Perhaps he meant the grammar of fome other language; if fo, the charge was certainly true, but not to the purpofe, fince we can fay with equal truth, of every language, that it offends against the grammar of every other language whatfoever. If he meant the English grammar, I would ask, whence has that grammar derived its laws? If from general ufe, (and I cannot conceive another origin) then it must be owned, that there is a general ufe in that language as well as in others; and it were abfurd to accufe the language which is purely what is conformable to general use in speaking and writing, as offending against general ufe. But if he meant to fay, that there is no fixed, established, or general use in the language, that it is quite irregular, he hath been very unlucky in his manner of expreffing himself. Nothing is more evident, than that where there is no law, there is no tranfgreffion. In that cafe, he ought to have faid, that it is not fufceptible of grammar; which, by the way, would not have be entrue of English, or indeed of any the most uncultivated language on the earth.

It is easy then to affign the reason, why the juftnefs of the complaint, as Doctor Lowth obferves,

24

ferves, has never yet been queftioned; it is purely, because, not being understood, it hath never been minded. But if, according to this ingenious gentleman, the words our language, have, by a new kind of trope, been used to denote those who speak and write English, and no more hath been intended than to fignify, that our best speakers, and most approved authors, frequently offend against the rules of grammar, that is, against the general ufe of the language; I fhall not here enter on a difcuffion of the queftion. Only let us reft in thefe as fixed principles, that use, or the custom of speaking, is the fole original standard of conversation, as far as regards the expreffion, and the cuftom of writing is the fole ftandard of style; that the latter comprehends the former, and fomething more; that to the tritribunal of use, as to the fupreme authority, and confequently, in every grammatical controversy, the last resort, we are entitled to appeal from the laws and the decifions of grammarians; and that this order of fubordination ought never, on any account, to be reverfed. But if ufe be here a matter of fuch confequence, it will be neceffary, before advancing any farther, to ascertain precifely what it is. We fhall otherwise be in danPreface to his Introduction to English Grammar.

ger,

ger, though we agree about the name, of differing widely in the notion that we affign to it.

SECTION I,

Reputable use.

IN what extent then muft the word be undertood? It is fometimes called general ufe; yet is it not manifeft that the generality of people speak and write very badly? Nay, is not this a truth that will be even generally acknowledged? It will be fo; and this very acknowledgment shows that many terms and idioms may be common, which, nevertheless, have not the general fanction, no, nor even the fuffrage of thofe that ufe them. The ufe here fpoken of, implies not only currency, but vogue. It is properly reputable cuftom.

THIS leads to a diftinction between good ufe and bad use in language, the former of which will be found to have the approbation of those who have not themfelves attained it. The far greater part of mankind, perhaps ninety-nine of a hundred, are, by reafon of poverty and other circumftances, deprived of the advantages of education, and condemned to toil for bread, almoft inceffantly, in fome narrow occupation.

They have neither the leifure nor the means of attaining any knowledge, except what lies within the contracted circle of their feveral profeffions. As the ideas which occupy their minds are few, the portion of the language known to them must be very fcanty. It is impoffible that our knowledge of words fhould outstrip our knowledge of things. It may, and often doth, come short of it. Words may be remembered as founds, but cannot be understood as figns, whilst we remain unacquainted with the things fignified.

HENCE it will happen, that in the lower walks of life, from the intercourfe which all ranks occafionally have with one another, the people will frequently have accefs to hear words of which they never had accefs to learn the meaning. These they will pick up and remember, produce and mifapply. But there is rarely any unifor mity in fuch blunders, or any thing determinate in the fenfes they give to words which are not within their sphere. Nay, they are not themfelves altogether unconfcious of this defect. It often arifeth from an admiration of the manner of their fuperiors, and from an ill-judged imitation of their way of speaking, that the greatest

errors

errors of the illiterate, in respect of conversation, proceed. And were they fenfible how widely different their use and application of fuch words is, from that of those whom they affect to imitate, they would renounce their own immediately.

BUT it may be said, and said with truth, that in fuch fubjects as are within their reach, many words and idioms prevail among the populace, which, notwithstanding a use pretty uniform and extenfive, are confidered as corrupt, and like counterfeit money, though common, not valued. This is the cafe particularly with those terms and phrafes which critics have denominated vulgarifms. Their ufe is not reputable. On the contrary, we always affociate with it fuch notions of meanness, as fuit thofe orders of men amongst whom chiefly the ufe is found. Hence it is, that many who have contracted a habit of employing fuch idioms, do not approve them; and though, through negligence, they frequently fall into them in converfation, they carefully avoid them. in writing, or even in a folemn fpeech on any important occafion. Their currency, therefore, is without authority and weight. The tattle of children hath a currency, but, however univerfal their manner of corrupting words may be