Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1913-05-27
First Class In Grammar.

Enquirer" 10 correct In regarding tne
Democrat % ian expert as to what is
good English" but. as Horace tells US
that Homer sometimes mods, I trust that
it will not be considered libelous IL l
venture the statement that once In .
great while solecism succeeds In run
ming the gantlet OF the argus eyes Of the
Democrat.
In the issue OF the Democrat OF May
is this sentence lin the Sd paragraph
from the end of the 1st column OF the
I'd page): "Miuk was found guilty OF
attempting to kill Della N. Young,
whom he claimed was his wife," In
that sentence, "whom" is an error for
"who," the error being an instance OF
what grsmmars and cognate works ex-
plain ~ constituting what they call
confusion of two constructions the
word confusion" ss thus used by the
writer's of grammars and similar works,
meaning offending" or offending to-
gether," and what they term confusion
of constructions thus meaning the blend
| ing or the blending together Of two con-
structions.) OF this confusion of two
constructions the works of Shakespeare
furnish many instances, OF which the
following are examples:
"Young Ferdinand, whom they sup
pose is drowned. The Tempest, ILL.,,
| s, 90.
"Of Arthur, whom they say is killed
to might. king John, w., 2, 1855.
"The nobility are vexed, whom We see
have sided in bis behalf. .'-Coriolanus,
w., g., 2.
An example of this same error ls to be
found iu the 18th verse of the 10th chap
ter of st. Matthew: "Whom do men
say that 1, the Son of man, amp"
In the Democrat of April l, an article
In the first column of the agricultural
department ("Among the Farmers") has
the caption, 1.-THE Kind of q Horse to
Raise" In that caption, is not the e1.
preston "a Horse" an error for "Horse"
in other words, do not grammars and
cognate works say that in such case
the article should not be used with the
nounp l think that I can quote some
thing to that effect from grammars and
kindred works.
1 notice that in the Democrat OF May
6 the correspondent at Bethel speaks OF
".Mrs. Wesley Kimball (nee Osgood.")
etc., and l have often seen "nee" thus
used BY other correspondents OF the
Democrat. What good reasons are there
for thus using that French word "nee"
instead of its equivalent English word
"born"? 1 say equivalent English
word" for the French word "nee" and
the English word "born" arc the exact
equivalents of each other, are they notP
II there are any good reasons why the
French "nee" should be preferred to the
English "born," should like to know
what they are. On the other hand, why
the English "born" should be preferred
to the French "nee" I can name several
good reasons, or at least what to me
seem good reasons: because "born," be-
ing the vernacular, is more likely to be
u nderstood than the outlandish "nee";
because everybody knows how to pro-
nounce "born," whereas many people
are ignorant as to the correct pronuncia-
tion of "nee;" because "nee," being a
foreign word, should be printed in italic
characters, whereas many newspapers,
especially those which have typesetting
machines, are apt to print that and other
foreign words in Roman characters; and
because "nee," when properly printed,
has an acute accent over Its first Q,
whereas the composing-rooms OF
many newspapers, including so we'll
equipped an establishment as that of the
Democrat, have no accented els and
hence are unable to print the word cor
rectly.
In obituary notices In the Democrat /
often see such expressions-in the case
of an obituary notice of John Smith, for
example-as "He leaves two children to
mourn bis loss" and "He leaves two
children to mourn their loss" OF those
tgo different forms of expression-both
of which, as I have said, have seen in
the Democrat-which is correct, or are
they both correct, ''loss" being interpret
cd in one case as used In the objective
sense, so to speak, and In the other In
the subjective sense?
SCRUTATOR.