CHAPTER FOURTH.

ON SKILL IN THE USE OF LANGUAGE.

VALUABLE thoughts, extensive knowledge, the ability to reason justly, and good literary taste, are essential to form the good writer, in whatever language he may compose. They are therefore rightly called the foundations of a good style. But it was stated in the Introduction, that in addition to these requisites for good writing, there must be skill in the use of language. This then is the next object of attention.

To use the English language skilfully, implies that the writer selects his words and composes his sentences, in a manner, which accurately and clearly conveys to those able to read this language, the thoughts existing in his own mind. With the design then of aiding the young writer in the acquisition of this skill, I shall treat of the nature and principles of Verbal Criticism, and afterwards state the rules and cautions to be observed in the composition of sentences.

SECTION I.-ON VERBAL CRITICISM.

Nature and necessity of Verbal Criticism.

When Cortez landed on the Coasts of South America, in formation was immediately given to the king of Mexico of

his arrival and of the appearance of his troops. The despatches which were sent, consisted of pictures representing the appearance of the ships, the disembarking of men, their arms and equipments and military array. Had Montezuma, with a company of his subjects, arrived at the same period of the world on the coasts of England, an account of his arrival and appearance would have been sent to the king of that country; but in this case, instead of pictures, words would have been used in conveying the information; and the king of England, upon looking on the words, would have had as correct and distinct information of the arrival and appearance of Montezuma and his troops, as was obtained in the former instance from looking on the pictures. Hence we infer, that words answer the same purpose as pictures; they bring up to the mind subjects and thoughts which they are designed to represent.

Suppose next, that Montezuma, with his troops, after leaving the coast of England, had visited those of Spain Information of his arrival and appearance would have been sent to the monarch of that country; and in sending this information, as in the case of the king of England, words would have been used. But though the words used for conveying this intelligence, would in this case have been different from those before used, still they would represent the same objects, and be as readily understood. Different words then in different languages represent the same objects. Hence we infer, that there is no natural connexion between words and the objects which they represent.

Suppose next, that the event of Montezuma's arrival on the English coast had occurred during the thirteenth century, instead of the sixteenth, In this case, an account might have been sent to the king of England in writing, as before, but the words used, would not be intelligible to those who speak and write the English language at the present

day. This we infer from the fact, that some fragments of writings of that period in the English language, which now remain, are not intelligible. Hence we learn, not only that different words are used to express the same thoughts in different languages, but that at different periods different words are used in the same language, as the symbols of the same object.

Now from these facts, that words are but signs that there is no natural connexion between them and the objects which they represent - and that the words of a language are changing, some becoming obsolete, and others gaining admission, arises the necessity of verbal criticism; the object of which is to establish those principles, and lay down those rules, which may direct writers in the selection of right words for expressing their thoughts. If words, like pictures, were the exact representatives of objects, or the same word always, in every period in the history of a language, and whenever used, had the same thought attached to it by all who speak or write the language, there would evidently be no necessity for verbal criticism. In learning a language, we should acquire the knowledge of the correct and uniform use of each word, and we should then be in no danger of using it incorrectly.

Good use the standard of appeals in all decisions of Verbal Criticism.

Suppose that in a recent publication, I should meet with the following expression; "When the trial came on, he occupied this man as a witness." I at once say, that the word occupy is here incorrectly used. Should any one ask me, on what authority I make this assertion, I should answer, that the signification given to it, is different from that which it has in the writings of those, who are esteem

---

ed good authors in the English language. I should turn to several passages in the writings of Addison, Swift, Jeremy Taylor, and perhaps others of the same repute, and show him, that the common meaning of the word, is to possess to hold or to keep for use, and I would then challenge him to show me the word, as used in the passage in dispute, in the writings of these authors, or of any author who is reputed a good writer.

Suppose, now, that my opponent should say, that he had found the word occupy, used in the sense to make use of, in the writings of Sir Thomas More, who wrote at the close of the fifteenth, or near the commencement of the sixteenth century; and at the same time acknowledge, that he could not find it thus used in any writer, since that period; I should tell him in reply, that this is no authority for its being used in this sense at the present time. If for three centuries the word has ceased to be thus used by English writers, it is not now a part of the English language. It has become obsolete, and to English readers, it is no longer the sign or symbol, with which the idea to make use of is connected.

Suppose, next, that my opponent should assert, that he has found the word thus used in some newspaper, and that he considers the editor of that newspaper a good writer. I should answer him, that it is not enough, that one individual esteems the editor of the newspaper in which the word in question is found, a good writer. He must generally be reputed as such. And even if he were so reputed, it is not enough that one good writer has thus used the word in dispute. This will not make the word, as thus used, a part of the English language, and cause it to be generally understood in this sense,

Suppose, once more, that my opponent should assert, that the word occupy is thus used in his own neighborhood,

acknowledging at the same time, that he had not heard it so used in other parts of the country. I should answer him again, that this local use of it does not make it a part of the English language. It may be a part of the language of the town where he resides, but it would not be right to use it in this signification, in a work intended to be read by all those who read the English language. It would not convey a right meaning, or be intelligible to any, excepting those of a single town or village in the country.

The case would be similar, supposing my opponent should assert, that lawyers, or those of any particular profession, are wont to use the word in the sense for which he contends. I might allow that the word occupy is thus correctly used, and at the same time contend, that this professional usage does not authorize its introduction with the same signification into works addressed to all who read the English language. Lawyers, and those of other professions, have many terms in use, which are peculiar to the profession, and which are not expected to be understood by those unacquainted with its mysteries.

From these statements, we learn in what manner each word in a language becomes the symbol of a particular object. It is by conventional agreement. All who speak the language, are supposed to have entered into an agreement, to use and understand the word in this sense. When therefore we would know in respect to any particular word, whether it belongs to a language, we are to inquire, if it is found in the writings and heard in the conversation of those who write and speak the language. If it is not thus found, the use of it is called a Barbarism, and is to be avoided.

We learn further from the views now given, in what manner we may ascertain the proper use of those words which belong to the language. It is by an appeal to Good Usage. We are first to inquire, how the word in question