Robert Cornelius, in 1665, in the field two heads face to face, below this inscription, “We are three”; rev., “St. Tulis Street.” It is, at least, likely that the old sign was there long before the date of the token. William Rendle.
Forest Hill.
Slipshod English (7th S. iv. 85, 157, 278).—Further illustrations may be found in the query on ‘Married Women’s Surnames,’ p. 127. In the sentences, “The custom of a married woman changing her surname,” and “The first recorded instance of a woman being called by her husband’s surname,” the genitive woman’s should be substituted for the accusative woman. Though clear enough to the understanding, this will be more perceptible to the ear in a sentence in which the pronoun is used. For example, I am sure that E. D. would not say, “The cause of him being arrested,” for “The cause of his being arrested.” On the last line of the same column, the adverb merely is used to restrict the verb, whereas the limitation is intended to affect what follows. The verb and the adverb should be transposed, just as in the expression “I only spoke three words,” which should be “I spoke only three words.”
To change from consideration of the language to that of the subject of E. D.’s inquiry. It is hardly correct in point of fact to say that it is customary in the United States for a woman to add her husband’s surname to her own. It is frequently done, but the proportion of cases is very small, certainly not more than five in a hundred, and these are generally of persons prominently before the public. The Spanish custom of appending the matronymic, to which E. D. alludes, is very common, and is sometimes a source of perplexity to those not familiar with it. Gaston de Berneval.
Philadelphia, U.S.
Allow me once more to draw the attention of readers of ‘N. & Q.’ to the slipshod English which, in spite of the Editor’s care, finds its way into its columns. What can be worse, in the way of ellipse, than the following: “No pupil of Wren’s would be likely to make the blunder Gibbs has in St. Martin’s.” I suppose the writer means to say that “No pupil of Wren [not Wren’s] would be likely to make the blunder [which] Gibbs has [made] in St. Martin’s.” But if that was his meaning, could he not have expressed it at full length? Do, Mr. Editor, try and defend the Queen’s English against both ellipse and pleonasm, two of its sworn foes! E. Walford, M.A.
Hyde Park Mansions, N.W.
[Style is so much a part of the man, that the Editor, in the case of signed articles, does not feel justified in attempting very numerous corrections.]
“On the cards” (7th S. iv. 507).—I think that this phrase is much older than this century. It is, of course, evidently taken from the custom of playing at cards and betting on them. Latimer, preaching a sermon ‘On the Card’ at Cambridge, the Sunday before Christmas, 1529, said:—“Now turn up your Trump, your Heart,……and cast your trump, your Heart, on this Card.” Cotton wrote and published in 1674 his “Compleat Gamester……together with all manner of usual most Gentile Games either on Cards or Dice.” Richard Seymour, in his ‘Court Gamester,’ 1719, p. 39, says:—“Observe that the Games we have mark’d here, are the smallest that can be play’d upon the Cards.” The author of ‘Annals of Gaming,’ 1775, speaking of Piquet (p. 86), says—“No one should play at it, unless he is acquainted with everything that can be done upon the cards by the most expert joueurs de profession.”
That which is “on the cards,” therefore, may be a game, a stake, or a trick; and the adoption of the phrase in common parlance seems easy and natural. Julian Marshall.
Edward Underhill (7th S. iv. 367)—All that is known of this ballad will be found in Edward Underhill’s ‘Narrative of his Imprisonment,’ printed with annotations in Nichols’s ‘Narratives of the Reformation’ (Camden Society). Mr. Nichols was of opinion that even if now in existence, it would probably be impossible to identify it. One of Underhill’s ballads is printed at the close of this narrative; and its original, in his tall, upright handwriting, may be found in Harl. MS. 424, fol. 9. It has, however, no controversial tendency, but is a diatribe against avarice and selfishness. Hermentrude.
Ela Family (7th S. iv. 149, 452).—Eboracum is mistaken if he thinks that the place Kirk Ella owes its name to any person named Ella. Its original name was Elveley, and remained so until the middle of the sixteenth century; see 6th S. xi. 121, n.; 7th S. i. 245, 375; Yorksh. Archeol. Jour., vii. 58, n.; ‘Memorials of Ripon,’ ii. 186. Not being aware of this, editors have often been unable to identify “parochia Elvellensis”; thus in ‘Fasti Ebor.,’ i. 431, and in the Archæol. Jour., 1860, p. 32, it is printed Elneley, the writer in the latter place adding “probably Emly near Huddersfield.” The prefix Kirk, and the other places, East Ella and South Ella, are modern; but West Ella is not. Elshaw likewise, which Eboracum also adduces, has no connexion with Ella, but was anciently Elveshow; see ‘Memorials of Ripon,’ i. 60, 263. W. C. B.
‘Greater London’: an Inaccurate Quotation (7th S. iv. 407, 454).—With much respect for Mr. Walford, I can only charitably assume that he had not compared my transcript of the Lethieullier inscription with what he terms his “version” of it. Had he done so, he would hardly have imagined the only fault I had to find with him
