Abstract of Campbell's Essay on Use as the Law of Language.

Every tongue whatever is founded in use or custom. Language is purely a species of fashion, in which, by the general but tacit consent of the people of a particular state or country, certain sounds come to be appropriated to certain things, and certain ways of inflecting and combining those sounds come to be established, as denoting the relations which subsist among the things signified. It is not the business of grammar, as some critics seem preposterously to imagine, to give law to the fashions which regulate our speech. On the contrary, from its conformity to these, and from that alone, grammar derives all its authority and value. For, what is the grammar of any language? It is no other than a collection of general observations methodically digested, and comprising all the modes previously and independently established, by which the significations, derivations, and combinations of words in that language are ascertained. It is of no consequence here to what causes originally these modes or fashions owe their existence, to imitation, to reflection, to affectation, or to caprice; they no sooner obtain, and become general, than they are laws of the language, and the grammarian's only business is to note, collect, and methodize them. Nor does this truth concern only those more comprehensive analogies or rules, which affect whole classes of words; such as nouns, verbs, and the other parts of speech; but it concerns every individual word, in the inflecting or combining of which, a particular mode has prevailed. Every single anomaly, therefore, though departing from the rule assigned to the other words of the same class, and on that account called an exception, stands on the same basis, on which the rules of the tongue are founded, custom having prescribed for it a separate rule. Thus, in the two verbs call and shall, the second person singular of the former is callest, agreeably to the general rule; the second person singular of the latter is shalt, agreeably to a particular rule affecting that verb. To say shallest for shalt, would be as much a barbarism, though according to the general rule, as to say calt for callest, which is according to no rule.

Only let us rest in these as fixed principles, that USE, or the custom of speaking, is the sole original standard of conversation, and the custom of writing is the sole standard of style; that to the tribunal of use, as to the supreme authority, and consequently, in every grammatical or verbal controversy, the last resort, we are entitled to appeal from the laws and the decisions of grammarians and lexicographers; and that this order of subordination ought never, on any account, to be reversed.

But if use be here a matter of such consequence, it will be necessary, before advancing any farther, to ascertain precisely what it is. We shall otherwise be in danger, though we agree about the name, of differing widely in the notion that we assign to it.

1. Reputable Use.- In what extent then must the word be understood? It is sometimes called general use; yet is it not manifest 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 so; and this very acknowledgment shows that many terms and idioms may be common. which, nevertheless, have not the general sanction, no, nor even the suffrage of those that use them. The use here spoken of, implies not only currency, but vogue. It is properly reputable custom.

This leads to a distinction between good use and bad use in language, the former of which will be found to have the approbation of those who have not

themselves attained it. The far greater part of mankind are, by reason of poverty and other circumstances, deprived of the advantages of education, and condemned to toil almost incessantly in some narrow occupation. They have neither the leisure nor the means of attaining any knowledge, except what lies within the contracted circle of their several occupations. As the ideas which occupy their minds are few, the portion of the language known to them must be very scanty.

But it may be said, and said with truth, that in such subjects as are within their reach, many words and idioms prevail among uneducated people, which, notwithstanding a use pretty uniform and extensive, are considered as corrupt, and like counterfeit money, though common, not valued. This is the case particularly with those terms and phrases which critics have styled vulgarisms. Their use is not reputable. On the contrary, we always associate with it such notions of meanness, as suit the class of men amongst whom chiefly the use is found.

The currency of such words, therefore, is without authority or weight. The prattle of children has a currency, but, however universal their manner of corrupting words may be among themselves, it can never establish what is accounted use in language. Now, what children are to men, that precisely the ignorant are to the knowing.

From the practice of those who are conversant in any art, elegant or mechanical, we always take the sense or the terms and phrases belonging to that art. In like manner, from the practice of those who have had a liberal education, and are therefore presumed to be best acquainted with men and things, we judge of the general use in language.

But in what concerns the words themselves, their construction and application, it is of importance to have some certain, steady, and well-known standard to recur to, a standard which every one has the opportunity to canvass and examine. And this can be no other than authors of reputation. Accordingly we find that these are, by universal consent, in actual possession of this authority; as to this tribunal, when any doubt arises, the appeal is always made.

In the English tongue there is a plentiful supply of noted writings in all the various kinds of composition, prose and verse, serious and ludicrous, grave and familiar. Agreeably then to this first qualification of the term, we must understand to be comprehended under general use, whatever modes of speech are authorized as good by the writings of a great number, if not the majority, of celebrated authors.

2. National Use.-Another qualification of the term use which deserves our attention, is that it must be national.

In every locality there are peculiarities of dialect, which affect not only the pronunciation and the accent, but even the inflection and the combination of words, whereby their idiom is distinguished both from that of the nation, and from that of every other locality. The narrowness of the circle to which the currency of the words and phrases of such dialects is confined, sufficiently discriminates them from that which is properly styled the language, and which commands a circulation incomparably wider.

What has been said of local dialects, may, with very little variation, be applied to professional dialects, or the cant which is sometimes observed to prevail among those of the same profession or way of life. The currency of the latter cannot be so exactly circumscribed as that of the former, whose distinction is purely local; but their use is not on that account either more extensive or more reputable. Let the following serve as instances of this kind: Advice, in the

commercial idiom, means information or intelligence; nervous, in medical language, denotes having weak nerves. Such a use surely would not be sufficient to establish the meanings here given to be the ordinary and regular meanings of these words.

No use of a word can be considered as national unless it is found among good writers of all classes, as well as in all parts of England and America in which the English language is spoken.

3. Present Use.-But there will naturally arise here another question, Is not use, even good and national use, in the same country, different in different periods? And if so, to the usage of what period shall we attach ourselves, as the proper rule? If you say the present, as it may reasonably be expected that you will, the difficulty is not entirely removed. In what extent of signification must we understand the word present? How far may we safely range in quest of authorities? or, at what distance backwards from this moment are authors still to be accounted as possessing a legislative voice in language? To this it is difficult to give an answer with all the precision that might be desired. Yet it is certain, that when we are in search of precedents for any word or idiom, there are certain bounds beyond which we cannot go with safety.

It is safest for an author to consider those words and idioms as obsolete, which have been disused by all good authors, for a longer period than the ordinary age of man extends to. It is not by ancient, but by present use, that our diction must be regulated. And that use can never be denominated present, which has been laid aside time immemorial, or, which amounts to the same thing, falls not within the knowledge or remembrance of any now living.

I have purposely avoided the expressions recent use and modern use, as these seem to stand in direct opposition to what is ancient. The word present, on the other hand, has for its proper contrary, not ancient, but obsolete. Besides, though I have acknowledged language to be a species of mode or fashion, as doubtless it is, yet being much more permanent than articles of apparel, furniture, and the like, that, in regard to their form, are under the dominion of that inconstant power, I have avoided also using the words fashionable and modish, which but too generally convey the idea of novelty and levity. Words, therefore, are by no means to be accounted the worst for being old, if they are not obsolete; neither is any word the better for being new. On the contrary, some time is absolutely necessary to constitute that custom or use, on which the establishment of words depends.

If we recur to the standard already assigned, namely, the writings of a plurality of celebrated authors, there will be no scope for the comprehension of words and idioms which can be denominated novel and upstart. It must be owned, that we often meet with such terms and phrases, in newspapers and other periodicals. But this is not of itself sufficient to give them the stamp of authority. Such words and phrases are but the insects of a season at the most. The popular fancy, always fickle, is just as prompt to drop such words, as it was to take them up; and not one of a hundred survives the particular occasion which gave it birth.

A Sentence is such an assemblage of words as will make complete sense.

Sentences are considered under the following heads: 1. Kinds of Sentences; 2. Rules for the Construction of Sentences.

Grammatical Classification.-Sentences, considered grammatically, are divided into Simple, Compound, and Complex.

Rhetorical Classification.-Sentences, considered rhetorically, are divided into Periodic, Loose, Balanced, Short, and Long.

1. Periodic Sentences.

A Periodic Sentence is one which is so constructed that it does not give a complete meaning until the very close. The main point is kept in suspense until all the subsidiary members and clauses are disposed of.

Example from Temple.-The following, from Sir William Temple, is an example of a periodic sentence.

If you look about you, and consider the lives of others as well as your own; if you think how few are born with honor, and how many die without name or children; how little beauty we see, and how few friends we hear of; how many diseases, and how much poverty there is in the world; you will fall down upon your knees, and, instead of repining at your affliction, will admire so many blessings which you have received at the hand of God.

Example from Milton.- If the opening lines of Paradise Lost were to stop at "heavenly Muse," in the sixth line, the sentence would

be periodic. Short of these words there is no point where there would be a completed meaning.

Of man's first disobedience, and the fruit

Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste

Brought death into the world, and all our woe,

With loss of Eden, till one greater Man

Restore us, and regain the blissful seat,
Sing, heavenly Muse.

Example Continued. The author, however, does not stop the sentence here, but goes on for eleven lines farther, adding clause upon clause, and thought upon thought, until the periodic character of the sentence disappears altogether. The sentence does not actually stop until the end of the sixteenth line, although there are before that several places where a close might be made without incompleteness. Thus:

Sing, heavenly Muse, | that on the secret top

Of Oreb, or of Sinai, didst inspire

That shepherd, who first taught the chosen seed,
In the beginning how the heaven and earth

Rose out of chaos: | or, if Sion hill

Delight thee more, and Siloa's brook that flowed
Fast by the oracle of God, I thence

Invoke thy aid to my adventurous song, |
That with no middle flight intends to soar
Above the Aonian mount. | while it pursues

Things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme.

It is obvious that a completed meaning would have been given, had the sentence stopped at "chaos," at "song," or at "mount.”

2. Loose Sentences.

A Loose Sentence is one which is so constructed that it may be brought to a close at two or more different places, and in each case give a completed meaning.

Uses of the Loose Sentence.— A Loose Sentence is not necessarily faulty. When the sentences are all entirely periodic in structure, the composition becomes monotonous and stiff. A proper variety requires, in long pieces especially, that periodic sentences should be interspersed occasionally with those that are loose in their structure.

Dangers of the Loose Sentence. The danger with most writers is that of having too many loose sentences, and of indulging in this