"Treated",

and
"treated
of ".

Ellipsis.

that the above expressions are not unfrequently used by "educated persons"; you go on to say, "The main objection to "them is, that they are proscribed by usage; "but exception may also be taken to them "on their own account". So I should think, if they will use such expressions as "I ain't certain", "I ain't going".

I see you still say "treated", rather than "treated of"; e.g. "a matter treated "in my former paper". On a previous occasion I spoke of this error; but I suppose, as you still express yourself in the same way, you consider the terms synonymous; but they certainly are not. To treat is one thing; to treat of is another; and it is the latter expression that would convey your meaning. The following sentence will exhibit the difference between the two terms. "A matter "treated of in my former paper was treated "by you with indifference."

One of the defects noticeable in your essays, is that of making your expressions too elliptical. Brevity is undoubtedly an excellent quality in writing; but brevity

دو

should always be subordinate to per-
spicuity. This has not been attended to
in the following sentence, which, singularly
enough, happens to be upon the very
subject of ellipsis itself. You say, "Some
languages are more elliptical than others;
"that is, the habits of thought of some
"nations will bear the omission of certain
"members of a sentence better than the
"habits of thought of other nations
[will]. Do you not perceive that but for
the little word "will", which I have added
to your sentence, the statement would be,
that "the habits of thought of some
"nations will bear the omission of certain
"members of a sentence better than [they
"will bear] the habits of thought of other
"nations"?- -a truth which no one will
be found to deny; but, at the same time,
a truth which you did not mean to
affirm.

quack?"

Bow,

The consequence of too free an indul- “Quack, gence in the elliptical form of expression, would probably be that [in the language of every-day life, at any rate,] all connective words would gradually dis

Expletives: -"at all'

appear from use; and we should, perhaps, ultimately find ourselves, for brevity's sake, adopting the style exemplified in the anecdote given by Farrar, and which runs thus." An Englishman in China, 'seeing a dish placed before him, about "which he felt suspicious, and wishing "to know whether it was duck, said "with an interrogative accent, Quack,

66 6

quack?' He received the clear and straightforward answer, 'Bow, wow'! This, no doubt was as good as the "most eloquent conversation on the same 'subject between an Englishman and a "French waiter; but I doubt whether it "deserves the name of language."*

Among the peculiarities of style observable in your essays is your evident fondness for feeble expletives which add nothing to the meaning of the sentences to which they are attached. You say, for instance,

"I did not allude to the letter at "all".

* Farrar's' Origin of Language,' p. 74, as quoted in Max Müller's 'Lectures,' p. 346.

"Twice one not being plural at all”.
"Some found fault with me for dealing
at all with the matter".

"Is it really part of the verb 'have', "at all?"

"If we use the past tense at all”. "Without any pains at all".

"The use of the plural verb at all is " unusual".

I should much like to know the origin of the phrase, and what difference in the meaning of any of the above sentences there would be if the words were struck out.

-" and the

Irishisms also should be avoided; for Irishisms: "the like o' them" are anything but like". pleasing in essays on the Queen's English.

You say, "Wrong understanding of "obsolete phrases and the like".

Patrobas, Aristobulus and the like". Making out that Andromache was An"drew Mackay and the like”.

"Such expressions as 'It is me', 'I "knew it to be him', and the like".

"We continually hear and read 'This

"much I know', 'Of that much I am

certain', and the like".

"To take it in good part, to take a man for his brother, and the like".

Plain', 'soft', 'sweet', 'right', "'wrong', and the like".

"I mean in my youth, or when I was "in Cheshire, or the like".

What! Not yet over that " pons asino"rum" of juvenile writers, the "con"struction louche"? You were there when I wrote to you my first letter; and you are there still? This ought not to be; for, the effect of this error is so ridiculous, and the error itself may be so easily avoided. You say, "Though

some of the European rulers may be "females, when spoken of altogether, they may be correctly classified under the "denomination 'kings'." In this sentence, the clause which I have put in italics has, what our Gallic neighbours designate, "a squinting construction", it looks two ways at once; that is, it may be construed as relating to the words which precede, or to those which follow.