29 JUNE 1912, Page 32



Stn,—As you concern yourself for the purity of the English language, may I protest against an absurd use of the word " convincing " which is rapidly becoming popular P The excellent cricket reporter of the Times last week informed us that a particular bowler was not "convincing." This week, in the issue of the 27th, in regard to the batting of the Australian Eleven, he remarks that. "the. body of the team have., not yet ..been altogether convincing." If a single bowler, or a whole side of batsmen, can fail of being "con- vincing," can the same deplorable deficiency be attributed to each ball delivered by the bowler or to a particular stroke of the batsman P If not, why not P The only rational meaning which the phrase above quoted can bear is that the reporter was not convinced in his own mind that the bowler or the batsman referred to were quite first-class. But why could he not have said plainly what he meant instead of denying to bowlers and to batsmen a quality to which they make no claim? It is time to protest against this particular misuse which has caught on with that class of writers who love to throw in some novel or attractive phrase without any regard to its proper meaning or its appropriateness to the Matter for which they use it.—I am, Sir, &c., G. G. R.