Shi IS I' LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, f\ l# ; 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.} ■ ■ ■ ■ Hi QHytiBH ' ■ a 1 1 ■ m £&3^*vr, HHl i^H IH HH Hi ■ ■ ■ ■ R^*\jw> ^^twv*> YVW^uki* 4* S# s VULGARISMS AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH: INCLUDING A CHAPTER ON TASTE, AND ONE CONTAINING EXAMPLES OF BAD TASTE. ' /^PHILADELPHIA: CLAXTON, REMSEN & HAFFELFINGER, 819 and 821 MAEKET STREET. 1868. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1868, by CLAXTON, REMSEN & HAFFELFINGER, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. PREFACE. Many persons, although they have not enjoyed advantages early in life, have, through merit com- bined with the unrivalled opportunities which this country presents, risen to station in society. Few of them, it must be thought, even if unaware of the extent of their deficiency in knowledge of their lan- guage, are so obtuse as not to perceive their deficiency at all, and not to know that it often presents them in an unfavourable light in their association with the more favoured children of fortune. Few, it must be believed, would not from one motive or the other, from desire for knowledge, or from dread of ridicule, gladly avail themselves of opportunities for instruc- tion. And no one who has travelled, and has seen everywhere, in cars, steamboats, hotels, streets, crowds of well-dressed, presentable people murdering the King's English, will say that, with all that our Pub- lic Schools accomplish, there is not much room for improvement, and that much instruction is not still needed. In view of this, the author conceived that a small work, treating of the most prevalent and gross errors in English, would be an acceptable addition to our PREFACE. books on education; especially, if incorporated in it were some information regarding certain improprie- ties of speech, which in one sense are not errors, but which, in another, are errors, and at once fix the speaker's grade as low in refinement. He also thought that the work might prove suggestive to other writers to occupy the same field. It is folly to suppose that the progress of error in language cannot be stayed, and that we must give way to every innovation. Language, created by man in the exercise of the divine gift of the faculty of speech, is still a slave to execute his bidding. He can fashion it to serve his purpose in any direction that he sees fit; and because, generally, he does not do so deliberately, with express purpose to accomplish each end in view, but does so mechanically, he is not less the absolute master of its destiny. It is a truism to say that, without innovation, there can be no pro- gress in language. It is not progress that any one should wish to impede. It is not innovation, there- fore, that is reprehensible, but innovation without good cause, and, worst of all, innovation for innova- tion's sake. There are, in language, progressive forces in the mass of the people ; conservative forces, in the body of the highly educated. The due pro- portional action of each is necessary to its salutary development and conservation. PREFACE. V With few exceptions, the errors herein noticed are not only errors, but vulgarisms; for, be it known, an error of speech is not necessarily a vulgarism, nor is a vulgarism necessarily an error of : speech, although a vulgarism does generally combine with the fault of exclusive use by the uneducated, that of being in- trinsically wrong. From an occasional lapse, no one, however well educated, is exempt; but such a mistake cannot properly be termed a vulgarism, unless it is one that is habitually made by the illiterate: it is an isolated blunder, associated with nothing but human fallibility. If, on the contrary, a word or a phrase, absolutely correct in itself, comes into use so current as to be associated with the illiterate only, it falls from its high estate and becomes a vulgarism ; and its degradation cannot be in any degree redeemed, either by its intrinsic accuracy, or by the education of the utterer. A few years ago, no one of education would have scrupled to assent to an expression of opinion, by replying, "That is so;" but the use of the phrase, since that time, as a byword, has re- duced it to the level of the lowest vulgarism, and driven it out of correct usa«;e. Throughout this work constantly occur the terms "vulgarism," "the vulgar," "vulgarity." The con- nection in which they are used together, and the similarity of the words, coming as they do from a VI PREFACE. common stock, may lead some readers to think that the author believes them to be correlative terms. This is not the case. The phrase u the vulgar" has two distinct meanings. In one, it signifies merely the illiterate; in the other, it signifies the preten- tious : those who, to whatever station they may claim to belong, are in a false position. One may be illit- erate and not be vulgar ; one may be literate and even highly gifted, and yet be vulgar ; and lastly, one may be both illiterate and vulgar. One out of his sphere, occupying a position for which he is not fitted by nature or by education, or by both, is vulgar, whether he was born in a hovel or in a palace. Vulgarity depends entirely on the relative refinement of the sphere in which one moves. Complete immunity from it is the privilege of no society. Therefore, to one sense of the phrase " the vulgar," must the idea of " vulgarity" be attached. To the other sense, meaning merely the illiterate, belongs the word "vulgarisms," which may more properly be termed illiteracies. The reason why those very errors which are not held to be disgraceful as belonging to one class of people are rightly imputed as disgraceful to another class, is solely because the sense of justice in all society holds none accountable for ignorance of what they never had an opportunity to learn, while it PREFACE. Vll visits with ridicule those who, surrounded by all the usual accompaniments of high station and by facili- ties for acquiring education, seem not to notice that in the brilliant setting of their life is absent the jewel which only can confer lustre on rank. The world sees the sham, laughs at it, and probably will laugh at it to the end of time. If, before reading these lines, persons of more gen- eral information than those for whom this work is designed, should have chanced to read the introduc- tory chapter on ' The Study of English/ they may have been surprised that the author should not have qualified his praise of English erudition by mention- ing the fact that a late Report to Parliament proves that, in the English Public Schools, Colleges, and Universities, there is no special training in the lan- guage of the country. * The author, deeming that the fact does not militate against the assertion which he made in that chapter, purposely omitted mention of it there, in order to avoid a long digression, and reserved his notice of it for this as the more appro- priate place. * The ' Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners ap- pointed to inquire into the management of certain Col- leges and Schools,' presented to Parliament, March, 1864, Vlll PREFACE. In the chapter on i The Study of English' there is to be found no assertion that in English institutions of learning sufficient attention is paid to the study of the vernacular. Not entertaining that belief, the author could not have made that assertion. Long before the Report to Parliament made public the state of affairs, he was sure of the fact which the Report establishes. It had from time to time been de- plored by English writers. English schools, then, are admitted and always have been admitted by him to be lamentably deficient in affording special training in the native language. What he asserted was, that the thoroughness of English education (thorough except in the one particular under con- sideration), created a large body of conservatives in language, and this he reaffirms. Many believe that school is a great treasury of knowledge, whence each scholar bears away all the wealth of knowledge which he will ever be capable of transporting. Much more properly may it be likened to a mental gymnasium, whence the faculties, improved by daily exercise, go forth into the world and grapple with realities tasking all their powers and, after accomplishing wonders, still leave undescried possibilities for the efforts of future minds. Why is it that the study of the Greek lan- guage, for which few of those who learn it find use PREFACE. IX after quitting the academic halls, has always been held in high estimation ? Simply because the perfec- tion of its construction, and its philosophic genius, ren- der the study of it an admirable mental discipline. While one may admit, as the English themselves do, that their scholastic courses neglect the study of the native language, one may at the same time main- tain that the scholars themselves are a force conserva- tive of the language Leaving School, College, or University, the English youth leave them with no superficial instruction. In whatever they have learned, they are well grounded. The thoroughness of their training in the classical languages has been some train- ing in their own language ; the station which, as a mass, they occupy in society, is a still more efficient means of training in it ; and many of them, after leav- ing the institutions in which they were educated, pay special attention to it, their knowledge of other lan- guages being a basis for sure and rapid progress. In any case, being highly educated, they form necessarily a highly conservative body of men, and the literary power vested in them is more efficient from being centralized in large universities and cities, to which they, as educated men, naturally gravitate, and to which the country looks with deference as authority in language. That, in this condition of affairs, as compared with ours, corruption has less chance sue- X PREFACE. cessfully to attack and injure the purity of the lan- guage, will probably be generally conceded. The author trusts that he does not natter himself in thinking that his work is all that it professes to be. Whether it can effect any good, only the Public can decide, and to them he commits it in the hope of its meeting with their approbation. CONTENTS. Preface, chap. 1. tt 2. tt 3. « 4. 't 5. tt 6. tt 7. ft 8. tt 9. tt 10. tt 11. ft 12. ft 13. tt 14. tt 15. ft 16. ft 17. tt 18. ft 19. tt 20. tt 21. tt 22. A list of The Study of English, . Slang, . . . . Want of Simplicity, Indelicacy, . Vulgarisms consisting in the inappropriate use of words correct in themselves, . Vulgarisms consisting in the contraction of words, Vulgarisms consisting in using words in a wrong sense, Vulgarisms consisting in the mispronuncia' tion of anglicized words, . Grammatical errors, .... Grammatical errors — continued, . Minor Grammatical errors, . Confounding of shall and will, Use of the wrong verb, Use of the wrong noun, Use of the wrong' word (miscellaneous), Single negatives and double negatives, Obsolete, obsolescent, and local, . Tautological phrases, . Miscellaneous words, phrases, etc., Taste, Examples of bad taste, Concluding remarks, some of the most vulgar pronunciations, PAGE. 3 5 18 22 34 39 51 55 62 68 81 87 92 98 108 117 128 134 136 142 153 160 179 185 CHAPTER I. THE STUDY OF ENGLISH. The study of English by those whose native language it is, has increased in favour since, of late, in England and in the United States, the question has been discussed, Whether, even con- ceding that too much attention is not paid to Greek and Latin, too little is not paid to the modern languages, and especially to English. In England, when education was possessed by few, those, of course, belonged to the aristo- cracy, to the gentry, and to the "middle classes," whose homes and society were schools of the na- tive language. Under the circumstances, it is natural that the classical languages should have unduly enlisted the attention of teachers, as necessary to be imparted to youth ; not only on account of their intrinsic beauty, and that of the works composed in them, but on- account of the insight which they give into English itself.* * " There be two special considerations which keep the Latin and other learned tongues, though chiefly the Latin, 6 VULGARISMS Such education, inapplicable in the course of time to England, — for, whh increased know- ledge among all classes, she has outgrown the ideas upon which it was based, — was always in- applicable to this country, where stability of government depends, not on mere Democracy, but on an educated democracy; — the capacity of an educated people to administer a Govern- ment "of the people, by the people, and for in great countenance among us : the one is the knowledge which is registered in them ; the other is the conference which the learned of Europe do commonly use by them, both in speaking and writing. We seek them for profit, and keep them for that conference ; but whatever else may be done in our tongue, either to serve private use or the beautify- ing our speech. I do not see but it may well be admitted, even though in the end it displaced the Latin, as the Latin did others, and furnished itself by the Latin learning. For is it not indeed a marvellous bondage to become ser- vants to one tongue, for learning' sake, the most of our time, with loss of most time, whereas we may have the very same treasure in our own tongue, with the gain of most time ? — our own bearing the joyful title of our liberty and freedom, the Latin tongue remembering us of our thral- dom. I honour the Latin ; but I worship the English." — Mulcaster, Master of St. Paul's School, as quoted by Isaac Disraeli, in his ' Amenities of Literature.' AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 7 the people ;" — where education must be general in its diffusion, and practical in its character. Nevertheless, education in this country, ex- cept that in the Public Schools, partook of the English practice of cultivating the classical languages, and comparatively neglecting the vernacular; until within a very few years, when commenced a powerful and still progres- sive movement, in favour of introducing many practical branches of study. This movement has already effected great changes in the former scholastic courses, and one evidence of its power is to be found in the interest awakened to the study of English. Even within a few months, this interest has been manifested anew, by the publication of several works which have at- tracted attention both in England and in this country, and given increased impulse to the study. The first of these works, consisting of a series of articles contributed by the Eev. Henry Alford, Dean of Canterbury, to an English pe- riodical called ' Good Words,' and afterwards revised and published in a volume entitled ' The Queen's English,' brought out a host of critics 8 VULGARISMS in England and Scotland. An interesting liter- ary tournament ensued, in which the lists were relinquished to Dean Alford, and a Mr. G. Washington Moon, now well-known, by whom the Dean, after a spirited contest, was signally worsted. Yet, although Mr. Moon convicts the Dean of many flagrant errors, the work of the latter contains much valuable information. It is, however, a dangerous work to peruse, unless the reader possesses some critical knowledge. Dean Alford's book had also the effect of in- citing Mr. Edward S. Gould to publish his work entitled ' Good English/ Mr. Moon's new-gained celebrity led to his writing critical essays for the 1 Round Table;' in the course of which essays, he criticised the style of the Hon. George P. Marsh's contributions to the ' Nation.'* That these writings have had, and will con- tinue to have, a beneficial effect, in instructing, and in leading to still farther study of our lan- guage, is very evident. But although, consider- * At the present writing, there is progressing, in the 1 Round Table/ a controversy between Mr. Moon and Mr. Gould, in relation to the general accuracy of Mr. Gould's book. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. V ing their character, they enjoy a wide circula- tion, it is relatively circumscribed, as is also the case with the standard works by Karnes, Camp- bell, Blair, Trench, Harrison, Lowth, Priestley, Walker, Sheridan, and others. Their influence on the people, to whatever degree existing, is indirect. In general, the points discussed con- sist of niceties in language, far above the popu- lar range. Most philologists suffer to pass un- noticed, as if unworthy of their attention, errors which they know must eventually establish them- selves in the language ; for none know so well as they, that language is made chiefly by the people,* and that whatever error in it the people definitively stamp with their approval, ceases to be spurious, and becomes genuine coin- age. Our language has heretofore sensibly im- proved, and it is now remarkable for its energy, copiousness, and elegance. It is important that,' while we admit it may still farther advance, we should put in action forces conservative of its * The great philosopher, the great man of science, the poet, and others, often coin words by the prescriptive right of genius. 10 VULGARISMS purity, and determine that, while it shall not be restricted in aught that will add to its power, it shall be kept from degradation. To this point, Mr. Moon, in his Preface to the fourth edition of his book, approvingly quotes Schlegel, who says: "The care of the national language is at all times a sacred trust. Every man of education should make it the object of his unceasing concern to preserve his language pure." Dean Alford remarks, that "the language of a people is no trifle. The national mind is reflected in the national speech." It especially behooves us, who possess no Academy, like that of the French, no cities in which literary power is concentrated, to know, and to act upon the knowledge, that we lack the conservative elements which maintain the integ- rity of a language. Granting the continued ex- istence of Paris and the French Academy, and that of London and the English Universities, the people in the rest of the respective coun- tries containing those centres of learning might speak what jargon they please, the French lan- guage, and the English language, would be pre- served in their purity, although, necessarily, AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 11 they would cease to be progressive.* From such centres go forth the laws — not affirmed by decrees, but by usage — that regulate and con- trol the language of a country. They, in the * Dean Trench says : " The French Academy, contain- ing the great body of the distinguished literary men of France, once sought to exercise such a domination over their own language, and if any could have succeeded, might have hoped to do so. But the language recked of their decrees as little as the advancing ocean did of those of Canute. They were obliged to give way, and in each successive edition of their Dictionary to throw open its doors to words which had established themselves in the language, and would hold their ground, comparatively in- different whether they received the Academy's seal of allowance or no." The Academy, no doubt, expected and attempted too much; but that it exercises great influence on the lan- guage should be apparent. Is it to be supposed that works so admirable as the tomes which the Academy elaborates* with the greatest care have no influence on. French writers! Through them, the influence of the Academy is felt. The Academy exercises just such a conservative influence as does any body of the educated — with this advantage, that it has the weight derived from the literary distinction of its members, from organization, and from publication. That it sways great power is sus- ceptible of demonstration, but the fact stands to reason. 12 VULGARISMS cases instanced, may not be able to teach the the cockney elegant English, nor the badaud* elegant French ; but, at least, the languages are safe from the illiterate of both capital and pro- vince. The provincial language of England and of France has never, as is the case in our coun- try, been the same as that of the great towns and cities ; but if pure language has not permeated the provinces, it has, to make amends, been pre- served in its own purity. In this country, the same language is spoken from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. What regulates it? The best usage of the mother country is not generally regarded as binding, and no city, no district of our own, can lay down law which will be obeyed. We are, at the same time, a people inhabiting a country vast in extent, varied in climate, amid new scenes, and surrounded by un- precedented elements of progress: circumstan- ces, each of which is capable of causing great accessions to and alterations in language. All the causes which, unheeded, tend to degrade a * The Parisian cockney. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 13 language, are in full action among us, and scarcely any of the conservative ones to keep them in check. We read and write prodigiously. We are great talkers of slang and contemners of usage. We have no court of appeal.* This country is certainly destined to be inhab- ited by a greater number of English-speaking people than will occupy any other portion of the globe; judge then of the influence, for good or * When the writer remarks that there is, in this coun- try, no recognized authority in English, he refers merely to the non-recognition of a superior usage emanating from some city, district, or country. He does not mean to assert that there is among us no recognition of fixed gram- matical principles, which, saving some few trifling points unsettled, regulate the mutual dependence and arrange- ment of words and clauses, however much the rules de- duced from them may be infringed, and still leave the language comprehensible. To be explicit then : — Ameri- cans recognize, in pronunciation, no supreme authority or standard ; but, in the construction of their language," they recognize a standard of fixed grammatical principles and rules. In England, France, and the other countries of Europe, both are recognized. The reason for the dif- ference is that there is not. in this country, as there is in Europe, a distinct body of people of education and refine- ment, whose words make the law in words 14 VULGARISMS for evil, that it must exercise on our mother- tongue. Would it not be well if we, until there shall exist among us some recognized authority, some supreme arbiter in language, should individ- ually exercise greater care in it, and also invite discussion of it among ourselves, thereby ex- posing flagrant popular errors of the day, which otherwise will soon become engrafted on it. There is, in this country, attending the re- action in ideas about education, danger of tem- porary error, from which England is exempt, owing to the conservative power mentioned, de- rived from the amount, character, and central- ization of education in that country. * * If we consider the youth of this country, as compared with the age of England, we shall be able, without humili- ation, to acknowledge that, in the aggregate, the educa- tion here is inferior. But whether we can or cannot per- ceive it, will or will not acknowledge it, it is a fact. To use a homely illustration : — If education in the respective countries could be boiled down in separate pots, England's, or, more properly, Great Britain's would afford the larger yield. Her books, her newspapers, her magazines, show by their number, and by their character, that they cater for an aggregate of cultivated taste greater than that in AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 15 The reaction unhappily chimes in with an idea too popular here, depreciatory of the higher orders of education. Owing to the circumstance that the people have not realized the object to be attained by a finished education, because the education which generally they possess, answers their present needs, an undervaluation of it for its own sake, of all knowledge that is not con- sidered practical, — by which expression is meant, not directly convertible into money , — has become quite prevalent. This is an extreme to be as carefully avoided as the one which devotes to the study of the classics the greater portion of the time at the disposal of most of our youth, thereby neglecting the so-called practical, and really valuable, studies which are happily coming more and more into this country. Her ancient civilization, the structure of her society, her great seats of learning, the incentives which she holds forth to literary distinction, fully account for this fact. We have many people educated ; she has fewer, but better educated. Her education being central- ized in her Universities, and in her large towns and cities, exerts a commanding influence over the language and literature of the whole country. 16 VULGARISMS Edward Everett said, in some remarks which he made before the Cambridge High School: "I hold, sir, that to read the English language well, that is, with intelligence, feeling, spirit, and effect ; to write, with despatch, a neat, handsome, legible hand, (for it is, after all, a great object in writing to have others able to read what you write;) and to be master of the four rules of arithmetic, so as to dispose at once with accuracy of every question of figures which comes up in practical life, — I say I call this a good education ; and if you add the ability to write pure grammatical English, with the help of very few hard words, I regard it as an excellent education."* How many reach this standard? Even if many do, what might have been true, would, with a higher grade of general education, cease to be true. He who thus defined education, when it reached a certain point, to be good, and when it reached a certain other point, to 1>e excellent, would have been one of the last men to argue that a higher education is not desirable, and that the opportunity to acquire it is not to be eagerly seized. * Everett's Works, Vol. II., pp. 601, 602. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 17 It is a great error to hold that all education beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic, is a waste of time. This observation may at first sight appear to the reader to offer a gratuitous insult to the good sense of the people ; but it is nevertheless true, that thousands of persons who should know better entertain that opinion ; and this is the case among many of those constitu- ting what is called the business-community, a very large class in this country. All knowledge is practical. It is a chain con- sisting of an infinite number of links, of which we cannot precisely determine the relative value. Ignorance of this, conspiring with the reaction that has set in against " non-practical educa- tion,'' can hardly fail to prove gravely prejudi- cial to the cause of enlightenment in our country. VULGARISMS CHAPTER II. SLANG. Before treating of errors in speech, the way for the subject should be prepared, by exposing certain practices which, although not errors in the sense in which the word was previously used, are hurtful to language. First in order among these shall be noticed — as it is first in importance— the language called slang, which pervades too much of the conversa- tion even of the refined. Harrison remarks, that " Colonization has a tendency not only to add to the words of a language, but also to corrupt it. New scenes, new objects, new habits of life, call forth new expressions, at the same time that words, in many cases, deviate from their original signification. Many words have crept into the English language, in America, which are quite new to it ; others have changed their meaning ; others are merely fanciful. From America, we have adopted to progress^ to effectuate. Clever, AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 19 in America, has gained a meaning which it does not express in England ; as, a clever house, a clever son, a clever cargo. Slide, hedge, boss, absquatulate, are from America ; nor do we quite understand what is meant by a tall smell." It would be easy to cite many examples in which words have either deviated unwarrant- ably from their primitive meanings, or, retaining those meanings, have subserved the purpose of slang. It is not desirable that people should cease- lessly strive to speak with elegance every sentence which they utter ; if they did, all conversation would be stilted: but it certainly is desirable that slang should not be recognized as an accept- able addition to the language of the educated. In the writer's hearing, not long since, a very respectable man, who has some pretension to education, inasmuch as he is a publisher, found no better expression to describe the position of an influential person in a certain business, than to say, that he was "at the top of the heap." Slang is especially offensive in woman, to whom we are pleased to ascribe delicacy of taste. Yet how often do we not hear her introduce it into 20 VULGARISMS conversation ! " He has the stamps/' said, lately, in a public place, a young woman who would have been mortified to think that she had pro- duced a bad impression even on a bystander. On occasions, very rarely, a slang expression may with propriety be used, to describe what is otherwise indescribable. Nothing but hifalutin can at present convey to us the idea of the most vapid sort of bombast; nothing but spread- eagle, that of the style of the Fourth-of-July oration of the past; nothing but shoddy, the grandeur of vulgar insignificance. But let even these, and similar words, die with the occasions that gave them birth. They may be tolerated in the conversation of friends. If they may be suf- fered to pass there, which is questionable, they are inadmissible in addressing a stranger, or a slight acquaintance. Familiarity is insulting, and slang is familiar. Let it never be considered as having a foothold in our language, but as separate and apart as is the cant of thieves and gypsies. " You git," and "I bet," may, in the frontier-like life of California, serve well enough to express "Get out," and " You may rest assured that I AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 21 will;" but a higher general civilization scorns such phrases.* Enough has been said on this topic. The memory of every one will suggest many examples in point. * It must not be inferred from this remark, that civiliza- tion in California is of a low grade. A new country is necessarily settled by adventurers of an inferior as well as of a superior class. The former, in such a region, acquire a prominence which they can no longer maintain when it is well populated. Probably no city in the world, of equal size, can exhibit a population superior to that of San Francisco, VULGARISMS CHAPTER III. WANT OF SIMPLICITY. Next in faultiness to the use of slang, comes the practice of using exaggerated expressions, in speaking or in writing about the simplest subjects. In this, a certain allowance must be made in the case of youth, and in that of the language of compliment, by whomsoever used, young or old. Youth is so imaginative, that its enthusiasm irradiates whatever comes within its view ; so in- experienced, that it does not comprehend the relations of things. Compliment is so well-esta- blished as the language of insincerity, that, to convey sincere praise, — to avoid the appearance of flattery, — it must be conveyed indirectly, by implication, or else with the frank assertion that what is said is not intended as a mere compli- ment. This is only another way of saying that compliment is the language of exaggeration, for truth is clothed only in the language of simplicity. Nevertheless, by one of those subtle processes by AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 23 which the mind seeks to deceive itself, it is osten- sibly given and received as something, while, really, it is regarded as nothing. ^pWith all due admission of the qualifications noted, the use of inapplicable terms and exag- gerated expressions is far too common. " It was an awfully hot day." "I suffered in the cars, frightfully, from heat. " " When we reached our destination, we had a horrible dinner. ' ' Why not go a step farther, and say, "I was obliged to occupy an appalling bed for the night ?"._. This extravagant style does not always pro- ceed from inexperience of life ; it is very fre- quently cultivated, under the impression that it enhances the interest of what is said. But what is the real effect? All beauty in nature, all beauty in art, consist in proportion, in delicacy of light and shade and colour, judicious contrast, blending into one harmonious effect. In this style, the matter is obscured by incongruous materials. Besides, the word-painter has. used them so lavishly, that they will not last him, however abundant they may be. In such a style, the words do not represent the ideas which the speaker should wish to convey. They have 24 VULGARISMS no fixed value. They must be judged by the criterion of each individual's character and edu- cation; whereas, they should have a standard value. The most flagrant instance of this vicious mode of expression, that ever came under the notice of the writer, was heard by him a few months ago, in a street-car. As the car rolled along, a young woman, bedizened with finery, and fluent in speech, descanted, partly for the benefit of her companion, and partly for that of the rest of the passengers, on the stores and other places of business on the route. Every- thing attracted her attention, excited her enthu- siasm, and prompted her remarks. Her volu- bility was quite unequal to the task of keeping pace with the quick succession of her frivolous ideas. The first store to which she directed the at- tention of her companion, she called elegant. That was not very wrong, although the store was not elegant ; but, having employed a super- lative term to describe a thing of moderate pre- tensions, the next store, more attractive to her, received the compound epithet, splendid-elegant. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. ZO Curious to know what expression could be in reserve, the writer listened attentively. The car soon passed a combined restaurant and confec- tionery. Doubtless, the pleasant recollection of some lunch after shopping, or supper after the theatre, flashed upon her ; for breaking forth into a clattering and incoherent eulogy on the place and its appointments, she ended breath- lessly with the words elegant-gorgeous. One of the most active agencies engaged in the degradation of our language is the style adopted by many reporters and correspondents for the press. It is not the stage only that possesses the fellow that tears a passion to tat- ters, to very rags. The fault, however, is not wholly chargeable to these writers ; part of it lies at the door of their public. The writers know — who, indeed, generally know so well? — what will please the majority of their patrons. Yet, not in every case, not in the greater number of cases, is this style adopted to please them. It is often the result — tolerated, if not countenanced, by many news- papers — of allowing employes to make the most, in space, of every subiect on which they write; 3 26 VULOAKISMS to dwell on petty details ; to indulge in trite* philosophical reflections; until the reader, in despair, mentally exclaims, " When shall I come to th8 point?" One species of this composition was called in a late number of 'The Saturday Review/ tail- lashing. The youthful reporter is represented as a lion, which, having secured a precious mor- sel of something, it matters not what, takes it aside and gnaws and rends it, with growls and lashings of the tail. The awed spectators are to understand that this lion has a precious morsel, so precious that no lion ever had such a one; and, moreover, that this identical lion is the only one which could do adequate justice to its dissection. Such a writer is by a grain of sand reminded of a desert; by a mouse, of the fur-trade. The subject having been chosen by him, or suggested to his mind by an occurrence, or forced on his at- tention by the revelation of a crime, — in any case, in all cases,- — he opens the floodgates of his erudition, and deluges it with words. He "rides in the whirlwind, and directs the storm." AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 27 Another species of this composition is over- laden with petty and often incongruous details, in the statement of the simplest matters of fact. If even poor John Smith's house catches afire, and the fire is put out in a few minutes : — " Last evening, flames were discovered issuing from the portal of the residence of our respected fellow- citizen, John Smith, Esq. The firemen, with their usual alacrity, were promptly on the spot. The street was soon a scene of wild commotion and uproar, which, with the devouring element, formed a toute ensemble of grandeur and subli- mity. The coup d'oeil soon became truly mag- nificent, the flames having reached a small wood- en shanty, next door, in which was confined a remarkably fine poodle belonging to Mr. Simp- kins, the grocer opposite, favourably known to the public for his superior article of teas, whose howls awakened the sympathies of the by- standers."* * The introduction of petty details often results in the blundering exhibited ; in which the coup oVceil is de- . scribed as magnificent, when a shanty catches afire, and the howls of teas awaken sympathy. 28 VULGARISMS Another species of composition is in great favour with reporters, and with some of " our own correspondents" who write from watering- places, and consists chiefly of slang terms, stereo- typed phrases, and trite quotations. A man is a biped. A woman is a feminine. A child is a juve- nile. A dog is a canine. Fingers are digits. Feet are pedal extremities. Oysters are bivalves. A ball is a hop, where "all went merry as a marriage-bell," while the guests "tripped it on the light fantas- tic toe,"* and did not separate until "the wee small hours ayont the twal." f If a hotel-keeper is merely civil, he is "Mr. So-and-so, the gentle- manly proprietor." A ball was " the hop of the season." " The Ladies (God bless them !), were lovely" — "the elite and fashion" — "fair women and brave men" — "revelry by night" — "ban- quet-hall deserted." Fill up the spaces, and you will have such a letter, and perhaps many such letters are written on that plan. * The original is : — " Come, and trip it, as you go, On the light fantastic toe." f The original is : — " Some wee short hour ayont the twal/' AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 29 In many theatrical criticisms, such a farrago of nonsense, foreign words, foreign phrases, puf- fery, fustian, never was strung together until these latter-days. } The employment of a foreign word in con- versation, or in writing, is legitimate only when the writer has no equivalent in his own language. Why should we employ foreign words when we have equivalents in our language ? Why, generally, do our dramatic critics speak of an actor, or an actress, as an artiste ? Why do they call the part of an actor, or an actress, a role? There is for using the word repertoire the valid excuse that we have nothing to substi- tute for it, except a paraphrastic expression; but what excuse can there be for using the words artiste and role, instead of our words, actor and actress, and part ? «A preposition used as if governing the nom- inative case of personal pronouns. (No. 2.) " From he who," etc- The phrase "from he who' 'is sometimes spoken, but oftener written, owing to the fact that the sentences in which it occurs are seldom used 72 VULGARISMS in conversation; as, "We expect most from he who has had most advantages." The person who speaks or writes such a sentence imagines that the relative pronoun who cannot refer to him, or her (me, us, them), but must always refer to he, or she (I, we, they), or to the nouns which these words may represent. /^ — - We cannot say from I, from he, from she, from we, from they. The two following sentences exhibit the proper combinations: — " We expect ' most from him, or her (them) who has (have) had most advantages." " Expect nothing from me (us) who am (are) too poor to bestow." Remember that the word that is sometimes a mere substitute for who or which, and then ex- amine the following sentences : — " Visitins:: the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hace me : And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments." A few weeks ago the writer met with this sentence in print: — " Ought we to esteem the man who faces danger, or he who deceives ? Es- teem he ! The last clause should be — "or him who deceives." AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 73 - Personal pronouns used in the objective case, instead of in the nominative case. " It is me/' etc. The expressions, "It is (was) me," — "It is (was) him," — "It is (was) her," — "It is (was) them," — are all incorrect. The verb To Be, of which is and was are parts, takes the same case after it as before it. The word it is nominative to is (was) ; and me, him, her, them, must there- fore be in the nominative case, respectively — I, he, she, they. "It is (was) I," — "It is (was) he,"— "It is (was) she,"— "It is (was) they," are correct expressions. We sometimes hear even the gross error of two words in the objective case, used as nomina- tives to a verb; as, " Him and me went." No one ever says, " Us went," yet, "Him and me went," is the same mistake; as him and me are equivalent to us— all three being in the objective case, instead of in the nominative case — -he, I, we. The sentence should be, " He and I went." Personal pronouns used in the objective case, instead of in the possessive case. 74 VULGARISMS " Him staying/' etc. Me, him, and them, the objective cases of the personal pronouns I, he, and they, are often incorrectly used for the possessive cases, my, his, and their ; as, "I do not like him staying out so late at night.'' The sentence should be, "I do not like his staying out so late at night." One sentence expresses an idea entirely different from that expressed by the other. The former states that the person referred to is not liked when staying out late at night, and implies that he is liked when not staying out late at night. But the liking or the disliking the person cannot depend on his staying out at night, and that is not the idea intended to be expressed. What the speaker dislikes is not the person when stay- ing out late at night, but the person's staying out late at night — the act. Whether we should use the word him, or them, or the word his, or their, depends upon what idea is intended to be conveyed. " I saw him skating," means that I saw him, and he was skating. "I saw his skating," meaiis that I saw the quality of his skating. ^^ We heard them singing," means that we heard them en- AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 75 gaged in the act of singing. " We heard their singing/' means that our attention was particu- larly attracted to the singing. " I did not notice them passing," means that, as they passed, I took no notice of them. " I did not notice their passing," means that their passing escaped my observation. Her has not been introduced into the preced- ing examples, because her is the possessive case as well as the objective case of she: that is to say, more precisely, the possessive case and the objective case have, in this instance, the same form. "> A personal pronoun used instead of one of the demonstrative pronouns. u Them things/' etc. The personal pronoun them is frequently used for the demonstrative pronouns these, those; as, "them things," — " them people," — "them ap- ples," etc. One might as well say, "him car- riage," — " him store," — "him nose," — " me eye," — "me paper," — "me pen." The demonstrative pronouns distinguish be- tween two sets of things, mental, moral, or 76 VULGARISMS physical — these relating to the more near, those to the more remote. They is a personal pro- noun, and can be prefixed to nouns only when it is in the possessive case — their; as, their things, their apples, etc. We should say, these things, those things, these people, those people, these apples, those apples, etc. *- — -^ , A relative as an interrogative pronoun, used in the nominative case, instead of in the object- ive case. \. Who used for whom. "Who did you see ?" The error in this sen- tence will readily be perceived by putting it into another form; thus, " Who saw you?" — the' very reverse of what is meant to be said. ( J?ut it into another form, by reversing the last, and it is, " You saw who ?" which, if correct, so is, " You saw he?" — " You saw she?" etc. But it is not correct.) It should be, " Whom did you see?" or, " Whom saw you?" or, "You saw whom?" Turn it as you please, you cannot now change the meaning of the sentence. ; A relative pronoun used in the objective case, instead of in the nominative case. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 77 Whom used for who. TA.S in the expression, "Who did you see?" who is incorrectly used for whom, so, in the fol- lowing one, whom is incorrectly used for who.\ From a newspaper — such expressions are common in print and in conversation — the follow- ing clause is taken : — " For the benefit of those whom she thought we.re his friends." The error in it can be at once rendered apparent by enclosing in brackets two words which are par- enthetical. It then reads : — " For the benefit of those whom [she thought] were his friends. Wlwm were his friends! The wording should be, u who she thought were his friends. "<^ Of all the errors heretofore noticed, this is the one which most frequently escapes detection, because parenthetical words conceal it. A pronoun in the plural number used as if agree- ing with an antecedent in the singular number. " A person — if — they." It is incorrect to say, " A person must be very short-sighted if they cannot recognize a friend twenty feet off." Here we have, in the plural, they j referring to a person. The word one 78 VULGARISMS must be substituted for both a person and for they ; thus, " One must be very short sighted if one cannot recognize a friend twenty feet off."*^ A verb in the singular number used as if agree- ing with a nominative in the plural number. "It is one of the subjects that is," etc. "It is one of the subjects that is" etc. " In one of the houses that has" etc.- In sentences like these, where the word one is used, followed by several words, among the last of which are a noun in the nominative plural, and its relative pronoun, nominative to a verb immediately succeeding, it is quite common to hear the verb put in the singular number. In the first example given above, that relates to subjects ^which is plural, and therefore requires are: — " You was' ' is frequently heard in New England, and, apparently, is gaining ground elsewhere. Its introduction originated in the reasoning, that, whereas you is employed in the singular number, as well as in the plural, when so em- ployed it should not be applied to a verb in the plural. Now we cannot legislate in this way about language. You is employed for both the singular number and the plural number, and 80 VULGARISMS good usage says that in both it shall have the verb in the plural form — were. (^ It is by no means anomalous for a verb in the plural number to be united with a noun or a pronoun in the singular number. We say, and correctly say: — " If the gardener were to do the transplanting now," — "If the letter were writ- ten," — " If it were to rain/' — "If I were you/' — "If I were going," — "If he were going." Here are nouns and pronouns, in the singular number, nominatives to a verb in the plural num- ber : a mode reserved for the expression of a cer- tain idea — contingency. To be consistent with you was, its advocates would not only have to abolish this subjunctive form of the verb, but also to say, in the verb To Have? "You has/ 9 in the verb To Bo, "You does" No one is willing to go quite so far as that, except perhaps the negro-minstrels, who, in one ol their burlesques, say, "You am n't;" its being a matter of indif- ference to them what they say, so that it is^ laughable. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. CHAPTER X. GRAMMATICAL ERRORS — CONTINUED.* " I have saw," etc. Many persons who do not say "I done" and "I seen,' 9 do say, "I have saw." This may be evidence of the truth of the hackneyed line from Pope — a little learning is a dangerous thing. Seeing, being a con- scious act more continuous than any other that human beings perform, and the recounting of what has been seen forming the staple of most conversation, it happens that in a community where general education is far above saying 1 seen, numbers of persons, having been corrected in it, fall headlong into the error of " I have saw. 9 ' The same mistake is apparent in the following item from a late paper: " and family have arrived in Washington, and took (taken) up their quarters for the winter," etc. * Vulgarisms. — Confusion of tenses. 82 VULGARISMS "Have went" as well as false collocation in other verbs, often escapes notice, owing to the circumstance that one part of the verb is in one clause of a sentence, and one part of it far removed in the other, or in another, if there are more than two clauses ; as, "I have walked four or five miles, and, although much fatigued, went to a dozen places." The same persons who could say this without perceiving the error, would see and use the relation between have and been in the following similarly constructed, but correct sentence :— " I have walked four or five miles, and, although much fatigued, been enjoy- ing myself." If this is right, and it is right, the preceding sentence should be, "I have walked four or five miles, and, although much fatigued, gone to a dozen places.' ' In a late paper this passage occurs : — " Hold a mirror so that Planet Jupiter may be reflected in it, when two of the satellites may be seen with the naked eye. So says a correspon- dent. We have tried it, and saw (seen) satellites of Jupiter," etc. In a late issue of an English magazine of note may be found the same erro- neous construction, with the verb To Come. "Gen- AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 83 eral Hawley had, by the aid of our Highlanders, beat down two little stone walls, and came (come) in upon the right flank of their second line." Saw is not preceded by an auxiliary verb. Seen must be preceded by some part either of the auxiliary verb To Have, or of the auxiliary verb To Be; as, I have seen, — He has seen,— She had seen, — We shall have seen, — It is seen, — It was seen, — We were seen, — They had been seen, — It should have been seen, — etc. Did is not preceded by an auxiliary verb. Done must be preceded by some part either of To Have, or of To Be ; as, I have done.— He has done, — They had done, — They will have done, — It may be done, — It is done, — It shall be done, — It was done, etc. "I done,"— "1 seen,"— " I have saw,"— "I have went," — should be, "I did" — "I sazo," — a I have seen," — " I have gone." I see for I saw. Persons sometimes say, "I see him yesterday," instead of, "I saw him yesterday." The words of the first example represent an impossible association of ideas. What happened yesterday, 84 VULGARISMS and what happens to-day, cannot be thus con- joined. To see is present, ' yesterday is past. One might as well say, "I see him to-morrow/' instead of saying, "I shall see him to-morrow," as say, "I see him yesterday." The error is precisely the same, although in the one case mention is made of yesterday, and in the other, of to-morrow. There are, however, certain cases, where the ideas of frequent repetition, of constant presence, or of eminent existence, are involved, where the expression I see can be employed in speaking of what is temporarily past; as, "I see him about the city," — "I see by the papers," — "I see by Hume's History, that he says" etc. Of a distinguished author, we always say, "He writes" — "He says" Of such a one, we sup- pose that his works are animate with the spirit which he breathed into them, and that, through them, he still speaks. We may even say of the opinion of an ordinary person, " Mr. says ;" because the view reported is supposed to be based on a fixed opinion, and always to find utterance in the same expression. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 85 Come for came. One of the most common mistakes is the use of come for came; as, "I come to town this morning/' — " He come to my store. " Gome is present, came is past. The sentences should be, "I came to town this morning," — " He came to my store." Has began for lias begun. Has began for has begun is frequently said ; and also begun for began; as, "He has began to study German," — "He begun to get noisy." Began is the imperfect tense of the verb To Begin, begun is its perfect participle. The sen- tences should be, "He has begun to study Ger- man," — " He began to get noisy." Were drank for were drunk, *~^>A very common error is, "The following toasts were drank." The sentence should be: — " The following toasts were drunk'* Plead for Pleaded, Plead, mispronounced pled, is frequently used for pleaded; as, "He plead (pled) guilty to the indictment." The sentence should be, "He pleaded guilty to the indictment."/ ^C^ To Plead is a regular verb. The present is plead (pronounced pleed), imperfect tense, 86 VULGARISMS pleaded (pronounced pleeded), perfect participle, pleaded (pronounced pleeded). " Had ought to," and " Had n't ought to." Were it not that the writer is informed, on good authority, that the New Englandisms, Had ought to and Had nt ought to are making pro- gress among us, he would not include them in his list of popular errors, from which were to be excluded those errors that are confined to one section of the country. Ought has only one inflection — oughtest, which is seldom used, because it requires to be pre- ceded by thou, which, at present, is never em- ployed, except in the solemn style of writing. The idea conveyed by the word ought is posi- tive in its nature. We may with propriety say, "He ought to do so and so;" or, 4C He ought to have done so and so." The obligation implied is specific : it admits of no qualification. If a man ought to do so and so, he is under the obli- gation of doing it; if he ought to have done so and so, he was under the obligation of doing it. He cannot with propriety say, " I had ought to do it," — "I had ought to have gone out,"— "I hadn't ought to do it," — "I had nt ought to have gone out," etc. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. CHAPTER XI. MINOR GRAMMATICAL ERRORS. "I wanted very much to have gone," etc. The next popular error to be treated of is not confined to the illiterate, but is often found even in the writings of good authors. It is the use of two verbs in the past time, when only one should be in that time. Lindley Murray says, " Expected to have found him, is irreconcilable alike to grammar and to sense Every person would perceive an error in this ex- pression: — i It is long since I commanded him to have done it.' Yet 'expected to have found,' is no better. It is as clear that the finding must be posterior to the expectation, as that the obedience must be posterior to the command."* There are sentences, of course, in which the use of the perfect infinitive is not only proper, * These remarks are taken by Murray from very nearly the exact words of Dr. Campbell, whom, with Dr. Lowth ; he cites in support of his position. 88 VULGARISMS but necessary ; as in the following one given by Murray: — " It would ever afterwards have been a source of pleasure to have found him wise and virtuous.' \ But there are thousands of cases in which the perfect infinitive is employed, where the present infinitive should have been sub- stituted. For instance, you will hear persons say, " I wanted very much to have gone,"-Jm*, " He was very glad to have been there.'! If these sen- tences are meant to express the idea that one had wished something disagreeable to be over, they are correct ; but if they are meant to ex- press the idea that the actons spoken of are agreeable to the persons, they do not express it, but, on the contrary, imply the very reverse. Yet it is the latter idea which they are generally intended to express. Let us analyze them. " I wanted very much to have gone" — t^He was very glad to have been there." \ In the first example, what I wanted was not to have gone, but to go, because I had not gone. 1 In the second example, he was not very glad to have been there, but to be there, because he was there. \ In such cases, the first AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 89 verb is sufficient to fix the time as past, and however long past, the associated verb must be present; thus, "I iv anted very much to go" — " He ivas very glad to be there.'; The expression, "Ifeelverj glad to have been there," or, " He is very glad to have been there," conveys ideas very different from those conveyed by the sentences which have been condemned. In these, the time is established with relation to the present, and must be past. In those, the time is established with relation to the past, and must be present. ^- ► Repetition of tliat. In a late paper the following sentence occurs : "It does not follow that, because there are no national banks of issue at the South, that there is necessarily an insufficiency of currency there." In this sentence, there is an unnecessary repe- tition of the word that. It should read thus : — " It does not follow that, because there are no national banks of issue at the South, there is necessarily an insufficiency of currency there;" or, " It does not follow, because there are no national banks of issue at the South, that there is necessarily an insufficiency of currency there." 90 VULGARISMS J> Sometimes the word that is improperly omitted. In the same paper occurs this expression : — " Such, at least, is the reasoning of the ladies, and we suppose they are right." The proper wording is, " we suppose that they are right." In conversation, however, omission of the word tha^ if not too frequently indulged in, is not only correct, but preferable. -^Especially to fa- miliar conversation, which aims less at precision than at ease, many things are permitted that would be intolerable in writing. The manifest misuse of the word that, has no doubt led many persons to omit it where, other- wise, they would have employed it. Admirable practice with respect to its use, as well as with respect to English generally, is to be fmnd in Macaulay's writings, which are models of con- ciseness and perspicuity in style. The postscript to the 80th number of the Spectator, headed " The just Remonstrance of af- fronted That," and referring to the word that, not as a conjunction, as in the above-cited examples, but as supplying the places of the pronouns who and which, concludes thus: — "I am not against reforming the corruptions of speech you mention, AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 91 and own there are proper seasons for the intro- duction of other words besides That; but I scorn as much to supply the place of a Who or a Which at every turn, as they are unequal always to fill mine; and I expect good language and civil treatment, and hope to receive it for the future : That, That I shall only add is, That I am, " Yours, "That." VULGARISMS CHAPTER XII. CONFOUNDING OF SHALL AND WILL. It is not within the scope of this work to treat of all the shades of meaning that can be expressed by the combination of the words shall and will with the pronouns only, and with the pronouns and the verbs. A few examples of the ordinary mistakes in the use of the words when used in the first person must suflice. Shall, in the first person, predicts. Will, in the first person, implies volition, certainty, power to perform.* * That the use of shall and will, in the first person, as differing from their use in the other persons, is not founded on a purely arbitrary distinction, will be clear to the reader from the following considerations : The first person singular is always the speaker ', but not always the agent. When the first person singular is not only the speaker, but the agent also, he can, in that double ca- pacity, not only predict, but he can promise. He can say either, "I shall" or "I will." But from the moment when he ceases to be the agent, the power of willing departs from AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 93 When shall is used in the first person, it re- lates to what the user believes will come to pass, but what he does not assert his power to control ; as, "I shall be there to-morrow," — "I shall buy it," — " I shall find him prompt," — " I shall soon be thirty years of age." Will, in the first person, asserts what, although it may prove to be out of the user's power to accomplish, is promised on the presumption that the power exists. One cannot, however, promise the accomplishment of what depends on him and resides in another person, or in other persons, and he is constrained to say, thou wilt, he will, ye or you will, they will : except in one case, where he possesses power over another or others, and then he can say, thou shalt, he shall, ye or you shall, they shall. To con- dense : So long as the speaker, either as the agent or as the master of another, possesses power to control, he can say, I will, you shall. When he is neither the agent, nor the master of another agent, he nmst say, you will. It only remains to add that, when used with shall and will, the first person plural we is subject to the same rule as that controlling the first person singular I; because, although the word we involves the idea of the existence and action of at least two free agents, their action is con- certed, and by means of the inclusive term we, can be expressed even by one of the number. 94 VULGARISMS another free agent, or of what, by its nature, is immutable. Therefore, reverting to the above examples, although one can say, " I will be there to-morrow/' — "I will buy it," one cannot say, "I will find him prompt," — "I will soon be thirty years of age." It should be evident that the ascertaining of another to be what he is thought or hoped to be, is out of any one's power, and also, that controlling periodicity is equally out of any one's power. Whatever idea concerns one's beliefs, hopes, fears, pains, likes, and dislikes, cannot be ex- pressed in conjunction with the words I will. To demonstrate this, let us examine the three follow- ing sentences: — 1. I think that I will go. 2. I hope that I will be there. 3. I fear that I will drop it. 1. If one will go, he intends to go, and his going cannot be doubtful to his own mind, as the word think implies. If he is in doubt, as the word think implies, he cannot say, I will go, which indicates the determination to go. The first sentence, therefore, should be, "I think that I shall go." 1 AND OTHER ERROHS OF SPEECH. 95 2. If one will be at a place, there is no use of his hoping that he shall be there, for he knows thac he intends to be there, as he knows what is passing in his own mind. If he merely hopes to be there, which implies doubt, how can he say that he will be there? The second sentence, therefore, should be, "I hope that I shall be there." 3. If one loill drop a thing, how can he fear dropping it. If he fears dropping it, how can he say that he will drop it ? The third sentence, therefore, should be, " I fear that I shall drop it." The two ideas in each of the sentences, as first M given, are incompatible with each other. If it seems rational that, in the case of what relates to beliefs, hopes, and fears, to which the three preceding examples respectively belong, we cannot properly use the expression J will, equally - rational must it seem, that in the case of pains, likes, and dislikes, the other three circumstances enumerated, the expression is not applicable. How can one say, "I ivill have a headache," — "I ivill like the performance,"— " I will dislike the city ?" Of these and such subjects, one may prophetically say, I shall, but not I ivill. 96 VULGARISMS Except indirectly, the power to control the result lies not in the speaker. Shall, is very seldom used for will. Scarcely any one would say, in answer to the question, "Will you meet me at twelve o'clock to-morrow?" — "I shall.' 9 The question calls for a promise by way of answer, not for a prophecy. It is will, as has been shown, that is frequently used for shall. The writer has in his possession a news- paper article, in which will for shall is used four times in two consecutive paragraphs, as follows: — "We will possess/' — "We will find," —"We will have,"— "We will have" (No.2);- all of the words being used in the sense of pre- diction, not of possessing power to control, and therefore incorrectly used instead of shall. Confounding of should and would. ^ Used in the first person, as futures, in combi- nation with other verbs, should and would are analogous to shall and will — should correspond- ing to shall, and would to will: should simply predicting, would asserting power to perform.* * Should is often used in a sense which has been des- cribed as defining the requirement of custom, as contra- distinguished from the obligation of duty, indicated by the AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 97 One should not say, u I knew that I would be sea-sick." What is intended to be expressed is a lively presentiment, which had mentally, and perhaps verbally, taken the form of a prediction. The sentence should be, " I knew that I should be sea-sick." "I would be pleased to have you dine with me," means that "I should like to be pleased to have you dine with me;" which is as much as to say, " As matters stand, I am not pleased to have you dine with me." All such expressions as "I would like to go," — " I ivould prefer to see it," — " I ivould be de- lighted," — are incorrect; all meaning the reverse of what the speaker intends to say. They should be, "I should like to go," — "I should , prefer to see it," — "I should be delighted." Just as, in the first person, in the case of shall and will, will is frequently used for shall, but not shall for will; so, in the first person, in the case of should and would, ivould is fre- , -quently used for should, but not should for would^—- word ought. We say, "I should not lose the opportunity of hearing so great a prima donna." " He should dress better," etc. Should, however, is frequently used in the stronger sense, implying duty. VULGARISMS CHAPTER XIII. USE OF THE WRONG VERB* Lay for Lie. - : Lay is frequently used for lie; as, "He laid down"/' — " He was laying down." The confounding of the two verbs To Lie and To Lay originates in the circumstance that the form lay belongs to both verbs. One can lay a, thing; down. The thins: can be laid down. But it lies (not lays) on the table, ground, or wherever it may be placed. One can lay himself or herself down. But, in so doing, he or she lies (not lays) down. "He lay (not laid) down at three o'clock." " She was lying (not laying) down." "They had lain (not laid) down."/ In 'Childe Harold,' Byron says, —in some near port or bay, And dashest him again to earth : — there let him lay." That, however, was done, by poetic license, to get a rhyme for bay. * Vulgarisms and other errors. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 99 ^> Set for Sri. Set is often used for sit; as, "Set down for a moment.' ' The sun sets, but a human being sits. A hen is generally said to set, but she does not — she sits. < ~ *— ~7 X^ for Lighted. "The gas is Kfc," is often said, instead of, "The gas is lighted." The word lit may be used as a colloquialism, but it should not.be writ- ten, unless in representing conversation. -Lit for Lighted or Alighted. \/ - Lit is frequently used for lighted or alighted; as, "The cat lit on its feet.'' The word is a 7 / colloquialism. - Rise for Raise. Rise is sometimes used for raise; as, "Help me to rise this chest." The sentence should be, "Help me to raise this chest." Raise for Rise. Raise is often used for rise ; as, " How many feet does the tide raise?" The sentence should be, " How many feet does the tide riseT'^C^ Wrench for Rinse. " Wrench off those dishes," and similar ex- pressions, are constantly heard, not only among 100 VULGARISMS servants, but among people who should know better than to use them. Dr. Elwyn, in his ' Glossary of supposed Americanisms/ citing Brockett and Holloway as his authorities for the derivation of the word rench, adds, "The New England pronunciation is hardly so strong, but is reus;" which remark agrees with the writer's observation. Dr. Elwyn and they, be it observed, do not suppose the word to be wrench, but rench, an old word with the same sound, and signifying to rinse. Whatever may formerly have been the case, the illiterate now say and intend to say wrench, for rinse.* Allow for Say. "He allowed "is sometimes used for "he said;" but it seems to be employed as a more forcible expression than " he said " — rather more in the sense of promised, asserted, affirmed; as, "He allowed that he would give me a ticket,"- — \J"He allowed that he could not be mistaken," — " He allowed that he would sooner die than do such a thing. " / In any one of these senses, * Brockett gives "rencJi to rinse. Isl. (Icelandic) hreinsctj to make clean. Dan. reuse, to clean. Swed. rensa, to cleanse." AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 101 or in that of to say, it is a vulgarism of the deepest dye. These senses are corruptions of that meaning of the verb To Allow, which signifies to admit, to acfawivledge. We can with propriety say, " He allowed (admitted) that, the arguments were forcibly presented, "^^ He allotued (ac- knowledged) that he had been in the wrong." *^. Learn for Teach. Learn is frequently used for teach; as, "I will learn you how to do it." The verb To Learn, with that meaning, was used by Shakes- peare and other old writers, and when they wrote, was good English; but, among the edu- cated, it was obsolete even in Dr. Johnson's time, and it has not been revived.<^ Love for Like. Although the word love may be applied to many things less exalted than those capable of inspiring the passion of love, there are limits beyond which it cannot properly be used. In its least strong sense, it signifies a lively affection for an object. One may, without shame, say that he loves books, that he loves 102 VULGARISMS the Fine Arts, that he loves Nature. All of these things concern one's mental being. [_JWe say of a miser, that he loves money; not be- cause we recognize money as a proper object of love, but because we wish to convey the idea of the intensity of the passion mastering one who hoards, j ** — • It is evident, therefore, that one cannot with propriety speak of loving food. If persons really mean what they say, when they speak of loving oysters, cake, ice-cream, etc., it is con- fessing a deplorable circumstance, which they would do better to keep to themselves. Like is the proper word toyise of the best dish that ever came to tafr^/And, well-cooked dishes are good, excellent, delicious, exquisite, what you will — anything but elegant " This pie is elegant," may be heard at half the hotels in the country. Magnificent beef and splendid coffee are not uncommon. How the word predicate ever came to be used in the sense of to base as, " He predicated his opinion on the conviction," etc., is a mystery. The word affirms of something, that it involves AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 103 something else. Contentment is predicated of virtue — that is, contentment is assumed to be the consequence of living virtuously. General good health may be predicated of a sound constitution. The word conveys the idea of the existence of an inseparable adjunct. Agreeably Disappointed, for Agreeably Surprised. Some words, etymologieally considered, have a right to a certain meaning, but do not possess that meaning. They have had it and lost it. There is no reason why one coming to an expected point (ad punctum) should not, on finding it more agreeable than anticipated, be agreeably J/sa/ppointed. But it so happens, that usage makes the verb To Disappoint mean, to encounter something contrary to our wish or desire, vexatious ; and, consequently, we cannot be agreeably disappointed, although we may be agreeably surprised. Prejudiced for Prepossessed. " Prejudiced in favour," is an expression to which, etymologieally, there is no valid objection. Prejudice means, primitively, premature judg- ment. But although premature favourable judg- 104 VULGARISMS ment can be formed, as well as premature un- favourable judgment, to the word prejudice is reserved the expression of the idea of premature unfavourable judgment. \ Tell any man, literate or illiterate, that another "has a prejudice," or, "is prejudiced" (without saying favourably or unfavourably), and what does he understand ? — that the feel- ing in the mind of the one spoken of is ad- verse to the person or the thing mentioned. Under the same conditions, tell any man, literate or illiterate, that another "has a pre- possession," or, "is prepossessed," and he will understand just the reverse of the last concep- tion — that the sentiment is favourable. And jet prepossession means simply the prepossession of the mind by a prejudgment. Of course, as there are two sides to every question, a prejudice, being adverse to one side, must necessarily be favourable to the other; but this action is indirect, and we cannot there- fore draw from the circumstance the inference that prejudice itself may be favourable^ Etymol- ogically considered, as has been remarked, it may be favourable, but usage makes it unfavourable. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 105 Prepossessed, when used alone, is used in a good sense, and prejudiced, when used alone, is used in a bad sense. We also say, " Prepossessed in his favour," — "Prejudiced against him." It therefore sounds like a contradiction in terms, to hear " Prejudiced in his favour." We hear, without violence to our idea of congruity, " pre- possessed against him." The reason of this is, that the word prepossessed is not employed so exclusively in a good sense, as the word preju- diced is in a bad one. Dickens, in his Preface to i American Notes for General Circulation,' published in the 'Dia- mond Edition' of his works, says, " Prejudiced I am not, and never have been, otherwise than in favour of the United States." He therefore holds, if he wrote what he meant to write, that it is possible to be prejudiced in favour. How- ever, great as is the genius of Dickens, he cannot, after deliberately endorsing "Our Mutual Friend," besides other solecisms in English, be reckoned in the category of very correct writers. Get Tinier Weigh for Get Under Way, We frequently see printed, " The ship was " getting (or got) under weigh" 106 VULGARISMS To weigh (heave up) the anchor of a vessel, is to perform an operation preliminary to putting her on her course. To get under way, is to execute the manoeuvre which includes the weighing of the anchor, the setting of the sails, — or, in the case of steamers, the movement of the engine, — the stationing of the helmsman, and, in fact, all the operations incidental to a vessel's movement on her course. To have got under way, is to have completed all of these operations, and to have a vessel moving under the guidance of her helm. Signalize for Signal. It would be hazarding little to say that, twenty years ago, the verb To Signal was em- ployed as descriptive of the telegraphing between vessels at sea ; and that the verb To Signalize is a substitute which has gained favour chiefly since that time. To signalize should be reserved for the ex- pression of the idea of one's distinguishing one's self by some glorious deed, or for that of an action's enhancing the brilliancy of any attribute or lesser quality possessed by man, as " Horatius AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 107 Codes signalized himself by the exploit of de- fending, single-handed, the bridge over which Porsenna's army was endeavouring to advance," or, " He, on that occasion, signalized his valour and his skill in arms." The addition of the syllable ize to the verb To Signal, is even more objectionable than its ad- dition to the verb To Jeopard; because the change in the former, unlike that in the latter, makes the verb in appearance and in pronunciation identical with one of an entirely different signification. VULOAEISMS CHAPTER XIV. USE OP THE WRONG NOUN.* Balance for Remainder. ^ All expressions, in which balance is used instead of remainder, are incorrect; as, "The balance of the morning/'— -t" The balance of the army retreated," etc. The word balance marks the relation between the two sides of the same thing. Etymologically, it relates to scales — balances. In correct usage, it is applied to the adjustment of accounts, or to things which from their nature may be likened to accounts ; as, " Our accounts balanced,'" — " There is a balance outstanding against him for his rascally behaviour." Remainder, on the contrary, relates to what is left of a single thing, or set of things, persons, ideas, or whatever, in fact, is susceptible of being reckoned as a part or as particulars of one whole; as, " The remainder of the cake," — * Vulgarisms. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 109 "The remainder of the trinkets,"— hiiThe re- mainder of the guests," — " The remainder of the arguments, speeches, toasts," etc.; Balance, with its legitimate meaning, was and is used in the language of trade, and there ac- quired the corrupt meaning with which it has entered popular language.-— Reference for Recommendation. ^Reference is frequently used instead of recom- mendation. For instance : A servant girl, seeking a situa- tion, refers to some one with whom she has lived, as being willing to recommend her. In so doing, she gives her reference, not her recommendation. Yet the person who wishes to employ her, in case that the recommendalion prove satisfactory, often speaks of " getting her reference" the very thing which had been obtained. < ~ Preventative for Preventive. No mistake is more common than the use. of 'preventative for preventive; as, " Quinine is a great preventative of Chills and Fever, as well as a remedy for the disease." There is no word, preventative. (We should say, " Quinine is a . ~"~ 7 great preventive,'" etc. 110 VULGARISMS Notoriety for Distinction* The word notoriety, when used in relation to persons, is restricted to a bad sense — the mean- ing of unenviable distinction. Yet it is some- times applied to a distinction which the user regards as praiseworthy ; as, " He attained great notoriety in the best society of London." .Within a few days, the writer saw this sentence in print: "It (a play) brought him in what he then wanted, viz., notoriety ." When applied to persons, the word notorious, even more than the word notoriety, emphatically marks a bad sense ; as, " His conduct was noto- rious" We can, without dispraising, employ these words, and also the word notoriously, in relation to alleged facts. Even then, however, they do not convey the idea of commendable prominence in the associated agents, but merely that of wide-spread public belief in occurrence. .< We can, for example, say: — "lam surprised that you did not hear of the affair, considering its notoriety" — "That intel- ligence, not meant for the public ear, constantly transpires, is notorious" — " Measures for a suc- cessful outbreak had notoriously been precon- AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. Ill certecL" The nature of the subjects generally characterized by the words proves that, even when not applied to personal publicity, the bad sense of the words predominates. As applied to facts, the words are either con- demnatory or non-committal. As applied to persons, they are always condemnatory. Wife for Woman, Girl, Lady. " He married his wife lately." A man cannot marry his wife. He can marry a girl, he can marry a woman, he can marry a lady; but he cannot marry his wife. The woman is not his wife until he has married her, and as soon as she is his wife he cannot marry her. "He married a wife from New York." Well, then she with whom he went through the cere- mony is liable to prosecution for bigamy, and he is liable to prosecution for — something else, if he knew that she was married. "He married a Western woman," — -"He married a girl from the East," — "He married a lady of this city," — "He married a widow," are all correct expressions, which may be varied still more, and, with appropriate changes for 112 VULGARISMS difference of sex, be applied to the expressions commencing with, "She married/ Most readers probably remember the anecdote told of Sheridan, to the effect that, when coun- selled by his father "to take a wife," he replied, "Certainly, father, whose wife shall I take?"* Hall for Entry. In feudal times, the hall was the great room of the castle, the place where its chief and his family eat their meals at the head of the table at which sat their retainers also, each placed according to his rank. The word has several other legitimate applications ; as, for example, " The Hall" meaning the manor-house of large estates, — "The servants' hall" meaning the sitting-room allotted to servants, — " The Halls * The English Bible is high but not faultless authority in our language. We there find the expression, " married a wife." There seems to be no reason why, in that place, the original Greek word yvvdina should not be translated looman. That is the primitive sense of the word, and we have no reason to believe that, in the passage alluded to, it was used in other than its primitive sense. The context is the only guide to indicate when the word should be translated ivoman, and when it should be trans- lated wife. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 113 of Congress/'— " A Musical Rail" — any large room devoted to the purpose of assembly. y In all applications of the word, size and adaptation to an assembly are indispensable to the constituting of a hall. The calling an entry a hall is therefore a misapplication of the term. In this country there are, as a general rule, no halls in dwellings. ,/When, however, a house is so constructed, as is sometimes the case, that there is a large room at the entrance, through which communication with the rest of the house is established, it may properly be styled a hall. But to apply the term to the largest entry, is more absurd than to call it a corridor ; which at least means a passage-way in a building, although it does mean a magnificent passage-way, and the building in which it is must be an edifice. The misuse of the word hall has come from the petty motive of trying to exalt small things by high-sounding names. The effect naturally produced is to debase them. Residence for House. y The use of the phrase "my residence," for the phrasG " my house" from whatever motive it may now proceed, originally proceeded from that 114 VULGARISMS attributed in the last paragraph ; people having been actuated in this case, as well as in the other, by the desire to imply magnificent cir- cumstances. My residence is a grand name for my house When thus used, as synonymous with house, the phrase is incorrectly used./ A man may have many residences, but can dwell only in one house. He may have many residences and dwell nowhere. Nearly every person has some one place which, however little he may stay there, he recognizes, and others recognize, as his home. If he is in foreign parts, he, on being asked where he lives, mentions his country ; if in his country, he men- tions his city or his town; if in his city or town, he mentions his domicile. It is evident, there- fore, that residence in a place, whatever duration it may have, does not, so long as it is regarded as temporary, constitute living in that place, in the sense with which we speak of one's living in such and such a country, or in such and such a city, or in such and such a house. What is true of the word residence, meaning the act of residing, is also true of its derivative, the word residence, meaning house — that is, as residing does not AITD OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 115 mean living permanently, so neither does resi- dence mean home. The difference between living or divelling, and residing , may be thus exemplified : — " Mr. Jones lives in America, but he is residing abroad.' ' "Many Southerners used to live, during the winter, on their plantations, and, during the summer, used to reside at the North," — "Mr. Brown's house is in this city, but, during a por- tion of the year, he occupies one of his country residences,"— "Lord has four large estates, and an establishment in London, and he goes so constantly from one residence to another, that he may be said to have no home." It will be perceived that these terms are not interchangeable. In a word, when a person resides long; enough in a house to constitute it a home, it ceases to be a residence, and becomes his dwelling, domicile, house, home. "My house," although it may also signify "my property," is synonymous with "my home" We generally live (not reside) in this or that house (not residence). When we can properly use the words reside and residence, depends upon circumstances, and can in every case be easily 116 VULGARISMS ascertained, if considered in the light thrown on the subject by the preceding remarks and ex- amples.* * The only consideration that should reconcile us to the word residence, as synonymous with the words house and home, is the circumstance that this use of the word may be regarded as presenting a truthful picture of the social as- pect of the United States. "With no law of primogeniture, and peopled by an energetic democracy, a country where success achieved by one generation of a family cannot be maintained without the personal exertions of their descend- ants, presents a peculiar phase of civilization, in a nomadic social condition, in which the tenure of none is so secure as rightly to be deemed more than residence* In the prevalent use of the word residence, in the for- mula of funeral notices, there may lie a deeper meaning than we imagine. Certain it is, in view of the fact that, at longest, man's stay on earth is but a brief sojourn, nothing can be more appropriate than one's speaking of a person's being buried from his "late residence." AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. CHAPTER XV. USE OF THE WRONG WORD (MISCELLANEOUS) .* Only for Except or Unless, Instead of the word expressive of a certain idea, another, expressive of a totally different idea, is sometimes employed. On a sign-post, near Albany, appears the fol- lowing notice : — " The cars will not stop at this station, only when the bell rings. " It is clear that this wording informs the passengers that the cars will stop, not only at times when the bell rings, but also at other times ; from which intimation they would be justified in concluding that the cars would alio ays stop at the station, whether the bell did or did not ring. The notice should be : — " The cars will not stop at this station, except when the bell rings ;" or, better still, ' ' unless the bell rings. ' ' If desired, the word only can be retained, merely by omitting the * Vulgarisms and other errors. 118 VULGARISMS negative ; thus, " The cars will stop at this sta- tion, only when the bell rings. Contemptible for Contemptuous, A person sometimes says of another, "I have a very contemptible opinion of him." Under the circumstances, to laugh in one's sleeve is admissible, the difficulty is to avoid laughing out- right. A man once said to Dr. Farr : — " Sir, I have a contemptible opinion of you." " Sir," replied the Doctor, " that does not surprise me : all your opinions are contemptible."* Contemptuous relates to the feeling of con- tempt experienced by the mind; contemptible, to the object which excites contempt. Due for Owing. The use of due for owing is a very common mistake, and is sometimes made by good speakers and writers. We may say, "It is due to such and such a one, to state that he has," etc. This is a legi- timate use of the word due, which, in the con- nection, refers to a verbal acknowledgment, the * The same anecdote is related of Porson. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 119 justness of making which resembles the obligation of a debt. But we should not say, " The success of the scheme was due solely to his exertions ;" we should say, " The suceess of the scheme was owing (attributable) solely to his exertions." In for Into, The expressions " He walked in the house/' — " He jumped in the cellar," — and all similar expressions, are incorrect, with respect to the use of the word in instead of the word into. "When one is outside of a place, he may be able to get into it ; but he cannot do any thing in it, until he has got into it. Quite for Considerable or Large, 44 He inherited quite a fortune," — "He has quite an amount of building materials on hand." All expressions like the preceding ones, in which the word quite is used as if relating to a noun, are incorrect. It must relate to an adjective. We may say, " He inherited quite a large fortune;" or, " He has quite a large amount of building materials on hand." In these sentences, quite is an adverb, qualifying the adjective large. In those, it was incorrectly used, as if qualifying the nouns fortune and amount. 120 VULGARISMS We can say quite tall, quite short, quite bril- liant, quite insignificant, etc. ; but not quite an amount, quite a number, quite a fortune, ''quite a house, quite a man — the last a very common expression applied to big boysTj <^1_ J^> Some for Somewhat. (* *£>/%* /SWe is often used for somewhat, especially in New England; as, "He is some better to-day,"<^ — " He reads some and writes some and walks some every day." Any for At Ml. ^> -Awy, in the sense of at all, can be used in such phrases as, "He does not feel any better (or any worse)," — " He does not ride anymore,' 9 etc. ; but we should not say, "He does not write any," — "He cannot see any,"-^Kt present, he does not walk any," — " She has not learned to dance any." Convenient for Near. The use of convenient, as signifying conducive to comfort, is a correct application of the word. " y As things which add to comfort must necessarily be easily obtainable, accessible, therefore near, a misuse of the word convenient, as a synonyme for near, has obtained currency. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 121 To say, "The provision store is very conve- nient" meaning that it is very convenient to be able to avail one's self of the provision store in general, or of a provision store in particular, is correct; but to say, " The provision store is very convenient" or " very convenient to the house,'' meaning that it is near the house, is incorrect 2 although it is true that the nearness of a store is an important element in its convenience. Nearness, or .easiness of access, or general attainability, are, in all cases, merely incidental to the idea conveyed by the word convenient. ^p* Either, Or— Neither, Nor — Not, Nor. " It was neither for his benefit or for that of any one else," — " It was not done either for the one reason nor for the other," — " She is not amiable or sincere." All of the preceding sentences are incorrect. Or is the correlative of either; and nor, of neither and not.tCThe sentences should be: — "It was neither for his benefit, nor for that of any one else," — "It was not done either for the one reason or for the other,"—" She is not amiable nor sincere." 122 VULGARISMS Bad for Badly. -——> "He feels very bad" is sometimes said as descriptive of one's feeling very sick. To feel bad is to feel conscious of depravity ; to feel badly is to feel sick.* Either is often improperly used instead of each. The following example of this is given by Mr. Seth,T. Hurd, in his c Grammatical Correc- tor:' Like is often improperly used for as. One can say — " Just like me"j&s a child answers its playmate's "I went up one pair of stairs/J But one should not say — "Just like I did." Yet we hear such expressions as, " Like we used to do" — "Like we did yesterday." Like is followed by an objective case, not by a nom- inative case and its verb. -^^ Stopping for Staying. We read every day in the newspapers, or hear in conversation, that So-and-so is stopping at such and such a hotel. * The Douay Bible has, " They crucified him, and with hiin two others, one on each side, and Jesus in the midst." f The Douay Bible has. " On both sides of the river was the tree of life." 124 VULGARISMS ^> To stop is to bring progress to an abrupt ter- mination. VXteie can say, "I stopped for a moment/' indicating a pause of -that duration. Strictly speaking, the pause cannot have longer duration : it is convenience that dictates a modi- fication of the meaning of the word. We may therefore say that a person stopped for an hour or two. Manifestly, greater latitude of con- struction is inadmissible. The attempt to enforce it leads to a palpable_yiolation of the idea which the word represents^ A man cannot stop for a week or a day. If he stops, he stays, until his journey, or his locomotion of whatever sort, is resumed. The proper expression therefore is, that So-and-so is staying at such and such a hotel. ^™* Hardly for Hard. The labourer is worthy of his hire, but he would not wittingly make the appeal that is sometimes made for him — to receive promptly his Jiardly-e&xne& wages. ^^ Hardly-earned is scarcely earned — that is not earned. Hard-earned is the proper phrase. Occasionally we read even of a man's dying hardly. / In the account of an execution is to be AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 125 found the following sentence : — " He died rather hardly, owing to the noose slipping after he had dropped," etc. If he died hardly, he hardly died, and was unmercifully hung. ( The writer of the description meant that the man died hard, which might, or might not, have been the exe- cutioner's fault. Minny for Minim, or Minnoio. A very small fish is a minim, or a minnoio, not a minny. The word in the best usage is minnow. Such for So, ^ Such relates to quality ; so relates to degree. (jOne can with propriety say, "I never saw such a man, such a house, such a, view ;" because, the expressions involve the comparison of quality, not that of degree; but \ one cannot with pro- priety say, " I never saw such a handsome man, such a fine house, such a beautiful view, because the expressions involve the comparison of degree, not that of quality. One should say, "I never saw so handsome a man, so fine a house, so beau- tiful a view. The phrases, such a high, such a long, such a wide, such a narrow, and all similar ones, are incorrect, and should be, so high, so long, etc. 126 VULOAEISMS Most for Almost Most, as an adverb, means in the greatest degree. Almost, compounded of all and most, is an adverb, and means, very nearly. It is incorrect to say, "They see each other most every day." This implies that they see each other less every nightjjtnste&d of stating that they see each other nearly (or almost) every day. Couple for Two, ^>Any two things of the same kind, joined naturally, artificially, or morally, can be correctly spoken of as a couple. The word is not appli- cable to two of the same kind of things, merely because they are two in number. The Siamese Twins are an unusual couple, but certainly a couple, besides being two. A man and his wife are a couple. A yoke of oxen is a couple. Even such things as two volumes of a work com- prised in two volumes may be called a couple. < *— Omary for Ordinary. Ornary is a corruption of the word ordinary. The writer's hearing it in early life was confined to its application by the low to the low, and to the restricted sense of lewd. Later in life, he again AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 127 met with, the word, in one of the States which shall here be nameless, where it is habitually used by a very respectable class of people who apply it not only in the sense of lewd, but in that of ordinary and bad. Thus used, its effect is at times somewhat startling; for a person will speak of another as being very ornary, meaning leivd, and will address his child reproyingly, with, "Oh, you ornary little thing," meaning simply " You naughty little thing." The word in either sense is shocking, and should never pass the lips of any one. VULGARISMS CHAPTER XVI, SINGLE NEGATIVES AND DOUBLE NEGATIVES .* " Did not do (or say) nothing." The very head and front of the offendingin the use of two negatives must not be allowed to escape notice. _In English two negatives make an affirmative. (To do-nothing is to be in a state of inaction, not to be in that state is, of course, to be in a state of action. I Therefore, to say, " I did not do nothing" — t^I did not say nothing^ — is to say ? "I did somethmg" — ^/J-said something. \ (There are cases in which it is proper to use two negatives. For if one be unjustly accused of having done nothing, he may with propriety reply, "I did not do nothing" — meaning, as shown above, " I did something.^ There are many sentences in which two nega- tives are used intentionally and correctly, and aid in forming a more elegant expression than an * Vulgarisms* AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 129 equivalent affirmative proposition would form; as, "Do not think that he does not appreciate jour kindness," the equivalent of which sentence is, "Think that he appreciates your kindness." In every case, however, two negatives form an affirmative proposition. The common mistake committed is in attempting to make them indi- cate a negative proposition.^^* " He is not improving much, I don't think." The expression, " I think that he is not improv- ing much," means, " I do not think that he is im- proving much;" but the common expression, " He is not improving much, I dont think," means "I do not think that he is not improving," that is to say, "I think that he is improving," the reverse of what the speaker intends to say. " Did not see him but once/' etc. ^> The expressions, " I did not see him but once," — "I have not but one," are incorrect; if the person who uses them intends to say, that he saw the other no more than once, or that he has only one of a certain kind of thing. * * If the word but, in such connections, retained the meaning of except, with which it wa3 anciently used in 130 VULGARISMS To say that a person has but one, means that he has only one. To say that he has not only one, means that he has more than one. To say that a person saw another person but once, rneans that he saw the person only once. To say that he did not see the person only once, means that he saw the person more than once. The sentences should be, " I saw him but once," — "I have but one;" or, "I saw him only once,"— " I have only one." "Had not hardly (or scarcely) a minute to spare." To say of some one that "he had hardly (or scarcely) a minute to spare," means that he had less than a minute at his command ; but to say that "he had not hardly (or not scarcely) a them, it would be correctly used. In saying, " I have not but one/' we should be saying, " I have not (any) except one/' just as we now say, " It is nobody but me," meaning it is nobody except me — not, "It is nobody only me." That the word but in the above-cited examples is used in the sense of only, will be apparent to every one on a mo- ment's reflection ; for no one can fail to recollect having frequently heard a person say, " I have nH but one," and then, almost in the same breath, subjoin, " I tell you I JiavenH only one." AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 131 minute to spare," means that he had more than a minute at his command, and just what persons who say, "I hadn't hardly (or scarcely) a minute to spare," do not mean to say. " Do not doubt but that," etc. When one says, " I do not know hut that I shall go to New York to-morrow," one uses, if not an elegant, a correct elliptical, idiomatic expression, which may be analyzed thus : — " I do not know of any obstacle to my going to New York to-morrow," — the other course (not going) presents no inducement to make me abstain from going. When, however, one says, " I do not doubt hut that I shall go to New York to- morrow," one says the very reverse of what was intended, and states, that the only thing doubtful to his mind is the thing which he means to state is not doubtful. The uncertain tenure of life sometimes in- duces one to reflect that he may not see to-mor- row's sun, but that to-morrow's sun will never be seen by any one is a thought that rarely en- ters the mind. Suppose, then, that we say, " I doubt not that the sun will rise to-morrow." The sentence means, " I firmly believe that the 132 VULGARISMS sun will rise to-morrow." But if we say, " I do not doubt but that the sun will rise to-morrow,' ' we remark that the sun's rising to-morrow is the sole occurrence of which we doubt. It is plain, therefore, that we cannot, when we wish to speak of the probability of an occurrence, say, "I do not doubt but that" etc., but must say, "I do not doubt that" etc. ^p> A late public telegram announced that "A care- ful canvass of the Senate leaves no doubt but that the nomination of," etc. What purpose, except to mar the sense, is accomplished here by the use of but? The wording should be, "A careful canvass of the Senate, leaves no doubt that the nomination of," etc/The following item, in which the same mistake occurs, will be recognized as an extract from a late paper : — " There is no doubt but that Mr. Gurr is a swimmer of great skill and powers of endurance." ..'.." Those who have actually witnessed the performance can have no reasonable doubt but that it is all it professes to be," etc. Again the wording should be: — " There is no doubt that," etc. — "no reasonable doubt that" etc. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 133 JP^There is a vulgarism in the use of but what. With the view to simplicity, let us recur to the first example given, modifying it to suit the present purpose : — " I do not know bat what I shall go to New York to-morrow." Wliat mean- ing, in this case, that which, and hut meaning except, the sentence signifies : — " I do not know except that which I shall go to New York to- morrow," which is nonsense. Were one to say, " I have nothing but what you see," or, "you have brought every thing but what I wanted," one would speak correctly. These sentences mean, "I have nothing but (or except) that which you see," — "you have brought every thing but (or except) that which I wanted." Are not these sentences quite dif- ferent from this sentence: — " I do not know but what I shall go to New York to-morrow.'* VTJLGAEISMS CHAPTER XVII. OBSOLETE, OBSOLESCENT, AND LOCAL.* Disremember for Do not remember. The word disremember is obsolete. It is a low vulgarism. Despisable for Despicable. Despisable is an English word, but it is not now used in the language of the educated. Des- picable is the word which they use. Gotten for Got. Gotten is English still, but it is nearly obsolete. Yet some speakers and writers have an unac- countable partiality for it. Proven for Proved. Proven does not enjoy the wide use and sanction of good speakers and writers that should * Vulgarisms and other errors. The word local is here used as referring to the whole of the United States. Millions of people elsewhere speak English. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 135 entitle it to take precedence of proved. It is used chiefly in Scotland. Illy for 111 Illy is often incorrectly used for ill. It Las not the authority derived from good usage. Overly for Over. Overly for over is heard in such phrases as, "I do not think that he is overly bright/' — "She is not overly nice," — "He is not overly particular in such matters." The word is obsolete, except among the vulgar. Biddable for Obedient. There is no such word as biddable. The word for which it sometimes does duty is obedient. Unbeknown for Unknown. Unbeknown is obsolete in good usage. Sett for Set. The connection in which sett is generally found is in advertisements of china, chairs, fur- niture, or any articles consisting of pieces of the same kind ; as a sett of chairs, &~sett of mirrors, a sett of china, etc. Set should in all cases be spelled s-e-t. VULGARISMS CHAPTER XVIII. TAUTOLOGICAL PHRASES* "From hence/' — "from thence," — "from whence." > In the words hence, thence, whence, is included the idea conveyed by the word from. (jlcnee means from this place, thence means from that place, whence means from which place.' Probably no other mistake in English has been so frequently made, even by good speakers and writers of the language, as the use of the three words hence, thence, whence, preceded by from ; many, knowing it to be a mistake, falling into it from the sheer force of habit.^^ "New beginner." One may, after having failed in an attempt, make a new beginning, and analogy may per- haps be strained so far as to permit us to consider such a person, on a renewal of his at- tempt, a new beginner. But it is unreasonable, although not unusual, to apply the phrase to one * Vulgarisms and other errors. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 137 who is beginning for the first time. The ex- pression is a pleonasm — a superfluity of words. u Equally as good as/ 7 — " equally as good." As good as means equally good; therefore, equally as good as means equally, equally good. As good also means equally good, and equally as good therefore means equally, equally good. In the common phrase, "equally as good as,' 9 — one can strike out both as's, or else strike out equally. In the other common phrase, "equally as good"— one can strike out the as, or else strike out the equally. A thing is as good as another thing, or it is as good, or it is equally good with another thing, or it is equally good. For example : " This is as good as that," — -" This is as good" — ■" This is equally good with that,"- — " This is equally good." u In any shape or form." How can any one suppose that he is adding to the force of his language by saying, " In any shape or form" the meaning of the words shape and form being identical. * Robert he,"—" Susan she." Some persons never use a personal proper name without adding to it the pronoun appropriate to 10 138 VULGARISMS the sex of the individual mentioned ; as, " Susan she was going down the street, and Robert he met her a few doors from her house.' ' This is a very inelegant, not to say vulgar mode of ex- pressing one's self. " Tills here/'—" that there." The use of this here, and of that there, instead of this and that, is incorrect. Alone, the word this, or the word that, relates to one of two things, this referring to the one near, that to the one more remote. Singular as the fact may appear to some per- sons, the phrases, " He has a right to do it," — "He has a right to see to it," and similar ones, are often used by others to signify, that a certain individual ought to do or to attend to a certain thing. AND OTHER ERKOIiS OF SPEECH. 147 Between one's right to do a thing, and one's obligation to do it, there is a vast difference. One may have the right to do a thing, and not be under the slightest obligation to do it. This is too evident to need demonstration."^^... " Just as livs." Livs is a corruption of lief, or rather, of the obsolete word lieve. " I had as lief" — " I would just as lief," are idiomatic expressions, in the first of which, the words I had are the cor- ruption of the words I ivould. "I had just as livs" is vulgar. " A most a beautiful," etc. The expressions, u A most a beautiful," — " A most a splendid," — "A most an elegant," — U A most an awful," fix the educational grade of the speaker at the lowest point known to our civilization. We should not even say, " A most beautiful," — "A most splendid," etc. Each of a number of objects cannot be most beautiful. Only one can be most beautiful, and that is necessarily the most beautiful. Most is, in the latter sen- tences, used improperly in the sense of very. 148 VULGARISMS Omission of the final lt g" in pronunciation. Many persons never pronounce " g " in words ending with that letter, but say havin, taldn, leavin, swimmin, etc., instead of having, taking, leaving, swimming, etc. Indiscriminate omission of the apostrophic u s" As in speech the adding of the sound of "s" to the end of a word in the singular number conveys to the ear the sign of the possessive case, so, in writing or in printing, the adding of the apostrophic "s" to that word conveys to the eye the sign of the possessive case. Nouns in the singular number, ending in s, ss, ce, x, sometimes form exceptions to the general rule for indicating the possessive case. Mr. John Wilson, in his ' Treatise on English Punctuation,' gives the following examples of this class of words: — "Moses' rod/' — "for righteousness' sake," — " for conscience' sake," — "the administratrix' sale." He adds these observations : " This mode of punctuation holds good chiefly in proper names having a foreign termination, and in such common nouns as are seldom used in the plural, — an exception to the rule of forming the pos- AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 149 sessive singular, which is founded on the propriety of modifying the disagreeable nature of the hissing sound. y " Recourse, however, should not be had to the principle laid down in the preceding remark, when its adoption would cause ambiguity, or when the addition of the s is not offensive to a refined ear. For instance, the Italic words in the phrases, ' Bums' s Poems,' 'James's book/ 4 Thomas's cloak,' 'the fox's tail,' though they contain the hissing sound, are not particularly unpleasant, and are far more analogical and significant than the abbreviated forms, c Bums' Poems, 'IJJames 1 book,' 'Thomas' cloak,' 'the fox' tail.' '/ The test as to whether or not, fn any given case in the singular number| the duplicate s should be used, is applied by the ear ; and, as the delicacy of that organ varies in different indi- viduals, practice also will vary^but there is no reason why it should be discordant] To omit the s always, as some persons do in writing: and in printing, is a barbarism as gross as the general omission of the duplicate sound would be in speech. ^L_ 150 VULGARISMS The following examples of the proper use of the apostrophe in nouns in the singular number ending in various letters, are taken from Mr. Wilson's book : "Adam's book, not Adams s: the book did not belong to Adams. John Quincy Adams s death was no common bereavement. " Sir Humphrey Davys safety-lamp. — "Da- vis's Straits. " Josephus 's 6 History of the Jews' is a very interesting work. "Andrew's hat, not Andrews s. — Andrews's ' Latin Reader.' "For quietness' sake, the man would not enter into any dispute. "Col. Mathews's delivery. — Matthew's Gospel, not Matthews 's. " The witness's testimony agreed with the facts of the case. • " Let Temperance' smile the cup of gladness cheer. " We will not shrink from life's severest due, " There is no impropriety in speaking af the cockatrice's den. ! AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 151 "A friend should bear a friend's infirmities. "Like the silver crimson shroud, that Phoebus' smiling looks doth grace. " A mans manners not unfrequently indicate his morals. "After two years, Porcius Festus came into Felix's room."* In a noun in the plural number, ending in s, the apostrophe ( ' ) is placed after the s (s') ivithoat the addition of another s. The possessive ease of a noun in the plural number ending in s can never be formed by adding an s preceded by an apostrophe. For example, we do not and could not say or write, " The witnesses's testi- mony," but "the witnesses' testimony"— the plural possessive case corresponding to the singular possessive case, " the witness's testi- mony." The following examples of the proper use of the apostrophe in nouns ending in s in the plural number, are taken from Mr. Wilson's book : * On signs, the possessive case of the word cent is often put instead of the plural number of the word. On cars, for example, we sometimes read, "Fare, 7 cent r s," instead of, " Fare, 7 cents." 152 VULGARISMS "On eagles' wings lie seemed to soar, — " Our enemies' resistance," — "The ladies' gloves and shawls were exceedingly handsome," — " He must strike the second heat upon the Muses' anvil," — " Thy mercies' monument."* * The indication of the possessive case of nouns not end- ing in s in the plural is too variable to receive complete notice in a work of this character. Some of these nouns in the plural, instead of being used in the possessive case, are used as parts of compound words, as dice-box. In the plural nouns men, women, oxen, and others termi- nating in en, we form the possessive case regularly, thus : — men's, women's, oxen's. In the word people, — which is plural when it does not signify a nation, — although we form the possessive case people's, we not only do not form possessive cases mice's, geese's, but we do not use the words in the possessive case otherwise marked. The words feet and teeth are not used in the possessive case These examples prove how variable is our practice in regard to the formation of the possessive case in nouns not ending in s in the plural number. However, the termination of s in the plural belongs to most of the nouns in our lan- guage, compared with which those terminating otherwise are not only relatively, but absolutely, few in number. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. CHAPTER XX. TASTE. On the authority of the proverb, " There is no accounting for tastes," many persons presume to say that there can be no standard of taste. Taste, however, is not a thing, here, there, any- where, and wherever it is, equally good. The faculty is common to mankind, but the de- velopment of it is possible only in civilization, and general excellence in its decisions attainable only by individuals of fine organization, moving in the highest refinement of that civilization. Only the passions and the form of man are common to human beings. In all else there is divergence. Men are, first of all, stamped with the seal of their kind, then with that of their race, then with that of their civilization, then with that of their society. Despite of individu- ality, they receive the firm impress of every one of these. We therefore may observe, that all mankind have the same hopes and fears, pleasures 11 151 VULGARISMS and pains ; that individuals of each race have the same tendencies ; that individuals of each nation have the same views and ambition; that individuals of each class of society have the same feelings and tastes. Civilization comprises many degrees of pro- gress, from brutish ignorance to the highest culture of which man is susceptible. The taste of the individual corresponds with the general perception of the sphere in which he moves. Each within that sphere acquires from others and evolves from his own mind what consti- tutes the standard of taste there. This is appa- rent from the fact that individuals belonging to different classes of society do not coalesce. They cannot enjoy companionship with each other, because they entertain different funda- mental beliefs. The maxims which they deduce from these, their habits of thought, their feelings, their tastes relating to all the minutiae of life, are at variance. Dickens has somewhere said that two counting-house clerks cannot long sit on adjacent stools without establishing with each other a freemasonry of ideas, thoughts, and pleasantry, which is unintelligible to others. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 155 So it is in all society. The assimilative process is unceasing. If like seeks like, not less does association produce like. Taste, however, is not an arbitrary law im- posed on every one by the force of circumstances. This has already been conceded by the admission that every one exercises influence in the forma- tion of the standard of taste within the sphere in which he moves. With individuality, appear differences in taste among those who find the society of each other delightful. Certain differ- ences enhance instead cf diminish the pleasure of social intercourse. They furnish subjects for thought and conversation, in the endless com- parison of preferences. They who most study any one of the depart- ments of knowledge in which taste can be exer- cised, — and it is common to all except to science, — must, with the opportunity of examining the various objects belonging to that department, make progress in the study. It would be in vain for one who has the finest natural perceptions, to hope to excel in taste, unless he has the oppor- tunity to make many comparisons. Reason regulates, but does not create taste. It is in 156 VULGARISMS the application of reason to the comparison of various sorts of things of the same kind, that the principle of taste, common to all mankind, is in some who are peculiarly gifted with intellect and sensibility, developed to a point of exquisite delicacy. The highest taste in the things which belong to social intercourse is attainable by those only who combine in their own persons, intellect, sen- sibility, and the opportunity to mingle with the best society: that society which is formed of the educated elements in a civilized community. That society which represents every position in life held by the educated, which includes a certain proportion of people w T ho have travelled, and a certain proportion of people who have re- tired from active life, is the best. Travelling enlarges the views, retirement from business gives leisure for culture, participation in it develops energy and character. The whole mass of a society composed of individuals so circumstanced is leavened by its component elements. If, then, we have access to such a society, or, if not, have the opportunity of ascertain- ing the tastes of such a one, we may consider AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 157 that we possess prima facie evidence of their correctness. We are justifiable in trying them by our own reason, to which all our decisions must revert; but we should consider them the standard unless good cause can be shown why they should not be so considered. The probability is that any large number of persons, who, if only by the force of circumstances, must have devoted themselves to the amenities of life, have made progress in the study, beyond those who, being engrossed by more important cares, have had less leisure and opportunity for culti- vating them. Conspicuous, in one sense, in refinement, in which, in another sense, nothing can be con- spicuous, is the observance of those things which make no show. In nothing is refinement so surely tested as in habits of body and of mind. The refined are not nice in their persons be- cause they meet the world : cleanliness is a part of their education, and has become second nature. They do not express elevated sentiments because those sentiments are applauded, but because they entertain no others. A more just idea of a family's refinement can be obtained by a glance 158 VULGARISMS at their private rooms, than by a leisurely survey of their parlours. At table, they instantly reveal its grade, for elegant habits of eating cannot be simulated, and the vulgar betray their ordinary ones, either by grossness, or by clumsy attempts at delicacy and fastidiousness. Refinement scorns pretence. It is not given in any thing to display or to meretricious ornament, but is marked by its simplicity and its repose. Even manners and speech are important in its eyes, because chiefly through them is held communion of mind. It does not debase great things by ignoble names, nor seek to dignify little things with noble names, divest any thing of what belongs to it, nor invest any thing with false appearances. Vulgarity, on the contrary, loves show in every thing. It has its private thoughts, habits, actions, speech, entirely different from their pub- lic counterparts. For the public, it puts on its peacock-plumes, and trails them in the dust, opens its lips to pour forth diamonds, and show- ers toads. Yet the occupant of no station in life, from the loftiest to the lowliest, is necessarily vulgar. AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 159 The dignity of human nature is the birthright of all: its tenure depends on their truth. Each actor on the -world's stage has a part to play, which is well or ill sustained, none through life successfully acting any other than that of his own character. The essence of vulgarity is pre- tence. In its falsity, to whatever degree exist- ing, lies that offensiveness which is so apparent to the world ; which is felt, ridiculed, and de- nounced, even by those who are utterly incapable of determining the nature of the cause in which their sentiments originate- VULGARISMS CHAPTER XXI. EXAMPLES OE BAD TASTE. "You know," and "says I," "says he," "says she." Very seldom does it happen that the educated contract the habit of interlarding their discourse with the phrases you know, says L says he, says she; but so common is the habit among the illiterate, and so frequent their introduction of the words, that the sound of their voices in conversation is often mainly composed of the buzz of these ac- companiments, f The phrase "you know'" is allowable some- times, the other ones, never. Time past can- not be described with the language belonging to time present. It has previously been ex- plained, that there are exceptions to this rule : but they do not apply to the case now under * Vulgarisms. f The use of the phrase " at any rate" is also very common. When the habit is confirmed, the three words are pronounced as if they were one — attenyrate* I AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 161 consideration. Even if it were not absolutely wrong to employ the phrases "says 1" "says he" "says she" in referring to time which is past, it is supremely ridiculous for one constantly to repeat that he said what he said. The exceptional case in which the phrase "you knoio" may be used, is where one narrating some- thing, part of which he is aware is known to the hearer, indicates, complimentarily, his knowledge of the fact, by introducing the phrase in an appropriate place. But as a series of pegs on which to hang discourse, you know, you know, you know, is intolerable. Marry att gives, in ' The Pacha of Many Tales,' a very good illustration of the absurdity and in- veteracy of the habit of interspersing a narrative with "you knoio" and "says I" "says he" "says she" A man, in telling a story to the pacha, has been continually interrupted on account of his introducing you knows, has been threatened with condign punishment for a repetition of the offence, and has finally been dismissed to be bastinadoed, it would hardly be fair to say for his disobedience — for his ina- bility to obey. The man's companion, witness 162 VULGARISMS of the scene, and interrupted in his story also, and cautioned to avoid his trick of introducing the phrase "says i," resumes the broken thread of his narrative, while an executioner stands pre- pared to cut off his head if he repeats "says I 91 twice. Let us read the scene in Marry att's own words. Hussan, the story-teller, speaks : "I shall never be able to go on, your high- ness ; consider one moment how harmless my says Ts are to the detestable you knows of Ali. That's what I always told him; ' Ali,' says i, 'if you only knew/ says i", 'how annoying you are!' '"Why there,' says I — ." At this moment the blow of the scimitar fell, and the head of Hussan rolled upon the floor; the lips, from the force of habit, still quivering in their convulsions with the motioning which would have produced says J, if the channel of sound had not been so effectually interrupted. "That story's ended!" observed the pacha in a rage. " Of all the nuisances I ever en- countered, these two men have beat them all. Allah forbid that I should again meet with a says I, or you know!" AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 163 "Your highness is all wisdom," observed Mustapha; "may such ever be the fate of those who cannot tell their stories without saying what they said." Emphasizing some of the particles of speech. No better criterion can be afforded of relative mental perception in different individuals, than their application of emphasis to what is read or spoken by them. Writers on elocution are prone to assert, without due qualification, that the rules for the art are deducible from nature ; that emotion and passion always speak with just emphasis. That nature is the source whence those rules should be deduced, is not to be denied; but, unless we at the same time admit that, although the quality of the emotions and passions in all individuals is the same, the quality of their intel- lect and their training is widely different, we shall form no just rule for elocution. The language of emotion and passion is shaped by the intellect and the training belonging to each individual. The truth of this assertion may very easily be subjected to test, by comparing the reading and speaking of the child and the illiterate, with the 164 VULGARISMS reading and speaking of the adult and the educated. This is not the place to pursue the topic. The intention of what has been said is answered by the bearing which it has on the common and flagrant error of emphasizing some of the par- ticles of speech. Dickens's burlesque on the practice, in the following passage, will afford as good an example as any one that could be selected. " C I have draw'd upon A man, and fired upon A man for less/ said Chollop, frowning We are the intellect and virtue of the airth, the cream Of human natur', and the flower Of moral force.' " * ■^ Step in for Walk in. No one can walk without stepping ; so, in itself, there is no objection to the expression "step in" It is, however, one which, with the meaning of an invitation to enter, is never used by refined people. It is a euphemism, which, in that connection, is an affectation of elegance; as if, in using it, one meant to imply that stepping is easier than walking. "Pay a call" for "Pay a visit." A person makes a call or pays a visit. As a call is a short visit, there is no reason why the ex- pression "pay a call" is not, in itself, as correct as the expression "pay a visit." But the beau, monde, whose practice is final in determining such matters, say, "pay a visit" and "make a call"^~ "Free to say/' — "Free to confess." Grandiloquent men are particularly fond of using the bywords, "2 am free to say" — "I am free to confess" If a man can say a thing, let him say it like a man, without telling people that he is free to say it. *y> Tasty and tastily for Tasteful and tastefully. Although the words tasty and tastily have been used by some good writers, they have at present a decidedly vulgar twang. /Their special application to the words lady, dress, and furni- i AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 167 ture, affords more than an inkling of the cause. Tasteful and tastefully are correct words, with- out even the suspicion of vulgarity attached to them. Rig for Dress. In relation to using the verb To Rig, instead of the verb To Dress, Dr. Elwyn, in his ' Glossary of Supposed Americanisms,' says To Rig "is not in general use with any class, but, as a colloquial vulgarism, may be heard sometimes, though only in fun." This is an error. Many persons, as well as Dr. Elwyn, do suppose that To Rig is always used by way of pleasantry; but the fact is that many girls never use any other word to signify making the toilet. Babe for Baby. The word babe, although perfectly correct, should be reserved for language above that of familiar conversation. We use it properly in speaking of the ' Babes in the Wood,' and we invariably find it in poetry. The household word being baby, babe sounds pretentious. Raised for Reared. Dr. Elwyn says, " Among the great mass of the people of this country, south of Philadelphia, 168 VULGARISMS this word (rear) has given way to raise. One seldom hears, ' I shall have difficulty in rearing that child/ but almost always, raising; and, 4 where were you raised,' instead of brought up" The use of raise, in the sense of bring up, or rear, is certainly no longer confined to the Southern States, as the preceding quotation implies, and both Webster and Worcester assert. In the phrases, "to raise com"— "to raise wheat," — " to raise pigs" — " to raise chickens," etc., the word raise is correctly employed; but in speaking of the support and education of children, "to bring up," .or "to rear," is the preferable expression. — Buried for Lost To say, " I buried my youngest child last week," is surely an unrefined way of announcing so sad an event as its death. The fact can be more delicately communicated by a sentence of equivocal meaning. Even if a woman should say, "I lost my husband last year," no one would suppose that she meant to say she had dropped him in the street, or that he had run away. The phrase "Iburied" is coarse. It is the expression of the material instead of the moral aspect of AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 169 the loss sustained. It recalls, graphically, a hor- rible incident of death. Burial, when it is over, should appear the minor incident. The one that the mind should cherish, the one around which the affections should cling, is the departure of the spirit, and its life in the other world. Casket for Coffin, The scenes of death, as well as of life, test refinement. The difference in the sentiments with which they inspire different persons is marked through the long interval that divides a decent funeral from an Irish wake. What trifling with a serious thing it is to call a coffin a casket! "Can flattery soothe the dull Gold ear of death?" The pleasant name of a coffer for jewels does not reconcile man to death and burial. Dread of death, and repugnance to decay, are instinctive, and cannot be altered. The fate may be faced nobly, if not boldly, fear- fully though trustfully, as is fit in the appointed mystery ; but man cannot, without grievous harm to his moral nature, gloss the truth and give the lie to his conscience. Embalming Surgeon for Embalmer. The process of embalming, although it requires the use of the knife, cannot properly be called 12 170 VULGARISMS surgery, which is operation on the living body. It is therefore a misuse of the term surgeon to apply it to an embalmer. It is quite common now to see advertisements of " embalming sur- geons." "My husband," once said a woman to the writer, is an "embalming surgeon." This mode of speech does not elevate any pro- fession. It is too evident an attempt to confer dignity by a name, and is suggestive of the speaker's consciousness that the object lacks dignity. The assumption of the title of Professor, by quacks, and by others more respectable than quacks, is now so common that, unless the title is coupled with the name of a person known to have a right to it, or with mention of a professor- ship, it means any thing, from a professor of astronomy to an artist in whitewashing. " Not one of that kind." "I am not one of that kind" is a detestable vulgarism. A gentleman, or a lady, instinctively feeling self-description to be indelicate, never, directly or indirectly, except on compulsion, de- fines any point of his or her character. When he or she does, the language employed, not being AND OTHER ERRORS OP SPEECH. 171 stereotyped, proves that the necessity is unusual, the act not habitual. Either, if constrained to put into words the idea contained in the phrase, "lam not one of that kind" would probably say, "I am not capable of such an act:" which ex- pression implies extremity, the repelling of a suspicion or an accusation. Independent of the deep taint of vulgarity belonging to this expression, acquired by its use in self-application, it is a low vulgarism, even as applied to other persons ; thus, " He is not one of that kind." It has been used so undiscrimi- natingly,— used as a byword by the uneducated, — that it is associated with them only. The phrase, ' i the worst kind, " is a vulgarism less offensive than the one last noticed, only because it does not relate to character. It is a pity that every one who uses it could not be punished as was the merchant who wrote for some flour, telling his correspondent that he wanted it "the very worst kind." Sweat for Perspiration. In certain connections, the word sweat is pre- ferable to the word perspiration, but those cases are exceptional. They are where the subject is 172 VULGARISMS serious, where the language is figurative, or where the lower animals are concerned. In speaking of a horse, it would be ridiculous to employ the word perspiration, and say, for^ example, "That horse is in a perspiration.'*- Every one feels this to be true. There is a ; reason for it. i In relation to ^en the grosser bodily functions \and their playj in the lower animals we speak with comparative unreserve. We do not, without necessity, allude to the same when appertaining to mankind. We, regarding ourselves as vastly superior to the brute creation, habitually ignore in like attributes any similarity.! We can with propriety speak of administering a sweat to a patient. We can speak of a per- son's being subject to night sweats, an accom- paniment of some diseases. In matters, so grave as illness and disease, the mind rejects, as paltry, any refinement of language not concerning the grosser functions of the body, and chooses the most forcible term at command. There is nothing offensive in the word sweat, in the passage beginning, "In the siveat of thy face shalfc thou eat bread . . . . " The subject is not only solemn, but the language is figurative, AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 173 conveying the idea of hard labour. The figura- tive application of the word, derived from the original quoted, is constantly made in the ex- pression, " Living by the sweat of his brow." Again, in the history of the passion of our Saviour, we find the word used literally; we recognize it as the proper word, the only word that could convey the sense ; and we should reject the other with indignation. We find, then, that except in medical treat- ment, the word sweat, as applied to mankind, is offensive when it has direct personal application on ordinary occasions ;_as when one says, "I am in a violent sweat,"-— "JYou look as if you were in a sweat," — "He was in a sweaty condition." It expresses an extreme degree of the condition described by the word perspiration : a condition which is not agreeable to the sufferer, to the witness, or as a picture presented to the mind. • As-pah'ra-gus. Gras, ) Arab, A'rab, Ah'rab. Boil, (small abscess) Bile, Boyl. Boil, (to toil) Bile, Boyl. * No orthoepic notation is complete without indicating both the primary and the secondary accent of words, and without appropriating certain arbitrary signs to letters, of which, when so marked, the exact sound, the distinctness, indistinctness, or silence, is indicated by their reference to well-known words. The author has at- tempted to give, by indicating the primary accent only, by the insertion of the hyphen, and by the use of the generally discarded phonetic spelling, a tolerably correct pronunciation of each word in this vocabulary. As this book is not intended for foreigners, and the words in the vocabulary are in common use wherever English is spoken, he believes the plan which he has pursued to be the best for the occasion. A regular system of notation would not here be read and applied, and if he used it, his pre- cision would defeat its own object. Imperfectly as, from the imperfection of the mode adopted, the pronunciation may here be construed, the resulting sounds cannot ap- proach the low pronunciation of the words, which, although marked by the same imperfect notation, are recognizable in all their hideousness. 13 186 VULGAR PRONUNCIATIONS. Bologna, Bel-lo'ne, Bo-lo'nah. Carriage, Keh'ridge, C ah' ridge. Catch, Ketch, Katch. Chair, Cheer, Chare. China, Chay'ne, Chi'nah. Cincinnati, Sin-sin-nat'ah, Sin-sin-nat'e. Column, Kol'yoom, Kol'lum. Contrary, Kon-tray're, Kont'rah-re- Courier, Kur're-er, Koo're-er. Cover, Kiv'er, Kuv'er. Cupola, Cupe'o-lo, Cupe'o-Iahv Dagguerreotype^ Dag-geh're-o-tip< },Daggeh'ro-tipe. Dandruff, Dan'der, Dan'druf. Deaf, Deef, Def. Decrepit, Dee-crep'id, Dee-crep'it. Disappointed, Dis-ap-pine'ted, Dis-ap-point'ed. Drowned, Drown'ded, Drownd. Duty, Doo'ty, Ju'ty, Du'te.* Engine, Enj'ine, Enj'in. Extempore, Ex-tem'pore, Ex-tem'po-re. Favourite, Fave'o-rite, f Feb'u-erry, Fave'o-rit. February, < Feb'u-werry, L Feb'oo-erry, >■ Feb ru-erry. Figure, Fig'ger, Fig'yur. Finale, Fine-ale', Fine-al'le. Forward, Fow'ward, For'ward. Fragile, Fraj'-ile, Fraj'il. Grirard, Jir-rad', Jir-rard'. * For the pronunciation of words like those marked with a star, see the remarks at the end of the list. VULGAR PRONUNCIATIONS. 187 Grievous, G-uni Arabic, Guardian, Greev'yus, G-ree'vus. G-um Ah-ray'bic, Gum Ah'rab-ic. Gar-deen', Gard'e-an. Hoist, Height, Hyst, Hite-th, Hoyst. Hite. Idea, Individual, Italian, Ide'yah, I-de'ah. In-div-vid'oo-al, In-div-vid'u-al.* I-taFyan, It-tal'yan. Kettle, Keg, Kept, Kittle, Kag, Kep, Kettle. ■ Keg. Kept. Lilac, Lineaments, La/lok, Lin'ne-ments, Li'lak. Lin'ne-a-nients. Mantua, Man'cher, Man'chu-ah. Mercantile, j Mer'can-tle, \ Mer'can-teel, Mer'can-til. Mer'can-tile. Memoir, Militia, Mem'more, Mil-lish'e, Memwahr. Mil-lish'ah. Mischievous, f Mis-che'vus, \ Mis-che've-us, 1 Mis'chiv-us. Missouri, Mosquitoes, Mis-soor'ah, Mus-keet'ers, Mis-soo're. Mus-keet'oze. Muskmelon, f Mus'mel-un, ( Mush'mel-un, >- Musk'mel-un. ■ Mussulmans, Mustache, Mus'sul-men, Mus'tatch, Mus'sul-mans. Mus-tash'. New Orleans, News, New Or-leens', Nooz, New Orl'yans. Nuze. Opponent, Op'o-nent, Op-pone'ent 188 VULGAR PRONUNCIATIONS. Pattern, Pat'ron, Pattern. Pantomime, Pant'o-mine, Pant'o-mime. Philadelphia, Fil-lah-del'fe, Fil-lah-del'fe-ah Piazza, Pi-az'za, Pee-az'zah. Poem, f Poy'em, < Pome, ( Porm, [ Po'em Poet, f Poy'et, ] Pote, (Port, [ Po'et. Poetry, C Poy'tre, ] Po'tre, (Por'tre, y Po'et-re. Potatoes, Po-tay'ters, Po-tay'toze. Prairie, Per-rare'rah, Pray're. Presumptuous, Pre-zump'chus , Pre-zump'tu-us. Quoits, Quates, Quoyts. Radish, Red'ish, Rad'ish. Real, Reel, Ree'al. Really, Rosin, Ree'ly, Roz'om, Ree'al-ly. Roz'in. Sausage, Shampoo, Stamp, (verb) Sword, Sos'-ege, Sham-poon', Stomp, Sword, gaw'sege. Sham-poo', Stamn. &ordr Swollen, SwuVn, Swole'n. Tassel, Tos'l, Tas'l. Terrible, Tur'rib-bl, Ter'ril>bl. Theatre, Thee-a'ter, Thee'et-er. (Th pronounced as in Theodore.) VULGAR PRONUNCIATION?. 189 Traverse, Tremendous, Tomatoes, Tour, Tuesday, Tussle, Tribune, Turpentine, Umbrella, Watermelon, Yacht, Tra-verse'. Tre-men'jus, f To-mats', ( To-mat'esses, Tower, J Tooz'day, ( Tchuze'day, Tos'l, Tribe'une, Tur'pen-time, r Um-ber-rel', Um-ber-rel'ah, New England. *J Um-brel'ah. Um'bril^ Am'bril, War'ter-mil-yun, War'ter-mel-un. Tat, Yot. Trav'erse. Tre-nien'dus. I To-mat'oze. Toor. 1 Tuze'day .* Tus'l. Trib'une. Tur'pen-tine. "When the long u is preceded, in the same syllable, by any one of the consonants d, t, I, n, s, and th, it is peculiarly difficult to introduce the sound of y ; and hence negligent speakers omit it en- tirely, pronouncing duty, dooty ; tune, toon ; lute, loot ; nuisance, noosance ; suit, soot ; thurible, thoori- ble, etc. The reason is, that in forming these con- sonants the organs are in a position to pass with perfect ease to the sound of oo, while it is very diffi- cult in doing so to touch the intermediate y; hence the y in such cases is very apt to be dropped. On this point Smart remarks, ' To say tube (tyoob), lucid (lyoocid), with the u as perfect [i. e., with a distinct sound of y prefixed to oo~\ as in cube, cubic, mute, etc.. 190 VULGAR PRONUNCIATIONS. is either northern or laboriously pedantic/ — -a des- cription which applies to the vulgar in our Eastern States, and to those who are over-nice at the South. The practice of good society is to let the y sink into a very brief sound of long e or of short i, both of which have a very close organic relationship to con- sonant y. Special care must be taken not only to make this sound as brief as possible, but to pronounce it in the same syllable with the oo. We thus avoid the two extremes, of overdoing, on the one hand, by making too much of the 3/, and, on the other hand, of sounding only the 00 after the manner of careless speakers." — Principles of Pronunciation, Webster's Dictionary, INDEX. "Agreeably disappoint- ed/' 103 Alford, Rev. Henry, Dean of Canterbury, 7,10 Allow for say, 100,101 Amateur, 62,63 " A most a beautiful,"" etc., 147 Announcement of sta- tion, 42,43 Any for at all, 120 A person — if— they, 77,78 Artiste for actor or ac- tress. 29 B Babe for ba by, 167 Bad for badly, 122 Balance for remain- der, 108,109 Begun for began, 85 "Between you and I," 71 Biddable, 135 Bouquet, 63 Buried for Zo5^, 168,169 "But that,"— "But what, " 131-133 c Casket for coffin, 169 Centralization of edu- cation in European cities, 10-12 Come for came, 85 Connoisseur, 63 Contemptible for con- temptuous, 118 Convenient for near*, 120,121 Couple for two, 126 D D^m£, 64 Despisable, 134 Deux Temps, 63,64 " Did not see him but once," 129,130 "Did not do (or say) nothing, 7 ' 128,129 "Died hardly," 124,125 Disremember, 134 "Do not like too much," 146 Donkey for ass, 36,37 "Do not doubt but that," 131,132 Due for owing, 118,119 E Either,— or, 121 Either for each, 122,123 Elite, 29 "Embalming surgeon," 169,170 Emphasizing some of the particles of speech, 163,164 England, cultivation of the classics in, 5,6' English, the study of, 5-17 " Equally as good," 137 192 INDEX. " Equally as good' as," 137 Esprit de corps, 31 Etagere, 64 Everett, Edward — views on education, 16 "Extra nice/' 142,143 F Female, 48-50 " For to go/' etc., 138 " Free to say,"— " Free to confess," 166 French Academy, 10,11 " From he who," 71,72 & Genteel, 47,48 Gentleman, well-bred, 44 Gentleman (gentleman friend), 44,45 Gents, 51 "Get under weigh," 105,106 Good for well, 122 Gotten for got, 134 Gould, Mr. Edward S., 8 Gums for gum-shoes, 52 H " Had not hardly," 130,131 "Had ought to," 86 Hall for entry, 112,113 " Hardly for hard," 124,125 Harrison, Rev. Mat- thew, 9,18 /'Has a right to do it," 146,147 " Has began," 85 "Heap, top of the," 19 Hence, from, 136 " Him and me went," 73 " Him staying," etc., 74 Hors de combat, 31 I " Id omne genus," 33 " I have saw," ' 81-83 Illy for ill, ' 135 " In any shape or form," 137 In for into, 119 Individual for man, 60,61 "In our midst," 143-145 "Introduced to a gen- tleman," 173,174 " I seemed to think," 146 " I seen," 83 I see for I saw, 83,84 "Is not improving much, I don't think," 129 " It is me," 73 "It is one of the sub- jects that is," 78,79 "I wanted very much to have gone," 87-89 J Jeopardize, 107 "Just aslivs," 147 K Kids for kid-gloves r 52 L Lady, fine, witty, chari- table, etc, 40,41 Lady, first-class, 47 Lady, how is your ? 45 Lady, I am the, 41,42 Lady (lady-friend), 44,45 Lady, Mr. So-and-so and, 45,46 INDEX. 193 Lady, respectable, 43,44 Lady, sales-, 43 Lady, very much of, 47 Lady, well-bred, 44 Lady, wet-nurse, 44 Lay for lie, 98 Lafayette, 65 Learn for teach, 101 " Let's you and I," 70,71 Like for as, 123 Limbs for legs, 34,35 Lit for lighted, 99 Lit for alighted, 99 Love for Zite, 101,102 M Marsh, Hon. George P-, Materiel. 32 Minny for minim or minnow, 125 Moon, Mr. Gr. Washing- ton, F. R. S. L., 8,10 Most for almost, 126 " Mutual friend," 55,56 N "Natural talent," 138-141 Neither — nor, 121 " New beginner." 136,137 Non-practical educa- tion, 14-17 Not— Nor, 121 " Not one of that kind," 170,171 Notoriety for distinc- tion, 110,111 Nubia for nube, 66 Omission of the apos- trophic "s," 148-152 Omission of the final "g " in pronunciation, 148 Gnly for except or unless, 117 Ornary, 126,127 Overly, 135 P Pants, 51,52 Party for person, 57-60 "Pay a call," for "pay a visit," 166 Piano, 65,6Q Plead for pleaded, 85,86 Predicate for base, 102,103 Prejudiced for prepos- sessed, 103-105 Press, some of the re- porters for and cor- respondents of, 25-29 Preventative for pre- ventive, 109 Professor, 170 Proven for proved, 134 Q Quite for considerable or large, 119,120 R Raise for rise, 99 Raised for reared, 167,168 Reference for recom- mendation, 109 Refinement, the basis of, 182 Residence for house, 113-116 i?£$r for dVess, 167 i?£se for raise, 99 " Robert he,"— " Susan she," 137,138 Role for part, 29 Rooster, 35,36 Ruche, 64,65 194 INDEX. Savants for savans, 65 "Seemed to think," 146 Set for sit, 99 Sett for set, 135 Shall and will, con- founding of, 92-96 Should and would, con- founding of, 96,97 Signalize i'ov signal, 106,107 Simplicity, want of, 22,33 Slang, 18-21 Some for somewhat, 120 Sobriquet, 31 Stamps, he has the, 20 Step in for w