CRITICISM V. LINDLEY MURRAY. A BRIEF review of Lindley Murray's errors in the use of prepositions will conclude this part of our subject. We shall afterwards consider his errors in the structure of sentences. With regard to prepositions, then, we find Lindley Murray writing as follows: Page 61.—“A substantive may, in general, be dis"tinguished by its taking an article before it, or by "its making sense of itself". Say;-"making sense by itself". Page 77.-"This gives our language a superior ad"vantage to most others". Say; "an advantage over most others". "Superior advantage" is tautology. Page 113.-"The participle is a certain form of the "verb, and derives its name from its participating, "not only of the properties of a verb, but also of "those of an adjective". Say;-"participating in"; or, "partaking of”. Page 125.-" In respect of time". Say;-"With respect to time"; as, indeed, Lindley Murray does say in the next paragraph. Page 194." The Greeks were the greatest reasoners "that ever appeared in the world; and their lan 66 guage, accordingly, abounds more than any "other in connectives." Say, either; "the language abounds with con"nectives"; or,-" connectives abound in the "language." 86 Page 221.-" Independently on the rest of the "sentence". Say;-"Independently of the rest of the sentence". We say;-"pendent from", "de"pendent on ", "independent of”. 66 Page 365.-"To render pauses pleasing and expressive, they must not only be made in the right place, "but also [be] accompanied with a proper tone of "voice". Say;-"accompanied by a proper tone of "voice." Page 441.-" A person thoroughly conversant in the "propriety of the language ". Say;" conversant with the propriety of the "language". 66 Page 487.-"This being the case, we may see the "necessity of some attention”. 66 Say; "the necessity for some attention". It were easy to multiply instances of Lindley Murray's errors in the use of the different parts of speech. I have thought it sufficient to give examples of his errors. His numerous inconsistences are truly astonishing. On page 325, he says; The examples that follow are produced "to show the impropriety of ellipsis in some par'ticular cases: 'In the temper of mind he was "then'; i.e., in which he then was'. Again, "The little satisfaction and consistency, to be "found in most of the systems of divinity I “have met with, made me betake myself to the "sole reading of the Scriptures': it ought to "be, which are to be found', and 'which I have "met with "." Yet, though Lindley Murray could thus teach others; he could say, on page 360; Learning to read, in the best manner it is now He should have said;-" in the best manner "in which it is now taught ". + Here, too, is a strange sentence for a grammarian to have written : Page 367.-" Tones are different both from emphasis "[emphases] and [from] pauses; consisting of 66 [and consist of] the modulation of the voice, "[or of] the notes or variations of sound which "we employ in the expression of [in expressing] 66 our sentiments." But the following specimen of awkward construction is even more strange : 66 66 Page 452.-"In every composition there is always some connecting principle among the parts. "Some one object must reign and be predominant. "But most of all, in a single sentence, is required “the strictest unity." First, "In every composition there is always some connecting principle among the parts." Why say "always"? Whatever is in a composition, forms a part of it; consequently, whatever is there once, is there always. You may alter the composition; but if you alter it, it is no longer the same composition. The word "always", in Lindley Murray's sentence, is therefore redundant, and should be struck out. It would be better to say, likewise; "there is some connexion among the parts"; than to say;-"there is some connecting principle among the parts." 66 The next sentence is ;-" Some one object must "reign and be predominant." What grandiloquent nonsense is this? If an object can be said to "reign", of course it is "predominant”. Why could not Lindley Murray be content to say;—" Some object must predominate"? The concluding sentence is as follows;-" But "most of all, in a single sentence is required the "strictest unity". Why all this inversion? Why not say;-"But the strictest unity is required in "a single sentence"; or, "But it is in a single sentence that the strictest unity is required"? 66 On page 459, Lindley Murray tells us that ;"The first rule for promoting the strength of a sentence, is to prune it of all redundant words "and members"; yet, within a very few pages of this remark, we find in his own language the following specimen of verbosity : Page 452.-"In this sentence, though the objects "contained in it have a sufficient connexion with "each other, yet, by this manner of representing 66 66 'them, by shifting so often both the place and the person, we and they, and I and who, they appear "in so disunited a view, that the sense of con"nexion is much impaired". In this sentence, he has employed fifty-five |