172 
dog.”” Then there is your—‘ Knowing 
man’’—who is—‘ Up to rigs :”—your 
buck, and your blood* ; who value them- 
felyes upon their dexterity in riding, and 
driving ; and a critical knowledge of the 
motft tafhionable oaths. ‘Thefe phrafes, 
and habits, were but too _ prevalent 
amongit a certain defcription of young 
men, when I was refident in college a 
few years back.~ To the honour of the 
univerfity, however, it is but juftice to 
ftate, that they were always difcounte- 
nanced, reprobated, and fupprefled, as 
much as poifible, by the more refpectable 
members of it. What variations this vo- 
cabulary may have undergone, in the in- 
termediate time; as fafhion is capricious, 
and this an age of improvement, I pre- 
fume not to determine. But this, I think, 
is clear, that the knowledge of many of 
thofe elegant phrafes, fuch as—‘* Face, 
funk, fherk,” &c. the merit of which 
we attribute to the junior members of 
the univerfities, is derived originally from 
the great {chools. 
In the higher departments of life we 
_ have many {pecimens of a corrupt phra- 
feclogy. Some of thele may poffibly have 
been brought into general circulation by 
young men trom {chool, or college; but, 
by far the greater part, are, I tuipect, 
the fabrication of the great people them- 
felves. Wanity, or indolence, are the 
chief caufes which lead men into the im- 
proprieties of fpeech, after they have 
affed the days of youth. They affect 
ee in the choice of their words, 
that they may be diftin&t from the herd 
of mankind; or they adopt certain fo- 
lecifims of expreffion, as fterling coin, be- 
caufe fome great man has already done 
the fame. Such errors go further towards 
the corruption of language, than the ec- 
centricities of phrafe which are common 
in the great feminaries of education: 
both becaufe they circulate wider, and 
are more eagerly received. We naturally 
imitate our fuperiors, but the cant terms 
of {chools, or college, carry folecifm 
upon the very face of them; and are only 
uled by way of joculayity, in a flow of 
youthful fpirits ; without the moit diftant 
idea of intreducing them into regular 
compofition, or correét ipeaking. 
The frequent adoption of French ex- 
preffions, im polite converfation, where 
Englifh would anfwer the purpofe, at 

* There is the fame difference between a 
buck and a blood, as: between a fop and a 
beau.—A blood is the higheft fpecies of 
buckitm. - 
Whimfieal Pecuhariiies of Expreffion. 
[Sepfé. 
leat as well; and the no lefs frequent 
ule of gallicifms, or French modes. of 
combining Englifh words, are jufily con- 
demned as unfriendly to the purity of our 
lauguage. So anxious, indeed, have the 
fafhicnable world been to attain fingu- 
larity of fpeech, that they have not dif 
dained to deicend even to the kitchen, for 
terms of art, to exprefs their ideas: 
What is meant by the phrafes—“ Done 
up,” and “ Difh’d,” fo common in the 
mouths of our great people lately? A 
foreigner, tolerably fkilled in the Jan- 
guage, would conclude, from hearing 
that aman was ‘¢ Done up,” or, 
<¢ Difh’d,”’ zot that he was ruined in his 
fortune, but that he had aCuaily attained 
the point of perfection in that refpeét. 
The primary idea which we annex to thefé 
terms, is that of fome degree of perfec- 
tion, To be difh’d, is that precife’ 
point to which every other, in the bréed- 
ing, feeding, and cooking of the ani- 
mal, muft be fubfervient.—It is then fit 
for immediate fervice, and has attained 
its ‘* {ummit of perfeétion.”” The word, 
“< done,”’ is of fuch long ftanding, and 
multifarious application, that it is ditf- 
cult to trace it through all its winding 
fenfes. Swift remarks, fatyrically, upon 
the cuftom of inferting in the title-pages 
of tranflated books—< Carefully reviled, 
and faithfully—Done into Englifb,” by 
Simon Trufty, A. M. Chaplain to the 
factory, &c. And, in our own times, 
we know, that the word, Done, is not 
only applicable to the ruin of pecuniary 
circumftances, metaphorically, but alfo 
to the ruin of credit, and of health, lite- 
rally. After the immortal battle between’ 
Humphries and Mendoza, a fafhionable 
amateur wrote of that event to his friend, 
thus: MERE a foe k A 
(Dm AR Agi, 
‘¢ Humphries has ‘¢ Done” the Jew, by 
Bese : ee 
The frequent ufe, amongft people £¢ of 
condition,’ of the active verbs, * to 
lay,’ and, ‘¢ to fet,’ inftead of the neu- 
ters to lie and to fit, has been already no- 
ticed by Dr. Lowth: and is not the lefe 
reprehenfible, becaufe fanftioned by great 
authorities. It is no unufual thing to. 
hear faid, in circles of the firft fafhion, 
and from the mouths of tolerably correét 
{peakers, ‘¢ I could not lay in that bed,” _ 
nor ** fet in that chair.” 
What would a foreigner collet, from 
being told by his friend, as an apology 
fer not being with him at the hour of 
dinner, that he was ‘ Spilt,’’ in com- 
ing: orin hearing from a third Sa 
; at 
a 
