The Verbalist Part 4

_Vice_ is a course of wrong-doing, and is not modified either by country, religion, or condition. As for _sin_, it is very difficult to define what it is, as what is sinful in the eyes of one man may not be sinful in the eyes of another; what is sinful in the eyes of a Jew may not be sinful in the eyes of a Christian; and what is sinful in the eyes of a Christian of one country may not be sinful in the eyes of a Christian of another country. In the days of slavery, to harbor a runaway slave was a _crime_, but it was, in the eyes of most people, neither a _vice_ nor a _sin_.

CRUSHED OUT. "The rebellion was finally _crushed out_." Out of what? We may _crush_ the life out of a man, or _crush_ a man to death, and _crush_, not _crush out_, a rebellion.

CULTURED. This word is said to be a product of Boston--an excellent place for anybody or anything to come from. Many persons object to its use on the ground that there can be no such participial adjective, because there is no verb in use from which to form it. We have in use the substantive _culture_, but, though the dictionaries recognize the verb _to culture_, we do not use it. Be this objection valid or be it not, _cultured_ having but two syllables, while its synonym _cultivated_ has four, it is likely to find favor with those who employ short words when they convey their meaning as well as long ones. Other adjectives of this kind are, moneyed, whiskered, slippered, lettered, talented, cottaged, lilied, anguished, gifted, and so forth.

CURIOUS. This word is often used instead of _strange_ or _remarkable_.

"A _curious_ fact": better, "a _remarkable_ fact." "A _curious_ proceeding": better, "a _strange_ proceeding."

DANGEROUS. "He is pretty sick, but not _dangerous_." Dangerous people are generally most dangerous when they are most vigorous. Say, rather, "He is sick, but not _in danger_."

DEAREST. "A gentleman once began a letter to his bride thus: 'My _dearest_ Maria.' The lady replied: 'My dear John, I beg that you will mend either your morals or your grammar. You call me your "_dearest_ Maria"; am I to understand that you have other Marias'?"--Moon's "Bad English."

DECEIVING. "You are _deceiving_ me." Not unfrequently _deceiving_ is used when the speaker means _trying to deceive_. It is when we do not suspect deception that we are deceived.

DECIMATE. This word, meaning as it properly does to t.i.the, to take the tenth part, is hardly permissible in the sense in which it is used in such sentences as, "The regiment held its position, though terribly _decimated_ by the enemy's artillery." "Though terribly _t.i.thed_" would be equally correct.

DEMEAN. This word is sometimes erroneously used in the sense of _to debase_, _to disgrace_, _to humble_. It is a reflexive verb, and its true meaning is _to behave_, _to carry_, _to conduct_; as, "He _demeans himself_ in a gentlemanly manner," i. e., He _behaves_, or _carries_, or _conducts_, himself in a gentlemanly manner.

DENUDE. "The vulture," says Brande, "has some part of the head and sometimes of the neck _denuded_ of feathers." Most birds might be _denuded_ of the feathers on their heads; not so, however, the vulture, for his head is always featherless. A thing can not be _denuded_ of what it does not have. Denuding a vulture's head and neck of the feathers is like _denuding_ an eel of its scales.

DEPRECATE. Strangely enough, this word is often used in the sense of disapprove, censure, condemn; as, "He _deprecates_ the whole proceeding"; "Your course, from first to last, is universally _deprecated_." But, according to the authorities, the word really means, to endeavor to avert by prayer; to pray exemption or deliverance from; to beg off; to entreat; to urge against.

"Daniel kneeled upon his knees to _deprecate_ the captivity of his people."--Hewyt.

DESPITE. This word is often incorrectly preceded by _in_ and followed by _of_; thus, "_In_ despite _of_ all our efforts to detain him, he set out"; which should be, "Despite all our efforts," etc., or "_In spite of_ all our efforts," etc.

DETERMINED. See BOUND.

DICTION. This is a general term, and is applicable to a single sentence or to a connected composition. _Bad diction_ may be due to errors in grammar, to a confused disposition of words, or to an improper use of words. _Diction_, to be good, requires to be only correct and clear. Of excellent examples of bad diction there are very many in a little work by Dr. L. T. Townsend, Professor of Sacred Rhetoric in Boston University, the first volume of which has lately come under my notice.

The first ten lines of Dr. Townsend's preface are:

"The leading genius[1] of the People's College at Chautauqua Lake, with a [the?] view of providing for his course[2] a text-book, asked for the publication of the following laws and principles of speech.[3]

"The author, not seeing sufficient reason[4] for withholding what had been of much practical benefit[5] to himself, consented.[6]

"The subject-matter herein contained is an outgrowth from[7] occasional instructions[8] given[9] while occupying the chair[10] of Sacred Rhetoric."

1. The phrase _leading genius_ is badly chosen. Founder, projector, head, organizer, princ.i.p.al, or president--some one of these terms would probably have been appropriate. 2. What course? Race-course, course of ethics, aesthetics, rhetoric, or what?[3] 3. "The following laws and principles of speech." And how came these laws and principles in existence? Who made them? We are to infer, it would seem, that Professor Townsend made them, and that the world would have had to go without the laws that govern language and the principles on which language is formed had it pleased Professor Townsend to withhold them. 4. "_Sufficient_ reason"! Then there were reasons why Professor Townsend ought to have kept these good things all to himself; only, they were not _sufficient_.

5. "Practical benefit"! Is there _any_ such thing as impractical benefit? Are not all benefits practical? and, if they are, what purpose does the epithet _practical_ serve? 6. Consented to what? It is easy to see that the Doctor means _acceded to the request_, but he is a long way from saying so. The object writers usually have in view is to convey thought, not to set their readers to guessing. 7. _The outgrowth of_ would be English. 8. "Occasional instructions"! Very vague, and well calculated to set the reader to guessing again. 9. Given to whom? 10.

"_The_ chair." The definite article made it necessary for the writer to specify what particular chair of Sacred Rhetoric he meant.

These ten lines are a fair specimen of the diction of the entire volume.

Page 131. "To render a _given ambiguous or_ unintelligible sentence transparent, the following suggestions are recommended." The words in italics are unnecessary, since what is ambiguous is unintelligible. Then who has ever heard of _recommending suggestions_?

Dr. Townsend speaks of _mastering a subject before publishing it_.

Publishing a subject?

Page 133. "Violations of simplicity, whatever the type, show either that _the mind of_ the writer is tainted with affectation, or _else_ that _an effort is making_ to conceal _conscious_ poverty of _sentiment_ under loftiness of expression." Here is an example of a kind of sentence that can be mended in only one way--by rewriting, which might be done thus: Violations of simplicity, whatever the type, show either that the writer is tainted with affectation, or that he is making an effort to conceal poverty of thought under loftiness of expression.

Page 143. "This _quality_ is fully _stated_ and recommended," etc. Who has ever heard of _stating a quality_?

On page 145 Dr. Townsend says: "A person can not read a single book of poor style without having his own style vitiated." _A book of poor style_ is an awkward expression, to say the least. _A single badly-written book_ would have been un.o.bjectionable.

Page 160. "The presented picture produces instantly a definite effect."

Why this unusual disposition of words? Why not say, in accordance with the idiom of the language, "The picture presented instantly produces,"

etc.?

Page 161. "The boy studies ... geography and hates everything connected with the sea and land." Why _the_ boy? As there are few things besides seals and turtles that are connected with the sea _and_ land, the boy in question has few things to hate.

On page 175, Dr. Townsend heads a chapter thus: "_Art_ of acquiring _Skill_ in the use of Poetic Speech." This reminds one of the man who tried to lift himself over a fence by taking hold of the seat of his breeches. "_How_ to acquire skill" is probably what is meant.

On page 232, "Jeremy Taylor is among the best models of long sentences which are both clear and logical." Jeremy Taylor is a clear and logical long sentence?! True, our learned rhetorician says so, but he doesn't mean it. He means, "In Jeremy Taylor we find some of the best examples of long sentences which are at once clear and logical."

Since the foregoing was written, the second volume of Professor Townsend's "Art of Speech" has been published. In the brief preface to this volume we find this characteristic sentence: "The author has felt that _clergymen_ more than _those_ of other professions will study this treatise." The antecedent of the relative _those_ being _clergymen_, the sentence, it will be perceived, says: "The author has felt that _clergymen_ more than _clergymen of other professions_ will study this treatise." Comment on such "art" as Professor Townsend's is not necessary.

I find several noteworthy examples of bad diction in an article in a recent number of an Australian magazine. The following are some of them: "_Large capital_ always manages to make _itself_ master of the situation; it is the small capitalist and the small landholder that would suffer," etc. Should be, "_The large capitalist ... himself_,"

etc. Again: "The small farmer would ... be despoiled ... of the meager profit which _strenuous_ labor had conquered from the _reluctant_ soil."

Not only are the epithets in italics superfluous, and consequently weakening in their effect, but idiom does not permit _strenuous_ to be used to qualify _labor_: _hard_ labor and _strenuous_ effort. Again: "Capital has always the choice _of_ a large field." Should be, "the choice _offered by_ a large field." Again: "Should capital be withdrawn, tenements would soon prove insufficient." Should be, "_the number of_ tenements would," etc. Again: "Men of wealth, therefore, would find their Fifth Avenue mansions and their summer villas a little more burdened with taxes, but with this increase happily balanced by the exemption of their bonds and mortgages, their plate and furniture." The thought here is so simple that we easily divine it; but, if we look at the sentence at all carefully, we find that, though we supply the ellipses in the most charitable manner possible, the sentence really says: "Men would find their mansions more burdened, but would find them with this increased burden happily balanced by the exemption," etc. The sentence should have been framed somewhat in this wise: "Men ... would find their ... mansions ... more burdened with taxes, but this increase in the taxes on their real estate would be happily balanced by the exemption from taxation of their bonds, mortgages, plate, and furniture." Again: "Men generally ... would be inclined to laugh at the idea of intrusting the modern politician with such gigantic opportunities for enriching his favorites." We do not _intrust_ one another with _opportunities_. _To enrich_ would better the diction.

Again: "The value of land that has accrued from labor is not ... a just object for confiscation." Correctly: "The value of land that has _resulted_ from labor is not _justly_ ... an object _of_ confiscation."

_Accrue_ is properly used more in the sense of _spontaneous growth_.

Again: "If the state attempts to confiscate this increase by means of taxes, either rentals will increase correspondingly, or such a check will be put upon _the_ growth _of each place_ and _all the_ enterprises _connected with it_ that greater injury would be done than if things had been left untouched." We have here, it will be observed, a confusion of moods; the sentence begins in the indicative and ends in the conditional. The words in italics are worse than superfluous. Rewritten: "If the state _should_ attempt to confiscate this increase by means of taxes, either rentals _would_ increase correspondingly, or such a check _would_ be put upon growth and enterprise that greater injury would,"

etc. Again: "The _theory_ that land ... is a _boon_ of Nature, to which every person has an inalienable right equal to every other person, is not new." The words _theory_ and _boon_ are here misused. A _theory_ is a system of suppositions. The things man receives from Nature are _gifts_, not _boons_: the gift of reason, the gift of speech, etc. The sentence should be: "The _declaration_ (or _a.s.sertion_) that land ... is a _gift_ of Nature, to which every person has an inalienable right equal to _that of any_ other person, is not new." Or, more simply and quite as forcibly: "... to which one person has an inalienable right equal to that of another, is not new." Or, more simply still, and more forcibly: "... to which one _man_ has as good a right as another, is not new." By subst.i.tuting the word _man_ for _person_, we have a word of one syllable that expresses, in this connection, all that the longer word expresses.

The fewer the syllables, if the thought be fully expressed, the more vigorous the diction. Inalienability being foreign to the discussion, the long word _inalienable_ only enc.u.mbers the sentence.

"We have thus[1] pa.s.sed in review[2] the changes and improvements[3]

which the revision contains[4] in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

It has[5] not, indeed,[6] been possible to refer to[7] them all; but so many ill.u.s.trations[8] have been given in[9] the several cla.s.ses described that the reader will have[10] a satisfactory[11] survey of the whole subject. Whatever may be said of other portions[12] of the New Testament, we think it will be generally admitted that in this Epistle the changes have improved the old[13] translation. They are such as[14]

make the English version[15] conform more completely[16] to the Greek original. If this be[17] true, the revisers have done a good work for the Church.[18] If it be true[19] with regard to all the New Testament books, the work which they have done will remain[20] a blessing to the readers of those books for[21] generations to come. But the blessing will be only in the clearer presentation of the Divine truth, and, therefore, it will be only to the glory of G.o.d."

This astonishingly slipshod bit of composition is from the pen of the Rev. Dr. Timothy Dwight. If the learned Professor of Divinity in Yale College deemed it worth while to give a little thought to manner as well as to matter, it is probable that his diction would be very different from what it is; and, if he were to give a few minutes to the making of verbal corrections in the foregoing paragraph, he would, perhaps, do something like this: 1, change _thus_ to _now_; 2, write _some of_ the changes; 3, strike out _and improvements_; 4, for _contains changes_ subst.i.tute some other form of expression; 5, instead of _has been_, write _was_; 6, strike out _indeed_; 7, instead of _refer to_, write _cite_; 8, change _ill.u.s.trations_ to _examples_; 9, instead of _in_, write _of_; 10, instead of _the reader will have_, write _the reader will be able to get_; 11, change _satisfactory_ to _tolerable_; 12, change _portions_ to _parts_; 13, not talk of the _old_ translation, as we have no new one; 14, strike out as superfluous the words _are such as_; 15, change _version_ to _text_; 16, subst.i.tute _nearly_ for _completely_, which does not admit of comparison; 17, subst.i.tute the indicative for the conditional; 18, end sentence with the word _work_; 19, introduce _also_ after _be_; 20, instead of _remain_, in the sense of _be_, use _be_; 21, introduce _the_ after _for_. As for the last sentence, it reminds one of Mendelssohn's "Songs without Words," though here we have, instead of a song and no words, words and no song, or rather no meaning. As is often true of cant, we have here simply a syntactical arrangement of words signifying--nothing.

If Professor Dwight were of those who, in common with the Addisons and Macaulays and Newmans, think it worth while to give some attention to diction, the thought conveyed in the paragraph under consideration would, perhaps, have been expressed somewhat in this wise:

"We have now pa.s.sed in review some of the changes that, in the revision, have been made in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It was not possible to cite them all, but a sufficient number of examples of the several cla.s.ses described have been given to enable the reader to get a tolerable survey of the whole subject. Whatever may be said of the other parts of the New Testament, we think it will be generally admitted that in this Epistle the changes have improved the translation. They make the English text conform more nearly to the Greek. This being true, the revisers have done a good work; and, if it be also true with regard to all the New Testament books, the work which they have done will be a blessing to the readers of these books for the generations to come."

DIE WITH. Man and brute die _of_, and not _with_, fevers, consumption, the plague, pneumonia, old age, and so on.

DIFFER. Writers differ _from_ one another in opinion with regard to the particle we should use with this verb. Some say they differ _with_, others that they differ _from_, their neighbors in opinion. The weight of authority is on the side of always using _from_, though A may differ _with_ C from D in opinion with regard, say, to the size of the fixed stars. "I differ, as to this matter, _from_ Bishop Lowth."--Cobbett.

_Different to_ is heard sometimes instead of _different from_.

DIRECTLY. The Britons have a way of using this word in the sense of _when_, _as soon as_. This is quite foreign to its true meaning, which is immediately, at once, straightway. They say, for example, "_Directly_ he reached the city, he went to his brother's." "Directly he [the saint] was dead, the Arabs sent his woolen shirt to the sovereign."--"London News." Dr. Hall says of its use in the sense of _as soon as_: "But, after all, it may simply antic.i.p.ate on the English of the future."

DIRT. This word means filth or anything that renders foul and unclean, and means nothing else. It is often improperly used for earth or loam, and sometimes even for sand or gravel. We not unfrequently hear of a _dirt_ road when an unpaved road is meant.

DISCOMMODE. This word is rarely used; _incommode_ is accounted the better form.

DISREMEMBER. This is a word vulgarly used in the sense of _forget_. It is said to be more frequently heard in the South than in the North.