Of grammatical purity.

solely with us a member of a French academy, or of one established on a similar footing; the latter a Platonic philosopher, one of that sect which took its denomination from the Grecian academy; or more properly, from the grove of Academus, where the principles of that philosophy were first inculcated.

By a like error, the words sophist and sophister are sometimes confounded; the proper sense of the former being a teacher of philosophy in ancient Grece; of the latter, a specious, but false reasoner.

E'ER, a contraction of the adverb ever, hath, from a resemblance, or rather an identity in sound, been mistaken for the conjunction ere, before; and in like manner it's, the genitive of the pronoun it, for 'tis, a contraction of it is.

In the same way bad is sometimes very improperly used for bade, the preterit of the verb bid, and sate for sat, the preterit of sit. The only proper use of the word bad is as a synonyma for ill; and to sate is the same in signification as to glut,

THE word genii hath by some writers been erroneously adopted for geniuses. Each is a plural of the same word genius, but in different senses. When genius in the singular means a separate spirit or demon, good or bad, the plural is genii; when it denotes mental abilities, or a person eminently possessed of these,

Sect. III. The Impropriety...Part I. Impropriety in single words.

the plural is geniuses, There are some similar instances in our tongue of different plurals belonging to the same singular in different significations. The word brother is one. The plural in modern language, when used literally for male-children of the same parent or parents, is brothers; when used figuratively for people of the same profession, nation, religion, or people, considered as related by sharing jointly in the same human nature, is brethren. Anciently this last term was the only plural.

I SHALL next specify improprieties arising from a similitude in sense, into which writers of considerable reputation have sometimes fallen. Veracity you will find, even among such, applied to things, and used for reality; whereas, in strict propriety, the word is only applicable to persons, and signifies not physical, but moral truth.

EPITHET hath been used corruptly to denote title or appellation; whereas, it only signifies some attribute expressed by an adjective.

IN the same way, verdict hath been made to usurp the place of testimony; and the word risible hath of late been perverted from its original sense, which is capable of laughing, to denote ridiculous, laughable, or fit to be laughed at. Hence these newfangled phrases risible jests, and risible absurdities. The proper discrimination between risible and ridiculous, is, that the

Of grammatical purity.

former hath an active, the latter a passive signification. "Man is a risible animal." "A fop is

Thus we say,

66

a ridiculous character." To substitute the former in

stead of the latter, and say, "A fop is a risible cha"racter," is, I suspect, no better English, than to substitute the latter instead of the former. and say "Man "is a ridiculous animal." In confirmation of this distinction, it may be further remarked, that the abstract risibility, which analogically ought to determine the import of the concrete, is still limited to its original and active sense, the faculty of laughter. Where our language hath provided us with distinct names for the active verbal and the passive, as no distinction is more useful for preventing ambiguity, so no distinction ought to be more sacredly observed.

BUT to proceed; the word together often supplies the place of successively, sometimes awkwardly enough, as in the following sentence. "do not remember "that I ever spoke three sentences together in my "whole life *." The resemblance which continuity in time bears to continuity in place, is the source of this impropriety, which, by the way, is become so frequent, that I am doubtful whether it ought to be in'cluded in the number. Yet, should this application generally obtain, it would, by confounding things different, often occasion ambiguity. If, for example, one should say, "Charles, William, and David, lived toge

* Spectator, No. 1.

Sect. III. The Impropriety....Part I. Impropriety in single words.

"ther in the same house," in order to denote that William immediately succeeded Charles, and David succeeded William, every one would be sensible of the impropriety. But if such a use of the word be improper in one case, it is so in every case.

By an error not unlike, the word everlasting hath been employed to denote time without beginning, though the only proper sense of it be time without end; as in these words, From everlasting to everlasting "thou art God +." It may further be remarked of this term, that the true meaning is so strongly marked in its composition, that very frequent use will not be sufficient to prevent the misapplication from appearing awkward. I think, besides, that there is a 'want of correctness in using the word substantively. The proper expression is, " From eternity to eternity thou "art God."

66

ABUNDANCE, in the following quotation, is, I imagine, improperly used for a great deal. "I will only "mention that passage of the buskins, which, after " abundance of persuasion, you would hardly suffer to "be cut from your legs ."

THE word due, in the citation subjoined, is not only -improperly, but preposterously employed. "What right the first observers of nature, and instructors of

$6

+ Ps. xc. 2.

Swift's Examiner, No. 27.

Of grammatical purity.

"mankind, had to the title of sages, we cannot say. "It was due perhaps more to the ignorance of the scho"lars, than to the knowledge of the masters *." The author hath doubtless adopted the word due in this place, as preferable at least to the word owing, which, though an active participle, is frequently, and as some think inaccurately, employed in a passive sense. Thus, in order to avoid a latent error, if it be an error, he hath run into a palpable absurdity; for what can be more absurd than to say, that the title of sages is due more to ignorance than to knowledge? It had been better to give the sentence another turn, and to say, "It took its rise perhaps more from the ignorance of "the scholars, than from the knowledge of the mas"ters."

I SHALL add the improper use of the word surfeit in the following quotation from Anson's Voyage round the World: "We thought it prudent totally to ab"stain from fish, the few we caught at our first ar

rival, having surfeited those who eat of them +.” I should not have mentioned, indeed I should not have discovered this impropriety in that excellent performance, which would have passed with me for an expression somewhat indefinite, had it not been for the following passage in a late publication: "Se"veral of our people were so much disordered by eat

* Bolingbroke, Phil. Es. ii. Sect. I.

Anson's Voyage, B. iii. c. 2.