GRAMMATICAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4484, 11 October 1901, Page 2

GRAMMATICAL.

"DOMINIE” AND THE EDIT CATION AD COMMISSION. {By “Ex.Dominie.”) .. I have read "with, great interest a series of articles by “Dominie” on. the Educational Commission and its report. I cannot say that I' admire the spirit manifested in these articles. “Dominie” seems to me-to spoil a fairly good case by unduly harping on the “presumption and illiteracy” of certain {if not all) members of the Commission. 1 am but a tyro, I feel, in the art of English composition. I rarely re-read any of my own compositions without coming upon things that might be put more effectively and perhaps more grammatically. If I am not greatly mistaken I have had one thing—let me say, rather, privilege —in common with "Dominie”; I have been brought up so far as my composition and my grammar are concerned at the feet of Professor Bain. - , With these prefatory remarks, let me come to deal with "Dominie’s” article oh the English of the Commission’s report. In his first paragraph I find—“blunders and mistakes numerously occur.” Is that not bad English? It is certainly as harsh as any so-called “split-infinitive” could well be. Would not —“in which numerous blunders and mistakes occur,” be much more admissible? He takes exception to •the use o£ “proposed" for “purposed.” The word “purposed” is, let me say, rarely, if ever,” met with in good English nowadays. It. is less pleasant to' the ear, and so has been as good as superseded. The fact that it conveys the meaning intended more correctly than “propose ” cannot save it. “Dominie” also objects to “every publicity.” This is a ■ strictly idiomatic use of “every.” _ We find the most classical of our English writers use such combinations. “Every hope,” “every confidence,” “all joy,” are frequently met with. I admit that there are abstract grammatical laws violated in such usages, but this does not render them inadmissible. If it did. ninety per cent, of our English idioms would have to be abandoned.

Here is another sentence from '‘Dominie V' letter'which seems to me of highly doubtful propriety: "That it should yet make tender 'of some of its superabundant knowledge to the Parliament of the country, deemed doubtless in need of it, as to the. precise extent of the public interests, is a proceeding which might be expected.” Bain would either recast this sentence, or break it up into two. He would, in my humble, opinion, strongly object to "yet make tender of,” to "doubtless” and probably to the se, quence of tense in "might be expected.” \ "Dominie” tells us that his Sixth Standard detected "the three errors” in the following short sentence from the report: • —"To use the 'terms ’ head of department or ‘infant mistress’ is liable to a wrong conception of the positions' of such officers. ”, Now, the great majority of our grammarians defend the use of such plurals." They are perhaps .grammatically doubtful, but they are logically'correct. I also find in "DomiftieV’ letter the following::—"I hare now to exhibit l - (?) a specimen of a new kind, the separation of the word 'to’ from the verb it .accompanies, a blunder committed only by illiterate persons.” This statement discloses great ignorance of the controversy regarding the' split infinitive. The question was raised and fully, discussed in the columns of "Literature,” some months ago. Several eminent grammarians and philologists contributed to the discussion. Opinion was pretty equally divided on the question,- yet to my mind, the argument in favour of the . split-infinitive was overwhelmingly strong. If the split-infinitive IB wrong, why is the use of an adverb (or its equivalent) between the auxiliaries, "will,” "shall," "can,” “may," “have” an r I their accompanying verbs permissible? Has our friend "Dominie” studied the vise of this "infinitive” in other members of the Teutonic group of languages? Take—“l asked him kindly, to clear opt," and "I asked him to kindly clear: out.” Do these statements mean the same thing? Could"Dominie” express the moaning of the,second sentence more ox. nrossively by any other, arrangement? The use of. the split-infinitive is often inelegant; it is often, however, perfectly; legitimate. I meet with instances of the: split infinitive in the lending literary and academic periodicals of the day. " ■ • ! Take this sentence frpm "Dominie's” article:—"But what an amazing degree of ineptitude in the art of expressing thought and wliatan amazing degree of ignorance on the most rudimentary usages 'of the' language have I not exhibited?” This is the unfcindest cut of all! If "Dominic" reads the sentence carefully, he will find, that it contains.in point of fact an admiss'O’l (pr ‘exhibition” to use his own term) ofdiis own "ineptitude” and "ignorance !” '“What an amazing degree of ineptitude . . . . and what an amazing decree of ignorance have I not exhibited ~ ■ I notice several other trivial things (such as beginning a sentence with "and") to which an exacting grammarian would object. I have not written this hv wav of having a fling at "Dominie.” I have doneit rather to show that both "Dominie” and myself (presumably) may, in our • haste do things, which we would he , incapable of doing on sober reflection. I enjoyed his letters. They were, however, couched in rather extravagant language,' and the "spirit” showed, occasionally, what.l took to he some "grudge" or "grievance.” If I bad tjme to rc-write this communication, I .believe that I could improve upon it considerably as an exercise,in English composition-' If “Dominie” takes the liberty of submitting it to the tender mercies of his sixth standard, I shall not dispute his right, nor yet- resent publication of the strictures or criticism of those purils, who are privileged to be members of the "said standard!”

‘'Too many cooks spoil the broth.” This accounts for the faulty English of the report of the Educational Commission. Recently the Professorial Board of Victoria OriEfre memorialised the City Council re the Kelbnrno Park site.' 1 should greatly epioy leading '‘Dominie’s’ 5 strictures op the English of tho ‘'memorial.” This ''phenomenal'! sixth standard might V.‘3 given an opportunity of enlightening the community as to what they have got for their monev in the; "grammatical ’’ "personnel” of the "collcotivo wisdom” of Victoria College! Was 1 it "Dominie” who some little time ego dealt - with Mr Lee’s grammatical noccadiilosi' fOsr_ tainjy jiot.—Editor "N.Z. Times.’”] I Wag greatly amused on observing re. oently that the editor of. tlio ‘‘New Zealand Times” apprised a correspondent "that it was too late 'in the day to dirmiss the split-infinitive.” I quite agree; it: .has come to stiy—even ,if '‘Dominie” and"eT-Dominie” should continue to "eloquently”, protest against it.

ANOTHER CRITIC. ■ I notice (writes ■ "E.J.C”) that "Do mini©/' with hia redoubtable sixth, standard,. haa held up , to scorn the English of the Educational, Commission's report. After seeing this example of ‘'Dominie’s” critical - skill. I should'like to have his: opinion on several points in his own let injv . : ’ "Mistakes numerously occur.” " Can "Dominie” quote the use" of this adverb by any goad English author? ; “The jumbling. together of the active, and passive constructions.” Are these constructions so jumbled together* as to form some new, strange ' hybrid ?. ‘, Oh. "Dominie,” is there no difference between "The black and white, dogs” and' "The black and the whit© dogs'”? This time,' "Dominie,” seek wisdom from your third standard. . - "But if it had. it. should have cried out.”: Why “should” and not "would”? There is no question of duty; merely one .of contingency. ’ "Icnoranoe on' the most ntdimentary usages.” Ought we to talk of ignorance on mathematics? ‘ '* * "A blunder never committed only by illiterate-persons.” Here we may cbar:tablv errant, th-t f Were ■'is awinter’s error. But what is the force,of the redundant "yet” that, edmes immediately after ? . “Eor painting onr ignorance in the year 1901 evidenced be a Royal Commission on Education, of our rno+ber toncue.” Will ‘tDominie” Rav cnnd-'dlv whether he belisVes that this in the year 1901 of our mother toneue? It would be interesting to know what evidence the*'Commission dt*- 1 niye on this point. "That it should make tender of some of

its superabundant knowledge to the Parliament of the country, deemed doubtless in need of it. as to the precise extent, of the public interest, is a proceeding which might be expected.” “In need of it”— does this mean that the country is in,need of the Parliament, or does "Dominie" defy Lindley Murray and mean to say that the .Parliament, perhaps the country, is in need of the knowledge? What about that lovely phrase, "As to the precise extent of the public interests”? Must we Eo back a dozen words and past two phrases to link it on to "knowledge”?, .Then, if you got good grammar into so disjointed and cumbrous. a sentence, could you get good eense? . “Dominie”, asks the question—-T3ut what an amazing degree of ineptitude in the art of expressing thought,, and what an amazing degree of ignorance on the most rudimentary usages of the language have I not exhibited?” To that , question a most hearty answer can be given: "You have indeed. ‘Dominie.’”