THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH.

Southland Times, Volume I, Issue 59, 15 October 1864, Page 5

THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH.

The article onDeanAlford'sbook, "ThcQ.ueen's English," in the new number of the Edinburgh Revieio, is one ofthe most effective attacks upon the heresies of grammer-arid style prevailing, not only among the crowd of letterwriters, but among the popular authors of the day. It is rare that this somewhat pedagogical subject has been treated with so little pedantry, and somuch goodsenseand humor. The reader who takes up the article, perhaps with a sight aversion to grammatical discussions, will probably be surprised to find how amusing even an eassy on the proprieties and improprieties of our mother tongue can be made by a shrewd observer of the vagaries ofliterary affecttation and bad taste. Some, perhaps, wh© have a peculiar liking for this subject, may think it rather hard to be sneered at in theoutsefcby a writer who fills the pages of a quarterly review with a discussion upon it — apropos, too, of a book upon it by no less an author than the Dean of Canterbury. Perhaps, too, Mr. Washington Moon may justly complain thafc his cirticism on the " QueenV English," which heso happily entitles" The Dean's English," is nofc placed with Mr. Breen's book at the head of the article, and particularly as the reviewer admits, and we think with justice, thafc Mr.-. Moon " sometimeshitshisadversary hard," besides, in some cases, successfully disputing his judgment. Bufc the reviewer doesgood serviceinauthoritatively calling attention to the true method of inquiry in all such questions apart frem certain limitations —that usage of the educated class, quern penes orbitrium est. Tliis is a simple"/ principle, but how little itis understood might be shown even from tlie columns of our best established Eterary iournals, in which discussions on such topics are continuaUv inserted, the writers of which appear to "think that questions of style _and. grammar to be settled by a priori reasoning/ or by principles evolved out of their own notions of the fitness of things. It is amusing to be reminded that; speeches from the Throne maintain the character for comprising ail the vices slipshod grammerand redundancy of wOrds which Cobbett gave fchem, as evidenced by .one of the latesfc productions of this kind, in which Parliament; was informed that, the " territories, which have hitherto been under the sway of the Eng of Denmark should continue 50,. t0 -.remain."; The reviewer objects to this, as we suppose he would object to a recent Parliamentary resolution thafc " the just influence of English was lowered"— on which a sharp newspaper critic remarked that our "just influence" could not be either higher or lower than just what it is. The large -class of pedagogical critics of syntax were perhaps never better answered than by the reviewer's /observations on then* favorite artifice when determined to find fault with a writer's huiguage, of endeavoring to makei out that the words are so arranged as to produce meanings .different from -what?- the. really intended/proceeding on the i assumption thabno sentence is correct unless tlie mere syntactical arrangement of the words, irrespective of their meaning,- is such thafc they are incapable of having a double aspect. lf :There are people^

Indian's wigwam' means the wigwam of a red Indian, theaefore, a . blue sailor's jacket* mutt mean the . jacket (of a. blue . sailor. " But the best ' part of the article is the reviewer's-; sketch of a classification .of the prevailing iaffectations of popular writers. Tho advanced practitioners -in .thoy new tense — the pauloanfce fufcuruin, or prreterifcum-propheticum— — the smart writes who je*k- handful-j of Mibshmfcives, adjectives, and. adverbs, unconnected by any verb, afc the reader's head ; the omniscient writer, who overpowers his readers by assuming in him Buch. 'a .perfect knowledge of everythirig* that a mere jaunty allusion to the moro recondite theme is enough; the wholesale inteirlarders of French and Italian ; and the historians who treat-*; history iri the style of a historical romance, and introduce circumstantial details on no better authority than their own imaginations—are aii types which bave only to be introduced in; order to be recognised. It is, perhaps, a good illustration of the difficulty of drawing at all times :> exclusively frbm the well of ' English. undefiled' when we find this severe .censor usiiig such a phrase as .' a form which has never obtained with the best writers' —the verb 'to obtain" being, here employed intransitively, and iri the sense of " to prevail"— ran inroad upon 'the Queen's' English which "cannot yet be said to have received, the sanction of good usage, arid which is rioiie the" better for derivative authority. , We ought .not to omifc an amusing specimen of what the -reviewer -calls " NoB-iam,'' or the absurd use of the newspaper editor's '" we " by persons who are frequently nofc writing throughout in the first person : plural. Ono of these grammatical sinners, whom the writer quotes, describes, we are told, something in thiß style an exciting adveuture in which he was the principal actor: "We felt that a few moments would decide our fate. We were totally alone ; we shouted, butno one answered. Tho projecting ledge on which we had contrived to support one of our feet was slowly giving way. We looked down ; a sheer precipice of ono thousand yards yawned beneath us ; our hat fell off; our head grow dizzy ; our right hand was rapidly becoming benumbed, kc" ' "Who" asks tho reviewer, "can care for a Mr. We in such a situation ? The passage is perused with frigid indifference, as not appealing to. any human sympathyiwith a;fellow creathrb ; -br if any feeling is evoked, it is ono, perhaps, rather resembling satisfaction; a vague notion that somehow or pther there will shortly be one newspaper editor the less in the world." Equally just is the reviewer's indignation with the humorous writers of the day, who are in the habit of beginning an article in this • style, ". we are in the Strand. See' a haberdaseer's shop. Let us enter,. Ori', ihe. right a counter. In front of ifc-' a chair. Behind it a smiling shopman, mustachoeid of course. I sit down. A pair of gloves, if you please. Light yellow. Will I try these ? . Too large. Will I try a second pair ? Too small. A third. A wriggle a thrust, a sfcrugle; they are on.!, That will do. Three-., and-sixpence did you say ? Thank you sir. Any pfcher article ? I rise and resume. my umbrella. Orice more we arc in the Strand." A sad falling off indeed from the grammatical ways of our simple minded forefathers, who, holding that no sentence can stand without a verb, were wont to write up on- corriers of houses, as some old iriural tablets still testify. "This is High street ' , " What can be more dreadful, " asks the reviewer, " than the forced levity, the jaunty insolence, of this kind of composition; or rather decomposition? One longs to exclaim with Hamlet, ' Leave thy darimable faces and begin. Tell us what thou hast to say,' if anything thou bast, and if not, hold thy peace ;'," to all : which most educated readers will,' we think, subscribe ; though somebody perhaps may suggest, in answer, to the; reviewer's question. " What can be more dreadful?" that the .reviewer himself here slips into the common, but serious ofi'ence against; the Queen's English of using stronger language than; the case requires, , for* it cannot, be denied! ; that some recent murders, or, say, railway accidents, have been more" dreadful" than this verbleas paragraph of the small humorous writer, who, with all the other offenders now held up to scorn and derisiori, will, we hope, shut his eyes to these small motes in the eye of* his censor, and henceforth walk/meekly .by the dight of the true principles which govern the Queen's English. — Publishers' Circular. ...