professes to have discovered in the course of his 66 careful" examination of it. He condemns the expression : "Those whom you think to be most in need of imAnd he says;-"In common 66 66 66 provement". parlance, and in careless writing, 'those' is used as the equivalent of those persons', etc. But "in the sentences of a philological critic who "holds a brother critic responsible for every 66 faulty particle in his sentences, 'those ' by itself "is inadmissible." “A little learning is a dangerous thing". The word "those", by itself, is, unquestionably, inadmissible in certain sentences; but not in sentences in which it is followed by a relative pronoun; as it is in the sentence which Mr. Gould condemns. If he will refer to Lindley Murray's Grammar', Rule xxi, section 10, he may read thus:-"The "examples which follow are produced to show "the impropriety of ellipsis in some particular "cases: The land was always possessed, "during pleasure, by those intrusted with the "command'; it should be, those persons in'trusted'; or those who were intrusted"". "Again; Mr. Gould condemns the expression to understand", in the following sentence : 66 "You will take into consideration the extreme diffi"culty we have to understand the contradictory "instructions we have received." He suggests that it would have been better to say;-" Our extreme difficulty in understanding"; but he very cautiously adds, "if that is what is meant". Now, that is not what was meant ; and it was for that very reason that I used the other expression. The difficulty spoken of, was not one that occurred in the process of understanding the contradictory instructions received. The difficulty occurred at the outset, before the mind had been able, in any degree, to grasp the meaning of the writer's words. Hence, the propriety of speaking of our difficulty" to "understand" the contradictory instructions. Mr. Gould's language would imply that the mind had made some progress in the task before the difficulty occurred;-that it was "in understanding" the contradictory instructions. But my meaning was, what my language plainly expresses, namely, that the mind had made no progress whatever, in the task, before the difficulty occurred;-the contradictory instructions were still before it as a task which it had "to understand". Mr. Gould objects to my saying that,― "The faults of teachers, if suffered to pass unre"proved, soon become the teachers of faults." 66 He says; This is neatly antithetical, but it "is incorrect in fact. Faults may become ex"amples, but they cannot well be teachers." Indeed! Why not? Teaching does not necessarily imply the possession of volition on the part of the teacher. Not only Jesus Christ, (I say it with all reverence,) but nature also, is "a "teacher sent from God ".-" Ask now the beasts, "and they shall teach thee; or speak to "the earth, and it shall teach thee": Job xii, 7-9. As for the language of the Bible, Mr. Gould condemns me because, in making a quotation from it, I adhered to the old spelling, and wrote the verse verbatim et literatim', and spelt "forbade" without the e! A most grave charge, certainly; at least, such Mr. Gould tries to make it appear; for he does not tell his readers, as in honesty he ought to do, that my spelling of the word was in a literal quotation of the well known passage in 2 Peter, ii, 16:"The dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad "the madness of the prophet." But, perhaps Mr. Gould did not know that the quotation is from the Bible. If so; all that I can say is;-"the greater the disgrace!" 66 Mr. Gould finds fault likewise with the ex pressions : 666 "It will be only modest of the Dean"; and, "If you will not think it sacrilegious of me". He says;-" Might not Mr. Moon as well say off the Dean'; and, off me'? The proper "word is in". Again, Mr. Gould, in a vain endeavour to find an error in the language of an other writer, really exposes his own ignorance. He is, evidently, not aware that the expressions are elliptical; and that it is as correct to say ;"It will be only modest [on the part] of the "Dean"; as it is to say ;-"It will be only modest "in [the conduct of] the Dean". The next objection which Mr. Gould raises, is to my saying-stop; I find that the words which careful Mr. Gould puts into inverted commas as a quotation, are nowhere to be found in my book! His objection, however, is to my calling the word "female" an "epithet". epithet". He says ;— 66 Here, as elsewhere, Mr. Moon seems to be ignorant "of the meaning of English words. He calls "the noun, 'female', an 'epithet'. If he would "take the trouble to consult [the reader will 66 666 "observe that, according to Mr. Gould, it is wrong for me to say, 'the difficulty to under"stand'; but right for him to say, "the trouble 'to consult "] his dictionary, he would find that "an epithet is an adjective expressing some "quality that is appropriate to a person or "thing'; as good, bad, etc. Is it possible that "Mr. Moon is ignorant of the fact that no part "of speech other than an adjective is an epithet"? 666 I reply that it is not only "possible", but actual; for, what Mr. Gould calls a "fact", has really no foundation in truth. I have taken the "trouble to consult " the very dictionary which he commends most highly, and which, on that account, I suppose to be the one which he himself consulted, superficially, of course, as is consistent with his practice in such matters. In that dictionary I read as follows:-"All adjec"tives', says Crabb, are epithets; but all epithets are not adjectives. Thus, in Virgil's "Pater Eneas (Father Eneas) the Pater (Father) is an epithet, but it is not an adjec"tive"." Thus, the very authority to which Mr. Gould refers me condemns him! 666 .66 |