Sect. I. Good use not always uniform in her decisions. times in construction, and sometimes in arrangement. In all such cases there is scope for choice; and it belongs, without question, to the critical art, to lay down. the principles, by which, in doubtful cases, our choice should be directed. THERE are, indeed, some differences in single words, which ought still to be retained. They are a kind of synonymas, and afford a little variety, without occasioning any inconvenience whatever *. In arrangement, too, it certainly holds, that various manners suit various styles, as various styles suit various subjects, and various sorts of composition. For this reason, unless when some obscurity, ambiguity, or inelegance is created, no disposition of words which hath obtained the public approbation, ought to be altogether rejected. In construction the case is somewhat different. Purity, perspicuity, and elegance, generally require, that in this there be the strictest uniformity. Yet differences here are not only allowable, but even convenient, when attended with correspondent differences in the application. Thus the verb to found, when logy, according to his own explication, would suggest. See Johnson's Dictionary on the words nowise and way, particularly the senses of way, marked with these numbers, 15, 16, 18, and 19. * Such are, subterranean and subterraneous, homogeneal and homogeneous, authentic and authentical, isle and island, mount and mountain, clime and climate, near and nigh, betwixt and between. amongst and among, amidst and amid. Nor do I see any hurt that would ensue from adding nowise and noway to the number. The nature and use of verbal criticism, with its principal canons. used literally, is more properly followed by the preposition on, as, "The house was founded on a rock;" in the metaphorical application, it is often better with in, as in this sentence, "They maintained, that domi"nion is founded in grace." Both sentences would be badly expressed, if these prepositions were transposed, though there are perhaps cases wherein either would be good. In those instances, therefore, of divided use, which give scope for option, the following canons are humbly proposed, in order to assist us in assigning the preference. Let-it, in the mean time, be remembered, as a point always presupposed, that the authorities on the opposite sides are equal, or nearly so. When those of one side greatly preponderate, it is in vain to oppose the prevailing usage. Custom, when wavering, may be swayed, but, when reluctant, will not be forced. And in this department a person never effects so little, as when he attempts too much *. * For this reason it is to no purpose with Johnson to pronounce the word news a plural, (whatever it might have been in the days of Sidney and Raleigh) since custom hath evidently determined otherwise. Nor is the observation on the letter [s] in his Dictionary well founded, that "it seems to be established as a rule, "that no noun singular should end with [] single;" the words ‚amends, summons, sous, genus, species, genius, chorus, and several others, show the contrary. For the same reason the words averse and aversion, are more properly construed with to than with from. The examples in favour of the latter preposition, are beyond comparison outnumbered by those in favour of the former. The argu ment from etymology is here of no value, being taken from the use of Sect. I. Good use not always consistent in her decisions......Canon I. Canon the first. THE first canon, then, shall be, When use is divided as to any particular word or phrase, and the expression used by one part hath been preoccupied, or is in any instance susceptible of a different signification, and the expression employed by the other part never admits a different sense, both perspicuity and variety require, that the form of expression, which is in every instance strictly univocal, be preferred. For this reason aught, signifying any thing, is preferable to ought, which is one of our defective verbs: by consequence, meaning consequently, is preferable to of consequence; as this expression is often employed to denote momentous or important. In the preposition toward and towards, and the adverbs forward and forwards, backward and backwards, the two forms are used indiscriminately. But as the first form in all these is also an adjective, it is better to confine the particles to the second. Custom, too, seems at present to lean this way. This principle likewise leads me to prefer extemporary as an adjective, to extempore, which is properly an adverb, and ought, for the sake of precision, to be restrained to that use. It of another language. If by the same rule we were to regulate all nouns and verbs of Latin original, our present syntax would be overturned. It is more conformable to English analogy with to; the words dislike and hatred, nearly synonymous, are thus construed, The nature and use of verbal criticism, with its principal canons. is only of late that this last term begins to be employed adjectively. Thus we say, with equal propriety, an extemporary prayer, an extemporary sermon, and, he prays extempore, he preaches extempore. I know not how Dr Priestly hath happened to mention the term extemporary, in a way which would make one think he considered it as a word peculiar to Mr Hume. The word hath evidently been in good use for a longer time than one thinks of searching back in quest of authorities, and remains in good use to this day. By the same rule we ought to prefer scarcely, as an adverb, to scarce, which is an adjective; and exceedingly, as an adverb, to exceeding, which is a participle. For the same reason also I am inclined to prefer that use, which makes ye invariably the nominative plural of the personal pronoun thou, and you the accusative, when applied to an actual plurality. When used for the singular number, custom hath determined that it shall be you in both cases. This renders the distinction rather more important, as for the most part it would show directly whether one or more were addressed; a point in which we are often liable to mistake in all modern languages. From the like principle, in those verbs which have for the participle passive both the preterit form and one peculiar, the peculiar form ought to have the preference. Thus, I have gotten, I have hidden, I have spoken, are better than I have got, I have hid, I have spoke *. From 66 * Yet I should prefer " I have beld, helped, melted," to " I have "bolden, holpen, molten, these last participles being now obsolete. Sect. I. Good use not always consistent in her decisions....Canon I. pre the same principle I think ate is preferable in the terit tense, and eaten in the participle, to eat, which is the constant form of the present, though sometimes also used for both the others. BUT though in this judgment concerning the participles, I agree entirely with all our approved modern grammarians, I can by no means concur with some of them in their manner of supporting it. "We should "be immediately shocked," says one of the best of them †,"at I have knew, I have saw, I have gave, "&c. but our ears are grown familiar with I have 66 wrote, I have drank, I have bore, &c. which are al"together as barbarous." Nothing can be more inconsistent, in my opinion, with the very first principles of grammar, than what is here advanced. This ingenious gentleman surely will not pretend, that there is a barbarism in every word which serves for preterit and participle both, else the far greater part of the preterits and participles of our tongue are barbarous. If not, what renders many of them, such as loved, hated, sent, brought, good English, when employed either way? I know no answer that can be given, but custom; that is, in other words, our ears are familiarised to them by frequent use. And what was ever meant by a barbarism in speech, but that which shocks us by violating the constant usage in speaking or in writing? If so, to be equally barbarous, and to be + Lowth's Introduction to English Grammar. |