THOSE KIND. "Those kind of apples are best": read, "That kind of apples is best." It is truly remarkable that many persons who can justly lay claim to the possession of considerable culture use this barbarous combination. It would be just as correct to say, "Those flock of geese," or "Those drove of cattle," as to say, "Those sort or kind of people."

THOSE WHO. This phrase, applied in a restrictive sense, is the modern substitute for the ancient idiom they that, an idiom in accordance with the true meaning of that.

"'They that told me the story said'; 'Blessed are they that mourn'; 'and Simon and they that were with him'; 'I love them that love me, and they that seek me early shall find me'; 'they that are whole have no need of a physician'; 'how sweet is the rest of them that labor!' 'I can not tell who to compare them to so fitly as to them that pick pockets in the presence of the judge'; 'they that enter into the state of marriage cast a die of the greatest contingency' (J. Taylor).

"'That man hath perfect blessedness Who walketh not astray,'

if expressed according to the old idiom would be, 'the man hath—that walketh.'

"'That' and 'those,' as demonstrative adjectives, refer backward, and are not therefore well suited for the forward reference implied in making use of 'that which' and 'those who' as restrictive relatives. It is also very cumbrous to say 'that case to which you allude' for 'the case (that) you allude to.'

"Take now the following: 'The Duke of Wellington is not one of those who interfere with matters over which he has no control': 'the Duke is not one of them that interfere in matters that they have no control over (matters that they can not control, beyond their control, out of their province).' If 'them that' sounds too antiquated, we may adopt as a convenient compromise, 'the Duke is not one of those that'; or, 'the Duke is not one to interfere in matters out of his province'; 'the duke is not one that interferes with what he has no control over.'"—Bain.

THREADBARE QUOTATIONS. Among the things that are in bad taste in speaking and writing, the use of threadbare quotations and expressions is in the front rank. Some of these usés et cassés old-timers are the following: "Their name is legion"; "hosts of friends"; "the upper ten"; "Variety is the spice of life"; "Distance lends enchantment to the view"; "A thing of beauty is a joy for ever"; "the light fantastic toe"; "own the soft impeachment"; "fair women and brave men"; "revelry by night"; "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

TO. It is a well-established rule of grammar that to, the sign of the infinitive mood, should not be used for the infinitive itself: thus, "He has not done it, nor is he likely to." It should be, "nor is he likely to do it."

We often find to, when the sign of the infinitive, separated by an adverb from the verb to which it belongs. Professor A. P. Peabody says that no standard English writer makes this mistake, and that, so far as he knows, it occurs frequently with but one respectable American writer.

Very often to is used instead of at; thus, "I have been to the theatre, to church, to my uncle's, to a concert," and so on. In all these cases, the preposition to use is clearly at, and not to. See, also, AND.

TO THE FORE. An old idiomatic phrase, now freely used again.

TONGUE. "Much tongue and much judgment seldom go together."—L'Estrange. See LANGUAGE.

TOWARD. Those who profess to know about such things say that etymology furnishes no pretext for the adding of s to ward in such words as backward, forward, toward, upward, onward, downward, afterward, heavenward, earthward, and the like.

TRANSFERRED EPITHET. This is the shifting of a qualifying word from its proper subject to some allied subject. Examples:

"The little fields made green By husbandry of many thrifty years."

"He plods his weary way." "Hence to your idle bed!" By this figure the diction is rendered more terse and vigorous; it is much used in verse. For the sake of conciseness, it is used in prose in such phrases as the lunatic asylum, the criminal court, the condemned cell, the blind asylum, the cholera hospital, the foundling asylum, and the like.

"Still in harmonious intercourse they lived The rural day, and talked the flowing heart."

"There be some who, with everything to make them happy, plod their discontented and melancholy way through life, less grateful than the dog that licks the hand that feeds it."

TRANSPIRE. This is one of the most frequently misused words in the language. Its primary meaning is to evaporate insensibly through the pores, but in this sense it is not used; in this sense we use its twin sister perspire. Transpire is now properly used in the sense of to escape from secrecy, to become known, to leak out; and improperly used in the sense of to occur, to happen, to come to pass, and to elapse. The word is correctly used thus: "You will not let a word concerning the matter transpire"; "It transpires [leaks out] that S. & B. control the enterprise"; "Soon after the funeral it transpired [became known] that the dead woman was alive"; "It has transpired [leaked out] that the movement originated with John Blank"; "No report of the proceedings was allowed to transpire"; "It has not yet transpired who the candidate is to be." The word is incorrectly used thus: "The Mexican war transpired in 1847"; "The drill will transpire under shelter"; "The accident transpired one day last week"; "Years will transpire before it will be finished"; "More than a century transpired before it was revisited by civilized man."

TRIFLING MINUTIÆ. The meaning of trifles and of minutiæ is so nearly the same that no one probably ever uses the phrase trifling minutiæ except from thoughtlessness.

TRUSTWORTHY. See RELIABLE.

TRY. This word is often improperly used for make. We make experiments, not try them, which is as incorrect as it would be to say, try the attempt, or the trial.

UGLY. In England, this word is restricted to meaning ill-favored; with us it is often used—and not without authority—in the sense of ill-tempered, vicious, unmanageable.

UNBEKNOWN. This word is no longer used except by the unschooled.

UNDERHANDED. This word, though found in the dictionaries, is a vulgarism, and as such is to be avoided. The proper word is underhand. An underhand, not an underhanded, proceeding.

UNIVERSAL—ALL. "He is universally esteemed by all who know him." If he is universally esteemed, he must be esteemed by all who know him; and, if he is esteemed by all who know him, he must be universally esteemed.

UPWARD OF. This phrase is often used, if not improperly, at least inelegantly, for more than; thus, "I have been here for upward of a year"; "For upward of three quarters of a century she has," etc., meaning, for more than three quarters of a century.

UTTER. This verb is often misused for say, express. To utter means to speak, to pronounce; and its derivative utterance means the act, manner, or power of uttering, vocal expression; as, "the utterance of articulate sounds." We utter a cry; express a thought or sentiment; speak our mind; and, though prayers are said, they may be uttered in a certain tone or manner. "Mr. Blank is right in all he utters": read, says. "The court uttered a sentiment that all will applaud": read, expressed a sentiment.

The primary meaning of the adjective utter is outer, on the outside; but it is no longer used in this sense. It is now used in the sense of complete, total, perfect, mere, entire; but he who uses it indiscriminately as a synonym of these words will frequently utter utter nonsense—i. e., he will utter that which is without the pale of sense. For example, we can not say utter concord, but we can say utter discord—i. e., without the pale of concord.

VALUABLE. The following sentence, which recently appeared in one of the more fastidious of our morning papers, is offered as an example of extreme slipshodness in the use of language: "Sea captains are among the most valuable contributors to the Park aviary." What the writer probably meant to say is, "Sea captains are among those whose contributions to the Park aviary are the most valuable."

VAST. This word is often met with in forcible-feeble diction, where it is used instead of great or large to qualify such words as number, majority, multitude, and the like. Big words and expletives should be used only where they are really needed; where they are not really needed, they go wide of the object aimed at. The sportsman that hunts small game with buck-shot comes home empty-handed.

VERACITY. The loss would be a small one if we were to lose this word and its derivatives. Truth and its derivatives would supply all our needs. In the phrase so often heard, "A man of truth and veracity," veracity is entirely superfluous, it having precisely the same meaning as truth. The phrase, "A big, large man," is equally good diction.

VERBIAGE. An unnecessary profusion of words is called verbiage: verbosity, wordiness.

"I thought what I read of it verbiage."—Johnson.

Sometimes a better name than verbiage for wordiness would be emptiness. Witness: "Clearness may be developed and cultivated in three ways, (a) By constantly practicing in heart and life the thoughts and ways of honesty and frankness." The first sentence evidently means, "Clearness may be attained in three ways"; but what the second sentence means—if it means anything—is more than I can tell. Professor L. T. Townsend, "Art of Speech," vol. i, p. 130, adds: "This may be regarded as the surest path to greater transparency of style." The transparency of Dr. Townsend's style is peculiar. Also, p. 144, we find: "The laws and rules[1] thus far laid down[2] furnish ample foundation for[3] the general statement that an easy and natural[4] expression, an exact verbal incarnation of one's thinking,[5] together with the power of using appropriate figures, and of making nice discriminations between approximate synonyms,[6] each being an important factor in correct style, are attained in two ways.[7] (1) Through moral[8] and mental discipline. (2) Through continuous and intimate[9] acquaintance with such authors as best exemplify those attainments."[10]

1. Would not laws cover the whole ground? 2. En passant I would remark that Dr. Townsend did not make these laws, though he so intimates. 3. I suggest the word justify in place of these four. 4. What is natural is easy; easy, therefore, is superfluous. 5. If this means anything, it does not mean more than the adjective clear would express, if properly used in the sentence. 6. Approximate synonyms!! Who ever heard of any antagonistic or even of dissimilar synonyms? 7. The transparency of this sentence is not unlike the transparency of corrugated glass. 8. What has morality to do with correctness? 9. An intimate acquaintance would suffice for most people. 10. Those attainments! What are they? Dr. Townsend's corrugated style makes it hard to tell.

This paragraph is so badly conceived throughout that it is well-nigh impossible to make head, middle, or tail of it; still, if I am at all successful in guessing what Professor Townsend wanted to say in it, then—when shorn of its redundancy and high-flown emptiness—it will read somewhat like this: "The laws thus far presented justify the general statement that a clear and natural mode of expression—together with that art of using appropriate figures and that ability properly to discriminate between synonyms which are necessary to correctness—is attained in two ways. (1) By mental discipline. (2) By the study of our best authors."

The following sentence is from a leading magazine: "If we begin a system of interference, regulating men's gains, bolstering here, in order to strengthen this interest, [and] repressing elsewhere [there], in order to equalize wealth, we shall do an [a] immense deal of mischief, and without bringing about a more agreeable condition of things than now [we] shall simply discourage enterprise, repress industry, and check material growth in all directions." Read without the eighteen words in italics and with the four inclosed.

"Nothing disgusts sooner than the empty pomp of language."

VICE. See CRIME.

VICINITY. This word is sometimes incorrectly used without the possessive pronoun; thus, "Washington and vicinity," instead of "Washington and its vicinity." The primary meaning of vicinity is nearness, proximity. In many of the cases in which vicinity is used, neighborhood would be the better word, though vicinity is perhaps preferable where it is a question of mere locality.

VOCATION—AVOCATION. These words are frequently confounded. A man's vocation is his profession, his calling, his business; and his avocations are the things that occupy him incidentally. Mademoiselle Bernhardt's vocation is acting; her avocations are painting and sculpture. "The tracing of resemblances among the objects and events of the world is a constant avocation of the human mind."

VULGAR. By the many, this word is probably more frequently used improperly than properly. As a noun, it means the common people, the lower orders, the multitude, the many; as an adjective, it means coarse, low, unrefined, as "the vulgar people." The sense in which it is misused is that of immodest, indecent. The wearing, for example, of a gown too short at the top may be indecent, but is not vulgar.

WAS. "He said he had come to the conclusion that there was no God." "The greatest of Byron's works was his whole work taken together."—Matthew Arnold. What is true at all times should be expressed by using the verb in the present tense. The sentences above should read is, not was.

WHARF. See DOCK.

WHAT. "He would not believe but what I did it": read, but that. "I do not doubt but what I shall go to Boston to-morrow": read, doubt that. We say properly, "I have nothing but what you see"; "You have brought everything but what I wanted."

WHENCE. As this adverb means—unaided—from what place, source, or cause, it is, as Dr. Johnson styled it, "a vicious mode of speech" to say from whence, Milton to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor is there any more propriety in the phrase from thence, as thence means—unaided—from that place. "Whence do you come?" not "From whence do you come?" Likewise, "He went hence," not "from hence."

WHETHER. This conjunction is often improperly repeated in a sentence; thus, "I have not decided whether I shall go to Boston or whether I shall go to Philadelphia."

WHICH. This pronoun as an interrogative applies to persons as well as to things; as a relative, it is now made to refer to things only.

"Which is employed in coördinate sentences, where it, or they, and a conjunction might answer the purpose; thus, 'At school I studied geometry, which (and it) I found useful afterward.' Here the new clause is something independent added to the previous clause, and not limiting that clause in any way. So in the adjectival clause; as, 'He struck the poor dog, which (and it, or although it) had never done him harm.' Such instances represent the most accurate meaning of which. Who and which might be termed the COÖRDINATING RELATIVES.

"Which is likewise used in restrictive clauses that limit or explain the antecedent; as, 'The house which he built still remains.' Here the clause introduced by which specifies, or points out, the house that is the subject of the statement, namely, by the circumstance that a certain person built it. As remarked with regard to who, our most idiomatic writers prefer that in this particular application, and would say, 'The house that he built still remains.'"

"Which sometimes has a special reference attaching to it, as the neuter relative: 'Cæsar crossed the Rubicon, which was in effect a declaration of war.' The antecedent in this instance is not Rubicon, but the entire clause.

"There is a peculiar usage where which may seem to be still regularly used in reference to persons, as in 'John is a soldier, which I should like to be,' that is, 'And I should like to be a soldier.'" See THAT.

WHO. There are few persons, even among the most cultivated, who do not make frequent mistakes in the use of this pronoun. They say, "Who did you see?" "Who did you meet?" "Who did he marry?" "Who did you hear?" "Who did he know?" "Who are you writing to?" "Who are you looking at?" In all these sentences the interrogative pronoun is in the objective case, and should be used in the objective form, which is whom, and not who. To show that these sentences are not correct, and are not defensible by supposing any ellipsis whatsoever, we have only to put the questions in another form. Take the first one, and, instead of "Who did you see?" say, "Who saw you?" which, if correct, justifies us in saying, "Who knew he," which is the equivalent of "Who did he know?" But "Who saw you?" in this instance, is clearly not correct, since it says directly the opposite of what is intended.

Who was little used as a relative till about the sixteenth century. Bain says: "In modern use, more especially in books, who is frequently employed to introduce a clause intended to restrict, define, limit, or explain a noun (or its equivalent); as, 'That is the man who spoke to us yesterday.'"

"Here the clause introduced by who is necessary to define or explain the antecedent the man; without it, we do not know who the man is. Such relative clauses are typical adjective clauses—i. e., they have the same effect as adjectives in limiting nouns. This may be called the RESTRICTIVE use of the relative.

"Now it will be found that the practice of our most idiomatic writers and speakers is to prefer that to who in this application.

"Who is properly used in such coördinate sentences as, 'I met the watchman, who told me there had been a fire.' Here the two clauses are distinct and independent; in such a case, and he might be substituted for who.

"Another form of the same use is when the second clause is of the kind termed adverbial, where we may resolve who into a personal or demonstrative pronoun and conjunction. 'Why should we consult Charles, who (for he, seeing that he) knows nothing of the matter?'

"Who may be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with whom. For many good writers and speakers say 'who are you talking of?' 'who does the garden belong to?' 'who is this for?' 'who from?'" etc.

If this be true—if who may be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with whom—then, of course, such expressions as "Who did you see?" "Who did you meet?" "Who did he marry?" "Who were you with?" "Who will you give it to?" and the like, are correct. That they are used colloquially by well-nigh everybody, no one will dispute; but that they are correct, few grammarians will concede. See THAT.

WHOLE. This word is sometimes most improperly used for all; thus, "The whole Germans seem to be saturated with the belief that they are really the greatest people on earth, and that they would be universally recognized as being the greatest, if they were not so exceeding modest." "The whole Russians are inspired with the belief that their mission is to conquer the world."—Alison.

WHOLESOME. See HEALTHY.

WHOSE. Mr. George Washington Moon discountenances the use of whose as the possessive of which. He says, "The best writers, when speaking of inanimate objects, use of which instead of whose." The correctness of this statement is doubtful. The truth is, I think, that good writers use that form for the possessive case of which that in their judgment is, in each particular case, the more euphonious, giving the preference, perhaps, to of which. On this subject Dr. Campbell says: "The possessive of who is properly whose. The pronoun which, originally indeclinable, had no possessive. This was supplied, in the common periphrastic manner, by the help of the preposition and the article. But, as this could not fail to enfeeble the expression, when so much time was given to mere conjunctives, all our best authors, both in prose and verse, have now come regularly to adopt, in such cases, the possessive of who, and thus have substituted one syllable in the room of three, as in the example following: 'Philosophy, whose end is to instruct us in the knowledge of nature,' for 'Philosophy, the end of which is to instruct us.' Some grammarians remonstrate; but it ought to be remembered that use, well established, must give law to grammar, and not grammar to use."

Professor Bain says: "Whose, although the possessive of who, and practically of which, is yet frequently employed for the purpose of restriction: 'We are the more likely to guard watchfully against those faults whose deformity we have seen fully displayed in others.' This is better than 'the deformity of which we have seen.' 'Propositions of whose truth we have no certain knowledge.'—Locke." Dr. Fitzedward Hall says that the use of whose for of which, where the antecedent is not only irrational but inanimate, has had the support of high authority for several hundred years.

WIDOW WOMAN. Since widows are always women, why say a widow woman? It would be perfectly correct to say a widowed woman.

WIDOWHOOD. There is good authority for using this word in speaking of men as well as of women.

WITHOUT. This word is often improperly used instead of unless; as, "You will never live to my age without you keep yourself in breath and exercise"; "I shall not go without my father consents": properly, unless my father consents, or, without my father's consent.

WORST. We should say at the worst, not at worst.

WOVE. The past participle of the verb to weave is woven. "Where was this cloth woven?" not wove.

YOU ARE MISTAKEN. See MISTAKEN.

YOU WAS. Good usage does, and it is to be hoped always will, consider you was a gross vulgarism, certain grammarians to the contrary notwithstanding. You is the form of the pronoun in the second person plural, and must, if we would speak correctly, be used with the corresponding form of the verb. The argument that we use you in the singular number is so nonsensical that it does not merit a moment's consideration. It is a custom we have—and have in common with other peoples—to speak to one another in the second person plural, and that is all there is of it. The Germans speak to one another in the third person plural. The exact equivalent in German of our How are you? is, How are they? Those who would say you was should be consistent, and in like manner say you has and you does.

YOURS, &C. The ignorant and obtuse not unfrequently profess themselves at the bottom of their letters "Yours, &c." And so forth! forth what? Few vulgarisms are equally offensive, and none could be more so. In printing correspondence, the newspapers often content themselves with this short-hand way of intimating that the writer's name was preceded by some one of the familiar forms of ending letters; this an occasional dunderhead seems to think is sufficient authority for writing himself, Yours, &c.

THE END.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] If this is true in England, it is not true in America. Nowhere in the United States is such "questionable grammar" as this frequently heard in cultivated circles.

[2] "It may be confidently affirmed that with good speakers, in the case of negation, not me is the usual practice."—Bain. This, I confidently affirm, is not true in America.—A. A.

[3] Should be, a text-book for his course, and not, for his course a text-book.

[4] Mr. Gould criticises the Dean's diction, not his style.

[5] Better, "to revise it."

[6] "Is to put them in tabular form."

[7] Bullions' "Grammar" was published in 1867.

[8] "L. W. K., CLK., LL. D., EX. SCH., T. C., D. Of this reverend gentleman's personality I know nothing. He does not say exactly what he means; but what he means is, yet, unmistakable. The extract given above is from 'Public Opinion,' January 20, 1866."

[9] "The analysis, taken for granted in this quotation, of 'are being thrown up' into 'are being' and 'thrown up' will be dealt with in the sequel, and shown to be untenable."

[10] "Vol. xlv, p. 504 (1837)."

[11] "'The Life and Correspondence of the late Robert Southey,' vol. i, p. 249."

[12] "Vol. i, p. 338. 'A student who is being crammed'; 'that verb is eternally being declined.'—'The Doctor,' pp. 38 and 40 (mono-tome ed.)."

[13] "In 'Put Yourself in his Place,' chapter x, he writes: 'She basked in the present delight, and looked as if she was being taken to heaven by an angel.'"

[14] "'Words,' etc., p. 340."

[15] "Thomas Fuller writes: 'At his arrival, the last stake of the Christians was on losing.'—'The Historie of the Holy Warre,' p. 218 (ed. 1647)."

[16] "I express myself in this manner because I distinguish between be and exist."

[17] "Samuel Richardson writes: 'Jenny, who attends me here, has more than once hinted to me that Miss Jervis loves to sit up late, either reading or being read to by Anne, who, though she reads well, is not fond of the task.'—'Sir Charles Grandison,' vol. iii, p. 46 (ed. 1754).

"The transition is very slight by which we pass from 'sits being read to' to 'is being read to.'"

[18] "I am here indebted to the last edition of Dr. Worcester's 'Dictionary,' preface, p. xxxix."

[19] "'Words and their Uses,' p. 353."

[20] "'It is being is simply equal to it is. And, in the supposed corresponding Latin phrases, ens factus est, ens ædificatus est (the obsoleteness of ens as a participle being granted), the monstrosity is not in the use of ens with factus, but in that of ens with est. The absurdity is, in Latin, just what it is in English, the use of is with being, the making of the verb to be a complement to itself.'—Ibid., pp. 354, 355.

"Apparently, Mr. White recognizes no more difference between supplement and complement than he recognizes between be and exist. See the extract I have made above, from p. 353."

[21] "'But those things which, being not now doing, or having not yet been done, have a natural aptitude to exist hereafter, may be properly said to appertain to the future.'—Harris's 'Hermes,' book I, chap. viii (p. 155, foot-note, ed. 1771). For Harris's being not now doing, which is to translate , the modern school, if they pursued uniformity with more of fidelity than of taste, would have to put being not now being done. There is not much to choose between the two."

[22] "'Words and their Uses,' p. 343."

[23] The possessive construction here is, in my judgment, not imperatively demanded. There is certainly no lack of authority for putting the three substantives in the accusative. The possessive construction seems to me, however, to be preferable.

[24] "The use of the plural for the singular was established as early the beginning of the fourteenth century."—Morris, p. 118, § 153.

[25] "Some writers omit the comma in cases where the conjunction is used. But, as the conjunction is generally employed in such cases for emphasis, commas ought to be used; although, where the words are very closely connected, or where they constitute a clause in the midst of a long sentence, they may be omitted."—Bigelow's "Handbook of Punctuation."

[26] "This usage violates one of the fundamental principles of punctuation; it indicates, very improperly, that the noun man is more closely connected with learned than with the other adjectives. Analogy and perspicuity require a comma after learned."—Quackenbos.

[27] Many writers would omit the last two commas in this sentence.

[28] The commas before and after particularly are hardly necessary.

[29] The only exception to this rule is the occasional use of the colon to separate two short sentences that are closely connected.

[30] "Dr. Angus on the 'English Tongue,' art. 527."

[31] "In the following passages, the indicative mood would be more suitable than the subjunctive: 'If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread'; 'if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.' For, although the address was not sincere on the part of the speakers, they really meant to make the supposition or to grant that he was the Son of God; 'seeing that thou art the Son of God.' Likewise in the following: 'Now if Christ be preached, that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection from the dead?' The meaning is, 'Seeing now that Christ is preached.' In the continuation, the conditional clauses are of a different character, and 'be' is appropriate: 'But if there be no resurrection from the dead, then is Christ not risen. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.' Again, 'If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest,' etc. Consistency and correctness require 'remember.'"—Harrison on the "English Language," p. 287.

[32] "So, in German, wäre for würde sein. 'Hätt' ich Schwingen, hätt' ich Flügel, nach den Hügeln zög' ich hin,' for 'würde ich ziehen.'"

[33] "So, in German, hätte occurs for würde haben. 'Wäre er da gewesen, so hätten wir ihn gesehen,' for 'so würden wir ihn gesehen haben.' Hätten is still conditional, not indicative. In Latin, the pluperfect indicative is occasionally used; which is explained as a more vivid form."

[34] "In principal clauses the inflection of the second person is always retained: 'thou hadst,' 'thou wouldst, shouldst,' etc. In the example, the subordinate clause, although subjunctive, shows, 'hadst.' And this usage is exceedingly common."

[35] To those who are not quite clear as to what transcendentalism is, the following lucid definition will be welcome: "It is the spiritual cognoscence of psychological irrefragability connected with concutient ademption of incolumnient spirituality and etherealized contention of subsultory concretion." Translated by a New York lawyer, it stands thus: "Transcendentalism is two holes in a sand-bank: a storm washes away the sand-bank without disturbing the holes."

[36] "Cromwell—than he no man was more skilled in artifice; or, Cromwell—no man was more skilled in artifice than he (was)."

[37] "No devil sat higher than he sat, except Satan."

[38] "Speaking of Dryden, Hallam says, 'His "Essay on Dramatic Poesy," published in 1668, was reprinted sixteen years afterward, and it is curious to observe the changes which Dryden made in the expression. Malone has carefully noted all these; they show both the care the author took with his own style, and the change which was gradually working in the English language. The Anglicism of terminating the sentence with a preposition is rejected. Thus, "I can not think so contemptibly of the age I live in," is exchanged for "the age in which I live." "A deeper expression of belief than all the actor can persuade us to," is altered, "can insinuate into us." And, though the old form continued in use long after the time of Dryden, it has of late years been reckoned inelegant, and proscribed in all cases, perhaps with an unnecessary fastidiousness, to which I have not uniformly deferred, since our language is of Teutonic structure, and the rules of Latin and French grammar are not always to bind us.'

"The following examples, taken from Massinger's 'Grand Duke of Florence,' will show what was the usage of the Elizabethan writers:—

"'For I must use the freedom I was born with.'

"'In that dumb rhetoric which you make use of.'

"'—— if I had been heir Of all the globes and sceptres mankind bows to.'

"'—— the name of friend Which you are pleased to grace me with.'

"'—— wilfully ignorant in my opinion Of what it did invite him to.'

"'I look to her as on a princess I dare not be ambitious of.'

"'—— a duty That I was born with.'"



THE ORTHOËPIST:

A PRONOUNCING MANUAL,

CONTAINING ABOUT THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED WORDS, INCLUDING A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF THE NAMES OF FOREIGN AUTHORS, ARTISTS, ETC., THAT ARE OFTEN MISPRONOUNCED.

By ALFRED AYRES.

SELECTIONS FROM THE WORK.

b-d´mn, not b´d-mn.

c-cre´, not -cr´. The orthoëpists agree that u, preceded by r in the same syllable, generally becomes simply oo, as in rude, rumor, rural, rule, ruby.

l-lp´-thy; l-lp´-thst.

r´-bc, not -r´bc.

Asia—´sh-, not ´zh.

ay, or aye (meaning yes)—.

aye (meaning always)—.

Bs´märck, not bz´-. At the end of a syllable, s, in German, has invariably its sharp, hissing sound.

Cairo—in Egypt, k´r; in the United States, k´r.

Courbet—kor´b´.

dc´de, not d-kd´.

d-c´ros. The authority is small, and is becoming less, for saying dc´o-ros, which is really as incorrect as it would be to say sn´o-ros.

df´-ct, not d-fç´it.

ds-din´, not dis-.

ds-hn´or, not dis-.

c—nm´-cl, or -c-nm´-cl. The first is the marking of a large majority of the orthoëpists.

-nr´vte. The only authority for saying n´er-vte is popular usage; all the orthoëpists say e-nr´vte.

p´ch, not ´pch. The latter is a Websterian pronunciation, which is not even permitted in the late editions.

fn-n-cir´. This much-used word is rarely pronounced correctly.

He´n, not hine. Final e in German is never silent.

honest—n´est, not -st, nor -st. "Honest, honest Iago," is preferable to "honust, honust Iago," some of our accidental Othellos to the contrary notwithstanding.

s´-lte, or s´-late, not ´s-lt. The first marking is Walker's, Worcester's, and Smart's; the second, Webster's.

ONE VOL., 18MO, CLOTH. PRICE, $1.00.

New York: D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3, & 5 Bond Street.

THE END