Conversation: Its Faults and Its Graces Part 4

XXVII.

It is most illiterate to put the preposition _of_ after the adverb _off_, as, "The satin measured twelve yards before I cut this piece _off of_ it," "The fruit was gathered _off of_ that tree." Many of my readers will consider such a remark quite unnecessary in this volume; but many others, who ought to know better, must stand self-condemned on reading it.

XXVIII.

There is a false taste extant for the preposition "on" instead of "_of_"

in songs, poetry, and many other situations in which there is still less excuse for borrowing the poetic license; such as, "Wilt thou think _on_ me, love?" "I will think _on_ thee, love," "Then think _on_ the friend who once welcomed it too," &c., &c. But this is an error chiefly to be met with among poetasters and melodramatic speakers.

XXIX.

Some people add a superfluous preposition at the end of a sentence,--"More than you think _for_." This, however, is an awkwardness rarely committed by persons of decent education.

x.x.x.

That "prepositions govern the objective case" is a golden rule of grammar; and if it were only _well remembered_, it would effectually correct that mistake of subst.i.tuting the nominative for the objective p.r.o.noun, which has been complained of in the preceding pages. In using a relative p.r.o.noun in the objective case, it is more elegant to put the preposition before than after it, thus, "To whom was the order given?"

instead of, "Whom was the order given to?" Indeed, if this practice were to be invariably adopted, it would obviate the possibility of confounding the nominative with the objective case, because no man would ever find himself able to utter such a sentence as, "To who was this proposal made?" though he might very unconsciously say, "Who was this proposal made to?" and the error would be equally flagrant in both instances.

x.x.xI.

There is a great inaccuracy connected with the use of the disjunctive conjunctions _or_ and _nor_, which seem to be either not clearly understood, or treated with undue contempt by persons who speak in the following manner: "Henry or John _are_ to go there to-night," "His son or his nephew _have_ since put in _their_ claim," "Neither one _nor_ the other _have_ the least chance of success." The conjunctions disjunctive "or" and "nor" separate the objects in sense, as the conjunction copulative unites them; and as, by the use of the former, the things stand forth separately and singly to the comprehension, the verb or p.r.o.noun must be rendered in the singular number also; as, "Henry _or_ John _is_ to go there to-night," "His son _or_ his nephew _has_ since put in _his_ claim," &c. If you look over the sentence, you will perceive that only _one_ is to do the act, therefore only _one_ can be the nominative to the verb.

x.x.xII.

Many people improperly subst.i.tute the disjunctive "but" for the comparative "than," as, "The mind no sooner entertains any proposition, _but_ it presently hastens to some hypothesis to bottom it on."--_Locke._ "No other resource _but_ this was allowed him." "My behavior," says she, "has, I fear, been the death of a man who had no other fault _but_ that of loving me too much."--_Spectator._

x.x.xIII.

Sometimes a relative p.r.o.noun is used instead of a conjunction, in such sentences as the following: "I don't know but _what_ I shall go to Brighton to-morrow," instead of, "I don't know but _that_," &c.

x.x.xIV.

Sometimes the disjunctive _but_ is subst.i.tuted for the conjunction _that_, as, "I have no doubt _but_ he will be here to-night." Sometimes for the conjunction _if_, as, "I shouldn't wonder _but_ that was the case." And sometimes _two_ conjunctions are used instead of one, as, "_If that_ I have offended him," "_After that_ he had seen the parties,"

&c. All this is very awkward indeed, and ought to be avoided, and might easily be so by a little attention.

CHAPTER II.

I.

IT is obsolete now to use the article _an_ before words beginning with long _u_ or with _eu_, and it has become more elegant, in modern style, to say, "a university," "a useful article," "a European," "a euphonious combination of sentences," &c., &c. It is also proper to say "such a one," not "such an one."

II.

Some people p.r.o.nounce the plural of handkerchief, scarf, wharf, dwarf, _handkerchieves_, _scarves_, _wharves_, _dwarves_. This is an error, as these words, and perhaps a few others, are exceptions to the rule laid down, that nouns ending in _f_ and _fe_ shall change these terminations into _ves_ to form the plural.

III.

There is an illiterate mode of p.r.o.nouncing the adverb _too_, which is that of contracting it into the sound of the preposition _to_; thus, "I think I paid _to much_ for this gun," "This line is _to long_ by half."

The adverb _too_ should be p.r.o.nounced like the numeral adjective _two_, and have the same full distinct sound in delivery, as, "I think I paid _two_ much for this gun," "This line is _two_ long by half."

IV.

One does not expect to hear such words as "necessi'ated,"

"preventative," &c., from people who profess to be educated; but one _does_ hear them, nevertheless, and many others of the same genus, of which the following list is a specimen, not a collection.

"Febuary" and "Febbiwerry," instead of February.

"Seckaterry" instead of secretary.

"Gover'ment" " government.

"Eve'min" " evening.

"Sev'm" " seven.

"Holladiz" " holidays.

"Mossle" " morsel.

"Chapped," according to orthography, instead of _chopped_, according to polite usage.

And we have even heard "continental" p.r.o.nounced _continential_, though upon what authority we know not. Besides these, a mult.i.tude of others might be quoted, which we consider too familiar to particularize and "too numerous to mention."

V.

There is an old jest on record of a person hearing another p.r.o.nounce the word curiosity "_curosity_," and remarking to a bystander, "That man murders the English language." "Nay," replies the person addressed, "he only knocks an eye (i) out." And I am invariably reminded of this old jest whenever I hear such p.r.o.nunciations as the following,--"Lat'n" for Latin, "sat'n" for satin, and Britain p.r.o.nounced so as to rhyme with _written_,--of which a few examples will be given on a subsequent page, not with the wild hope of comprising in so short a s.p.a.ce _all_ the perversions of prosody which are constantly taking place, but simply with the intention of reminding careless speakers of some general principles they seem to have forgotten, and of the vast acc.u.mulation of error they may engraft upon themselves by a lazy adherence to the custom of the crowd. Before, however, proceeding to the words in question, it may be satisfactory to our readers to recall to their memory the observations of Lindley Murray on the subject. He says, "There is scarcely anything which more distinguishes a person of poor education from a person of a good one than the p.r.o.nunciation of the _unaccented vowels_. When vowels are _under the accent_, the best speakers, and the lowest of the people, with very few exceptions, p.r.o.nounce them in the same manner; but the _un_accented vowels in the mouths of the former have a distinct, open, and specific sound, while the latter often totally sink them, or change them into some other sound." The words that have chiefly struck me are the following, in which not only the i but some of the other vowels are submitted to the mutilating process, or, as I have heard it p.r.o.nounced, _mutulating_.

Brit'n instead of Britain.

Lat'n " Latin.

Sat'n " Satin.

Patt'n " Patten.

Curt'n " Curtain.

Cert'n " Certain.

Bridle " Bridal.

Idle " Idol.

Meddle " Medal.

Moddle " Model.

Mentle " Mental.

Mortle " Mortal.