Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-17

lhou smart not coFet tiny neignoof
house - nor anything else that is
his "; that to attempt to Justify the
existing reading OF that Commandment
would be virtually to rule that it is
permissible in rhetorical enumeration
to make the meaning Of the last mem
Der OF series nullify the meaning OF
all the preceding members; that the
reading cannot be justified by the
plea Of literal translation, because the
translators frequently supplied needed
words, and even resorted to paraphra-
sing, in order to make sense Of the Eng
lish translation and that the omission
Of the word else is due simply to lack
Of knowledge Of the sciences Of Eng
lish grammar and rhetoric, which had
not been fully thought out and written
out before the time Of the translators,
and were not fully thought out by the
translators themselves for themselves.
Plainly, the Tenth Commandment
" contains " An error Of omission and
am Of the opinion that Acts, xiii,
IL, which you cite as exemplifying the
correct use OF "till," just as plainly
contains an error OF commission in the
incorrect use Of till" and that dis
cussion OF the last clause Of that verse
will throw light or the subject under
consideration.
The Jews said, according to Acts
xiii, IL, that they would neither eat
nor drink till they had killed Paul"
If they would neither eat nor dIiRk
they would certainly fast. Let US,
then, substitute "fast " for "neither
eat nor drink'-thus They would
fast till they had killed Paul" This
means, as / understand it, that they
would fast during every moment Of
time between the moment Of binding
themselves and the moment Of killing
Paul. The clause so written is perspi-
cuous. Now insert "not' between
.'they would" and I" fast" thus:
They would not fast till they had kill
ed Paul" Does not this admit Of ex-
pansion into " they would not fast DUR
ing every moment Of time between the
moment Of binding themselves and the
moment Of killing Paul?" think it
does, and that this expansion is upper
spicuous; for in saying they would not
fast during every moment of period OF
time, they would express, not resolve
not to fast at all during that period,
but a resolve not to fast during the
entire period. If, however, we substi-
tute - before " for " till " in the mega
tive clause-thus "They would not
fast before they had killed Paul.
then this reading becomes, ike the posi-
tive one, perspicuous.
Possibly this attempted simplilica-
ton Of the construction Of the clause
may make it plain that in saying they
would neither eat nor drink till they
had killed Paul" the Jews expressed,
not an intention of fasting during the
whole of the period between the time
Of binding themselves and the time Of
killing Paul-although they unques-
tionably meant to express that inten-
tiOn--but simply an intention of not
being uninterruptedly engaged in eat
ing and drinking during the whole Of
that period. The substitution Of "be-
fore " for It'll - makes their real in
tention evident They would neither
eat nor drink before they had killed
Paul"
That before and until " are not
indifferently exchangeable the one for
the other even in sentences like the
one discussed in last Sundays DIS
patch the treatment Of simple SEN
tence will abundantly show. Suppose
the sentence Il expect to 60 to New
York before Christmas, but shall not
remain there until Christmas" re-
written II expect to 20 to New York
before Christmas, but shall not remain
there before Christmas Comment is
unnecessary.
A similar line Of reasoning applies to
the mote sentence" In saying lit
could not be protested until Saturday y
you convey not the idea that the note
could not be protested at any moment
g. during bushess-hours," Of course,
being understood) Of specified period
of time, but merely the idea that the
act Of protesting the note could not
last during every moment (of business
hours of that period. You do not
express a negatiOn Of the positive
statement, The note could be pro-
tested before Saturday -; you do ex-
press, though, a gratuitous, irrelevant
negation of a pslpable improbability.
In fine. you neither explicitly assert,
nor do you in any way intimate, that
the note could not be protested before
Saturday.
The construction Of the sentence,
THE note could not be protested IN
til Saturday" is, strictly considered,
grdmmatically correct, because the va
rious parts Of speech in it occur in
proper form in proper order; but it is
rhetoricaly incorrect, because it does
not convey the idea intended TO be con-
yeyed. Very respectfully,
GRAMMATICAsTER.
|. We know that good writers often
write bad English.
>. sc" admits that the sentence I'M
der discussion is dramatically correct;
so we might drop the subject, espe-
cially as his argument is intended to
prove, so it seems to us, that the word
until " ought not to have both OF the
meanings which it undoubtedly has
that is, according to the custom Of the
best writers and speakers--but only
one Of these meanings. The only an
swer we need make, or can make, to
that argument is to say that we cannot
change the fact. "Rayel" and sun
rayel " are two words that have one
meaning. "Cleave" is word that
has two meanings directly opposed the
one to the other. "Cleave means to d.
vide, and also to stick together-to sepa-
rate from and also to adhere to. So Sun
til means "until after" and also "up
to the time" as II will not pay you
the money until after you hand me the