Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1873-01-01
MISUSE OF LANGUAGE.

authoritative misuse Of language is
the use of h1d in the phrases Ihdd
rather, yO't 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 writers. Nothing, how
ever, among the few enduring certain
ties of language, is more certain than
that had expresses perfscted and past
possession. How, then, consistently
with reason, and with its constant and
universally accepted meaning in eve
ry other connection, can il be used 10
express future action? A perception
of this incongruity and consequent
uneasiness as to the use of these
phrases is becoming quite common,
and it is safe TO say that they will ere
long begin to be dropped in favor of
more logical and self consistent pbras-
I eolOgy. Had rather will probably
yield to lrOuld rather, and had better
to might better. Ia like position is the
use of the perfect ininitive to express
contingent action, as If had have
done, was ready to have gone, which
is supported by the usage of centuries.
/ Bishop Jewell writes, "the church
was ready to have fallen.n There
seems to be no doubt that this is logic
ally incorrect. Jewell meant that the
church was ready to fall we should
say. If L had done, was ready to go
and we may be sure that ere long this
phraseOlogy will be deliberately sub
stituted for the other, on logical
grounds.
1 pass over right dJCdy in the sense
of Immediately, which is in common
use here among the most cultivated
people, merely with the mention Of it
as altogether unjustifiable on any
| ground, and as having no affinity
whatever with Stroi3htI0dy. 1t is an
undoubtable AmeTicanism, on Of the
very few words or phrases, not slang,
which can be properly so called. Diff
ferent to is as exclusively British. 1t
has come into use since the Common
wealth 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
marked example illustrating my pres
ent position. 1t is illogical, at vari-
anee with analogy, and it is entirely
needless, as it has usurped-who
knows how or why?-the rightful
place of a good and well-cOnnected
English word, which does properly
express that which lengthy expresses
only on sufferance, and by reason of
general but unjustifiable usage. And
yet even Mr.. Lowell not only uses it,
but speaks well of il as a word " civ
! lily compromising between long and
tedious,n which we have "given back
to England" 1t is true that English
does need such a word, and therefore
had it before there could have been
Amerieanisms. For did not Puritan
sermons precede Presidents messages
Adjectives expressing likeness in quail
ity are formed in English from imma-
| teTial nouns, by a suftiX which would
/ have at once occurred to Mr.. Lowell,
if he had used, instead of the Romance
word tedious, the Anglo-Saxon tOed-
TfsoR7c or tiTesOme. The family is
! numerous, lonesome, wholesome, irk-
some, handsome lOdthsOne, trOlic-
some, 6UrdeHsoBle, and the like. And
so from Angio-SaXOn times to very
modern days we have had the analO-
gous word Lonesome, meaning so long
/ as to be almost wearisOme or tedious.
1t is common with the EliZabethean
writers, so well known TO Mr.. Lowell,
and Prior is cited for its use by Web
ster. Bishop Hall, in his d" Defence
of the Humble Remonstrance,
writes, "They have had so little mer-
cy on him as to put him to the pen
anee of their Lonesome volume" 1t
is manifest that writers who use 1Cea-
| TisOHe, 6urdcRSOHe and irkSOB1e can
| hnv Tl 70
some, which has long and eminent
| Lowell might well bring up again as
Tennyson has brought up rather. The
objection to lengthy seems to be well
taken. AS to our having given the
latter back to England, it may be said
! that an 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.
! AnothererrOr common among cul-
tivated writers and speakers is the use
of adyerbs with the verb to look, as
He looked wretchedly, she looked
beautifully. 1t might as well be said
that the grass looks greenly, or the
man looks bluely. A man who lives
wretchedly Will probably look wretch
edly; a woman who is formed and
dressed beautifully will look beauti-
ful. The error is the consequence of
a confusion of look in the sense of to
direct the eye, and lOOE in the sense
to seem, to appear. The same persons
who say that a man looked wTetehed
ly or a woman looked beautifully,
In the phrases he looked well, she
seemed iii. lUeH and ~ are not really
adverbs. Such phrases as had rath-
er, you had better, had have done,
ready to have fallen, right away, diff
ferent to, and looked wretchedly, have,
it need hardly be said, nothing in
common with such as We made the
land, the ship stood up the bay, he
took his journey Jewell writes "toOke
his progTesse y J they came in thick,
he took her to wife, q house hard by,
he took up with her, he did it out of
hand, won't put up with it, given
to hospitality, stricken with years.
The latter are truly idiOmatic and gen.
orally metaphOrical; and although
they defy analysis, they are not, like
the former, at vari1nce with them
selves and defiant of freason.-Richdrd
! Cr-o-,f TTrIsFa IN, T~fs,srrfs.sf IfrTT~fs-,f