Learned Men's English: the Grammarians

plea of hasty writing, such as unfortunate newspaper writers, or public lecturers, or even magazine contributors, might fitly urge, is valid here. The Dean tells us, too-what we are very glad to learn, and what speaks well for the Christian placability of both parties-that the somewhat sharp passage of arms betwixt Mr. Moon and himself has ended in an invitation to dinner and a real friendship. From antagonism we came to intercourse; and one result of the controversy I cannot regret that it has enabled me to receive Mr. Moon as a 66 guest, and to regard him henceforward as my friend". Will this deprive the public of the benefit of Mr. Moon's criticisms upon the present volume? We should be sorry to think so; for there really is much to be said about it, and, we fear, much fault to be found with it. Dean Alford has rendered good service to his generation. He was an exemplary working clergyman; and he is, we doubt not, as exemplary a Dean. He is an excellent poet, and his beautiful hymn, "Lo, the storms of life are break"ing", sung to sweet music, has often soothed our soul. We cannot call him an accomplished Greek scholar; but he has compiled the most useful working Greek Testament of our generation; amenable to a thousand adverse criticisms, but laboriously bringing together almost all that working clergymen need.

But with all this we cannot regard him as an authority on the philosophy of the English language, or as an example of its more accurate use. It is strange that men should imagine themselves to be that which they are so far from being, that they are unconscious even of their defects. Only a scholar of the widest philological reading and of the nicest discrimination should have presumed to write a book on the use and abuse of the

Queen's English. No doubt Dean Alford thinks that he is such a scholar, and that his composition, if not in his ordinary sermons, yet in this volume, is faultless. We regret to be compelled to think otherwise. His style, where not positively ungrammatical, is loose, and flabby, and awkward; his sentences are ungainly in construction, and sometimes positively ludicrous in the meaning which they involuntarily convey. We will take a few instances; and we begin with the third sentence in the book. "It [the term "Queen's English"] is one rather familiar "and conventional, than strictly accurate". As Dean Alford uses it, the adverb "rather" qualifies the terms "familiar" and "conventional". He means it to qualify the term "strictly accurate", and should have said, "It is one familiar and conventional rather than strictly "accurate".

"For language wants all these processes, as well as "roads do", is scarcely as elegant as a critical Dean should have written.

Again: "And it is by processes of this kind in the course of centuries, that our English tongue has been ever adapted", &c.; instead of "It is by processes of "this kind that, in the course of centuries, our English 'tongue", &c.

"Carefulness about minute accuracies of inflexion and "grammar may appear to some very contemptible". We trust that the Dean is not one of these; but would it not have been better to write, "may to some appear very contemptible"?

"The other example is one familiar to you, of a more "solemn character": and what is it to those given to levity? The Dean meant to say, The other example is "of a more solemn character, and is one familiar to you".

"The late Archdeacon Hare, in an article on English orthography in the 'Philological Museum"". We did not know that the English orthography of the Philolog'ical Museum' was peculiar, or needed an article. The Dean means "in an article in the 'Philological Museum' "on English orthography".

"We do not follow rule in spelling the other words, "but custom". An elegant writer would have said, "In spelling the other words we do not follow rule, but "custom".

These specimens occur in the first twelve pages; how many the entire volume would afford, is beyond our cal

culation.

With many of Dean Alford's canons, both of derivation and of pronunciation, and even of spelling, we have almost equal fault to find; but we forbear. We must say, however, that, notwithstanding Mr. Latham's authority, and at the risk of being reckoned "grammarians of the "smaller sort", we are still unconvinced of the propriety of saying, even colloquially, "It's me", and of the pedantry of saying, "It's I".

We must add, too, that a somewhat unseemly egotism and gossipiness pervades the book-pardonable enough in popular lectures, but surely to be excluded from a philological treatise. The Dean seems to have no plan, but just to say anything that comes first, and to say it anyhow. Perhaps he thinks the chit-chat of a Dean sufficient for all persons of less dignity.

Dean Alford, of course, says many just and useful things, and will, we trust, do something to correct some errors and vulgarisms. But it is one thing to read Dean Alford's sentences, and it is another to read Macaulay's.

THE DEAN'S ENGLISH v. THE QUEEN'S

ENGLISH.

A CRITICISM FROM THE LONDON REVIEW.

A WRITER in the current number of 'The Edinburgh 'Review' censures Mr. Moon for hypercritically objecting to sentences the meaning of which is perfectly clear, though it is possible, having regard to the mere construction, to interpret them in a sense ludicrously false. We think that Mr. Moon does occasionally exhibit an excessive particularity; but many of his criticisms on Dr. Alford are, as the reviewer himself admits, thoroughly deserved. Because certain ambiguities have become recognised forms of speech, and are universally understood in the correct sense, a writer is not entitled to indulge in a lax mode of expression, which a little trouble would have rendered unimpeachable without any sacrifice of ease, grace, or naturalness. The reviewer quotes, or imagines, two sentences to which no reasonable objection could be made, though the construction is assuredly not free from ambiguity:-" Jack was very respectful to Tom, and always took off his hat when "he met him." "Jack was very rude to Tom, and 'always knocked off his hat when he met him." Now, as a mere matter of syntax, it might be doubtful whether Jack did not show his respect to Tom by taking off Tom's hat, and his rudeness by knocking off his own; but the fault is hardly a fault of construction—it is a fault inherent in the language itself, which has not provided for a distinction of personal pronouns. The sentences in question are clearly defective; but they could be amended only by an excessive verbosity and tautology, which would be much more objectionable;

and, at any rate, they are no justification of those errors of composition which might easily be amended, and which spring from the writer's own indolence or carelessness. The confusion of personal pronouns, however, is a subject worthy of comment. It is incidentally alluded to by a writer in the last number of 'The Quarterly 'Review', in an article on the report of the Public School Commissioners; and a ludicrous example is given, from the evidence of a Somersetshire witness in a case of manslaughter, though, notwithstanding the jumble, the sense is clear enough. The fatal affray was thus described by the peasant:-"He'd a stick, and he'd a stick, and he licked he, and he licked he; and if he'd a licked he as hard as he licked he, he'd a killed he, and "not he he." Now, supposing the witness not to know either combatant, one does not see how he could have expressed himself more clearly, and he would have a right to charge the defect on the language. Like everything else in the world, human speech is very imperfect, and we must sometimes take it with all its blemishes, because we can do no better. For instance, there is a certain form of expression which involves a downright impossibility, but which nevertheless is universally accepted. We cannot explain what we mean more pertinently than by referring to the phrase commonly seen painted on dead walls and palings:-" Stick no bills." Here what is intended is a prohibition; but it really takes the form of an injunction, and of an injunction to do an impossibility. We are not told to refrain from sticking something, or anything-we are commanded to stick something, and the something we are to stick is "no bills"! We are to stick on the wall or the paling something which has no existence. Let us try to

« Previous Continue »

Books

Learned Men's English: the Grammarians: A Series of Criticisms on the ...