The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-07-26
..S,sch - and $50"


------1----~----
..Such' and 49,
The American Pathological Association
met in Providence, r. L.. last Tuesday.
The first paper, prepared by Mr.. Charles
A. Busted, Of LennoX, Mass, was presented
and read by Professor Trumbull. >'lb''ali-
tally rs follows. II isa shallow production:
ERRONEOUS AND DOUBTFUL USAGE OF THE WORD
"sucH."
We are all of Us acquainted with the gram
NAUTICAL warning against the use of the adlcc-
tive such before another adjective, to qualify
It. instead Of the advcrb so. We are all OF us
en,,aIlv aware that this rule is constantly vlo-
lated. not merely by the loose and inaccurate
editors and correspondents OF newspapers,
but by some of the choicest masters OF the
language. Some of us may have remarked
instances in which il was positively inppli-
cable, both for grammatical and for logical
reasons; and others may have felt that IN Ger
tain cases the use of such for so, though grain
matically improper, was logically allowable
by a species of PROS TO sematnontcnon COLI
struction. Accordingly some persons have
been led purpoSely to ignore the grammatl,
cal rule, and even to denounce 1t as weak ana
scnselrSs pedantry. Some years ago, cor
respondent of the New York Ercnlng PoSf
maintained that "Such tall trees" was ;ts
good English us "thoSc tall trees " or "sefe-
raj tall trees" and. oddly enough, the distin-
suishcd editors and proprietors OF that pa
Uer seemed to find no fault with his concl'l-
sions. This sati1e person. by the way, de-
MED that one numcral could be used to
qualify another numeral used us name.
Such sentence as "IIe cllalked up two ones
FL, },.o fp
to this anonymous critic, bad English!
l shall examine the question by means OF
illustrative examples:
First. 4 visitor passing through grove OF
trees is struck with their height. lie cX-
claims (as most of us would he apt TOY, "
never saw such tall trees in this country"
This would he speaking ngrainmatlcally, III
the full sense of the term. Such applies 10
the quality of the substantive it docs not
enhance or otherwise modify the adjective.
But the speaker has nothing to say about the
kind, or color, or shape Of the trees, OF any
quality except their height, and the particle
Of comparison is intended to qudfJy (by
intensifying) uis quality in reference to the
other trees of the country, no matter whether
of the same or another species, no matter
what their form, color, thickness, NC, DC.
Logically, if "such tall trees" meant any
thing, it would be "trees of this kind which
are tall" 1t is clear then, OH all grounds,
that we should say, 81 never saw trees 50
tall.'
Secondly. A traveller in describing some
very degraded fellow creatures whom he has
met among the Digger Indians, in the Sums
of London or New York, anywhere. lie
says, g never saw such human beings"
Here the use of such is not only allowable,
but proper and necessary. Tosay so human
beings" or "bcngs so human," would III
yolye the exact contradiction Of his meaning.
For the particle does not enhance the adJcc-
tive, but, so fur as it affects it ut all, dlmih'
ishes and degrades it. Its not the superior
but the inferior humanity Of these persons
that eXcitcs the .trrrHtors establishment
The particle does not really qualify the adjec.
tive at all. 1t qualities the substantive, and
must be considered to base a direct connec'
ton with it.
We may also have noticed in the above cN-
ample tendency of the substantive to draw
the adjective to itself and absorb 1t. Ii the
speaker were telling his story to another
nearer, he might, perhaps, say, never SAW
such men and women" Ana tnls DrlhGs US
to class of constructions lying between the
two, of which examples have been gwen. ii
is the existence of this class which has done
Thirdly. Then. suppose Il writer, treating
of Cannibasm, Tf,uggism, kukluNiSm, any
thing savage. After cnumelatinS some OF
the facts he proceeds: "Now let us see what
was the cause of such barbarouS practices =
believe the phrase "Such barbarouS prsc-
tices" il the very one given i'll the old stand
ard gI7.rnmars to eXemplify the faulty use OF
such. Now, according to strict grammar
such il wrong here; nevertheless it has
quasi justification logically, because there Is
Il predisposition or tendency 10 view the alt'
iectiye and substantive " harbarous prac
tices y as equivalent to the single noun " bar
barities." Of course the meaning OF the
two expressions would not be precisely til'
same, but in loose way they would be re-
earded BY most persons as synonymous. lie
ferring to our first example, we see thal
there Is no one English word to express
s'tall trees.' We arrive then at these con-
clusions:
First. When the particle of comparison
applies directly to the adjective, and EN-
hances OF intensiles its meaning, so must be
used.
Secondly. When the particle does not III
tensify the adjective, and may be directly re-
ferred to the substantive, SO is the proper
word
Thirdly. When the particle refers directly
to the adjective and enhances it, but the ad-
iectiye and substantive together are equiva-
lent to and synonymous with familiar sub
stautive, though strict grammar requires so,
we may use such in speech and writing by /.
PROS to sen,diaomenon construction.
An extemporaneous discussion of the
points raised by the eSsayiSt was participated
in by Professors Whitney, Magill, Comfort,
Crosby, TrunbulL and Hadley, and Colonel