CHAPTER XV.

GENERAL REMARKS ON WORDS, ETC.--_continued._

In the periodical and light literature of the day, we frequently meet with forms of language which have been expressively called ‘slipshod English.’ These are of various kinds--uncertain reference, superfluous words, incompatible terms, ungrammatical forms, &c. &c.

Of the first class may be quoted the tailor’s advertisement, in which it was stated that ‘Gentlemen’s materials are made up, and waited on at their own houses,’ where there is a glorious uncertainty as to who or what may be waited on.

The following is of the same nature:--In an examination in the House of Commons, in 1809, a member said that ‘the witness had been ordered to withdraw from the bar, in consequence of being intoxicated by the motion of an honourable member.’ The word ‘intoxicated’ was here, perhaps, the right word; but it was certainly not in the right place.

A word is often written which has no function to perform in the sentence, and therefore no business on the paper. These are superfluous words; they occupy space, but, instead of assisting, they rather clog the sense of the passage. The often-used expression, ‘final completion,’ is a case in point. Every ‘completion’ is ‘final;’ the idea of ‘final’ is involved in the word ‘completion,’ and therefore this is a wrong expression.

Another of these superabundant forms is where we find ‘universal’ and ‘all’ brought into the same construction. A man is sometimes said to be ‘universally’ beloved by ‘all’ his friends. Here either ‘universally’ or ‘all’ should be taken out. If the love for him is ‘universal,’ of course ‘all’ love him; and the converse is equally true.

Sometimes words are found together which contradict each other. Of this class of faults we may quote the not unfrequent form ‘further backwards.’ ‘Further’ means more in advance, and ‘backwards’ has a directly contrary meaning. It is impossible to go ‘further’ and, at the same time, ‘backwards,’ and therefore the two words should never be used together.

‘Either’ and ‘neither’ cannot be properly applied to more than two persons or things. Speaking of three or four people, it is incorrect to say that ‘neither’ of them is clever, though we may say that ‘none,’ or ‘no one,’ of them is clever. Nor would it be good grammar to say, ‘either of the six children may go;’ we must here say ‘any one.’

‘_All of them._’ This is a form which some critics have attacked, and not without reason. They say that ‘_of_’ here means ‘out of;’ that it corresponds exactly with the Latin preposition _e_, or _ex_, and that therefore the expression must be incorrect. We do not take ‘all of them,’ but we take ‘them all.’ We may correctly say one, two, three, &c., or most of them, but when there is question of _all_, no preposition should be used.

‘_Equanimity of mind._’ As equanimity means evenness of mind, why should ‘of mind’ be repeated? ‘Anxiety of mind’ is, of course, open to the same objection.

‘_Incorrect orthography._’ The fault in this very common expression arises from the idea that ‘orthography’ means merely spelling (good or bad), whereas the true meaning of the word is ‘_correct_ spelling.’ Now, spelling cannot be correct and at the same time incorrect, and therefore the two terms are incompatible. We may say ‘incorrect spelling,’ but we must not say ‘incorrect orthography.’

‘_A confirmed invalid._’ What is this? one who is strengthened in his weakness? There is certainly here a contradiction, for no weakness can be strong.

‘_Old news_’ is another contradictory form, where the terms are incompatible with each other. It may be placed in the same class with ‘enjoying bad health.’

It is inaccurate to say that a man’s ‘_defects are improved_.’ A defect means the want of some good quality, and to ‘improve’ means ‘to make better.’ Wants may be ‘decreased’ or ‘supplied,’ but they cannot be made better; and, therefore, the two terms should not be used together.

It is a common error to use ‘quantity’ for ‘number.’ The former can only be said of a collection or mass. A ‘quantity’ of meat or a ‘quantity’ of milk is good English, but not a quantity of pens or books, &c. To separate individual objects we must apply ‘number,’ but to a collected mass ‘quantity.’ We may say a ‘quantity’ of wood, but it must be a ‘number’ of faggots.

In many cases the wrong preposition is used; and, indeed, there are few writers or speakers who are invariably correct in this respect. The very common fault, ‘different to,’ we need hardly stop to inquire into, but we often find equally wrong forms which pass unnoticed. Occasionally we meet with ‘to disagree _from_,’ though in general the form used is ‘to disagree _with_.’ Here the ‘dis’ in ‘disagree’ and the preposition ‘with’ seem to pull two ways. Which, then, is right--to disagree _from_ or _with_? The proper phrase is to ‘assent _to_’ and to ‘dissent _from_;’ and if the latter is correct, why not also ‘to disagree _from_?’

As it is admitted that ‘different _to_’ is wrong, on the same principle, ‘averse _to_’ must be wrong. No one can go two ways at once. The _a_ in ‘averse’ certainly means ‘from;’ and therefore the word should be followed by ‘_from_,’ and not ‘_to_.’ The first is already adopted by many good writers.

The conjunction ‘than’ should not be used except after a comparative adjective. ‘Soon_er_ than;’ ‘better than;’ ‘rather than,’ &c., are correct; but ‘scarcely had he uttered these words _than_,’ is bad English. ‘Hardly had he attained his majority _than_’ is equally wrong. For ‘_than_’ we should here use ‘_when_.’ ‘But’ should not be used for ‘than,’ as, ‘no sooner had he finished his work _but_.’

Another common mistake is to use ‘except’ for ‘unless.’ The former is a preposition, and must be followed not by a proposition, but by a noun or pronoun. It is bad grammar to say ‘no one should aspire to this situation, _except_ he is competent to fulfil its duties.’ (Here, we should read ‘unless’ for ‘except.’)

‘Like’ is also frequently confounded with ‘as.’ The former is a preposition, and should not be used as a conjunction. ‘Do you write _like_ I do?’ is wrong. It should be ‘_as_ (not _like_) I do.’

‘Notwithstanding he thought so,’ is bad English. We should here use ‘although.’ ‘Notwithstanding’ is a preposition, and is followed by its object. We say correctly, ‘notwithstanding his objections,’ but not properly, ‘notwithstanding he objected.’

‘But’ is often redundant after the word ‘doubt.’ We continually meet with ‘I have no doubt _but_ that,’ &c. This is a wrong form: the ‘but’ should be omitted.

As an example of a loose sentence; i.e. where the connection of the parts is not sufficiently clear, the following advertisement of a hair-dresser may be quoted:--

‘Seven lessons in hair-dressing may be had for one guinea, which (?) _being imparted on a system_ entirely new, will enable any one _so instructed_ to give the most complete satisfaction!’

The Anglo-Saxon ‘tíd’ meant ‘time’ (compare the German ‘Zeit’); whence to ‘betide’ means to happen in time. The ‘tide’ is the _time_ at which the water rises and falls. ‘Tidy,’ also, in old English, signified properly ‘timely.’

In old English, we meet with the form ‘ton,’ which is for ‘the one;’ and this may probably account for ‘t’other,’ or ‘the t’other,’ which is, in fact, a contraction of ‘that other.’ But ‘t’other’ is now accounted a vulgarism.

There is some difference of practice in the use of the article (a, an). The rule is, that ‘an’ must be used before a vowel, or _h_ mute. This is, in general, a good rule; but there is one vowel, which must be sometimes considered an exception, viz. ‘_u_.’ It is right to say ‘an apple,’ ‘an evil,’ ‘an idler,’ and ‘an orange;’ but before _u_ we must pause; for here there is a double practice. Now, this vowel has two sounds; open, as in ‘_u_nion;’ and close, as in ‘_u_gly.’ Before the long sound, we should use the article ‘a;’ as ‘a unit,’ ‘a union,’ ‘a uniform,’ &c. But before the short sound of ‘u,’ the article ‘an’ should be used; as ‘an uncle,’ ‘an ugly object,’ &c. Many good writers, however, use ‘an’ even before a long _u_. We often meet with ‘_an_ united family,’ ‘_an_ universal practice,’ &c. The question is here one of harmony; and the best practice seems to be, to adopt the softer sound. No one ever thinks of saying or writing ‘_an_ youth,’ or ‘_an_ yew tree;’ and yet the sound in ‘_an_ uniform,’ or ‘_an_ universe,’ is precisely the same, and of course equally harsh.

Another case belonging to this question is the use of the article in the frequently-seen expression ‘_such an one_.’ This form is disagreeably harsh and unmusical. We might as well say: ‘such _an_ woman,’ or ‘such _an_ wonder.’ It is true there are authorities for both these forms--‘such a one,’ and ‘such an one;’ but in a case of this sort, we had better adopt the more harmonious form; good taste and a delicate ear will direct us to ‘such a one,’ rather than ‘such _an_ one.’

It has been remarked that there is a strong tendency in English to get rid of inflections. Many of these were found in old English which have now fallen off. The old infinitive-ending _en_ is now altogether gone, though some adjectives in _en_ still remain; viz. those which denote material, such as ‘golden,’ ‘earthen,’ ‘oaten,’ &c. We had at one time ‘rosen,’ ‘silvern,’ ‘tinnen,’ ‘boxen,’ and many others. These are now gone; and there seems to be a prevalent disposition to cut off the endings of those which remain. Instead of ‘a golden watch,’ we now say ‘a gold watch,’ using the noun for the adjective. In the same way, we have ‘earthworks’ for ‘earthen works;’ though we still keep ‘earthenware.’ Many of these adjectives in _en_ still hold their ground, though most of those which are retained have lost a part of their sense. ‘Brazen’ has now only a secondary meaning; and stands for ‘bold’ or ‘impudent.’ In a concrete sense, the noun is used instead of the adjective. We say a ‘brazen face,’ for an ‘impudent face;’ but ‘a brass knob,’ or ‘a brass candlestick.’ Again: we have ‘a golden rule,’ in a secondary; but a ‘gold’ ring in a primary sense.

The word ‘pigmy’--derived from the Greek πυγμὴ, the fist--was first spelled ‘p_y_gmy.’ It meant one whose stature was no higher than from the elbow to the fist. The change from _y_ to _i_ was probably caused by the dislike of the printers to _y_ in the middle of a word. But it has here as good a right to its place as the _y_ in ‘h_y_mn,’ or ‘t_y_pe.’ It is, however, gone; and we must submit.

Hundreds of words might be cited which have been brought into their present forms by the influence of corruption. The now generally received explanation of ‘Rotten Row’ is, that it is a corruption of ‘Route du Roi,’ originally the private road used by King William III. when going from Piccadilly to Kensington. The old form ‘diamant’ was preferable to the more modern ‘diamond,’ because it told its story more clearly. It was an inversion of ‘adamant,’ the untameable, or invincible, so called because it is the hardest of stones, and cannot be cut except by one of its own species.

The modern spelling of the word ‘height’ is a corruption. We have ‘wid_th_,’ from ‘wide;’ ‘leng_th_,’ from ‘long;’ and ‘bread_th_,’ from ‘broad.’ Why, then, not ‘highth,’ from ‘high?’ In the writings of the seventeenth century we meet with various spellings of this word. It is found ‘highth’ in the first edition of ‘Paradise Lost;’ and also ‘heigth’ and ‘heygth.’ Now the inversion of _ht_ for _th_ has corrupted it into ‘heig_ht_;’ and so, for the present, it will probably remain. The _d_ in ‘admiral’ appears to be a corruption. All our dictionaries give the derivation of this word from the Arabic ‘amir,’ or ‘emir,’ a lord, or commander. Neither the French ‘amiral,’ nor the Italian ‘ammiraglio,’ has the _d_. Milton writes the word ‘ammiral:’

the tallest pine Hewn on Norwegian hills, to be the mast Of some great _ammiral_,--

though in this passage, the word means a ship, and not its commander. Mr. Wedgewood says that, in many cases in Arabic, the article is placed after the noun; and that the _ad_ initial is a mere corruption of the first syllable of ‘amir’ or ‘emir.’

It was a fanciful etymology which gave us the word ‘Tartar.’ The incorrect spelling ‘Tartars’ for ‘Tatars’ occurs at the same time with the appearance of the Mongols in Europe, in the thirteenth century; and was probably introduced by the superstitious monks and writers who, struck with the seeming analogy between ‘Tatar’ and Tartarus (the hell of the ancients), believed that these ferocious invaders had come from the infernal regions.

We are told by some writers that there are between 2,000 and 3,000 words in the English language, for which there is no recognised standard of spelling. Though this number is probably exaggerated, there are, no doubt, many in this condition; and it naturally becomes a question which of two forms is to be preferred. Here, we should be at least consistent; we should hold to the one, and altogether reject the other.

The two forms, ‘chemist’ and ‘chymist’ arose from the word having a disputed derivation; but the first is now received as correct. Of course, its derivatives will therefore be spelled ‘chemical,’ ‘chemistry,’ &c.

There was, at one time, a confusion between ‘choir’ and ‘quire.’ The second word has no connection, except in sound, with the first, which is from the Latin ‘chorus,’ through the French ‘chœur.’ As ‘quire,’ in the sense of a number singing together, is now obsolete, so is ‘quirister,’ which must be spelled ‘chorister.’

There are two forms--‘coit,’ and ‘quoit.’ The derivation of this word is somewhat obscure; but if, as some suggest, it is connected with _cut_, the form ‘coit’ is preferable to the other. Another argument in favour of this form is that the word is always pronounced as if beginning with a _c_ hard, or _k_; and not as if with _qu_.

There has been a rather sharp controversy lately concerning the two forms ‘diocess’ and ‘diocese.’ The ‘Times’ adopts ‘diocess.’ Dr. Latham says under the word, ‘diocese, frequently but improperly, diocess.’ Webster says, ‘the orthography of “diocess” is opposed to the derivation, and is against the best English usage.’ There is little doubt that ‘diocess’ is the older, and ‘diocese’ the newer form of the word: and there is also little doubt, in spite of the ‘Times,’ that ‘diocese’ is the proper form.

Between ‘intire’ and ‘entire’ there is still a divided practice. The word is a contraction of the Latin ‘integer,’ which will account for the initial _i_. But it comes to us directly from the French ‘entier.’ So that ‘entire’ will probably supplant ‘intire,’ though we still have ‘Barclay and Co.’s _intire_.’

There are two forms of the word--‘referrible,’ and ‘referable.’ These are both in common use, and both are given in the dictionaries; but the second, ‘referable,’ is the proper form. There was no Latin adjective ‘referibilis.’ Our word is a later formation, where _a_ in such cases is always used rather than _i_; and, therefore, it is better spelled ‘referable.’ Besides, this form is in analogy with ‘preferable,’ ‘inferable,’ &c.

Some still write ‘sirname’ incorrectly for ‘surname,’ probably from an idea that the word means sire-name, or a name received from a sire (father). But its real meaning is an added name; one name added _to_ another. It is from the French ‘surnom,’ and should be always spelled ‘surname.’

Between a ‘serjeant’-at-law, and a military ‘sergeant’ there is this difference: that the first must be written with a _j_, and the second with a _g_. The word is derived from the Latin ‘serviens,’ and means, in both cases, one who serves; but the words are spelled somewhat differently, to make a distinction in their application.

A difference should be made between ‘story’ and ‘storey.’ The first means an account of facts, and is a contraction of ‘history.’ It is a history on a small scale. But ‘storey’ is a contraction of ‘stagery,’ and means the landing in a house; as in ‘first storey,’ ‘second storey,’ &c. Of course, the plural form of the first word should be ‘stories,’ and of the second, ‘storeys.’