Sect. I.

Good use not always consistent in her decisions.......Canon I.

Canon the first.

THE first canon, then, shall be, When use is divided as to any particular word or phrase, and the expression used by one part hath been preoccupied, or is in any instance susceptible of a different signification, and the expression employed by the other part never admits a different sense, both perspicuity and variety require, that the form of expression, which is in every instance strictly univocal, be preferred.

For this reason aught, signifying any thing, is preferable to ought, which is one of our defective verbs: by consequence, meaning consequently, is preferable to of consequence; as this expression is often employed to denote momentous or important. In the preposition toward and towards, and the adverbs forward and forwards, backward and backwards, the two forms are used indiscriminately. But as the first form in all these is also an adjective, it is better to confine the particles to the second. Custom, too, seems at This principle likewise

present to lean this way. leads me to prefer extemporary as an adjective, to extempore, which is properly an adverb, and ought, for the sake of precision, to be restrained to that use. It

of another language. If by the same rule we were to regulate all nouns and verbs of Latin original, our present syntax would be overturned. It is more conformable to English analogy with to; the words dislike and hatred, nearly synonymous, are thus construed.

The nature and use of verbal criticism, with its principal canons.

is only of late that this last term begins to be employed adjectively. Thus we say, with equal propriety, an extemporary prayer, an extemporary sermon, and, he prays extempore, he preaches extempore. I know not how Dr Priestly hath happened to mention the term extemporary, in a way which would make one think he considered it as a word peculiar to Mr Hume. The word hath evidently been in good use for a longer time than one thinks of searching back in quest of authorities, and remains in good use to this day. By the same rule we ought to prefer scarcely, as an adverb, to scarce, which is an adjective; and exceedingly, as an adverb, to exceeding, which is a participle. For the same reason also I am inclined to prefer that use, which makes ye invariably the nominative plural of the personal pronoun thou, and you the accusative, when applied to an actual plurality. When used for the singular number, custom hath determined that it shall be you in both cases. This renders the distinction rather more important, as for the most part it would show directly whether one or more were addressed; a point in which we are often liable to mistake in all modern languages. From the like principle, in those verbs which have for the participle passive both the preterit form and one peculiar, the peculiar form ought to have the preference. Thus, I have gotten, I have bidden, I have spoken, are better than I have got, I have bid, I have spoke *. From

* Yet I should prefer " I have held, helped, melted," to "I have “bolden, holpen, molen, these last participles being now obsolete,

Sect. I.

Good use not always consistent in her decisions....Canon I.

the same principle I think ate is preferable in the preterit tense, and eaten in the participle, to eat, which is the constant form of the present, though sometimes also used for both the others.

But though in this judgment concerning the participles, I agree entirely with all our approved modern grammarians, I can by no means concur with some of them in their manner of supporting it. "We should "be immediately shocked," says one of the best of them †, at I have knew, I have saw, I have gave, "&c. but our ears are grown familiar with I have wrote, I have drank, I have bore, &c. which are al

36

46

66

together as barbarous." Nothing can be more inconsistent, in my opinion, with the very first principles of grammar, than what is here advanced. This ingenious gentleman surely will not pretend, that there is a barbarism in every word which serves for preterit and participle both, else the far greater part of the preterits and participles of our tongue are barbarous. If not, what renders many of them, such as loved, bated, sent, brought, good English, when employed either way? I know no answer that can be given, but custom; that is, in other words, our ears are familiarised to them by frequent use. And what was ever meant by a barbarism in speech, but that which shocks us by violating the constant usage in speaking or in writing? If so, to be equally barbarous, and to be

Lowth's Introduction to English Grammar..

The nature and use of verbal criticism, with its principal canons.

6.

equally shocking, are synonymous; whereas to be barbarous, and to be in familiar use, are a contradiction in terms. Yet in this manner does our author often himself. express No authority," says he in another place," is sufficient to justify so manifest a "solecism." No man needed less to be informed, that authority is every thing in language, and that it is the want of it alone that constitutes both the barbarism and the solecism.

Canon the second.

THE second canon is, In doubtful cases regard ought to be had in our decisions to the analogy of the language.

For this reason I prefer contemporary to cotemporary. The general use in words compounded with the inseparable composition con, is to retain the [n] before a consonant, and to expunge it before a vowel or an [h] mute. Thus we say condisciple, conjuncture, concomitant; but co-equal, co-eternal, co-incide, co-heir. I know but one exception, which is co-partner. But in dubious cases we ought to follow the rule, and not the exception. If by the former canon the adverbs backwards and forwards are preferable to backward and forward; by this canon, from the principle of analogy, afterwards and homewards should be preferred to afterward and homeward. Of the two adverbs there about and thereabouts, compounded

Sect. I. Good use not always uniform in her decisions....Canon II.

of the particle there and the preposition, the former alone is analogical, there being no such word in the language as abouts. The same holds of hereabout and whereabout. In the verbs to dare and to need, many say, in the third person present singular, dare and need, as, he need not go; he dare not do it.' Others say, dares and needs. As the first usage is exceedingly irregular, hardly any thing less than uniform practice could authorise it. This rule supplies us with another reason for preferring scarcely and exceedingly as adverbs, to scarce and exceeding. The phrases Would to God, and Would God, can both plead the authority of custom'; but the latter is strictly analogical, the former is not. It is an established idiom in the English tongue, that any of the auxiliaries might, could, would, should, did, and bad, with the nominative subjoined, should express sometimes à supposition, sometimes a wish which of the two it exprsses in any instance, is easily discovered from the context. Thus the expression, Would be but ask it of me,' denotes either, If be would, or I wish that he would but ask it of me.' Would God, then, is properly, I wish that God would, or O that God would. The other expression it is impossible to reconcile to analogy in any way *. For a

*What has given rise to it is evidently the French Piût à Dieu, of the same import. But it has not been adverted to (so servile commonly are imitators), that the verb plaire is impersonal, and regularly construed with the preposition a; neither of which is the case with the English will and wouil.