Conversation: Its Faults and Its Graces

by Unknown

But the imperfect tense and the perfect tense are to be combined in such sentences as the following, "I remarked that they appeared to have undergone great fatigue;" because here the act of "undergoing fatigue" must have taken place previous to the period in which you have had the opportunity of remarking its effect on their appearance; the sentence, therefore, is both grammatical and logical.

XX.

Another strange perversion of grammatical propriety is to be heard occasionally in the adoption of the present tense of the verb "to have," most probably instead of the past participle, but in situations in which the participle itself would be a redundance; such as, "If I had have known," "If he had have come according to appointment," "If you had have sent me that intelligence," &c. Of what utility is the word "have" in the sentence at all? What office does it perform? If it stands in place of any other word, that other word would still be an incumbrance; but the sentence being complete without it, it becomes an illiterate superfluity. "If I had have known that you would have been there before me, I would have written to you to have waited till I had have come." What a construction from the lips of an educated person! and yet we do sometimes hear this slip-slop uttered by people who are considered to "speak French and Italian well," and who enjoy the reputation of being "accomplished!"

XXI.

It is amusing to observe the broad line of demarcation which exists between vulgar bad grammar and genteel bad grammar, and which characterizes the violation of almost every rule of syntax. The vulgar speaker uses adjectives instead of adverbs, and says, "This letter is written shocking;" the genteel speaker uses adverbs instead of adjectives, and says, "This writing looks shockingly." The perpetrators of the latter offence may fancy they can shield themselves behind the grammatical law which compels the employment of an adverb, not an adjective, to qualify a verb, and behind the first rule of syntax, which says "a verb must agree with its nominative." But which is the nominative in the expression alluded to? Which performs the act of looking,—the writing or the speaker? To say that a thing looks when we look at it, is an idiom peculiar to our language, and some idioms are not reducible to rules; they are conventional terms which pass current, like bank notes, for the sterling they represent, but must not be submitted to the test of grammatical alchymy. It is improper, therefore, to say, "The queen looks beautifully," "The flowers smell sweetly," "This writing looks shockingly;" because it is the speaker that performs the act of looking, smelling, &c., not the noun looked at; and though, by an idiomatical construction necessary to avoid circumlocution, the sentence imputes the act to the thing beheld, the qualifying word must express the quality of the thing spoken of, adjectively, instead of qualifying the act of the nominative understood, adverbially. What an adjective is to a noun, an adverb is to a verb; an adjective expresses the quality of a thing, and an adverb the manner of an action. Consider what it is you wish to express, the quality of a thing, or the manner of an action, and use an adjective or adverb accordingly. But beware that you discriminate justly; for though you cannot say, "The queen looked majestically in her robes," because here the act of looking is performed by the spectator, who looks at her, you can and must say, "The queen looked graciously on the petitioner," "The queen looked mercifully on his prayer," because here the act of looking is performed by the queen. You cannot say, "These flowers smell sweetly," because it is you that smell, and not the flowers; but you can say, "These flowers perfume the air deliciously," because it is they which impart the fragrance, not you. You cannot say, "This dress looks badly," because it is you that look, not the dress; but you can say, "This dress fits badly," because it is the dress that performs the act of fitting either well or ill. There are some peculiar idioms which it would be better to avoid altogether, if possible; but if you feel compelled to use them, take them as they are,—you cannot prune and refine them by the rules of syntax, and to attempt to do so shows ignorance as well as affectation.

XXII.

There is a mistake often committed in the use of the adverbs of place, hence, thence, whence. People are apt to say, "He will go from thence to-morrow," &c. The preposition "from" is included in these adverbs, therefore it becomes tautology in sense when prefixed to them.

XXIII.

"Equally as well" is a very common expression, and a very incorrect one; the adverb of comparison, "as," has no right in the sentence. "Equally well," "Equally high," "Equally dear," should be the construction; and if a complement be necessary in the phrase, it should be preceded by the preposition "with," as, "The wall was equally high with the former one," "The goods at Smith's are equally dear with those sold at the shop next door," &c. "Equally the same" is tautology.

XXIV.