New-York tribune., 1908-05-23
Professor Lounsbmy on Usage "
English.


,,-, Ill, ,.ta and unnlake the customs OF
-, -, The collection of essays in
-, a, arute and delightfully."- unpedantic
rs.,,s professor of English at faie sets
-, ,is answer 30 this ever fresh question
-. ,ell be prescribed for reading TO every
-..,,sor+ who aspires to solve the problem OF
1,o1isb usage His nine brief studies give
,,-.erance to a vigorous but not wholly unequivo-
- o,i,,on ON this subject: and they do with
d. ,-ea1fh Of anecdote. intensely human "argufy-
sing and a lightheartedness that cannot fail to
h.-,,, and SWAY the reader-even if the papers
.au an inch short Of convincing him. Professor
1ounsh1rv is more of man than many critics
,,l,o have doomed more fhunderously than he
within the pent-up valley of grammarians- I'm
like these sonorous censors of common
sneech he does not pretend TO be either the
spokesman of a higher power or the vicar of
r,1re reason. He imputes infallibility to any
mans private opinions on usage. does he
fancy that the English language will petrify or
rot as q result Of puristic reactions or the vic
torious anarchy of the IajsSee faire doctrinaries
This liherality is just the sauce with which all
first lessons in grammar and rhetoric ought to
be served. 1t is prophylactic against that still
prevalent variety of scholastic mumps known
as pcdantry a disease which pains only the
sufferer and makes him appear ridiculous
Professor Lcunsbury's position is easily de-
scribed. The authoritative standard Of speech
is present good usage. He says:
When We find an expression of any sort en-
ployed by writer of the first rank, the assuInp-
non always be that this particular expression
npcn him who maintains the contrary. Other
things beng equal the chances are lmneisey M ems ~ IN
ice and Of his critic being wrong in his censure
.-rl,lalls care in which the great author is kept
ron 1srongdoing- He has been born, so TO speak,
in the purple As compared with other men ne
starts out with an immense handicap in his 1 favor @
sense of expression which belongs TO him by the
FnrtbafTnore. no matter what may have been his
social station he has from his earliest years ord-
narily lived and moved in the society OF the best
Familiarity with their writings he has developed
{5e I -ir+ ar wrong in usage that holds the place
in literature which conscience does in morals
But Professor Lounsbury would not let any
one genius or coterie of genuses be the SOW
ereigns Of our language. THAT final decision,
he saws, invariably rests with the whole body
of The cultivated users of speech They have
an u1lerring instinct to its necessities They
are great deal wiser than any of their self
constituted advisers. however eminent Fortu-
rstelv too they have the ability TO carry their
wishes into effect. They know what they need,
and they can neither he persuaded out Of it nor
hullied out Of it They try many things; they
Jet 20 very many which they try: but what
thev arprove they hold fast. If they retain a
word or construction, it may generally be taken
for granted that il supplies a demand which
really exists"
Concentrating the English language from this
roirt OF view Professor Lounsbury readily
proves that a host of words and constructions
against which teachers and proofreaders rage
are orthodox The short history of some famous
alleged atrocities which the writer gives ought
70 be read and pondered over by every purist. 1t
is here shown that Walter Savage Landor's con-
, dernnation Of the verb execute, in the sense OK
putting TO death; bad photography, examine
into under circumstances and other etymoiog-
ica1 Inconsistencies is downright nonsense be-
cause all coed writers from time immemorlal
have freely accepted these usages- For the same
reason il is futile rail against mob, as swift
and later generations did; or against "tireless
which is natural and sanctioned formation with
many l,9ral}els. such as 'ceaseless, "dauntless
and .resiztIess or against the split infinitlve' or
that most heinous Of ali logical perversions the
massive voice followed by object oe g. he
v-ss given power"). Professor Lounsbury has
mol the slightest difficulty in arrayng the solid
rba1arxes Of distinguished writer's on the side
Of these and similar linguistic Irregularities,
This calls forth two important observations. as
follows:
The iret is that strictly speaking, there is no
an .nstTrIfle4lt Which viii Just what those who
use it choGSe TO make H. ile MotG9 f teir own
i is The meaning which men put INTO li'eln llstt
Co.. ar1in more than reflect the character and
the clarac1e eristics Of those who speak 1t 4
selves morally and intellectually the Language af
car he safely left TO take care Of itself ! ne !
second point is that the history of language is the
h5e-Cr-- 80 r,rr,,y1fjonS Every of US to- ]
dsT Is e-nnlozing expressions which either out |
the rules Of strict grammar or dlSregFg ; '
PRINCIPLES of analogy or belong Dy IhelT oIiSIn ~
what We now deem the worst sort of vulgarisns !
hat Professor
1ounsbury begs the whole question Of good ,
usage admits The most stiff -neclzed purisms |
.and the cheapest slang while feigning TO debar
: them. and fails wholly to give writers a rule
which can guide them in practice. He hegs the
question inasmuch as his theory says nothing
moro than this: Good usage is present good
usage In drawing the greater weight of eVi-
dence from the great writer's he has TO ap-
point 10 the committee on good usage only
those persons who regard those great writer's
as the supreme authority good usage" This :
procedure lies perilously near TO that known
IN politics as 'Whitewashing." The vigorous
Zoe n pedantry cannot refuse 10 defend this
convenient method for he implicitly accepts 1t
in his emphatic statement that Language does
nothing more than reflect the character and
characteristics Of those who speak il" This.
after al, means that each man expresses him
SELF according to his own desires and tastes.
and also that he Will call usage good bad
and him who accepts il a master varlet
Of English in precisely the same manner. This
inevitably lets each praise his habits
Of speech and forbids every attempt to force
standard upon anybody, though that
Standard be the usage of famous authors Thus.
the strict logic OF Professor Lounsburys view
Of the nature Of language makes his coronation
Of great writers quite pedantic the use
L.