« PreviousContinue »
condemnation of the Dean, was for his confusion of tenses in a sentence; not for his change of tense in a paragraph.
I really feel that I ought to apologize to my readers for noticing some of Mr. Gould's remarks. They are simply puerile, and do not deserve so much as a passing notice, except for the purpose of showing how unwisely even an educated man may be tempted to write, when for a time his mind is bent upon detracting from the merit of an opponent.
Further; Mr. Gould says;—“On page 94, he '[Mr. Moon] assumes to amend one of the “Dean's sentences, and says that his amend“ment 'is correct'. The amendment is in these 6 words :
“If with your inferiors, speak not more coarsely
“ The Dean's sentence is, 'Speak no coarser “.than usual”: and it was very well for Mr. “Moon to object to one adjective and to put an “adverb in its place; but it seems strange, that “while his attention was directed to adverbs and
adjectives, he could overlook another adjective “ in the same line which requires the same
change! Usual is an adjective, not an adverb. “And when Mr. Moon, by way of correcting the “Dean's line, changes coarser and leaves usual
unchanged, he commits the same blunder as “[that which] he has just condemned in the Dean. “And he intrenches himself in his own blunder “by the affirmation that the line, as amended, wis correct'. Whether it is correct or not, is "shown by supplying the omitted words of the
ellipsis :—'Speak not more coarsely than (you) “usual [do]’!”
That is all very good in its way, Mr. Gould ; but when we find an ellipsis in a writer's sentence, it behoves us not to be dogmatical in our assertions as to what words he has omitted ; nor ought we to accuse him of inaccuracy because his sentence, according to our filling up of it, is
+ ungrammatical; when there is another way of filling it up; and, according to that filling up, the language will be found to be correct. It is not improbable that the Dean meant:-"Speak “not more coarsely than [is] usual”; or, “Speak “not more coarsely than [it is] usual [for you “ to speak.]” It was therefore only just toward him, to leave unaltered the last word of his sentence.
However, if Mr. Gould is particularly anxious
to find a sentence in which a verb is qualified by both an adverb and an adjective, he need not go very far for it. On page 125, of his own work, there is the following sentence :
“* As closely as possible' means as closely as possible,
“ and no closer”.
The words refer to the rule that the parts of a sentence which are "connected in meaning should “ be connected in position as closely as possible”. Therefore, Mr. Gould's expression is really this:“[Connected] ‘as closely as possible' means, [con“nected] as closely as possible, and [connected] “no closer"! Look at home, Mr. Gould! Look at home!
When Mr. Gould meets with what to him is a difficulty, instead of acknowledging in humility that at present he is not equal to its solution, he has a method of his own of dealing with it, which is deserving of attention here. It is evident that, confidently as he speaks concerning the necessity for our putting nouns into the possessive case when they are followed by present participles, he has some misgivings respecting the universal application of the rule ; otherwise, it seems improbable that he would
resort to the practice of misquoting an opponent's words, lest, in their natural order, they should prove to be irreconcilable with a certain favourite theory.
Mr. Gould gives what he calls "a complete “ list " of the instances in which, in 'The Dean's 'English', I have used a noun before a present participle, without putting the noun into the possessive case. I have spoken of this matter in Criticism XIX; and I revert to it, merely to notice Mr. Gould's additional remarks. It will rather surprise my readers to be told that, notwithstanding Mr. Gould's assertion, he has not really given us "a complete list" of the instances mentioned.
Mr. Gould may again plead “carelessness”; or, he may tell us that his second reading of The
' Dean's English' was, like the first, "very super“ficial"; but it is rather suspicious, that what he has omitted from his "complete list", happens to be a part of one of those difficult sentences which it is more than probable he was at a loss how to treat according to the rule laid down by him.
Why, from his “complete list," did he leave out part of the sentence which he pretended
to quote from page 93 ? His quotation is as follows:-"Owing to the term being capable”. But my sentence is :
“Owing to the term 'no more' being capable of mean
I suppose that he would not like to write, either ;—“Owing to the term's 'no more' being capable of meaning”, etc.; or, “Owing to the term 'no more's' being capable of meaning", etc.; and therefore-but it was merely “careless“ness", of course—he gave in his “complete list”, a garbled quotation of the sentence!
Mr. Gould appears to be not only an admirer of Dean Alford, but also an imitator of him; and, as is usual with persons who are not remarkable for originality, he imitates that which, in his model, is least worthy of imitation. The Dean is fond of a joke ; and, of course, Mr. Gould, also, must for once try to be witty; so he writes thus; first pretending to quote from page vii of. The Dean's English':
"The Dean has altered and struck out not fewer
“than eight-and-twenty passages which I had "condemned as faulty.”