VICIOUS FORMS OF SPEECH.

T

HE language employed in literary composition is evidently different in some respects from that used in ordinary conversation. In writing, care is taken to select the most appropriate words, and to avoid any inelegant form of expression. In speaking, people are not expected to use such rigorous accuracy; an attempt to do so would look like pedantry-an awkward and vain exhibition of learning-which is inconsistent with good taste. Yet, in familiar conversation, nothing can excuse vulgarity, slang, or bad grammar. We may reject highsounding phrases, but it is our duty, at least, to speak correctly and to the point.

Strangely enough, few persons either write or speak the English language correctly; numerous blunders are discovered in the works of the most popular authors-Southey having the reputation of being the most correct. The principal reason assigned for deficiencies of this nature, besides heedlessness, is the want of a sound knowledge of etymology and the rules of construction. It is to be observed, however, that in numerous instances, there exists a doubt as to alleged inaccuracies of expression, and it is not always safe to say a writer is incorrect when he uses expressions not commonly received. We have an example of this doubtfulness in the using of they before the relative instead of those. Those who is now the ordinary form, but the Bible has they that, and Blair, in his Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres, adheres to the same form. William Cobbett, dogmatically, and with his usual causticity, condemns Blair for

this seeming fault, copied, as he says, by Lindley Murray. ‘It is truly curious that Lindley Murray should, even in the motto in the title-page of his English Grammar, have selected a sentence containing a grammatical error; still more curious that he should have found this sentence in Dr Blair's Lectures on Language; and most curious of all, that this sentence should be intended to inculcate the great utility of correctness in the composing of sentences! Here, however, are the proofs of this combination of curious circumstances: "They who are learning to compose, and arrange their sentences with accuracy and order, are learning, at the same time, to think with accuracy and order." Cobbett, in the pride of a self-taught genius, triumphantly points to much more decided errors in the composition of Addison, Johnson, and other learned writers; adding that 'there are many men, who have been at Latin schools for years, and who, at last, cannot write six sentences in English correctly'-an allegation unfortunately too true. Though disfigured by some oddities of sentiment, Cobbett's English Grammar offers, in a series of familiar letters, an exceedingly intelligible account of the construction of our language, and I venture to say, that you will learn more by its perusal than could be procured from all the other grammars in existence. For much interesting information on the etymology and gradual transformation of words, I would refer you to a learned work with a somewhat strange title, The Diversions of Purley, by Horne Tooke.

Unfortunately, England possesses no authorised standard of literary expression. Grammar has exact rules, yet, from the constant misuse of certain phrases, it would almost seem as if grammars and dictionaries might safely be set at defiance. For example, the word either, which means one of two, is now, almost without an exception, used to signify both; as, 'The gateway had a pillar on either side;' the intended meaning being on each side. No doubt, in a short time, dictionaries will

sanction this erroneous expression; for thus, by usage, do slang words and new interpretations arbitrarily gain a footing in the language. One or two examples of slang words rising to respectability may be curious. The rabble which attended the partisans of the Earl of Shaftesbury, at the latter end of Charles II.'s reign, are said to have been first called 'mobile vulgus ;' and the phrase being afterwards contracted into mob, that term was long used in a slang and contemptuous sense for a crowd. The word is now in Johnson. The term bore, signifying an annoying person, has scarcely yet attained the dignity of a legitimate word; but judging from its frequent use, its elevation is not far distant. Snob, an aspiring and affected person of humble origin, is also working its way towards the dictionary. The deficiencies of our language necessitate the absorption of such casual but expressive terms; and while condemning the free use of slang, it must be acknowledged that to this source is traced various words representing ideas which formerly could be expressed only by some kind of circumlocution. Language, like everything in human affairs, being progressive, and liable to improvement, we may further observe, that as new terms and modes of expression are pressed into the service of literature, older forms of speech are dropped out of general use, and, like provincial legends, exist only in places remote from the metropolis. We can in this way account for that form of vernacular still prevailing among the humbler classes in the Lowlands of Scotland, which, uncouth as it may appear in sound and orthography, bears a remarkable resemblance to the English of Chaucer and other early poets -being, in fact, the language spoken at court three or four centuries ago. Whether it has been quite judicious to dismiss from general use many of the words in the Scottish, and some of the provincial dialects, admits of doubt; for they express ideas not represented by any modern term. This, however, is not the place to discuss this philological question. We may

more advantageously submit a few corrections of the more obvious blunders of speech and composition in general use, for the purpose of putting every one on his guard.

To adduce evidence-To bring evidence.

The above statement may be relied on-The foregoing statement. Above, being an adverb, can never be properly used as an adjective.

Better ought not to be used to signify well. He is better, signifies an entire recovery. He is Quite better is very bad.

improvement in health, not
better, should be, He is well.

Better of a sleep-Better for.

Beast, only to be applied to a quadruped, and not the lower animals indiscriminately.

He ate, not he eat; as ate is the proper preterite of eat. Sir Walter Scott usually wrote eat for ate—an error.

Both, whether as a numeral, or as a conjunction, ought to be applied to no more than two objects or sentences. Whether. A similar remark applies to this word, which in reality is a contraction of 'which of the either'-that is, which of two objects. Whether is too frequently applied to three objects. Couple, which simply implies the juncture of two objects, cannot properly be used in reference to separate objects. 'A couple of shillings,' for instance, is an error.

The former and latter can only be used properly with respect to two objects.

Neither (or not either) is only applicable to two objects.

None are-None is. None applies to one thing only, being a

contraction of no one.

Every and each, being singular ideas, ought never to be used as plurals. The error of so using them is very common.

Bade is the proper preterite of bid. Bid is often used as t preterite, an error similar to that just alluded to. Lay is the proper preterite of lie. It is also the present of

verb signifying to deposit. Care ought to be taken not t use it as the present of the former verb, which is ofte done.

Bidden, ridden, written, spoken, are the past participles of bi ride, write, speak. We often hear people say: 'He wa spoke to;' 'I have wrote to him;' 'Eclipse was rode b Jenkins.' Nothing could be more vulgarly erroneous. Drunk is the proper past participle of drink. Fastidious peopl have lately got into a way of saying, 'His health was drank.' Drank is the preterite, and cannot be thus used with propriety.

Don't, won't, and can't, though admitted as colloquial English, are not good contractions. They could be endured, however, if people would avoid using don't in the third person singular. 'He does not' can never be properly abbreviated into 'He don't.'

Had better, had rather. These are vulgar absurdities, arising, perhaps, from the desire of brevity. 'I had rather' must have originally been, 'I would rather,' contracted into, 'I'd rather. There is a singularly vile Scotticism, 'I had oblige to do so and so.' It should be, I was obliged. Short-lived, long-lived, should be short-lifed, long-lifed.

Then, as an adjective. "The then Earl of Winchelsea.' Nothing can be more vicious.

Quantity is often used in reference to objects susceptible of numeration. It is only applicable to an object capable of increase or decrease, not by numeration.

Differ with, different to-very bad. From is the only correct particle to use with differ and its derivatives. Disagree with is proper, because agree there governs, not the