On Certain Abuses in Language [pp. 248-272]

TIE PRINCE TON RE VIEW.
In his case the word still keeps some shadow of its old meaning. The chief of the American Union is " inaugurated,"
not indeed in the old Roman sense by any taking of auspices, but in a sense which still keeps the notion of solemn
admission to an office. In other cases it is commonly not the
man himself who is said to be inaugurated, but his schemes,
his policy, above all his epoch. Here the word does not exactly mean to begin. It means to begin with a certain cloud
of haziness thrown over the process of beginning. I fancy
that "inaugurating an epoch" means something like "turning
over a new leaf." That too is a metaphor; but it is a metaphor much easier to understand than the other. But there are
cases in which to inaugurate seems simply to mean to begin. I
think I have heard of inaugurating a ball or a dinner. If so,
one can only say, with Count Shucksen in "Peter Simple,"
"Spin your yarn in plain English." The chief case where to
"inaugurate" is applied to a material object is in the case of a
statue. In that case some slight memory of the original notion
cleaves to the word; there is something of a formal dedication.
But in such cases the actual physical act meant by the word
"inauguration" seems to mean the act of uncovering. It is
odd that a word which strictly means to find out the will of
Jupiter by the flight of birds should have come to mean, sometimes to begin, sometimes to uncover. It is as odd as the usage
by which, when a tradesman sends in his bill, he is said to "render" it, while, when a choir sing a psalm, they are said to "render" it also. Surely in all four cases we may say, "Spin your
yarn in plain English."
There are a crowd of other technical words of Roman or
Greek religious, political, or civil life which have fared in much
the same way as this one of inauguration. Many of them in
truth have fared much worse. After all, to talk of inaugurating
an epoch, a statue, or a dinner is a harmless piece of folly. I
do not think that any one who has clear thoughts and who
wishes to set forth his thoughts in clear words would talk in
that way; but I do not know that any practical mischief is
done by such a way of talking. I do not know that any one is
likely to be, led astray by it as to any matter of fact. The fact
that the abusive meaning has so utterly parted company from
256