Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

thus, "The death is announced in the Liverpool journals, at his seat in the North of Scotland, of acute bronchitis, of Mr. Blank." The source of this clumsy arrangement must, I suppose, be sought in the fact of our not being able to use the convenient impersonal form of the French, and to say, "They announce." But there are many ways in which the same thing might be better said, and among them the very simple one, of keeping the plain order of the words: "The death of Mr. Blank is announced in the Liverpool journals.”

In a lately published volume of verse, I found a still more remarkable form of this licence of separating words which ought to stand together :

[blocks in formation]

offen

A correspondent wishes more said on "people' and "persons." He complains that the two are used "a very as synonymous, "to me," he says, sive vulgarism. It is periodically announced by the clergyman of the church to which I go here, that there will be the usual monthly sermons for the young this afternoon, at which the attendance of young people' is particularly requested. Now it seems to me that 'people' is a collective noun of the singular number, and should only be used as such, never for 'persons.' Should I be right if I said that the latter is the concrete of people?"

I observed in my book (par. 318), that I could not see the distinction, nor did I find it observed by our best writers. Even supposing it to exist, usage has set in so decidedly against it, that it would be pedantry for our age to insist on reviving it. We should have to sing, "All persons that on earth do dwell," which may be a correction, but certainly is not an improvement.

Another correspondent finds fault with a common method of speech in which we make the abstract noun into the concrete: "Twenty clergy walking in procession." But this surely is defensible, nay, is sometimes necessary. "Twenty clergymen walking in procession," may mean the same thing, but does not so plainly indicate that they walked where they did, because they were clergymen. After all, "twenty clergy" is only an abbreviated form of twenty of the clergy, the clerisy, or the clerical profession. In another profession, the adjective is used to perform a similar duty: we speak of calling in the "military."

It is somewhat curious to observe the different forms which have come to designate the professions. Ministers of religion are "the clergy," soldiers are "the military," sailors hardly have a collective name, but are individually known as "Jack," or,

if pluralised, "the blue jackets;" lawyers are "the bar," or the "gentlemen of the long robe," though their robes are no longer than those of the clergy; medical men are "the faculty;" judges are "the bench," or "bigwigs." Artists, engineers, architects, seem to be as yet without collective

names.

A correspondent in Scotland writes that an English friend questions the correctness of pronouncing heron as a word of two syllables, and affirms that the usage in the south is to pronounce the word as though spelt hern. And he enquires, 1, whether, under both forms of spelling, the word is pronounced as of one syllable; 2, whether when spelt and pronounced herón, it departs from English usage.

My answer was that the spelling hern is at present unknown, except in cases presently to be noticed; but the pronunciation hern is universal, except rarely in poetry. That this has very long been so is testified by such proper names as Hern Hill (a name not peculiar to the railway junction at Camberwell, but also found in Somersetshire near Ilminster, and I dare say elsewhere) and Herne Bay. Another and a very curious testimony to this is found in the corruption of a proverb in which the bird is mentioned. We now say of a stupid fellow, that "he doesn't know a hawk from a handsaw." But thus the proverb over-does its work: for, out of idiotcy itself, such stupidity could not occur, as should confound things so entirely and essentially different. As the proverb originally stood, it described a degree of unversedness in common things which doubtless was, and certainly now is, very common. In the days when hawking was to be seen in almost any neighbourhood, not to know a hawk from a herneshew (for so the bird at which the hawk was flown was then called) would be well understood. And "herneshew" having become "handsaw," is another witness to the antiquity of the monosyllabic pronunciation "heron."

of

The contraction of "herneshew" into "heron," puts us in mind of the little gentleman in black velvet toasted of old by the Jacobites, whose name "mole," is the only surviving syllable of a much longer word, "mouldy warp," or "mould warp," a creature that turns the mould.

[ocr errors]

A sportsman friend who has long lived (and long may he live) in the most beautiful part of Charnwood Forest in Leicestershire, told me, years ago, that the people round Bradgate Park, when they want to summon a passer-by, call out, not "Hallo" or "Halloo," but "Halloop!" and he thought that the exclamation, by this form, betrayed its having come down from the days when one cried to another "A loup!" or as we say, "wolf, wolf!" This may or may not be the fact; it is at all events interesting.

Considering how commonly ingenious derivations are wrong, it is surprising that any grave writer in these days should allow himself to be taken in by

one. Yet no less a person than the present Emperor of the French has fallen into this trap. You know that there is a place on the Thames, above London, called Teddington. It so happens that its situation nearly corresponds with the limit to which the tide ascends in the stream. So some ingenious person made what was little better than a pun upon the name, and called Teddington, Tide-end-town. In process of years, the public, who are always ready to accept a likely-sounding derivation, reported Tide-end-town as the origin of the name. And the Emperor Napoleon, in the 2nd vol. of his Life of Julius Cæsar, has gravely stated the fact, and worked it into his argument. His words are these :

"The only thing which appears to us evident is, that the Romans did not cross any where below Teddington. It is known that this village, of which the name is derived from Tide-end-town, marks, in point of fact, the last point of the Thames at which the tide is felt. It would be impossible to believe that Caesar exposed himself to the risk of being surprised, during his passage, by the swelling of the water." Vol. ii. p. 191, Eng. transl.

The Edinburgh Reviewer well remarks on the singular simplicity, often observable in the Emperor's book, with which "a cockney myth, such we conceive the popular derivation of Teddington to be, is transformed into a serious piece of archæology."

A very ingenious derivation, but I believe also wrong, has been sent me by a Scottish correspondent, dwelling under the shadow of Ben-Nevis. His letter is too interesting to be abridged, so I give it as it stands :

"KILMALLIE MANSE, BY FORT WILLIAM, N.B.,

24th June, 1864. "REV. SIR,-Seeing in your Queen's English' mention of the Danish word Nabo' as possibly the original form of the English Neighbour,' I am induced to give you the following facts, and a conjecture regarding the further history of that word, hoping they may prove sufficiently interesting to plead my excuse for troubling

you.

"In the northern counties of the Highlands the common Gaelic term for neighbour is still, as it has been

for time immemorial, this Danish Nabi, pronounced Naabi; whereas in the southern Highlands a totally different word, and one of pure Celtic lineage, is used.

"Now it is notorious that the Norsemen held the Borthern Highland counties, as well as the outer Hebrides, for ages, and still there are settlers in Caithness and in Lewis who boast of unmixed Danish blood. There are very few traces of Norse in the common lanuage of the country, but the names of places generally are Scandinavian; and on the whole the wonder is, not that Nabo should retain his place in the Highlands, but that there are not many more of his kith and kin along

with him.

Having thus shown that Nabo is naturalised in the north Highlands, I proceed to tell how he travelled to the south Highlands. When the Caledonian Canal was being wrought (from about 1800 to 1822), many northatry Highlanders were, as a matter of course, emDyed on it, and after it was finished several of them et to the Crinan Canal-also a Government work-in the south of Argyleshire. There they naturally addressed one another as Nabi, just as an Englishman would say 'mate,' or 'comrade,' and the word, quite

new to the Argyleshire-men, appeared so outlandish and odd that they fixed it as a nickname on the North-men, calling them all Naabis. "This is a fact of which I have abundant proof, that about forty years ago a set of canal-workers in Argyleshire were called Naabis; and my conjecture about the further travels of the word may be easily anticipatedthat here we see whence came Navvy, about which there is so much disputing. Navvy is said to have been originally applied to canal-workers, and hence said to at all likely. My own Dano-Celtic account appears be a contraction of Navigator, which I do not consider much more probable; for though I cannot prove that any of the Highland workers went south from Crinan (though their having done so is most likely), I know that the contractors and superintendents were English and Scotch (it being a Government work), and they would easily convey the word with them, even though they knew not its original meaning."

So far my correspondent. Now first, his account does not quite stand upright by itself. For the Northmen, who were "many" when working at the Caledonian Canal, which they left in 1822, became only "several" when they went to the Crinan Canal: and it was they only, not canal men in general, who were nicknamed naabies." So that the English contractors, who seem to be the only link binding on the south to the story, would not be likely to adopt the term as a general name for all canal men when they returned to the south.

66

Besides, according to this account, the name did not come into England till after the completion of the Crinan Canal. Strangely enough, no history is given of this canal in Black's or in Anderson's Guide-book: nor is the year of its completion to be found in Haydn's Dictionary of Dates, nor in the cyclopedias. It cannot have been finished till late in the twenties of this century. But I myself can remember, before the twenties came in, full fifty years ago, that when the canals were being made in the part of England where I was brought up, a common expression on people's lips was "the system of inland navigation:" and the men who worked at the canals were called at full length, "navigators: " the word had not yet been abridged. This my own remembrance, is to my mind decisive of the question.

The same correspondent mentions an amusing result of provincial pronunciation in the mind of an ignorant man :—

[ocr errors]

"Many years ago, in the Isle of Skye, I was reasoning with a man who thought himself very religious, who, in common with the class to which he belonged, fancied that he possessed the power of discerning spirits,' especially those of preachers, and reckoned it a sacred duty to refuse to listen to any one of whose conversion he felt not fully assured (the test, I am sorry to say, being the use of certain formal phrases, and specially the tone of voice). I said what I could about the truth being God's truth-to be received as such in a meek, humble, and self-searching spirit; and referred to the well-known passage-"Take heed how ye hear,' &c. &c. 'No, no,' says my friend; it is take heed who (hoo) ye hear, and proves I am right.' He had been taught to pronounce how, hoo. He saw no necessity for whom-the objective-before the verb. He was convinced thoroughly that he had floored me with my own weapons, and was more and more confirmed in his spiritual pride."

Two correspondents-one within the last few

days-ask for a decision as between "spoonsfull" | "be kind one to another?" The latter is beyond and "spoonfuls." The same question clearly involves all similar compounds,-handful, cupful, apronful, &c.

There can be no real doubt about the answer. The composite word "spoonful" has an existence of its own, and must follow the laws of that commonwealth of words to which it belongs. To make its plural "spoonsfull," is to blot out its separate existence as a word. Besides, this form of plural does not convey the meaning intended. "Three spoons full" is a different thing from "three spoonfuls." The former implies that three separate spoons were used: the latter expresses three measures of the size indicated.

There seems to be great uncertainty about the spelling of the verb to shew (or, show). The following rule was given me, I forget by whom, and I have generally found it observed by careful writers. When the verb is used of outward visible things, spell it with an o: "He showed me his house and his pictures." But when the verb is used of things to be manifested to the mind, and not to the sense, spell it with an e: "He shewed me the advantage of becoming his tenant." It follows from what has been said, that the substantive, "a show," should always be spelt with an o: its meaning being restricted to an outward display made to the senses. On examining the English Bible, I find that "shew" is universal, both as verb and as substantive, as literal and as metaphorical. Nor is this owing to modern printers merely. The same use prevailed through all the ancient English versions and is found also in the Common Prayer Book. The tendency of the modern printer has been to abandon this spelling altogether, and to use the "o" in every case.

:

A newspaper stated in 1864, that Lord Palmerston had attained his eightieth year. On this a household at Beckenham fell out. The ladies maintained that the expression was equivalent to--had completed his eightieth year. And matter of fact was with them: for Lord Palmerston, having been born in 1784, was full eighty in 1864. But the gentlemen held that, however the fact might seem to bear out the ladies' interpretation, and however the writer may have intended to express the meaning, attained and completed cannot be the same but the expression "attained his eightieth year" must properly mean “entered his eightieth year."

It seems to me that the gentlemen were right. A youth has attained his majority the very day he enters upon it, not the day he dies and quits it, his life being complete. A man attains a position in life the moment he is appointed to it, before he has begun any of its duties. And so a man attains his eightieth year the first day that it can be said of him that he is in his eightieth year: not the last day that this can be said: for he has then attained his eighty-first year.

question the more correct, and is found in the English version of the Scriptures in such phrases as, "Be kindly affectioned one to another in brotherly love." But the former has become almost idiomatic, and the other would sound pedantic in conversation. The history of the inaccuracy may be thus traced. When we say, "Love one another," ""one another" is not a compound word in the objective case after the verb, but is two words, the former in the nominative, the latter in the objective case: in Latin, "Diligite alius alium: "one love another. But the ear has become so accustomed to the sound of "one another" pronounced together, that we have come to regard that sound as indicating a compound word, and to treat it as such after a preposition.

The same is the case with "each other." "Love each other," is "Love each the other:" and so when a preposition intervenes, we ought properly to say, "Each to the other." But we do not, and never shall. Idiom has prevailed, even when established in a mistake, over strict propriety.

A correspondent asks, whether the suppression of the s in the third person singular of "to need" may be regarded as sanctioned by use?

Certainly, no one in these days would think of saying, "Tell the housemaid she needs not light the dining-room fire to-day." Our practice in this case is to abridge "needs not" into "needn't." But it is to be observed that the s is dropped only when another verb follows: we say "He need have the strength of Hercules to lift that stone:" but if we leave out "have," we must say, He needs the strength.

The same correspondent asks whether good writers make "dare" do duty for the past tense of "to dare?"

I do not quite understand this question. I never saw that done which is described. Does my correspondent mean that he doubts whether good writers would say, "They urged him to take the leap, but he dare not?" I imagine that every one would write "he dared not:" I am sure that every one would say, "he didn't dare to."

Let me put in a word to rescue "dare" from being treated as we just now saw "need" must be treated. It is not according to the best usage to say, "he dare not do it." The s of the third person present must not be suppressed: but we must say, he dares not do it.

In Psalm lxxvii. 14, the Prayer Book version has "Thou art the God that doeth wonders; " whereas the Bible version runs, "Thou art the God that doest wonders." A correspondent asks, which is right?

The answer I think must be, that both are right. The direct construction of the sentence in English requires the Prayer Book rendering, "Thou art the God that doeth wonders:" whereas the other can be accounted for by a not uncommon attraction of subordinate verbs into the form in which the main

Ought we to say, "be kind to one another," or sentence is cast.

[ocr errors]

A correspondent requested me to give him an account of the varying plurals of cherub and seraph, as found in our Bible and Prayer Book. I have obtained the following from one whose scholarship I can trust:

"The forms 'cherubs,' 'cherubim,' 'cherubin,' 'cherubims,' and 'seraphs,' 'seraphim,' 'seraphin,' 'seraphims,' are, or profess to be, plurals of the words cherub' and 'seraph' respectively. The words themselves are taken directly from the Hebrew, and in that language the plurals are || *cherubim' and 'seraphim.' In the English version the plurals appear as cherubims and seraphims, the translators finding cherubim (or "in") and seraphim (or "in") in the Latin and Greek versions, and, it may be, thinking that these terminations would not carry to the majority of their readers the plural | sense without the addition of 8.1 Cherubin and seraphin are properly Chaldaic or Rabbinic forms, and are those generally used in the oldest MSS. of the Septuagint version (-e), that version having probably been made by persons to whom the Rabbinic form was most familiar. (The form has, however, in later MSS. and in the editions of the Septuagint, been altered to im.) From the Septuagint this form was introduced to the Latin versions, and so found its way into the Te Deum, where it has remained untranslated in the English Prayer Book."

*

66

One correspondent asks, whether of these two is right, "Death is obnoxious to men," or Men are obnoxious to death!" Here the adjective "obnoxious" is used in two different senses. In Latin, obnoxius" means subject to:" "Omnes homines morti obnoxii sunt," -All men are obnoxious, subject, to Death. But this meaning has almost vanished out of our English usage, and that of noxious, hurtful, has taken its place. I need not tell scholars that this meaning crept into later Latin probably from the similarity of sound in "noxius" and "obnoxius," and is altogether unknown in the better days of the language.

I have had an amusing letter from which I extract the following: "All you say is indeed most true: I grieve over the changes and innovations in our language I hear daily around me, especially among young people. Young people say Thanks' now, never 'Thank you.' I am sick of abnormal,' and 'esthetic,' and 'elected' for 'chosen,' all used most absurdly by modern writers. Advent' for 'coming' I hate; it seems a sacred word, which ought to be only used for our Saviour's coming. Why has people' now an s added to it? It never used to have; we do not yet say sheeps;' and both are nouns of multitude. I can't bear to be asked at

dinner if Mr. Blank shall assist me to anything instead of help, and yet both mean much the same, but the former smacks of the commercial gent.' I dare say I could think of many more follies and

The earlier English Bibles have generally cherubins, &c.

vulgarisms, but I shall tire you. I wish you to write a third article on the subject. Excuse an old-fashioned single woman (not a female) having plagued you with this letter."

of.

We had better take in order the words complained

"Thanks" for "Thank you," seems to deserve better treatment than it meets with at our good Priscilla's hands. It is, first, of respectable parentage and brotherhood: having descended from classic languages, and finding both examples in our best writers, and present associates in the most polished tongues of Europe. And then, as generally used, it serves admirably the purpose of the generation now coming up, who are for the most part a jaunty off-handed set, as far as possible removed from the prim proprieties of our younger days. "Thank you' was formal, and meant to be formal: "Thanks" is both a good deal more gushing for the short time that it takes saying, and also serves the convenient purpose of nipping off very short any prospect of more gratitude or kindly remembrance on the part of the young lady or gentleman from whose mouth it so neatly and trippingly flows. Let "thanks" survive and be welcome; it is best to be satisfied with all we are likely to get.

[ocr errors]

"Abnormal" is one of those words which has come in to supply a want in the precise statements of science. It means the same as "irregular: " but this latter word had become so general and vague in its use, that it would not be sure to express departure from rule, which "abnormal' " does. Thus far its use is justified, and even the oldfashioned lady could hardly complain but the mischief is that the apes of novelty have come to substitute it for "irregular" in common talk: and Miss, at home for the holidays, complains towards the end of breakfast, that the post has become quite abnormal of late." The effect of this, as of fine talk in general, will be to destroy the proper force of the word, and drive future philosophers to seek a new one, which in its turn will share the like fate with its predecessor.

[ocr errors]

"Esthetic," again, has its proper use in designating that which we could hardly speak of before it came into vogue. Unfortunately our adjective, formed from the substantive "sense," had acquired an opprobrious meaning: and the attempt to substitute sensuous for it had altogether failed. There was no remedy but to have recourse to the Greek, the language of science, and take the word we wanted. If it has suffered in the same manner as the last, it is no more than might have been expected: but I do not remember to have heard it used, where any other word would serve the turn.

"Elect" for choose is one of our modern newspaper fineries: and it is not to be denied that "Advent" is rapidly losing its exclusively sacred reference. I am not sure that this is to be regretted, as the popular mind will thus become

It occurs fifty-five times in Shakspere: and, in the formula "Thanks be to God," four times in the English Bible.

aware, without explanation, what is meant by the solemn season when it comes round.

The adding of "s" to "people" has been rather a convenience. We always spoke of the English people, the French people, the German people: why then should we not say, the European peoples? At all events, it is better than what is now newspaper" for it, "nationalities."

66

"Assisting" at dinner is of course what the single lady characterises it as being,-and even worse. I don't imagine the respectable class whom she somewhat uncourteously snubs would be flattered by the idea that they can descend to any expression so simply detestable. Another correspondent says, "I have been often amused by a host, requesting her guest (this gender is unkind), to assist himself." The construction in which the unfortunate verb finds itself in this usage, is somewhat curious. The challenge runs, "Mr. Blank, shall I assist you to beef?" The impression of those who are unacquainted with the vulgarism would be, that "to beef" was a verb, meaning to eat beef, or, as very refined people say, to "partake of " beef.

They do the thing somewhat differently over the water. An English gentleman for the first time seated at the table of an American family, was thus accosted by the lady of the house: "Mr. Smith, sir, do you feel beef?"

I witnessed the other day a curious example of the use of fine words. A blacksmith was endeavouring to persuade the smoke of my kitchen range to go up the chimney instead of filling the room. He tried to explain to me the conditions under which this might be done; and to my astonishment added, "you may always measure the success of an apparatus of this construction, by the incandescence of the ignited material."

In reference to the mispronunciation of Scripture proper names, I have had several anecdotes sent me. The only one worth recounting is, that an informant, whom I well know, heard the name of the returned slave in St. Paul's Epistle to Philemon, read, "One (monosyllable) Simus," instead of Onésimus.

A correspondent is highly offended with the very common expression, "I beg to inform you," "I beg to state," etc., requiring that the word "leave" should be inserted after the verb, otherwise, he says, the words are nonsense.

In this case, I conceive that custom has decided for us, that the ellipsis, "I beg," for "I beg leave," is allowable.

If ingenious derivations are often wrong, so also are ingenious corrections of common readings. I may give as an instance, a correction, often made with some confidence, of a word in the famous passage in Shakspere's Tempest, beginning, "The cloud-capt towers." We commonly read in the modern editions, "And, like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a wreck behind." No, says the corrector, not wreck, but "rack: " rack being thin

floating vapour, such as is seen on the blue sky before a change of weather. Now the original word, it is true, is "rack," but there is every probability that by this Shakspere meant wreck, not floating vapour. Two reasons may be given for this opinion: 1. In this very play, he calls the wreck of a ship by the name "wrack :"_"The direful spectacle of the wrack, which touched the very virtue of compassion in thee;" and in Measure for Measure, III. i., "her brother Frederick was wracked at sea." 2. The word rack, in the sense of the thin cloud spread over the blue sky, is never found except with the definite article, "the rack." Thus in Hamlet, "We often see against some storm, a silence in the heavens, the rack stand still." And Bacon, in his natural history, says, "the clouds above, which we call 'the rack.' In all other examples given in the dictionaries, the same is the case; and it would appear as contrary to usage to say "a rack," as it would be to say a north," or "a zenith." This being so, we have no resource but to face the corrector boldly, and to maintain that "leave not a wrack behind," means, leave not behind so much as a ship when she has broken up,not even a spar to be remembered by.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Another erroneous correction (if one may venture on such an Hibernianism in terms) is the inserting the word "may" in the sentence of the general thanksgiving, "and that we shew forth Thy praise not only with our lips but in our lives." This construction without "may," was not uncommon, when the contemplated result was to be stated. Thus in the first Prayer Book, in the collect for St. Mary Magdalen's day, we have, "Give us grace that we never presume to sin through the example of any creature."

A statement is sometimes made about this word, which is not in accordance with fact. I remember, a short time since, seeing in a book of instructions how to read the Liturgy, that the omission of the word "may" is only a blunder of the printers, for that it exists in the "sealed book," from which our prayer-books ought to be copied. This is true, and it is untrue. It did exist in the sealed book, but was erased by the bishops, who put the pen through it. Thus its omission was no mistake, but a deliberate act, and intended to convey a particular meaning.

I will conclude with a few scraps which I have collected, as specimens of broken or imperfect English.

The first shall be a letter written to a friend of mine by a German not deeply versed in our language.

"DEAR FRIEND,-With pleasure I took out of your kind letter your good arrival at Lausanne, although sleeping. "I find that the intentions [of your Papa] as to your voyage for England are lightly justified as I think you would renounce upon without many peins.

[ocr errors]

• Very much more desagréable seems your second plan of a course of mountains, if you must make it only. But I think as much as I hear of politic [& after the jugements of Mr. -] the peax is also retablied. At

« ForrigeFortsett »