CHAPTER VIII.

CONTAMINATION.

We have discussed, in Chapter V., the force of analogy and its effect. We have now to study a phenomenon of language which may be called ‘contamination,’ and which, though widely differing from analogy in the most characteristic instances of both, is yet so closely allied to it as to render it a difficult matter to draw any hard and fast line of demarcation between the two.

We call the process ‘contamination’ when two synonymous forms or constructions force themselves simultaneously, or at least in the very closest succession, into our consciousness, so that one part of the one replaces or, it may be, ousts a corresponding part of the other; the result being that a new form arises in which some elements of the one are confused with some elements of the other.

Thus, for instance, to take an imaginary case, a person seeing a book on the table might wish to exclaim, ‘Take that thing away!’ Just, however, as he is uttering the word _thing_, the consciousness that it is properly called a _book_ forces itself upon him, and he utters the word _thook_. Of course such a form is a mistake, and a mistake so palpable and, indeed, so absurd that the speaker will at once correct it. Every one, however, who is in the habit of watching closely the utterances of others, and indeed of himself, will be aware that such slips of the tongue are extremely common; and it is clear that, though such formations are, in the first instance, sudden and transitory, and generally travel no further than the individual from whom they proceed, yet they may, by repetition on the part of the same individual, or, it may be, by imitation, conscious or unconscious, on the part of others, end by becoming ‘usual.’

Contamination manifests itself not merely in the form of words, but also in their syntactical combination. In the case of such a curious mixture of two words as that which we took for our example, the very grotesqueness of the result would probably bar the way to the spreading of the word, though, as we shall see, traces are to be found of cases hardly less grotesque than this. In syntactical combinations, however, the results have far more frequently proved permanent; or, in any case, the results do not commonly appear in such jarring contrast to received usage as to challenge immediate correction, and, consequently, instances can be more easily found in literature of syntactical than of verbal contamination; some cases of such contamination pass into language and become ‘usual;’ some are refused admission into normal language and are set down as the peculiarities of the individual writer or speaker, or, it may be, as his mistakes.

We saw that formation by analogy manifests itself as the alteration of one form in compliance with a rule more or less consciously abstracted from a number of examples drawn from a group to which that form does not, strictly speaking, belong. Contamination is the alteration of one form on the model of another synonymous form. The difficulty of distinguishing between the two arises from this--that the contaminating form or construction often derives additional force from being associated with other members of its group, so that it may be doubtful whether the rule or the one synonym gave the impetus to the new formation. Nevertheless, we may lay it down that for analogy we must demand a sufficient number of examples on which to base a rule; while for contamination, a single form or construction may suffice. If we bear in mind these main points of distinction, we shall commonly find no difficulty in deciding to which of the two classes we should refer any particular case.[52]

Among the results of contamination in single words, we must naturally expect that those have the best chance of becoming permanent which least deviate from the correct form; _i.e._ where the synonymous[53] forms confused resembled each other, and the form due to their contamination consequently bore sufficient resemblance to both to enable it to arise repeatedly in the mouth of several speakers, and, when formed, to escape observation. Thus the word _milt_ (the soft roe of fishes) is a substitute for _milk_ (it appears in Swedish as _mjölke_); this was probably due to contamination with _milt_ (spleen), which is a different word.[54] Again, the English combination _ough_ is due to the contamination of three distinct forms, viz., _ugh_ (A.S. _-uh_), _-ogh_ (A.S. _-áh_), _-oogh_ (A.S. _-óh_); whilst, at the same time, the loss of the _gh_ has affected the quality of the preceding vowel by the principle of compensation. Thus the word _through_ should have appeared as _thrugh_, A.S. *_ðruh_ (for _ðurh_); but it has been altered to _through_, as if from A.S. *_ðrúh_, or else to *_thurgh_ (A.S. _ðurh_), which has been lengthened to _thor(ou)gh_.[55]

A.S. _byrðen_, ‘a load,’ became _burthen_, and is now _burden_, the change being assisted by confusion with _burden_ (Fr. _bourdon_), ‘the refrain of a song.’[56] The word _anecdotage_ is a wilful contamination of _anecdote_ + _dotage_, with a side glance at _age_ (time of life), though in _dotage_ the suffix _age_ has no connection with the noun of same sound. _Another-gaines_, which was used by Sydney in his Arcadia (1580) seems to have resulted from the confusion of _anotherkins_ (of another kind), which survives in the Whitby dialect, and _anothergates_ (of another gate, manner). On these instances, see Murray’s Dictionary, s.v.

In this and similar instances, where the fact that the word occurs in more than one meaning is due to confusion or misconception, it is often difficult to say whether we have to deal with contamination proper, as we defined it and illustrated it by the example on page 140. There exist, however, in many languages words and forms which can be explained in no other way. Such is the O.Fr. form _oreste_, a contamination between _orage_ and _tempeste_; and again, the O.Fr. _triers_ seems to be a contamination between _tres_ (trans) and _rier_ (retro).[57]

The confusion was rendered easier in the case of forms which may easily pass into a grammatical paradigm. Thus, from the Italian _o_ of _sono_ and the perfect termination in _-ro_ (= _runt_), the _o_ was transferred to the other third person plural forms; whence such forms as old Tuscan _fecérono_ (modern _furono_) are contaminations between the forms _fecéro_ and _amano_.

The confusion of words belonging to the same etymological group is more common: an instance may be seen in the Italian _trápano_ (τρύπανον), whose form seems to have been affected by _traforare_.[58] In Old French the form _doins_ is due to a contamination between _dois_ and _don_. In Provençal, the form _sisclar_ seems a contamination between _sibilare_ and _fistulare_.[59] The English _yawn_ represents a fusion of two Anglo-Saxon forms, _géonian_ and _gánian_.[60] The word _minnow_ is a contamination between M.E. _menow_ and the O.Fr. _menuise_. Both of these are ultimately from the same base, _min_ (small),[61] but underwent a different development. We might add as an instance the jocular coinage _squarson_ = Squire + Parson.

Our word _ache_ offers a further curious illustration. There was in Anglo-Saxon a verb _ácan_ with past tense _oc_, past participle _acen_, which gave us the verb _ake_ (to hurt)--now erroneously spelt _ache_, but still correctly pronounced. The noun in Anglo-Saxon was _æce_, in which the _k_ sound was palatalised into the sound of _ch_ (in church), whilst it remained _k_ in the verb.[62] Accordingly we find still in Shakespeare the distinction between the verb _ake_ and the noun _ache_ (pronounced with _tch_ as in _batch_, etc.). The confusion began about A.D. 1700, when the verb began to replace the noun in pronunciation, and occasionally the spelling _ache_ was used for both noun and verb. The prevalence of this spelling at present is mainly due, it appears, to a mistaken derivation from the Gr. ἄχος;--the pronunciation to confusion, or to contamination of the noun by the verb.

We reach the borderland of ‘Analogy,’ if we do not actually enter it, in those cases where a word--under the influence of a modal group with a synonymous function--assumes a suffix or prefix whose modal significance was already expressed by the word in its simpler form. Thus it has been considered a case of contamination of the comparative _worse_ with the modal groups of the other comparatives in _er_, when we find the double comparative _worser_. Similarly, the Latin frequentative _iactare_ (_iacio_) was extended into _iactitare_ under the influence of the modal group composed of words like _volitare_, etc.: again, in English, the form _lesser_ has, as an adjective, almost entirely superseded the form _less_; just as, in the colloquial language of the uneducated, we find _leastest_ by the side of _least_. There is, in Gothic, a superlative _aftuma_, beside which we, however, find even there the double superlative _aftumists_. This appears in Anglo-Saxon[63] as _æftermest_, M.E. _eftermeste_, and in Modern English as _aftermost_; where the _o_ in the last syllable is due to the mistaken idea that the whole word was a compound of _most_, though, as we have seen, it was really another instance of a double suffix.

Contamination plays a far more important part in the area of syntax. It is easy to cull from the pages of authors of repute instances of anomalies which have no permanent influence on language: cf. ‘Amazed at the alteration in his manner, every sentence that he uttered increased her embarrassment’ (Miss Austen, Pride and Prejudice, ch. 43,[64]--a confusion between ‘She was amazed at the alteration,’ etc., and ‘Amazed as she was.’) There are many similar constructions in Shakespeare: cf. ‘Marry, that I think be young Petruchio’ (a confusion of ‘That I think _is_’ and ‘I think that _be_’--Romeo and Juliet, I. v. 133); so, again, ‘Why do I trifle thus with his despair is done to cure it’ (a confusion between ‘_Why_ I trifle is _to cure_’ and ‘My trifling is done to cure,’--Lear, IV. vi. 33).[65] The following are instances of syntactical contamination from various quarters:--‘Showering him with abuse and blows’ (Mary L. Booth, Translation of ‘Abdallah’ by Laboulaye, p. 4,--from ‘Showering abuse and blows upon him’ and ‘Overwhelming him with abuse and blows’).

‘Let us once again assail your ears.... What we have two nights seen.’

(Hamlet, I. i. 31),

(from ‘Let us once again tell you’ and ‘Let us assail your ears with what we....’).

‘Jhone, Andrew, James, Peter, _nor_ Paull Had few houses amang thame all’ (Sir David Lyndsay, The Monarche, Bk. III. i. 4541-42),

(from ‘John, Andrew, etc. _and_ Paul had few houses among them all’ and ‘Neither John, Andrew, etc. _nor_ Paul had many houses’).

‘Thare ryches, rentis nor tressour That tyme, sall do thame small plesour’ (Ibid., Bk. IV., 5504-5; see Skeat, ‘Specimens,’ iii.),

(from ‘Riches, rent, _and_ treasure shall give small pleasure’ and ‘Riches, rent, _nor_ treasure shall give much (or great or any) pleasure’).

‘What with griefe and feare my wittes were reft’ (Cf. Th. Sackville, Mirrour for Magistrates--Skeat, Specimens, iii., p. 287--stanza 18),

(from ‘What with grief and what with fear my wits’ and ‘With grief and fear my wits, etc.’).

‘She was not one of _those_ who fear to hurt _her_ complexion’ (W. Besant, The World went very well then, ch. 26). ‘What Castilla insists’ (= What Castilla pretends + upon which Castilla insists),--Ibid. ‘If our eyes be barred that happiness’ (= If our eyes be debarred from that ... + If (to) our eyes be denied that happiness),--Comus, 343. ‘On attempting to extract the ball, the patient began to sink’ (= On attempting ... ball, the doctors saw that the patient, etc., + when the doctors attempted, ... the patient began, etc.),--Nichol and M’Cormick, p. 56. ‘I must insist, sir, you’ll make yourself easy on that head’ (She stoops to conquer, ii. 1,--a confusion between ‘I must insist upon your making yourself easy,’ and ‘I hope, or demand, that you will make, etc.’). ‘Was ever such a request to a man in his own house?’ (ibid.,--a confusion between ‘Was ever such a request made to a man?’ and ‘Did ever you hear such a request to a man?’). ‘A very troublesome fellow this, as ever I met with’ (ibid.,--A very troublesome fellow this + As troublesome a fellow as ever I met with). ‘There can be no doubt but that this latest step ... has been the immediate result of ...’ (President’s Address, Mechanical Section, British Association, Manchester;--a confusion between ‘There can be no doubt that’ and ‘It cannot be but that’). ‘I prefer to go to London rather than to Paris,’ (a confusion between ‘I prefer going (to go) to London to going to Paris,’ and ‘I would go to London rather than to Paris’).[66]

In many cases the contamination has become usual. We say in English, _I am friends with him_, from ‘I am friendly with him’ and ‘We are friends.’ The Danish popular idiom is similar: _Han er gode venner med dem_ (He is good friends with them). Compare too, the following expressions: ‘a friend _of mine_;’ _Fare thee well_ (a confusion between ‘Keep thee well’ and ‘Fare well’). _On my behalf_ arose out of a confusion of the A.S. _on healfe_, ‘on the side of,’ with a second common phrase _be healfe_, ‘by the side of.’[67] In Greek we find expressions like ὁ ἥμισυς τοῦ χρόνου, a confusion between ὁ ἥμισυς χρόνος and τὸ ἥμισυ τοῦ χρόνου, etc.; in Spanish, _muchas de virgines_, instead of _muchas virgines_ or _mucho de virgines_: in Italian, _la più delle gente_ (Boccaccio). We have a similar instance of contamination in the case of the Latin gerund: _Pœnarum solvendi tempus_ (Lucretius), from _Pœnarum solvendarum_ and _pœnas solvendi; nominandi istorum quam edundi erit copia_ (Plautus, Captivi, IV. ii. 72). Cicero, again, writes, _Eorum partim in pompa partim in acie illustres esse voluerunt_, in which there is a confusion between _eorum pars_ and _ii partim_. Occasionally, a contamination results from the confusion of the active and passive constructions; e.g., _I care na by how few may see_ (Burns’s song, ‘First when Maggie was my care’).

Sometimes an inaccuracy arises owing to the idea of a word which might have been used displacing the word which actually was used by the writer. Thus, for instance, the idea of the inhabitants displaces that of the town or the country: cf. Θεμιστοκλῆς φεύγει ἐς 149 Κέρκυραν, ὢν αὐτὼν εὐεργέτης (Thuc., 1. 136): _Auditæ legationes quorum_ (Tacitus, Annals, iii. 63). Cf. _The revolt of the Netherlands_ (for _the Netherlanders_) _from Spain_; ‘That faction (for _the partisans_) in England _who_ most powerfully opposed his pretensions’ (Mrs. Macaulay.)[68] Here belongs the pleonastic use of pronouns, common in English: cf. ‘I bemoan Lord Carlisle, _for whom_, although I have never seen him, and he may never have heard of me, I have a sort of personal liking _for him_’ (Miss Mitford, Letters and Life, 2nd Series, 1872, vol. ii., p. 160).[69] In Latin and Greek we often find the relative referring to a possessive pronoun, as if the personal pronoun had preceded: cf. _Laudare fortunas meas qui natum haberem_ (Terence, And., I. i. 69);[70] Τῆς ἐμῆς ἐπεισόδου, ὃν μήτ’ ὀκνεῖτε (‘The approach of me whom neither fear ye’--Sophocles, Œd. Col., 730).

We have next to note confusions of the comparative and superlative manner of expression, resulting in combinations like ‘Hi ceterorum Britannorum _fugacissimi_’ (Tacitus, Agricola). Cf. ‘The climate of Pau is perhaps the _most genial_ and the _best suited_ to invalids of any other spot in France’ (Murray, Summer in Pyrenees, vol. i., p. 131). ‘Mr. Stanley was the only one _of his predecessors_ who slaughtered the natives of the region he passed through’ (_London Examiner_, Feb. 16, 1878, p. 204).[71]

A case of contamination sometimes results from the idea of the past time rising into memory simultaneously with that of present time: cf., in Latin, the use of _iamdudum_ when joined to the imperative; as _iamdudum sumite pœnas_ (Vergil, Æneid, ii. 103),--a confusion between _iam sumite pœnas_ and _sumite pœnas iamdudum meritas_, i.e. between the thoughts ‘pray take’ and ‘you should long ago have taken.’ Cf. _Those dispositions that of late transform you from what you rightly are_ (Lear, I. iv. 242), and _He is ready to cry all the day_; cf., also, such instances in Latin as _Idem Atlas generat_ and _Cratera antiquum quem dat Sidonia Dido_ (Vergil, Æneid, ix. 266), where the _effect_ of the action once performed is intended to be brought out by the use of the present.

We often find in English an interrogation with the infinitive, where we should expect a finite verb; as, _I do not know what to do_; where we should rather have expected _I do not know what I should do_. This construction seems a confusion between cases in which the infinitive was directly dependent on the verb without any interrogative, as, _Scit dicere_ (He can say); _Il sait dire_: and such constructions as _What to say? I do not know_. Other instances are _Shelley, like Byron, knew early what it was to love_ (Medwin’s Memoirs of Byron, p. 9); _How have I then with whom to hold converse_ (Milton); _then sought where to lie hid_ (ibid.); _hath not where to lay his head_. This construction is common in the Romance languages; as in French,--_je ne sais quel parti prendre_; Italian,--_non ho che dire_; Spanish,--_non tengo con quien hablar_; Latin,--_rogatus ecquid haberet super ea re dicere_ (Aul. Gellius, iii. 1).

Another form of syntactical contamination is when an interrogative sentence is made dependent on a verb, and, at the same time, the subject of this interrogative sentence is made the verb’s nominal object; as, _I know thee who thou art: You hear the learned Bellario what he writes_ (Merchant of Venice, IV. i. 167): cf., also, Lear, I. i. 272. This usage is common in Latin; as, _Nosti Marcellum quam tardus sit_ (Cicero): in Italian an instance occurs in _tu’l saprai bene chi è_ (Boccaccio).

Similarly, we have cases in which the subject of an objective clause introduced by _that_ becomes a nominal object of the principal verb; as, _All saw him, that he was among the prophets_: so, too, the _object_ of some subordinate clause may be also object of the main verb; e.g., _They demanded £400, which she knew not how to pay_.

We find in English such phrases as ‘SUCH of the Moriscoes might remain WHO demeaned themselves as Christians’ (Watson’s Life of Philip III.)[72] We find in common use such phrases as _such as I saw_ side by side with _the same which I saw_, or _that I saw_. Bacon writes _such which must go before_; and Shakespeare, _Thou speakest to_ SUCH _a man_ THAT _is no fleering tell-tale_ (Julius Cæsar, I. iii). So Fuller: _Oft-times_ SUCH WHO _are built four stories high are observed to have little in their cockloft_. In Latin, we similarly find _idem_ followed by _ut_, as in _eadem sunt iniustitia ut si in suam rem aliena convertant_. In English, again, we find sentences like--

‘But scarce were they hidden away, I declare, _Than_ the giant came in with a curious air’

(Tom Hood, Junr., Fairy Realm, p. 87);

_It is said that nothing was so teasing to Lord Erskine_ THAN _being constantly addressed by his second title of Baron Clackmannan_ (Sir H. Bulwer, Historical Characters, vol. ii., p. 186, Cobbett). We say ‘each time _when_’ and ‘each time _that_’ (similarly, in French we find ‘au temps _où_,’ and, at an earlier period, ‘au temps _que_’); ‘the rather _because_,’ as well as ‘the rather _that_.’

In English we frequently find constructions like ‘Mac Ian, _while_ putting on his clothes, was shot through the head’ (Macaulay, History of England, vii., p. 24); ‘I wrote an epitaph for my wife _though_ still living’ (Goldsmith, Vicar of Wakefield, ii.). In these cases, the predicatival attribute has the same function as a dependent sentence introduced by a conjunction; and consequently the circumstance described is rendered more exact by the placing of certain conjunctions before the simple adjective. So, in French, we say, _Je le fis quoique obligé_; and, in Italian, _benchè costretto_. Similarly, in Latin, many conjunctions are placed before the ablative absolute; cf. _quamvis iniqua pace, honeste tamen viverent_ (Cicero): _etsi aliquo accepto detrimento_ (Cæsar).

Conversely, the fact that dependent sentences and prepositional determinants may have the same function, causes prepositions to be used to introduce dependent sentences. This use is especially common in English: cf. EXCEPT _a man be born_ (St. John iii. 5); FOR _I cannot flatter thee in pride_ (Shakespeare, 2 Henry VI., I. iii); AFTER _he had begotten Seth_ (Genesis); sometimes this usage extends to cases where the strict written language hesitates to accept it as usual; as, ‘_without_ they were ordered’ (Marryat); ‘I hate him _for_ he is a Christian, but more for that--he lends’ (Merchant of Venice, I. iii. 43). _Till_ and _until_ are specially common in this use. Indeed, the prepositional use of these words has almost died out in Modern English, but is frequent in the literature of the Elizabethan age; cf. Shakespeare, ‘From the first corse _till_ he that died to-day’ (Hamlet, I. ii. 105), where _he_ should, strictly speaking, be _him_. Other instances are quoted by Abbott, § 184. It must, however, be particularly noticed that the constructions _for that_, _after that_, etc., may be used instead of _for_, _after_, when these words are used as conjunctions. A preposition also stands before indirect questions: cf. ‘_at_ the idea of how sorry she would be’ (Marryat): ‘the daily quarrels _about_ who shall squander most’ (Gay).

The result of contamination in syntax is often a pleonasm. Thus, in Latin, we frequently meet with several particles expressive of similarity; as, _pariter hoc fit atque ut alia facta sunt_ (Plautus): and, again, we find expressions like _quasi si_; _nisi si_.[73] Thus, in English, we meet with the common but incorrect expression _like as if_. We can connect a preposition either with a substantive or with a governing verb: we can say, _the place I am in_, or, _the place in which I am_. The two even occur in combination: cf. _That fair_ FOR _which love groaned_ FOR (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, I. v., chorus), and, _In what enormity is Marcus poor in...?_ (Coriolanus, II. i. 18). Nay, we often find such expressions as _of our general’s_ (Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, I. i. 1), instead of _of our general_ or _our general’s_; ‘If one may give that epithet to any opinion _of a father’s_’ (Scott, Rob Roy, ch. ii.); ‘He is likewise a rival _of mine_, that is my other _self’s_’ (Sheridan): cf. also the common pleonasm _of ours_. Sometimes, to adverbs of place--themselves denoting the direction whence--is added a preposition with a similar meaning; as, _from henceforth_ (Luke v. 10): cf. ‘I went _from thence_ on to Edinburgh’ (Life of George Grote, ch. ii., p. 187).

Other instances of pleonasms arising from syntactical contamination are: ‘He saw that _the reason why_ witchcraft was ridiculed was _because_ it was a phase of the miraculous, etc.’ (Lecky, History of Rationalism, vol. i., p. 126); ‘_The reason why_ Socrates was condemned to death was _on account of_ his unpopularity’ _Times_, February 27, 1871).[74]

Double comparatives and superlatives pleonastically resulting from syntactical contamination are not unusual in English: cf. ‘Farmers find it far _more profitable_ to sell their milk wholesale _rather than_ to retail it’ (Fawcett, Pauperism, ch. vi., p. 237): ‘Still it was on the whole _more satisfactory_ to his feeling to take the directest means of seeing Dorothea _rather than_ to use any device,’ etc. (Middlemarch, vol. iii., bk. vi., ch. lxii., p. 365). Thus we have in Shakespeare, _more kinder_, _more corrupter_, and _most unkindest_ (Julius Cæsar, III. ii. 187); and _thy most worst_ (Winter’s Tale, III. ii. 180). In poetry, again, we find adjectives with a superlative sense compared; as, _perfectest_, _chiefest_ (Shakespeare), _extremest_ (Milton), _more perfect_ (English Bible), _lonelier_ (Longfellow).[75]

In Latin and Greek, we find the comparative where we should expect the positive; as, _ante alios immanior omnes_ (Vergil, Æneid, iv.); αἱρετώτερον εἶναι τὸν καλὸν θάνατον ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ βίου (Xenophon). In Scotch it is usual to say _He is quite better again_ for _He is quite well again_. We find the positive where we should expect the comparative, as in St. Mark ix. 43; Καλόν σοι ἐστί ... ἤ (It is good for thee than, etc.). We also find the superlative used where the comparative would be regular: cf. Theocritus, xv. 139: Ἕκτωρ, Ἑκάβας ὁ γεραίτατος εἴκατι παίδων.[76]

Pleonasm arising from contamination occurs most extensively in the case of _negations_. Cf. ‘There was no character created by him into which life and reality were _not_ thrown with such vividness that the thing written did _not_ seem to his readers the thing actually done’ (Forster’s Life of Dickens, vol. ii., ch. ix., p. 181). In older stages of English, as of German and French, this usage was very common. Cf. _Parceque la langue française cort parmi le monde est la plus délitable à lire et à oir que nulle autre_ (Martin da Canale);[77] _Wird das hindern können, dass man sie nicht schlachtet?_ (Schiller). In Chaucer and Shakespeare the use of the double negative is common: _First he denied you had in him no right_ (Comedy of Errors, IV. ii. 7). _You may deny that you were not the cause_ (Richard III., I. iii. 90).[78] With this we may compare the redundant negative in Greek after verbs of denying: οὐκ ἀπαρνοῦμαι τὸ μή; and, in Latin, _non dubito quin_: cf. also the use of the double negative in Plautus, _neque illud haud objiciet mihi_ (Epid., V. i. 5). In these cases a negative appears with an infinitive where the main verb itself contains a quasi-negatival force: numerous instances may be found in Shakespeare; cf. _Forbade the boy he should not pass those grounds_ (Pas. Pilgrim, 9).

So we find a contamination of the two constructions: ‘not--and not’ and ‘neither--not’ in cases like Shakespeare’s ‘Be not proud, nor brag not of thy might’ (Venus and Adonis, 113), = Be not ... and brag not + neither be ... nor brag.

Compare also, ‘I cannot choose one nor refuse none’ = I cannot choose one and I can (or may) refuse none + I can neither choose one nor refuse one.[79]

A pleonastic negation occurs in French and other languages after words signifying ‘without:’ cf. Mätzner, Fr. Gr., § 165: _Sans_ NUL _égard pour nos scrupules_ (Béranger); _Elle ne voyait aucun être souffrant sans que son visage_ N’_exprimât la peine qu’elle en ressentait_ (Bernardin de St. Pierre).[80] A curious pleonasm of the article occurs in the following sentence: _No stronger and stranger_ A _figure is described in the modern history of England_ (Justin McCarthy, History of our own Times, vol. i., ch. ii., p. 31); a contamination between _There was not a stronger figure_, and _No stronger figure_.

NOTE TO PAGE 148.

A very interesting and useful little book has been published by Professor Nichol and M’Cormick on English Composition. It came too late into our hands for us to make use of the many instructive and often amusing examples it contains. We subjoin one (from p. 76).

‘The curses of Mr. A. B., like chickens, will come home _to roost against him_’ (a contamination of ‘will be brought up against him,’ and ‘will come home to roost’).

Contaminations will account for many irregularities noted by the authors.