DR. KIDD'S DEFENCE OF "INSPECTORS' ENGLISH."

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9185, 27 April 1893, Page 6

DR. KIDD'S DEFENCE OF "INSPECTORS' ENGLISH."

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Before replying to Dr. Kidd's last letter I beg to apologise to your readers for encroaching on their patience with any more remarks—remarks, I am afraid, they must think quite unnecessary; for the learned doctor has urged nothing whatever justifying serious notice. Indeed, when reading his letter, it was painful to me to observe that lie appeared conscious of having no case to defend ; and, as having no case, felt constrained to resort to pitiful evasion to cover his retreat. Ho has, however, no one to blame for the unpleasantness of his position but himself. He attempted to do what was clearly impossible ; in other words, to defend the correctness of " Inspectors' English "—a task beyond the learning of any man. This, I think it probable, Dr. Kidd is now disposed to admit. That your readers, as well as Dr. Kidd and myself, may have the facts before them, I give the four inspectors' sentence :— "In most (?) schools the scholars showed a greater (?) capacity (?) for dealing with the simple problems which 'form' a part of every paper set." Since " A thing of beauty is a joy for ever," a few glancas at that beautiful sentence may may now be taken. Leaving out of sight the question of the tenses, the four inspectors have misapplied the superlative " most," the comparative "greator," and the word capacity" — three errors not hitherto pointed out, which, with the error in the tense, make four errors in one short sentence. A " hyperoritic," as I have been called, would not have contented himself with pointing out only one of those four errors ; or, twenty out of over fifty appearing in a page of " Inspectors' English." Now, I turn to the sequence of the tenses between the verb in the main clause and that of the verb in the dependent clause—the matter now in dispute between Dr. Kidd and myself. Glancing once more at the foregoing elegant sentence from " Inspectors' English," it will be seen that it consists of a main and a dependent clause; and I beg to repeat Dr. Kidd's quotation from Mason's Grammar, and to add to it portions very unfairly omitted by the learned doctor, marked by being enclosed in a parenthesis :— " A past tense in the main clause requires a past tense in the dependent clause ; but if the dependent clause states a universal truth— not italicised by the doctor, it is better to keep the present tense ; (as he allowed that all men are liable to error; ho denied that God exists)." Now the question, is narrowed to this:— Is the dependent clause disputed about, viz., " which form a part of every paper set," a universal truth ? It is not ; ami it is beyond Dr. Kidd's power to make it one. Conse-

quently his laboured defence of his supposed stronghold falls flat to the ground, and is not deserving of any further notice.—l am, etc., April 26, 1893. George Nield.