l899-!00 TRANSACTIONS II5 



more common than that of dropping it where it was wanted. 

 Catullus ridicules one, Arrius, for saying " hinsidias " instead of 

 " insidias," and four centuries later St. Augustine said that in 

 polite circles a man was worse thought of who dropped the " h " 

 from the word hominem, than the man who hated his brother 

 "homo" with the "h" duly sounded, which is good evi- 

 dence that this terrible mistake was occasionally . committed. 

 " Omnes," having thus lost its "h," it gradually got separ- 

 ated in meaning as well as in form from ' ' homines. ' ' and 

 began to serve as an expression for ' ' men in general , " or as 

 we might say, " all men." How slight the difference whether 

 we say ' ' homines mortales sunt " or " omnes mortales sunt ' ' ! 

 Then all at once it struck somebody that this ' ' omnes ' ' was an 

 adjective meaning " all ;" if so it must be capable of being used 

 in three genders and the neuter must be ' 'omnia. ' ' But of course in 

 that case it must have a singular too, and that according to rule 

 must be omnis, omnis, omne. The thing was too good not to become 

 current, and thus the Latin language was enriched with an 

 adjective meaning in the singular "every " or " the whole," and 

 in the plural " all." Some of the finer spirits — if there were any 

 such at the time — may have winced while this little process was 

 going on, just as some of us would wince if a word were being 

 similarly twisted out of shape under our eyes ; but who can deny 

 that, when done, 'twas well done ? Now, by the aid of the adjec- 

 tive " omnis," we can form such impressive words as " omnipo- 

 tent," "omniscient" and " omnipresent," which certainly do not 

 announce themselves as of doubtful origin. The humble 

 "omnibus," to which most persons grudge the first two 

 syllables is from the same source. Attempts have been made by 

 some who, contrary to Pope's advice, have drunk but scantily at 

 the Pierian spring, to give "omnibus" a plural, " omnibi ;" 

 but let us not be too scornful of our brethren. Language would 

 have made but little headway in past ages if many such deeds 

 had not been not only attempted, but accomplished. It is safe 

 to say that there is no possible error or solecism, which the 

 classic speech of to-day does not embody and authenticate. 



This brings me to the last point which I can venture to 

 touch in this very inadequate treatment of a great subject. 

 Tennyson tells us, in one of his most popular poems, that 



