culated to inspire," etc.; and, "The first two of the three sentences are well enough calculated for ushering," etc. Calculate is sometimes vulgarly used for intend, purpose, expect; as, "He calculates to get off to-morrow." Caliber. This word is sometimes used very absurdly ; "Brown's Essays are of a much higher caliber than Smith's." as, order. Cant. It is plain that the proper word to use here is Cant is a kind of affectation; affectation is an effort to sail under false colors; an effort to sail under false colors is a kind of falsehood; and falsehood is a term of Latin origin which we often use instead of the stronger Saxon term LYING! "Who is not familiar," writes Dr. William Matthews, "with scores of pet phrases and cant terms which are repeated at this day apparently without a thought of 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." 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 has been omitted, and which 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 blundermark. 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 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 than in plain letters." 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 Merideth 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, let you and me go. "He is as good as me" : say, as I. 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. say, and me. “You "Between you "John went out with James and I": 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 Supply the ellipsis, and we We can't say, me going. "Was it them?" say, it. Who? me?" say, I. should have, Who? me a dunce to do it? "Where are you going? Who? me?" say, I. "Who do you mean?" say, whom. they. "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." "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. 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 met you are in love with.'-Addison. If there is 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. * 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 case of negation, not me is the usual practice."-Bain. This, I confidently affirm, is not true in America.-A, A. 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 phrasenever 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 7” 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 be inharmonious. Euphony with him 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 do-consider 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? 66 6 '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 take the possessive form. They prevented him going forward' better, 'They prevented his going forward.' 'He was dismissed without any reason being assigned.' 'The boy died through his clothes being burned.' We hear little of any connection being kept up between the two nations.' |