their meaning? Who ever attended a missionary meeting without hearing 'the Macedonian cry,' and an account of 'some little interest,' and 'fields white for the harvest'? Who is not weary of the ding-dong of 'our Zion,' and the solecism of 'in our midst'; and who does not long for a verbal millennium when Christians shall no longer 'feel to take' and 'grant to give '?"

"How much I regret," says Coleridge, "that so many religious persons of the present day think it necessary to adopt a certain cant of manner and phraseology [and of tone of voice] as a token to each other [one another]! They improve this and that text, and they must do so and so in a prayerful way; and so on."

"Cant is itself properly a double-distilled lie-the second power of a lie."-Carlyle.

Capable. This word is often improperly used in a passive sense, thus:

“Anything capable [susceptible] of being salified is salifiable."-Standard Dictionary.

“Anything capable [susceptible] of being saved or restored is salvable."-Standard Dictionary.

“We beg [leave] to repeat that we require [need ?] more articles capable [susceptible] of pictorial illustration.”Phrenological Journal.

Capacity. See ABILITY.

Caption. This word is often used for heading, but, thus used, it is condemned by careful writers. The true meaning of caption is a seizure, an arrest. It does not come from a Latin word meaning a head, but from a Latin word meaning to seize.

Caret. Cobbett writes of the caret to his son: "The last thing I shall mention under this head is the caret [^], which is used to point upward to a part which [that] has

been omitted, and which [that] is inserted between the line where the caret is placed and the line above it. Things should be called by their right names, and this should be called the blunder-mark. I would have you, my dear James, scorn the use of the thing. Think before you write; let it be your custom to write correctly and in a plain hand. Be as careful that neatness, grammar, and sense prevail when you write to a blacksmith about shoeing a horse as when you write on the most important subjects. Habit is powerful in all cases; but its power in this case is truly wonderful. When you write, bear constantly in mind that some one is to read and to understand what you write. This will make your handwriting and also your meaning plain. Far, I hope, from my dear James will be the ridiculous, the contemptible, affectation of writing in a slovenly or illegible hand, or that of signing his name otherwise tha in plain letters."

Carnival. A feast celebrated in Roman Catholic coun tries for a few days immediately before Lent, The literal meaning of the word is farewell to flesh.

A correspondent of the N. Y. Sun uses this word thus: "A great trotting carnival [= farewell to flesh] took place here to-day. There were five events [races] on the programme, exclusive of a trial of speed by Maud S. [the speed of Maud S.]."

Carry. See BRING.

Case. Many persons of considerable culture continually make mistakes in conversation in the use of the cases, and we sometimes meet with gross errors of this kind in the writings of authors of repute. Witness the following: "And everybody is to know him except I."-George Meredith in The Tragic Comedies, Eng. ed., vol. i, p. 33. "Let's you and I go": say, me. We can not say, Let I

go. Properly, Let's go―i. e., Let us go, or,

go.

"He is as good as me" say, as I.

Let you and me

"She is as tall as

him" say, as he. 'You are older than me": say, than I. "Nobody said so but he": say, but him. “Every one can master a grief but he that hath it": correctly, but him. "John went out with James and I": say, and me. "You are stronger than him": say, than he. "Between you and I": say, and me. "Between you and they": say, and them. "He gave it to John and I": say, and me. "You told John and I": say, and me. "He sat between him and I": say, and me. "He expects to see you and I": say, and me. “You were a dunce to do it. Who? me?" say, I. Supply the ellipsis, and we should have, Who? me a dunce to do it? "Where are you going? Who? me?" say, I. We can't say, me going. "Who do you mean?" "Was it them?" say, they. whom. 'If I was him, I would do it": say, were he. "If I was her, I would not go": say, were she. "Was it him?" say, he. "Was it her?" say, she. "For the benefit of those whom he thought were his friends": say, who. This error is not easy to detect on account of the parenthetical words that follow it. If we drop them, the mistake is very apparent; thus, "For the benefit of those whom were his friends."

say,

"On the supposition," says Bain, "that the interrogative who has whom for its objective, the following are errors: 'who do you take me to be?' 'who should I meet the other day?' 'who is it by?' 'who did you give it to?' 'who to?' "who for?' But, considering that these expressions occur with the best writers and speakers, that they are more energetic than the other form, and that they lead to no ambiguity, it may be doubted whether grammarians have not exceeded their province in condemning them."

Cobbett, in writing of the pronouns, says: "When the relatives are placed in the sentence at a distance from their antecedents or verbs or prepositions, the ear gives us no assistance. 6 Who, of all the men in the world, do you think I saw to-day?' 'Who, for the sake of numerous services, the office was given to.' In both these cases it should be whom. Bring the verb in the first and the preposition in the second case closer to the relative, as, who I saw, to who the office was given, and you see the error at once. But take care! Whom, of all the men in the world, do you think, was chosen to be sent as an ambassador?' Whom, for the sake of his numerous services, had an office of honor bestowed upon him.' These are nominative cases, and ought to have who; that is to say, who was chosen, who had an office."

"Most grammarians," says Dr. Bain, in his Higher English Grammar, "have laid down this rule: 'The verb to be has the same case after as before it.' Macaulay censures the following as a solecism: 'It was him that Horace Walpole called a man who never made a bad figure but as an author.' Thackeray similarly adverts to the same deviation from the rule: "Is that him?" said the lady in questionable grammar.' But, notwithstanding this," continues Dr. Bain, we certainly hear in the actual speech of all classes of society such expressions as it was me,' 'it was him,' it was her,' more frequently than the prescribed form.* This shy creature, my brother says, is me'; 'were it me, I'd show him the difference.'-Clarissa Harlowe. 'It is not me you are in love with.'-Addison. If there is

·

་

* 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.

"It may be confidently affirmed that with good speakers, in the

one character more base than another, it is him who,' etc.Sydney Smith. If I were him'; 'if I had been her,' etc. The authority of good writers is strong on the side of objective forms. There is also the analogy of the French language; for while 'I am here' is je suis ici, the answer to 'who is there?' is moi (me); and c'est moi (it is me) is the legitimate phrase-never c'est je (it is I)."

But moi, according to all French grammarians, is very often in the nominative case. Moi is in the nominative case when used in reply to "Who is there?" and also in the phrase "C'est moi," which makes "It is I" the correct translation of the phrase, and not "It is me." The French equivalent of "I! I am here," is "Moi! je suis ici." The Frenchman uses moi in the nominative case when je would not be euphonious. Euphony with him, in speaking, is a matter of more importance than grammatical correctness. Bescherelle gives many examples of moi in the nominative. Here are two of them: " Mon avocat et moi sommes de cet avis. Qui veut aller avec lui? Moi." If we use such phraseology as 'It is me," we must do as the French doconsider me as being in the nominative case, and offer euphony as our reason for thus using it.

When shall we put nouns (or pronouns) preceding verbal, or participial, nouns, as they are called by some grammarians-infinitives in ing, as they are called by others in the possessive case?

"I am surprised at John's (or his, your, etc.) refusing to go.' 'I am surprised at John (or him, you, etc.) refusing to go.' [In the latter sentence refusing is a participle.] The latter construction is not so common with pronouns as with nouns, especially with such nouns as do not readily

case of negation, not me is the usual practice."-Bain. This, I confidently affirm, is not true in America.-A. A.