Chapter XXIV: Section II: The Adjective

BARBARISM.

“Instead of an able man, you desire to have him an insignificant wrangler, opiniatre in discourse, and priding himself on contradicting others.”--_Locke._ _Opiniatre_ is a barbarism; it should be _opinionative_.

“And studied lines, and fictious circles draw.”--_Prior._

The word _fictious_ is of Prior’s own coining; it is barbarous.

“The punishment that belongs to that great and criminous guilt is the forfeiture of his right and claim to all mercies.”--_Hammond._ _Criminous_ is a barbarism.

“Which, even in the most overly view, will appear incompatible with any sort of music.”--_Kames’s Elements._ _Overly_ is a Scotticism; in England it is now obsolete. The proper term is _cursory_ or _superficial_.

“Who should believe, that a man should be a doctor for the cure of bursten children?”--_Steele._ The participle _bursten_ is now obsolete.

“Callisthenes, the philosopher, that followed Alexander’s court, and hated the king, being asked, how one should become the _famousest_ man in the world, answered, By taking away him that is.”--_Bacon’s Apophth._ The superlative is a barbarism; it should be, “most famous.”

SOLECISM.

“I do not like these kind of men.” Here the plural word _these_ is joined to a noun singular; it should be, “this kind.” “Those sort,” “these kind of things,” are gross solecisms.

“Neither do I see it is any crime, farther than ill manners, to differ in opinion from the majority of either, or both houses; and that ill manners I have often been guilty of.”--_Swift’s Examiner._ Here is another egregious solecism. He should have said, “those ill manners,” or “that species of ill manners.”

“The landlord was quite unfurnished of every kind of provision.”--_Sheridan’s Life of Swift._ We say, “to furnish _with_,” not “to furnish _of_.” _Furnished_ and _unfurnished_ are construed in the same manner. It should be, “unfurnished _with_.”

“A child of four years old was thus cruelly deserted by its parents.” This form of expression frequently occurs, and is an egregious solecism. It should be, “a child four years old,” or “aged four years,” not “of four years.” Those who employ this incorrect phraseology, seem misled by confounding two very different modes of expression, namely, “a child of four years of age,” or “of the age of four years,” and “a child four years old.” The preposition _of_ is requisite in the two first of these forms, but inadmissible in the third. They would not say, “I am of four years old,” but “I am four years old;” hence, consistently, they ought to say, “a child four years old.” “At ten years old, I was put to a grammar school.”--_Steele._ Grammatically this is, “I old at ten years.”

“This account is very different _to_ what I told you.” “I found your affairs had been managed in a different manner _than_ what I advised.” Both these phraseologies are faulty. It should be in each, “different _from_.” The verb “to differ” is construed with _from_ before the second object of disparity; the adjective therefore should (by Rule xvii.) be construed in the same manner.

“These words have the same sense of those others.” _Same_ should be followed with _as_, _with_, or the relatives _who_, _which_, _that_. It ought, therefore, to be, “as those,” or “with those,” or “have the sense of those others.”

“I shall ever depend on your constant friendship, kind memory, and good offices, though I were never to see or hear the effects of them, like the trust we have in benevolent spirits, who, though we never see or hear them, we think are constantly serving and praying for us.”--_Pope’s Letters to Atterbury._ _Like_ can have no grammatical reference to any word in the sentence but _I_, and this reference is absurd. He should have said, “_as_, or _just as_, we trust in benevolent spirits.”

“This gentleman rallies the best of any man I know.”--_Addison._ The superlative must be followed by _of_, the preposition implying _out of_ a plurality, expressed either by a collective noun, or a plural number. But here we have a selection denoted by _of_, and the selection to be made out of one. This is absurd. It should be, “better than any other”--the best of all men--“I know;” “this gentleman, of all my acquaintance, rallies the best;” or “of all my acquaintance, there is no one, who rallies so well as this gentleman.”

“Besides, those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, are best, of all others, qualified to revenge that defect with their breath.”--_Preface to A Tale of a Tub._

“Here,” says Sheridan, “the disjunction of the word _best_ from the word _qualified_ makes the sentence uncouth, which would run better thus, ‘are, of all others, best qualified.’” So far Mr. Sheridan is right; but he has left uncorrected a very common error. The antecedent subject of comparison is here absurdly referred at once to the same, and to a different aggregate, the word _of_ referring it to _others_, to which it is opposed, and to which therefore it cannot, without a contradiction, be said to belong. The sentence, therefore, involves an absurdity: either the word _others_ should be expunged, when the sentence would run thus, “Those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, are, of all, best qualified to revenge that defect;” or, if the word _others_ be retained, the clause should be, “are better qualified than all others.”[141]

The phraseology here censured is admissible in those cases only where a previous comparison has been made. If we say, “To engage a private tutor for a single pupil is, perhaps, of all others, the least eligible mode of giving literary instruction,” (_Barrow on Education_,) without making that previous discrimination, which the word _others_ implies, we commit an error. But we may say with propriety, “I prefer the mode of education adopted in our public schools; and of all _other modes_, to engage a private tutor appears to me the least eligible.”

IMPROPRIETY.

“They could easier get them by heart, and retain them in memory.”--_Adams’s History of England._ Here the adjective is improperly used for the adverb; it ought to be “more easily.” Swift commits a similar error, when he says, “Ned explained his text so full and clear,” for “so fully and clearly.”

“Thus much, I think, is sufficient to serve, by way of address, to my patrons, the true modern critics, and may very well atone for my past silence as well as for that, which I am like to observe for the future.”--_Swift._ _Like_, or _similar_, is here improperly used for _likely_, a word in signification nearly synonymous with _probable_. We say, “he is likely to do it,” or “it is probable he will do it.”

“Charity vaunteth not itself, doth not behave itself unseemly.” Here the adjective _unseemly_ is improperly used for the adverb, denoting “in an unseemly manner.” _Unseemlily_ not being in use, the word _indecently_ should be substituted.

“The Romans had no other subsistence but the scanty pillage of a few farms.” _Other_ is redundant; it should be, “no subsistence but,” or “no other subsistence than.” In the Saxon language, and the earlier English writers, the word _other_ is not uniformly followed by _than_, but sometimes with _but_, _before_, _save_, _except_[142], thus, Mark xii. 32, “thær an God is, and nis other butan him,” thus rendered in the Bishops’ Translation, “there is one God, and there is none but he,” and in the common version, “none other but he.” In the Book of Common Prayer we have, “Thou shalt have no other Gods but me;” and the same form of expression occurs in Addison, Swift, and other contemporary writers. Usage, however, seems of late to have decided almost universally in favour of _than_. This decision is not only consistent with analogy, if the word _other_ is to be deemed a comparative, but may also, in some cases, be subservient to perspicuity. _No other but_, _no other beside_, _no other except_, are equivalent expressions, and do not perhaps convey precisely the same idea with _none but_, _no other than_. Thus, if we take an example similar to Baker’s, and suppose a person to say “A called on me this morning,” B asks, “No one else?” “No other,” answers A, “but my stationer.” Here the expression, as Baker remarks, seems strictly proper, the words _no other_ having a reference to A. But if the stationer had been the only visitor, he should say, “none but,” or “no other _than_ the stationer called on me this morning.” This is the opinion of Baker. The distinction, which he wishes to establish, is sufficiently evident; but that it is warranted by strict analysis, I do not mean to affirm.

“He has eaten no bread, nor drunk no water, these two days.” _No_ is here improperly used for _any_, two negatives making an affirmative: it should be, “nor drunk any water.”

“The servant must have an undeniable character.” _Undeniable_ is equivalent to _incontrovertible_, or “not admitting dispute.” An “undeniable character,” therefore, means, a character which cannot be denied or disputed, whether good or bad: it should be “unexceptionable.”

“But you are too wise to propose to yourselves an object inadequate to your strength.”--_Watson’s History of Philip III._ _Inadequate_ means “falling short of due proportion,” and is here improperly used in a sense nearly the reverse. It should be “to which your strength is inadequate,” or “superior to your strength.”

“I received a letter to-day from our mutual friend.” I concur with Baker in considering this expression to be incorrect. A may be a friend to B, and also to C, and is therefore a friend common to both; but not their mutual friend: for this implies reciprocity between two individuals, or two parties. The individuals may be mutually friends; but one cannot be the mutual friend of the other. Locke more properly says, “I esteem the memory of our common friend.” This is, doubtless, the correct expression; but, as the term _common_ may denote “ordinary,” or “not uncommon,” the word _mutual_, though not proper, may, perhaps, as Baker observes, be tolerated.

The superlatives _lowest_ and _lowermost_, _highest_ and _uppermost_, appear to me to be frequently confounded. Thus we say, “the lowest house in the street,” when we mean the lowest in respect to measurement, from the basement to the top, and also the lowest in regard to position, the inferiority being occasioned by declivity. Now it appears to me, that when we refer to dimension, we should say, _lowest_ or _highest_; and when we refer to site or situation, we ought to say, _lowermost_ or _uppermost_.

“It was due, perhaps, more to the ignorance of the scholars, than to the knowledge of the masters.”--_Swift._ It should be rather, “it was owing,” or “it is ascribable.” The author had previously been speaking of the first instructors of mankind, and questioning their claim to the title of sages. To say, then, that their right to this title, or that the appellation itself, “was due more to ignorance than to knowledge,” is manifestly improper. Swift, however, was not singular in using the adjective in this sense. Steele, and some other contemporary writers, employed it in the same acceptation. “The calamities of children are due to the negligence of the parents.”--_Spectator_, No. 431. It is now seldom or never employed as equivalent to “owing to,” or “occasioned by.”

“Risible,” “ludicrous,” and “ridiculous,” are frequently confounded. _Risible_ denotes merely the capacity of laughing, and is applied to animals having the faculty of laughter, as, “man is a risible creature.” _Ludicrous_ is applicable to things exciting laughter simply; _ridiculous_ to things exciting laughter with contempt. The tricks of a monkey are _ludicrous_, the whimsies of superstition are _ridiculous_. “The measure of the mid stream for salmon among our forefathers is not less risible.”--_Kames’s Sketches._ He should have said “ridiculous.”

We have already expressed our doubt of the propriety of using the numeral adjective _one_, as referring to a plurality of individuals, denoted by a plural noun. (_See_ p. 48.) There is something which is not only strange to the ear, but also strikes us as ungrammatical, in saying[143], “The Greeks and the Trojans continued the contest; the one were favoured by Juno, the other by Venus.” At the same time, it must be acknowledged, that there seems to be an inconsistency in questioning this phraseology, and yet retaining some others, which appear to be analogous to it, and can plead in their defence reputable usage. We say, “The Romans and the Carthaginians contended with each other;” and “The English, the Dutch, and the Spaniards disputed, one with another, the sovereignty of the sea.” Here _each_ and _one_ clearly refer to a plurality, expressed by a noun plural. A similar example occurs in the following sentence: “As the greatest part of mankind are more affected by things, which strike the senses, than by excellences, that are discovered by reason and thought, they form very erroneous judgments, when they compare _one_ with the other.”--_Guardian._ If we inquire, what one? we find the answer to be “things.” Here is a manifest incongruity, which might have been prevented, by saying, “one subject with the other,” or “when they compare them together.” As this construction of _one_, referring to a noun plural, seems irreconcilable with the notion of unity, and may be avoided, it becomes a question, whether this phraseology ought to be imitated. The subject, as far as I know, has not been considered by any of our grammarians.

“That this was the cause of the disaster, was apparent to all.” _Apparent_ is sometimes used in this sense. The word, however, is equivocal, as it denotes _seeming_, opposed to _real_; and _obvious_, opposed to _doubtful_ or _obscure_. “I consider the difference between him and the two authors above mentioned, as more apparent than real.”--_Campbell._ Here _apparent_ is opposed to _real_; and to this sense it would be right to confine it, as thus all ambiguity would be effectually prevented. “But there soon appeared very apparent reasons for James’s partiality.”--_Goldsmith._ _Obvious_, or _evident_, would unquestionably be preferable.

“How seldom, then, does it happen, that the mind does not find itself in similar circumstances? Very rare indeed.”--_Trusler’s Preface to Synon._ The adjective _rare_ is here improperly used for the adverb. As the question, indeed, is adverbially proposed, it is somewhat surprising that the author should answer _adjectively_: it ought to be, “very rarely.”

“No man had ever _less_ friends, and more enemies.” _Less_ refers to quantity, _fewer_ to number; it should be, “_fewer_ friends.”

“The mind may insensibly fall off from this relish of virtuous actions, and by degrees exchange that pleasure, which it takes in the performance of its duty, for delights of a much more inferior and unprofitable nature.”--_Addison._ _Inferior_ implies comparison, but it is grammatically a positive. When one thing is, in any respect, lower than another, we say, “it is inferior to it;” and if a third thing were still lower, we should say, “it is still more inferior.” But the author is comparing only two subjects; he should therefore have said, “of a much inferior, and more unprofitable nature.” The expression “more preferable” is for the same reason faulty, unless when two degrees of excess are implied.

The adjectives _agreeable_, _suitable_, _conformable_, _independent_, _consistent_, _relative_, _previous_, _antecedent_, and many others, are often used, where their several derivative adverbs would be more properly employed; as, “he lives _agreeable_ to nature,” “he wrote to me _previous_ to his coming to town,” “_tolerable_ good,” “he acted _conformable_ to his promise.” It is worthy of remark, however, that the idiom of our language is not repugnant to some of these phraseologies; a circumstance which many of our grammarians have overlooked, if we may judge from the severity with which they have condemned them. If I say, “he acted according to nature,” the expression is deemed unobjectionable: but is not _according_ a participle, or, perhaps, here more properly a _participial_? “He acted contrary to nature” is also considered as faultless; but is not _contrary_ an adjective? Were we to reason on abstract principles, or to adopt what is deemed the preferable phraseology, we should say, “contrarily” and “accordingly to nature.” This, however, is not the case. “Contrary to nature,” “according to nature,” and many similar phraseologies, are admitted as good: why, then, is “conformable to nature,” an expression perfectly analogous, so severely condemned? Johnson has, indeed, uselessly enough, in my opinion, called _according_ a preposition; fearful, however, of error, he adds, it is properly a participle, for it is followed by _to_. _According_ is always a participle, as much as _agreeing_, and can be nothing else. Because _secundum_ in Latin is termed a preposition, hence some have referred _according_ to the same species of words. With equal propriety might _in the power of_ be deemed a preposition, because _penes_ in Latin is so denominated. Now, if “he acted contrary to nature” and “according to nature” be deemed unexceptionable expressions, with many others of the same kind, which might be adduced, it follows that, “he acted agreeable,” “conformable,” “suitable to nature,” may plead in their favour these analogous phraseologies. I offer these observations, in order to show that, misled by abstract reasonings, or by the servile imitation of another language, we sometimes hastily condemn, as altogether inadmissible, modes of expression, which are not repugnant to our vernacular idiom. I would not, however, be understood to mean, that the adverb is not, in these cases, much to be preferred, when it can be employed consistently with good usage. For, if we say, “he acts agreeable to the laws of reason,” the question is, who or what is agreeable? the answer, according to the strict construction of the sentence, is _he_; but it is not _he_, but _his mode of acting_, of which the accordance is predicated; _agreeably_ is, therefore, the preferable term.

I observe also, that, wherever the adjective is employed to modify the meaning of another adjective, it becomes particularly exceptionable, and can scarcely, indeed, plead aught in its favour, as, “indifferent good,” “tolerable strong,” instead of “indifferently good,” and “tolerably strong.” The following phraseology is extremely inelegant, and is scarcely admissible on any principle of analogy: “Immediately consequent to the victory, Drogheda was invested.”--_Belsham’s History._ What was consequent? Grammatically “Drogheda.”

“No other person, besides my brother, visited me to-day.” Here the speaker means to say that no person, besides his brother, visited him to-day; but his expression implies two exceptions from _none_, the terms _other_ and _besides_ each implying one, and can, therefore, be correct on this supposition only, that some one besides his brother had visited him. It should be rather, “no person besides.”

“The old man had, some fifty years ago, been no mean performer on the vielle.”--_Sterne._ This phraseology appears to me very objectionable; and can be proper in no case, except when the date of the period is to be expressed as uncertain. The word _some_ should be cancelled. We may say, “I was absent some days,” because the period is indefinite; but to say, “I was absent some five days,” either involves an incongruity, representing a period as at once definite and indefinite; or denotes “some five days or other,” a meaning which the expression is rarely intended to signify.

“Brutus and Aruns killed one another.” It should be, “each other:” “one another” is applied to more than two. “The one the other” would be correct, though inelegant.

“It argued the most extreme vanity.”--_Hume._ _Extreme_ is derived from a Latin superlative, and denotes “the farthest,” or “greatest possible:” it cannot, therefore, be compared.

“Of all vices pride is the most universal.” _Universal_ is here improperly used for _general_. The meaning of the latter admits intension and remission, and may, therefore, be compared. The former is an adjective, whose signification cannot be heightened or lessened; it therefore rejects all intensive and diminutive words, as, _so_, _more_, _less_, _least_, _most_. The expression should be, “Of all vices pride is the most general.”

“Tho’ learn’d, well-bred; and tho’ well-bred, sincere:
Modestly bold, and humanly severe.”--_Pope._

_Human_ and _humane_, as Dr. Campbell observes, are sometimes confounded. The former properly means “belonging to man;” the latter, “kind and compassionate:” _humanly_, therefore, is improperly, in the couplet now quoted, used for _humanely_.