The Purist Purized (9-10)

Monstrous sly, is it not, to say ‘mutual’ instead of ‘joint'? Well, that is settled up; but for your general ignorance, I defy any God short of Apollo to cure it. He gives council to all who ask it; but on you that council is thrown away.

Yes, I declare, so it was!

Perhaps one at a time are too few?

I think that must be it.

How did ‘one are’ get past you?

Ah, I didn’t see it, again.

By the way, do you know of any one who is on the look in for a wife?

What are you talking about?

Show me the man who is on the look in, and I will show you a solecist.

But what have I to do with solecists on the look in for wives?

Ah, if you knew that, you would be the man you pretend to be. So much for that. Now, if a man came to you and said that he had left his wife’s home, would you stand that?

Of course I should, if he had provocation.

And if you caught him committing a solecism, would 5 you stand it?

Certainly not.

Quite right too. We should never permit solecisms in a friend, but teach him better. Now, what are your feelings when you hear a man deprecating his own merits, and depreciating his friend’s excessive gratitude?

Feelings? only that he shows a very proper feeling.

Then, as you cannot feel the difference between ‘deprecate’ and ‘depreciate,’ shall we conclude that you are an ignoramus?

Outrageous insolence!

Outrageous? I shall be, ere much, if I go on talking to you.—Now I should have said that ‘ere much’ was a blunder, but it does not strike you so.

Oh, stop, for goodness’ sake! Look here, try this way; I want to get my profit out of it too.

Well?

Suppose you were to go through all the blunders you say I have missed, and tell me what is the right thing for each.

Good gracious, no; it would take us till midnight. No; you can look those out for yourself. Meanwhile, we had better take fresh ones, as we have only a quarter of an hour (by the way, never pronounce the ‘h’ in hour; that sounds dreadful). Then as to that outrage which you say I have committed upon you; if I were to speak of an outrage committed against you, that would be another thing.

Would it?

Yes; an outrage upon you must be committed upon you personally, in the shape of blows, interference with your liberty, or the like. An outrage agaiust you is upon something that belongs to you; he who does an outrage upon your wife, child, friend, or slave, does it against you. This distinction, however, does not apply to inanimate things. An ‘outrage against’

a legitimate phrase with them, as when Plato talks in the Symposium of an outrage against a proverb.

Ah, I see now.

Do you also see that the exchange of one for the other is a solecism?

Yes, I shall know that for the future.

And if a person were to use ‘interchange’ there instead of ‘exchange,’ what would you take him to mean?

Just the same.

Why, how can they be equivalent? Exchange is merely the substitution of one expression for another, the improper for the proper; whereas interchange involves a false statement[*].

I see now; exchange is the use of a loose instead of a precise expression, while interchange is the use of both expressions, each in the other’s place.

These subtleties are not unpleasing. Similarly, when we are concerned with a person, it is in our own interest; but when we are concerned for him, it is in his. It is true the phrases are sometimes confused, but there are those who observe the distinction; and it is as well to be on the safe side.

Quite true.