many other prominent English and American writers. Yet it must be conceded that in spite of this imposing array of names, the general practice of good writers until recently has been against this separation. For some of the writers quoted (as Dr. Johnson) a single example of its use is all that could probably be given. With others the use seems to been have confined to certain stereotyped phrases, as, "To far exceed" used by Burke. Although Browning and some others used such forms freely, Tennyson certainly abstained and perhaps never used one.

side.

Grammarians also have always been on the opposing Goold Brown indeed tells us that the right to place an adverb between the sign to and the infinitive must be conceded to poets, and quotes from Burns's poem, "The Cotter's Saturday Night," the line,

"Who dared to nobly stem tyrannic pride,

where the meter of the verse may be thought to have imposed its form upon the construction.

But usage which can lay restrictions upon language can also remove those restrictions. Within the last fifty years there has been a growing feeling that it is to the advantage of the language that the separation should sometimes be made.

Thus Macaulay wrote in 1840, "In order fully to appreciate the character of Lord Holland it is necessary to go back into the history of his family." But in 1843 he brought out an edition of his essays carefully revised in which the phrase reads, "In order to fully appreciate

the character," etc. Macaulay was never careless in his modes of expression, and the change evidently shows his mature thought on this subject.

The influence of modern journalism with its insistence on conciseness has been strongly in favor of this practice, as making often a much more compact phrase, or giving truer emphasis to the important idea, as in,

To almost succeed is not enough.

Indeed it would be difficult to find a substitute for the divided infinitive in such a phrase as, "to more than counterbalance." There are certain conventional phrases, however, as "never-to-be forgotten," in which the adverb is never inserted within the phrase.

Some careful writers of to-day, who have been trained in the older school of literature, seldom use a "split infinitive," or do so with hesitation only when there is clearly a gain in meaning or in energy. But probably the words of Professor Lounsbury are justifiable, when he says:

"It is clear that most of those who now refrain from the practice under discussion no longer do so instinctively as was once the case, but rather under compulsion. They refrain, not because they feel that it is unnatural or idiomatic but because they have been told that it is improper. Artificial bulwarks of this sort will never hold back long a general movement of speech.

The time, indeed, will come when men will be unaware that there has ever been any dispute about the matter at all."

LVIII

DISPUTED POINTS IN GRAMMAR

Grammar appeals to reason as well as to authority, but to what extent it should do so has been matter of dispute.GOOLD BROWN.

"The same fact thought of in different ways may make perplexing differences in construction."

A fallacy, that of two ways of expression one must be wrong.-DEAN ALFORD.

And for there is so great diversitie

In English and in writing of our tong

So pray I to God that none miswrite thee.

"Baith did fight,

And baith did win,

And baith did rin awa'."

-CHAUCER.

In the multiplicity of subjects that invite the world's attention questions of grammatical propriety sometimes seem of minor importance. Many minds absorbed in other interests are content to believe that their own language does not differ greatly from that of the persons around them, and are willing to let alone the finer and more subtle questions of linguistic usage.

Yet there is an increasing number of persons-educators, literary men, and other cultivated mindswho prefer to be among those who mould language and decide in regard to its finer distinctions, rather than with

those who follow blindly rules that have been laid down for them by others. The vigorous discussion that arose over the number form of the verb, after the publication of Kipling's line,

"The shouting and the tumult dies,"

gave evidence that questions of grammatical propriety are of real interest to the modern world.

Some of the questions that receive discussion among grammarians themselves deal with the grammatical relationships of words or phrases, and with the logical interpretation of accepted idioms. These are of interest to scholars, and the determining of these furnishes tests of construction that can be applied in deciding the correctness or incorrectness of other expressions of more doubtful propriety. Yet in these purely logical and scientific questions the general public is not greatly interested.

But in questions of practical usage all intelligent minds have a personal interest. Among the expressions which one hears there are not a few that are manifestly wrong, and require no discussion. There are provincialisms, solecisms, and vulgarisms, that must be condemned, but that scarcely need to be argued about.

Among the grosser ones may be named impure contractions, as, don't with a subject of the third person singular (He don't), and the bastard form ain't (I ain't); them used as an adjective (them apples), those limiting kind or sort (those sort of people); real as an

adverb (It is real pretty) and the interchange of the principal parts of strong verbs (He done it.) More subtle are the errors of "dangling participles," unrelated clauses, and the mistakes in arrangement and agreement that come from confusions of thought. A general knowledge of grammar ought usually to be a sufficient defense against such impurities as these.

The questions of most interest relate to the toleration or deliberate adoption of certain alleged improprieties under special conditions that seem to invite their use. For instance, the usual position of the word only is just before the word which it modifies, yet there are occasions when smoothness of style is gained by placing it in some other position, as, "I will only mention some of the best." Some good writers occasionally use the superlative of the adjective when only two objects are referred to, and the comparative when more than two objects are compared,—and find reasons that seem to justify such usage. Similar license is sometimes granted to the word either when more than two objects are referred to, as, "either of the three."

The comparative form is sometimes accorded to an adjective of absolute meaning, as, "more universal," "less complete." Again, where the stickler for exactness would say "Come to see me," the use of and (as, Come and see me) is often tolerated and is illustrated in the Scripture words of Jesus, "Come and see." "And they came and saw where he dwelt." And yet again, some would prefer the softened and less egoistic expression, "I do not think so," where others may