66

general, any two terms which we connect by a "conjunction should be the same in kind or "quality rather than different or heterogeneous”. On pages 29 and 30 I read as follows;—

66

'They are reproduced here for the twofold purpose "of relieving the writer of this book from a "suspicion of plagiarism; and to show that his views, as then expressed, are so far corrobo"rated."

66

Mr. Gould having said, in the former clause of the sentence;-" of relieving", should have said, in the latter clause ;-" and of showing".

Here is another sentence which is not properly balanced; page 200:—

66

"But there is a large class of clergymen who know 'the difficulty of making themselves heard, with"out knowing the right method to overcome it."

This should be ;-"the difficulty of making"; and, "the right method of overcoming".

On page 41, I read ;

"In addition to the misuse of 'either' and 'neither' "these words are both frequently mispro"nounced."

This should be;-"In addition to the misuse

"of either' and 'neither' is the frequent mispro"nunciation of both these words." The careful reader of these criticisms will not have failed to observe that I have altered the position of the word "both". This has been done to bring the sentence into strict accordance with the meaning which Mr. Gould intended to convey. He did not intend to speak of words which are "both "frequently mispronounced" and frequently something else; but to speak of "both words" as being frequently mispronounced. Hence, the necessity for the alteration. The parts of a sentence which are most closely connected in meaning should be as closely as possible connected in position.

As for adverbs, Mr. Gould censures Archbishop Trench for having, in ‘English Past and Present', misplaced the adverb "only", and said;-" only "different", when he ought to have said;— "different only"; yet Mr. Gould himself, on the very next page, (61,) similarly errs in using the adverb "also"; and writes ;—

"Trench also says, in the same volume," etc.;

as if English Past and Present' had not been written by him solely! What Mr. Gould means

is;-"Trench says also, in the same volume,"

etc.

On page 105, Mr. Gould gives us a list of words ending in "logy", and says ;—

"Of these, one only takes 'er' as an exclusive termi"nation, namely, 'astrologer "."

Why does Mr. Gould censure Archbishop Trench for saying "only different", and yet himself say "only takes"? He should have said;-" Of "these, only one takes er' as an exclusive "termination, namely, astrologer'." Of course, in some sentences the expressions "only different" and "only takes" would be correct. The position which the adverb must occupy is determined by the meaning of the writer.

There is a similar error on page 150. Mr. Gould there says;—

"In Webster's Dictionary of 1866, the following words 66 are retained in their exclusiveness, that is, 'they are not severally united by brackets with "orthodox orthography."

66

If I were disposed to be hypercritical, I might ask, what the apparently self-contradictory expression, "severally united", means; and also,

what kind of things "brackets with orthodox "orthography" are. But, seriously, Mr. Gould ought to have said;-"they, severally, are not "united by brackets to the same words spelt "according to orthodox orthography."

Mr. Gould tells us, on page 50, that "ad"verbs refer to, or qualify, what a person or

66

thing does; and adjectives, what a person or "thing is, or seems to be." As he evidently is familiar with the rule respecting the proper use of adverbs and of adjectives, I am surprised to find him saying, on page 204 ;

"This passage

66

is more commonly read wrong than, 'perhaps, any other in the Bible."

Is not reading an act-a something which a person "does"? Why, then, does not Mr. Gould qualify it by the adverb "wrongly"?

Mr. Gould finds fault with Dean Alford for saying "more decisive", and asks, on page 112;—

"Does the Dean hold that decisive is an adjective "that admits of comparison ?"

I reply, on behalf of my former antagonist, by asking Mr. Gould whether "universally" and "totally" admit of comparison? If not, why does

he condemn the Dean for saying "more decisive" and yet himself say, on page 38;—" the phrase is "now so universally used"; and, on page 178, say;-"so totally at variance with well-estab"lished conclusions"? A decision, of a court of law, for instance, may be confirmed by a higher tribunal, and thereby be made "more decisive"; but "universality" and "totality" cannot be otherwise than perfect or complete. To use language implying that anything can be universal, and yet only partly universal; or total, and yet only partly total, is to speak nonsensically; yet such is the import of Mr. Gould's expressions, So "universally", "so totally". The little word "so" is often misused in Mr. Gould's 'Good 'English'. It occurs four times in four consecutive lines, on page 213. I there read;

66

"Cannot see why the clergyman should be so. But for all that he is so; it is in the nature of 'things that he should be so; and he is nearly "helpless while he remains so."

66

This is the very opposite of elegant.

"So" and "such" are very greatly in favour with demonstrative young ladies; with them, every beautiful object is either "such a beauty!"