have been at the theatre," etc., as say, 'I should have went," instead of "I should have gone."

16. Others there are who invert this error and use the past participle of the verb "to do," instead of a tense of the verb, saying, "I done" instead of "I did." This is inadmissible. "I did it," or "I have done it," is a phrase correct in its formation, its application being, of course, dependent on other circumstances.

17. There are speakers who are too refined to use the past (or perfect) participle of the verbs "to drink” “to run," "to begin," etc., and substitute the imperfect tense, as in the verb "to go:" thus, instead of saying, "I have drunk,' "he has run," "they have begun," they say, "I have drank," "he has ran," "they have began," etc. These are minor errors, I admit, still, nice ears detect them.

18. I trust it is unnecessary to warn any of my readers against adopting the flagrant vulgarity of saying "don't ought," and "hadn't ought," instead of "ought not."

19. Many people have an odd way of saying, "I expect," when they only mean "I think," or "I conclude;" as, "I expect my brother is gone to Richmond to-day;" "I expect those books were sent to New York last year." This is wrong: exvect can only relate to future time, and must be followed by a future tense, or a verb in the infinitive mood : as, "I expect my brother will go to Richmond to-day;" "I expect to find those books were sent to New York last year." Here the introduc

on of a future tense, or of a verb in the infinitive mood, rectifies the grammar without altering the sense: but such a portion of the sentence must not be omitted in expression, as no such ellipsis is allowable.

66

20. The majority of speakers use the imperfect tense and the perfect tense together, in such sentences as the following: "I intended to have called on him last night;" "I meant to have purchased "one yesterday;" or a pluperfect tense and a perfect tense together, I have sometimes heard, as, You should have written to have told her." These expressions are illogical, because, as the intention to perform an act must be prior to the act contemplated, the act itself cannot with propriety be expressed by a tense indicating a period of time previous to the intention. The three sentences should be corrected thus, placing the second verb in the infinitive-mood, "I intended to call on him last night;" "I meant to purchase one yesterday;" "You should have written to tell her."

But the imperfect tense and the perfect tense are to be combined in such sentences as the following: "I remarked, that they appeared to have undergone great fatigue;" because here the act of “undergoing fatigue" must have taken place previou to the period in which you have had the opportunity of remarking its effect on their appearance; the sentence, therefore, is both grammatical and logical.

21. Another strange perversion of grammatical propriety is to be heard occasionally in the adop

tion of the present tense of the verb "to have,” most probably instead of the past participle, but in situations in which the participle itself would be a redundance; such as, "If I had have known;" If he had have come according to appointment;" If you had have sent me that intelligence," etc. Of what utility is the word "have," in the sentence at all? What office does it perform? If it stands n place of any other word, that other word would still be an incumbrance; but the sentence being complete without it, it becomes an illiterate superfluity.

If I had have known that you would have been there before me, I would have written to you to have waited till I had have come." What a construction from the lips of an educated person! and yet we do sometimes hear this slip-slop uttered by people who are considered to "speak French and Italian well," and who enjoy the reputation of being "accomplished!"

Though not at all disposed to be malicious, I cannot avoid being often forcibly reminded of Byron's description of a Spanish Blue:

"She knew the Latin-that is, "The Lord's Prayer;"
And Greek-the Alphabet-I'm nearly sure;

She read some French romances here and there,
Although her mode of speaking was not pure;
For native Spanish she had no great care,

At least her conversation was obscure,”

If our own language is so mean and insignificant as to be unworthy a little attention, why do we not banish it from good society altogether-speak French and German in common conversation, and

leave vulgar English to the "canaille?" Wc confess ourselves, as a nation, under great obligations. to those men of genius and erudition who have assisted to purify and extend our language, and who have raised it gradually to its present standard of elegance and refinement, but our own share of the obligations will be small if we will not avail ourselves of the benefit of their exertions. And is it demanding too much of the educated, to inquire that they should speak correctly that language which the accomplished natives of other countries take infinite pains to acquire? Is it being too fastidious, "too particular," to suggest attention to these nice distinctions of right and wrong, of purity and corruption, in those to whom we have a right to look for models of English eloquence? If so; if it is impossible to exercise the perfection of the scholar without the affectation of the pedant, then aim not at a change which would only alter your condition without improving it-for it would be bet ter to commit all the errors which this little book de nounces, than stiffen into pedantry.

22. It is amusing to perceive the broad line of demarcation which exists between vulgar bad grammar, and genteel bad grammar, and which characterises the violation of almost every rule of syntax. The vulgar speaker uses adjectives instead of adverbs, and says, "This letter is written shocking;” the genteel speaker nses adverbs instead of adjec tives, and says, "This writing looks shockingly." The perpetrators of the latter offence may fancy they can shield themselves behind the grammatical

law which compels the employment of an adverb not an adjective, to qualify a verb;-and behind the first rule of syntax, which says 66 a verb must agree with its nominative;"--but which is the nominative in the expression alluded to? which performs the act of looking-the writing or the speaker. То say that a thing looks when we look at it, is an idiom peculiar to our language, and some idioms are not reducible to rules; they are conventional terms which pass current, like bank-notes, for the sterling they represent, but must not be submitted to the test of grammatical alchemy. It is improper, therefore, to say "The Queen looks beautifully;" "The flowers smell sweetly;" "This writing looks shockingly;" because it is the speaker that performs the act of looking, smelling, etc., not the noun looked at; and though, by an idiomatical construction necessary to avoid circumlocution, the sentence imputes the act to the thing beheld, the qualifying word must express the quality of the thing spoken of, adjectively, instead of qualifying the act of the nominative understood, adverbially. What an adjective is to a noun, an adverb is to a verb; an adjective expresses the quality of a thing, and an adverb the manner of an action. Consider what it is you wish to express, the quality of a thing, or the manner of an action, and use an adjective or adverb accordingly. But beware that you discriminate justly, for though you cannot say, "The Queen looked majestically in her robes," because here the act of looking is performed by the spectator, who looks at her; you can and must say,