FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130  
131   132   133   >>  
is, on the whole, quicker and wittier than the English) with apt and luminous colloquial metaphors; and I know not why Mr. Tucker should disclaim the credit. He next sets forth to show how recent English writers are corrupting the language; and, in doing so, he falls into some curious errors. Dickens was boldly innovating when he made Silas Wegg say, "Mr. Boffin, I never bargain"--"haggle," it would seem, is the proper word. But if Mr. Tucker will look into the matter, he will find it extremely probable that this was the original sense of the word "bargain," and quite certain that it was a very early sense; for instance-- "So worthless peasants bargain for their wives, As market-men for oxen, sheep, or horse." I HENRY VI., V. v. 53. And, in any case, is it possible to set up such a distinction between "bargaining" and "haggling" as to be worth an international wrangle? "Starved" for frozen is to Mr. Tucker an innovation; it was used both by Shakespeare and Milton. "Assist" in the sense of to "be present at" is an "absurd" innovation; it was used by Gibbon and by Prescott, a "tolerably good authority," says Mr. Tucker himself, "in the use of English." Miss Yonge is taken to task for saying, "Theodora _flung_ away and was rushing off;" but Milton says, "And crop-full out of doors he flings." Charles Reade "is guilty of such phrases as 'Wardlaw whipped before him,' 'Ransome whipped before it;'" but the Princess in _Love's Labour's Lost_ is guilty of saying, "Whip to our tents, as roes run o'er the land," and the word occurs in the same sense in Ben Jonson and Steele, to search no further. The simple fact is that Mr. Tucker has not happened to note the intransitive sense of "to fling" and "to whip," which has been current in the best authors for centuries. He is very severe on the English habit of "inserting utterly superfluous words," instancing from Lord Beaconsfield, "He was _by way of_ intimating that he was engaged on a great work," and, from a magazine, "She was _by way of_ painting the shrimp girl." Now, this is not an elegant expression, and for my part I should be at some pains to avoid it; but it has a perfectly distinct meaning, and is not a mere redundancy. If Mr. Tucker supposes that "She was by way of painting the shrimp girl" means exactly the same as "She was painting the shrimp girl," he misses one of the fine shades of the English language. Similarly, his remark on the "peculiar misuse of
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130  
131   132   133   >>  



Top keywords:
Tucker
 

English

 

painting

 
shrimp
 

bargain

 

whipped

 

guilty

 

innovation

 

Milton

 

language


search

 
Steele
 

Jonson

 
occurs
 
colloquial
 

simple

 

current

 

luminous

 

happened

 

intransitive


Ransome

 

Princess

 

Wardlaw

 

Charles

 

phrases

 
metaphors
 

Labour

 

flings

 

centuries

 

meaning


redundancy

 

distinct

 
perfectly
 

supposes

 

remark

 

peculiar

 

misuse

 

Similarly

 

shades

 

misses


expression
 
elegant
 

instancing

 

superfluous

 

utterly

 
severe
 

inserting

 
Beaconsfield
 
wittier
 

quicker