Chapter XXVIII: Section VI: The Preposition

SOLECISM.

“Who do you speak to?” Here the preposition is joined with the nominative, instead of the objective case. It should be, “whom do you speak to?” or “to whom do you speak?” _To who_ is a solecism.

“He talked to you and I, of this matter, some days ago.” It should be, “to _you_ and _me_;” that is, “to you and to me.”

“Now Margaret’s curse is fallen upon our heads,
When she exclaim’d on Hastings you and I.”
_Shakspeare._

It ought to be, “on Hastings _you_ and _me_,” the pronouns being under the government of the preposition understood.

“Neither do I think, that anything could be more entertaining, than the story of it exactly told, with such observations, and in such a spirit, style, and manner, as you alone are capable of performing it.” This sentence is extremely faulty. “To perform a story” is not English; and the relative clause is ungrammatical, the preposition being omitted. It should be, “performing it in,” which would be grammatically correct, but inelegant, as well as improper. It would be better expressed thus, “in that spirit, style, and manner, in which you alone are capable of narrating it.”

“Notwithstanding of the numerous panegyrics on the ancient English liberty.”--_Hume’s Essays._ The error here in the use of the preposition after _notwithstanding_, is, I believe, peculiar to Scotland. _Notwithstanding_ is a compound word of the same import as _not preventing_. The grammatical construction therefore is, “the numerous panegyrics notwithstanding,” that is, “not hindering,” the noun and the participle being in the absolute case. _Of_ renders the expression solecistical.

IMPROPRIETY.

“If policy can prevail upon force.”--_Addison._ Here _upon_ is improperly used for _over_. _To prevail on_, is “to persuade;” _to prevail over_, is “to overcome.”

“I have set down the names of several gentlemen, who have been robbed in Dublin streets, for these three years past.”--_Swift._ It should be, “within these three years past.” Swift’s expression implies, as Baker observes, that these gentlemen had been robbed during the whole three years.

“Ye blind guides, who strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” In this sentence, the preposition _at_ is very improperly used for _out_. It should be, “strain out a gnat;” that is, exclude it from the liquor by straining.

“Oliver Proudfute, a freeman and burgess, was slain upon the streets of the city.”--_Scott._ This form of expression is almost universal in Scotland. An Englishman says, “in the streets.”

“I have several times inquired of you without any satisfaction.”--_Pope._ We say, “inquire of,” when we ask a question; and “inquire for,” or “after,” when we desire to know the circumstances, in which any object is placed. He should have employed the latter expression.

“The greatest masters of critical learning differ among one another.”--_Spectator._ If the ellipsis be supplied, the sentence proceeds thus: “The greatest masters of critical learning differ, one differs among another.” Here the preposition _among_, which implies a number, or a plurality, is joined to a term significant of unity. It ought to be, “from one another;” that is “one from another,” or “differ among themselves.”

“I intended to wait _of_ you this morning.” The preposition _of_ is here improperly used for _on_. We say, _to wait on_, not _to wait of_.

“He knows nothing _on_ it.” This is a vile vulgarism for “he knows nothing _of_ it.”

“He is now much altered to the better.” _To_ is here improperly used instead of _for_. “Altered to the better,” may, I believe, be deemed a Scotticism. It ought to be, “he is altered for the better.”

Ambiguity is sometimes produced by putting the preposition in an improper place. “A clergyman is, by the militia act, exempted from both serving and contributing.” This, though intended to express a different meaning, strictly implies, that he is not obliged both to serve and to contribute, but does not exclude his liability to do the one, or the other. If we say, “he is exempted both from serving and contributing,” we express an exemption from both.

“Such of my readers, as have a taste of fine writing.”--_Addison’s Spect._ “To have a taste of a thing,” is “to feel how it affects the sensitive or perceptive faculty;” “to have a taste for a thing,” is “to relish its agreeable qualities;” “to have a taste in a thing,” which is the expression used by Addison in the same paper, is “to have a discriminative judgment in examining the object.” The first expression is incorrect, as not conveying his meaning.

Swift, speaking of Marlborough’s dismission from the queen’s ministry, as a bad requital of his public services, says, “If a stranger should hear these furious outcries of ingratitude against our general, he would be apt to inquire,” &c. One would naturally conclude from the author’s expression, that Marlborough, and not the nation, was charged with ingratitude. He should have said, “ingratitude towards our general.”

“I received the sword in a present from my brother.” This is a very common colloquial Scotticism, and occurs occasionally in written language. The sword was not received _in_, but _as_ a present.

In the use of prepositions, a distinction is properly made between their literal and figurative meaning. “Wit,” says Shakspeare, “depends _on_ dilatory time.” Here the verb is employed figuratively, and the idea involved in the primitive meaning is dismissed.

“From gilded roofs depending lamps display.”--_Dryden._

Here the verb is used in its literal acceptation, denoting “to hang,” and is followed, therefore, by _from_.

To the same purpose it has been remarked by Campbell, that the verb “to found,” used literally, is followed by _on_ preferably to _in_, as, “the house was founded _on_ a rock;” but, when employed metaphorically, is better followed by _in_, as, “dominion is founded in grace.”

“There is no need _for_ your assistance.” It should be, “_of_ your assistance.” We say, “occasion _for_,” and “need _of_.” _Need for_ may likewise be pronounced a Scotticism, as, I believe, this phraseology is seldom or never used by English writers.

“For, what chiefly deters the sons of science and philosophy from reading the Bible, and profiting of that lecture, but the stumbling-block of absolute inspiration?”--_Geddes._ “To profit of” is a Gallicism; it should be, “profiting by.”