Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-09-09
An Erfnnftou.

other mental facnities, by STUDIES too
severe snd abstruse, which are both cruel
and injudiciouS. NJ. u
An Exception.
OF course we could not think OF open
ing our columns as rule to discussions
of the merits of new books, nor to COM
ments upon our criticisms of such books.
But we make an exception in the case oil
the distinguished professor OF English at
Richmond College, who wrote tho com
munication which We subioin. We shall
not comment ct length upon his article.
We will say, however, that We think We
could easily show that the subjunctive
mood bad originally no proper place IN
English and that the use of the mimi
tive mood whore q proposition govern
ing the objective case is called for Is
simply On error that has grown out OF
the fact that the proposition "to and
the sign Of the inhnitiVe mood are
the same word. In other languages
the verb in the ininitive mood
ia one word. In English it is two.
Let DR.. Pollard try TO convert the SEN
tence wo objected TO into Latin. We
will add that in our opinion (but Tor
USAGE tho phrase "I object against do
it " il just rs good English az the phrase
"I object To dot" {" doing" ought to be
used in both places, and thst this latter
phrase is correct if the one quoted Is.
THE pupil is led step by step to -
something. To what? To "read :
Then read is a noun; for the "to
does not belong 10 tread. SO ineie-
CANT and incorrect usage could never
have grown mp had our ancestors joined
/ the "to" to tie main syllable Of tho
verb. az "tolove" "tOread, " to-
play" &c. How would the following
sentence from Georgia paper sound If
"to study" and "to gather" were sub
stitnted for "to studying" end "to
gathering"P The meaning would be
totally changed:
a Georgia man. who has been
roughing il or Green island this sum-
mer. has devoted much time to studying
the habits Of the turtle and TO gathering
her eggs
"a Virgins Booh."
10 the Editor Of the Dispatch:
/ was very much interested in your
criticism OF Mrs. Wnddy's Composition
and Rhetoric. have not yet had the
pleasure Of examining this nevlypub-
| lished book, and consequently sn Opln-
ion from me would be decidedly promo
ture. | confess, however, that l am
strongly inclined to endorse It before
hand by reason OF one fact-thst At Is il
the main satisfactory to 30 sound critic
as the one in charge Of the literary
column OF the Dispatch. Il will GER
tainly not 10 amiss for me to say, even
now, that / am very glad the work has
been given to the public. We have In
Virginia teachers as competent as
can be found anywhere in the
country, and they ought to be
making their contribution to the educa-
tional equipment of the age. l may say,
also, that sm glad that woman IS the
author. No one can deny that some of
our very best teachers belong TO the fe-
male sex; and If women can teach well,
they possess the chief qualification for
producing good textbooks.
While not proposing criticism on the
work itself may perhaps be permitted
to call attention again to several ques-
tons discussed by you-questions pos
sessing q general interest for those that
desire 70 speak aud write well The
pupil is led step by step TO the construc-
ton Of the paragraph, and > to ac-
quire accuracy and ease in competition.
You object TO this sentence, because TX
I understand yeu) the construction after
the first land is different from tsst be-
fore it. Historically, the sentence as
written may be defended. In other words,
in the light Of historical grammar, "to
the construction and "to acquire are
not different constructions, because they
are both dGtives governed by tho prepo-
sition "tO." This appears when It IL re-
membered that in the earllest period of
our language "to wes regularly follow
ed by the noun in the dative, and that
the infnihve, when it pessed into tho
idea Of purpose, vas injected for tho da-
tive. and took "to" before it. But the
distinction in form botwoan the simple
in6nitive and its d0iive has nov been
oblitsrsted, though the difference In
sense remains. Thus the samenoss Of
construction in the tVo phrases mention
ed is entirely disguised to the general
reader. Hence, ike you, would
amend the sentence by writing, 1.-The
pupil is led step by step TO the
construction OF the paragraph, and
to the acquisition Of on accurate and
easy style" Thus we would have az un-
questionable compliance with AbbOtt's
sensible rule in "HoW To Write Clearly:
"A new construction should not be in
troduced without cause" | am glad
you stand in defence of "difer with
when opinions are referred to. There is
disposition in some sections of our
country to slaughter this idiom and thus
deprive US Of q nice and useful dis
tinction. 1t has the support OF the
best authorities. In this connection
several facts should be borne in
mind: d. That in by-gone days
the idea now commonly conveyed
10y with" WAS not usually associated
with that word, but with mid ," +; as the
Germans now say, "Gott NIT uns."
a. A common meaning of with in
Old English was against or "from.
g. That this meaning is still preserved
in the phrase "to Sight with " and in the
word Withstand" "If these facts
are remembered, surely "difEer with "
should not become an offence.
In our language the subjunctive mood
has been LETT scarcely an inch Of ground
to stand upon; but so far as it yet has
l,,ti..