Dictionary Wisdom

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXV, Issue 15, 11 April 1907, Page 30

Dictionary Wisdom

. Between ' set ' and ' sib ' and 'between ' lay ' and 'lie' there Is just the uiuerence that there is between a transitive and an, intransitive verb (says the ' ' Ro-.. Chester Democrat '). ' The difference; may be remembered by committing to memory these two sentences : ' The farmer* sets the hen, and the hen sits.' ''Now I lay) me down to sleep and soon I shall lie asleep.' The fact that the preterit of ' lie 'is J lay ' probably has caused most of the confusion in the use of these two words ; changing the tense * of the verbs of the latter sentence, we would have : • Then I laid me down to sleep, and soon lay asleep.' The fact that the sun ' sets "* instead of c sits ' " has caused a good deal of . confusion ~in- • the use of these - words. This • set,' however, is quite a different, word from th© otner ; U is derived from •* settle/ For the preterit, one should remember , ' sit ' changes to ' sa-t ' while ' set ' remains as it is. * Shall ' and * will ' are words between which many people have hard work to distinguish. The ' rule for the use of the words is simple, but, simple as it ' is, it is too long tci recollect each time erne wants to make use of the future tense, and custom alone will give perfection. The rule, briefly put, is this : To express simple futurity, use^_Lshall,' in the first person, ' will ' in ■ the second and third ; to express obligation, use ' will ' in T.ne nrst person, ' shall ' in' the second" -and third. - Courtesy, probably (the same ' courtesy that makes us say ' you ' instead of ' thou * , causes the French to follow the same rule, and requires the Germans t0"t 0 " say ' they ' -instead of ' thou" or ' you '), is responsible - for the use of ' ' shall ' in the first" person and '' will ' in the others to express simple -futurity. 'Shall' originally implied obligation,, no matter of what per-son-it was used; people, speaking .of themselves; courteously spoke as though they were obliged to do this or that ; -but, speaking of others, they courteously expressed only . the thought; that it was the others' ' intention or will to do this or that. When it became a question of determination or compulsion, then they said of themselves 'We will ' ; that is, 'We will it '; and of others ' You shall 'or 'He shall" ; that " is, "You (or -he) are obliged to.' Politeness is the cause of many cither absurdities of, syntax ; and a desire of our forefathers to make certain expressions emphatic is responsible for others. A curious example of an emphatic expression giving rise to an iron rule of grammar is seen in French, in which one says '- Je ne sais pas,' freely translated, 1 1 do not know,' but literally, ' I do not know (a) step.' We say, 'I won't go a step,' thereby - making emphatic our refusal ; _so did the French of other days ; they said it so often that the '~p*as ' -fell naturallyinto use with all verbs, .and to-day there are " few expressions in which it can be omitted. It is called ' a double negative ' ; but- it " really is a negative plus an emphatic noun. But which is the more absurd : VJe ne sais pas,' with, its useless 'pas,' or ' I ~do> not know,' with its „ idiotic 'do ' ? This 'do' is supposed to foe for emphasis ;' but to say ;-I know not ' would attract - attention, from everybody, while C l do not bnow ' lacks' all 1 emphasis. - r English cannot poke fun at absurdities of other languages. ' ■-. - ■ • . . '

Mr. Owen Brady celebrated - his liwtn -birwiaay at ,-Titree Springs, in the Carcoar district, New South Wales,, a. few days ago. He ' was born -in Cork in 1807, % and, though nearly blind now, all his other faculties are pood and his memory wonderfully keen. He served , with General de Lacy Evans in Spain. The afflicted all fly to it, The sufferin'gcry for it, - - Sing .praises high of it, • It can ensure Protection from chills, Chest troubles and ills, _ •Keep 'down doctors' bills—^ Woods' Great Peppermint Cure.