OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS COLUMN.

Otago Witness, Issue 2661, 15 March 1905, Page 82

OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS COLUMN.

o . FOE, BOYS AND GlßLS[Conducted by Magister to whom all coE3» niumcations must be Addressed.] FAULTY DICTION IX ENGLISH. In The School World for last November there is an article headed as above. It opens by baying: " Ihe encouragement ■vow being given to the teaching oi .English in schools must meet with the approval of ev&ry student of literature. The- language is to be studied as a living organism, the structure and growth of which are to he guarded carefully from all degrading influences. In the currency of our speech, we should bo careful not to let our coinage become debased. New words and new ex-pies-sions must often be accepted, btk there should be a desire to dishonour tho false phrases which continually are being presented." And further on gives examples of what ought to be avoided. One is the sp.it infinitive," which, however, I am quite sure, has come to stay — at anyrate in the caso of simple adverbs. And so has tho word "scientist." Bv-the-bye, Clement Shorter, who writes the page " A Literary Letter " in the Sphere, makes a most emphatic objection to " and ' following a full stop. But I'll not give any more criticisms. Here are some of the expressions stylists object to : perhaps you will notice in your future reading how prevalent are these offences against style, or grammar, cr both : — " Little can be said in justification of the use of the split infinitive. Such expressions as 'to at once cheerfully give ' or 'to, if it were possible, still more- confirm us in our resolve ' stand self-condemned, but many writers who would naturally avoid those cumbrous phrases would not hesitate to U'-e the inelegant constructions 'to seriously consider ' and 'to clearly see.' A sufficient reason for avoiding this custom of placing an adverb or adverbial phrase between the ' to ' and the verb itself is that tho best authors seldom do it. No editor with fine literary instincts approves the use of the spit infinitive in his columns, and we have to go to prospectuses, advertisements, second - rate newspapers, aid third-rate novels for instances o& this objectionable habit. It is possib'e that, in a few rases, the in.crpolation of the adverb may acid to the force or clearness of a clause, but usually nothing is gained by separating the verb from its attendant particle. Thus, though split infinitives are not actually ungrammatical, they are not sanctioned by good literature, and are both unnecessary and inelegant, so that writers who desire to cultivate good style in composition would do well to avoid them entirely. "It is a common blunder to use ' and which ' incorrect^ Generally, either the pronoun or the cc ction can be omitted, or the former is mN t Thus, in ' these scenes, which are painful to see, and ■which occur every day,' the second WHICH is not required ; and in ' these scenes, painful to wiiness, and which occur every day,' the conjunction is intrusive. When, however, entirely distinct statements are expressed by the two clauses, or the cases are different, the rei-^ive may be repeated. An example of the i.rst kind is presented by the sentence, ' The results, which substantiate my earlier views, and which I wi'l describe ' ; for one clause has its verb ' substantiate ' in tho present ter.se, while tha other has its verb ' describe ' in the future. ' And which ' is also used correctly in the sentence. ' His Majesty's selfsaorifice on behalf of his country, which he rules so well, and which esteems him so highly, is beyond all praise.' Here the word ' which ' occurs in two different cas**s, tht> first ' which ' being object of the verb ' rules ' and the second subject of the verb 'esteems. ' ''Nose is a contraction of 'not one,' but it is also used in the sense of ' not any,' and can therefore be followed by either a singular or a plural verb. The singular verb is more effective than the plural m such a sentence as ' There is noxe that doeth good ; not, not one ' ; but the plural verb is correct in 'none of the birds have left their nests.' The concord must, in fact, depend upon the sense in which the word ' none ' is used ; for, though the word w&a originally singular, a plural meaning now equally belongs to it. "The word circumstances literally means ' things that stand around ' ; there is thus an inconsistency in the expression ' under the circumstances,' but use has sanctioned this phrase. In such a sentence as ' When men are happy in their circumstances, they are naturally enemies to innovation,' the preposition in is obviously the right word, and the use of in insfead of ttndeb in all circumstances is above criticism, if nothing more. The stylists who prefer 'in the circumstances ' should, however, bo consistent, and not write 'in the following circumstances,' or 'in my thes circumstances,' for both forms disnlay an awkward misuse- of words. "The word rsliable has few friends, its formation being irregular, and its meaning the same as trustworthy. There are many other words — laughable, for example — ■ which are open to the same (jbjection on. the ground of loose formation, but while these are tolerated ' reliable ' is not recognised by many stylists as worthy of a place in an English vocabulary. Some authors make tho distinction of applying the word ' reliable ' to things or statements, and ' trustworthy ' to persons, but as so many lovers of literature object entirely to the word, and, as The Times and numerous literary journals will not permit its use in their pages, the word should be avoided by writers not strong enough to establish it byauthority. " The phrase ' theso sort of things ' is common enough in colloquial language, but a, glance at it is sufficient to recognise its inaccuracy. There can bo 'this sort of thing,' or 'these sorts of things,' but the combination of a singular noun with an adjective in the plural is obviously wrong-, and it is a wonder the blunder has found currency among people who like to speak correctly. " Scientist Is of American origin, and it is not accepted by Nature, the leading journal of science, or by The Times. ' iten of science, 3 as a rule, prefer to bo described as such or as investigators, though the former phrase is cumbrous, and the latter suggests Scotland Yard or Mr Sherlock' Holmes. "Firstly should _ l bo used for pies?, feafe SECONpIi and ,i ■ eto« gsq c£2»

rect. 'Different to' and 'different than,' 1 instead of ' different pkom,' are common but indefensible errors, whether they occur in speech or writing. ' Quite good,' ' quite large,' ' quite a number,' and ' quite a few ' are Americanisms which are best avoided- The modern ,QUITJB SO, used as a substitute for yes in .England, has_, curiousVy enough, not been adopted in the United States. L.^T, which denotes position, should not be used in the sense of iatest, which denotes time. Thus. ' the latest (not last) report of the Board of Trade.' - To refer to extraordinary or wonderful things as phexohienal is to adopt inept journalese. Littoral is unwanted, ■while we have such words as sea-coast, coast, strand, beach, coastline, and shore, ■which express the same meaning. It is better to direct attention to a matter than to call attention io it. Scabcelt is often a better word to us© than hardly, and is always correctly employed in expressing quantity, as in ' the boy was scarcely a yard from me.' The use of the verb traxspiee, in the sense of 'to happen or take place,' is common among newspaper .reporters, but this perversion of meaning is severely censured by literary critics. The word is, however, correctly used in expressing escape from secrecy or becoming public, as in the decision of the Cabinet soon transpired.' " Perhaps you would like to know what books the writer advises students of Engiisn to .study. They are : — "Words and Their Ways in Eng-ish Speech." " The Makiner of English." "Errors in English Composition." " Notes on the Composition of Scientifio Papers."