paragraph was so ambiguously worded, that Mr. Moon demonstrated mathematically that it was susceptible of 10,240 different readings. The Dean had the good sense to amend his sentence in the second edition, and we sincerely wish that he had more frequently heeded the advice of his critic. 66 The next topic discussed in his work is that of idioms. He defines an idiom to be “some saying, or some way of speaking, peculiar to some one language or family of "languages, which can only be accounted for by the peculiar "tendency, or habit of thought, of those who use it." We are careful in giving his definition, because the term is employed in a different sense. It is used strictly to denote the sum of the rules of construction, or that general syntax of the language which constitutes its peculiar character, and does not simply mean those forms of expression which cannot be explained by the ordinary rules, either of general grammar or by those of the particular language in which the phrases occur. Accepting, however, the Dean's definition of the term, we do not see how he can argue from an idiom in one language to that in another, or prove that because an idiom is common in one language that it ought to prevail, or at least is not incorrect, in another. Because attraction, direct or inverse, is constantly occurring in Greek, and gives unity to the sentence and beauty to the language, that is not a valid reason for its introduction into English. It is a peculiarity, an idiom of the Greek tongue. In reference to the neuter plural* with the singular verb in Greek, to which he alludes, we may * In certain instances when the subject was not neuter the verb might he singular, provided it preceded its subject, as in the French idom, Ily a des hommes. remark that the rule was not absolute; when the individuals composing the mass were considered as one body, the verb was in the singular number, but when they were viewed otherwise, or possessed life, it was put in the plural. On the contrary, when an infinitive or a part of a sentence is the subject, the predicate adjective is usually in the plural, although the copula is singular. His mode of argument then seems to us to have but little weight in the cases in which he employs it. You may argue from the general laws of language, but certainly not from the idioms of one language to those of another, except of course in the case of dialects, or even languages having a common and a not very remote origin. This principle, which we think correct, is a sufficient and complete answer to his plea in favour of "these kind," and "those kind," expressions which even the Dean, and those who side with him in his views, would not employ in a polite circle or before a cultivated audience. 66 66 To notice all the matters which the Dean brings up, would extend this article beyond due proportions. There is a point in reference to the so-called double comparative 'lesser," in respect to which we think he is in error. He regards its use as an idiomatic irregularity whicn 66 we must be content to tolerate." We think that "lesser" is the original, and “ less is the intruder. Our translators did not merely "sanction the usage," but were perfectly correct when they wrote, God made "two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and "the lesser light to rule the night;" for both less and least are contractions of leaser (or lesser), and leasest. regular forms from the now obsolete leas or less, and the fuller form was the one employed by the best writers of 66 99 66 that day. In fact the form lesser is always employed in the Bible when it qualifies a noun following; and Shakespeare, we believe, uses it oftener than he does the form less. The grammarians whom the Dean takes every occasion to denounce, and for whose rules he expresses supreme contempt, do not stand in need of his commiseration so much as he imagines. Had he observed their precepts more generally he would not have been guilty of so many errors, and thus have rendered himself liable to so much just criticism. The strict grammarian, who has studied his vernacular language, does not find it so difficult to give a satisfactory explanation of the "idiomatic expression methinks," as the Dean would lead us to believe. The impersonal use of the verb, which he considers so strange, was quite common in the Anglo-Saxon, although it now exists in English only in methinks, meseems, and melists. It was, doubtless, an imitation, or rather a relic, of the Latin. The Dean may be surprised to learn that methinks, in the opinion of some of the best grammarians, has no connection with the verb to think. To think is the AngloSaxon thencan denken in German, while methinks is derived from the Anglo-Saxon thincan, meaning to seem. Methinks, therefore, means it seems to me, the me corresponding to the dative in similar expressions in Latin and in Greek, e.g., mihi videtur, uoɩ doxeî; and it was even correct to say, videor mihi, doxŵ μo, i.e., methinks. Methought arose from the mistaken notion as to the origin of methinks. The contraction "I'd" is sometimes resolved into "I had," instead of "I would," which is, of course, the correct expression. Landor represents Tooke as criticising Johnson for his error upon this point. “T. "Permit me first to ask whether we can say, I had hear? "J. You mean to say heard. T. No: I mean the words "I had hear. J. Why ask me so idle a question? T. "Because I find in the eighth chapter of Rasselas, ‘I "had rather hear thee dispute.' The intervention of "rather cannot make it more or less proper. J. Sir, you are right." 66 The Dean is peculiarly unfortunate both in his quotations and in his appeals to Scripture. He declares (and in this opinion he is not alone) that the pronoun “its" does not occur in the Bible, and Leviticus xxv, 5, is at once cited against him; he founds an argument, in favour of his erroneous view as to the correct mode of placing an adverb, upon an alleged expression in Scripture, and when it is referred to, it is found to sustain the view of his adversary and to be diametrically opposed to his own. It is Numbers xii, 2, "And they said, Hath the Lord "indeed spoken only by Moses ?" Only is correctly placed, but not so in the judgment of the Dean, who had it "only spoken." He quotes from Milton, "Which, when Beelzebub perceived, than whom, But it has been well remarked that he did not quote from the same author, "What matter where, if I be still the same, "And what I should be, all but less than he." We may also furnish a quotation or two from Shakespeare: "Am I not an inch of fortune better than she?" "Well, if you were but an inch of fortune better than I, where "would you choose it ?" 66 The Dean says, "And thus everyone of us would 'speak: 'tban who' would be intolerable. And this seems to settle the question." By no means. A poet, whose latest work was highly commended in our last number, and who is also the Professor of Latin at Oxford, and should by reason both of his attainments and his position be an authority in the matter of language, thus writes: "Eneas was our king, than who And again: "The son of Eolus, than who "None ere more skilled the trumpet blew "And martial fire relume." Is it not probable that, as some one has suggested, "than whom" is only a traditional typographical error, which has become almost fixed in the language, like "strain at" instead of "strain out" a gnat in Scripture? 66 The most amusing thing, however, in connection with this subject is, that the Dean himself fell into the correct grammatical usage upon the very first page of his book, and that he might be consistent with his own views he changed the form of expression. Originally it stood "than you or I," and he afterwards changed it to “any one of us." Of course the intervention of "or" does not affect the principle of construction. Appeal has been made to the construction of the comparative degree with the genitive in Greek and Latin, an idiom which we translate into English by "than." But it is precisely in 86 |