Five Hundred Mistakes of Daily Occurrence in Speaking, Pronouncing, and Writing the English Language, Corrected - Walton Burgess (best fiction books of all time TXT) 📗

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by
WALTON BURGESS,
in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern
District of New York.

This book is offered to the public, not to be classed with elaborate or learned works, nor expected, like some of its more pretending companions among the offspring of the press, to run the gauntlet of literary criticism. It was prepared to meet the wants of persons—numbered by multitudes in even the most intelligent and refined communities—who from deficiency of education, or from carelessness of manner, are in the habit of misusing many of the most common words of the English language, distorting its grammatical forms, destroying its beauty, and corrupting its purity. The most thorough mode that could be adopted to correct such errors, would doubtless be to impart to the ignorant a practical knowledge of the principles of language, as embodied in treatises on grammar; but such a good work, however desirable its results, has, in time past, been too difficult for the promoters of education to complete, and is still too great to give promise of speedy accomplishment. A better expedient, bearing immediate fruits, has been adopted in the present volume, which, while it does not aim to produce a radical reform, cannot fail to render great service to those who need to improve their usual modes of expression, and to be more discriminating in their choice of words.

The more frequent and less excusable mistakes that may be noticed in ordinary conversation or correspondence, are here taken up, one by one—exposed, explained, and corrected. They consist variously of abuses of grammar, misapplications of words and phrases, improprieties of metaphor and comparison, misstatements of meaning, and faults of pronunciation. They are grouped miscellaneously, without classification, not so much because of the difficulty of devising an arrangement that would be systematic and intelligible, as from the evident fact that a division of subjects would render no assistance to those for whom the book is specially designed; for an appropriate classification would necessarily derive its features from the forms of grammar, and with these the readers of this book are supposed to be to a great extent unfamiliar.

The volume is put forth with no flourish of trumpets, and makes no extravagant pretensions; yet the publishers believe it will be regarded as a timely and useful work. If the race of critics should not like it—and while books have their “faults,” critics have their “failings”—they are reminded that he who corrects an old error, may render no less service to his brethren, than he who discovers a new truth. If the work shall be the means of saving one sensitive man from a confusion of blushes, in the presence of a company before which he desired to preserve his equanimity, it will not have gone forth without a mission of benefit, which will merit at least one acknowledgment.

The aim of this book, by correcting a multitude of common errors in the use of language, is mainly to offer assistance to such persons as need greater facilities for accurate expression in ordinary conversation. It is not designed to suggest topics of talk, nor to give rules or examples pointing out the proper modes of arranging them; but simply to insure persons who often have a good thing to say, from the confusion and mortification of improperly saying it. This chapter of introduction will not, therefore, be expected to present an essay on the general subject of conversation.

It may be remarked, however, by way of admonitory hint to some, that the most prominent error in the conversation of those who commit the most blunders, does not consist in saying too little that amounts to much, but too much that amounts to little; talkativeness is a characteristic more commonly of the ignorant, than of the wise. Shenstone says, “The common fluency of speech in many men, and most women, is owing to a scarcity of matter and a scarcity of words; for whoever is master of a language, and moreover has a mind full of ideas, will be apt, in speaking, to hesitate upon the choice of both; but common speakers have only one set of ideas and one set of words to clothe them in,—and these are always ready at the mouth. Just so, people can come faster out of a church when it is almost empty, than when a crowd is at the door!” But although, according to the old proverb, “a still tongue denotes a wise head,” the faculty of speech should not be neglected, merely because it may be misused.

Conversation is not a gift bestowed only upon those whom genius favors; on the contrary, many men eminent for their fluency of style in writing, have been noted for habitual taciturnity in their intercourse with society. Hazlitt remarked, that “authors should be read, not heard!” Charles II. of England, not only the wittiest of monarchs, but one of the liveliest of men, is said to have been so charmed in reading the humor of Butler’s “Hudibras,” that he disguised himself as a private gentleman, and was introduced to the author, whom, to his astonishment, he found to be one of the dullest of companions. On the other hand, some of the humblest men with whom one falls into company, possessed of but little variety, and less extent of information, are highly entertaining talkers. The particular topic of remark does not form so essential a part of an interesting conversation, as the words and manner of those who engage in it. Robert Burns, sitting down on one occasion to write a poem, said:

“Which way the subject theme may gang,
Let time or chance determine;
Perhaps it may turn out a sang,—
Or probably a sermon.”

In the same manner, the subject of a conversation need not be made a matter of study, or special preparation. Men may talk of things momentous or trivial, and in either strain be alike attractive and agreeable.

But quitting the consideration of the thought, to refer to the mode of its expression, it must be remarked and insisted, that to “murder the king’s English” is hardly less a crime, than to design against one of the king’s subjects. If committed from ignorance, the fault is at least deplorable; but if from carelessness, it is inexcusable. The greatest of sciences is that of language; the greatest of human arts is that of using words. No “cunning hand” of the artificer can contrive a work of mechanism that is to be compared, for a moment, with those wonderful masterpieces of ingenuity, which may be wrought by him who can skilfully mould a beautiful thought into a form that shall preserve, yet radiate its beauty. A mosaic of words may be made more fair, than of inlaid precious stones. The scholar who comes forth from his study, a master of the English language, is a workman who has at his command hardly less than a hundred thousand finely-tempered instruments, with which he may fashion the most cunning device. This is a trade which all should learn, for it is one that every individual is called to practise. The greatest support of virtue in a community is intelligence; intelligence is the outgrowth of knowledge; and the almoner of all knowledge is language. The possession, therefore, of the resources, and a command over the appliances of language, is of the utmost importance to every individual. Words are current coins of the realm, and they who do not have them in their treasury, suffer a more pitiable poverty than others who have not a penny of baser specie in their pocket; and the multitude of those who have an unfailing supply, but which is of the wrong stamp, are possessed only of counterfeit cash, that will not pass in circles of respectability. The present work therefore is, in some respects, not unlike the “Detector” issued for the merchants, to indicate the great amount of worthless money that is in general circulation with the good.

It is not to be supposed that all the mistakes of daily occurrence in the use of language, are to be numbered by “five hundred”—possibly not by five thousand; but it is evident that he who is instructed against five hundred of his habitual blunders, and enabled to steer clear of every one of them, has in no slight degree improved his conversation, and thereby increased his importance. As a prefix, or accompaniment, to this catalogue of corrected mistakes, the presentation of a few rules or principles of language, which, strictly observed, might guard against numerous general classes of errors, would not be thought misplaced, or undesirable. Some suggestions on points most prominent are accordingly given among these introductory remarks—not in formal statements of grammatical rules, but in examples in which the spirit of such rules is revealed.

Not the least glaring among the many misuses of words and forms of expression in conversation, occur by incorrectly employing the pronouns—who, which, what, and that. It may be remarked, that who should be applied exclusively to persons. Which usually refers to animals and inanimate objects, except in such an expression as, “Tell me which of the two men was chosen?” What, means that which: thus, “This is the book what I wanted,” should read, “This is the book that (or which) I wanted.”

Among interrogatives, who? inquires for the name; which? for the individual; what? for the character, or occupation. Thus, “Who built the bridge?” “Mr. Blake.” “Which of the Blakes?” “Charles Blake.” “What was he?” “A distinguished civil engineer.”

The title of a small book for young people, recently published, was—“The Way that Little Children enter Heaven:” the word that is here incorrectly used as a substitute for in which, or by which.

When this and that, and their plurals, are used in the sense of latter and former, this and these signify the latter, and that and those the former. Thus, in the following couplet from Burns:

“Farewell my friends, farewell my foes,
My peace with these, my love with those.”

these refers to “foes,” and those to “friends.”

In the possessive case of nouns, some instances occur in which a wise choice may be made, but in respect to which usage is divided. Thus, we may say, “They called at Walton’s the bookseller’s,” or, with equal propriety, as far as custom is concerned, “at Walton the bookseller’s.” The first form, however, is preferable.

The use of the hyphen [-] is frequently disregarded in epistolary correspondence, occasioning