Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1926-07-06
'NEW BOOKS
AT RANDOM
/. 6. N.

s8s3 OIfop0ou. W. r. 1ubudtu 0Oti9s
Al dreary question. this one. reminis.
cent Of school days spent 80 largely IN
the pursuit Of fugitive rules of syntax
Or In Identifying pallid parts Of speech
that locked Az much alike az do the
underSed anemic members Of en- over
stocked family.
What regrettable and needless waste
lay in the kind Of teaching that made
OF grammar q hated and unfruitful
subject! Matching thought with
words might have been q fascinating
game. ut should have been. Search
ing out the one right word that, In
shape and sound and color, tailed ex-
actiy with the thing In mind might
have been the best Of fun. Placing
words together in such relations O.
to deliver thought, crystal clear, into
the open might have savored Of adj
venture itself. And these play hours
with words and their mental counter.
parts would have returned rare profits
to the school children 10 preoCcupied.
Not only profit In the ready coin Of
current speech. but an irAnea6urable
gain also in the power Of thought It.
self.
Instead OF such fair treatment Of
grammar and language, It was the
RULE to throw up huge barbados be-
tween thought. and word. An endless
network Of jargon interposed between
the student and his thought
nOminative and accusative. auxiliary
and complement. perfect and pluper.
feet, are examples slipping back at
pSfFnrra eseNHr Rff1flfg.
To the majority, therefore, grammar
meant both confusion and dislike. II
meant much more besides. for its
study, a. commonly pursued, served
In O. measure to defeat natural Joy
In learning. In finding out things
through personal endeavOr. It meant.
moreover, q duIied and otherwise i'm.
perfect instrument for the building Of
thought itself.
I All this was In other days. One
assumes that the ways OF education
have picked up, have better htte0
means to ends, along with the great
strides In approach and method that
nowadays. mark every important
phase OF progress.
Yet there are signs al around that
many q writing hand IL still In the
grip Of old inhibitions and confusionS,
With eyes open. pick up any piece
OF writing novel, learned discourse,
sermon, newspaper, what not. It Il
q commonplace to find among these
clear indications of q sense blunt to
the inherent fitness existing between
word and idea. between construction
and thought. These lapses, without
doubt, are sourced back in the days
when fatally inflexible laws of syntax
refused to recognize the fact that, Of
all inventions. language Is the most
expansive. The one most likely TO
oyerieap law in it, essential urge 80
keap lIr, With events. It Ii the human
device most likely 70 demand frequent
fresh enactl1fents.
Whatever the cause may be. wher-
ever the source OF the defect lies, the
fact OF our many shortcomings In
daily speech stands sQuarely IN the
open.
Therefore. 1t is good for all Of us
to have certain men now and then
sit down In our midst to talk over
these common frailties OF daily speech
And John O'London is. without ques
ton, one Of these certain men.
Language 10 part of his business
HIS EllIIE0l EO1lolACA AAA1AA 40 OAkG ~ AAlA
ways Of making q living. He ID
therefore. on fairly intimate tern11
with It. Besides, when Il comes to the
use of English, O'London Is no
Insurer; no skinfiint. Instead. he -
q. man Of roomy opinions, given to
ready accommodations and comfort
able easements. So, in his company,
enc Is not cornered out Of his own
individual existence. out OF his OWL
fair opinions. A genial man. who
listens and comedies to others. A
practical man, who deals with ques
tione Of common usage, never once
INDUCING himself in the nlandarinit
genufiections Of the exclusive purist
And, above all, here is a man who
sets reasons under his conclusions
Nothing Is more feeble In any practt
cal attitude toward language than thu
DO say that" An arbitrary, un
founded. futile direction that hardly
enters the mind at all, and certainly
never fingers there.
Here we come at once upon familiar
stumbling blocks of speech. First and
foremost Is that blessed split infini'
tive, which has turned friends into
enemies and made many a rift II
student bodies. O'London's treatment
Of this case Is CHARACTERISTIC. He
eases up on the law. citing many
Instances whore the inflnitive. whole
and intact, enfeebles the thought
whereas its separation into parts
STRENGTHENS the statement. Not as g
rule Il this true, however. Mind
that. This writer believes in rules
and obeys them. But he can break
them, and does, when point and
clarity and vigor require such action
You'll be interested to read the cita
lfions that 90 along with each Of
these discussions. You'll be more In
terested, and more alert. In your
subsequent reading to detect and
weigh the English Of writer's. Who
ever" and "whomever'' is another
point OF interest here. as 1t Is almesi
everywhere Different to- or "dif
ferent from (which shall il bel
when we quote Shakespeare" and
when we rnisquote him" are good
titles for good sense and good treat.
ment. Between each':--is there any
sense in that? I'm just picking III
points at random az 80 along here
ind out Just why you mustn't say
II feel badly" but must say Il fee
bad. instead You'll come to realize
that & very common usage is quite
wrong. For instance, II should havf
been glad to have done It. 4 And Mr.
O,London talks D little about con
struction as q whole.
About the need Of hitting your sub
iect at the very outset Of your dis
course, about the equal need of sit
ting It out. clean. instead Of entan,
Cling II, almost beyond succor, in 4
network or subordinate stuff clause
phrase and b sna2e Of single words
He makes Il clear that this treatment
\ Ii q part of the tiines-a part Of thu
direct action. the straight course, thu
economy Of effort. that mark every
aspect or current life, It's literature
no less than it, business.
= 4
Then he tells the story Of q mar