Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1901-03-03
CORRECT USE OF ENGLISH.
Grnmmn riRns Are I'm Error in Apply
ing in6exibIe Rules, Says
This Authority.

4
The unreasoning tyranny of the
pretentious aud half educated gram
marian is vigorously protested
against by Brandcr Matthews, who
insists that the interest some people
feel in the correct use of English is
out of all proportion to their know
ledge. One point upon which the
grammarian in his elements is posi-
tive, says the Baltimore Sun. is that
the plural subject, 10 matter what
it consists of, must have a plural
verb. The line in Mr.. Kipling's 'Re-
cessional,' THE shouting and tunlult
dies" was at once pounced upon by
the shallow critics. Dies" they in.
sisted, ought to be die" not noticing
or unders tanding that the poet was
at liberty to think of the two ll..e
things, shouting and "tumult,' as
constituting one thing. But there
were Others" says Mr.. Matthews,
"whose reading was little wider and
who were able to cite precedents in
Mr.. Kipling's favor from Milton and
from Shakespeare and from the King
James translation of the Bible. Yet
the argument from the past failed
to convince some of the original pro-
testants, one of whom suggested that
the erring poet be sent to night
school"
The trouble with the critics was
that they knew very little about Eng
lish, their whole preparation for
criticism being the memorizing of an
elementary rule" They were neither
acquainted with the history of Eng
lish speech as presented in the works
of classical authors nor capable OF
looking beneath the superficialities oi
syntaX. Those who are familiar with
actual usage are the least disposed
to insist upon merely formal ano
wooden regularity. Unfortunately
mary of the erammars in popular use
were written hy ignoramuses. RULES
have been and are still laid down,
says Prof. Lounshury in his "His
tory of the English Language,
(which never had any existence out
side of the minds of grammarian'
and verbal critics. BY these rules
so far as they are observed, freedom
of expression is cramped, idiomati
. popularity destroyed and false test
for correctness set up which give th
; ignorant opportunity to point on
: supposed error in others, while TIL
real error lies in their own imperfec
) acquaintance with the best usage
Dogmatsm on the part of tn
) superficial grammarian is, in fact, a
t rule. lust what Dougias Jerroi'
called t-"puppyism come to ma
turity." 1t is altogether unnecessar
r to impose Il Latin syntax upon Eng
) lish or to subject our. home speecI
Q to artificial and crampingrestrictions
] There is too much disposition to re
!, ject good words and phrases as ol
r as the coming of John Smith to Vii
I ginia or as William the Conqueror
I conquest of England. Americanism
d are not all mere slang, nor a
S criticisms bad merely because W
: "nevcr heard them before"
n 1t is right to say "the house is b'
: ing built" the purist to the contrar
n Notwithstanding, or to say "come an
e to see me-" But we are not prepare
i to accept the monstrosity, "he don't
n for "he doesn't" nor can we think
s gain to drop the subiunctive frol
the verb "to be-" as Mr.. Matthew
rather radically proposes, and +
). longer use ''were" in the senten'
"If were to CO." The split infin
d tive" is more disputable, but goc
usage and authority seem to be vel
decidedly opposed to permitting q
adverb between "to" and 'sing," ;
's in the expression 'to sweetly sing
Is Stin it has to he admitted that ii
t. split infnitive has some antiquit
le however disastrous to ones reput
u tion the use of it may IL.
IL Professional Women.