a new manner, as, The gentlemen who are opposed to. this new measure. If you happen to be of my opinion (continues Franklin) with respect to these innovations, you will use your authority in reprobating them ". No doubt Dean Alford would have lent a helping hand here; but with what success ? The progress of language is a thing far mightier than the breath of Deans! I take exception to the Dean's treatment of the word press, which has not yet ceased to be a collective noun. He has no right (on his principles) to write as follows :— 66 "Allude to is used in a new sense by the press, and not only by them, but". The Dean ought here to have written "it" instead of "them;" and yet we find this teacher playing himself with the inaccuracy (so he calls it) of saying "twice one are two", and "three times three are "nine". In order to prove the grammatical incorrectness of these two assertions, the clever Dean alters the form of the expression, and, "presto"! the juggle is concluded. "What we "want (says the Dean) being simply this, that "three taken three times makes up, is equal to "nine". Now, admitting this to be correct, Mr. Dean-admitting three not to be plural any more than one (which is just what you should prove, but also just what you do not attempt to prove) nevertheless, admitting your improved premises; yet, when we say what you "want" to say in another mode, if that other mode have a plural nominative, the verb must also be plural; and we say "three times" must be plural, and so must even three. I might, for example, say of a man and his wife-" they twain are one flesh"; but you, Mr. Dean, might reply to me (as you are now doing), "What we want to say is simply this-this man "is, and that woman is, one flesh-makes up, is "equal to one flesh." All very good! But so long as we speak of them as twain, we must (in order to be grammatical) employ the word are respecting them. It appears to me, Pernickity Pawkie, that this Southron and Prelatic Dean has mystified and bewildered his reasoning powers respecting the grammar of the multiplication table by a highlywrought abstraction upon the Athanasian Creed respecting the triune and official subsistencies of the Godhead-" Three in one sense, and one “in another”—may, by some misconception of the fact, have deranged the ideas of numerical relation in the Dean's mind, and it will account for his hallucination in reference to the mode of stating the multiplication table. It is this Dean's idiosyncracy to refine.-The Christian News, May 2, 1863. THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH. A CRITICISM FROM ROUTLEDGE'S MAGAZINE, THE study of language is one of the most instructive and, at the same time, one of the most interesting occupations with which we can employ ourselves; and, in the present age of advanced education, it is absolutely necessary for everybody to obtain a knowledge of his own language, and to read, speak, and write it in accordance with the known rules on the subject. However well taught a man may be in other branches of study, he will never make his way in the world unless he can speak correctly, since correct speaking is, as it were, the outward attribute of the gentleman, and the one by which his other qualifications are judged. The Dean is evidently not a graceful writer of English, as he is sure to have put forth all his strength in the composition of a book on language. This strength, however, seems to consist in devising the most unnatural manner of writing good English, and in violating some of Lord Kames's most important rules with regard to words expressing things connected in thought being placed as near together as possible. 6 The Queen's English,' we must state, professes to be a reprint from a widely circulated periodical entitled 'Good Words,' and the subject is said to be presented to the public ' in a considerably altered form.' This is strictly true, for, having compared the reprint with the original articles, we are able to compliment the Dean on the many judicious alterations he has made; thanks, perhaps, to the suggestions given by a gentleman styled, in a country paper, "a knight, bearing on his "shield the emblem of the lunar orb ", and other lovers of pure English who have considered that the reverend grammarian has in some way defiled the pure well of English. Sitting down with the book, * and the volume of 'Good Words' for 1863 before us, we note no great difference until we come to the following expression: "The Queen "is of course no more the proprietor of the "English language than you or I"-(see 'Good 'Words'), but in the volume we have “ than any "of us." Why this change? On page 152 of the book we read: "What are we to think of "the question, whether 'than' does or does not 66 govern an accusative case? than I': 'than "me': which is right? My readers will probably answer without hesitation, the former. But 66 is the latter so certainly wrong? We are "accustomed to hear it stigmatized as being so; “but, I think, erroneously. Milton writes, "Paradise Lost,' ii, 299, 666 "Which when Beelzebub perceived, than whom, Satan except, none higher sat.' "And thus every one of us would speak: 'than 'who', would be intolerable. And this seems to "settle the question." So the Dean thinks. We, however, do not. Poetry is not often considered a high authority on matters of grammatical construction, although the Dean seems to think it should *Second Edition. be, since this is the only instance of "than” governing the accusative that he deigns to cite: besides, it is evident that in many cases, the employment of the accusative instead of the nominative, gives to the sentence another meaning, thus: 1 He likes you better than me. Surely it is manifest to everybody that the first form means that he likes you better than (he likes) me, and that the latter means, he likes you better than I (like you); and yet our Dean in an authoritative manner says, that you may say either" than I”, or than me", but that the former should be used only when solemnity is required, as My Father is greater than I." 66 66 Is solemnity required when mention is made of the Queen in regard to her proprietorship of the English language? We trow not. Why, then, does our Dean lay down a rule, and break it on the first page of his Essays? This reflection seems to have occurred to the mind of the author, who probably in his reprint weighed with care every expression he made use of. This at any rate seems the only reason why he should alter than I" to "any one of us," and thus screen himself under an expression which fits either rule. Let us pause for a short time and note what some authorities write about this conjunction. Lowth is of opinion that such forms as "thou 66 art wiser than me are bad grammar. Mr. E. F. Graham, in his excellent book on English |