The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-07-06
SATURDAY. JULY

dering why Sunday came so soon, the excited cries of startled poultry, and the occasional crack of a rifle,
 The ammunition Is exhausted at last -there is no more to be had, and We must wait until night for the fire works"-three Roman candles and a rocket, The clouds that have long been lowering grow darker and darker A drizzling rain begin to fall, and With it the hopes of our young Americans, Tho rain Is heavy now and steady a persistent. cruel fun-destroying down fall, "A blessed rain" the mothers ejaoulate, but oh, the poor little pa- triots!
 coop ENGLISH.
 The haste in which the reporter for a
 daily paper necessarily prepares his copy is sufficient cause, if not excuse,
 for some inelegancies of expression,
 Yet there are some words and phrases
 that are very objectionable, not to say indefensible.. It may, for instance,
 save both time and labor to write the l Rev. Jenkins" rather than "the Rev MT. Jenkins" or ''the Rev. A. E, Jen-
 lSins," but We doubt If this Is either cor
 rect or courteous. "Reverend" is not
 the name of 8 profession like Judge"
 or 'Doctor;" it Is a title of respect, and should be followed by the name, the | initials, or the additional title MI" :"
 To say Dr. Brown" is correct, because
 the gentleman's profession Is that of a | physician; to say "Rev, Jenkins is in | correct, because though he is a clergy
 man, a. minister, or priest, there is no such profession as that of a reverend It would sound as we'll to speak of a
 member of congress, or of the cabinet, as Honorable Hawley," or "the Honor able Herbert" but that is a mistake that mo writer, however careless, seems inclined to make.
 Another very objectionable thing in
 newspaper writing is the forming of a title from a mans occupation or bust- ness. The holder of an official position is properly spoken of as Mayor" G., or Governor" C., or Postmaster" D..
 but to speak of man as .Hotel-keep- CT" B., or %Car-starter" F.. is ridicu- lous. Unfortunately this is becoming ilAClC ctAld lAtGt lOilAiAtlRAs etiia WV AAAoJ yet read of Ash-collector Higgins or Clamdigger Sykes without a smile at the absurdity of it. And. of course, if the practice is not discontinued it will soon be applied to the employments of
 women, and we shall read of Dress- maker Tomson, or Cook Mulligan, or Washlady Dooley.
 Stll another mistake is in the use of the words "noted' and famous" when
 ''notorious' and infamous" would be more appropriate. We often read of noted burglar--of famous criminal. Since these words are not interchange able, notorious and infamous being al- ways used in the bad sense. while noted and famous are used both as good and bad, would it not be better to make q clear distinction between them and nev- CT misuse them? Should we say a not ed thief any more than we would say a notorious philanthropist? Is there not here a subtitle distillation of error into the minds of the young? Is It not say- ing, in effect. it does not matter for
 what one is noted-good deeds or evil deeds, it is all the same? The matter seems to be of some ethical importance, even though many will defend the use of noted" and Infamous as properly applied to deeds of villany and bad rep I,utations. But such use of them can easily be avoided, and our language will gain strength if to these words Is given only one signiffcation.
 Just one more. It has been said that mo writer of good English ever places an adverb between the verb and it's sign of the infinitive." Judging by this there are not many writers of good Eng lish Everywhere we find such awk- ward sentences as tIese-"to immediate iy go''-sstto tto tIeiightealy sfaile'--'ttte dili- gently work" There is some dispute about this matter, some writers claim 1 ing that a sentence so constructed Is not incorrect Occasionally it is difficult to avoid 1t, as one editor found who de- l termined that no such arrangement of words should ever find aplace nhis mag azne. However, with 3 little coaxing, the words all fell into line, and the sentence was always q gainer for the change Almost invariably it was clearer and ! more euphonious; always it was strong CT and more direct. Compare such q | sentence as f'the troops were ordered to immediately march" with ''the troops were ordered to march immediately" and there is no question as to which is most emphatic Since there is no need of separating the Ito" from it's verb, why should we not avoid doing so, and thus, in one thing at least, be writers ! of good English?"
 l HILARY.