system of healthful and invigorating amusements which prevail in Canada, and have made that country famous. That portion of our population which is employed out-doors in winter is, pro tanto, undoubtedly the most healthy. For the rest of us the only possible equivalent is winter sports. It is unfortunately true that the variable character of our weather precludes us from exact imitation; but our inventive genius ought to be equal to the task of bridging over the soft places in our winters. In Canada, the long and comparatively equable winter makes it a simple thing to provide healthy and innocent amusements which may be enjoyed as regularly as any business is carried on. It is not to be forgotten, however, that the Canadians are the only people in the world who know how to keep warm out-doors as well as in-doors. They have learned to perfection this art, for lack of which our out-door employments are more or less dangerous. Our laborer does not keep warm in winter, and his “colds” become consumption. In Canada, young girls accomplish in this respect what stout men fail to do among us; they keep warm whether they are flying in sleighs or on toboggans. These forms of enjoyment are well organized; there are toboggan clubs, and “society” means some form of winter sport. The miserable imitation called “roller-skating,” which is alarming thoughtful people in many of our villages, is only a craze, a temporary insanity; the winter sports of Canada are a national institution. The physical and moral wholesomeness of the roller-skating rink is more than doubtful. The moral and physical healthfulness of the sports by which Canadians make winter a season of joy, can not be questioned.
On the average, our winter in the United States is not a healthful and invigorating season to us. We lose the greater values and expose ourselves to special dangers. We live in-doors, with a temperature ten degrees too high. We shut in with us invisible plagues which breed diphtheria and other diseases. We are enfeebled by refraining from exercise and breathing unwholesome air in our houses. We come to the spring weaker than we were when winter began. We have moped by hot fires and breathed vitiated air, when we ought to have been out in the winter blast, using our muscles and filling our lungs with the clean winds. Two or three conditions seem wanting for a reform of these habits. One is the art of keeping warm in the cold air; another is a keener sense of the value of winter exercise, and a third is some devices by which the “soft spells” of weather shall not arrest our sports nearly every week.
THE RELATIVE PRONOUN “THAT.”
This word is a demonstrative pronoun and a conjunction; and in some idiomatic phrases it is also a relative pronoun. By idiomatic phrases, we mean that use has constructed certain forms of expression which are wholes, though consisting of several words. All that we know is an idiomatic phrase; use and habit have welded the words together. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, there grew a habit of using that very freely as a relative pronoun. The Bible of 1611 is full of illustrations of this habit. During the present century this use of that has been by the best writers gradually restricted, and at present the rule for that as a relative pronoun, probably, is about as stated above—the word is used, as a relative, only in idiomatic expressions. The history of this word would make a very interesting chapter. We have in the foregoing statement merely suggested one line of change in its use, and we call attention to this change for a particular reason. Among the excellent books published by Appleton & Co. is a reprint Cobbett’s English Grammar, and in this reprint Mr. Ayres, the editor of it for this republication, lays down in his introduction, and illustrates by significant bracketing in Cobbett’s text, a new rule for the use of the relative that. This new rule is, in substance, that the restrictive relative is that—who and which being coördinating relatives. This proposed reform is unfortunately timed. By a progress in use which has been unobtrusive, and unaided by dogmatism, the number of thats on a printed page has been reduced to tolerable proportion. If we accept the new rule we shall not only go back to excessive use of that, but we may even increase the evil of too much thating. The word fills two important functions in present good use; to add the office of expressing all the restrictive uses of the relative pronouns, would probably increase thating so as to render an English page unsightly. Take a sentence: “He said that that man that that boy said that he saw was not that man that that boy thought that he saw.” Mr. Ayres tries to show that certain sentences which contain who and which as relatives are ambiguous in meaning, and that the substitution of that would make the meaning clear. As to such sentences, we may say that if they are really ambiguous in sense, the remedy is to reconstruct them. It is not necessary to use that to pull them out of their obscurity. It is easy, however, to show that a detached sentence might mean something which it does not mean. The meaning of a text is helped out by the context. Aphorisms usually have not context auxiliaries, and usually are ambiguous; but the ordinary use of language is to express our meaning by paragraphs rather than by single sentences. Every ellipsis furnishes an opening for the entrance of small criticism; and ellipsis is one of the large facts of English writing.