ticularly naming. . . his use of language, says, "His vice glasses his eye, demeans his cheek, pinches the nose, sets the mark of the beast on the back of the head." Emerson, who is more classical in The majority of our authorities seem to be in favor of demean in the sense of "degrade oneself." Whenever any tolerable book of the same description makes its appearance, the circulating libraries are mobbed. (Macaulay: Essay on History.) Quackenbos1 says, "Description means an account of characteristics, and is not a synonym of kind or sort." Genung 2 says, "Better not to use this in the sense of 'kind.' The New English Dictionary recognizes the disputed use, quoting some old authors and one recent one, Ik Marvel. Webster recognizes this use of the word, quoting passages from Alexander Hamilton and Macaulay. The Encyclopedic Dictionary recognizes, and quotes Shakespeare. The Century recognizes, quoting Shakespeare, Macaulay, Dowden, and the Washington Chronicle. The Standard recognizes it. It is used by the following authorities: This use of description was common with our grandfathers and great-grandfathers and is seen frequently in the speeches 1 Practical Rhetoric, 1896, p. 232. and letters of the public men of two or three generations ago. No doubt hundreds of passages could be collected from the speeches of the elder statesmen of America, from Hamilton and Madison down to Calhoun, Clay, Webster, etc. The word is not very common in recent literature, and is giving way to shorter words like sort and kind, such being the tendency of the language. All readers of Shakespeare remember the passage in the Merchant of Venice where Portia says: Double six thousand, and then treble that, Shall lose a hair through Bassanio's fault. Macaulay in his essay on Hallam says, "We will not positively affirm that a law of this description must always, and under all circumstances, be unjustifiable." Stevenson says, "But in the open portmanteau, no papers of any description"; "there was probably (my doctor added) some predisposition in the family to accidents of that description." (Master of Ballantrae.) The word is rather old-fashioned nowadays and is rare in recent authors. XXVII DIFFICULTLY The writer became interested in the adverb difficultly from seeing it in Coleridge's Biographia Literaria. It is recognized by Webster, quoting the poet Cowper. The Encyclopedic Dictionary recognizes it, with a quotation from the Passenger of Benvenuto (A.D. 1612). The Century recognizes it, quoting Fielding. Fitzedward Hall cited the following authors as using it: Barrow, Otway, Jeremy Collier, Bentley, Addison, Fielding, Dr. Johnson, Cowper, Southey, Goldsmith. Coleridge's sentence referred to above is, "and how restless, George how difficultly hidden, the powers of genius are." Campbell in his Philosophy of Rhetoric says, "If, for instance, what is difficultly acted be difficultly pronounced,'' etc. Though we all feel the need of this word at times, it is now practically obsolete: it is too "difficultly" pronounced. Hardly as a substitute is handicapped by its frequent use in the sense of scarcely. The dictionaries do not intimate that the word had such a wide vogue in earlier periods and with some of the great authors; hence this section. XXVIII DIRECTLY AS A CONJUNCTION Rose turned directly she heard the steps and voices. (Mrs. H. Ward.) The use of directly, immediately, and instantly as conjunctions equivalent to as soon as is generally called a Briticism. They are so used to some extent in the literature of England and have considerable vogue in colloquial English in England. The writer has seen no cases of them in standard American authors but sees them occasionally in minor authors. Directly is condemned by the Century Dictionary, which quotes a passage from Dickens. Webster says, "Common in England, but not a desirable use." The New English Dictionary says, "Colloquial," but quotes Newman, Buckle, and some minor writers. Quackenbos,1 Genung, A. S. Hill, and Herrick and Damon condemn this use of directly. Richard Grant White 5 condemned it but said that it was used by Buckle and Cardinal Newman. 4 1 Practical Rhetoric, 1896, p. 233. 2 Outlines of Rhetoric, 1900, p. 310. 3 Beginnings of Rhetoric and Composition, 1902, p. 387. New Composition and Rhetoric, 1911, p. 263. Words and Their Uses, pp. 186 ff. Jespersen,1 however, recognizes directly as a "new conjunction," quoting a passage from Dickens. The writer has seen directly in the following: Dickens is usually regarded as the principal promoter of this word; but the writer has seen it oftener in Mrs. Ward. Instantly is used by Thackeray in Henry Esmond; immedi ately, by Milman in his History of the Jews. Matthew Arnold says, "Directly this play of mind wants to have more scope, and to forget the pressure of practical considerations a little, it is checked, it is made to feel the chain.” Thackeray says, "From whom he ran across the grass instantly he perceived his mother, and came to her." Milman says, "The wind continued in the same quarter all the night; but immediately they had passed over, and while the Egyptians, madly plunging after them, were in the middle of the passage," etc. Of course adverbs can easily become conjunctions. Now (see page 183, below) has been a conjunction for twelve hundred years. Once is going the same way: it is recognized by Jespersen,1 with quotations from Robert Louis Stevenson and H. G. Wells. The writer has seen it several times in very good authors. The Century Dictionary notes it as "recent and specially British," quoting a passage from the Contemporary Review. Once and directly are taking root in America at this moment. There is, as we have seen, considerable opposition to these "new conjunctions," but we find some excellent authors employing them occasionally. 1 Growth and Structure of the English Language, p. 206. 2 XXIX DONATE Donate is condemned by Richard Grant White1 and Genung; also by T. L. K. Oliphant as "a new-fangled word." The Century and the Encyclopedic dictionaries call it an Americanism. The New English Dictionary says, "Chiefly U.S." 3 Webster and the Standard recognize it. Lounsbury thinks that it is needlessly abused and that it is as good as fascinate and some others in -ate. He concedes that it is an American coinage and says that it is probably about fifty years old. Donate is no doubt a popular derivative of donation, which has been established in English for centuries. If so, it is what is called a "back-formation". e.g., beg from beggar, peddle from pedlar. The form donate appeals to the American sprachgefühl; it fills the mouth better than give; sounds "bigger" in the papers and on the street, and also comes, by a familiar process, from the noun donation. With all these things in its favor, it seems to be establishing itself in the popular language on this side of the ocean. Some good scholars forget that most of our words were once new-fangled, or rather, neologisms. Others think that no good thing can come out of America. If the millionaire-philanthropists and their clients need a new word, why not let them have it? Words, like politicians, may have a constituency. The writer has not seen the word in his course of reading in the literature: give is the standard word; donate may yet. have its day. 1 Words and Their Uses, pp. 205, 206. 2 Outlines of Rhetoric, 1900, p. 311. 3 The Standard of Usage in English, p. 194. |
