The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-04-12
lfcr the Dispsich.l
4 Few Words About Grammar.

1fcr the Dispaich.1
A Few Words About Grammar.
Somebody has said that Languages are
not made ~ a carpenter makes box with
line. and rule, and saw, and plane. and
hammer-but that they 9ro,c Ike trees" j
cannot cite the author nor quote his words
but think that have given his meaning,
and that he Is right.
Now, from this deduce these differences :;
First. That In language, as in trees, there
will be irregularities OF growth; which In
The latter are twists and knots, and in the
former are what the grammarians call
sidioms."
Secondly. That language must be first
spoken and afterwards written before II
can be made the subject Of criticism.
Thirdly. That the critics aud grammar
rians have 10 other material TO work upon
but the speeches and writings OF their pre-
decessors; and that when they proceed 10
Law down rules and principles, the only
sound foundation upon which they can
build is the usage and practice OF the best
sneakers and writers. Beyond that they
spin. like spiders, out Of their own bowels,
and the web is likely to be ilimSy.
But here, as in other cases, men are very
ant 10 "magniiy their Office" and TO as
sumo the position Of judges over the mas
tiers who have made them what they are.
So we sometimes see n clerk in public
employment who looks upon the govern
ment as n machine erected for the purpose
OF grinding out his salary, and on his fe!-
low-cltizens a. only created TO bring the
Erist to the mill.
uarris's "uermes,' Is the only book on
the subject Of grammar that / ever cared
TO read twice. He was scholar, a PM
losophcr, and no pedant.
For myself. | do not claim 10 be a gram
marian in 9ny technical sense. But have
in the course OF = long life become some
what acquainted with few OF the best
authors OF English. in prose and verse, for
the last three centuries. and, like person
who has been accustomed TO near good
music, without being able 70 read the score.
/ can generally detect a fault in time or
tune on the part Of player, even though
I cannot define 1t In words, and, in the
same way, il l happen to offend against
some of the modern authorities, am quick
20 seek shelter among those who are sllli
recognized as " classics"
One day | was talking with friend,
who was a graduate OF New England
university. and who was sound, sensible.
well-iniormed. and accomplished gentle
III,
I happcned to say of some acquaintance,
ale Is Il go0d-loOkiaq fellow!" My friend
took me no. "That is ungrammatical,"
SAYS he. "Why SOP" / replied; "and il
that is ungrammatical, what should say"
..You should say lcClI-looking," he an
swered. "But that would not express my
meaning. / mean that he is cOmeiB rather
handsome. If / said icell-looking that
would imply that he seems in good heath. L
admit that W-lOoking means ugly and for
bidding, but stili lcell-looking does not
mean Tie opposite" My friend rejoined
thus Why. do not you see that good
is An adjective, and cannot be joined with
a participle such as 'iooLring'? You must
substitute an adverb such as 'lceH,' or the
sentence Is not grammar" i said MY
dear Charles, / don't know an adyerh, nor
an adjective. when j see 1t, and | never |
could find my way through the verbs, and |
the nouns and pronouns, and the
conjunctions, and the propositions, |
and the other pitfalls of the Grammar. |
But would like to know whether you
think Oliver Goldsmith was good writer
of English ?" Undoubtedly; none bet
ter" he answered very promptly. Every
well, them" l resumed, "In one Of bis
poems Q think it is the Haunch OF Vent
sOUl ut tllus utSCIlDts uii lillDtItlHCHi III
truder: San under-bred. .tiRe-SpOlcea fel-
low was he.' In the first edition: A
fne-spoben cuSt0m-h0uSe officer he.'
History repeats itself. Now, in this
line Goldsmith not only uses the
adjective fine as an adverb, but
he turns the passive participle spoken
into an active par1iciple to convey the idea
of 'Speakinq.' What do you say to that"
NV friend. after being silent a little while.
said that she could not understand it. 1t
was q strange mistake for Goldsmith to
make" TO which / replied: "Suppose
we amend it. Other people have corrected
Shakespeare and Milton, and even the
Scriptures. Suppose we say: 'An under
bred, .fnely-SpedkinJ fellow was he.'"
That was the last word, and my friend was
candid enough to admit that there were
such things as " idioms" in all languages.
By the way, were it not for idioms, how
could we say. "John's dog" and "Mary's
lamb?" which certainly mean in letters
John his dog" "Mary his lamb" TO
be correct and consistent we should say
" his'n" (his OWN and "her'n " (her OWN,
according to the sweet old verse
"When Peggys arms her dog imprisOn,
I often wish nav lot was his'n:
How Offpn WOuld | stand Am furn