9 tb S, II. OCT. 22, '98.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
331
plural. When we meet, for instance, with
" bats," the fault lies with our obtuseness ii
we cannot see by the context whether the
animal or the implement is meant. To make
a solitary distinction for " fly " excites con-
tempt for a writer who has so little trust in
his reader's intelligence. With regard to some
other words, where y is followed by a suffix
beginning with a liquid consonant, there is
needless inconsistency. " Drily " and " slily "
cannot be justified beside "shyly" and
"wryly," still less beside "dryness" and
"slyness." By writing "dryly" and "slyly,"
as I invariably do, we get a consistent list
of exceptions to rule. F. ADAMS.
The frequent misuse of "of course" is annoy- ing to any one who cares aught about purity of language. I take it to be equivalent to "therefore," "on that account, and "for that reason," and to be the ergo of unex- pressed premises. It is the utterance of an effect, the cause of which has generally been worked out in the mind. Yet many use it with either little or no reference to this fact, or with very much to facts in no way related to it. Thus one frequently hears fairly edu- cated people say, " Of course my brother died, and," &c. If they meant that their brother died as a matter of course, there would be some sense in their use of the expression ; similarly had they inserted "as" after it, which is precisely what they do mean. Why not then express it correctly ? " Of course " it would be quite as easy to do so.
" These sort " is a more grievous error and more popular than the preceding : more grievous because it violates less the laws of thought than those of grammar, and more popular because it is more widespread amongst all classes. Year out, year in, people who otherwise speak correctly enough are perpetually, with a tenacity worthy of a better cause, pouring out their " these sort of thing" and "those kind of thing." Will they never learn that " sort " and " kind " are singular ? But it is difficult to reform this sort of sinner. J. B. S.
Manchester.
It is unfortunate that my short and rather imperfect reference to " monied " should have
5 revoked a misapprehension. I simply in- icated that the spelling in question was gaining literary recognition, and I implied that this use of a form which infringes a familiar grammatical rule would lead to complications. As an archaism, no doubt, "monied" is perfectly defensible, but the immediate question is one of modern usage. A hundred spellings which modern English
discards might easily be illustrated, at a
moment's notice, from the practice of previous
centuries, but such examples would be entirely
irrelevant in sustaining neglect of new
methods. For instance, in the days of the
" spelling-bee " there was a case that gained
newspaper fame, because an historical ortho-
grapher, who gave Milton as his authority
for writing " aghast " in the form agast, was
simply told to " stand down " as one that had
failed. The business of the iudge on the
occasion was with the English of his own
time, and not with that of the middle of the
seventeenth century. No doubt, as we are
reminded, Minsheu has "moniers," but then
"monyours" occurs in the 'Romaunt of the
Rose ' that is attributed to Chaucer. Neither
of these is a form that recommends itself to
writers of this age, although both were ser-
viceable in their day. The following remark,
on p. 144 of Morris's 'Historical Outlines of
English Accidence,' revised in 1895 by Dr.
Kellner and Mr. Henry Bradley, puts
the matter in its true light : "Until recently
vallies, monkies, pullies, &c., were not uncom-
mon : monies is still often found, though
avoided by careful writers." When I wrote
it was with the recollection of some such
recognized canon as this. What applies to
" monies " may faily hold good with regard to
" monied." The question is one of modern
practice, and not of etymology or historical
growth. THOMAS BAYNE.
Helensburgh, N.B.
CANONS HALL (9 th S. ii. 248). For a long and interesting reply to an inquiry for the titles of works dealing with an account of this building and its various owners see ' N. & Q.,' 4 th S. v. 175. An extract from the Gentleman's Magazine, announcing the death of Mr. Hallet on 17 Dec., 1781, and his dis- posal of the property, will be found at p. 247 of the same volume.
EVERARD HOME COLEMAN. 71, Brecknock Road.
HAMLAKE = HELMSLEY (9 th S. ii. 67, 118, 209, 254). In view of CANON TAYLOR'S opinion 'ante, pp. 118, 254) it may almost be concluded
- hat Hamlake as the name of the place is
jrroneous in both syllables, that is to say, totally erroneous, and that in Helmsley the original A.-S. name has survived. This con- slusion, however, for its full assurance jequires the written form of the name before the Conquest ; is it anywhere found ? In Elmeslac the Domesday scribe seems to have correctly rendered the first syllable, and to lave corrupted the second.
Nevertheless, Hamlake, as used for many
