Chapter XVI: Common Improprieties of Speech (2)

_A confirmed invalid._ Can weakness be strong? If not, how can a man be a _confirmed_, or strengthened, invalid?

_Proposition_, for proposal. This is not a solecism, but, as a univocal word is preferable to one that is equivocal, _proposal_, for a thing offered or proposed, is better than _proposition_. Strictly, a proposal is something offered to be done; a proposition is something submitted to one’s consideration. _E.g._, “He rejected the proposal of his friend;” “he demonstrated the fifth proposition in Euclid.”

_Previous_, for previously. “Previous to my leaving America.”

_Appreciates_, for rises in value. “Gold appreciated yesterday.” Even the critical London Athenæum is guilty of this solecism. It says: “A book containing personal reminiscences of one of our great schools appeals to a public limited, no doubt, but certain, and sure _to appreciate_.”

_Proven_ for proved, and _plead_ for pleaded, are clearly vulgarisms.

_Bound_, for ready or determined. “I am bound to do it.” We may say properly that a ship is “bound to Liverpool”; but in that case we do not employ, as many suppose, the past participle of the verb _to bind_, but the old northern participial adjective, _buinn_, from the verb, _at bua_, signifying “to make ready, or prepare.” The term is strictly a nautical one, and to employ it in a sense that unites the significations both of _buinn_ and the English participle _bound_ from _bind_, is a plain abuse of language.

_No_, for not. _E.g._, “Whether I am there or no.” Cowper writes:

“I will not ask Jean Jacques Rousseau,
Whether birds confabulate or no.”

By supplying the ellipsis, we shall see that _not_ is here the proper word. “Whether birds confabulate, or do not confabulate,” “whether I am there, or not there.” _No_ never properly qualifies a verb.

_Such_ for so. _E.g._, “I never saw such a high spire.” This means, “I never saw a high spire of such a form,” or “of such architecture” whereas the speaker, in all probability, means only that he never saw _so_ high a spire. _Such_ denotes quality; _so_, degree.

_Incorrect orthography._ Orthography means “correct writing, or spelling.” “Incorrect orthography” is, therefore, equivalent to “incorrect correct writing.”

_How_ for that. “I have heard _how_ some critics have been pacified with claret and a supper.”

_Directly_, for as soon as. “Directly he came, I went away with him.”

_Equally as well_, for equally well. _E.g._, “It will do equally as well.”

_Supplement_, used as a verb. There is considerable authority for this use of the word; but it is a case where usage is clearly opposed to the very principles of the language.

_Greet_ and _greeting_ are often improperly used. A greeting is a salutation; to say, therefore, as newspaper reporters often do, that a speaker in the Legislature, or on the platform, was “greeted with hisses,” or “with groans,” is a decided “malapropism.”

_To a degree_ is a phrase often used by English writers and speakers. _E.g._, “Mr. Gladstone is sensitive to a degree.” To what degree?

_Farther_ for _further_. “Farther” is the comparative of far, and should be used in speaking of bodies relatively at rest; as, “Jupiter is farther from the earth than Mars.” “_Further_” is the comparative of “forth,” and should be used when motion is expressed; as “He ran further than you.”

_Quite_ for very. _E.g._, In Mrs. Stowe’s “Sunny Memories of Foreign Lands,” we read: “The speeches were _quite_ interesting”; “we had _quite_ a sociable time up in the gallery”; and we are told that at Mrs. Cropper’s, “in the evening, _quite_ a circle came in,” etc., etc. The true meaning of “quite” is _completely_, _entirely_.

_Effluvium._ The plural of this word is often used as if it meant bad odors; whereas an “effluvium” may be a stream either of pure air or of foul air,--of pure water or of impure, etc.

_None_ is a contraction of _no one_, and therefore to say “none are,” or “none were,” is just as improper as to say “no one are,” or “no one were.”

_I watched him do it._ This is an impropriety of speech rarely heard in this country, but often in England.

_Looks beautifully._ In spite of the frequency with which this impropriety has been censured, one hears it almost daily from the lips of educated men and women. The error arises from confounding _look_ in the sense of to direct the eye, and look in the sense of to seem, to appear. In English, many verbs take an adjective with them to form the predicate, where in other languages an adverb would be used; _e.g._, “he fell ill”; “he feels cold”; “her smiles amid the blushes lovelier show.” No cultivated person would say, “she is beautifully,” or “she seems beautifully,” yet these phrases are no more improper than “she looks beautifully.” We qualify what a person does by an adverb; what a person _is_, or _seems to be_, by an adjective; _e.g._, “she looks coldly on him”; “she looks cold.”

_Leave_, as an intransitive verb. _E.g._, “He left yesterday.” Many persons who use this phrase are misled by what they deem the analogous expression, _to write_, _to read_. These verbs express an occupation, as truly as _to run_, _to walk_, _to stand_. In answer to the question, “What is A. B. doing?” it is sufficient to say, “He is reading.” Here a complete idea is conveyed, which is not true of the phrase, “He left yesterday.”

_Myself_, for I. _E.g._, “Mrs. Jones and myself will be happy to dine with you”; “Prof. S. and myself have examined the work.” The proper use of _myself_ is either as a reflective pronoun, or for the sake of distinction and emphasis; as when Juliet cries, “Romeo, doff thy name, and for that name, which is no part of thee, take all myself”; or, in Milton’s paradisiacal hymn: “These are thy glorious works, Parent of Good, Almighty! Thine this universal frame thus wondrous fair! Thyself how wondrous then!”

_Restive._ This word, which means _inclined to rest_, _obstinate_, _unwilling to go_, is employed, almost constantly, in a sense directly the reverse of this; that is, for restless.

_Quantity_, for number. _E.g._, “A quantity of books”; “a quantity of postage stamps.” In speaking of a collection, or mass, it is proper to use _quantity_; but in speaking of individual objects, however many, we must use the word number. “A quantity of meat,” or “a quantity of iron” is good English, but not “a quantity of bank-notes.” We may say “a quantity of wood,” but we should say a “number of sticks.”

_Carnival._ This word literally means “Farewell to meat,” or, as some etymologists think, “Flesh, be strong!” In Catholic countries it signifies a festival celebrated with merriment and revelry during the week before Lent. In this country, especially in newspaper use, it is employed in the sense of fun, frolic, spree, festival; and that so generally as almost to have banished some of these words from the language. If many persons are skating, that is a carnival; so, if they take a sleigh-ride, or if there is a rush to Long Branch in the summer. As we have a plenty of legitimate words to describe these festivities, the use of this outlandish term has not a shadow of justification.

_All of them._ As _of_ here means _out of_, corresponding with the Latin preposition _e_, or _ex_, it cannot be correct to say _all of them_. We may say, “take one of them” or “take two of them,” or “take them all”; but the phrase we are criticising is wholly unjustifiable.

_To allude._ Among the improprieties of speech which even those sharp-eyed literary detectives, Alford, Moon, and Gould have failed to pounce upon and pillory, are the misuses of the word that heads this paragraph. Once the verb had a distinct, well defined meaning, but it is now rapidly losing its true signification. _To allude_ to a thing,--what is it? Is it not to speak of it _darkly_,--to _hint_ at it playfully (from _ludo_, _ludere_,--to play), without any direct mention? Yet the word is used in a sense directly opposite to this. Suppose you lose in the street some package, and advertise its loss in the newspapers. The person who finds the package is sure to reply to your advertisement by speaking of “the package you alluded to in your advertisement,” though you have alluded to nothing, but have told your story in the most distinct and straightforward manner possible, without an approximation to a hint or innuendo. Newspaper reporters, by their abuse of this unhappy word, will transform a bold and daring speech in Congress, in which a senator has taken some bull by the horns,--in other words, dealt openly and manfully with the subject discussed,--into a heap of dark and mysterious innuendoes. The honorable gentleman _alluded to_ the currency--to the war--to Andrew Johnson--to the New Orleans massacre; he _alluded to_ the sympathizers with the South, though he denounced them in the most caustic terms; he _alluded to_ the tax-bill, and he _alluded to_ fifty other things, about every one of which he spoke out his mind in emphatic and unequivocal terms. An English journal tells a ludicrous story of an M.P. who, his health having been drunk by name, rose on his legs, and spoke of “the flattering way in which he had been alluded to.” Another public speaker spoke of a book which had been _alluded to_ by name. But the climax of absurdity in the use of this word was attained by an Irish M.P., who wrote a life of an Italian poet. Quoting Byron’s lines about “the fatal gift of beauty,” he then goes on to talk about “the fatal gift which has been already alluded to!”

_Either alternative._ _E.g._, “You may take either alternative.” “Two alternatives were presented to me.” _Alternative_ evidently means a choice,--one choice,--between two things. If there be only one offered, we say there is _no alternative_. _Two alternatives_ is, therefore, a palpable contradiction in terms; yet some speakers talk of “several alternatives” having been presented to them.

_Whole_, for all. The “Spectator” says: “The Red-Cross Knight runs through the whole steps of the Christian life.” Alison, who is one of the loosest writers in our literature, declares, in his “History of the French Revolution,” that “the whole Russians are inspired with the belief that their mission is to conquer the world.” This can only mean that those Russians who are entire,--who have not lost a leg, an arm, or some other part of the body,--are inspired with the belief of which he speaks. _Whole_ refers to the component parts of a single body, and is therefore singular in meaning.

_Jeopardize._ There is considerable authority for this word, which is beginning to supplant the good old English word _jeopard_. But why is it more needed than _perilize_, _hazardize_?

_Preventative_, for preventive; _conversationalist_, for converser; _underhanded_, for underhand; _casuality_, for casualty; _speciality_, for specialty; _leniency_, for lenity; _firstly_, for first; are all base coinages, barbarisms which should be excommunicated by “bell, book, and candle.”

_Dangerous_, for in danger. A leading Boston paper says of a deceased minister: “His illness was only of a week’s duration, and was pleurisy and rheumatism. He was not supposed to be dangerous.”

_Nice._ One of the most offensive barbarisms now prevalent is the use of this as a pet word to express almost every kind of approbation, and almost every quality. Strictly, _nice_ can be used only in a subjective, not in an objective, sense; though both of our leading lexicographers approve of such expressions as “a nice bit of cheese.” Of the vulgarity of such expressions as “a nice man” (meaning a good or pleasing man), “a nice day,” “a nice party,” etc., there cannot be a shadow of doubt. “A nice man” means a fastidious man; a “nice letter” is a letter very delicate in its language. Some persons are more nice than wise. Archdeacon Hare complains that “this characterless domino,” as he stigmatizes the word _nice_, is continually used by his countrymen, and that “a universal deluge of _niaserie_ (for the word was originally _niais_) threatens to whelm the whole island.” The Latin word _elegans_ seems to have had a similar history; being derived from _elego_, and meaning primarily _nice_ or _choice_, and subsequently _elegant_.

_Mutual_, for common, or reciprocal. Dean Alford justly protests against the stereotyped vulgarism, “a mutual friend.” Mutual is applicable to sentiments and acts, but not to persons. Two friends may have a mutual love, but for either to speak of a third person as being “their mutual friend,” is sheer nonsense. Yet Dickens entitled one of his novels, “Our Mutual Friend.”

_Stopping_, for staying. “The Hon. John Jones is stopping at the Sherman House.” In reading such a statement as this, we are tempted to ask, When will Mr. Jones stop stopping? A man may stop a dozen times at a place, or on a journey, but he cannot _continue_ stopping. One may stop at a hotel without becoming a guest. The true meaning of the word _stop_ was well understood by the man who did not invite his professed friend to visit him: “If you come, at any time, within ten miles of my house, just stop.”

_Trifling minutiæ._ Archbishop Whately, in his “Rhetoric,” speaks of “trifling minutiæ of style.” In like manner, Henry Kirke White speaks of his poems as being “the juvenile efforts of a youth,” and Disraeli, the author of “The Curiosities of Literature,” speaks of “the battles of logomachy,” and of “the mysteries of the arcana of alchemy.” The first of these phrases may be less palpably tautological than the other three; yet as _minutiæ_ means nearly the same things as _trifles_, a careful writer would be as adverse to using such an expression as Whately’s, as he would be to talking, like Sir Archibald Alison, of representative institutions as having been reëstablished in our time “by the influence of English _Anglo_mania.”

_Indices_, for indexes. “We have examined our indices,” etc., say the Chicago abstract-makers. _Indices_ are algebraic signs; tables of contents are indexes.

_Rendition_, for rendering. _E.g._, “Mr. Booth’s rendition of Hamlet was admirable.” _Rendition_ means surrender, giving up, relinquishing to another; as when we speak of the rendition of a beleaguered town to the besieger, or of a pledge upon the satisfaction of a debt.

_Extend_, for give. Lecture committees, instead of simply inviting a public speaker, or giving him an invitation, almost universally _extend_ an invitation; perhaps, because he is generally at a considerable distance. Richard Grant White says pertinently; “As extend (from _ex_ and _tendo_) means merely to stretch forth, it is much better to say that a man put out, offered, or stretched forth his hand than that he extended it. Shakespeare makes the pompous, pragmatical _Malvolio_ say: ‘I extend my hand to him thus’; but ‘Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself.’ This, however, is a question of taste, not of correctness.”

_Except_, for unless. _E.g._, “No one, except he has served an apprenticeship, need apply.” The former word is a preposition, and must be followed by a noun or pronoun, and not by a proposition.

_Couple_, for a pair or brace. When two persons or things are joined or linked together, they form a _couple_. The number of things that can be coupled is comparatively small, yet the expression is in constant use; as “a couple of books,” “a couple of partridges,” “a couple of weeks,” etc. One might as well speak of “a pair of dollars.”

_Every._ _E.g._, “I have every confidence in him”; “they rendered me every assistance.” _Every_ denotes all the individuals of a number greater than two, separately considered. Derived from the Anglo-Saxon, _œfer_, ever, _œlc_, each, it means each of all, not all in mass. By “every confidence” is meant simply perfect confidence; by “every assistance,” all possible assistance.

_Almost_, as an adjective. Prof. Whitney, in his able work on “Language, and the Study of Language,” speaks of “the almost universality of instruction among us.”

_Condign._ _E.g._, “He does not deserve the condign punishment he has received.” As the meaning of _condign_ is that which is deserved, we have here a contradiction in terms, the statement being equivalent to this: “he does not deserve the deserved punishment he has received.”

_Paraphernalia._ This is a big, sounding word from the Greek, which some newspaper writers are constantly misusing. It is strictly a law-term, and means whatever the wife brings with her at marriage in addition to her dower. Her dress and her ornaments are _paraphernalia_. To apply the term to an Irishman’s sash on St. Patrick’s day, or to a Freemason’s hieroglyphic apron, it has been justly said, is not only an abuse of language, but a clear invasion of woman’s rights.

_Setting-room_, for sitting-room, is a gross vulgarism, which is quite common, even with those who deem themselves _nice_ people. “I saw your children in the setting-room, as I went past,” said a well-dressed woman in our hearing, in a horse-car. How _could_ she go _past_? It is not difficult to go _by_ any object; but to go _past_ is a contradiction in terms.

_An innumerable number_ is an absurd expression, which is used by some persons,--not, it is to be hoped, “an innumerable number” of times.

_Seraphim_, for seraph; the plural for the singular. Even Addison says: “The zeal of the seraphim breaks forth,” etc. This is as ludicrous as the language of the Indiana justice, who spoke of “the first claw of the statute,” or the answer of the man who, when asked whether he had no politics, replied, “Not a single politic.”

_People_, for persons, “Many people think so.” Better, persons; people means a body of persons regarded collectively, a nation.

_Off of_, for off. “Cut a yard off of the cloth.”

_More perfect_, _most perfect_. What shall be said of these and similar forms of expression? Doubtless they should be discouraged, though used by Shakespeare and Milton. It may be argued in their favor, that, though not logically correct, yet they are rhetorically so. It is true that, as “twenty lions cannot be more twenty than twenty flies,” so nothing can be more perfect than perfection. But we do not object to say that one man is _braver_ than another, or _wiser_, though, if we had an absolute standard of bravery or wisdom,--that is, a clear idea of them,--we should pronounce either of the two persons to be simply brave or not brave, wise or not wise. We say that Smith is a _better_ man than Jones, though no one is absolutely good but God. These forms are used because language is inadequate to express the intensity of the thought,--as in Milton’s “most wisest, virtuousest, discreetest, best,” or the lines,

“And _in the lowest deep a lower deep_,
Still threatening to devour me, opens wide,
To which the hell I suffer seems a heaven.”

Milton abounds in these illogical expressions, as do the best Greek poets; and one of the happiest verses in the poems of W. W. Story is a similar intentional contradiction, as

“Of every noble work the silent part is best;
Of all expression, that which cannot be expressed.”

_Ugly_, for ill-tempered. A leading New York divine is reported as saying of an ill-tempered child, that “he wants all he sees, and screams if he does not get it; ugly as he can be, no matter who is disturbed by it.”

_Is_, for are. One of the most frequent blemishes in English prose is the indiscriminate use of singulars and plurals. _E.g._, Junius writes: “Both minister and magistrate is compelled to choose between his duty and his reputation.” Even Lindley Murray writes: “Their general scope and tendency is not remembered at all”; and Milton sings:

“For their mind and spirit remains invincible.”

Some grammarians defend these forms of expression on the ground that when two or more nouns singular represent a _single_ idea, the verb to which they are the nominative may be put in the singular. The answer to this is, that if the nouns express the _same_ idea, one of them is superfluous; if _different_ ideas, then they form a plural, and the verb should be plural also. Another quibble employed to justify such expressions, is that the verb, which is expressed after the last noun, is considered as understood _after_ the first. But we are not told how this process of subaudition can go on in the mind of the reader, _before_ he knows what the verb is to be; and while ellipsis not only is in many cases permissible, but gives conciseness and energy to style, yet there is a limit beyond which it cannot be pushed without leading to literary anarchy.

_Caption_, for heading. _E.g._, “The caption of this newspaper article.” _Caption_ means that part of a legal instrument which shows where, when, and by what authority it was taken, found, or executed.

_To extremely maltreat._ This phrase from Trench is an example of a very common solecism. _To_, the sign of the infinitive, should never be separated from the verb. Say “to maltreat extremely,” or “extremely to maltreat.”

_Accord_, for grant. “He accorded them (or to them) all they asked for.” _To accord with_ means properly to agree or to suit; as, “He accorded with my views.”

_Enthuse_, a word used by some clergymen, is not to be found either in Worcester’s Dictionary or in Webster’s “Unabridged.”

_Personalty._ This word is supposed by some persons to mean articles worn on one’s person. Some years ago, a lady, in England, who had made this mistake, and who wished to leave to her servant her clothing, jewels, etc., described them as her _personalty_, and unwittingly included in her bequest ten thousand pounds.

_Do._ This verb is often used incorrectly as a substitute for other verbs; as, “I did not say, as some have done.” We may properly say, “I did not say, as some do” (_say_), for here the ellipsis of the preceding verb may be supplied.

_On to_, for on, or upon. “He got on to an omnibus;” “He jumped on to a chair.” The preposition _to_ is superfluous. Say, “He got upon an omnibus,” etc. Some persons speak of “continuing on,” which is as objectionable as “He went to Boston for to see the city.”

_Older_, for elder. _Older_ is properly applied to objects, animate and inanimate; _elder_, to rational beings.

_Overflown_, for overflowed. “The river has overflown.” _Flowed_ is the participle of “to flow”; _flown_, of “to fly.”

_Spoonsful_, for spoonfuls, and _effluvia_ for effluvium, are very common errors. “A disagreeable effluvia” is as gross a mistake as “an inexplicable phenomena.”

_Scarcely_, for hardly. _Scarcely_ pertains to quantity; _hardly_, to degree; as, “There is scarcely a bushel”; “I shall hardly finish my job by night-fall.”

_Fare thee well_, which has Byron’s authority, is plainly wrong.

_Community_, for the community; as “Community will not submit to such outrages.” Prof. Marsh has justly censured this vulgarism. Who would think of saying, “Public is interested in this question”? When we _personify_ common nouns used definitely in the singular number, we may omit the article, as when we speak of the doings of Parliament, or of Holy Church. “During the Revolution,” says Professor M., “while the federal government was a body of doubtful authority and permanence, ... the phrase used was always ‘_the_ Congress,’ and such is the form of expression in the Constitution itself. But when the Government became consolidated, and Congress was recognized as the paramount legislative power of the Union, ... it was personified, and the article dropped, and, in like manner, the word Government is often used in the same way.”

_Folks_ for folk. As _folk_ implies plurality, the _s_ is needless.

_Mussulmen._ Mussulman is not a compound of man, and, therefore, like _German_, it forms its plural by adding _s_.

_Drive_, for ride. A lady says that “she is going to drive in the park,” when she intends that her servant shall drive (not her, but) the horses.

_Try and_, for try to. _E.g._, “Try and do it.”

_Whole_, _entire_, _complete_, and _total_, are words which are used almost indiscriminately by many persons. That is _whole_, from which nothing has been taken; that is _entire_, which has not been divided; that is _complete_, which has all its parts. _Total_ refers to the aggregate of the parts. Thus we say, a _whole_ loaf of bread; an _entire_ set of spoons; a _complete_ harness; the _total_ cost or expense.

_Succeed_, for give success to, or cause to succeed. _E.g._, “If Providence succeed us in this work.” Both Webster and Worcester justify this use of _succeed_ as a transitive verb; but if not now grammatically objectionable, as formerly, it is still to be avoided on the ground of ambiguity. In the phrase quoted, _succeed_ may mean either cause to succeed, or follow.

_Tartar_ should be, strictly, _Tatar_. When the Tatar hordes, in the thirteenth century, burst forth from the Asiatic steppes, this fearful invasion was thought to be a fulfilment of the prediction of the opening of the bottomless pit, as portrayed in the ninth chapter of Revelations. To bring the name into relation with Tartarus, _Tatar_ was written, as it still continues to be written, _Tartar_.

The following is an example of a very common error in the arrangement of words:

“Dead in sins and in transgressions
Jesus cast his eyes on me,
And of his divine possessions
Bade me then a sharer be;” etc.

Though such is not the writer’s intention, he really speaks of Jesus as being “dead in sins and in transgressions”; for the syntax of the verse admits of no other meaning.

_Numerous_, for many. To speak of “our numerous friends” is to say that each friend is numerous.

_That of_; as, “He chose for a profession _that of_ the law.” This is equivalent to saying: He chose for a profession the profession of law; or, he chose a profession for a profession. Why not say, “He chose law for a profession”?

_Fellow countrymen._ What is the difference between “countrymen” and “fellow countrymen?”

_Distinguish_, for discriminate. To distinguish is to mark broad and plain differences; to discriminate is to notice minute and subtle shades of difference.

_Transpire_, for to happen. “Transpire” meant originally to emit insensible vapor through the pores of the skin. Afterward it was used metaphorically in the sense of to become known, to pass from secrecy into publicity. But to say that a certain event “transpired yesterday,” meaning that it occurred then, is a gross vulgarism.

_Ventilate_, for discuss.

_Hung_, for hanged. “Hang,” when it means to take away life by public execution, is a regular verb.

_Bid_, for bade. _E.g._, The London “Times” says: “He called his servants, and _bid_ them procure fire-arms.”

_Dare_, for durst. “Neither her maidens nor the priest _dare_ speak to her for half an hour,” says the Rev. Charles Kingsley, in one of his novels.

_In_, for within. _E.g._, “Is Mr. Smith in?”

_Notwithstanding_, for although. _E.g._, “_Notwithstanding_ they fought bravely, they were defeated.” “Notwithstanding” is a preposition, and cannot be correctly used as a conjunction.

_Two good ones._ “Among all the apples there were but two good ones.” Two _ones_?

_Raising the rent_, for increasing the rent. A landlord notified his tenant that he should raise his rent. “Thank you,” was the reply; “I find it very hard to raise it myself.”

_Was_, for is. “Two young men,” says Swift, “have made a discovery, that there was a God.” That there _was_ a God? When? This year, or last year, or ages ago? All general truths should be expressed by the use of verbs in the present tense.

_Shall_ and _will_. There are, perhaps, no two words in the language which are more frequently confounded or used inaccurately, than _shall_ and _will_. Certain it is, that of all the rocks on which foreigners split in the use of the Queen’s English, there is none which so puzzles and perplexes them as the distinction between these little words. Originally both words were employed for the same purpose in other languages of the same stock with ours; but their use has been worked out by the descendants of the Anglo-Saxons, until it has attained a degree of nicety remarkable in itself, and by no means easy of acquisition even by the subjects of Victoria or by Americans. Every one has heard of the Dutchman who, on falling into a river, cried out, “I will drown, and nobody shall help me.” The Irish are perpetually using _shall_ for _will_, while the Scotch use of _will_ for _shall_ is equally inveterate and universal. Dr. Chalmers says: “I am not able to devote as much time and attention to other subjects as I will be under the necessity of doing next winter.” The use of _shall_ for _will_, in the following passage, has led some critics strongly to suspect that the author of the anonymous work, “Vestiges of Creation,” is a Scotchman: “I do not expect that any word of praise which this work may elicit shall ever be responded to by me; or that any word of censure shall ever be parried or deprecated.” This awkward use of _shall_, we have seen, is not a Scotticism; yet it is curious to see how a writer who pertinaciously shrouds himself in mystery, may be detected by the blundering use of a monosyllable. So the use of the possessive neuter pronoun _its_ in the poems which Chatterton wrote and palmed off as the productions of one Rowlie, a monk in the fifteenth century, betrayed the forgery,--inasmuch as that little monosyllable, _its_, now so common and convenient, did not find its way into the language till about the time of Shakespeare. Milton never once uses it, nor, except as a misprint, is it to be found anywhere in the Bible.

Gilfillan, a Scotch writer, thus uses _will_ for shall: “If we look within the rough and awkward outside, we will be richly rewarded by its perusal.” So Alison, the historian: “We know to what causes our past reverses have been owing, and we will have ourselves to blame if they are again incurred.” Macaulay observes that “not one Londoner in a thousand ever misplaces his _will_ and _shall_. Doctor Robinson could, undoubtedly, have written a luminous dissertation on the use of those words. Yet, even in his latest work, he sometimes misplaced them ludicrously.” But Doctor Johnson was a Londoner, and he did not always use his _shalls_ and _wills_ correctly, as will be seen by the following extract from a letter to Boswell in 1774: “You must make haste and gather me all you can, and do it quickly, or I _will_ and _shall_ do without it.” In this anti-climax Johnson meant to emphasize the latter of the auxiliaries. But _shall_ (Saxon, _sceal_ = _necesse est_) in the first person, simply foretells; as, “I shall go to New York to-morrow.” On the other hand, _will_, in the first person, not only foretells, but promises, or declares the resolution to do a thing; as, “I will pay you what I owe you.” The Doctor should have said: “I shall and will do without it.” putting the strongest term last. The confusion of the two words is steadily increasing in this country. Formerly the only Americans who confounded them were Southerners; now, the misuse of the word is stealing through the North. _E.g._, “I will go to town to-morrow, and shall take an early opportunity of calling on your friend there.” “We will never look on his like again.” A writer in a New York paper says: “None of our coal mines are deep, but the time is coming when we will have to dig deeper in search of both coal and metallic ores.” Again, we hear persons speak thus: “Let us keep a sharp lookout, and we will avoid all danger.”

Shakespeare rarely confounded the two words; for example, in “Coriolanus”:

“_Cor._ Shall remain!
Hear you this Triton of the minnows? mark you
His absolute _shall_?”

Again, in Antony and Cleopatra:

“_Meno._ Wilt thou be lord of the whole world?

_Senator._ He shall to the market-place.”

Wordsworth, too, who is one of the most accurate writers in our literature, nicely discriminates in his use of _shall_ and _will_:

“This child I to myself will take;
She shall be mine, and I will make
A lady of my own.
The stars of midnight shall be dear
To her; and she shall lean her ear
In many a secret place
Where rivulets dance their wayward round,
And beauty born of murmuring sound
Shall pass into her face.”

In the last passage determination is expressed, and therefore _shall_ is properly used.

When the Bible was translated, the language was in a state of transition; hence we read in Kings ii: “Ahab shall slay me,” for _will_. In Genesis xliii, 3-5, the two words are nicely discriminated. The distinction between them, strange to say, is entirely ignored in the Revised Version; as _e.g._, Peter is told, “Thou shalt deny me thrice”; and we read: “One of you shall betray me,” where futurity only is expressed in the Greek.

According to Grimm, “shall” is derived from _skalan_, the Scandinavian word for the pain of death, which is also the source of our word “kill.” The predominant idea in “shall” is that of doom. When choosing a term to express the inevitable future, the founders of our language chose a term the most expressive possible of a fatal, inevitable future. As “shall” contains the idea of doom, “will” conveys the idea of choice. The general rule to be followed in the use of the two words is, that when the simple idea of future occurrence is to be expressed, unconnected with the speaker’s resolve, we must use _shall_ in the first person, and _will_ in the second and third; as, “I shall die, you will die, he will die”; but when the idea of compulsion or necessity is to be conveyed,--a futurity connected with the will of the speaker,--_will_ must be employed in the first person, and _shall_ in the second and third; as, “I will go, you shall go, he shall go.” “I shall attain to thirty at my next birthday” merely foretells the age to which the speaker will have reached at his next birthday; “I will attain to thirty at my next birthday” would imply a determination to be so old at the time mentioned. “You shall have some money to-morrow” would imply a promise to pay it; “you will have some money to-morrow” would only imply an expectation that the person addressed would receive some money.

Similar to the misuse of _shall_ and _will_, is that of _would_ for should; as, “You promised that it would be done;” “But for reinforcements we would have been beaten.” Mr. Brace, in his work on Hungary, makes the people of that country say of Kossuth: “He ought to have known that we would be ruined,”--which can only mean “we wished to be ruined.”

The importance of attending to the distinction of _shall_ and _will_, and to the nice distinctions of words generally, is strikingly illustrated by an incident in Massachusetts. In 1844, Abner Rogers was tried in that state for the murder of the warden of the penitentiary. The man who had been sent to search the prisoner, said in evidence: “He (Rogers) said, ‘I have fixed the warden, and I’ll have a rope round my neck.’ On the strength of what he said, I took his suspenders from him.” Being cross-examined, the witness said his words were: “I will have a rope,” not “I shall have a rope.” The counsel against the prisoner argued that he declared an intention of suicide, to escape from the penalty of the law, which he knew he had incurred. On the other hand, _shall_ would, no doubt, have been regarded as a betrayal of his consciousness of having incurred a felon’s doom. The prisoner was acquitted on the ground of insanity. Strange that the fate of an alleged murderer should turn upon the question which he used of two little words that are so frequently confounded, and employed one for the other! It would be difficult to conceive of a more pregnant comment on the importance of using words with discrimination and accuracy.

It would be impossible, in the limits to which we are restricted, to give all the nice distinctions to be observed in the use of _shall_ and _will_. For a full explanation of the subject we must refer the unlearned reader to the various English grammars, and such works as Sir E. W. Head’s treatise on the two words, and the works on Synonyms by Graham, Crabb, and Whately. Prof. Schele DeVere, in his late “Studies in Language,” expresses the opinion that this double future is a great beauty of the English language, but that it is impossible to give any rule for its use, which will cover all cases, and that the only sure guide is “that instinct which is given to all who learn a language with their mother’s milk, or who acquire it so successfully as to master its spirit as well as its form.” His use of _will_ for _shall_, in this very work, verifies the latter part of this statement, and shows that a foreigner may have a profound knowledge of the genius and constitution of a language, and yet be sorely puzzled by its niceties and subtleties. “If we go back,” he says, “for the purpose of thus tracing the history of nouns to the oldest forms of English, we _will_ there find the method of forming them from the first and simplest elements” (page 140). The “Edinburgh Review” denounces the distinction of _shall_ and _will_, by their neglect of which the Scotch are so often bewrayed, as one of the most capricious and inconsistent of all imaginable irregularities, and as at variance not less with original etymology than with former usage. Prof. Marsh regards it as a verbal quibble, which will soon disappear from our language. It is a quibble just as any distinction is a quibble to persons who are too dull, too lazy, or too careless to apprehend it. With as much propriety might the distinction between the indicative and subjunctive forms of the verb, or the distinction between _farther_ and _further_, _strong_ and _robust_, _empty_ and _vacant_, be pronounced a verbal quibble. Sir Edmund W. Head has shown that the difference is not one which has an existence only in the pedagogue’s brain, but that it is as real and legitimate as that between _be_ and _am_, and dates back as far as Wicliffe and Chaucer, while it has also the authority of Shakespeare.

We conclude this chapter with the following lines by an English poet:

“Beyond the vague Atlantic deep,
Far as the farthest prairies sweep,
Where forest glooms the nerves appall,
Where burns the radiant western fall,
One duty lies on old and young,--
With filial piety to guard,
As on its greenest native sward,
The glory of the English tongue.
That ample speech! That subtle speech!
Apt for the need of all and each:
Strong to endure, yet prompt to bend
Wherever human feelings tend.
Preserve its force,--conserve its powers;
And through the maze of civic life,
In letters, commerce, even in strife,
Forget not it is yours and ours.”

FOOTNOTE:

[46] See page 26.

PRINCIPAL BOOKS CONSULTED.

JOSEPH ANGUS. _Hand-Book of the English Tongue._ London, 1863.

ARISTOTLE. _Rhetoric._ Translated by John Gillies. London, 1823.

SAMUEL BAILEY. _Discourses on Various Subjects._ London, 1862.

W. L. BLACKLEY. _Word-Gossip._ London, 1869.

FRANCIS BOWEN. _Treatise on Logic._ Boston, 1874.

BREEN. _Modern English Literature._ London.

JOHN EARLE. _Philology of the English Tongue._ Oxford, 1871.

WILLIAM C. FOWLER. _The English Language in its Elements and Forms._
New York, 1860.

F. W. FARRAR. _The Origin of Language._ London, 1860.

“ _Chapters on Language._ London, 1873.

“ _Families of Speech._ London, 1873.

I. PLANT FLEMING. _Analysis of the English Language._ London, 1869.

G. F. GRAHAM. _A Book about Words._ London, 1869.

RICHARD GARNETT. _Philological Essays._ London, 1859.

MATTHEW HARRISON. _The Rise, Progress, and Present Structure of the
English Language._ London, 1848.

EDWARD N. HOARE. _Exotics, or English Words Derived from Latin Roots._
London, 1863.

EDMUND W. HEAD. _“Shall” and “Will.”_ London, 1858.

R. G. LATHAM. _The English Language._ London, 1873.

GEORGE C. LEWIS. _Remarks on the Use and Abuse of Some Political
Terms._ Oxford, 1877.

MARK A. LOWER. _An Essay on Family Nomenclature._ (Two Volumes.)
London, 1875.

GEORGE P. MARSH. _Lectures on the English Language._ New York, 1860.

“ _The Origin and History of the English Language._
New York, 1862.

J. S. MILL. _A System of Logic._ New York, 1869.

MAX MÜLLER. _Lectures on the Science of Language._ (First and Second
Series.) New York, 1865.

J. H. NEWMAN. _The Idea of a University._ London, 1873.

NOTES AND QUERIES. London, 1852.

ERNEST RENAN. _De l’Origine du Langage._ Paris, 1864.

W. T. SHEDD. _Homiletics and Pastoral Theology._ New York, 1867.

ARCHDEACON SMITH. _Common Words with Curious Derivations._ London,
1865.

JOHN STODDARD. _The Philosophy of Language._ London, 1854.

WILLIAM THOMSON. _Outline of the Necessary Laws of Thought._ London,
1857.

JOHN HORNE TOOKE. _The Diversions of Purley._ London, 1860.

RICHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH. _On the Study of Words._ London, 1869.

“ _English, Past and Present._ 6th ed. London,
1868.

“ _Select Glossary of English Words._ 3d ed.
London, 1865.

RICHARD WHATELY. _Elements of Logic._ New York, 1865.

“ _Elements of Rhetoric._ New York, 1866.

HENSLEIGH WEDGWOOD. _Etymological Dictionary._ London, 1872.

W. D. WHITNEY. _Language and the Study of Language._ New York, 1867.

“ _The Life and Growth of Language._ New York, 1875.

E. P. WHITTLE. _Essays and Reviews._ Boston, 1856.

“ _Literature and Life._ Boston, 1871.

ESSAYS BY A BARRISTER. London, 1862.

INDEX.

A.

abdicate and desert, 282.

abominable, 392.

accord, 467.

a confirmed invalid, 455.

Addington, nicknamed by Sheridan, 361.

Adullamites, 362.

agriculturalist, 445.

alert, 395.

Alexander, Addison, D.D., his lines on small words, 157.

alligator, 387.

all of them, 459.

all right, 72.

almost, 464.

alms, 419.

alone, 448.

American orators, their diffuseness, 179-181;
their exaggeration, 185.

Americans, spendthrifts of language, 179;
their exaggeration, 184, 187.

Amphibolous sentences, 291.

and, 285.

anecdote, 378.

Animals, cannot generalize, or designate things by signs, 1-2.

an innumerable number, 465.

animosity, 384.

antecedents, 430.

anyhow, 446.

apology, 271.

apple-pie order, 402.

appreciates, 455.

Aristotle, on frigidity of style, 117.

Armstrong, 338.

Arnold, Dr. Thomas, on the styles of historians, 65, 66.

artesian, 408.

artillery, 379.

assassin, 396.

astonish, 376.

atom, 320.

at all, 449.

_atte_, _at_, 331.

attraction, 84.

avocation, 448.

B.

Bacon, Lord, his command of language, 10;
on the power of words, 84, 85.

Bailey, Samuel, on Berkeley’s theory of vision, 16.

balance, 116, 448.

Balzac, on the witchery of words, 85.

banister, 437.

bankrupt, 387.

Barrow, Isaac, D.D., his word-coinings, 433.

bedlam, 418.

belfry, 416.

Bentley, Richard, D.D., 236, 241.

_berg_, 32.

bib, 404.

bid, 470.

bishop, 415.

bit, 387.

bitter end, the, 403.

blackguards, 378.

blanket, 409.

blue-stocking, 390.

blunderbuss, 397.

Boileau, quoted, 111, 214.

Bolingbroke, Lord, his attention to his style, 441.

bombast, 379.

_bonhomme_, 71.

booby, 396.

bosh, 397.

Botany, its nomenclature, 89.

boudoir, 400.

bound, 455.

Bowen, Prof. Francis, on a fallacy of Darwin’s, 277;
on second causes, 270.

bran-new, 414.

brat, 383.

bravery, 377.

Brown, John, his moderation of language, 191.

Browne, Sir Thomas, on scholars, 6.

Buckle, on the dialect of English scholars, 241.

buffoon, 389.

Bulwer, Lytton, on the power of words, 93;
on children’s names, 324.

bumper, 394.

Bunsen, on poetry, 248.

Burr, Aaron, saying of, 182.

but, 445.

but that, 449.

by-laws, 395.

Byron, Lord, on Keats’s death, 90;
his denunciation of the English Language, 133, 134;
his use of monosyllables, 152, 153;
his subscription for Greece, 160;
on the inadequacy of language, 212.

C.

Cæsar, 335.

caitiff, 379.

caloric, 293.

canard, 391.

Canning, George, his command of words, 18;
extract from, 200.

canon, cannon, 396.

Cant, political, 168;
ethical, 169;
Seneca’s, 169;
religious, 170-173;
Spurgeon on, 172;
in art, 176;
etymology of the word, 389, 390.

caption, 467.

Capuchin, 355.

carat, 405.

Carbo, anecdote of, 29.

Carlyle, Thomas, satirized by an auctioneer, 120.

carnival, 458.

caucus, 401.

causeway, 419.

ceiling, 417.

celebrity, 451.

chaffer, 385.

chagrin, 396.

Chalmers, Thomas, D.D., on John Foster, 27;
his dispute with Stuart, 264.

Charles V, saying of, 177.

Chatham, Lord, his study of words, 17;
his words, 52, 53;
his speeches, 182.

cheat, 398.

Chesterfield, Lord, anecdote of, 128;
his efforts to improve his language, 440.

_chevalier d’industrie_, 95.

Choate, Rufus, on the diction suitable to lawyers, 18;
his prodigality of words, 187.

Christian, 356, 357.

Cicero, his choice of words, 29;
his word-coining, 105.

civilization, 274.

Clarendon, Lord, his solecisms, 438.

cleave, 421.

Climate, its effects on language, 243, 244.

Cobbett, William, his mastery of narration and invective, 236;
his nicknames of Peel, Stanley, and others, 352.

cock, 244.

Coke, Sir Edward, his characterization of Raleigh, 53.

Coleridge, Hartley N., his characterization of the Greek and Latin
languages, 74;
his lines on speech, 193.

Coleridge, S. T., on Shakespeare’s language, 7;
his witchery of phrase, 9;
on the study of the Bible, 115;
on religious cant, 171;
his word-coinings, 432, 433;
on Youth and Age, 256.

Collins, William, lines from, 152.

Combe, Dr. Andrew, on Cowper’s and Wilberforce’s letters, 165.

commerce, 114.

Common Improprieties of Speech, 424-477.

community, 468.

compulsory, 275.

concede, 381.

condign, 464.

conduct, 454.

constable, 404.

convene, 449.

Conversation, religious defined, 172.

_convivium_, 75.

Cooper, Sir Astley, anecdote of, 72.

coquet, 380.

corporeal, 446.

corpse, 380.

Corwin, Thomas, Gov., 132.

Council of Basle, 263.

country-dance, 415.

couple, 463.

Courier, P. L., on abusive epithets, 279.

court, 405, 406.

Couthon, 168.

Cowper, William, his translation of Homer, 36;
his poetry, 165;
his letters, 165.

craft, 383.

Craik, Prof., on the revivification of human speech, 57.

crawfish, 416.

creative, 290, 291.

Crockett, David, anecdote of, 15.

Crowe, W., lines from, 252.

crushed out, 449.

cunning, 384.

cur, 405.

Curiosities of Language, 367-423.

curmudgeon, 397.

Curran, his encounter with a fish-woman, 365.

Currer Bell, her “Villette” criticised, 126.

Cuvier, anecdote of, 15.

D.

dandelion, 415.

dangerous, 461.

Dante, his language, 9.

dare, 470.

Darwin, Charles, his fallacious use of “tend,” 277.

deceiving, 452.

decimated, 115.

deduction, 445.

defalcation, 385.

delinquents, 347.

De Maistre, Count Joseph, on Locke, 276;
on Pagan ideas of holiness and sin, 81.

De Medicis, Catherine, sayings of, 178.

Demosthenes, his choice of words, 28, 29;
his speeches, 181, 182;
his ignorance of foreign tongues, and study of Thucydides, 239.

demure, 383.

De Quincey, his mastery of words, 12;
on translation, 32;
on the word “humbug,” 81, 82;
on Cardinal Mezzofanti, 178;
on the French language of passion, 189;
on the choice of Saxon or Romanic words, 195, 196, 201;
on the inadequacy of language, 212;
on the style of women’s letters, 240, 241;
saying of, 319;
on improprieties of speech, 439.

Denmark, capture of her fleet by the British, 304, 305.

Desbrosses, on Roman hereditary names, 327.

dexterity, 388.

“Dick Swiveller style,” 164.

differ with, different to, 446.

directly, 456.

Disraeli, Benjamin, quoted, 263.

distinguish, 470.

do, 467.

doing good, 307-309.

dollar, 404.

Domenech, the Abbé, on the language of savages, 24, 25.

Dominicans, 355.

don’t, 451.

dormouse, 416.

“Double Procession.” the, controversy concerning it, 262.

doubt, 447.

drive, 469.

Dryden, John, his scientific language, 10;
his translation of the “Æneid,” 36;
his version of “Paradise Lost,” 37, 38;
his modernization of Chaucer, 37;
lines from, 251;
Willmott on his versification, 253.

dun, 408, 431.

dunce, 386, 387.

Du Ponceau, on the inadequacy of language, 212.

Dyer, lines from his “Ruins of Rome,” 249.

E.

Easter, 406.

education, 280-282.

effluvium, 457.

egregious, 401.

either, 452, 453.

either alternative, 460.

electricity, 293.

Eloquence, uses simple language, 124, 125.

Emerson, R. W., on Montaigne’s words, 10;
on Shakespeare’s suggestiveness, 55;
on oratory, 123.

English Bible, richness of its vocabulary, 204;
F. W. Faber on, 204.

English Language, few of its words in common use, 51, 58;
its copiousness, 132-138;
decried by Charles V, Madame de Stael and Byron, 133;
Addison and Waller on, 134;
its composite character, 135, 136;
its irregularities, 137;
illustrations of its monosyllabic character, 147-157;
its capabilities, 214, 215.

English Literature, its looseness of diction, 425.

English race, its intolerance of restraints, 425.

Ennius, saying of, 177.

enthuse, 467.

equally as well, 456.

equanimity of mind, 451.

Erskine, Lord, his mastery of English, 236.

ether, 293.

Etymological knowledge, its value in the use of words, 231-234.

Etymology, rules of, 413;
errors based on, 285-289.

Euripides, on character, 54.

every, 464.

evidence, 449.

Exaggeration of language, 184-193;
F. W. Robinson on, 191.

except, 463.

excessively, 452.

exchequer, 406.

exorbitant, 381.

experience, 266, 267.

Expletives, 90, 91.

extend, 463.

F.

faint, 388.

Fallacies in Words, 257-322.

farce, 392.

farther, 456.

fast, 420.

fatherland, 429.

Federalist, 347.

fellow, 386.

fellow countrymen, 470.

female, 114.

final completion, 450.

_Fitz_, _witz_, and _sky_, 329.

folks, 468.

Fortescue, 337.

Foster, John, on the words of a man of genius, 6;
on eloquence, 122.

Fox, C. J., on Pitt’s words, 26;
his eloquence, 52.

Frank, 407.

Franklin, Dr. Benjamin, his style, 236.

Freeman, Dr. E. A., on the English Language, 118.

freemason, 415.

French Academy, the, 431.

French language, its lack of words for “bribe,” “sober,” “listener,”
“home,” etc., 70-72.

French Literature, its method and lucidity, 426.

Frenchmen, their distaste for foreign words, 126, 127.

from thence, from whence, 454.

_Frondeurs_, 350.

frontispiece, 414.

Fuller, Dr. Thomas, on the Italian and Swiss languages, 76;
on high-flown language, 129;
on “ah!” and “ha!” 143;
on the schoolmen, 317;
his etymologies, 414;
his story of John Cuts, 339.

fur, 95.

G.

Garrick, David, saying of, 146.

Gautier, Theophile, his study of words, 19.

_gêne_, 71.

gentleman, 97-99.

George I, of England, 166.

Gesticulation, its expressiveness, 19-21.

gibberish, 394, 408.

Gibbon, Edward, his historical insinuations and suppressions, 292.

girl, 378.

go ahead, 72.

Goethe, saying of, 34;
lines from, 215;
on study of foreign tongues, 229;
a poor linguist, 238.

Goldsmith, Oliver, his solecisms, 438, 439.

gooseberry, 414.

gossip, 385.

Gothic, 84.

Greek and Latin, contrasted, 74;
a knowledge of them not necessary to the command of English, 229-241;
their value for culture, 230, 231.

Greek, its subtle distinctions, 34.

Greek words, Roman affectation for, 127.

Greeks, their perversions of words, 96;
their ignorance of grammar and etymology, 238.

greet, greeting, 456.

Gregory VII, Pope, 167.

Guelphs and Ghibellines, 358.

gutted, 430.

gypsies, 418.

H.

haberdasher, 397.

hack, 405.

had have, 435, 450.

had ought, 450.

Halifax, Lord, on trimming, 359.

Hall, Robert, D.D., anecdotes of, 26, 173;
on his aping of Johnson, 281;
on Saxon-English, 205.

Halleck, Fitz-Greene, his anecdote of a Scotch girl, 129.

Hamilton, Alexander, his legal arguments, 182.

Hamilton, “Single Speech,” 360.

Hamilton, Sir William, on certain philosophical terms, 285.

Handel, saying of, 133.

handkerchief, 404.

harden, 301, 302.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel, on the spells in words, 47.

hawk, 398.

Haydon, anecdote of, 85.

Hazlitt, William, on words, 4;
his “Tiddy-doll” story, 364.

helter-skelter, 388.

Herder, his nickname of Goethe, 348.

hermetically, 409.

Higginson, T. W., on words, 4, 46.

hip, hip, hurrah! 388.

Historians, their characters shown by their styles, 65.

hoax, 397.

Hobbes, his language, 316;
on words, 316, 317.

hocuspocus, 396.

Hollinshed, his “Chronicles” quoted, 286.

Homer, his “winged words,” 5;
his onomatopœia, 254.

“Homoousians” and “Homoiusians,” 262.

_homo_, 320.

_honnêteté_, 71.

Horne Tooke, saying of, 155.

horrent, 375.

hospital, 313.

host, 405.

how, 456.

Huguenot, 393, 394.

humble-pie, 398.

humbug, 82, 395.

Hume, David, 98, 99;
his argument against miracles, 265-270;
his history of England, 292;
on the term “delinquents,” 347.

humility, 81.

hung, 470.

hypocrite, 402.

I.

idiot, 383.

I have got, 445.

imagination, 234.

imbecile, 396.

imbroglio, 115.

Imitation, in literature, 218, 222.

imp, 383.

impertinent, 271.

in, 470.

inaugurate, 114.

incomprehensible, 272.

incorrect orthography, 456.

indices, 463.

individual, 109.

_ing_, 334.

in our midst, 452.

instances, 377.

Interjections, 141-146;
Horne Tooke on, 141;
Max Müller on, 143;
Whitefield’s, 146;
Shakespeare’s, 146;
Greek and Latin, 147.

intoxicated, 116, 117.

inveterate, 423.

is, 466.

island, 414.

Italian language, 76;
its debasement, 76-79.

its, 430.

it were, 447.

J.

jacket, 409.

Jansenists, their disputes with the Jesuits, 261.

Jeffrey, Francis, his artificial style, 119;
anecdote of, 119.

jeopardize, 461.

Jerusalem artichoke, 415.

Johnson, Dr. Samuel, his grandiose style, 156;
anecdote of, 112;
his Johnsonese dialect, 112, 113;
satirized by Dr. Wolcott, 113;
sayings of, 123, 168;
his spoken and written language contrasted, 206, 207;
his advice on style, 215;
on imitative harmony, 255;
on Mrs. Barbauld’s name, 343;
his care of his speech, 441;
improprieties in his “Rambler,” 442;
his nickname of a fish-woman, 365.

Johnson, Edward, M. D., on “right,” 287.

jolly, 375.

Joubert, on Rousseau’s words, 10;
his verbal economy, 183.

_jour_, 247.

K.

Keats, John, his love of fine phrases, 18.

kennel, 402.

kidnap, 398.

_kin_, 334.

King, T. Starr, on the mystery of style, 30.

knave, 384.

L.

lady, 391.

landed proprietor, 84, 273.

Landor, W. S., on fine words, 111;
lines from, 154.