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

"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 ferson.

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

66

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 Erglish 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."

"He was convicted, and was given a sentence of twentyone years."

He had been refused her hand."-N. Y. World. "While in prison he was given a position in the Warden's office, and was granted many privileges. On account of his good behavior he was given credit, and in 1888 had but three more years to serve."

Past. Improperly used, in such sentences as the following, for last.

Hazeltine has spent seven hundred dollars within the past three days."

The phantom 'crow,' which has been so assiduously bolted during the past few days, will prove a veritable fowl."

"Within the past year there have been many changes in St. Louis."

"Reilly, who had been in the habit of handling snakes for the past twenty years, had been frequently warned about [against] the diamond backs."

"Hillbender is usually a very orderly place, but we have had two shooting affrays in the past week.”

66

'In the many tariff revisions which [that] have been necessary for the past twenty-three years, or which [that] may hereafter become necessary, the Republican party has maintained," etc.-Blaine.

Read last instead of past in every one of these sentences. Past does not in a single instance express what the writer intends to say.

Patronize. This word and its derivatives would be much less used by the American tradesman than they are if he were better acquainted with their true meaning. Then he would solicit his neighbor's custom, not his patronage. A man can have no patrons without incurring obligations-without be

coming a protégé; while a man may have customers innumerable, and, instead of placing himself under obligations to them, he may place them under obligations to him. Princes are the patrons of those tradesmen that they allow to call themselves their purveyors; as, "John Smith, Haberdasher to H. R. H. the Prince of Wales." Here the Prince patronizes John Smith.

Pell-mell. This adverb means mixed or mingled together; as, "Men, horses, chariots, crowded pell-mell." It can not properly be applied to an individual. To say, for example, “ He rushed pell-mell down the stairs," is as incorrect as it would be to say, "He rushed down the stairs mixed together."

"A fourteen-year-old cowboy on a pony was driving a steer in the alley near the Journal office one day last week, when the steer made for the back door of Uecker's saloon, went pell-mell through the back door and saloon and out of [at] the front door on the dead run, followed by the daring boy on the pony."

People. This word is much used when some one of the words community, commonwealth, nation, public, or country would seem better to express the thought intended. People, as the word is often used, not infrequently conveys the impression that a class is meant—a class that includes all, perhaps, but the very rich and the higher officials. Now as there are, strictly, no classes in the United States, as all are equal in the eyes of cur institutions, as every citizen is the peer of every other citizen, save in eligibility to the presidency, the impression conveyed by the word people is often erroneous. For example, instead of, "The Senate must take action and obey the will of the people," would it not better express what is intended were we to say, "the will of the nation, or of the country"?

"Why should silver be forced upon [on] the people [public] as a substitute for greenbacks?" etc.

66

Tell The Sun and the people [public] that we will [shall?] enforce the laws."

Per. This Latin preposition is a good deal used in such phrases as per day, per man, per pound, per ton, and so on. In all such cases it is better to use plain English, and say, a day, a man, a pound, a ton, etc. Per is correct before Latin nouns only; as, per annum, per diem, per cent., etc.

Perform. "She performs on the piano beautifully." In how much better taste it is to say simply, "She plays the piano well," or, more superlatively, “exceedingly well," or "admirably." If we talk about performing on musical instruments, to be consistent, we should call those that perform, piano-performers, cornet-performers, violin-performers, and so on.

Permit-Allow.

These words are very nearly allied in meaning, but they are not, as most persons seem to think, absolutely interchangeable. To permit is formally to consent; to allow is tacitly to consent. Permit is comparatively positive and signifies to grant leave; allow is comparatively negative or passive and signifies merely not to forbid.

"It is shameful that we should allow ourselves to remain in ignorance."

'If you will permit me to do so, I will pay you a visit

to-morrow."

"I wished to assist him, but he would not permit it.” Perpetually. This word is sometimes misused for continually. Dr. William Mathews, in his Words, their Use and Abuse, says: "The Irish are perpetually using shall for will." Perpetual means never ceasing, continuing