ENGLISH GRAMMAR AND PROVINCIAL SCHOLARSHIPS.

Evening Star, Issue 3547, 6 July 1874, Page 3

ENGLISH GRAMMAR AND PROVINCIAL SCHOLARSHIPS.

ijfn. 2. : * 'Pa the Editor..

Sii?, —Here are a few specimens of what is required of boys and girls j in question eight the candidates are required to point out any grammatical peculiarities in eight by no me us easy sentences, and to explain how they have come to be used. .Number three ia this list of eight is : “A great many men think so,” I feel pretty confident that lam not exaggerating when I say that this is about one of the most difficult idioms in thg Euglisli language to explain satisfactorily. Besides what 1 havp mpt with myself op the subject, and that is comparatively little, I am credibly informed by man who ought to know, that it would take an octavo volume to contain

all that has been written on this much disputed question. Now how are boys and girls at school to know anything about this at first hand, which they must know, to give an “explanation” deserving of the natpe j or what again is fhe'qse pi ah edit* catiopal point pf view, of a boy or’ girl, supposing them by some lucky chance tp have picked Up the 'crumb froih some rich man’s ta,hle, giving, in a l|ne oy two, or perhaps oply in a lev/ wqrdg, the result of a long apd laborious process pf investigation l and reason* pig, which, carried out by cultivated men, thtry are utterly incapable of understandings and of the very existence of which they are almost entirely ignorant ? Now this is only one of the eight sentences included in question number eight. Ex uno disce omnia . Again, in question seven, they are required to give a general and detailed analysis of the following sentence, to app ehend the exact Reaping o\ which requires'pretty hard tcinkihg even in an adult i

Prom rainbow clouds there flow not drops as bright to see , , As from thy presence showers a rain of melody, I wonder how long the nervous little boys And girls stared in route bewilderment at tipssputence before the meaning pf it began to dawn upon their semes. Then tbeye is question npmber five, in which the candidates are very mqdpstly requested to explain clearly the dif-

ference between the expressions “you shall go ” and “you will go ” I don’t know much about this subject myself in the way of clear explanation, and so will not venture to e*press any opinion 5 but I have an indistinct recollection of a book' on “shall and will,” written by a certain Sir Edmund Head, who not only failed to give a clear explanation of the difference, but was actually charged by another member of the English nobilitv, holding a still higher place in the r6le of England’s literary worthies, with having himself made more blunders in the use of “ shall ” and “ will ” than he had succeeded in correcting in the case of others. It is to be hoped that this question was satisfactorily answered by the boys and girls, 1 have already referred indirectly toques tions one and two, which, with the third, may be considered the easiest in the paper j and yet even those are by no means free from difficulties. Number one is as follows : —“Writedown (a) the possessive plural of each of the. following words : motto, solo, scarf, storey, story, strife, pea j (l.) the nominative plural of son - in. law,

spoonful, Miss Pinith; also (c), explain the origin of the apostrophe in the pos sessivc casa, ’ Now, whit hj are really th correct forms, ‘spoonsful” and “the Misses Mnith,” or spoonfuls” and “the Miss Smiths ?” A good deal might bo said on both sides, Mrs General, or a very prim aad proper maiden lady at the bead of a young ladies’ seminary, and perhaps even excessive'y grammatical examiners, would insist on the former, while most educated Englishmen, in spite of the afore-aid authority, would use the latter, and object t" say that they had met the “ Misses Browu ’ walking down Princes street. Again, what is the meaning of the first part of the first question ? Could any oue of the seven words there given by any possibility assume the form of the plural po-aessive? Did tVe examiners, in their zeal to propound crucial tests, overlook the fact that the possessive inflection is confined, in the En>-lish language, to persons, animals, and personified objects, and is never by any possibility used with such words as those given in the tint question ? Who in his senses would talk of the “ mottoes’meanings, the solos’singers, the scarfs’ colors, the two upper stor ys’’ windows, the strifes’ causes or what mother could refrain from boxing Johnny’s ears, if, on coming home for the holidays, he objected to the pease’s staleness ? In au examination paper set with the avowed object of testing the candidates’ knowledge of grammar, they should hardly be asked in the very first question to violate one of the commonest usages of grammar, even though the object should be as in the present case the laudable one of tesing their ability to form cases of words which were never yet seen by mortal eyes - and never will till doomsday. 1 shall say nothing about the spelling of tha word “storey,” though it might be easily shown that there is no justification whatever on the ground of etymology, and bpt little on that of for the insertion of the letter “ e nor shall I do more than merely refer, in passing, to the blunder of fathering such a curious-looking sentence as “The Duke of Sax ny’s nephew arrived” on Shakspeare, who, it is scarcely necessary to say, is quite innocent of the paternity. It must be pretty evident to those who read this letter, and compare it with the examination paper to which it refers, that the la', ter was much too difficult for a set of boys and girls, and especially girls, trained at different schools, accustomed to different methods, and using different text bonks. I have no wish to cast any reflections on the gentlemen who drew up the paper iu question, certainly no desire to q estmu their scholarship. On the contrary, the paper bears unmistakeable evidence that they are too learned, and inclined to expect too much minute learning from children, they have simply yielded too much to the influence of scholastic tradition. Neither have I written this letter with a view to influence the members of the hducation Board in the matter of awarding or refusing the scholarships and free education recommended by the examiners. Like most people I have formed the opinion that the late education Board showed very bad taste, and did a serious wrong' in refusing to carry out the award of the examiners. Whatever may be done in the case of boys, it can hardly be expected that teachers will for the lu ure put themselves to much trouble in preparing girls for an examination where they may receive such injustice as was meted out by the late Education Board. In this way it is difficult to estimate the injury that may be caused to the higher education of girls in Otago.—l am, dc., ° _ Paterfamilias. Dunedin, July 1,