Chapter IV: Part 4

"Extracts from Bishop Jewel downward being also given, Lord Macaulay, Mr. Dickens, 'The Atlantic Monthly,' and 'The Brooklyn Eagle' are alleged by Mr. White in proof that people still use such phrases as 'Chelsea Hospital _was building_,' and 'the train _was preparing_.' 'Hence we see,' he adds,[14] 'that the form _is being done_, _is being made_, _is being built_, lacks the support of authoritative usage from the period of the earliest classical English to the present day.' I fully concur with Mr. White in regarding 'neither "The Brooklyn Eagle" nor Mr. Dickens as a very high authority in the use of language'; yet, when he has renounced the aid of these contemned straws, what has he to rest his inference on, as to the present day, but the practice of Lord Macaulay and 'The Atlantic Monthly'? Those who think fit will bow to the dictatorship here prescribed to them; but there may be those with whom the classic sanction of Southey, Coleridge, and Landor will not be wholly void of weight. All scholars are aware that, to convey the sense of the imperfects passive, our ancestors, centuries ago, prefixed, with _is_, etc., _in_, afterward corrupted into _a_, to a verbal substantive. 'The house _is in building_' could be taken to mean nothing but _ædes ædificantur_; and, when the _in_ gave place to _a_,[15] it was still manifest enough, from the context, that _building_ was governed by a preposition. The second stage of change, however, namely, when the _a_ was omitted, entailed, in many cases, great danger of confusion. In the early part of the last century, when English was undergoing what was then thought to be purification, the polite world substantially resigned _is a-building_ to the vulgar. Toward the close of the same century, when, under the influence of free thought, it began to be felt that even ideas had a right to faithful and unequivocal representation, a just resentment of ambiguity was evidenced in the creation of _is being built_. The lament is too late that the instinct of reformation did not restore the old form. It has gone forever; and we are now to make the best of its successors. '"The brass _is forging_,"' in the opinion of Dr. Johnson, is 'a vicious expression, probably corrupted from a phrase more pure, but now somewhat obsolete, ... "the brass _is a-forging_."' Yet, with a true Tory's timidity and aversion to change, it is not surprising that he went on preferring what he found established, vicious as it confessedly was, to the end. But was the expression 'vicious' solely because it was a corruption? In 1787 William Beckford wrote as follows of the fortune-tellers of Lisbon: '_I saw one dragging into light_, as I passed by the ruins of a palace thrown down by the earthquake. Whether a familiar of the Inquisition was griping her in his clutches, or _whether she was taking to account by some disappointed votary_, I will not pretend to answer.' Are the expressions here italicized either perspicuous or graceful? Whatever we are to have in their place, we should be thankful to get quit of them.

"Inasmuch as, concurrently with _building_ for the active participle, and _being built_ for the corresponding passive participle, we possessed the former, with _is_ prefixed, as the active present imperfect, it is in rigid accordance with the symmetry of our verb that, to construct the passive present-imperfect, we prefix _is_ to the latter, producing the form _is being built_. Such, in its greatest simplicity, is the procedure which, as will be seen, has provoked a very levanter of ire and vilification. But anything that is new will be excepted to by minds of a certain order. Their tremulous and impatient dread of removing ancient landmarks even disqualifies them for thoroughly investigating its character and pretensions. In _has built_ and _will build_, we find the active participle perfect and the active infinitive subjoined to auxiliaries; and so, in _has been built_ and _will be built_, the passive participle perfect and the passive infinitive are subjoined to auxiliaries. In _is building_ and _is being built_, we have, in strict harmony with the constitution of the perfect and future tenses, an auxiliary followed by the active participle present and the passive participle present. _Built_ is determined as active or passive by the verbs which qualify it, _have_ and _be_; and the grammarians are right in considering it, when embodied in _has built_, as active, since its analogue, embodied in _has been built_, is the exclusively passive _been built_. Besides this, _has been_ + _built_ would signify something like _has existed, built_,[16] which is plainly neuter. We are debarred, therefore, from such an analysis; and, by parity of reasoning, we may not resolve _is being built_ into _is being_ + _built_. It must have been an inspiration of analogy, felt or unfelt, that suggested the form I am discussing. _Is being_ + _built_, as it can mean, pretty nearly, only _exists, built_, would never have been proposed as adequate to convey any but a neuter sense; whereas it was perfectly natural for a person aiming to express a passive sense to prefix _is_ to the passive concretion _being built_.[17]

"The analogical justification of _is being built_ which I have brought forward is so obvious that, as it occurred to myself more than twenty years ago, so it must have occurred spontaneously to hundreds besides. It is very singular that those who, like Mr. Marsh and Mr. White, have pondered long and painfully over locutions typified by _is being built_, should have missed the real ground of their grammatical defensibleness, and should have warmed themselves, in their opposition to them, into uttering opinions which no calm judgment can accept.

"'One who _is being beaten_' is, to Archbishop Whately, 'uncouth English.' '"The bridge _is being built_," and other phrases of the like kind, have pained the eye' of Mr. David Booth. Such phrases, according to Mr. M. Harrison, 'are not English.' To Professor J. W. Gibbs 'this mode of expression ... appears formal and pedantic'; and 'the easy and natural expression is, "The house _is building_."'[18] In all this, little or nothing is discernible beyond sheer prejudice, the prejudice of those who resolve to take their stand against an innovation, regardless of its utility, and who are ready to find an argument against it in any random epithet of disparagement provoked by unreasoning aversion. And the more recent denouncers in the same line have no more reason on their side than their elder brethren.

"In Mr. Marsh's estimation, _is being built_ illustrates 'corruption of language'; it is 'clumsy and unidiomatic'; it is 'at best but a philological coxcombry'; it 'is an awkward neologism, which neither convenience, intelligibility, nor syntactical congruity demands, and the use of which ought, therefore, to be discountenanced, as an attempt at the artificial improvement of the language in a point which needed no amendment.' Again, 'To reject' _is building_ in favor of the modern phrase 'is to violate the laws of language by an arbitrary change; and, in this particular case, the proposed substitute is at war with the genius of the English tongue.' Mr. Marsh seems to have fancied that, wherever he points out a beauty in _is building_, he points out, inclusively, a blemish in _is being built_.

"The fervor and feeling with which Mr. White advances to the charge are altogether tropical. 'The full absurdity of this phrase, the essence of its nonsense, seems not to have been hitherto pointed out.' It is not 'consistent with reason'; and it is not 'conformed to the normal development of the language.' It is 'a monstrosity, the illogical, confusing, inaccurate, unidiomatic character of which I have at some length, but yet imperfectly, set forth.' Finally, 'In fact, it means nothing, and is the most incongruous combination of words and ideas that ever attained respectable usage in any civilized language.' These be 'prave 'ords'; and it seems a pity that so much sterling vituperative ammunition should be expended in vain. And that it is so expended thinks Mr. White himself; for, though passing sentence in the spirit of a Jeffreys, he is not really on the judgment-seat, but on the lowest hassock of despair. As concerns the mode of expression exemplified by _is being built_, he owns that 'to check its diffusion would be a hopeless undertaking.' If so, why not reserve himself for service against some evil not avowedly beyond remedy?

"Again we read, 'Some precise and feeble-minded soul, having been taught that there is a passive voice in English, and that, for instance, _building_ is an active participle, and _builded_ or _built_ a passive, felt conscientious scruples at saying "the house _is building_." For what could the house build?' As children say at play, Mr. White burns here. If it had occurred to him that the 'conscientious scruples' of his hypothetical, 'precise, and feeble-minded soul' were roused by _been built_, not by _built_, I suspect his chapter on _is being built_ would have been much shorter than it is at present, and very different. 'The fatal absurdity in this phrase consists,' he tells us, 'in the combination of _is_ with _being_; in the making of the verb _to be_ a supplement, or, in grammarians' phrase, an auxiliary to itself--an absurdity so palpable, so monstrous, so ridiculous, that it should need only to be pointed out to be scouted.'[19] Lastly, 'The question is thus narrowed simply to this, Does _to be being_ (_esse ens_) mean anything more or other than _to be_?'

"Having convicted Mr. White of a mistaken analysis, I am not concerned with the observations which he founds on his mistake. However, even if his analysis had been correct, some of his arguments would avail him nothing. For instance, _is being built_, on his understanding of it, that is to say, _is being_ + _built_, he represents by _ens ædificatus est_, as 'the supposed corresponding Latin phrase.'[20] The Latin is illegitimate; and he infers that, therefore, the English is the same. But _ædificans est_, a translation, on the model which he offers, of the active _is building_, is quite as illegitimate as _ens æedificatus est_. By parity of _non-sequitur_, we are, therefore, to surrender the active _is building_. Assume that a phrase in a given language is indefensible unless it has its counterpart in some other language; from the very conception and definition of an idiom every idiom is illegitimate.

"I now pass to another point. '_To be_ and _to exist_ are,' to Mr. White's apprehension, 'perfect synonyms, or more nearly perfect, perhaps, than any two verbs in the language. In some of their meanings there is a shade of difference, but in others there is none whatever; and the latter are those which serve our present purpose. When we say, "He, _being_ forewarned of danger, fled," we say, "He, _existing_ forewarned of danger, fled." When we say that a thing _is_ done, we say that it _exists_ done.... _Is being done_ is simply _exists existing done_.' But, since _is_ and _exists_ are equipollent, and so _being_ and _existing, is being_ is the same as the unimpeachable _is existing_. Q. _non_ E. D. _Is existing_ ought, of course, to be no less objectionable to Mr. White than _is being_. Just as absurd, too, should he reckon the Italian _sono stato_, _era stato_, _sia stato_, _fossi stato_, _saro stato_, _sarei stato_, _essere stato_, and _essendo stato_. For in Italian both _essere_ and _stare_ are required to make up the verb substantive, as in Latin both _esse_ and the offspring of _fuere_ are required; and _stare_, primarily 'to stand,' is modified into a true auxiliary. The alleged 'full absurdity of this phrase,' to wit, _is being built_, 'the essence of its nonsense,' vanishes thus into thin air. So I was about to comment bluntly, not forgetting to regret that any gentleman's cultivation of logic should fructify in the shape of irrepressible tendencies to suicide. But this would be precipitate. Agreeably to one of Mr. White's judicial placita, which I make no apology for citing twice, 'no man who has preserved all his senses will doubt for a moment that "to exist a mastiff or a mule" is absolutely the same as "to be a mastiff or a mule."' Declining to admit their identity, I have not preserved all my senses; and, accordingly--though it may be in me the very superfetation of lunacy--I would caution the reader to keep a sharp eye on my arguments, hereabouts particularly. The Cretan, who, in declaring all Cretans to be liars, left the question of his veracity doubtful to all eternity, fell into a pit of his own digging. Not unlike the unfortunate Cretan, Mr. White has tumbled headlong into his own snare. It was, for the rest, entirely unavailing that he insisted on the insanity of those who should gainsay his fundamental postulate. Sanity, of a crude sort, may accept it; and sanity may put it to a use other than its propounder's.

"Mr. Marsh, after setting forth the all-sufficiency of _is building_, in the passive sense, goes on to say: 'The reformers who object to the phrase I am defending must, in consistency, employ the proposed substitute with all passive participles, and in other tenses as well as the present. They must say, therefore, "The subscription-paper _is being missed_, but I know that a considerable sum _is being wanted_ to make up the amount"; "the great Victoria Bridge _has been being built_ more than two years"; "when I reach London, the ship Leviathan _will be being built_"; "if my orders had been followed, the coat _would have been being made yesterday_"; "if the house _had_ then _been being built_, the mortar _would have been being mixed_."' We may reply that, while awkward instances of the old form are most abundant in our literature, there is no fear that the repulsive elaborations which have been worked out in ridicule of the new forms will prove to have been anticipations of future usage. There was a time when, as to their adverbs, people compared them, to a large extent, with _-er_ and _-est_, or with _more_ and _most_, just as their ear or pleasure dictated. They wrote _plainlier_ and _plainliest_, or _more plainly_ and _most plainly_; and some adverbs, as _early_, _late_, _often_, _seldom_, and _soon_, we still compare in a way now become anomalous. And as our forefathers treated their adverbs we still treat many adjectives. _Furthermore_, _obligingness_, _preparedness_, and _designedly_ seem quite natural; yet we do not feel that they authorize us to talk of 'the _seeingness_ of the eye,' 'the _understoodness_ of a sentence,' or of 'a statement _acknowledgedly_ correct.' 'The now too notorious fact' is tolerable; but 'the never to be sufficiently execrated monster Bonaparte' is intolerable. The sun may be _shorn_ of his splendor; but we do not allow cloudy weather to _shear_ him of it. How, then, can any one claim that a man who prefers to say _is being built_ should say _has been being built_? Are not awkward instances of the old form, typified by _is building_, as easily to be picked out of extant literature as such instances of the new form, likely ever to be used, are to be invented? And 'the reformers' have not forsworn their ears. Mr. Marsh, at p. 135 of his admirable 'Lectures,' lays down that 'the adjective _reliable_, in the sense of _worthy of confidence_, is altogether unidiomatic'; and yet, at p. 112, he writes '_reliable_ evidence.' Again, at p. 396 of the same work, he rules that _whose_, in 'I passed a house _whose_ windows were open,' is 'by no means yet fully established'; and at p. 145 of his very learned 'Man and Nature' he writes 'a quadrangular pyramid, the perpendicular of _whose_ sides,' etc. Really, if his own judgments sit so very loose on his practical conscience, we may, without being chargeable with exaction, ask of him to relax a little the rigor of his requirements at the hands of his neighbors.

"Beckford's Lisbon fortune-teller, before had into court, was '_dragging_ into light,' and, perchance, '_was taking_ to account.' Many moderns would say and write '_being dragged_ into light,' and '_was being taken_ to account.' But, if we are to trust the conservative critics, in comparison with expressions of the former pattern, those of the latter are 'uncouth,' 'clumsy,' 'awkward neologisms,' 'philological coxcombries,' 'formal and pedantic,' 'incongruous and ridiculous forms of speech,' 'illogical, confusing, inaccurate monstrosities.' Moreover, they are neither 'consistent with reason' nor 'conformed to the normal development of the language'; they are 'at war with the genius of the English tongue'; they are 'unidiomatic'; they are 'not English.' In passing, if Mr. Marsh will so define the term _unidiomatic_ as to evince that it has any applicability to the case in hand, or if he will arrest and photograph 'the genius of the English tongue,' so that we may know the original when we meet with it, he will confer a public favor. And now I submit for consideration whether the sole strength of those who decry _is being built_ and its congeners does not consist in their talent for calling hard names. If they have not an uneasy subconsciousness that their cause is weak, they would, at least, do well in eschewing the violence to which, for want of something better, the advocates of weak causes proverbially resort.

"I once had a friend who, for some microscopic penumbra of heresy, was charged, in the words of his accuser, with 'as near an approach to the sin against the Holy Ghost as is practicable to human infirmity.' Similarly, on one view, the feeble potencies of philological turpitude seem to have exhibited their most consummate realization in engendering _is being built_. The supposed enormity perpetrated in its production, provided it had fallen within the sphere of ethics, would, at the least, have ranked, with its denunciators, as a brand-new exemplification of total depravity. But, after all, what incontestable defect in it has any one succeeded in demonstrating? Mr. White, in opposing to the expression objections based on an erroneous analysis, simply lays a phantom of his own evoking; and, so far as I am informed, other impugners of _is being built_ have, absolutely, no argument whatever against it over and beyond their repugnance to novelty. Subjected to a little untroubled contemplation, it would, I am confident, have ceased long ago to be matter of controversy; but the dust of prejudice and passion, which so distempers the intellectual vision of theologians and politicians, is seen to make, with ruthless impartiality, no exception of the perspicacity of philologists.

"Prior to the evolution of _is being built_ and _was being built_, we possessed no discriminate equivalents to _ædificatur_ and _ædificabatur_; _is built_ and _was built_, by which they were rendered, corresponding exactly to _ædificatus est_ and _ædificatus erat_. _Cum ædificaretur_ was to us the same as _ædificabatur_. On the wealth of the Greek in expressions of imperfect passive I need not dwell. With rare exceptions, the Romans were satisfied with the present-imperfect and the past-imperfect; and we, on the comparatively few occasions which present themselves for expressing other imperfects, shall be sure to have recourse to the old forms rather than to the new, or else to use periphrases.[21] The purists may, accordingly, dismiss their apprehensions, especially as the neoterists have, clearly, a keener horror of phraseological ungainliness than themselves. One may have no hesitation about saying 'the house _is being built_,' and may yet recoil from saying that 'it _should have been being built_ last Christmas'; and the same person--just as, provided he did not feel a harshness, inadequacy, and ambiguity in the passive 'the house _is building_,' he would use the expression--will, more likely than not, elect _is in preparation_ preferentially to _is being prepared_. If there are any who, in their zealotry for the congruous, choose to adhere to the new form in its entire range of exchangeability for the old, let it be hoped that they will find, in Mr. Marsh's speculative approbation of consistency, full amends for the discomfort of encountering smiles or frowns. At the same time, let them be mindful of the career of Mr. White, with his black flag and no quarter. The dead Polonius was, in Hamlet's phrase, at supper, 'not where he eats, but where he _is eaten_.' Shakespeare, to Mr. White's thinking, in this wise expressed himself at the best, and deserves not only admiration therefor, but to be imitated. 'While the ark _was built_,' 'while the ark _was prepared_,' writes Mr. White himself.[22] Shakespeare is commended for his ambiguous _is eaten_, though _in eating_ or _an eating_ would have been not only correct in his day, but, where they would have come in his sentence, univocal. With equal reason a man would be entitled to commendation for tearing his mutton-chops with his fingers, when he might cut them up with a knife and fork. '_Is eaten_,' says Mr. White, 'does not mean _has been eaten_.' Very true; but a continuous unfinished passion--Polonius's still undergoing manducation, to speak Johnsonese--was in Shakespeare's mind; and his words describe a passion no longer in generation. The King of Denmark's lord chamberlain had no precedent in Herod, when 'he _was eaten_ of worms'; the original, γενόμενος σκωληκόβρωτος, yielding, but for its participle, 'he became worm-eaten.'

"Having now done with Mr. White, I am anxious, before taking leave of him, to record, with all emphasis, that it would be the grossest injustice to write of his elegant 'Life and Genius of Shakespeare,' a book which does credit to American literature, in the tone which I have found unavoidable in dealing with his 'Words and their Uses.'"

The student of English who has honestly weighed the arguments on both sides of the question, must, I believe, be of opinion that our language is the richer for having two forms for expressing the Progressive Passive. Further, he must, I believe, be of opinion that in very many cases he conforms to the most approved usage of our time by employing the old form; that, however, if he were to employ the old form in all cases, his meaning would sometimes be uncertain.

IT. Cobbett discourses of this little neuter pronoun in this wise: "The word _it_ is the greatest troubler that I know of in language. It is so small and so convenient that few are careful enough in using it. Writers seldom spare this word. Whenever they are at a loss for either a nominative or an objective to their sentence, they, without any kind of ceremony, clap in an _it_. A very remarkable instance of this pressing of poor _it_ into actual service, contrary to the laws of grammar and of sense, occurs in a piece of composition, where we might, with justice, insist on correctness. This piece is on the subject of grammar; it is a piece written by a _Doctor of Divinity_ and read by him to students in grammar and language in an academy; and the very sentence that I am now about to quote is selected by the author of a grammar as testimony of high authority in favor of the excellence of his work. Surely, if correctness be ever to be expected, it must be in a case like this. I allude to two sentences in the 'Charge of the Reverend Doctor Abercrombie to the Senior Class of the Philadelphia Academy,' published in 1806; which sentences have been selected and published by Mr. Lindley Murray as a testimonial of the _merits_ of his grammar; and which sentences are by Mr. Murray given to us in the following words: 'The unwearied exertions of this gentleman _have_ done more toward elucidating the obscurities and embellishing the structure of our language than any _other writer_ on the subject. _Such a work_ has long been wanted, and from the success with which _it_ is executed, can not be too highly appreciated.'

"As in the learned Doctor's opinion obscurities can be elucidated, and as in the same opinion Mr. Murray is an able hand at this kind of work, it would not be amiss were the grammarian to try his skill upon this article from the hand of his dignified eulogist; for here is, if one may use the expression, a constellation of obscurities. Our poor oppressed _it_, which we find forced into the Doctor's service in the second sentence, relates to '_such a work_,' though this work is nothing that has an existence, notwithstanding it is said to be '_executed_.' In the first sentence, the 'exertions' become, all of a sudden, a '_writer_': the _exertions_ have done more than 'any _other_ writer'; for, mind you, it is not the _gentleman_ that has done anything; it is 'the _exertions_' that _have_ done what is said to be done. The word _gentleman_ is in the possessive case, and has nothing to do with the action of the sentence. Let us give the sentence a turn, and the Doctor and the grammarian will hear how it will sound. 'This gentleman's _exertions_ have done more than any _other writer_.' This is on a level with 'This gentleman's _dog_ has killed more hares than any _other sportsman_.' No doubt Doctor Abercrombie _meant_ to say, 'The exertions of this gentleman have done more _than those_ of any other writer. Such a work as this gentleman's has long been wanted; his work, seeing the successful manner of its execution, can not be too highly commended.' _Meant!_ No doubt at all of that! And when we hear a Hampshire ploughboy say, 'Poll Cherrycheek have giv'd a thick handkecher,' we know very well that he _means_ to say, 'Poll Cherrycheek has given me this handkerchief'; and yet we are too apt to _laugh at him_ and to call him _ignorant_; which is wrong, because he has no pretensions to a knowledge of grammar, and he may be very skillful as a ploughboy. However, we will not laugh at Doctor Abercrombie, whom I knew, many years ago, for a very kind and worthy man. But, if we may, in any case, be allowed to laugh at the ignorance of our fellow-creatures, that case certainly does arise when we see a professed grammarian, the author of voluminous precepts and examples on the subject of grammar, producing, in imitation of the possessors of valuable medical secrets, testimonials vouching for the efficacy of his literary panacea, and when, in those testimonials, we find most flagrant instances of bad grammar.

"However, my dear James, let this strong and striking instance of the misuse of the word _it_ serve you in the way of caution. Never put an _it_ upon paper without thinking well of what you are about. When I see many _its_ in a page, I always tremble for the writer."

JEOPARDIZE. This is a modern word which we could easily do without, as it means neither more nor less than its venerable progenitor _to jeopard_, which is greatly preferred by all careful writers.

JUST GOING TO. Instead of "I am _just going to_ go," it is better to say, "I am just _about_ to go."

KIDS. "This is another vile contraction. Habit blinds people to the unseemliness of a term like this. How would it sound if one should speak of silk gloves as _silks_?"

KIND. See POLITE.

KNIGHTS TEMPLARS. The name of this ancient body has been adopted by a branch of the Masonic fraternity, but in a perverted form--_Knights Templar_; and this form is commonly seen in print, whether referring to the old knights or to their modern imitators. This doubtless is due to the erroneous impression that _Templar_ is an adjective, and so can not take the plural form; while in fact it is a case of two nouns in apposition--a double designation--meaning Knights of the order of Templars. Hence the plural should be _Knights Templars_, and not _Knights Templar_. Members of the contemporaneous order of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called Knights Hospitallers.

LADY. To use the term _lady_, whether in the singular or in the plural, simply to designate the sex, is in the worst possible taste. There is a kind of pin-feather gentility which seems to have a settled aversion to using the terms _man_ and _woman_. Gentlemen and ladies establish their claims to being called such by their bearing, and not by arrogating to themselves, _even indirectly_, the titles. In England, the title _lady_ is properly correlative to _lord_; but there, as in this country, it is used as a term of complaisance, and is appropriately applied to women whose lives are exemplary, and who have received that school and home education which enables them to appear to advantage in the better circles of society. Such expressions as "She is a fine _lady_, a clever _lady_, a well-dressed _lady_, a good _lady_, a modest _lady_, a charitable _lady_, an amiable _lady_, a handsome _lady_, a fascinating _lady_," and the like, are studiously avoided by persons of refinement. _Ladies_ say, "we _women_, the _women_ of America, _women's_ apparel," and so on; _vulgar_ women talk about "us _ladies_, the _ladies_ of America, _ladies'_ apparel," and so on. If a woman of culture and refinement--in short, a lady--is compelled from any cause soever to work in a store, she is quite content to be called a sales-_woman_; not so, however, with your young woman who, being in a store, is in a better position than ever before. She, Heaven bless her! boils with indignation if she is not denominated a sales-_lady_. Lady is often the proper term to use, and then it would be very improper to use any other; but it is very certain that the terms _lady_ and _gentleman_ are least used by those persons who are most worthy of being designated by them. With a nice discrimination worthy of special notice, one of our daily papers recently said: "Miss Jennie Halstead, daughter of the proprietor of the 'Cincinnati Commercial,' is one of the most brilliant young _women_ in Ohio."

In a late number of the "London Queen" was the following: "The terms _ladies_ and _gentlemen_ become in themselves vulgarisms when misapplied, and the improper application of the wrong term at the wrong time makes all the difference in the world to ears polite. Thus, calling a man a _gentleman_ when he should be called a _man_, or speaking of a man as a _man_ when he should be spoken of as a _gentleman_; or alluding to a lady as a _woman_ when she should be alluded to as a _lady_, or speaking of a woman as a _lady_ when she should properly be termed a _woman_. Tact and a sense of the fitness of things decide these points, there being no fixed rule to go upon to determine when a man is a _man_ or when he is a _gentleman_; and, although he is far oftener termed the one than the other, he does not thereby lose his attributes of a gentleman. In common parlance, a man is always a _man_ to a man, and never a _gentleman_; to a woman, he is occasionally a _man_ and occasionally a _gentleman_; but a man would far oftener term a woman a _woman_ than he would term her a _lady_. When a man makes use of an adjective in speaking of a lady, he almost invariably calls her a _woman_. Thus, he would say, 'I met a rather agreeable _woman_ at dinner last night'; but he would _not_ say, 'I met an agreeable _lady_'; but he might say, 'A _lady_, a friend of mine, told me,' etc., when he would _not_ say, 'A _woman_, a friend of mine, told me,' etc. Again, a man would say, 'Which of the _ladies_ did you take in to dinner?' He would certainly not say, 'Which of the _women_,' etc.

"Speaking of people _en masse_, it would be to belong to a very advanced school to refer to them in conversation as 'men and women,' while it would be all but vulgar to style them 'ladies and gentlemen,' the compromise between the two being to speak of them as 'ladies and men.' Thus a lady would say, 'I have asked two or three ladies and several men'; she would not say, 'I have asked several men and women'; neither would she say, 'I have asked several ladies and gentlemen.' And, speaking of numbers, it would be very usual to say, 'There were a great many ladies, and but very few men present,' or, 'The ladies were in the majority, so few men being present.' Again, a lady would not say, 'I expect two or three men,' but she would say, 'I expect two or three gentlemen.' When people are on ceremony with each other [_one another_], they might, perhaps, in speaking of a man, call him a _gentleman_; but, otherwise, it would be more usual to speak of him as a _man_. Ladies, when speaking of each other [_one another_], usually employ the term _woman_ in preference to that of _lady_. Thus they would say, 'She is a very good-natured _woman_,' 'What sort of a _woman_ is she?' the term _lady_ being entirely out of place under such circumstances. Again, the term young _lady_ gives place as far as possible to the term _girl_, although it greatly depends upon the amount of intimacy existing as to which term is employed."

LANGUAGE. A note in Worcester's Dictionary says: "_Language_ is a very general term, and is not strictly confined to utterance by words, as it is also expressed by the countenance, by the eyes, and by signs. _Tongue_ refers especially to an original language; as, 'the Hebrew _tongue_.' The modern languages are derived from the original _tongues_." If this be correct, then he who speaks French, German, English, Spanish, and Italian, may properly say that he speaks five _languages_, but only one _tongue_.

LAY--LIE. Errors are frequent in the use of these two irregular verbs. _Lay_ is often used for _lie_, and _lie_ is sometimes used for _lay_. This confusion in their use is due in some measure, doubtless, to the circumstance that _lay_ appears in both verbs, it being the imperfect tense of _to lie_. We say, "A mason _lays_ bricks," "A ship _lies_ at anchor," etc. "I must _lie_ down"; "I must _lay_ myself down"; "I must _lay_ this book on the table"; "He _lies_ on the grass"; "He _lays_ his plans well"; "He _lay_ on the grass"; "He _laid_ it away"; "He has _lain_ in bed long enough"; "He has _laid up_ some money," "_in_ a stock," "_down_ the law"; "He is _laying_ out the grounds"; "Ships _lie_ at the wharf"; "Hens _lay_ eggs"; "The ship _lay_ at anchor"; "The hen _laid_ an egg." It will be seen that _lay_ always expresses transitive action, and that _lie_ expresses rest.

"Here _lies_ our sovereign lord, the king,
Whose word no man relies on;
He never says a foolish thing,
Nor ever does a wise one."

--Written on the bedchamber door of Charles II, by the Earl of Rochester.

LEARN. This verb was long ago used as a synonym of _teach_, but in this sense it is now obsolete. To _teach_ is to give instruction; to _learn_ is to take instruction. "I will _learn_, if you will _teach_ me." See TEACH.

LEAVE. There are grammarians who insist that this verb should not be used without an object, as, for example, it is used in such sentences as, "When do you leave?" "I leave to-morrow." The object of the verb--home, town, or whatever it may be--is, of course, understood; but this, say these gentlemen, is not permissible. On this point opinions will, I think, differ; they will, however, not differ with regard to the vulgarity of using _leave_ in the sense of _let_; thus, "_Leave_ me be"; "_Leave_ it alone"; "_Leave_ her be--don't bother her"; "_Leave_ me see it."

LEND. See LOAN.

LENGTHY. This word is of comparatively recent origin, and, though it is said to be an Americanism, it is a good deal used in England. The most careful writers, however, both here and elsewhere, much prefer the word _long_: "a _long_ discussion," "a _long_ discourse," etc.

LENIENCY. Mr. Gould calls this word and _lenience_ "two philological abortions." _Lenity_ is undoubtedly the proper word to use, though both Webster and Worcester do recognize _leniency_ and _lenience_.

LESS. This word is much used instead of _fewer_. _Less_ relates to quantity; _fewer_ to number. Instead of, "There were not _less_ than twenty persons present," we should say, "There were not _fewer_ than twenty persons present."

LESSER. This form of the comparative of _little_ is accounted a corruption of _less_. It may, however, be used instead of _less_ with propriety in verse, and also, in some cases, in prose. We may say, for example, "Of two evils choose the _less_," or "the _lesser_." The latter form, in sentences like this, is the more euphonious.

LIABLE. Richard Grant White, in inveighing against the misuse of this word, cites the example of a member from a rural district, who called out to a man whom he met in the village, where he was in the habit of making little purchases: "I say, mister, kin yer tell me whar I'd be _li'ble_ to find some beans?" See, also, APT.

LIE. See LAY.

LIKE--AS. Both these words express similarity; _like_ (adjective) comparing things, _as_ (adverb) comparing action, existence, or quality. Like is followed by an object only, and does not admit of a verb in the same construction. _As_ must be followed by a verb expressed or understood. We say, "He looks _like_ his brother," or "He looks _as_ his brother _looks_." "Do _as_ I do," not "_like_ I do." "You must speak _as_ James does," not "_like_ James does." "He died _as_ he had lived, _like_ a dog." "It is _as_ blue _as_ indigo"; i. e., "as indigo is."

LIKE, TO. See LOVE.

LIKELY. See APT.

LIT. This form of the past participle of the verb _to light_ is now obsolete. "Have you _lighted_ the fire?" "The gas is _lighted_." _Het_ for _heated_ is a similar, but much greater, vulgarism.

LOAN--LEND. There are those who contend that there is no such verb as _to loan_, although it has been found in our literature for more than three hundred years. Whether there is properly such a verb or not, it is quite certain that it is only those having a vulgar _penchant_ for big words who will prefer it to its synonym _lend_. Better far to say "_Lend_ me your umbrella" than "_Loan_ me your umbrella."

LOCATE--SETTLE. The use of the verb _to locate_ in the sense of _to settle_ is said to be an Americanism. Although the dictionaries recognize _to locate_ as a neuter verb, as such it is marked "rarely used," and, in the sense of _to settle_, it is among the vulgarisms that careful speakers and writers are studious to avoid. A man _settles_, not _locates_, in Nebraska. "Where do you intend to _settle_?" not _locate_. See, also, SETTLE.

LOGGERHEADS. "In the mean time France is at _loggerheads internally_."--"New York Herald," April 29, 1881. Loggerheads _internally_?!

LOOKS BEAUTIFULLY. It is sometimes interesting to note the difference between _vulgar_ bad grammar and _genteel_ bad grammar, or, more properly, between non-painstaking and painstaking bad grammar. The former uses, for example, adjectives instead of adverbs; the latter uses adverbs instead of adjectives. The former says, "This bonnet is trimmed _shocking_"; the latter says, "This bonnet looks _shockingly_." In the first sentence the epithet qualifies the verb _is trimmed_, and consequently should have its adverbial form--_shockingly_; in the second sentence the epithet qualifies the _appearance_--a noun--of the bonnet, and consequently should have its adjectival form--_shocking_. The second sentence means to say, "This bonnet presents a shocking appearance." The bonnet certainly does not really _look_; it is _looked at_, and to the _looker_ its appearance is _shocking_. So we say, in like manner, of a person, that he or she looks _sweet_, or _charming_, or _beautiful_, or _handsome_, or _horrid_, or _graceful_, or _timid_, and so on, always using an adjective. "Miss Coghlan, as Lady Teazle, looked _charmingly_." The grammar of the "New York Herald" would not have been any more incorrect if it had said that Miss Coghlan looked _gladly_, or _sadly_, or _madly_, or _delightedly_, or _pleasedly_. A person may look _sick_ or _sickly_, but in both cases the qualifying word is an adjective. The verbs to _smell_, to _feel_, to _sound_, and to _appear_ are also found in sentences in which the qualifying word must be an adjective and not an adverb. We say, for example, "The rose smells _sweet_"; "The butter smells _good_, or _bad_, or _fresh_"; "I feel _glad_, or _sad_, or _bad_, or _despondent_, or _annoyed_, or _nervous_"; "This construction sounds _harsh_"; "How _delightful_ the country appears!"

On the other hand, to _look_, to _feel_, to _smell_, to _sound_, and to _appear_ are found in sentences where the qualifying word must be an adverb; thus, "He feels his loss _keenly_"; "The king looked _graciously_ on her"; "I smell it _faintly_." We might also say, "He feels _sad_ [adjective], because he feels his loss _keenly_" (adverb); "He appears _well_" (adverb).

The expression, "_She seemed confusedly_, or _timidly_," is not a whit more incorrect than "_She looked beautifully_, or _charmingly_." See ADJECTIVES.

LOVE--LIKE. Men who are at all careful in the selection of language to express their thoughts, and have not an undue leaning toward the superlative, _love_ few things: their wives, their sweethearts, their kinsmen, truth, justice, and their country. Women, on the contrary, as a rule, _love_ a multitude of things, and, among their loves, the thing they perhaps love most is--taffy.

LUGGAGE--BAGGAGE. The former of these words is generally used in England, the latter in America.

LUNCH. This word, when used as a substantive, may at the best be accounted an inelegant abbreviation of _luncheon_. The dictionaries barely recognize it. The proper phraseology to use is, "Have you _lunched_?" or, "Have you had your _luncheon_?" or, better, "Have you had _luncheon_?" as we may in most cases presuppose that the person addressed would hardly take anybody's else luncheon.

LUXURIOUS--LUXURIANT. The line is drawn much more sharply between these two words now than it was formerly. Luxurious was once used, to some extent at least, in the sense of _rank growth_, but now all careful writers and speakers use it in the sense of _indulging_ or _delighting in luxury_. We talk of a _luxurious_ table, a _luxurious_ liver, _luxurious_ ease, _luxurious_ freedom. Luxuriant, on the other hand, is restricted to the sense of _rank_, or _excessive_, growth or production; thus, _luxuriant_ weeds, _luxuriant_ foliage or branches, _luxuriant_ growth.

"Prune the _luxuriant_, the uncouth refine,
But show no mercy to an empty line."--Pope.

MAD. Professor Richard A. Proctor, in a recent number of "The Gentleman's Magazine," says: "The word _mad_ in America seems nearly always to mean _angry_. For _mad_, as we use the word, Americans say _crazy_. Herein they have manifestly impaired the language." Have they?

"Now, in faith, Gratiano,
You give your wife too unkind a cause of grief;
An 'twere, to me, I would be _mad at_ it."
--"Merchant of Venice."

"And being exceedingly _mad_ against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities."--Acts xxvi, II.

MAKE A VISIT. The phrase "_make_ a visit," according to Dr. Hall, whatever it once was, is no longer English.

MALE. See FEMALE.

MARRY. There has been some discussion, at one time and another, with regard to the use of this word. Is John Jones married _to_ Sally Brown or _with_ Sally Brown, or are they married to each other? Inasmuch as the woman loses her name in that of the man to whom she is wedded, and becomes a member of his family, not he of hers--inasmuch as, with few exceptions, it is her life that is merged in his--it would seem that, _properly_, Sally Brown is married _to_ John Jones, and that this would be the proper way to make the announcement of their having been wedded, and not John Jones _to_ Sally Brown.

There is also a difference of opinion as to whether the active or the passive form is preferable in referring to a person's wedded state. In speaking definitely of the _act_ of marriage, the passive form is necessarily used with reference to either spouse. "John Jones was married to Sally Brown on Dec. 1, 1881"; not, "John Jones _married_ Sally Brown" on such a date, for (unless they were Quakers) some third person married him to her and her to him. But, in speaking indefinitely of the _fact_ of marriage, the active form is a matter of course. "Whom did John Jones marry?" "He married Sally Brown." "John Jones, when he had sown his wild oats, married [married himself, as the French say] and settled down." _Got married_ is a vulgarism.

MAY. In the sense of _can_, _may_, in a negative clause, has become obsolete. "Though we _may_ say a horse, we _may_ not say a ox." The first _may_ here is permissible; not so, however, the second, which should be _can_.

MEAT. At table, we ask for and offer beef, mutton, veal, steak, turkey, duck, etc., and do not ask for nor offer _meat_, which, to say the least, is inelegant. "Will you have [not, take] another piece of _beef_ [not, of _the_ beef]?" not, "Will you have another piece of _meat_?"

MEMORANDUM. The plural is _memoranda_, except when the singular means a book; then the plural is _memorandums_.

MERE. This word is not unfrequently misplaced, and sometimes, as in the following sentence, in consequence of being misplaced, it is changed to an adverb: "It is true of men as of God, that words _merely_ meet with no response." What the writer evidently intended to say is, that _mere_ words meet with no response.

METAPHOR. An _implied_ comparison is called a metaphor; it is a more terse form of expression than the simile. Take, for example, this sentence from Spenser's "Philosophy of Style": "As, in passing through the crystal, beams of white light are decomposed into the colors of the rainbow; so, in traversing the soul of the poet, the colorless rays of truth are transformed into brightly-tinted poetry." Expressed in metaphors, this becomes: "The white light of truth, in traversing the many-sided, transparent soul of the poet, is refracted into iris-hued poetry."

Worcester's definition of a _metaphor_ is: "A figure of speech founded on the resemblance which one object is supposed to bear, in some respect, to another, or a figure by which a word is transferred from a subject to which it properly belongs to another, in such a manner that a _comparison is implied, though not formally expressed_; a comparison or simile comprised in a word; as, 'Thy word is a _lamp_ to my feet.'" A _metaphor_ differs from a _simile_ in being expressed without any sign of comparison; thus, "the _silver_ moon" is a _metaphor_; "the moon is bright as silver" is a simile. Examples:

"But look, the morn, in russet mantle clad,
Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastern hill."

"Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased--
Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow?"

"At length Erasmus
Stemmed the wild torrent of a barbarous age,
And drove those holy Vandals off the stage."

"Censure is the tax a man pays to the public for being eminent."

METONYMY. The rhetorical figure that puts the effect for the cause, the cause for the effect, the container for the thing contained, the sign, or symbol, for the thing signified, or the instrument for the agent, is called _metonymy_.

"One very common species of _metonymy_ is, when the badge is put for the office. Thus we say the _miter_ for the priesthood; the _crown_ for royalty; for military occupation we say the _sword_; and for the literary professions, those especially of theology, law, and physic, the common expression is the _gown_."--Campbell.

Dr. Quackenbos, in his "Course of Composition and Rhetoric," says: "_Metonymy_ is the exchange of names between things related. It is founded, not on resemblance, but on the relation of, 1. Cause and effect; as,'They have _Moses_ and _the prophets_,' i. e., their writings; '_Gray hairs_ should be respected,' i. e., _old age_. 2. Progenitor and posterity; as, 'Hear, O Israel!' i. e., _descendants of Israel_. 3. Subject and attribute; as, '_Youth_ and _beauty_ shall be laid in dust,' i. e., _the young_ and _beautiful_. 4. Place and inhabitant; as, 'What _land_ is so barbarous as to allow this injustice?' i. e., what _people_. 5. Container and thing contained; as, 'Our _ships_ next opened fire,' i. e., our _sailors_. 6. Sign and thing signified; as, 'The _scepter_ shall not depart from Judah,' i. e., _kingly_ power. 7. Material and thing made of it; as, 'His _steel_ gleamed on high,' i. e., his _sword_."

"Petitions having proved unsuccessful, it was determined to approach the throne more boldly."

MIDST, THE. See IN OUR MIDST.

MIND--CAPRICIOUS. "Lord Salisbury's _mind_ is _capricious_."--"Tribune," April 3, 1881. See EQUANIMITY OF MIND.

MISPLACED CLAUSES. In writing and speaking, it is as important to give each clause its proper place as it is to place the words properly. The following are a few instances of misplaced clauses and adjuncts: "All these circumstances brought close to us a state of things which we never thought to have witnessed [_to witness_] in peaceful England. _In the sister island, indeed, we had read of such horrors_, but now they were brought home to our very household hearth."--Swift. Better: "We had read, indeed, of such horrors occurring in the sister island," etc.

"The savage people in many places in America, except the government of families, have no government at all, and live at this day in that savage manner as I have said before."--Hobbes. Better: "The savage people ... in America have no government at all, except the government of families," etc.

"I shall have a comedy for you, in a season or two at farthest, that I believe will be worth your acceptance."--Goldsmith. Bettered: "In a season or two at farthest, I shall have a comedy for you that I believe will be worth your acceptance."

Among the following examples of the wrong placing of words and clauses, there are some that are as amusing as they are instructive: "This orthography is regarded as normal _in England_." What the writer intended was, "in England _as normal_"--a very different thought. "The Normal School is a commodious building capable of accommodating three hundred students four stories high." "HOUSEKEEPER.--A highly respectable middle-aged Person who has been filling the above Situation with a gentleman for upwards of eleven years and who is now deceased is anxious to meet a similar one." "TO PIANO-FORTE MAKERS.--A lady keeping a first-class school requiring a good piano, is desirous of receiving a daughter of the above in exchange for the same." "The Moor, seizing a bolster boiling over with rage and jealousy, smothers her." "The Dying Zouave the most wonderful mechanical representation ever seen of the last breath of life being shot in the breast and life's blood leaving the wound." "Mr. T---- presents his compliments to Mr. H----, and I have got a hat that is not his, and, if he have a hat that is not yours, no doubt they are the expectant ones." See ONLY.

MISPLACED WORDS. "Of all the faults to be found in writing," says Cobbett, "this is one of the most common, and perhaps it leads to the greatest number of misconceptions. All the words may be the proper words to be used upon the occasion, and yet, by a _misplacing_ of a part of them, the meaning may be wholly destroyed; and even made to be the contrary of what it ought to be."

"I asked the question with no other intention than to set the gentleman free from the necessity of silence, and to give him an opportunity of mingling on equal terms with a polite assembly from which, _however uneasy_, he could not then _escape_, _by a kind introduction_ of the only subject on which I believed him to be able to speak with propriety."--Dr. Johnson.

"This," says Cobbett, "is a very bad sentence altogether. '_However uneasy_' applies to _assembly_ and not to _gentleman_. Only observe how easily this might have been avoided. 'From which _he_, _however uneasy_, could not then escape.' After this we have, '_he_ could not then _escape_, _by a kind introduction_.' We know what is _meant_; but the Doctor, with all his _commas_, leaves the sentence confused. Let us see whether we can not make it clear. 'I asked the question with no other intention than, by a kind introduction of the only subject on which I believed him to be able to speak with propriety, to set the gentleman free from the necessity of silence, and to give him an opportunity of mingling on equal terms with a polite assembly from which he, however uneasy, could not then escape.'"

"Reason is the glory of human nature, and one of the chief eminences whereby we are raised above our fellow-creatures, the brutes, _in this lower world_."--Doctor Watts' "Logic."

"I have before showed an error," Cobbett remarks, "in the _first_ sentence of Doctor Watts' work. This is the _second_ sentence. The words _in this lower world_ are not words _misplaced_ only; they are wholly _unnecessary_, and they do great harm; for they do these two things: first, they imply _that there are brutes in the higher world_; and, second, they excite a doubt _whether we are raised above those brutes_.