Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Canon the seventh.

The second canon on this subject is, When etymology plainly points to a signification different from that which the word commonly bears, propriety and simplicity both require its dismission.

I use the word plainly, because, when the ety

words is very rough, and the two first have as much of the hissing letters as any English word whatever. The Italian is considered, and I believe justly, as the most musical of all languages, yet there are in it some sounds which even to us, accustomed to a dialect boisterous like our weather, appear harsh and jarring. Such are incrocicchiare, sdruccioloso, spregiatrice. There is a great difference between words which sound harshly, but are of easy pronunciation to the natives, and those words which even to natives occasion difficulty in the utterance, and consequently convey some idea of awkwardness to the hearer, which is prejudicial to the design. There are in the languages of all countries, many words which foreigners will find a difficulty in pronouncing, that the natives have no conception of. The Greeks could not easily articulate the Latin terminations in ans and ens. On the other hand, there were many sounds in Greek which appeared intolerable to the Latins, such as words beginning with ur, PD, 4, x1, xt, and many others. No people have so studiously avoided the collision of consonants as the Italians. To their delicate ears pt, ct, and cs, or x, though belonging to different syllables, and interposed between vowels, are offensive, nor can they easily pronounce them. Instead of apto, and lecto, and Alexandro, they must say atto, and letto, and Allessandro. Yet these very people begin some of their words with the three consonants sdr, which to our ears are perfectly shocking. It is not therefore so much harshness of sound, as difficulty of utterance, that should make some words be rejected altogether. The latter tends to divert our attention, and consequently to obstruct the effect. The former hath not this tendency, unless they be obtruded on us too frequently.

mology is from an ancient or foreign language, or from obsolete roots in our own language, or when it is obscure or doubtful, no regard should be had to it. The case is different, when the roots either are, or strongly appear to be, English, are in present use, and clearly suggest another meaning. Of -this kind is the word beholden, for obliged or indebted. It should regularly be the passive participle of the verb to behold, which would convey a sense totally different. Not that I consider the term as equivocal, for in the last acceptation it hath long since been disused, having been supplanted by beheld. But the formation of the word is so analogical, as to make it have at least the appearance of impropriety, when used in a sense that seems naturally so foreign to it, The word beholding, to express the same thing, is still more exceptionable than the other, and includes a real impropriety, being an active form with a passive signification. To vouchsafe, as denoting to condescend, is liable to a similar exception, and for that reason, more than for its harshness, may be dispensed with. Coaction and coactive, as signifying compulsion and compulsive, though regularly deduced from the Latin coactum, have so much the appearance of being compounded of the English words action and active, with the inseparable preposition co, which would give them a meaning quite different, that one can scarcely hear them without some tendency to mis

take the sense. The verb to unloose, should analogically signify to tie, in like manner as to untic signifies to loose. To what purpose is it then, to retain a term, without any necessity, in a signification the reverse of that which its etymology manifestly suggests? In the same way to annul and to disannul, ought by analogy to be contraries, though irregularly used as synonymous. The verb to unravel, commonly indeed, as well as analogically, signifies to disentangle, to extricate; sometimes, however, it is absurdly employed to denote the contrary, to disorder, to entangle, as in these lines in the address to the goddess of Dulness,

Or quite unravel all the reasoning thread,

And hang some curious cobweb in its stead *.

All considerations of analogy, propriety, perspicuity, unite in persuading us to repudiate this preposterous application altogether.

Canon the eighth.

The third canon is, when any words become obsolete, or at least are never used, except as constituting part of particular phrases, it is better to dispense with their service entirely, and give up the phrases.

* Dunciad, B. i.

The reasons are; first, because the disuse in ordinary cases renders the term somewhat indefinite ; and occasions a degree of obscurity: secondly, because the introduction of words which never appear but with the same attendants, gives the style an air of vulgarity and cant. Examples of this we have in the words lief, dint, whit, moot, pro, and con, I had as lief go myself,' for I should like 'as well to go myself.' He convinced his anta

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

gonist by dint of argument,' that is, by strength ' of argument.' He made them yield by dint of arms,'' by force of arms.' "He is not a whit 'better,'-' no better.' The case you mention is a moot point,'-' a disputable point.' The ⚫ question was strenuously debated pro and con,'' on both sides.'

[ocr errors]

6

Canon the ninth.

[ocr errors]

The fourth and last canon I propose, is, All those phrases, which, when analysed grammatically, include a solecism, and all those to which use hath affixed a particular sense, but which, when explained by the general and established rules of the language, are susceptible either of a different sense or of no sense, ought to be discarded altogether.

It is this kind of phraseology which is distinguish ed by the epithet idiomatical, and hath been originally the spawn, partly of ignorance, and partly of affectation. Of the first sort, which includes a

solecism, is the phrase, I had rather do such a thing,' for 'I would rather do it.' The auxiliary had, joined to the infinitive active do, is a gross violation of the rules of conjugation in our language, and though good use may be considered as protecting this expression from being branded with the name of a blunder, yet as it is both irregular and unnecessary, I can foresee no inconvenience that will arise from dropping it. I have seen this idiom criticised in some essay, whose name I cannot now remember, and its origin very naturally accounted for, by supposing it to have sprung from the contraction I'd, which supplies the place both of I had, and of I would, and which hath been at first ignorantly resolved into I had, when it ought to have been I would. The phrase thus frequently mistaken, hath come at length to establish itself, and to stand on its own foot *.

Of the second sort, which, when explained gram

* Whether with Johnson and Lowth we should consider the phrases by this means, by that means, it is a means, as liable to the same exception, is perhaps more doubtful. Priestley considers the word means as of both numbers, and of such nouns we have several examples in the language. But it may be objected, that as the singular form mean is still frequently to be met with, this must inevitably give to the above phrases an appearance of solecism, in the judgment of those who are accustomed to attend to the rules of syntax. But however this may induce such critics to avoid the expressions in question, no person of taste, I presume, will venture so far to violate the present usage, and consequently to shock the ears of the generality of readers, as to say, 'By this mean,' or 'By that mean.'

« AnteriorContinuar »