Own. This word is sometimes very incorrectly used in the sense of confess.

"Deaf Lady Dowager owned [confessed] to having arrived at sixty years [at the age of sixty]."

"I own [confess] I peeped over the wall."

But my point of view, I own [confess], was not that of my countrymen."

Panacea. This word means, unaided, a cure-all; a medicine supposed to cure all diseases; a universal remedy; a catholicon. When, therefore, we talk about a universal panacea we are tautological.

Pantaloons. "We find a writer in the Hour speaking of pantaloons, and we beg to inform the editor of that journal that no such thing is known to the English language. The garment in question is properly called trousers. Pantaloons is a word of Italian origin, and was originally applied to the peculiar hose worn by the pantalone or clown in a pantomime. At any rate, it is not a word of good repute in the English language."-N. Y. Sun.

Pants. This abbreviation is not used by those that are careful in the choice of words. The purist does not use the word pantaloons even, but trousers. Pants are worn by gents, who eat lunches and open wine, and trousers are worn by gentlemen, who eat luncheons and order wine.

Paradox. Often misused for absurdity. A paradox is a seeming absurdity that is true in fact; hence, to say "It seems a paradox," is equivalent to saying "It seems a seeming absurdity"; and to say "It is a paradox," is equivalent to saying "It seems an absurdity."

Here are two sentences in which the word is correctly used:

"It is no [not] less a truth than a paradox [i. e., than

a seeming absurdity] that there are no greater fools than atheistical wits, and none so credulous as infidels."

66 Paradoxical as may be [i. e., absurd as it may seem], specially in contrast with the progress of England, it is strictly true."

Paradox must always be used with the verb to be, and never with to seem.

"This may seem a paradox, but it is nevertheless a fact.”—J. S. Mill. Correctly: This may be a paradox, or, This may seem an absurdity.

"It is less paradoxical [absurd] than it may seem to say," etc.

"The doctrine only appears [seems] a paradox [an absurdity] because it has usually been so expressed as apparently to contradict these well-known facts."

Paraphernalia. This is a law term. In Roman law it meant the goods that a woman brought to her husband besides her dowry. In English law it means the goods that a woman is allowed to have after the death of her husband, besides her dower, consisting of her apparel and ornaments suitable to her rank. When used in speaking of the affairs of every-day life it is usually misused.

Parlor. This word, in the sense of drawing-room, according to Dr. Fitz-Edward Hall, except in the United States and some of the British colonies, is obsolete.

Partake. This is a very fine word to use instead of to eat; just the word for young women that hobble on French heels.

Partially-Partly. "It is only partially done." This use of the adverb partially is sanctioned by high authority, but that does not make it correct. A thing done in part is partly, not partially, done.

"But 'Partially, for not totally, only in part, was in

some connections good English to Sir Thomas Brown; and from the educated sense of euphony which distinguishes modern ears it has been well-nigh completely resuscitated. There are cases in which partly, if substituted for it, would affect many persons of nice perceptions much after the manner of a wrong note in music-e. g., "Shakspeare did perfectly what Eschylus did partially"' (Ruskin)."-Dr. Fitz-Edward Hall.

Participial Nouns. See VERBAL NOUNS.

Participles. When the present participle is used substantively, in sentences like the following, it is preceded by the definite article and followed by the preposition of. The omitting of the preposition is a common error. Thus, "Or, it is the drawing a conclusion that was before either unknown or dark," should be, "the drawing of a conclusion." Prompted by the most extreme vanity, he persisted in the writing bad verses," should be, "in writing bad verses," or "in the writing of bad verses." There is a misuse of the article a which [that] is very common. It is the using it before the word most."-Moon. Most writers would say "the using of it." Mr. Moon argues for his construction-i. e., for the construction that leaves out the of.

Particles. “Nothing but study of the best writers and practice in composition will enable us to decide what are the prepositions and conjunctions that ought to [should] go with certain verbs. The following examples illustrate some common blunders :

"It was characterized with eloquence': read 'by.' "A testimonial of the merits of his grammar': read 'to.'

"It was an example of the love to form comparisons': read of forming.'

"Repetition is always to be preferred before obscurity': read 'to.'

666

'He made an effort for meeting them': read 'to meet.'

666

'They have no other object but to come': read 'other object than,' or omit 'other.'

“Two verbs are not infrequently followed by a single preposition, which accords with one only-e. g., 'This duty is repeated and inculcated upon the reader.' 'Repeat upon' is nonsense; we must read 'is repeated to and inculcated upon.'"-Nichol's English Composition.

We often see for used with the substantive sympathy; the best practice, however, uses with; thus, "Words can not express the deep sympathy I feel with you."-Queen Victoria.

Party. This is a very good word in its place, as in legal documents, but it is very much out of its place when used as it often is by the unschooled-where good taste would use the word person. Not, the party that I saw, but the person. Not, I know a party, but a person.

Passive. "Constant attention is the price of good English. There is one fault [error] that perpetually [continually] appears in spite of all castigation. 'William Knack,' says a contemporary,' was given a benefit at the Thalia last evening.' This sort of phraseology is exceedingly vicious. It is hard to understand the depravity of its invention. It seems that a benefit was given to Mr. Knack; yet the infernal ingenuity of the reporters contrives to frame a sentence in which there are two nominatives and only one singular verb."-N. Y. Sun.

True, this kind of word-placing is highly objectionable; but if we concede that the sentence says-though barbarously-what it was intended to say, we have only to

consider Knack as being in the dative (governed by to understood) and not in the nominative case to make it grammatical. By a little transposing we have, “A benefit was given William Knack at the Thalia Theater last evening." The transposition does not change the grammatical relation of the words. The sense and not the positions of the words determines.

If the sentence were, "He was given a benefit," its grammar would be indefensible, since we can not construe he as a dative (or as an objective after a preposition). Here, he is the subject of was given, and benefit tries, but tries in vain, to be the object. "Him was given a benefit" would be better, because we could govern him by to understood, calling it a dative or an objective, as we pleased.

Examples of this objectionable phraseology are frequently met with. Here are a few :

"He was given the control of the third military district."

'He was given a life interest in the estate."

“I was given one of those copies."

"The nations should have been given warning."-Governor Budd.

Among the questions discussed at the session of the University of the State of New York this was one :

"Should the A. M. degree be abandoned, or given a distinct pedagogic significance?'

"What can be done when the chiefs of the university show such dreadful ignorance of the English language?"— N. Y. Sun.

"With us ministers, we are so constantly given occasion to study character," etc.

"For every scratch I have been given he has two scars."