The Verbalist Part 19

"'Varney's communications, _be_ they what they might, were operating in his favor.'--Scott.

"'Governing persons, _were_ they never so insignificant intrinsically, have for most part plenty of Memoir-writers.'--Carlyle.

"'Even _were_ I disposed, I could not gratify the reader.'--Warren.

"'Bring them back to me, _cost_ what it may.'--Coleridge, 'Wallenstein.'

"'And _will_ you, _nill_ you, I will marry you.'--'Taming of the Shrew.'

"_Were_ is used in the princ.i.p.al clause for 'should be' or 'would be.'[32]

"'I _were_ (=should be) a fool, not less than if a panther Were panic-stricken by the antelope's eye, If she escape me.'--Sh.e.l.ley.

"'Were you but riding forth to air yourself, Such parting _were_ too petty.'

"'He _were_ (=would be) no lion, were not Romans hinds.'

"'Should he be roused out of his sleep to-night, ...

It _were_ not well; indeed it _were_ not well.'--Sh.e.l.ley.

"_Had_ is sometimes used in the princ.i.p.al clause for 'should have' or 'would have.'[33]

"'Had I known this before we set out, I think I _had_ (= would have) remained at home.'--Scott.

"'Hadst thou been kill'd when first thou didst presume, Thou _hadst_ not lived to kill a son of mine.'

"'If he Had killed me, he _had_ done a kinder deed.'

"'For once he _had_ been ta'en or slain, An it had not been his ministry.'--Scott.

"'If thou hadst said him nay, it _had_ been sin.'[34]

"'_Had_ better, rather, best, as lief, as well, etc.,' is a form that is explained under this heading. 'Had' stands for 'would have.' The exploded notion that 'had' is a corrupted 'would' must be guarded against.

"'I _had_ as lief not be.' That is--'I _would_ as lief _have_ not (_to_) be' = 'I would as willingly (or as soon) have non-existence.'

"'_Had_ you rather Caesar were living----?' '_Would_ you rather _have_ (_would_ you _prefer_ that) Caesar were living?'

"'He _had_ better reconsider the matter' is 'he _would_ better _have_ (_to_) reconsider the matter.'

"'I _had_ rather be a kitten and cry mew Than one of these same metre ballad-mongers; I _had_ rather hear a brazen canstick turned.'

"Let us compare this form with another that appears side by side with it in early writers. (Cp. Lat. 'habeo' and 'mihi est.')

"The construction of 'had' is thus ill.u.s.trated in Chaucer, as in--Nonne Prestes Tale, 300:

"'By G.o.d, I _hadde_ levere than my scherte, That ye hadde rad his legend, as I have.'

"Compare now:

"'Ah _me were levere_ with lawe _loose_ my lyf Then so to fote hem _falle_.'--Wright, 'Polit. S.'

"Here 'were' is unquestionably for 'would be'; and the whole expression might be given by 'had,' thus: 'Ah, _I hadde_ levere ----,' '(to) _loose_' and '(to) _falle_,' changing from subjects of 'were' to objects of 'hadde.'

"So, in the Chaucer example above, if we subst.i.tute 'be' for 'have,' we shall get the same meaning, thus: 'By G.o.d, _me were_ levere ----.' The interchange helps us to see more clearly that 'hadde' is to be explained as subjunctive for 'would have.'" See INDICATIVE AND SUBJUNCTIVE.

SUCH. "I have never before seen _such_ a large ox." By a little transposing of the words of this sentence, we have, "I have never before seen an ox _such_ large," which makes it quite clear that we should say _so large an ox_ and not _such a large ox_. As proof that this error in the use of _such_ is common, we find in Mr. George Was.h.i.+ngton Moon's "Dean's English and Bad English," the sentence, "With all due deference to _such_ a high authority on _such_ a very important matter." With a little transposing, this sentence is made to read, "With all due deference to an authority _such_ high on a matter _such_ very important." It is clear that the sentence should read, "With all due deference to _so_ high an authority on _so_ very important a matter."

The phrases, _such_ a handsome, _such_ a lovely, _such_ a long, _such_ narrow, etc., are incorrect, and should be _so_ handsome, _so_ lovely, _so_ long, and so on.

SUMMON. This verb comes in for its full share of mauling. We often hear such expressions as "I will _summons_ him," instead of _summon_ him; and "He was _summonsed_," instead of _summoned_.

SUPERFLUOUS WORDS. "Whenever I try to write well, I _always_ find I can do it." "I shall have finished by the _latter_ end of the week." "Iron sinks _down_ in water." "He combined _together_ all the facts." "My brother called on me, and we _both_ took a walk." "I can do it _equally_ as well as he." "We could not forbear _from_ doing it." "Before I go, I must _first_ be paid." "We were compelled to return _back_." "We forced them to retreat _back_ fully a mile." "His conduct was approved _of_ by everybody." "They conversed _together_ for a long time." "The balloon rose _up_ very rapidly." "Give me another _one_." "Come home as soon as _ever_ you can." "Who finds him _in_ money?" "He came in last _of all_."

"He has _got_ all he can carry." "What have you _got_?" "No matter what I have _got_." "I have _got_ the headache." "Have you _got_ any brothers?" "No, but I have _got_ a sister." All the words in _italics_ are superfluous.

SUPERIOR. This word is not unfrequently used for able, excellent, gifted; as, "She is a _superior_ woman," meaning an _excellent_ woman; "He is a _superior_ man," meaning an _able_ man. The expression _an inferior man_ is not less objectionable.

SUPPOSIt.i.tIOUS. This word is _properly_ used in the sense of put by a trick into the place or character belonging to another, spurious, counterfeit, not genuine; and _improperly_ in the sense of conjectural, hypothetical, imaginary, presumptive; as, "This is a _supposit.i.tious_ case," meaning an _imaginary_ or _presumptive_ case. "The English critic derived his materials from a stray copy of some _supposit.i.tious_ indexes devised by one of the 'Post' reporters."--"Nation." Here is a correct use of the word.

SWOSH. There is a kind of ill-balanced brain in which the reflective and the imaginative very much outweight the perceptive. Men to whom this kind of an organization has been given generally have active minds, but their minds never present anything clearly. To their mental vision all is ill-defined, chaotic. They see everything in a haze. Whether such men talk or write, they are verbose, illogical, intangible, will-o'-the-wispish. Their thoughts are phantomlike; like shadows, they continually escape their grasp. In their talk they will, after long dissertations, tell you that they have not said just what they would like to say; there is always a subtle, lurking something still unexpressed, which something is the real essence of the matter, and which your penetration is expected to divine. In their writings they are eccentric, vague, labyrinthine, pretentious, transcendental,[35] and frequently ungrammatical. These men, if write they must, should confine themselves to the descriptive; for when they enter the essayist's domain, which they are very p.r.o.ne to do, they write what I will venture to call _swosh_.

We find examples in plenty of this kind of writing in the essays of Mr.

Ralph Waldo Emerson. Indeed, the impartial critic who will take the trouble to examine any of Mr. Emerson's essays at all carefully, is quite sure to come to the conclusion that Mr. Emerson has seen everything he has ever made the subject of his essays very much as London is seen from the top of Saint Paul's in a fog.

Mr. Emerson's definition of Nature runs thus: "Philosophically considered, the universe is composed of Nature and the Soul. Strictly speaking, therefore, all that is separate from us, all which philosophy distinguishes from the _Not Me_--that is, both Nature and Art, and all other men, and my own body--must be ranked under this name 'NATURE.' In enumerating the values of Nature and casting up their sum, I shall use the word in both senses--in its common and in its philosophical import.

In inquiries so general as our present one, the inaccuracy is not material; no confusion of thought will occur. _Nature_, in the common sense, refers to essences unchanged by man: s.p.a.ce, the air, the river, the leaf. _Art_ is applied to the mixture of his will with the same things, as in a house, a ca.n.a.l, a picture, a statue. But his operations, taken together, are so insignificant--a little chipping, baking, patching, and was.h.i.+ng--that in an impression so grand as that of the world on the human mind they do not vary the result."

In "Letters and Social Aims" Mr. Emerson writes: "Eloquence is the power to translate a truth into language perfectly intelligible to the person to whom you speak. He who would convince the worthy Mr. Dunderhead of any truth which Dunderhead does not see, must be a master of his art.

Declamation is common; but such possession of thought as is here required, such practical chemistry as the conversion of a truth written in G.o.d's language into a truth in Dunderhead's language, is one of the most beautiful and cogent weapons that is forged in the shop of the Divine Artificer."

The first paragraph of Mr. Emerson's "Essay on Art" reads: "All departments of life at the present day--Trade, Politics, Letters, Science, or Religion--seem to feel, and to labor to express, the ident.i.ty of their law. They are rays of one sun; they translate each into a new language the sense of the other. They are sublime when seen as emanations of a Necessity contradistinguished from the vulgar Fate by being instant and alive, and dissolving man, as well as his works, in its flowing beneficence. This influence is conspicuously visible in the principles and history of Art."

Another paragraph from Mr. Emerson's "Essay on Eloquence": "The orator, as we have seen, must be a substantial personality. Then, first, he must have power of statement--must have the fact, and know how to tell it. In a knot of men conversing on any subject, the person who knows most about it will have the ear of the company, if he wishes it, and lead the conversation, no matter what genius or distinction other men there present may have; and, in any public a.s.sembly, him who has the facts, and can and will state them, people will listen to, though he is otherwise ignorant, though he is hoa.r.s.e and ungrateful, though he stutters and screams."

Mr. Emerson, in his "Essay on Prudence," writes: "There are all degrees of proficiency in knowledge of the world. It is sufficient to our present purpose to indicate three. One cla.s.s live to the utility of the symbol, esteeming health and wealth a final good. Another cla.s.s live above this mark to the beauty of the symbol, as the poet and artist, and the naturalist and man of science. A third cla.s.s live above the beauty of the symbol to the beauty of the thing signified; these are wise men.

The first cla.s.s have common sense; the second, taste; and the third, spiritual perception. Once in a long time a man traverses the whole scale, and sees and enjoys the symbol solidly; then, also, has a clear eye for its beauty; and, lastly, whilst he pitches his tent on this sacred volcanic isle of nature, does not offer to build houses and barns thereon, reverencing the splendor of G.o.d which he sees bursting through each c.h.i.n.k and cranny."

Those who are wont to accept others at their self-a.s.sessment and to see things through other people's eyes--and there are many such--are in danger of thinking this kind of writing very fine, when in fact it is not only the veriest _swosh_, but that kind of swosh that excites at least an occasional doubt with regard to the writer's sanity. We can make no greater mistake than to suppose that the reason we do not understand these rhetorical contortionists is because they are so subtle and profound. We understand them quite as well as they understand themselves. At their very best, they are but incoherent diluters of other men's ideas. They have but one thing to recommend them--honesty.

They believe in themselves.

"Whatever is dark is deep. Stir a puddle, and it is deeper than a well."--Swift.

SYNECDOCHE. The using of the name of a part for that of the whole, the name of the whole for that of a part, or the using of a definite number for an indefinite, is called, in rhetoric, _synecdoche_. "The bay was covered with _sails_"; i. e., with _s.h.i.+ps_. "The man was old, careworn, and gray"; i. e., literally, _his hair_, not the man, was gray. "_Nine tenths_ of every man's happiness depends on the reception he meets with in the world." "He had seen seventy _winters_." "Thus spoke the _tempter_": here the part of the character is named that suits the occasion.

"His roof was at the service of the outcast; the unfortunate ever found a welcome at his threshold."

TAKE. I copy from the "London Queen": "The verb _to take_ is open to being considered a vulgar verb when used in reference to dinner, tea, or to refreshments of any kind. 'Will you _take_' is not considered _comme il faut_; the verb in favor for the offering of civilities being _to have_." According to "The Queen," then, we must say, "Will you _have_ some dinner, tea, coffee, wine, fish, beef, salad," etc.

TASTE OF. The redundant _of_, often used, in this country, in connection with the transitive verbs _to taste_ and _to smell_, is a Yankeeism. We _taste_ or _smell_ a thing, not taste _of_ nor smell _of_ a thing. The neuter verbs _to taste_ and _to smell_ are often followed by _of_. "If b.u.t.ter _tastes of_ bra.s.s." "For age but _tastes of_ pleasures."