Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

when the proper word would be one of its synonyms—usually, frequently, or commonly. I quote from Crabb :

"What is commonly done is an action common to all; what is generally done is the action of the greatest part; what is frequently done is either the action of many, or an action many times repeated by the same person; what is usually done is done regularly by one or by many. Commonly is opposed to rarely; generally and frequently to occasionally or seldom; usually to casually. Men commonly judge of others by themselves; those who judge by the mere exterior are generally deceived; but notwithstanding every precaution, one is frequently exposed to gross frauds; a man of business usually repairs to his countinghouse every day at a certain hour."

There is always a best word to use; but one can not always find that best word, try as one may.

Gentleman. Few things are in worse taste than to use the term gentleman, whether in the singular or the plural, to designate the sex. "If I was a gentleman," says Miss Snooks. "Gentlemen have just as much curiosity as ladies," says Mrs. Jenkins. "Gentlemen have so much more liberty than we ladies have," says Mrs. Parvenue. Now, if these ladies were ladies, they would in each of these cases use the word man instead of gentleman, and woman instead of lady. Further, Miss Snooks would say, "If I were." Well-bred men, men of culture and refinement-gentlemen, in shortuse the terms lady and gentleman comparatively little, and they are especially careful not to call themselves gentlemen when they can avoid it. A gentleman, for example, does not say, "I, with some other gentlemen, went," etc.; he is careful to leave out the word other. The men that use these terms most, and especially those that lose no opportunity to proclaim themselves gentlemen, belong to that class

of men that cock their hats on one side of their heads, and often wear them when and where gentlemen would remove them; that pride themselves on their familiarity with the latest slang; that proclaim their independence by showing the least possible consideration for others; that laugh long and loud at their own wit; that wear a profusion of cheap finery, such as outlandish watch chains hooked in the lowest button-hole of their waistcoats, Brazilian diamonds in their shirt bosoms, and big seal rings on their little fingers; that use bad grammar and interlard their conversation with big oaths. In business correspondence, Smith is addressed as Sir, while Smith & Brown are often addressed as Gentlemen—or, vulgarly, as Gents. It is better to address them as Sirs.

Since writing the foregoing, I have met with the following paragraph in the London publication, All the Year Round: "Socially, the term 'gentleman' has become almost vulgar. It is certainly less employed by gentlemen than by inferior persons. The one speaks of 'a man I know,' the other of 'a gentleman I know.' In the one case the gentleman is taken for granted, in the other it seems to need specification. Again, as regards the term 'lady.' It is quite in accordance with the usages of society to speak of your acquaintance the duchess as 'a very nice person.' People who would say 'very nice lady' are not generally of a social class that has much to do with duchesses; and if you speak of one of these as a 'person,' you will soon be made to feel your mistake."

[ocr errors]

'In nine cases out of ten the use of gentleman for man is a case of affectation founded neither in education nor politeness."-N. Y. Sun.

Gents. Of all vulgarisms, this is perhaps the most offensive. If we say gents, why not say lades?

Gerund. "I have work to do,' 'there is no more to say,' are phrases where the verb is not in the common infinitive, but in the form of the gerund. 'He is the man to do it, or for doing it.' 'A house to let,' 'the course to steer by,' 'a place to lie in,' 'a thing to be done,' 'a city to take refuge in,'' the means to do ill deeds,' are adjective gerunds; they may be expanded into clauses: a house that the

owner lets or will let'; 'the course that we should steer by'; 'a thing that should be done'; 'a city wherein one may take refuge'; 'the means whereby ill deeds may be done.' When the to ceased in the twelfth century to be a distinctive mark of the dative infinitive or gerund, for was introduced to make the writer's intention clear. Hence the familiar form in 'What went ye out for to see?''they came for to show him the temple.'"-Bain.

[ocr errors]

Girl. Sometimes vulgarly employed instead of daughter. A father whose permission was asked to marry one of his girls," answered: "Certainly. Which one will you have the chambermaid, or the cook?"

Good. Sometimes improperly used instead of well, in forming compound adjectives with the participles fitting, shaped, and conditioned.

Things are well-shaped, not good-shaped, and garments are well-fitting, and not good-fitting.

“Her feet are said to be usually without an instep, and owe all their beauty to well-fitting shoes."

Goods. This term, like other terms used in trade, should be restricted to the vocabulary of commerce. Messrs. Arnold & Constable, in common with the Washington Market huckster, very properly speak of their wares as their goods; but Mrs. Arnold and Mrs. Constable should— and I doubt not do-speak of their gowns as being made of

fine or coarse silk, cashmere, muslin, or whatever the material may be.

Got. In sentences expressing simple possession-as, "I have got a book," "What has he got there?" "Have you got any news?" "They have got a new house," etc.got is entirely superfluous, if not, as some writers contend, absolutely incorrect. Possession is fully expressed by have. "Foxes have holes: the birds of the air have nests"; not, "Foxes have got holes; the birds of the air have got nests.' Formerly the imperfect tense of this verb was gat, which is now obsolete, and the perfect participle was gotten, which some grammarians say is growing obsolete. If this be true, there is no good reason for it. If we say eaten, written, striven, forgotten, why not say gotten, where this form of the participle is more euphonious-as it often is-than got?

"Here is a gentleman who sends his grammatical proposition from a place far off in the West:

666

"SIR: The following paragraph is clipped from The Sun of January 30th:

"""Some men say nothing because they have got nothing to say. Some say nothing because they feel the necessity of keeping what they have got and getting all they

[merged small][ocr errors]

"Is not the word "got" in each sentence not only inelegant and superfluous, but positively vulgar? A. W. 646 HAMILTON, Mo., February 2d."

"Our correspondent is informed that the use of the word 'got' in the above extract is entirely in accordance with the most venerable and picturesque idioms of the English language. This language, he should understand, is not a machine, but a growth, and those who would

reduce it to rigorous utilitarian forms would destroy its beauty. The vulgarity in this case lies entirely in our correspondent's deluded fancy. The word to which he objects is neither inelegant nor superfluous."-N. Y. Sun, February 6, 1885.

If not "inelegant and superfluous," what purpose does the word serve? Does have got express more than have?

Gould against Alford. Mr. Edward S. Gould, in his review of Dean Alford's Queen's English, remarks, on page 131 of his Good English: "And now, as to the style* of the dean's book, taken as a whole. He must be held responsible for every error in it; because, as has been shown, he has had full leisure for its revision. The errors are nevertheless numerous, and the shortest way to exhibit them is in tabular form." In several instances Mr. Gould would not have taken the dean to task had he been more guarded. The following are a few of Mr. Gould's corrections in which he is clearly in the right:

Paragraph 4. "Into another land than"; should be, "into a land other than."

16. “We do not follow rule in spelling other words, but custom"; should be, "We do not follow rule, but custom, in spelling," etc.

18. "The distinction is observed in French, but never appears to have been made," etc.; read, "appears never to have been made."

61. "Rather to aspirate more than less"; should be, "to aspirate more rather than less."

* Mr. Gould criticises the dean's diction, not his style.

+ Better, "to revise it."

Is to put them in tabular form"; or, better, "The shortest way is to exhibit them in tabular form."

« ÖncekiDevam »