« PreviousContinue »
meaning, does not admit the conjunction “but” after it, in the sentence quoted above.
With regard to the conjunction “that "; Lindley Murray says, on page 323;—“There is a “ very common ellipsis of the conjunction “that”: as 'He told me [that] he would proceed
immediately.' This ellipsis is tolerable in “conversation, and in epistolary writing, but it “should be sparingly indulged in [in] every other “species of composition.” Lindley Murray's practice, however, is sometimes as follows; page 4:“In its present form, the work is designed for the
use of persons, who may think [that] it merits a place in their libraries."
Again, page 484:
“ This cannot be called a resemblance between the
sense and the sound, seeing [that] long or short syllables have”, etc.
The copulative conjunction “and” is some
" " times erroneously used instead of the disjunctive conjunction "or". For instance, on page 172,
“ Lindley Murray says; “ It is obvious that a language like the Greek and
“ Latin”, etc.
He should have said ;—“a language like the “Greek or the Latin".
On page 30, also, the same error is found. Lindley Murray there says; “A perfect alphabet of the English language, and,
indeed, of every other language, would contain “a numbers of letters, precisely equal to the “number of single articulate sounds belonging
“ to the language.” He should have said ;-"A perfect alphabet of “the English language, or, not "and"] indeed, of any other language, would contain", etc.
In the following sentence, taken from page 364, the conjunction "as”, signifying "that", is
” apt to be mistaken for the adverb "as”, signifying“ in the same manner” :
“ Such pauses have the same effect as [better" that”]
a strong emphasis [has]; and are subject to the same rules; especially to the caution just now 'given of not [“ against” would have been
“better] repeating them too frequently.” Is a rule a caution ? Lindley Murray says;subject to the same rules ; especially to the “caution just now given”.
Surely it is well to caution the public against being misled by such English as this.
Let us now look at some of Lindley Murray's sentences in which the conjunction “ both” is used; and we shall find that he is at fault in those also:
Page 122.—“The perfect tense, and the imperfect
“tense, both denote a thing that is past”.
As he did not intend the conjunction to apply to the verb “ denote”, but to the perfect and imperfect tenses, he should have placed it before them, and have said;—“Both the perfect tense and “the imperfect tense, denote a thing that is past”.
Page 306.—"That both the circumstances of contingency
“and futurity are necessary will be evident”, etc.
This language implies that the writer was speaking, not of the circumstance of contingency and the circumstance of futurity, but, of two circumstances of contingency, etc. He should have said ;-" That both the circumstance of “contingency and that of futurity are necessary, “will be evident", etc.
Page 382.—“We shall consider each of these three
“objects in versification, both with respect to the “ feet and the pauses.”
We naturally wonder at the "pause" at the end of this sentence; for, the construction of it leads us to believe that it is incomplete; and that the writer intended to continue it thus :“both with respect to the feet and the pauses, and " with respect to "-something else. He should have said ;—“We shall consider each of these “three objects in versification, with respect both “ to the feet, and to the pauses.”
The same error occurs twice on page 125. Lindley Murray there says;
“ The present, past, and future tenses, may be used
“either definitely or indefinitely, both with re“spect to time and action.”
Say, rather ;—"with respect both to time and to action.”
When the conjunction “both” is followed by a preposition, that preposition must be repeated after the conjunction “and”, in the succeeding part of the sentence; as,—"This, in philosophical “writing, has a disagreeable effect, both upon the
memory, and upon the understanding of the “reader."—'Lindley Murray's Grammar', p.193.
Lindley Murray's practice, however, is not uniform. He says, on page 153;
“In other languages, a principle of this nature has “ been admitted, both in the conjugation of verbs, "and [in] the declension of nouns.”
In the following sentence, the conjunction “both” is redundant.
Page 329.—“Performing at the same time the offices
both of the nominative and objective cases."
If the conjunction “both" be retained, then the sentence should be written thus:-"Performing “at the same time the offices both of the nomi"native and of the objective case."
The teaching of the foregoing criticisms respecting the conjunction "both", may be summed up
thus : In a compound sentence formed with the conjunctions “both” and “and”, if an article, or a preposition, or both, follow the former, then that article, or that preposition, or both, must be repeated after the latter.