The Washington times., 1916-01-26
Washington, January @5.
"The photographer" Returns To
the Fray Armed With Much Au-
thOrity.

To the Editor OF TIE TIMES:
Sir-Thcre can be no question that the
man who wrote. DO as 10000 other
people are doIng-rcad the Literary
Digest" was right. and that YOUR cor
respondent Mr.. Francis De Sales Ryan
was wrong when he penned the dictum
that the word people" cannot be used
correctly with a numeral adjective. What
MIR. Ryan sadly needs is TO heed the
advice of the advertising man: Read
the Digest and broaden his horizon.
Mr. Ryan cites DR. Nizetellys Desk
Book of Errors in English" in support
of his contention. but he has overlooked
that writer's purpose as explained In
the Introductory to his book. Here the
writer sets forth his purpose in plain
words. on page xi he says: The pur-
pose OF these pages Is not to dictate a
precise course to be followed, nor to
lay down rules that will prevent any
speaker or writer from exercising his
privilege as an individual of speaking
or writing freely and independently the
thoughts that are uppermost IN his
mind."
The paragraph quoted from the entry
people" on page lh Of the book, deals
clearly with individual persons, or n
number of such" individual persons. and
not persons collectively, in which sense
the word people" is correctly used. as
the New Standard Dictionary clearly
indicates in its definition 3-"Persons
collectively: In this sense collective
noun taking a verb in the plural" Quite
apart from the point of the discussion,
Mr.. Francis De Sales Ryan deems that
1T is a pity he (the LeXicosrapher) de-
parted so tar from his custom OIL con-
sulting Funk x Wagnalls' New Stan
dard Dictionary as arbiter.' But, has
the Lexicographer done so?
TO Mr.. Ryan, the surprising part OF
the 'Lexicographer's stand, however
Standard Dictionary, which, according
to his standing announcement at the
head of the Digest column. he consults
as arbiter in such matters, he quotes
from the Bible! He was hard pressed
indeed"
One can almost hear Mr.. Ryan eH-
claim this, but he wrote 1t instead
Possibly MIR. Ryan may not be familiar
with his Bible. or perhaps has no Blbie
TO consult, for 1t is hard to believe that
If he had he would have pronounced
that foolish dictum of his. Readers OF
The Times will be pleased TO learn that
nowhere in his hook does DR.. Nizetely
condemn as an error in English the use
OF the word people" after a numeral
adjective. Nor has the occupant OF the
Easy Chair ever done so. and Tor lhat
matter had Mr.. Francis De Sales Ryan
consulted the very ar0lter which he
put his opinion above the decision OF the
New Standard" he would have found
out, no doubt to his infinite satistac-
tion that the New Standard upholds
every word that the LeXicographer has
penned. ON page 1881 Column II
says: THE use of people as slgnitylng
persons collectively - has been
severely criticised, but is old and ac-
cepted English. and may fifty be classed
as idiomatic, and often better than per
sons, BY reason of its collectiYlsm. AS
Dean. Afford suggests, it would make a
strange transformation of the old hymn
All People That on Earth DO Dwell to
sing All Persons That on Earth DC
DWELL"
in view of the foregoing, tn" l.eNI'
cographer tenders Mr.. Francis De Sales
| Ryan the assurances OF MS dlstll'
| guished consideration, and hopes thal
| he MAJ enjoy all the comfort and sat
| iSfaction out OF his absurd dlJtum ina
lf;taught nedants will acc9d TO him
! THE LENICOGRAPHEk
New York. January %