Page images


measured; they are, however, but metaphorical expressions relating to qualities existing merely in the imagination.

Now let us consider the question of " differ withand “differ from. “H. S. D.” says that ;—“Commonly, where opinions are con“cerned, it is differ with'; in all other cases it “ is differ from?". These words imply that the use of the preposition " withis rendered necessary whenever it is opinions, and not things, which form the topic of conversation. But, that this is not the reason why that preposition is used " in such connectionwill be apparent when we consider, that although we say ;—“I differ with you in opinion”, we never say ;-"My opinion differs with yours”, but always,—“My

opinion differs from yours”. As, then, it is not the circumstance that the conversation is concerning opinions, that makes us use the preposition “with; is it that the pronoun is in the nominative case, seeing that we say ;-"I “differ with you in opinion”, but,—“My opinion “differs from yours”? No; that cannot be the reason; for we say, not only ;-1 differ with

'you in opinion”; but also,—I differ from “you in stature”. Wherein, then, is the reason

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


to be found ? It is, I think, in the varied meaning of the word differ”. That word has not the same meaning in the expression, I differ with you in opinion", as it has in the expression, -"I differ from you in stature.” In the former, it has an active, in the latter, a passive, signification. In the one, the thing to be expressed is an act of the will; and "I differ with

you on that point”, is equivalent to,—“I "Wrestle with you”, “I contend with you”, “I

dispute with you on that point, and you with 'me". The dispute is mutual. But in the expression, “I differ from you in stature”, the will is passive; the statement is concerning a fact about which there cannot be any dispute, as it means merely,—“ In stature I am different “ from you."

So, likewise, is it with the opposite of the word ' differ", the word agree", e.g. ;-I agree with you”. It is a mutual agreement; hence, the propriety of saying, with you”. But we do not say;"I agree with your proposition"; we say ;-"I agree to your proposition”; there is nothing mutual between me and the proposition, therefore, I cannot say ;-"I agree with it"; but must say ;—“I agree to it”, i.e., “I assent to it.”

[ocr errors]


We cannot always trace the gradual process of unconscious reasoning which has been going on, in the mind of a people, in the formation of the idioms of their language; but it is always an interesting study. For example, we say ;-“A “man parts with his wife”; we likewise say ;“A man parts from his wife.” A man parts with his wife lovingly, regretfully, and looks hopefully forward to a reunion. A man parts from his wife angrily, and rushes off in a rage to the divorce court to obtain a judicial separation; and afterwards, whether the separation is confirmed by law or not, we still speak of the husband and wife as having parted from each other. The feud between them resulting in such an act is considered to be so bitter that, although the parting is mutual, the language which we employ respecting it, represents them not as agreeing to part, but representing each as acting independently of the other.

H. S. D.” is wrong in saying that in such expressions as, “I differ with the honourable gentleman”, we employ with to denote the “ relation of separation". We employ it to denote the relation of union. It may be a union of antagonistic qualities, a meeting for combat;


but still it is a union, a meeting for some purpose or other. “H. S. D.” will probably acquiesce in my opinion respecting the word agree", as given above. But the same remarks that are applicable to that word, are applicable to its opposite, " disagree". I agree with one man, and I disagree with another ; within each case implies union. In the one, it is a union of friendship, an embrace; in the other, a union of antagonism, a death-grapple.

By a figure of speech, we attribute life and volition to inanimate and to unconscious objects; and we say;—“His food disagrees with him”; but it is because we figuratively attribute life and volition to the food and to the stomach, and think of them as quarrelling, that we use the preposition within that sentence. If“H.S.D." objects to the expression differ with, he must, in order to be consistent, object also to the expression “ disagree with. But it would be perfectly good English, though perhaps not exactly in good taste, to say ;—“A certain cannibal disagreed with one of his wives, killed her, and ate “ her; his troubles, however, did not end then, “for she disagreed with him after he had eaten “ her, and he sickened and died,”

[ocr errors]

I have now to notice Mr. Gould's reply to my criticisms on his . Good English'. He acknowledges himself wrong on some points, differs with me in opinion upon others, and apologizes generally for the errors in his book by saying that he " sometimes read the proof-sheets super' ficially." Mr. Gould has much to learn in the school of letters if he thinks that the public will be satisfied with this explanation. Carelessness admits of no excuse. What is worth doing at all, is worth doing well; and, if we are justified in looking for perfection in language in any book, it certainly is in one which has been written to expose the errors of other writers. Besides, Mr. Gould should bear in mind what he says on that point respecting Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford.

Mr. Gould pleads also that it is a first edition, which I have reviewed, and that

A first edition is never free from typographical and

“ other blunders.”

Probably not; but the purchasers of a first edition have a right to the best that the author could produce at the time, and they are naturally indignant when, having unwittingly purchased

« PreviousContinue »