Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-08-20

Dear Sir: have Just finished your
column for today. the one in which you
say there are some people we just can
not like. try as we may. Now / want
to add thought. There are some WORDS
also that one Just doesn't like and tc
which one cannot by any means adjust
himself They are like sand In ones
God
MY particular aversion In words I:
that one. individual which ] noticed
In your ESSAY And particularly am
distressed when | find 1t used by my
hahitual authors, for then 1t seems there
, Is no escape.
Now sometimes we talk about the
Nation, the State. the county and the
neiehborhood. and finally the individual
In this sense the word Is correctly usec
and | have no quarrel with II. But
would like some one to tell me why
when one means just plain wholesome
person. il is necessary TO signify BY
the choice of the word that the portion
of humanity referred to cannot further
be Slbdivideo. Maybe the reason Is
that 1t Is thought mpolite to call
man person and that it Is necessar.
each time TO add by implication the
touch of fiattery that he is so mpreg
nable in his might as not to be Sus-
ceptible Of being cut up into little pieces
And while I am on this subject
retire for to go to bed Is another WORD
can't bring myself TO like. Is going
to bed something Grass gross, vulgar
that we must cloak it? Or Is 1t neces-
sary to play to each other that We all
arc kings and queens?
"The widespread use OF gentleman
and lady for man and woman Is
only another instance Since when was
it common for man to be man OF
a woman to be a woman?
Amid these artificalities let me rush
out Of doors into the fresh air and
sunshine that these feeling couns"Icrs
may remind me what am Yours very
truly. r M. H.
Our correspondents feelings are
readily understandable. Every reader
has pet word aversions. things tsince
words are things which slap one in
the face every time he meets them
while walking through his favorite
pages
The writer is quite right in his stric-
lures on the use of individual Det
lis pause here TO state briefly that ex-
cessive use Of quite" is held by the
best authorities to amount TO A man
nerism. Quite all right" Is scored as
a foolish pleonasm. Other uses amount
To nothing more nor less than slip
shod extension. Quite horrible, in
deedD
We quote the following succinct re-
marks from that standard work. "A
Dictionary OF Modern English Usage. -
by r. w Fowler:
Tho rapnarEc to no 40
concern the noun only. not the ad-
iective. Individual. which almost made
the fortune Of many A Victorian novel
ist Is one OF the modern editors shib-
boleths for detecting the UNFIT so II has
been said. but editors seem 10 relax
their vigilance occasionally. and the
word slips through on its sad old crrand
Of soliciting 2 smile III VAN. n@re ere n
couple OF passages in which the choice
OF ii can be dictated by nothing but
WORKOUT humor: II is most spirited
episode. with supernatural ending, ac-
cording to Tom Causey; this willy indi-
vidual is the h"ro Of some highly divert
ing stories Taking a leaf out Of the
book IF the iNdiviiu1i v'No T0rno wears
ago put forth his rccollections under
the title Of "reminiscences Of Young
Man
THE test for the right use of thr
word as opposed to the colloQuial
vulgarism (Oxford English Dictionary
is the question whether the writer
means or not 10 contrast the person
he calls an individual with society, the
family or some body oil persons; Il ne
does, he may say Individual with clear
conscience, II not. he must expect US &c
Ike his evocation Of this ghost OF nine