MODERN GRAMMAR.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.1 Sin,—In adding, as I thought, a few illustrations to your article. I had no intention of beginning a controversy in your columns ; indeed, in my innocence, I never dreamt that any educated man would defend the expressions which I stigma- tised as ungrammatical. I am no professed grammarian : I have never studied English grammar, nor "even taught it." I wrote of the language as I learnt to speak it, and as I read it in the best modern authors. Still, I must try to defend my position, if you will give me space. I will be as brief as possible.
(1.) "Sort of a man." Does not "a man" mean "one man "? There may be various sorts of the genus "man," but not of "one man."
(2.) "Very vexed," &c. The question does not rest on the derivation of "very," but on its recognised use. I believe that it can properly be used only with adjectives and adverbs. Mr. Kempe says, "After very,' subaudi much." Would he. then, admit "I like him very," if the "man in the street" chose to adopt that elliptical expression ? Again, would he defend a similar use of " too "? I have seen "too removed," for "too far removed;" and "too pleased" is almost as common as"very pleased." Of course some participles are used as adjectives ; I was not speaking of these. Mr. Kempe con- fesses that he does not "know of many to which the adverb ' very ' can be prefixed." I know of none, except such as have become adjectives. Curiously enough, "vexed" is an adjective in one of its meanings, but not in that which it usually bears ; hence one could speak, I suppose, of a "very vexed question," though not of a "very vexed man."
(3.) "No one only." Mr. Kempe justifies the turning of the adverb " only " into a preposition equivalent to "except." (By-the-way, is it a blunder on my part to call this a grammatical mistake ?) (4.) "Try and do." It is certain that most people who use this expression substitute it for "try to do." I much doubt whether any one uses both phrases, discriminating between them, and intending to convey to the minds of others, now one, now the other of the two shades of meaning between which Mr. Kempe subtly distinguishes.
(5.) "What's the use of me speaking ?" The question relates to the usefulness of speech on my part ; thought is directed to the act, not to the person acting. This is properly expressed by the verbal noun, limited by the possessive pronoun or not, as the ease may be,—" What's the use of my speaking?" or "of speaking." I am fully aware that it is difficult to pre- serve the correct construction in some cases where the posses- sive is a noun. But is that a reason why we should impoverish the language by always using one and the same expression for two distinct ideas ? I should say, " I see him coming," because I see the person ; but "I hear of his coming," if I meant that what 1 hear of is the fact of his coming. I find, indeed, in a work by a well-known author : "We hear of him ravaging Kent, struggling with Egfrid and finally resigning the crown." This writer shows, however, by his constant use of the possessive with the verbal noun, that in the sentence quoted he is deliberately using the other construction with an obvious difference in meaning. Not so the profanum vulgus,— they have but one phrase, and that only accidentally, if ever, correct. Take "I can prevent him doing it." What is meant is not "I can hinder him in the act of doing it" (participle), but, on the contrary, "I can hinder him from doing it,' so that he does not act at all. The object of the sentence is not the person, but the act, and this is properly expressed by "I can hinder his doing it."
I observe, Sir, that my critic leaves you alone ; but I have no doubt that he is ingenious enough to defend even the use of "like I do" which you mentioned in your article. I agree with him in thinking that "the enrichment of our language by whatever varieties of expression are not inconsistent with grammatical purity, etymological truth, or harmonious adapta- tion" is "much to be desired and promoted." But I maintain that of the expressions which I adduced, some impoverish the language, most are inharmonious, and all are inconsistent with grammatical purity. Moreover, they are all "loosely em- ployed," not deliberately adopted, except perhaps by Mr. Kempe. No doubt examples of some of them might be quoted from good authors ; even Homer sometimes nods. But I do, not hesitate to say that well-educated people do not as a rule- use them in speaking or writing. And surely this is the true criterion ; this, and not the slipshod language of the more illiterate members of the vast army of newspaper reporters, elementary teachers, lecturers, preachers, and novelists who. do so much to modify our mother-tongue.—I am, Sir, &c., A PRINCIPAL OF A TRAINING COLLEGE.
P.S.—A correspondent asks me to mention "the all too. common but flagrant misuse of myself." I suppose that he means in such expressions as "John and myself."
Previous page
