« ÖncekiDevam »
counted a corruption of less. It may, however, be used instead of less with propriety in verse, and also, in some cases, in prose. We may say, for example, “Of two evils choose the less," or “the lesser." The latter form, in sentences like this, is the more euphonious ; and the question of euphony is one that a writer should never lose sight of.
Liable. Richard Grant White, in inveighing against the misuse of liable, cites the example of a member from a rural district who called out to a man that he met in the village, where he was in the habit of making little purchases: “I
say, mister, kin yer tell me whar I'd be li'ble [likely) to find some beans ?”
“Would he not be liable (likely) to neglect the most important mechanism for its apparent insignificance ?” See also APT.
Like, To. See LOVE.
Like-As. Both these words express similarity; like (adjective) comparing things, as (adverb) comparing action, existence, or quality. Like is followed by an object only, and does not admit of a verb in the same construction. As must be followed by a verb expressed or understood. We say, “He looks like his brother,” or “He looks as his brother looks." “Do as I do," not “ like I do.” “You must speak as James does (or speaks],” not“
like James does.” “He died as he had lived-like a dog." " It is as blue as indigo”-i. e., as indigo is."
“A nation must laugh, and there is all the difference whether it laughs like a satyr, or like [as] those bitter fishwomen did [laughed] in France at blood and slaughter, or like [as] we have laughed under Punch's auspices for many years."
Like is sometimes improperly used in the sense of as
though, thus : “ It looks like it was caused,” etc. “ It looks like they must pay,” etc.
Likely. See Apt.
Limited. Sometimes used when low, small, slight, or slender would be the proper word.
The cost of the volume [book ?] was formerly five shillings. It is now published at the limited [low] price of one shilling.”
“ If we may found [?] an opinion on a limited (slight) acquaintance with the writings of Tiek.”
It is better to say, “A man of small or slender means,” than to say, “A man of limited means”; yet one might say very properly, “My means are too limited to justify the outlay."
Lit. This form of the past participle of the verb to light is now obsolete. “Have you lighted the fire ?" gas is lighted.” Het for heated is a similar, but a much greater, vulgarism.
Loan-Lend. There are those who contend that there is no such verb as to loan, although it has been found in our literature for more than three hundred years. Whether there is properly such a verb or not, it is quite certain that it is only those having a vulgar penchant for big words that will prefer it to its synonym, lend. Better far to say, “ Lend me your umbrella” than “ Loan me your umbrella.”
“To loan, as a verb, has to us a strange sound.' E. A. Freeman.
Locate Settle. The use of the verb to locate in the sense of to settle is said to be an Americanism. Although the dictionaries recognize to locate as a neuter verb, as such it is marked “rarely used,” and, in the sense of to settle, it is among the vulgarisms that careful speakers and writers are studious to avoid. A man settles, not locates, in Nebraska.
“Where do you intend to settle ?" not locate. See also SETTLE.
Loggerheads. In the meantime France is at loggerheads internally.”—New York Herald, April 29, 1881. Loggerheads internally?!
This, of course, is reportorial, not editorial, English.
Looks beautifully. It is sometimes interesting to note the difference between vulgar bad grammar and genteel bad grammar, or, more properly, between nonpainstaking and painstaking bad grammar. The former uses, for example, adjectives instead of adverbs; the latter uses adverbs instead of adjectives. The former says, “This bonnet is trimmed shocking"; the latter says,
This bonnet looks shockingly." In the first sentence the epithet qualifies the verb is trimmed, and consequently should have its adverbial form-shockingly; in the second sentence the epithet qualifies the appearance (a noun) of the bonnet, and consequently should have its adjectival form-shocking. The second sentence means to say,
“ This bonnet presents a shocking appearance.” The bonnet certainly does not really look; it is looked at, and to the looker its appearance is shocking. So we say, in like manner, of a person, that he or she looks sweet, or charming, or beautiful, or handsome, or horrid, or graceful, or timid, and so on, always using an adjective. “Miss Coghlan, as Lady Teazle, looked charmingly.” The grammar of the New York Herald would not have been any more incorrect if it had said that Miss Coghlan looked gladly, or sadly, or madly, or delightedly, or pleasedly. A person may look sick or sickly, but in both cases the qualifying word is an adjective. The verbs to smell, to feel, to sound, to appear, and to stand are also found in sentences in which the qualifying word must be an adjective, and not an adverb. We say, for example,
» « We
“The rose smells sweet" ; “The butter smells good, or bad, or fresh”; “I feel glad, or sad, or bad, or despond. ent, or annoyed, or nervous”; “ This construction sounds harsh" ;
“How delightful the country appears !” On the other hand, to look, to feel, to smeli, to sound, and to appear are found in sentences where the qualifying word must be an adverb ; thus, “ He seels his loss keenly"; “ The king looked graciously on her”; “I smell it faintly." We might also say, “He feels sad (adjective], because he feels his luss keenly” (adverb); “He appears well” (adverb).
The expression, “ She seemed confusedly, or timidly,” is not a whit more incorrect than “ She looked beautifully, or charmingly.”. See ADJECTIVES.
Lot-Lots. Very inelegantly used for “a great many,” a great deal”; as, “They have lots of enemies,” have lots of apples," "He had a lot, or lots, of trouble," She gave us a lot of trouble," etc.
Loud. There are not a few who seem to think that loud can not be used as an adverb. It is quite as correct
Do not talk so loud," as it is to say, “ Do not talk in such a loud tone."
“ The World of this town (London) has driven some of the American papers in Europe mad by its article on The American Girl, Uncivilized and Civilized. The former type is described as always talking loudly (loud) and (as being] always in haste," etc.—Corr. N. Y. Sun.
It prevents me from hearing you, and you must therefore speak more loudly (louder].”
Love-Like. Men that are careful in selecting their words, and have not an undue leaning toward the superlative, love few things—their wives, their sweethearts, their kinsmen, truth, justice, and their country. We like ac
quaintances, horses, flowers, pictures, good things to eat, and so on.
Lovely. A much-abused word. With some persons everything is lovely.
Low-priced. See CHEAP.
Luggage_Baggage. The former of these words is commonly used in Great Britain, the latter in America.
Lunch. This word, when used as a substantive, may at the best, be accounted an inelegant abbreviation of luncheon. The dictionaries barely recognize it. The proper phraseology to use is, “ Have you lunched?” or, “ Have you had your luncheon ?" or, better, “ Have you had luncheon ?” as we may in most cases presuppose that the person addressed would hardly take anybody's else luncheon.
Luxurious-Luxuriant. The line is drawn much more sharply between these two words now than it was formerly. Luxurious was once used, to some extent at least, in the sense of rank growth, but now all careful writers and speakers use it in the sense of indulging in, or delighting in, luxury. We talk of a luxurious table, a luxurious liver, luxurious ease, luxurious freedom. Luxuriant, on the other hand, is restricted to the sense of rank, or excessive, growth or production ; thus, luxuriant weeds, luxuriant foliage or branches, luxuriant growth.
“Prune the luxuriant, the uncouth refine,
But show no mercy to an empty line."-Pope. Mad. Professor Richard A. Proctor, in a recent number of The Gentleman's Magazine, says: “The word mad, in America, seems nearly always to mean angry. For mad, as use the word, Americans say crazy. Herein they have manisestly impaired the language." Have they?