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


the Fray Armed With Much Au-
thOrity.
To the Editor OF THE TIMES:
Sir-There can be no question that the
man who wrote, DO as 100000 other
people are doIng-read 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 DIR. Vizetelly's 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 tho
writer sets forth his purpose in plain
words. On page XII 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 uppeFmost IN his
mind"
The paragraph quoted from the entry
people" on page 1854 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 S-"Persons
collectively: In this sense a collective
noun taking a verb in the plural" Quite
apart from the point of the discussion,
Mr.. Francis De Sales Ryan deems that
ut is pity he (the Lexicographer) de-
taI n
| sulting Funk a Wagnalls New Stan
dard Dictionary as arbiter." But, has
the photographer done so?
To Mr.. Ryan, the surprising part OF
| the photographers stand, however,
is that instead OF quoting from the New
Standard Dictionary, which, according
to his standing announcement at the
| head of the Digest column, he consuits
as arbiter in such matters, he quotes
from the Bible! He was hard pressed
| indeed"
One can almost hear Mr.. Ryan ex-
| claim this, put he wrote 1t instead.
Possibly Mr. Ryan may not b be I IS% Rinis
to consult. for 1t is hard to believe that
! II he had he would have pronounced
that foolish dictum OF his. Readers OF
The Times will be pleased to learn that
nowhere in his book does DR.. NiSetelly
condemn as an error in English the use
| OF the word people" after a mineral
adjective. Nor has the occupant OF the
EASY CHAIR ever done so, anu lot ina
matter had Mr.. Francis De Sales Ryan
| consulted the very arolter which he
| cites, wasting his energy in trying To
| put his opinion above the decision OF the
! New Standard" he would have found
| out, no doubt to his infinite satistac-
| ton, that the New Standard upholds
every word that the Lextcographer has
penned. On page 1881 Column II
says: The use OF people as s,shit Sang
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 collectiyism. AS
| Dean. Afford suggests, 1t would make a
strange transformation of the old hymn
| All People That on Earth DO Dwelf tC
eing An Persons That on Earth dc
| DWELL"
in view OF the foregoing, the l.eXi'
| cographer tenders Mr.. Francis De sales
| Ryan the assurances OF ms dlstlh
| guished consideration, and hopes ina
he may enjoy all the comfort ana sat
isfaction out OF his absurd diJtum tina
halfitaught nedants Will aeGSd !, TO IN nm
y THE LEXICOGRAPHER.
New York, January ..