The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1906-11-11
A Welcome Criticism
Received and Discussed.


In what appears to be a feminine
hand, carefully Photographed, perfect
ly punctuated, with correct capitali-
zation and studiously written through
out, but with no mark to indicate the
identity Of the writer, there comes to
The Journal the following delightful
little note:
Pensacola, Fla. Nov. 8, 1906.
Editor of Pensacola Journal,
Pensacola, Fla.
Dear Sir:
Have you a dictionary in your new
building? IL you have, would you
mind looking up the perfect partici-
pie of the verb to burst? Winter is
coming and l am afraid we will have
to hear about "bursted" water pipes,
as we did during the storm.
And then, Mr.. Editor, IL you should
ask Dorothy Dix or any of that army
of amiable women, who advise erring
mankind on every subject from So
GEOLOGY to the latest style in neck
wear, | think she would tell you that
It is customary to use the and Mr..
with Reverend, in speaking Of min
listers. That is, the Reverend Mr..
Smith, and not, Rev. Smith as though
Rev. we're the gentleman's first name.
Anyway, you might ask about it.
Yours truly,
A JOURNAL READER.
We are glad to receive this kindly
suggestion, for two reasons, and we
, assure the writer that his, or her
delicately yelled sarcasm is not lost
on the possibly dulled, but neverthe.
less thoroughly appreciative, sense OF
correct grammatical form which we
still possess, even though appearances
may at times be very much against us
We are glad, we said, for two
, reasons-frst, because such a letter
demonstrates that the writer is inter
ested in the success and appearance
, of The Journal; and second, because
II affords US an opportunity to discuss
a subject that we have often thought
newspaper readers may very properly
be excused for not generally under.
standing.
Now to our critics question. Yes
we have a dictionary in our new build
/ ing-a Webster's Unabridged-and
| many appearances to the contrary
Notwithstanding, we very frequently
refer to It. Would we mind looking
up the perfect participle of the verb
to BURST" No, we would not, but
the fact is, we are sure, without look
ing, that there is no such verb" as
ito burst. The word burst" is a
/ verb, and 1t has a perfect participle,
but the expression ito burst" IS not a
verb, consequently has no participle,
perfect or otherwise. AS we remem-
Der the grammatical description of
such an expression, ito burst" is an
lnfinltive, or a form of the verb burst
but 1t Is not In its entirity a verb.
We have no doubt that the. word
''bursted" and probably many other
expressions equally as incorrect. have
appeared in The Journal from time to
time. More than that, we are fearful
that many similar errors will con
tinue to mar the columns of this pa
per. but we trust that if our good
natured critic is not called upon &c
read about busted" water pipes, he
or she, will be able to endure the
altogether milder ordeal of "bursted'
water pipes.
Now as to the use of the word REV
erend' when it precedes the name Of
a clergyman. We are not a regular
reader of Dorothy Dix and must con
seQuently plead ignorance to wha
she considers customary" in thi.
case. We have no doubt. however
that Miss Dorothy would advise u.
correctly as to what is good usage IL
this respect and we are equally Ger
tain that her advice would be strictly
in accordance with our critics owl
idea I'm the premises. But SHIT
would probably use one of tn,
terms. proper" good FORM" o.
good usage" instead of tn,
word customary" because usins
the words the and MIR. with Reverend
while essentially correct, are no
customary with newspapers any
where, though it would be good form
with newspapers everywhere.
And now to the subject that The
receipt Of the above letter suggests