Chapter XXVII: Section V: The Adverb

BARBARISM.

“Friendship, a rare thing in princes, more rare between princes, that so holily was observed to the last, of those two excellent men.”--_Sidney on Government._ _Holily_ is obsolete.

“Enquire, what be the stones, that do easiliest melt.”--_Bacon._ The adverb _easily_ is not compared,--see p. 70. _Easiliest_ is, therefore, a barbarism.

“Their wonder, that any man so near Jerusalem should be a stranger to what had passed there, their acknowledgment to one they met accidently, that they believed in this prophet,” &c.--_Guardian._ Steele has here used _accidently_, for _accidentally_. The former is a barbarism, and its derivation is repugnant to analogy.

“Uneath may she endure the flinty street,
To tread them with her tender feeling feet.”--_Shakspeare._

_Uneath_ is now obsolete, and may therefore be deemed a barbarism.

“In northern clime, a val’rous knight
Did whilom kill his bear in fight,
And wound a fiddler.”--_Hudibras._

_Whilom_ is now entirely disused. The adverbs _whilere_, _erst_, and perhaps also _anon_, may be ranked in the class of barbarisms.

“And this attention gives ease to the person, because the clothes appear unstudily graceful.”--_Wollstonecraft’s Original Stories._ The word _unstudily_ is barbarous, and its mode of derivation contrary to analogy.

SOLECISM.

“Use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thine often infirmities.” _Often_, an adverb, is here improperly used as an adjective, in accordance with the substantive “infirmities.” It ought to be “thy frequent infirmities.”

“We may cast in such seeds and principles, as we judge most likely to take soonest and deepest root.” Here, as in the preceding example, the adverb “soonest” is used as an adjective; for the connexion is, “_soonest_ root,” and “_deepest_ root.” Now, we cannot say “soon root,” the former term being incapable of qualifying the latter; nor can we, therefore, say, “_soonest_ root.” It ought to be, “the earliest and the deepest root.”

“After these wars, of which they hope for a soon and prosperous issue.” _Soon issue_ is another example of the same error.

“His lordship inveighed, with severity, against the conduct of the then ministry.” Here _then_, the adverb equivalent to _at that time_, is solecistically employed as an adjective, agreeing with _ministry_. This error seems to gain ground; it should therefore be vigilantly opposed, and carefully avoided. “The ministry of that time,” would be correct.

“He tells them, that the time should come, that the temple should be graced with the presence of the Messias.” Here _that_ is incorrectly used for _when_, _i.e._ “at which time the temple should be graced.”

IMPROPRIETY.

“By letters, dated the third of May, we learn that the West India fleet arrived safely.” Here _safely_ is improperly used for _safe_. The adverb is equivalent to “in a safe manner;” and when it is said, “that the fleet arrived _safely_,” it signifies that the manner of the arrival, rather than the fleet itself, was safe or free from accident. If I say, “he carried the parcel as safely as possible,” it implies merely his great attention to the manner of carrying it; but this does not infallibly exclude accident; for I may add, “but he unluckily fell,” or, “he was unfortunately thrown down, and the glass was broken.” But if I say, “he carried it as safe as possible,” or, “he carried it safe,” it implies that it came safe, or escaped all accidents. We should, therefore, say “that the West India fleet arrived safe.” In disapproving the expression, “he arrived _safely_,” I concur with Baker; but the judicious reader will perceive, that my reason for reprehending it, does not entirely coincide with his. The author’s words are these: “If a man says, that he arrived safely, or in a safe manner, he seems to suppose, that there is danger of some mischance in arriving. But what danger is there to be apprehended in the circumstance of arriving? The danger is only during the journey, or voyage; in the arrival there is none at all. The proper way of speaking is, therefore, ‘I arrived safe,’ that is, ‘having escaped all the dangers of the passage.’”

“The poor woman carried them to the person to whom they were directed; and when Lady Cathcart recovered her liberty, she received her diamonds safely.” It should be, “she received her diamonds safe.”

Errors like the one on which I have now animadverted, frequently arise from a desire to avoid the opposite mistake; I mean the improper use of the adjective for the adverb.--_See_ _Syntax, Rule V. Note_ 16. Hence many, when they employ such phraseologies as I have here exemplified, conceive that they express themselves with the strictest accuracy, thus verifying the poet’s observation,

“In vitium ducit culpæ fuga, si caret arte.”

In order to avoid this error, it should be remembered, that many English verbs, while they affirm some action, passion, or state of the subject, frequently serve as a copula, connecting the subject with another predicate. This is one of those idioms, in the grammar of our language, which demand the particular attention of the classical scholar. For, though an acquaintance with the learned languages will not seduce him into an improper use of an adjective for the adverb, it may, as in the example now before us, betray him into the converse error. And I am inclined to think, that from a propensity almost irresistible in the classical scholar to assimilate our language with the Latin tongue, our lexicographers have designated many of our words as adverbs, which are strictly adjectives. When it is said, for example, “it goes hard,” Johnson considers _hard_ as an adverb. Yet when we say, “it goes contrary,” he considers _contrary_ as an adjective. There appears to me to be more of caprice than of reason, more of prejudice than of truth, in this classification. Both words, I am persuaded, belong to one and the same species. Nay, I might venture to assert, that no person, who had studied the principles of the English language, and of that only, would pronounce the one to be an adverb, and the other an adjective. It is to be observed, likewise, that we have the regular adverb _hardly_ to express the manner. When we say, “he reasoned concerning the rule,” “we argued respecting the fact,” “he lives according to nature,” is there not something extremely arbitrary and unphilosophical, in calling _concerning_ a preposition, _according_ a preposition, followed by _to_, but properly a participle, and _respecting_ a participle? Are not all the three participles? Yet Johnson has classed them, as I have now mentioned. But the farther illustration of this subject would lead us into a field much too large for the limits of the present treatise. We must therefore revert to our primary observation, in which we cautioned the reader against the improper use of the adjective for the adverb. It should be remembered that, when it is intended to predicate something of the subject, beside the attribute of the verb, the adjective should be employed; but, when it is intended to express merely some modification of the attribute of the verb, we should then use the adverb. The difference may be illustrated by the following examples. When Gustavus says to his troops, “your limbs tread vigorous and your breasts beat high,” he predicates with the act of treading their physical strength; but had he said, “your limbs tread vigorously,” it would merely modify their treading, and express an act, not a constitutional habit. The same distinction may be made between saying with Arnoldus in the same play, “the tear rolls graceful down his visage,” and “the tear rolls gracefully.” The former predicates grace of the tear itself, the latter merely of its rolling. When we say, “he looks sly,” we mean he has the look or the appearance of being a sly man; when it is said, “he looks slyly,” we signify that he assumes a sly look. When we say, “it tastes good,” we affirm that the subject is of a good quality, whether the taste be pleasant or unpleasant; if we say, “it tastes well,” we affirm the taste of it to be pleasant.

“The manner of it is thus.” The adverb _thus_ means “in this manner.” The expression, therefore, amounts to “the manner of it is in this manner.” It should be, “the manner of it is this,” or, “this is the manner of it.” “This much is certain.” Better, “thus much,” or “so much.”

“It is a long time since I have been devoted to your interest.” _Since_ properly means “from the time when,” and not “during which time.” The expression might be construed into a meaning the reverse of that which is intended, implying, that the attachment had ceased for a long time. It should be, “it is a long time since I became devoted,” or, “it is a long time, that I have been devoted to your interest.”

“It is equally the same.” _Equally_ is here redundant; it ought to be, “it is the same.”

“Whenever I call on him, he always inquires for you.” _Whenever_ means “at what time soever,” “always when,” or “as often as;” _always_, therefore, is redundant.

“They will not listen to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely.” _Never_ is here improperly used for _ever_. It ought to be, “charm he ever so wisely;” that is, “_however wisely_,” or “_how wisely soever_, he may charm.”

“And even in those characteristical portraits, on which he has lavished all the decorations of his style, he is seldom or ever misled.”--_Stewart’s Life of Robertson._ This error is the converse of the former. It ought to be, “seldom or never;” that is, “seldom, or at no time.” “Seldom or ever” is equivalent to “seldom or always,” or to “seldom or at any time;” expressions evidently improper.

“Whether thou be my son or not.”--_Bible._ “Whether you will keep his commandments, or no.” Both these phraseologies are in use; but I am inclined to agree with those grammarians, who prefer the former, as more consistent with the ellipsis--“Whether thou be, or be not.” “Whether you will keep his commandments, or will not keep.”

“Some years after being released from prison, by reason of his consummate knowledge of civil law, and military affairs, he was soon exalted to the supreme power.” The first clause of this sentence is ambiguous; for the sentence may imply, either that he gained the supremacy, some years after he was released from prison, that period being left indeterminate; or that some years after a time previously mentioned, he was released from prison, and attained the chief power. The latter being the author’s meaning, it ought to be, “some years _afterwards_ being released from prison.” Another ambiguity is here involved by improper arrangement; for, as the sentence stands, it is somewhat doubtful, whether his consummate knowledge was the cause of his releasement, or the cause of his elevation. This error, however, belongs more to the rhetorician, than the grammarian. The French term this ambiguity, “construction louche,” or a _squinting construction_.

The following error consists in wrong collocation: “The Celtiberi in Spain borrowed that name from the Celtæ and Iberi, from whom they were jointly descended.” Jointly, with whom? It should be, “from whom (the Celtæ and Iberi) jointly they were descended.”

“And the Quakers seem to approach nearly the only regular body of Deists in the universe, the literati, or the disciples of Confucius in China.”--_Hume’s Essays._ The adverb _nearly_, which is synonymous with _almost_, is here improperly used for _near_[147]. It should be, _approach near_.

“This is the Leviathan, from whence the terrible wits of our age are said to borrow their weapons.”--_Swift._ _From_ is here redundant; _whence_, denoting “from which place.”

“An ancient author prophecies from hence.”--_Dryden._ Here a similar impropriety is involved. It should be, _hence_.

“E’er we can offer our complaints,
Behold him present with his aid.”

_E’er_, a contraction for _ever_, which is synonymous with _always_, and also _at any time_, is here improperly used for _ere_ or _before_.

In the two following passages, there appears to me to be a similar error: “Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken.”--_Bible._ “I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.”--_Ibid._

“And, as there is now never a woman in England, I hope, I may talk of women without offence.”--_Steele._

“He spake never a word.”--_Bible._

This usage of the word “never,” is now, I believe, entirely confined to the vulgar.

“As for conflagrations and great droughts, they do not merely dispeople and destroy.”--_Bacon._ _Merely_ is here used, as it is uniformly by Bacon, and very frequently by Shakspeare, for _entirely_. In this sense, it is obsolete; and it now signifies _purely_, _simply_, _only_, _nothing more than_. From inattention to this, the passage, now quoted, has been corrupted in several editions. They have it, “do not merely dispeople, but destroy,” conveying a sentiment very different from what the author intended.