Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1872-12-30
Misuse of Language.

authoritative misuse OF language lS tue
use of had in the phrases had rather,
you had better. This has the sanction
of usage for centuries, not only by the
English speaking people generally, but
by their greatest and most careful wri-
ters. Nothing, however, among the few
enduring certainties of language is more
certain than that had expresses per-
fected and past possession. How, then,
consistently with reason, and with its
constant and universally accepted mean
ing in every other eonnecti1s, can it be
used to express future action2 A per-
ception of this incongruity and conse-
quent uneasiness as to tae use of these
phrases is becoming common, and it is
safe to say that they will ere long begin
to be dropped in favor of more logical
and selfconsstent phraseology. Had
rather will probably yield to would
ratbsr, and had better to might better.
In like position is the use Of the perfect
infnitiye 10 express contingent action,
as of ! had have done, was ready to
have gone, which is supported by the
hest usage of centuries. Bishop Jewell
writes, 'the church was ready to have
fallen" There seems to be no doubt
that this is logically incorrect jewell
meant that the church was ready to fall
we should say if ] had done, ] was ready
to 90; and we may be sure that ere long
this phraseology will be deliberately
substituted for the other on logical
grounds.
pass over right array in the sense of
Immediately, which is in common use
here among the most cultivated people,
merely with the mention of it as alto
eether unjustiGable on any ground, and
as having no affinity whatever with
straightway. II is an undoubtaolIe
Americanism, one Of the veTy few words
or phrases, not slang, which can be
properly so called. Different TO is as
exclusively British. 1t has come into
use since the Commonwealth and the
Restoration, and it pervades British
speech and literature even OF the highest
class.
A word used in both countries, but
more commonly with us, lengthy, is a
marked example illustrating my present
position. 1t is illogical, at VARIANCE
with analogy, aud it is entirely needless,
as it has usurped-who knows how or
why2-the rightful place of a good and
well.cpnnected English word, which does
properly express that which lengthy ex-
presses only on suheFanoe, and by pea
son of general but unjustifiable usage.
And yet even Mr.. Lowell not only uses
it, but speaks well of it as a word "civilly
between long, and tedi-
ous," which we have given back to
1t Is true that English does
need such O word, and, therefore, had it
before there could have been American
isms, for did not Puritan sermons precede
Presidents messages2 Adjectives ex-
pressing likeness in quality are formed
in English from immateriaf nouns, by
sufiix which would have at once occurred
10 Mr.. Lowell, if he had used, instead of
the romance word tedious, the Anglo
Saxon wedris0Ne or tireSOme. The fam
ily is numerous, ionesOms, WbgteSQRe,
irksOne, handsome, lenfhs0me, fTOltck-
some, burdenSome, and the like. And so
from Anglo.Saxon times to very modern
tayg we have had the analogous word
Lonesome, meaning so long as to be
almost wearisome or tedious. 1t is com
mon with the Elizabethan writers, so
we'll known to Mr.. Lowell, and Prior is
cited TOR its use by Webster Bishop
Hall, Ia his Defense of the Humble
writes; They have had
90 little mercy on him as to put him to
The penance of their Lonesome volume"
II is manifest that writer's whOuse weari-
some, irkseBie and bHrdeRSome, can have
no consistent objection 10 foHgsoale,
which has long and eminent usage in its
favor, and which Mr. Lowell might well
bring up again as Tennyson has brought
lp rather. The objection to lengthy
seems to be well taken. As to our having
.iyen the latter back to England, it may
be said that IN instance of the use Of the
word before England gave her people and
her language to America has not yet
been produced, and according to my
observation does not exist.
Another error common among culti- |
vated writer's and speakers is the use Of 1
adverbs with the verb to look, as He
looked wretchedly, she looked ,beauti' |
Iully. Il might as we'll be said that the
grass looks greenly, or the man looks
Dluely. A man who lives wretchedly |
will probably look wretched; woman
who is formed and dressed beautifully |
will look beautiful. The error is the !
Of a confusion Of look |
in the sense oftodirect the eye, and look |
IN the sense Of to see, to appear. The |
,ame persons who say that a man looked |
rretchedly or a woman looked beau
iifully, would not say that be seemed |
ulreschedly or she seemed beautifully. |
u the phrases he looked weli, she |
,eemed in nell and ia are not really |