The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1885-10-10

The English language would soon win Q
Ieif that pre-eminence to which 1t I
n entitled. Why should not 8
defects begot rid of by agreement q
Snoonpst those who use Il as medium /
of inter. communications Because our d
forefathers passed them on to as. must ,
we fall down and worship themS II II
may suit the pathological antiquarian
to do so, but life Is too short for any q
portion of it to be wasted by earnest
men and women in admiration OF acci.
dental anomalies. Believing this, /,
heartily sympathize with the efforts OF
those who are trying to supply the
lacking pronoun for "his or her." ~
would be a great convenience to have
one. nor Is It at all difficult matter to
invent q word that would serve the
purpose. The difficulty is to get 1t
into general use, and 1t seems to me
that this can best be accomplished by
some author of great eminence and
general popularity. Neither gram
marians nor photographers, as such,
can give currency to new COINAGE.
Their business Is to classify and de-
scribe words already In use, not to In
vent new forms of speech. There are
some ways, however, in which gram
marians can render material assistance
In the work OF improving the English
language, and it is to be regretted that
they have done so little In this dtrec-
ton. Take, for instance, the word
"whom"; why should the infiectional
ssm'' be retained to perpetually trip up
the ignorant and even prove q
stumbling block now and then to the
expert The ssm' serves no useful
purpose except to show that English
was once highly infected language,
and those who are interested In learn
ing that fact can and will always ascer-
tain 1t from old literary compositions.
It has admittedly pathological value,
but it should never be forgotten that
philology Is conditioned on the exis-
tence of language in certain form,
and that the language does not exist in
order that it may undergo pathological
analysis. The chief end of language is
to serve as medium of communica-
ton between human beings, and when.
ever a certain form is found to be prac-
tically inconvenient common sense
dictates change, whatever philo!ogy
may say. We use (which" as both
nominative and objective why not
uwho?" l have referred to the fac
that the improper use, grammaticaliy
speaking, of "who" and, whom Is
;, not confined to the ignorance
II Tt is no uncommon thing to find
very good English scholars and yer!
ss skillful English writers put "whom'
for uwho" in sentences of certain
form. and it is often difficult for then
: to see their error, even after their at
tention has been called to 1t. Tn
masses seldom use "whom," and sucl
sentences as "Who did you go with p
uWho do you blame ?' are SO com
! mon even among the educated, tina
the use of uwhom" Is becoming quit
pedantic. Aud the masses are not onl
right in ignoring the "m," which Is
dear to the heart Of the philologis
but are completing the work done b.
their ancestors between 1000 and 135'
n Wby should the "m," which is mer'
Iy q survival, not be sent after its fe
low infections? And why shout
our illiterate forefathers have been
lowed the privilege Of curtailing the
words and we be denied II? Let son
m examination of eminence have II
Y courage to give "who" as an altern
N tive for "whom'' in the objective ca
N and the latter form will soon disa
pear. Again, why should we keep
a losing struggle against the objecti
form of the personal pronoun atter u
verb "to be?" The Frenchmar
uc'est Moi'' is described as idiomat
Ill the Englishman's otis mo" is descr'
is ed as ungrammatical. And yet 1t
H. far more common than "irs l." MO
~ over, it sometimes taxes even go
English scholars skill to keep out
TO error in the use OF his pronouns.
e. his eagerness to be right, he son
n times goes wrong in such sentences
81 know 1t to be him." If the OBJ
tive form were allowable In all ca
after the verb "to be-" the confus
and liability to error would soon
- pear. and the language would be a
cided gamer by the change, which
one that can easily be brought al
by a consensus of grammarians.
the majority go wrong now all tina
necessary is to say that they are rig
and then the minority will bect
pedants. The last improvement WI
. I would suggest is to allow certain
Il iec,ives to be used as adve
especially "good" and chad" IN
done in German with great advant
III and tho gain would be equally ciea
English, IL the practice were adop
Moreover, many people use
words as adverbs now. "He has
his work goods is not merely
mon form of expression, 1t ID COZ