Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

prisoner; the reception given to the stranger; the clothes bestowed on the poor :-such deeds are as immortal as the love to Jesus from which they spring. It will be a grand thing to see the manifold proofs afforded by the past of the reality of the Christian life-that it was no empty talk, no hypocritical profession, but that it fought such battles with sin, and gained such triumphs over it, was such a calm putting forth of energy, such real selfdenial, such genuine affection, as evidenced it to be different in kind from any other life without the spirit and grace of God.

A year has just closed with all its sins! May God in his mercy grant us all a true sense and a hearty repentance of them, so that, through faith in Him whose blood was shed as a propitiation for the sins of the world, we may be forgiven-and sin

no more!

A year has closed with all its trials, sorrows, cares, and perplexities! May God impress on our hearts what lessons He may have taught us of the blessedness of trusting Him; of the peace which He can bestow amidst trouble; of the difficulties which he can remove, making a way of escape when we could see none !

May God enable us to remember these as coming from Himself, whom to know and love in Christ is the one mercy which includes all others!

Another year has begun! What events are to happen to us ere it ends? All is dark! Whether we are to live or die; be in health or in sickness; endure the heaviest storms of life, or sail along on a smooth sea:-on events like these we have no light. So God has willed, and He ever wills what is best for us. One thing only is certain, that we can have perfect peace in Him, come what may. In the world we may have tribulation, but in Him we can have peace;-peace in life and in death, in joy and in sorrow-the same kind of peace which dwelt in the heart of the Man of Sorrows while on earth, and which He left us as his best legacy on the night in which He was betrayed into the hand of sinners-"the peace of God which passeth all understanding!" Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusteth in Thee."

66

May we begin the year with confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ-confidence in his constant presence with us, and his unchangeable love to us; confidence in his wisdom to direct our path and to arrange all our ways; in his strength to uphold us A year has closed with all its mercies! Mercies in every duty, to keep us from falling, and to preto soul and body; mercies temporal and spiritual; sent us faultless in his presence at his coming with mercies to beloved friends; the mercies of many exceeding joy. Lord, increase our faith! We gifts and talents, and of means for doing and re-believe-help our unbelief! O Thou who hast ceiving good; mercies more than can be numbered, helped us during the past, into Thy hands we comnew every morning and evening, and bestowed mit ourselves, and all that concerns us, for the upon us who are unworthy of the least of them. future, and until time shall be no more!

MORE ABOUT THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH.

BY THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY.

A Supplementary Lecture, delivered to the Church of England Young Men's Association, in St. George's Hall, Canterbury, November 5, 1866.

WHEN your excellent secretary requested me to open your course of lectures for this season, I naturally went to a shelf where papers await future use, to see whether the Queen's English correspondence was ample enough to warrant another lecture on that subject. I found upwards of fifty letters on questions of more or less interest, and a fair amount of cuttings from newspapers, and memoranda picked up in society and in solitude.

I therefore determined to announce "More About the Queen's English," as my subject, and to go through my file of letters and memoranda, thus forming a supplementary lecture, which might, in the next edition of my little book, either be worked in among its paragraphs, or be printed entire as an appendix at the end.

This being so, I shall not aim at arrangement or classification, but shall simply discuss the matters presented by my correspondents, and the memoranda, as they come before me.

66

I am asked whether an expression which I had used, "the first foundation of an institution," can be right, seeing that an institution can have but one foundation? The reply is to be sought in the general use of expletive, i.e., superabundant words, together with others which already express the meaning required. Thus we have, "O that they would consider their latter end," when "their end" would, strictly speaking, have been sufficient. Thus also we say, "the utmost end of the earth," "the first beginning of creation"; the expletive prefix in each case tending to give precision and emphasis, and showing that it is on the fact reasserted by it, that the stress of the sentence is laid.

A notable and very solemu instance of this usage is found in the title, "the most Highest," given to the Almighty in the Prayer-book version of the psalms (Ps. ix. 2; xiii. 6; xxi. 7; etc.). In the Bible version the expression seems not to occur, the "Most High," or, "the Highest," being its

equivalent. But we have a reduplication of the same kind in Acts xxvi. 5; "After the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee." In this place, it is difficult to account for it, as it represents only the simple superlative in the original text. King James's translators seem merely to have retained it from the older English versions, Tyndale's, Cranmer's, and the Geneva Bible.

It may be hard to assign exactly the difference between "oldest" and "eldest." Whatever it may be, it is clearly matter of idiomatic usage, and not derivable from any distinction in the words themselves. But that there is a difference, may in a moment be shown. "We cannot say, "Methuselah was the eldest man that ever lived"; we must say, "the oldest man that ever lived." Again, it would hardly be natural to say, "his father's oldest born," if we were speaking of the first-born. If we were to say of a father, "He was succeeded by his oldest son," we should convey the impression that that son was not the eldest, but the oldest surviving after the loss of the eldest. And these examples seem to bring us to a kind of insight into the idiomatic difference. "Eldest" implies not only more years, but also priority of right; nay, it might sometimes even be independent of actual duration of life. A first-born who died an infant was yet the eldest son. If all mankind were assembled, Methuselah would be the oldest: but Adam would be the eldest, of men. Whether any other account is to be given of this than the caprice of usage, I cannot say, but must leave the question to those who are better versed in the comparison of languages. My object is to describe the current coin, rather than to inquire into the archæology of the coinage.

Connected with this inquiry about "oldest" and "eldest" is the subject of a letter which I will give you entire.

"SIR,-When I came on deck the other morning in the Red Sea (very near the place at which Moses and the Israelites are supposed to have crossed), I was seized by three fellow-passengers-a Russian, a Frenchman, and a Swiss-who, nolentem volentem, constituted me umpire in a dispute which they were carrying on upon a point of English grammar, The Russian, it seems, was his father's eldest son, and he had four brothers, all, ex necessitate, younger than himself. In speaking of the oldest of these four, he called him my elder brother'; on which the Frenchman said, 'I thought you were your father's eldest son.' So I am,' he replied; but I spoke of the elder of my brothers. I am not one of my own brothers, and therefore when I speak of my elder brother, I don't include myself. He I spoke of is the oldest of my brothers, not the oldest of my father's sons.' To this I replied by quoting Milton-Adam the goodliest of his sons since born, the fairest of her daughters, Eve.' That, however, we agreed was only justified by poets' licence. Finally, I ruled that though my Russian friend was strictly and grammatically correct, yet, according to common usage, the expression employed by him was calculated to mislead. He seemed to think it rather hard that the English people, having constructed a grammar, should not conform to its rules; and hinted that in Russia no such liberty of the subject would be permitted-that when laws were made, people were exd to obey them; and that a man who talked bad mar would be in danger of the knout.

[ocr errors]

"Will you be so good as tell us in your next edition whether the Russian or the Frenchman was right, and whether you approve of my ruling. "Your obedient servant,

[ocr errors]

"W. F."

It was somewhat curious that the Russian should have blamed us for inconsistency: for surely "my elder brother" must mean "the elder brother of me," just as 'my better half" means, "the better half of me." We may also hereby illustrate what was just now said about "oldest" and "eldest": "my eldest brother" could never be said by the first-born of a family, seeing that the title belongs to him alone: whereas when "my oldest brother" is said, he excludes himself, and indicates the brother next to him in age.

I am asked why we say "dependent on," but "independent of"? The answer is surely not difficult. When we make "dependent" into "independent," we not only deny that which "dependent" asserts, but we construct a different word; different in its reference and its government. The "on," which we use after " 'dependent," implies attachment and sequence; as in "hanging on," "waiting on": the "of," which we use after "independent," expresses merely the relation of the thing following, as when we say "inclusive of," "exclusive of." In this case, the variation of prepositions might be still further exemplified; we say "pendent from," "dependent on," "independent of." somewhat similar instance may be found in "with respect to," and "irrespective of."

66

A

In

The same correspondent who proposed the last question also asks, why we say contemporary with," but "a contemporary of"? The answer to this is to be sought from a different source. "contemporary with," the "with" simply carries on the force of the preposition "con," or "cum," with which the adjective is compounded. But when that adjective is made into a substantive, it then must be connected with other substantives by the customary preposition "of," indicating pos

session or relation.

A somewhat similar change takes place when substantives which may be used predicatively, are used indicatively. Thus we say "neighbour to him," but, "a neighbour of him," or, as we commonly express it, "of his." If we keep the same preposition in the two cases, the phrase does not retain the same meaning. "He is neighbour to him," means, "He lives near him" but "He is a neighbour to him," means "He behaves to him in a neighbourly manner."

:

The question at the end of our Lord's parable of the Good Samaritan, "Which of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?" forms not an exception to the rule first mentioned, but rather an example of it. For the conclusion to be drawn from the parable is, that the real claim to the title of neighbour is his who acts in a neighbourly manner. So that the question does not mean, which of these three acted in a

neighbourly manner to him?-but which of these three had a right to be called his neighbour-neighbour to him? Then the answer naturally comes, "He that showed mercy on him.”

64

This correspondent also points out the curious difference which is made in the meaning of one and the same word in a sentence, when variously introduced by other words. Thus, if I say of one in India, "He will return for two years," I am rightly understood as meaning that the length of his stay at home will be two years. But if I say, He will not return for two years," then I do not, by the insertion of the negative, reverse the former proposition, i.e., mean that the length of his stay at home will not be two years, but I imply something quite different: viz., that two years will elapse before his return. By the insertion of the "not," the preposition "for," retaining its meaning of 'during,' ""for the space of," ceases to belong to the length of time during which he will "come," and belongs to the length of time during which he will "not come."

[ocr errors]

My correspondent offers another example, which was originally given by the writer of the article on my little book in the Edinburgh Review for June, 1864. "Jack was very respectful to Tom, and always took off his hat when he met him." "Jack was very rude to Tom, and always knocked off his hat when he met him." You will see that "his hat" in the former sentence is Jack's, but in the latter sentence it is Tom's. There is absolutely nothing to indicate this but the context. "Will any one pretend," says the Reviewer, "that either of these sentences is ambiguous in meaning, or unidiomatic in expression? Yet critics of the class now before us, [i.e., those who proceed on the assumption that no sentence is correct, unless the mere syntactical arrangement of the words, irrespective of their meaning, is such that they are incapable of having a double aspect, ] are bound to contend that Jack showed his respect by taking off Tom's hat, or else that he showed his rudeness by knocking off his own."

And this is important, as showing how utterly impossible it is for every reference of every pronoun to be unmistakeably pointed out by the form of the sentence. Hearers and readers are supposed to be in possession of their common sense and their powers of discrimination: and it is to these that writers and speakers must be content to address themselves.

"How is it," asks still the same correspondent, "that 'excuse my writing more,' and 'excuse my not writing more,' mean the same thing?" We may answer, that the verb to " excuse "has two different senses; one being to dispense with, and the other to pardon. When a school is called over, the master may excuse (dispense with) a certain boy's attendance: or he may excuse (pardoa) his non-attendance. This will be at once seen, if we pat, as we properly ought, the person as the object to the verb "excuse," as in, "I pray thee have me

excused:" the sentence will then stand in the one

[ocr errors]

case, "Excuse me from attendance"; but in the other, "Excuse me for non-attendance."

A correspondent asks whether the expression “very pleased” is admissible. Undoubtedly, the ordinary usage before a participle is "very much": "I was very much pleased." No one would think of saying, "I was very cheated in the transaction." But on the other hand we all say "very tired," "very ailing," "very contented," "very discontented." Where then is the distinction? The account to be given seems to be this: If the participle describe only the action or the suffering implied in its verb, in other words, if it continue a verb, "very" alone will not serve to qualify it. "Very" simply intensifies. And it must have some quality to intensify. You cannot intensify a mere event. In other words, if "very" alone be used, it must be followed by an adjective, or by something equivalent to an adjective. "Tired" is equivalent to "weary": is a participle used as an adjective: therefore we may say "very tired": ailing" is equivalent to "poorly": both "contented" and "discontented" are qualities and tempers, not merely records of an event which has happened. Judging then "very pleased" by this rule, it is admissible. "Pleased" is a state of mind, carried on beyond the mere occasion which gave rise to it. Introduce marked reference to the occasion, and "very" becomes inappropriate. You cannot say "very flattered," but must say, "very much flattered." I own I prefer "very much pleased," as more conformable to usage.

[ocr errors]

A difficulty arises as to the proper number of the verb substantive, when it couples a singular nominative case to a plural one. Two correspondents have written on this matter. One cites from a newspaper, "More curates are what we want," and asks whether "are" is correct. The other is a printer, and relates that on this sentence being sent for press,- "A special feature of the Reformatory Exhibition were the work-shops and work-rooms," the "Reader" in the office corrected "were" to "was"; upon which the Author corrected "was" back again to "were." A dispute arose in the office, some siding with the Reader, some with the Author. The former were the majority: and the minority, though they thought "were" correct, yet acknowledged that "was" would sound better.

And I believe that they were thus not only making an ingenuous confession, but giving the key to the whole question. In most cases of this kind, that which sounds right, is right. And that which sounds right is generally, in the examples before us, that the verb should take the number, be it singular or plural, of the preceding nominative case. "More curates are what we want." But invert the proposition, and we must say, "What we want is, more curates." So in the other case, "a special feature of the exhibition was, the workshops, and work-rooms" : but, "the work-shops and work-rooms were a special feature of the exhibition."

Still, this rule does not seem to have been always followed by our best writers. In the English Bible, Prov. xiii. 8, we have, "The ransom of a man's life are his riches" and in Prov. xvi. 25, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." The translators' rule seems to have been always to use the plural verb-substantive, when either of the nominatives was plural. We have in one and the same sentence, Prov. xvii. 6, "Children's children are the crown of old men: and the glory of children are their fathers": where it is plain that the occurrence of one plural, and not the order of the substantives, has ruled the number of the verb.

Every schoolboy will remember "Amantium iræ amoris integratio est"; in reference to which we may notice, that the Latin possesses the advantage of being able so to arrange the sentence, that the verb shall stand close to, and take the number of, the more important of the two nominative cases.

A correspondent is about to dedicate a book to a Royal patroness. He wishes to express gratitude for "many kindnesses" but feeling uncomfortable as to the correctness of the expression, is afraid he shall have to write "much kindness," which does not so well express his meaning,-"kindness shown on many occasions."

It is a very easy matter to calm his apprehension, and allow him the full expression of his gratitude. Nothing is commoner than the making of abstract nouns into concrete in this manner. I trust we all remember the verse in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, ch. iii. 22, “It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not." In the same chapter we read of "all their imaginations against me." And in Ps. lxxxix. 49, we have the very word in question; Lord, where are thy former loving-kindnesses, which Thou swarest unto David in thy truth?"

[ocr errors]

In all these examples, the word which originally signified an attribute, is taken to indicate an instance of the exercise of that attribute. "Loving kindnesses" are, instances of loving-kindness.

A curious case of this licence in speech may be seen at present on the walls of our railway stations, where an agent announces that he has upwards of 500 businesses" to dispose of.

66

One expression in this last sentence reminds me that a correspondent at Leighton-Buzzard asks the following question: "Does upwards of a thousand" mean "more than," "above," "in excess of," a thousand, or, as some persons here, of good education, maintain, "less than," "nearly approaching," a thousand? "I," adds my correspondent, cannot see any other answer than the first: to me it is self-evident. Your valuable opinion hereon would greatly oblige." I am afraid that either good education must have sunk rather low at LeightonBuzzard, which is hardly probable, or that my correspondent must be somewhat hard of hearing, and must have mistaken his neighbours. Our practice is always to regard abstract numbers as rising

in height, as we see the concrete subjects of num. bers do. The ascent is from 1 to 10, 10 to 100, 100 to 1000, and so on; and no one would dream of upwards of a thousand meaning anything else but more than a thousand.

Attention has been directed to the erroneous use of adjectives belonging to one bodily sense, with substantives belonging to another. We are told that "a conspicuous voice" is a not uncommon expression. I can testify to having frequently heard "a beautiful smell," and "a beautiful air." Now of course all such expressions will not bear strict investigation: but are they therefore not allowable? Every one speaks of "beautiful music": why may we not say, 66 a beautiful odour"?

The distinction seems to be this. Any word may be used in that which is called a metaphorical sense: i.e., may be transferred from a material to a mental meaning. Thus "beautiful," being originally a word belonging to the sense of sight, may be transferred to the inward sight, and things may be called beautiful which are apprehended by the mind, with or without the aid of sense. Thus we recognise Beauty in art. Poetry, Painting, Music, are arts: the first apprehended by the eye, the ear, and the thought, the second by the eye and the thought, -the third by the ear and the thought. In all these the mental vision sees Beauty: we may have beautiful poetry, beautiful painting, beautiful music. But smell is not an art: the mere enjoyment of wholesome air is not an art: in neither is there any scope for Beauty, and consequently of neither must "beautiful” be said. “A conspicuous voice" is even worse: it is an absolute defiance of correctness: a torturing of the machinery of one sense into the grooves of another.

66

This torturing of words may sometimes be perpetrated where people little suspect it. The Americanism "proclivities" is sometimes a convenient word. It is used as equivalent to "tendencies.” But, in reality, it does only half the work of the English term. Clivus being Latin for a hill, proclivis is an adjective signifying down-hill, while acclivis signifies up-hill. We have the term "acclivity" in English, meaning an upward slope. So that when we use 'proclivities," we must take care that we confine it to its proper meaning. To speak, as the Record" did last week, of a statesman having "High Church proclivities," is to make a blunder in terms. A proclivity can never carry a man up on high. The achievement of the man who used to walk up an inclined plane on a rolling globe would be far surpassed by him who through any manner of proclivities should attain to High Churchmanship. I would venture to suggest that as the American term has this defect, it would be better to discard it and employ the English one.

[ocr errors]

I mentioned in one of my former lectures, that "used to was" and "used to could' were reported as said in some parts of England. I have a confirmation of this in a letter from Derby. My correspondent says both expressions are very com

וי

mon there. "I have even," he says, "heard 'used to did. Perhaps," he adds, "the following example may be new to you. A young man speaks who has married in haste, and is repenting at leisure :

"And when I think on what I am,

And what I used to was,

I feel I've throwed myself away

Without sufficient cause.""

The same correspondent says, "I should once have sided with your opponents as to the three first Gospels' but I am convinced by your arguments." It will be remembered that I defended this expression as equally correct with "the first three Gospels." "I think, however," he continues, "you would not defend what we often hear from the pulpit, or even more commonly from the clerk's desk. In the third chapter of St. John, the three last verses, are these words:' Or, 'Let us sing the three first and the three last verses of the 92nd Psalm.""

To this I answer, Why not? The "three first" verses are, the three verses whose place, with reference to the rest, is first. It is only a short way of saying, the three verses which come first: and so of the "three last." Look at our daily procession into church. What is the order? The Choristers are first: First, is a quality which may be predicated of them just as being in white surplices may be they are the twelve first in order: or more briefly, they are "the twelve first." Then come the Lay Clerks, the twelve next in order, or in brief, "the twelve next." Then come the clergy, the four, or seven, or twelve last.

Hardly any good English expression gets so much wrath expended on it as this "three first," or "three last." It was but the other day that the present writer had a whole vial of scorn poured over him because he has used it in his edition of the Greek Testament: the Reviewer being of course not aware that this is done of malice prepense, and because it is believed to be right.

A curious mistake is often made in accepting invitations. In full half the notes of this kind which are sent, we see, "I shall be very happy to accept your invitation for the 9th." But the acceptance is not a thing future: the acceptance is conveyed by that very note, and your friend, when she gets it, will put you down as having accepted. The sentence is written in confusion between "I shall be very happy to come," and "I am very happy to accept," or "I accept with pleasure." And so the former half of the first sentence gets wedded to the latter half of the second.

[ocr errors]

because he may not live till next Tuesday; so Pat puts on the reserve, and applies it to the dead, who is beyond the reach of uncertainty.

Answers to invitations are set thick with traps for the careless and the illiterate. Sometimes, instead of "invitation," we find a noun unknown to our language introduced, and the writer is happy to accept the kind "invite" of his host. Sometimes, when the invitation is declined, the poor tenses of verbs are mangled in the most ruthless manner. Take a few forms at random: "I should be happy to come, but" "I should have been happy to come, but- -" "I should have been happy to have come, but

[ocr errors]

I believe all these are in use, one about as often as another. Let us examine them one by one.

"I should be happy to come, but I am preengaged." There seems, and I believe there is, no error here. The form of accepting would be, "I shall be happy to come, as I am dis-engaged;" and "should" is the strict conditional correlative of shall.

"I should have been happy to come, but I am pre-engaged." This is wrong, and for the following reason: "should have been" is conditioual, relatively to something that is past. "I should have been in Devonshire last Christmas, but I was ill." And the thing which the writer of the note is speaking of, is future, not past. Had the writer said, "I should have been happy to accept your invitation, but I am pre-engaged," all would have been right because the act of accepting or nonaccepting will have belonged to the past, before the host receives the letter.

:

[merged small][ocr errors]

It is astonishing what different things people sometimes say from those which they intended to say. There was a letter a short time since, in one of the London papers, concerning a matter which the writer believed to be no credit to the Church. In his opening sentence he intended to announce this. But he made a very comical mistake. He asked the editor of the paper to allow him to make a statement which was no credit to the Church. And having done this, he signed himself "A Priest of the Province of Canterbury." So that as far as appeared from the letter, a clergyman had made a discreditable statement. It was the old story, of one going out to commit murder, and committing suicide by mistake.

This kind of confusion sometimes produces comical results. "Pat, does Mr. Flanagan live here?" "Yes, yer honour, he does, but he's dead." "Why, when did he die?" "Well, yer honour, if he'd lived till next Tuesday, he'd be dead a fortnight." What the man means is tolerably clear. He would say, "He'll have been dead a fortnight come next Tuesday." But in the case of a living man, any assertion of this class must be made with reserve, times we have the sentence still further divaricated

[ocr errors]

An odious form of speech has lately crept into our newspapers: "The death is announced of.. "The suspension is reported ofAnd some

[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »