Chapter XXIII: Section I: The Noun

BARBARISM.

“I rode in a one-horse chay.” It ought to be “a one-horse chaise.” There is no such word as _chay_.

“That this has been the true and proper acception of this word, I shall testify by one evidence.”--_Hammond._ _Acception_ is obsolete; it ought to be _acceptation_.

“Were the workmen to enter into a contrary combination of the same kind, not to accept of a certain wage.”--_Wealth of Nations._ _Wage_ is obsolete; the plural only is used.

“Their alliance was sealed by the nuptial of Henry, with the daughter of the Italian prince.”--_Gibbon._ _Nuptial_ has not, I believe, been used as a substantive since the days of Shakspeare, and may be deemed obsolete. The plural _nuptials_ is the proper word.

“He showed that he had a full comprehension of the whole of the plan, and of the judicious adaption of the parts to the whole.”--_Sheridan’s Life of Swift._ _Adaption_ is obsolescent, if not obsolete: _adaptation_ is the proper term. _Adaption_ is frequently employed by Swift, from whom Sheridan seems to have copied it.

... “Which even his brother modernists themselves, like ungrates, whisper so loud that it reaches up to the very garret I am now writing in.”--_Swift._ “Ungrate” is a barbarism. “Ingrate” is to be found in some of our English poets as an adjective, and synonymous with “ungrateful;” but “ungrate,” as a substantive, is truly barbarous. Almost equally objectionable is Steele’s use of _stupid_ as a substantive plural. “Thou art no longer to drudge in raising the mirth of stupids.”--_Spectator_, No. 468. And also of _ignorant_, “the ignorants of the lowest order.”--_Ibid._

Pope also says, in one of his letters, “We are curious impertinents in the case of futurity.” This employment of the adjective as a noun substantive, though never sanctioned by general use, is now properly avoided by our most reputable writers. It tends to confusion, where distinction is necessary.

“The Deity dwelleth between the cherubims.” The Hebrews form the plural of masculines by adding _im_; “cherubims,” therefore, is a double plural. “Seraphims,” for the same reason, is faulty. The singular of these words being “cherub” and “seraph,” the plural is either “cherubs” and “seraphs,” or “cherubim” and “seraphim.” Milton has uniformly avoided this mistake, which circumstance Addison, in his criticisms on that author, has overlooked; nay, he has, even with Milton’s correct usage before him, committed the error. “The zeal of the _seraphim_,” says he, “breaks forth in a becoming warmth of sentiments and expressions, as the character which is given of _him_,” &c. Here “seraphim,” a plural noun, is used as singular. It should be, “the zeal of the seraph.”

“Nothing can be more pleasant than to see virtuosoes about a cabinet of medals descanting upon the value, the rarity, and authenticalness of the several pieces.” _Authenticalness_, though used by Addison, is obsolescent, and may, perhaps, be deemed a barbarism. It may be properly dismissed, as a harsh and unnecessary term.

“He broke off with Lady Gifford, one of his oldest acquaintances in life.”--_Sheridan’s Life of Swift._ _Acquaintances_ is now deemed a Scotticism, being almost peculiar to the northern parts of the island. Johnson, however, did not disclaim it. “A young student from the inns of court, who has often attacked the curate of his father’s parish, with such arguments as his acquaintances could furnish.”--_Rambler._ We find it also in Steele; thus, “she pays everybody their own, and yet makes daily new acquaintances.”--_Tatler_, No. 109.

“I am sure that the farmeress at Bevis would feel emotions of vanity ... if she knew you gave her the character of a reasonable woman.”--_Lord Peterborough to Pope._ This, I believe, is the only passage in which _farmeress_ is to be found; but, though it may therefore be pronounced a barbarism, the author could not have expressed himself so clearly and so concisely, in any other way. We every now and then, as Johnson observes, feel the want of a feminine termination.

“The bellowses were broken.” The noun, as here inflected, is barbarous. “Bellows” is a plural word denoting a single instrument, though consisting of two parts. There is, therefore, no such word as “bellowses.”

SOLECISM[139].

“I have read Horace Art of Poetry.” This expression may be deemed solecistical, being a violation of that rule, by which one substantive governs another in the genitive. It should be, “Horace’s Art of Poetry.” “These are ladies ruffles,” “this is the kings picture,” are errors of the same kind, for “ladies’ ruffles,” “the king’s picture.”

“These three great genius’s flourished at the same time.” Here “genius’s,” the genitive singular, is improperly used for “geniuses,” the nominative plural.

“They have of late, ’tis true, reformed, in some measure, the gouty joints and darning work of _whereunto’s_, _whereby’s_, _thereof’s_, _therewith’s_, and the rest of this kind.”--_Shaftesbury._ Here also the genitive singular is improperly used for the objective case plural. It should be, _whereuntos_, _wherebys_, _thereofs_, _therewiths_.

“Both those people, acute and inquisitive to excess, corrupted the sciences.”--_Adams’s History of England._

“Two rival peoples, the Jews and the Samaritans, have preserved separate exemplars of it.”--_Geddes’ Preface to his Translation of the Bible._ The former of these passages involves a palpable error, the word “people,” here equivalent to _nation_, and in the singular number, being joined with _both_ or “the two,” a term of plurality. In the latter, this error is avoided, the noun being employed in the plural number. This usage, however, though sanctioned by the authority of our translators of the Bible in two passages, seems now to be obsolete. _States_, _tribes_, _nations_, appear to be preferable.

“I bought a scissars,” “I want a tongs,” “it is a tattered colours,” involve a palpable solecism, the term significant of unity being joined with a plural word. It should be “a pair of scissars,” “a pair of tongs,” “a pair of colours.”

“They tell us, that the fashion of jumbling fifty things together in a dish was at first introduced, in compliance to a depraved and debauched appetite.”--_Swift._

We say, “comply with;” therefore, by Rule xvii. “in compliance with” is the analogical form of expression, and has the sanction of classical usage.

“The fortitude of a man, who brings his will to the obedience of his reason.”--_Steele._ Analogy requires “obedience to.” We say, _obedient to command_: the person obeying is expressed in the genitive, or with the preposition _of_; and the person or thing obeyed with the preposition _to_, as, “a servant’s obedience,” or “the obedience of a servant to the orders of his master.”

“Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.”--_Bible._ “Attendance” and “attention” are verbal nouns, derived from “attend.” When the verb signifies “to regard,” or “to fix the mind upon,” it is followed by _to_, as, “he attends to his studies,” and the verbal noun is “attention,” construed, agreeably to Rule xvii. in the same manner as the verb. Thus, “he gives attention to his studies.” But when “to attend” signifies “to wait on,” or “be present at,” it is followed by _on_, _upon_, or _at_, and is sometimes used without the preposition.

Thus, “if any minister refused to admit a lecturer recommended to him, he was required to attend _upon_ the committee.”--_Clarendon._

“He attended _at_ the consecration with becoming gravity.”--_Hume._ In this sense the verbal noun is “attendance,” and construed like the verb, when it bears this signification. In the sentence, therefore, last quoted, syntax requires, either “attendance at” or “attention to.” The latter conveys the meaning of the original.

IMPROPRIETY.

“The observation of the Sabbath is a duty incumbent on every Christian.” It should be, “the observance.” Both substantives are derived from the verb “to observe.” When the verb means “to keep,” or “obey,” the verbal noun is “observance;” when “to remark,” or “to notice,” the noun is “observation.”

“They make such acquirements, as fit them for useful avocations.”--_Staunton’s Embassy to China._

The word _avocation_ is frequently, as in the example before us, confounded with _vocation_. By the latter is clearly signified “calling,” “trade,” “employment,” “business,” “occupation;” and by the former is meant whatever withdraws, distracts, or diverts us from that business. No two words can be more distinct; yet we often see them confounded.

“A supplication of twenty days was decreed to his honour.”--_Henry’s History of Britain._ The term _supplication_ is in our language confined to what Johnson calls “petitionary worship,” and always implies request, entreaty, or petition. The Latin term _supplicatio_ has a more extensive meaning, and likewise _supplicium_, each denoting not only _prayer_, strictly so called, but also _thanksgiving_. The latter of these should have been employed by the author.

“Our pleasures are purer, when consecrated by nations, and cherished by the greatest _genii_ among men.”--_Blackwell’s Mythology._ _Genii_ means spirits. (See p. 18.) It ought to be _geniuses_.

I have already remarked (see p. 31), that, when the primary idea implied in the masculine and feminine terms is the chief object of attention, and when the sex does not enter as a matter of consideration, the masculine term should be employed, even when the female is signified. Thus, the Monthly Reviewer, in giving a critique on the poems of Mrs. Grant, says, in allusion to that lady, “such is the poet’s request.” This is strictly proper. He considers her merely as a writer of poetry. But, were we to say, “as a poet she ought not to choose for her theme the story of Abelard,” we should be chargeable with error. For this would imply, that the story of Abelard is not a fit subject for a poem,--a sentiment manifestly false. There is no incongruity between the subject and poetry, but between the subject and female delicacy. We ought, therefore, to say, “as a poetess, she ought not to choose for her theme the story of Abelard.”

“It was impossible not to suspect the veracity of this story.” “Veracity” is applicable to persons only, and properly denotes that moral quality or property, which consists in speaking truth, being in its import nearly synonymous with the fashionable, but grossly perverted term, _honour_: it is, therefore, improperly applied to things. It should be “_the truth_ of this story.” The former denotes moral, and the latter physical truth. We therefore say “the truth” or “verity of the relation or thing told,” and “the veracity of the relater.”

Pope has entitled a small dissertation, prefixed to his translation of the Iliad, “A View of the Epic Poem,” misled, it is probable, by Bossu’s title of a similar work, “Traité du Poëme Epique.” _Poem_ denotes the work or thing composed; “the art of making,” which is here intended, is termed _poesy_.

An error similar to this occurs in the following passage: “I apprehend that all the _sophism_ which has been or can be employed, will not be sufficient to acquit this system at the tribunal of reason.”--_Bolingbroke._ “Sophism” is properly defined by Johnson, “a fallacious argument;” sophistry means “fallacious reasoning,” or “unsound argumentation.” The author should have said “all the sophistry,” or “all the sophisms.”

“The Greek is, doubtless, a language much superior in riches, harmony, and variety to the Latin.”--_Campbell’s Rhet._ As the properties or qualities of the languages are here particularly compared, I apprehend, that the abstract “richness” would be a more apposite term. “Riches” properly denotes “the things possessed,” or “what constitutes the opulence of the owner;” “richness” denotes the state, quality, or property of the individual, as possessed of these. The latter, therefore, appears to me the more appropriate term.

“He felt himself compelled to acknowledge the justice of my remark.” The _justness_ would, agreeably to Canon 1st, be the preferable word, the former term being confined to persons, and the latter to things.

“The negligence of this leaves us exposed to an uncommon levity in our usual conversation.”--_Spectator._ It ought to be “the neglect.” “Negligence” implies a habit; “neglect” expresses an act.

“For I am of opinion that it is better a language should not be wholly perfect, than it should be perpetually changing; and we must give over at one time, or at length infallibly change for the worse; as the Romans did when they began to quit their simplicity of style for affected refinements, such as we meet with in Tacitus, and other authors, which ended, by degrees, in many barbarities.” _Barbarity_, in this sense, is obsolescent. The univocal term, _barbarism_, is much preferable.

Gibbon, speaking of the priest, says, “to obtain the acceptation of this guide to salvation, you must faithfully pay him tythes.” _Acceptation_ in this sense is obsolete, or at least nearly out of use; it should be _favour_ or _acceptance_.

“She ought to lessen the extravagant power of the duke and duchess, by taking the disposition of employments into her own hands.”--_Swift._ _Disposal_, for reasons already assigned[140], is much better.

“The conscience of approving one’s self a benefactor to mankind, is the noblest recompense for being so.” “Conscience” is the faculty by which we judge our own conduct. It is here improperly used for “consciousness,” or the perception of what passes within ourselves.

“If reasons were as plenty as blackberries, I would give no man a reason on compulsion.”--_Shakspeare._ Here _plenty_, a substantive, is improperly used for _plentiful_.

“It had a prodigious _quantity_ of windows.”--_Spence’s Excursions._ It should be _number_. This error frequently occurs in common conversation. We hear of “a quantity of people,” of “a quantity of troops,” “a quantity of boys and girls,” just as if they were to be measured by the bushel, or weighed in the balance.--“To-morrow will suit me equally well.” If we enquire here for a nominative to the verb, we find none, _morrow_ being under the government of the preposition. This error is so common, that we fear its correction is hopeless. The translators of the Bible seem carefully to have avoided this inaccuracy:--“_To_-morrow (_i.e._ ‘on the morrow’) the Lord shall do this;” “And the Lord did that thing on _the_ morrow.” Analogy requires, that we should say, “_The_ morrow will suit me equally well.”

“I have the Dublin copy of Gibbon’s History.” This is a Scotticism for _Dublin edition_; and so palpable, that I should not have mentioned it, were it not found in authors of no contemptible merit. “I have no right to be forced,” said a citizen to a magistrate, “to serve as constable.” This perversion of the word _right_, originally, we believe, a cockneyism, is gradually gaining ground, and is found in compositions, into which nothing but extreme inattention can account for its introduction. A _right_ implies a just claim, or title to some privilege, freedom, property, or distinction, supposed by the claimant to be conducive to his benefit. We should smile, if we heard a foreigner, in vindication of his innocence, say, “I have no right to be imprisoned;” “I have no right to be hanged.” The perversion here is too palpable to escape our notice. But we hear a similar, though not so ridiculous, an abuse of the word, in common conversation without surprise. “I have no right,” says one, “to be taxed with this indiscretion;” “I have no right,” says another, “to be subjected to this penalty.” These phraseologies are absurd. They involve a contradiction; they presume a benefit, while they imply an injury. The correlative term on one side is _right_, and on the other _obligation_; a creditor has a right to a just debt, and the debtor is under an obligation to pay it. Instead of these indefensible phraseologies we should say, “I am not bound,” or “I am under no obligation to submit to this penalty;” “I ought not to be taxed with this indiscretion,” or “you have no right to subject me,” “you have no right to tax me.”

Robertson, when speaking of the Mexican form of government (Book viith), says, “But the description of their policy and laws is so inaccurate and contradictory, that it is difficult to delineate the form of their constitution with any precision.” I should here prefer the appropriate and univocal term _polity_, which denotes merely the form of government; _policy_ means rather wisdom or prudence, or the art of governing, which may exist where there is no settled _polity_.

“A letter relative to certain calumnies and misrepresentations which have appeared in the Edinburgh Review, with an exposition of the ignorance of the new critical junto.”--Here, agreeably to Canon I. (see p. 229), I should prefer _exposure_, as being a word strictly univocal. It would conduce to perspicuity were we to consider _exposition_ as the verbal noun of _expound_, and confine it entirely to _explanation_, and _exposure_ as the verbal noun of _expose_, signifying the act of setting out, or the state of being set out or exposed.