diff options
Diffstat (limited to '22457-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 22457-h/22457-h.htm | 8920 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 22457-h/images/001.png | bin | 0 -> 1997 bytes |
2 files changed, 8920 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/22457-h/22457-h.htm b/22457-h/22457-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e9594e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/22457-h/22457-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,8920 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Verbalist, by Alfred Ayres + </title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + p { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + h2,h3 { + text-align: center; + clear: both; + } + h1 { + text-align: center; + clear: both; + margin-bottom: 2em; + } + + hr { width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + + .thin { width: 15%; + margin-top: .5em; + margin-bottom: .5em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + + body{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + + .pagenum { + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; + } + + .blockquot{margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;} + + .center {text-align: center;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .figcenter {margin: auto; text-align: center;} + + .footnotes {border: dashed 1px; margin-top: 2em;} + .footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + .footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + .fnanchor {vertical-align: 0.25em; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} + + .poem {margin-left:10%; margin-right:10%; text-align: left;} + .poem br {display: none;} + .poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} + .poem span.i0 {display: block; margin-left: 0em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i2 {display: block; margin-left: 2em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i4 {display: block; margin-left: 4em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + + .trans1 {border: solid 1px; + margin: 3em 15%; padding: 1em; text-align: left;} + + .trnhd {text-align: center; font-size: larger; font-weight: bold;} + + img {border: none} + + .czerop1 {text-align: center; font-weight: bold; + margin-bottom: .5em; margin-top: .5em;} + .czerop2 {text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 0.9em; + margin-bottom: .5em; margin-top: .5em;} + .czerop3 {text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin-top: 3em;} + + a:link {text-decoration:none; } + a:visited {text-decoration:none; } + + ul {list-style-type: none} + li {font-size: larger; margin-bottom: .5em; margin-top: .5em;} + + .author {text-align: left; margin-left: 65%;} + + .poem span.i10 {display: block; margin-left: 10em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i12 {display: block; margin-left: 12em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i5 {display: block; margin-left: 5em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i6 {display: block; margin-left: 6em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i7 {display: block; margin-left: 7em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i8 {display: block; margin-left: 8em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i9 {display: block; margin-left: 9em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +Project Gutenberg's The Verbalist, by Thomas Embly Osmun, (AKA Alfred Ayres) + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Verbalist + A Manual Devoted to Brief Discussions of the Right and the + Wrong Use of Words and to Some Other Matters of Interest + to Those Who Would Speak and Write with Propriety. + +Author: Thomas Embly Osmun, (AKA Alfred Ayres) + +Release Date: August 30, 2007 [EBook #22457] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE VERBALIST *** + + + + +Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Stephen Blundell +and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + +</pre> + + + + + + + + + + + +<h1><small><small>THE<br /><br /></small></small> +<big>VERBALIST:</big></h1> + + +<p class="czerop1"><i><big><big>A MANUAL</big></big></i></p> + +<p class="czerop1"><small><small>DEVOTED</small></small></p> + +<p class="czerop1">TO BRIEF DISCUSSIONS OF THE RIGHT AND THE<br /> +WRONG USE OF WORDS</p> + +<p class="czerop1"><small><small>AND</small></small></p> + +<p class="czerop2">TO SOME OTHER MATTERS OF INTEREST TO THOSE WHO<br /> +WOULD SPEAK AND WRITE WITH PROPRIETY.</p> + + +<p class="czerop3"><small>BY</small></p> + +<h2>ALFRED AYRES.</h2> + +<p> </p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>We remain shackled by timidity till we have learned to speak with +propriety.—<span class="smcap">Johnson</span>.</p> + +<p>As a man is known by his company, so a man's company may be +known by his manner of expressing himself.—<span class="smcap">Swift</span>.</p></div> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 100px;"> +<img src="images/001.png" width="100" height="98" alt="" title="" /> +</div> + +<p class="center"> <br />NEW YORK:<br /> +D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,<br /> +<small>1, 3, AND 5 BOND STREET.</small><br /> +1887.<br /></p> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p class="center"><small>COPYRIGHT BY</small><br /> +D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,<br /> +<small>1881</small></p> + +<div class="trans1"><p class="trnhd">Transcriber's Note</p> + +<p>Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note. Archaic spellings have been retained as printed.</p> + +<p>All Greek words have mouse-hover transliterations, <span title="genomenos">γενόμενος</span>, and appear as printed in the original publication.</p> +</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="PREFATORY_NOTE" id="PREFATORY_NOTE"></a>PREFATORY NOTE.</h2> + + +<p>The title-page sufficiently sets forth the end +this little book is intended to serve.</p> + +<p>For convenience' sake I have arranged in +alphabetical order the subjects treated of, and +for economy's sake I have kept in mind that +"he that uses many words for the explaining of +any subject doth, like the cuttle-fish, hide himself +in his own ink."</p> + +<p>The curious inquirer who sets himself to +look for the learning in the book is advised +that he will best find it in such works as George +P. Marsh's "Lectures on the English Language," +Fitzedward Hall's "Recent Exemplifications +of False Philology," and "Modern English," +Richard Grant White's "Words and Their +Uses," Edward S. Gould's "Good English,"<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span> +William Mathews' "Words: their Use and +Abuse," Dean Alford's "The Queen's English," +George Washington Moon's "Bad English," +and "The Dean's English," Blank's +"Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech," +Alexander Bain's "English Composition and +Rhetoric," Bain's "Higher English Grammar," +Bain's "Composition Grammar," Quackenbos' +"Composition and Rhetoric," John Nichol's +"English Composition," William Cobbett's +"English Grammar," Peter Bullions' "English +Grammar," Goold Brown's "Grammar of English +Grammars," Graham's "English Synonymes," +Crabb's "English Synonymes," Bigelow's +"Handbook of Punctuation," and other +kindred works.</p> + +<p>Suggestions and criticisms are solicited, with +the view of profiting by them in future editions.</p> + +<p>If "The Verbalist" receive as kindly a welcome +as its companion volume, "The Orthoëpist," +has received, I shall be content.</p> + +<p class="author">A. A.</p> +<p><span class="smcap">New York</span>, <i>October</i>, 1881.</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span></p> +<div class="blockquot"><p>Eschew fine words as you would rouge.—<span class="smcap">Hare.</span></p> + +<p>Cant is properly a double-distilled lie; the second +power of a lie.—<span class="smcap">Carlyle.</span></p> + +<p>If a gentleman be to study any language, it ought to be +that of his own country.—<span class="smcap">Locke.</span></p> + +<p>In language the unknown is generally taken for the +magnificent.—<span class="smcap">Richard Grant White.</span></p> + +<p>He who has a superlative for everything, wants a measure +for the great or small.—<span class="smcap">Lavater.</span></p> + +<p>Inaccurate writing is generally the expression of inaccurate +thinking.—<span class="smcap">Richard Grant White</span>.</p> + +<p>To acquire a few tongues is the labor of a few years; but +to be eloquent in one is the labor of a life.—<span class="smcap">Anonymous</span>.</p> + +<p>Words and thoughts are so inseparably connected that +an artist in words is necessarily an artist in thoughts.-<span class="smcap">Wilson +Flagg</span>.</p> + +<p>It is an invariable maxim that words which add nothing +to the sense or to the clearness must diminish the force of +the expression.—<span class="smcap">Campbell</span>.</p> + +<p>Propriety of thought and propriety of diction are commonly +found together. Obscurity of expression generally +springs from confusion of ideas.—<span class="smcap">Macaulay.</span></p> + +<p>He who writes badly thinks badly. Confusedness in +words can proceed from nothing but confusedness in the +thoughts which give rise to them.—<span class="smcap">Cobbett</span>.</p></div> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="THE_VERBALIST" id="THE_VERBALIST"></a>THE VERBALIST.</h2> + + +<p><b>A—An.</b> The second form of the indefinite article is +used for the sake of euphony only. Herein everybody +agrees, but what everybody does not agree in is, that it is +euphonious to use <i>an</i> before a word beginning with an aspirated +<i>h</i>, when the accented syllable of the word is the +second. For myself, so long as I continue to aspirate the +<i>h's</i> in such words as <i>heroic</i>, <i>harangue</i>, and <i>historical</i>, I shall +continue to use <i>a</i> before them; and when I adopt the Cockney +mode of pronouncing such words, then I shall use <i>an</i> +before them. To my ear it is just as euphonious to say, "I +will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, +and will plant it upon <i>an</i> high mountain and eminent," as it +is to say <i>an</i> harangue, <i>an</i> heroic, or <i>an</i> historical. <i>An</i> is +well enough before the doubtful British aspiration, but +before the distinct American aspiration it is wholly out of +place. The reply will perhaps be, "But these <i>h's</i> are silent; +the change of accent from the first syllable to the +second neutralizes their aspiration." However true this +may be in England, it is not at all true in America; hence +we Americans should use <i>a</i> and not <i>an</i> before such <i>h's</i> until +we decide to ape the Cockney mode of pronouncing +them.</p> + +<p>Errors are not unfrequently made by omitting to repeat +the article in a sentence. It should always be repeated<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> +when a noun or an adjective referring to a distinct thing +is introduced; take, for example, the sentence, "He has +a black and white horse." If two horses are meant, it +is clear that it should be, "He has a black and <i>a</i> white +horse." See <span class="smcap"><a href="#The">The</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Ability" id="Ability"></a>Ability—Capacity.</b> The distinctions between these +two words are not always observed by those who use them. +"<i>Capacity</i> is the power of receiving and retaining knowledge +with facility; <i>ability</i> is the power of applying knowledge +to practical purposes. Both these faculties are requisite +to form a great character: capacity to conceive, and +ability to execute designs. Capacity is shown in quickness +of apprehension. Ability supposes something done; something +by which the mental power is exercised in executing, +or performing, what has been perceived by the capacity."—Graham's +"English Synonymes."</p> + +<p><b>Abortive.</b> An outlandish use of this word may be occasionally +met with, especially in the newspapers. "A +lad was yesterday caught in the act of <i>abortively</i> appropriating +a pair of shoes." That is abortive that is untimely, +that has not been borne its full time, that is immature. +We often hear <i>abortion</i> used in the sense of failure, but +never by those that study to express themselves in chaste +English.</p> + +<p><b>Above.</b> There is little authority for using this word as +an adjective. Instead of, "the <i>above</i> statement," say, "the +<i>foregoing</i> statement." <i>Above</i> is also used very inelegantly +for <i>more than</i>; as, "above a mile," "above a thousand"; +also, for <i>beyond</i>; as, "above his strength."</p> + +<p><b>Accident.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Casualty">Casualty</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Accord.</b> "He [the Secretary of the Treasury] was +shown through the building, and the information he desired +was <i>accorded</i> him."—Reporters' English.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span></p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"The heroes prayed, and Pallas from the skies<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>Accords</i> their vow."—Pope.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>The goddess of wisdom, when she granted the prayers +of her worshipers, may be said to have <i>accorded</i>; not so, +however, when the clerks of our Sub-Treasury answer the +inquiries of their chief.</p> + +<p><b>Accuse.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Blame_it_on">Blame it on</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Acquaintance.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Friend">Friend</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Ad.</b> This abbreviation for the word <i>advertisement</i> is +very justly considered a gross vulgarism. It is doubtful +whether it is permissible under any circumstances.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Adapt" id="Adapt"></a>Adapt—Dramatize.</b> In speaking and in writing of +stage matters, these words are often misused. To <i>adapt</i> a +play is to modify its construction with the view of improving +its form for representation. Plays translated from one +language into another are usually more or less <i>adapted</i>; +i. e., altered to suit the taste of the public before which the +translation is to be represented. To <i>dramatize</i> is to change +the form of a story from the narrative to the dramatic; i. e., +to make a drama out of a story. In the first instance, the +product of the playwright's labor is called an <i>adaptation</i>; +in the second, a <i>dramatization</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Adjectives" id="Adjectives"></a>Adjectives.</b> "Very often adjectives stand where adverbs +might be expected; as, 'drink <i>deep</i>,' 'this looks +<i>strange</i>,' 'standing <i>erect</i>.'</p> + +<p>"We have also examples of one adjective qualifying another +adjective; as, '<i>wide</i> open,' '<i>red</i> hot,' 'the <i>pale</i> blue +sky.' Sometimes the corresponding adverb is used, but +with a different meaning; as, 'I found the way <i>easy</i>—<i>easily</i>'; +'it appears <i>clear</i>—<i>clearly</i>.' Although there is a propriety in +the employment of the adjective in certain instances, yet +such forms as '<i>indifferent</i> well,' '<i>extreme</i> bad,' are grammatical +errors. 'He was interrogated <i>relative</i> to that circumstance,'<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> +should be <i>relatively</i>, or <i>in relation to</i>. It is not +unusual to say, 'I would have done it <i>independent</i> of that +circumstance,' but <i>independently</i> is the proper construction.</p> + +<p>"The employment of adjectives for adverbs is accounted +for by the following considerations:</p> + +<p>"(1.) In the classical languages the neuter adjective may +be used as an adverb, and the analogy would appear to +have been extended to English.</p> + +<p>"(2.) In the oldest English the adverb was regularly +formed from the adjective by adding 'e,' as 'soft, soft<i>e</i>,' and +the dropping of the 'e' left the adverb in the adjective +form; thus, '<i>clæne</i>,' adverb, became 'clean,' and appears in +the phrase '<i>clean</i> gone'; '<i>fæste</i>, fast,' 'to stick <i>fast</i>.' By a +false analogy, many adjectives that never formed adverbs +in <i>-e</i> were freely used as adverbs in the age of Elizabeth: +'Thou didst it <i>excellent</i>,' '<i>equal</i> (for <i>equally</i>) good,' '<i>excellent</i> +well.' This gives precedent for such errors as those mentioned +above.</p> + +<p>"(3.) There are cases where the subject is qualified rather +than the verb, as with verbs of incomplete predication, 'being,' +'seeming,' 'arriving,' etc. In 'the matter seems <i>clear</i>,' +'clear' is part of the predicate of 'matter.' 'They arrived +<i>safe</i>': 'safe' does not qualify 'arrived,' but goes with it to +complete the predicate. So, 'he sat <i>silent</i>,' 'he stood <i>firm</i>.' +'It comes <i>beautiful</i>' and 'it comes <i>beautifully</i>' have different +meanings. This explanation applies especially to +the use of participles as adverbs, as in Southey's lines on +Lodore; the participial epithets applied there, although +appearing to modify 'came,' are really additional predications +about 'the water,' in elegantly shortened form. 'The +church stood <i>gleaming</i> through the trees': 'gleaming' is a +shortened predicate of 'church'; and the full form would +be, 'the church stood <i>and gleamed</i>.' The participle retains<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> +its force as such, while acting the part of a coördinating +adjective, complement to 'stood'; 'stood gleaming' is little +more than 'gleamed.' The feeling of adverbial force +in 'gleaming' arises from the subordinate participial form +joined with a verb, 'stood,' that seems capable of predicating +by itself. '<i>Passing</i> strange' is elliptical: 'passing (surpassing) +<i>what is</i> strange.'"—Bain.</p> + +<p>"The comparative adjectives <i>wiser</i>, <i>better</i>, <i>larger</i>, etc., +and the contrasting adjectives <i>different</i>, <i>other</i>, etc., are often +so placed as to render the construction of the sentence awkward; +as, 'That is a much <i>better</i> statement of the case <i>than</i> +yours,' instead of, 'That statement of the case is much <i>better +than</i> yours'; 'Yours is a <i>larger</i> plot of ground <i>than</i> +John's,' instead of, 'Your plot of ground is <i>larger than</i> +John's'; 'This is a <i>different</i> course of proceeding <i>from</i> +what I expected,' instead of, 'This course of proceeding is +<i>different from</i> what I expected'; 'I could take no <i>other</i> +method of silencing him <i>than</i> the one I took,' instead of, +'I could take no method of silencing him <i>other than</i> the +one I took.'"—Gould's "Good English," p. 69.</p> + +<p><b>Administer.</b> "Carson died from blows <i>administered</i> +by policeman Johnson."—"New York Times." If policeman +Johnson was as barbarous as is this use of the verb <i>to +administer</i>, it is to be hoped that he was hanged. Governments, +oaths, medicine, affairs—such as the affairs of the +state—are <i>administered</i>, but not blows: <i>they</i> are <i>dealt</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Adopt.</b> This word is often used instead of <i>to decide +upon</i>, and of <i>to take</i>; thus, "The measures <i>adopted</i> [by +Parliament], as the result of this inquiry, will be productive +of good." Better, "The measures <i>decided upon</i>," etc. Instead +of, "What course shall you <i>adopt</i> to get your pay?" +say, "What course shall you <i>take</i>," etc. <i>Adopt</i> is properly +used in a sentence like this: "The course (or measures)<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> +proposed by Mr. Blank was <i>adopted</i> by the committee." +That is, what was Blank's was <i>adopted</i> by the committee—a +correct use of the word, as <i>to adopt</i>, means, to assume as +one's own.</p> + +<p><i>Adopt</i> is sometimes so misused that its meaning is inverted. +"Wanted to adopt," in the heading of advertisements, +not unfrequently is intended to mean that the advertiser +wishes to be <i>relieved</i> of the care of a child, not that he +wishes to <i>assume</i> the care of one.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Aggravate" id="Aggravate"></a>Aggravate.</b> This word is often used when the speaker +means to provoke, irritate, or anger. Thus, "It <i>aggravates</i> +[provokes] me to be continually found fault with"; "He is +easily <i>aggravated</i> [irritated]." To <i>aggravate</i> means to make +worse, to heighten. We therefore very properly speak of +<i>aggravating</i> circumstances. To say of a person that he is +<i>aggravated</i> is as incorrect as to say that he is <i>palliated</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Agriculturist.</b> This word is to be preferred to <i>agriculturalist</i>. +See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Conversationist">Conversationist</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Alike.</b> This word is often most bunglingly coupled +with <i>both</i>. Thus, "These bonnets are both alike," or, worse +still, if possible, "both just alike." This reminds one of +the story of Sam and Jem, who were very like each other, +especially Sam.</p> + +<p><b>All.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Universal">Universal</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>All over.</b> "The disease spread <i>all over</i> the country." +It is more logical and more emphatic to say, "The disease +spread <i>over all</i> the country."</p> + +<p><b>Allegory.</b> An elaborated metaphor is called an <i>allegory</i>; +both are figurative representations, the words used +signifying something beyond their literal meaning. Thus, +in the eightieth Psalm, the Jews are represented under the +symbol of a vine:</p> + +<p>"Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> +cast out the heathen, and planted it. Thou preparedst +room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it +filled the land. The hills were covered with the shadow +of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. +She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto +the river. Why hast thou then broken down her hedges, +so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her? The +boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of +the field doth devour it."</p> + +<p>An allegory is sometimes so extended that it makes a +volume; as in the case of Swift's "Tale of a Tub," Arbuthnot's +"John Bull," Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress," etc. +Fables and parables are short allegories.</p> + +<p><b>Allow.</b> This word is frequently misused in the West +and South, where it is made to do service for <i>assert</i> or <i>to be +of opinion</i>. Thus, "He <i>allows</i> that he has the finest horse +in the country."</p> + +<p><b>Allude.</b> The treatment this word has received is to be +specially regretted, as its misuse has well-nigh robbed it of +its true meaning, which is, to intimate delicately, to refer +to without mentioning directly. <i>Allude</i> is now very rarely +used in any other sense than that of to speak of, to mention, +to name, which is a long way from being its legitimate +signification. This degradation is doubtless a direct +outcome of untutored desire to be fine and to use big +words.</p> + +<p><b>Alone.</b> This word is often improperly used for <i>only</i>. +That is <i>alone</i> which is unaccompanied; that is <i>only</i> of +which there is no other. "Virtue <i>alone</i> makes us happy," +means that virtue unaided suffices to make us happy; +"Virtue <i>only</i> makes us happy," means that nothing else +can do it—that that, and that only (not alone), can do it. +"This means of communication is employed by man <i>alone</i>."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> +Dr. Quackenbos should have written, "By man <i>only</i>". See +also <span class="smcap"><a href="#Only">Only</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Amateur" id="Amateur"></a>Amateur—Novice.</b> There is much confusion in the +use of these two words, although they are entirely distinct +from each other in meaning. An <i>amateur</i> is one versed in, +or a lover and practicer of, any particular pursuit, art, or +science, but <i>not</i> engaged in it professionally. A <i>novice</i> is +one who is new or inexperienced in any art or business—a +beginner, a tyro. A professional actor, then, who is new +and unskilled in his art, is a <i>novice</i> and not an <i>amateur</i>. +An amateur may be an artist of great experience and extraordinary +skill.</p> + +<p><b>Ameliorate.</b> "The health of the Empress of Germany +is greatly <i>ameliorated</i>." Why not say <i>improved</i>?</p> + +<p><b>Among.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Between">Between</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Amount of Perfection.</b> The observant reader of periodical +literature often notes forms of expression which are +perhaps best characterized by the word <i>bizarre</i>. Of these +queer locutions, <i>amount of perfection</i> is a very good example. +Mr. G. F. Watts, in the "Nineteenth Century," says, +"An <i>amount of perfection</i> has been reached which I was +by no means prepared for." What Mr. Watts meant to +say was, doubtless, that a <i>degree of excellence</i> had been +reached. There are not a few who, in their prepossession +for everything transatlantic, seem to be of opinion that the +English language is generally better written in England +than it is in America. Those who think so are counseled +to examine the diction of some of the most noted English +critics and essayists, beginning, if they will, with Matthew +Arnold.</p> + +<p><b><a name="And" id="And"></a>And.</b> Few vulgarisms are more common than the use +of <i>and</i> for <i>to</i>. Examples: "Come <i>and</i> see me before you +go"; "Try <i>and</i> do what you can for him"; "Go <i>and</i> see<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span> +your brother, if you can." In such sentences as these, the +proper particle to use is clearly <i>to</i> and not <i>and</i>.</p> + +<p><i>And</i> is sometimes improperly used instead of <i>or</i>; thus, +"It is obvious that a language like the Greek <i>and</i> Latin" +(language?), etc., should be, "a language like the Greek <i>or +the</i> Latin" (language), etc. There is no such thing as a +Greek and Latin language.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Answer" id="Answer"></a>Answer—Reply.</b> These two words should not be +used indiscriminately. An <i>answer</i> is given to a question; +a <i>reply</i>, to an assertion. When we are addressed, we <i>answer</i>; +when we are accused, we <i>reply</i>. We <i>answer</i> letters, +and <i>reply</i> to any arguments, statements, or accusations they +may contain. Crabb is in error in saying that <i>replies</i> "are +used in personal discourse only." <i>Replies</i>, as well as <i>answers</i>, +are written. We very properly write, "I have +now, I believe, <i>answered</i> all your questions and <i>replied</i> to +all your arguments." A <i>rejoinder</i> is made to a <i>reply</i>. "Who +goes there?" he cried; and, receiving no <i>answer</i>, he fired. +"The advocate <i>replied</i> to the charges made against his +client."</p> + +<p><b>Anticipate.</b> Lovers of big words have a fondness for +making this verb do duty for <i>expect</i>. <i>Anticipate</i> is derived +from two Latin words meaning <i>before</i> and <i>to take</i>, and, +when properly used, means, to take beforehand; to go +before so as to preclude another; to get the start or ahead +of; to enjoy, possess, or suffer, in expectation; to foretaste. +It is, therefore, misused in such sentences as, "Her death +is hourly <i>anticipated</i>"; "By this means it is <i>anticipated</i> that +the time from Europe will be lessened two days."</p> + +<p><b>Antithesis.</b> A phrase that opposes contraries is called +an <i>antithesis</i>.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"I see a chief who leads my chosen sons,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">All armed with points, <i>antitheses</i>, and puns."<br /></span> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span></div></div> + +<p>The following are examples:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Though gentle, yet not dull;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Strong, without rage; without o'erflowing, full."<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Contrasted faults through all their manners reign;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Though poor, luxurious; though submissive, vain;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Though grave, yet trifling; zealous, yet untrue;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">And e'en in penance planning sins anew."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>The following is an excellent example of <i>personification</i> +and <i>antithesis</i> combined:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Talent convinces; Genius but excites:<br /></span> +<span class="i0">That tasks the reason; this the soul delights.<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Talent from sober judgment takes its birth,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">And reconciles the pinion to the earth;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Genius unsettles with desires the mind,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Contented not till earth be left behind."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>In the following extract from Johnson's "Life of Pope," +individual peculiarities are contrasted by means of antitheses:</p> + +<p>"Of genius—that power which constitutes a poet; that +quality without which judgment is cold, and knowledge is +inert; that energy which collects, combines, amplifies, and +animates—the superiority must, with some hesitation, be +allowed to Dryden. It is not to be inferred that of this +poetical vigor Pope had only a little, because Dryden had +more; for every other writer, since Milton, must give place +to Pope; and even of Dryden it must be said that, if he +has brighter paragraphs, he has not better poems. Dryden's +performances were always hasty, either excited by some +external occasion or extorted by domestic necessity; he +composed without consideration and published without +correction. What his mind could supply at call or gather +in one excursion was all that he sought and all that he +gave. The dilatory caution of Pope enabled him to condense<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> +his sentiments, to multiply his images, and to accumulate +all that study might produce or chance might +supply. If the flights of Dryden, therefore, are higher, +Pope continues longer on the wing. If of Dryden's fire +the blaze is brighter, of Pope's the heat is more regular +and constant. Dryden often surpasses expectation, and +Pope never falls below it. Dryden is read with frequent +astonishment, and Pope with perpetual delight. Dryden's +page is a natural field, rising into inequalities, and diversified +by the varied exuberance of abundant vegetation; +Pope's is a velvet lawn, shaven by the scythe, and leveled +by the roller."</p> + +<p>There are forms of antithesis in which the contrast is +only of a secondary kind.</p> + +<p><b>Any.</b> This word is sometimes made to do service for +<i>at all</i>. We say properly, "She is not <i>any</i> better"; but we +can not properly say, "She does not see <i>any</i>," meaning that +she is blind.</p> + +<p><b>Anybody else.</b> "Public School Teachers are informed +that <i>anybody else's</i> is correct."—"New York Times," +Sunday, July 31, 1881. An English writer says: "In +such phrases as anybody else, and the like, <i>else</i> is often put +in the possessive case; as, 'anybody else's servant'; and +some grammarians defend this use of the possessive case, +arguing that <i>somebody else</i> is a compound noun." It is better +grammar and more euphonious to consider <i>else</i> as being +an adjective, and to form the possessive by adding the +apostrophe and <i>s</i> to the word that <i>else</i> qualifies; thus, anybody's +else, nobody's else, somebody's else.</p> + +<p><b>Anyhow.</b> "An exceedingly vulgar phrase," says Professor +Mathews, in his "Words: Their Use and Abuse." +"Its use, <i>in any manner</i>, by one who professes to write +and speak the English tongue with purity, is unpardonable."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> +Professor Mathews seems to have a special dislike for this +colloquialism. It is recognized by the lexicographers, and +I think is generally accounted, even by the careful, permissible +in conversation, though incompatible with dignified +diction.</p> + +<p><b>Anxiety of Mind.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Equanimity_of_mind">Equanimity of Mind</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Apostrophe.</b> Turning from the person or persons to +whom a discourse is addressed and appealing to some +person or thing absent, constitutes what, in rhetoric, is +called the <i>apostrophe</i>. The following are some examples:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i6">"O gentle sleep,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Nature's soft nurse, how have I frighted thee,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">That thou no more wilt weigh my eyelids down,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">And steep my senses in forgetfulness?"<br /></span> +<span class="i0">"Sail on, thou lone imperial bird<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Of quenchless eye and tireless wing!"<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i4">"Help, angels, make assay!<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Bow, stubborn knees! and heart with strings of steel,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Be soft as sinews of the new-born babe:<br /></span> +<span class="i0">All may yet be well!"<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p><b>Appear.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Seem">Seem</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Appreciate.</b> If any word in the language has cause +to complain of ill-treatment, this one has. <i>Appreciate</i> +means, to estimate <i>justly</i>—to set the <i>true</i> value on men +or things, their worth, beauty, or advantages of any sort +whatsoever. Thus, an overestimate is no more <i>appreciation</i> +than is an underestimate; hence it follows that such +expressions as, "I appreciate it, or her, or him, <i>highly</i>," +can not be correct. We <i>value</i>, or <i>prize</i>, things highly, not +<i>appreciate</i> them highly. This word is also very improperly +made to do service for <i>rise</i>, or <i>increase</i>, in value; thus, "Land +<i>appreciates</i> rapidly in the West." Dr. L. T. Townsend<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> +blunders in the use of <i>appreciate</i> in his "Art of Speech," +vol. i, p. 142, thus: "The laws of harmony ... may allow +copiousness ... in parts of a discourse ... in order +that the condensation of other parts may be the <i>more highly +appreciated</i>."</p> + +<p><b>Apprehend—Comprehend.</b> The English often use +the first of these two words where we use the second. Both +express an effort of the thinking faculty; but to <i>apprehend</i> +is simply to take an idea into the mind—it is the mind's +first effort—while to <i>comprehend</i> is <i>fully to understand</i>. +We are dull or quick of <i>apprehension</i>. Children <i>apprehend</i> +much that they do not <i>comprehend</i>. Trench says: "We +<i>apprehend</i> many truths which we do not <i>comprehend</i>." +"<i>Apprehend</i>," says Crabb, "expresses the weakest kind +of belief, the having [of] the least idea of the presence of +a thing."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Apt" id="Apt"></a>Apt.</b> Often misused for <i>likely</i>, and sometimes for <i>liable</i>. +"What is he <i>apt</i> to be doing?" "Where shall I be <i>apt</i> to +find him?" "If properly directed, it will be <i>apt</i> to reach +me." In such sentences as these, <i>likely</i> is the proper word +to use. "If you go there, you will be <i>apt</i> to get into +trouble." Here either <i>likely</i> or <i>liable</i> is the proper word, +according to the thought the speaker would convey.</p> + +<p><b>Arctics.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Rubbers">Rubbers</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Artist.</b> Of late years this word has been appropriated +by the members of so many crafts, that it has well-nigh +been despoiled of its meaning. Your cook, your barber, +your tailor, your boot-maker, and so on to satiety, are all +<i>artists</i>. Painters, sculptors, architects, actors, and singers, +nowadays, generally prefer being thus called, rather than +to be spoken of as <i>artists</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="As" id="As"></a>As.</b> "Not <i>as</i> I know": read, "not <i>that</i> I know." +"This is not <i>as</i> good as the last": read, "not <i>so</i> good."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> +"It may be complete <i>so</i> far as the specification is concerned": +correctly, "<i>as</i> far as."</p> + +<p><i>As</i>, preceded by <i>such</i> or by <i>same</i>, has the force of a relative +applying to persons or to things. "He offered me the +<i>same</i> conditions <i>as</i> he offered you." "The same conditions +<i>that</i>" would be equally proper. See, also, <span class="smcap"><a href="#Like">Like</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Ascribe.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Impute">Impute</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="At" id="At"></a>At.</b> Things are sold <i>by</i>, not <i>at</i>, auction. "The scene +is more beautiful <i>at</i> night than by day": say, "<i>by</i> night."</p> + +<p><b>At all.</b> "It is not strange, for my uncle is King of +Denmark." Had Shakespeare written, "It is not <i>at all</i> +strange," it is clear that his diction would have been much +less forcible. "I do not wish for any <i>at all</i>"; "I saw no +one <i>at all</i>"; "If he had any desire <i>at all</i> to see me, he +would come where I am." The <i>at all</i> in sentences like +these is superfluous. Yet there are instances in which +the phrase is certainly a very convenient one, and seems to +be unobjectionable. It is much used, and by good writers.</p> + +<p><b><a name="At_best" id="At_best"></a>At best.</b> Instead of <i>at best</i> and <i>at worst</i>, we should +say at <i>the</i> best and at <i>the</i> worst.</p> + +<p><b>At last.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#At_length">At length</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>At least.</b> This adverbial phrase is often misplaced. +"'The Romans understood liberty <i>at least</i> as well as we.' +This must be interpreted to mean, 'The Romans understood +liberty <i>as well as we</i> understand liberty.' The intended +meaning is, 'that whatever things the Romans failed +to understand, they understood <i>liberty</i>.' To express this +meaning we might put it thus: 'The Romans understood +<i>at least</i> liberty as well as we <i>do</i>'; 'liberty, <i>at least</i>, the +Romans understood as well as we do.' 'A tear, <i>at least</i>, is +due to the unhappy'; '<i>at least</i> a tear is due to the unhappy'; +'a tear is due <i>at least</i> to the unhappy'; 'a tear is +due to the unhappy <i>at least</i>'—all express different meanings.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> +'This can not, <i>often at least</i>, be done'; 'this can not +be done <i>often, at least</i>.' (1. 'It often happens that this can +not be done.' 2. 'It does not often happen that this can +be done.') So, 'man is <i>always</i> capable of laughing'; 'man +is capable of laughing <i>always</i>.'"—Bain.</p> + +<p><b><a name="At_length" id="At_length"></a>At length.</b> This phrase is often used instead of <i>at last</i>. +"<i>At length</i> we managed to get away": read, "<i>at last</i>." +"<i>At length</i> we heard from him." To hear from any one <i>at +length</i> is to hear fully; i. e., in detail.</p> + +<p><b>Authoress.</b> With regard to the use of this and certain +other words of like formation, Mr. Gould, in his "Good +English," says: "<i>Poet</i> means simply a person who writes +poetry; and <i>author</i>, in the sense under consideration, a +person who writes poetry or prose—not a <i>man</i> who writes, +but a <i>person</i> who writes. Nothing in either word indicates +sex; and everybody knows that the functions of both poets +and authors are common to both sexes. Hence, <i>authoress</i> +and <i>poetess</i> are superfluous. And they are superfluous, also, +in another respect—that they are very rarely used, indeed +they hardly <i>can</i> be used, independently of the <i>name</i> of the +writer, as Mrs., or Miss, or a female Christian name. They +are, besides, philological absurdities, because they are fabricated +on the false assumption that their primaries indicate +<i>men</i>. They are, moreover, liable to the charge of affectation +and prettiness, to say nothing of pedantic pretension to +accuracy.</p> + +<p>"If the <i>ess</i> is to be permitted, there is no reason for excluding +it from <i>any</i> noun that indicates a person; and the +next editions of our dictionaries may be made complete by +the addition of <i>writress</i>, <i>officeress</i>, <i>manageress</i>, <i>superintendentess</i>, +<i>secretaryess</i>, <i>treasureress</i>, <i>walkeress</i>, <i>talkeress</i>, and so +on to the end of the vocabulary."</p> + +<p><b>Avocation.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Vocation">Vocation</a></span>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Bad cold.</b> Inasmuch as colds are never <i>good</i>, why say +a <i>bad</i> cold? We may talk about <i>slight</i> colds and <i>severe</i> +colds, but not about <i>bad</i> colds.</p> + +<p><b>Baggage.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Luggage">Luggage</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Balance" id="Balance"></a>Balance.</b> This word is very frequently and very erroneously +used in the sense of <i>rest</i>, <i>remainder</i>. It properly +means <i>the excess of one thing over another</i>, and in this sense +and in no other should it be used. Hence it is improper +to talk about the <i>balance</i> of the edition, of the evening, of +the money, of the toasts, of the men, etc. In such cases +we should say the <i>rest</i> or the <i>remainder</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Barbarism" id="Barbarism"></a>Barbarism.</b> Defined as an offense against good usage, +by the use of an improper word, i. e., a word that is antiquated +or improperly formed. <i>Preventative</i>, <i>enthuse</i>, <i>agriculturalist</i>, +<i>donate</i>, etc., are barbarisms. See also <span class="smcap"><a href="#Solecism">Solecism</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Been to.</b> We not unfrequently hear a superfluous <i>to</i> +tacked to a sentence; thus, "Where have you been <i>to</i>?"</p> + +<p><b>Beg.</b> We often see letters begin with the words, "I +<i>beg</i> to acknowledge the receipt of your favor," etc. We +should write, "I <i>beg leave</i> to acknowledge," etc. No one +would say, "I beg to tell you," instead of, "I beg <i>leave</i> to +tell you."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Begin" id="Begin"></a>Begin—Commence.</b> These words have the same +meaning; careful speakers, however, generally prefer to +use the former. Indeed, there is rarely any good reason +for giving the preference to the latter. See also <span class="smcap"><a href="#Commence">Commence</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Being built.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Is_being_built">Is being built</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Belongings.</b> An old idiomatic expression now coming +into use again.</p> + +<p><b>Beside—Besides.</b> In the later unabridged editions +of Webster's dictionary we find the following remarks concerning +the use of these two words: "<i>Beside</i> and <i>besides</i>,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> +whether used as prepositions or adverbs, have been considered +synonymous from an early period of our literature, +and have been freely interchanged by our best writers. +There is, however, a tendency in present usage to make +the following distinction between them: 1. That <i>beside</i> be +used only and always as a preposition, with the original +meaning <i>by the side of</i>; as, to sit <i>beside</i> a fountain; or +with the closely allied meaning <i>aside from</i>, or <i>out of</i>; as, +this is <i>beside</i> our present purpose: 'Paul, thou art <i>beside</i> +thyself.' The adverbial sense to be wholly transferred to +the cognate word. 2. That <i>besides</i>, as a preposition, take +the remaining sense, <i>in addition to</i>; as, <i>besides</i> all this; +<i>besides</i> the consideration here offered: 'There was a famine +in the land <i>besides</i> the first famine.' And that it also take +the adverbial sense of <i>moreover</i>, <i>beyond</i>, etc., which had +been divided between the words; as, <i>besides</i>, there are other +considerations which belong to this case."</p> + +<p><b>Best.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#At_best">At best</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Between" id="Between"></a>Between.</b> This word is often misused for <i>among</i>; thus, +"The word <i>fellow</i>, however much in use it may be <i>between</i> +men, sounds very objectionable from the lips of women."—"London +Queen." Should be, "<i>among</i> men." <i>Between</i> is +used in reference to two things, parties, or persons; <i>among</i>, +in reference to a greater number. "Castor and Pollux +with one soul <i>between</i> them." "You have <i>among</i> you +many a purchased slave."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Blame_it_on" id="Blame_it_on"></a>Blame it on.</b> Here is a gross vulgarism which we +sometimes hear from persons of considerable culture. They +use it in the sense of <i>accuse</i> or <i>suspect</i>; thus, "He <i>blames +it on</i> his brother," meaning that he <i>accuses</i> or <i>suspects</i> his +brother of having done it, or of being at fault for it.</p> + +<p><b>Bogus.</b> A colloquial term incompatible with dignified +diction.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Both.</b> We sometimes hear such absurd sentences as, +"They <i>both</i> resemble each other very much"; "They are +<i>both</i> alike"; "They <i>both</i> met in the street." <i>Both</i> is likewise +redundant in the following sentence: "It performs at +the same time the offices <i>both</i> of the nominative and objective +cases."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Bound" id="Bound"></a>Bound.</b> The use of this word in the sense of <i>determined</i> +is not only inelegant but indefensible. "I am +<i>bound</i> to have it," should be, "I am <i>determined</i> to +have it."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Bravery" id="Bravery"></a>Bravery—Courage.</b> The careless often use these two +words as though they were interchangeable. <i>Bravery</i> is +inborn, is instinctive; <i>courage</i> is the product of reason, calculation. +There is much merit in being courageous, little +merit in being brave. Men who are simply <i>brave</i> are careless, +while the courageous man is always cautious. <i>Bravery</i> +often degenerates into temerity. <i>Moral courage</i> is that +firmness of principle which enables a man to do what he +deems to be his duty, although his action may subject him +to adverse criticism. True <i>moral courage</i> is one of the +rarest and most admirable of virtues.</p> + +<p>Alfred the Great, in resisting the attacks of the Danes, +displayed <i>bravery</i>; in entering their camp as a spy, he displayed +<i>courage</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Bring" id="Bring"></a>Bring—Fetch—Carry.</b> The indiscriminate use of +these three words is very common. To <i>bring</i> is to convey +to or toward—a simple act; to <i>fetch</i> means to <i>go</i> and bring—a +compound act; to <i>carry</i> often implies motion from the +speaker, and is followed by <i>away</i> or <i>off</i>, and thus is opposed +to <i>bring</i> and <i>fetch</i>. Yet one hears such expressions as, +"Go to Mrs. D.'s and <i>bring</i> her this bundle; and here, you +may <i>fetch</i> her this book also." We use the words correctly +thus: "<i>Fetch</i>, or <i>go bring</i>, me an apple from the cellar";<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span> +"When you come home <i>bring</i> some lemons"; "<i>Carry</i> this +book home with you."</p> + +<p><b>British against American English.</b> "The most important +peculiarity of American English is a laxity, irregularity, +and confusion in the use of particles. The same +thing is, indeed, observable in England, but not to the +same extent, though some gross departures from idiomatic +propriety, such as <i>different to</i> for <i>different from</i>, are common +in England, which none but very ignorant persons +would be guilty of in America.... In the tenses of the +verbs, I am inclined to think that well-educated Americans +conform more closely to grammatical propriety than the +corresponding class in England.... In general, I think +we may say that, in point of naked syntactical accuracy, +the English of America is not at all inferior to that of England; +but we do not discriminate so precisely in the meaning +of words, nor do we habitually, in either conversation +or in writing, express ourselves so gracefully, or employ so +classic a diction, as the English. Our taste in language is +less fastidious, and our licenses and inaccuracies are more +frequently of a character indicative of want of refinement +and elegant culture than those we hear in educated society +in England."—George P. Marsh.</p> + +<p><b>British against American Orthoëpy.</b> "The causes +of the differences in pronunciation [between the English +and the Americans] are partly physical, and therefore difficult, +if not impossible, to resist; and partly owing to a difference +of circumstances. Of this latter class of influences, +the universality of reading in America is the most obvious +and important. The most marked difference is, perhaps, in +the length or prosodical quantity of the vowels; and both +of the causes I have mentioned concur to produce this +effect. We are said to drawl our words by protracting the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> +vowels and giving them a more diphthongal sound than the +English. Now, an Englishman who reads will habitually +utter his vowels more fully and distinctly than his countryman +who does not; and, upon the same principle, a nation +of readers, like the Americans, will pronounce more deliberately +and clearly than a people so large a proportion of +whom are unable to read, as in England. From our universal +habit of reading, there results not only a greater distinctness +of articulation, but a strong tendency to assimilate +the spoken to the written language. Thus, Americans incline +to give to every syllable of a written word a distinct +enunciation; and the popular habit is to say <i>dic-tion-ar-y</i>, +<i>mil-it-ar-y</i>, with a secondary accent on the penultimate, instead +of sinking the third syllable, as is so common in England. +There is, no doubt, something disagreeably stiff in +an anxious and affected conformity to the very letter of orthography; +and to those accustomed to a more hurried utterance +we may seem to drawl, when we are only giving a +full expression to letters which, though etymologically important, +the English habitually slur over, sputtering out, as +a Swedish satirist says, one half of the word, and swallowing +the other. The tendency to make the long vowels +diphthongal is noticed by foreigners as a peculiarity of the +orthoëpy of our language; and this tendency will, of course, +be strengthened by any cause which produces greater slowness +and fullness of articulation. Besides the influence of +the habit of reading, there is some reason to think that climate +is affecting our articulation. In spite of the coldness +of our winters, our flora shows that the climate of even our +Northern States belongs, upon the whole, to a more southern +type than that of England. In southern latitudes, at +least within the temperate zone, articulation is generally +much more distinct than in the northern regions. Witness<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> +the pronunciation of Spanish, Italian, Turkish, as compared +with English, Danish, and German. Participating, then, in +the physical influences of a southern climate, we have contracted +something of the more distinct articulation that belongs +to a dry atmosphere and a clear sky. And this view +of the case is confirmed by the fact that the inhabitants of +the Southern States incline, like the people of southern +Europe, to throw the accent toward the end of the word, +and thus, like all nations that use that accentuation, bring +out all the syllables. This we observe very commonly in +the comparative Northern and Southern pronunciation of +proper names. I might exemplify by citing familiar instances; +but, lest that should seem invidious, it may suffice +to say that, not to mention more important changes, many +a Northern member of Congress goes to Washington a +<i>dactyl</i> or a <i>trochee</i>, and comes home an <i>amphibrach</i> or an +<i>iambus</i>. Why or how external physical causes, as climate +and modes of life, should affect pronunciation, we can not +say; but it is evident that material influences of some sort +are producing a change in our bodily constitution, and we +are fast acquiring a distinct national Anglo-American type. +That the delicate organs of articulation should participate +in such tendencies is altogether natural; and the operation +of the causes which give rise to them is palpable even in +our handwriting, which, if not uniform with itself, is generally, +nevertheless, so unlike common English script as to +be readily distinguished from it.</p> + +<p>"To the joint operation, then, of these two causes—universal +reading and climatic influences—we must ascribe +our habit of dwelling upon vowel and diphthongal sounds, +or of drawling, if that term is insisted upon.... But it is +often noticed by foreigners as both making us more readily +understood by them when speaking our own tongue, and as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span> +connected with a flexibility of organ, which enables us to +acquire a better pronunciation of other languages than is +usual with Englishmen. In any case, as, in spite of the +old adage, speech is given us that we may make ourselves +understood, our drawling, however prolonged, is preferable +to the nauseous, foggy, mumbling thickness of articulation +which characterizes the cockney, and is not unfrequently +affected by Englishmen of a better class."—George P. +Marsh.</p> + +<p><b>Bryant's Prohibited Words.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Index_expurgatorius">Index Expurgatorius</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>But.</b> This word is misused in various ways. "I do +not doubt <i>but</i> he will be here": read, doubt <i>that</i>. "I +should not wonder <i>but</i>": read, <i>if</i>. "I have no doubt <i>but</i> +that he will go": suppress <i>but</i>. "I do not doubt <i>but</i> that +it is true": suppress <i>but</i>. "There can be no doubt <i>but</i> +that the burglary is the work of professional cracksmen."—"New +York Herald." Doubt <i>that</i>, and not <i>but that</i>. "A +careful canvass leaves no doubt <i>but</i> that the nomination," +etc.: suppress <i>but</i>. "There is no reasonable doubt <i>but</i> +that it is all it professes to be": suppress <i>but</i>. "The +mind no sooner entertains any proposition <i>but</i> it presently +hastens," etc.: read, <i>than</i>. "No other resource <i>but</i> this +was allowed him": read, <i>than</i>.</p> + +<p><b>By.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#At">At</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Calculate.</b> This word means to ascertain by computation, +to reckon, to estimate; and, say some of the purists, it +never means anything else when properly used. <i>If this is +true</i>, we can not say a thing is <i>calculated</i> to do harm, but +must, if we are ambitious to have our English irreproachable, +choose some other form of expression, or at least some +other word, <i>likely</i> or <i>apt</i>, for example. Cobbett, however, +says, "That, to Her, whose great example is so well <i>calculated</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> +to inspire," etc.; and, "The first two of the three +sentences are well enough <i>calculated</i> for ushering," etc. +<i>Calculate</i> is sometimes vulgarly used for <i>intend</i>, <i>purpose</i>, +<i>expect</i>; as, "He <i>calculates</i> to get off to-morrow."</p> + +<p><b>Caliber.</b> This word is sometimes used very absurdly; +as, "Brown's Essays are of a much higher <i>caliber</i> than +Smith's." It is plain that the proper word to use here is +<i>order</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Cant.</b> <i>Cant</i> is a kind of affectation; affectation is an +effort to sail under false colors; an effort to sail under false +colors is a kind of falsehood; and falsehood is a term of +Latin origin which we often use instead of the stronger +Saxon term <span class="smcap">lying</span>!</p> + +<p>"Who is not familiar," writes Dr. William Matthews, +"with scores of pet phrases and cant terms which are repeated +at this day apparently without a thought of their +meaning? Who ever attended a missionary meeting +without hearing 'the Macedonian cry,' and an account of +some 'little interest' and 'fields white for the harvest'? +Who is not weary of the ding-dong of 'our Zion,' and the +solecism of 'in our midst'; and who does not long for a +verbal millennium when Christians shall no longer 'feel to +take' and 'grant to give'?"</p> + +<p>"How much I regret," says Coleridge, "that so many +religious persons of the present day think it necessary to +adopt a certain cant of manner and phraseology [and of +tone of voice] as a token to each other [one another]! +They <i>improve</i> this and that text, and they must do so and +so in a prayerful way; and so on."</p> + +<p><b>Capacity.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Ability">Ability</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Caption" id="Caption"></a>Caption.</b> This word is often used for <i>heading</i>, but, thus +used, it is condemned by careful writers. The true meaning +of <i>caption</i> is a seizure, an arrest. It does not come from<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> +a Latin word meaning <i>a head</i>, but from a Latin word meaning +<i>to seize</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Caret.</b> Cobbett writes of the caret to his son: "The +last thing I shall mention under this head is the <i>caret</i> [^], +which is used to point upward to a part which has been +omitted, and which is inserted between the line where the +caret is placed and the line above it. Things should be called +by their right names, and this should be called the <i>blunder-mark</i>. +I would have you, my dear James, scorn the use of +the thing. <i>Think</i> before you write; let it be your custom +to <i>write correctly</i> and in <i>a plain hand</i>. Be careful that neatness, +grammar, and sense prevail when you write to a +blacksmith about shoeing a horse as when you write on the +most important subjects. Habit is powerful in all cases; +but its power in this case is truly wonderful. When you +write, bear constantly in mind that some one is to <i>read</i> and +to <i>understand</i> what you write. This will make your handwriting +and also your meaning <i>plain</i>. Far, I hope, from +my dear James will be the ridiculous, the contemptible +affectation of writing in a slovenly or illegible hand, or that +of signing his name otherwise than in plain letters."</p> + +<p><b>Carry.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Bring">Bring</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Case.</b> Many persons of considerable culture continually +make mistakes in conversation in the use of the cases, +and we sometimes meet with gross errors of this kind in +the writings of authors of repute. Witness the following: +"And everybody is to know him except <i>I</i>."—George Merideth +in "The Tragic Comedies," Eng. ed., vol. i, p. 33. +"Let's you and <i>I</i> go": say, <i>me</i>. We can not say, Let <i>I</i> +go. Properly, Let's go, i. e., let us go, or, let you and <i>me</i> +go. "He is as good as <i>me</i>": say, as <i>I</i>. "She is as tall as +<i>him</i>": say, as <i>he</i>. "You are older than <i>me</i>": say, than <i>I</i>. +"Nobody said so but <i>he</i>": say, but <i>him</i>. "Every one can<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> +master a grief but <i>he</i> that hath it": correctly, but <i>him</i>. +"John went out with James and <i>I</i>": say, and <i>me</i>. "You +are stronger than <i>him</i>": say, than <i>he</i>. "Between you +and <i>I</i>": say, and <i>me</i>. "Between you and <i>they</i>": say, +and <i>them</i>. "He gave it to John and <i>I</i>": say, and <i>me</i>. +"You told John and <i>I</i>": say, and <i>me</i>. "He sat between +him and <i>I</i>": say, and <i>me</i>. "He expects to see +you and <i>I</i>": say, and <i>me</i>. "You were a dunce to do +it. Who? <i>me</i>?" say, <i>I</i>. Supply the ellipsis, and we +should have, Who? <i>me</i> a dunce to do it? "Where are +you going? Who? <i>me</i>?" say, <i>I</i>. We can't say, <i>me</i> going. +"<i>Who</i> do you mean?" say, <i>whom</i>. "Was it <i>them</i>?" say, +<i>they</i>. "If I <i>was him</i>, I would do it": say, <i>were he</i>. "If +I <i>was her</i>, I would not go": say, <i>were she</i>. "Was it <i>him</i>?" +say, <i>he</i>. "Was it <i>her</i>?" say, <i>she</i>. "For the benefit of those +<i>whom</i> he thought were his friends": say, <i>who</i>. This error +is not easy to detect on account of the parenthetical words +that follow it. If we drop them, the mistake is very apparent; +thus, "For the benefit of those <i>whom</i> were his +friends."</p> + +<p>"On the supposition," says Bain, "that the interrogative +<i>who</i> has <i>whom</i> for its objective, the following are errors: +'<i>who</i> do you take me to be?' '<i>who</i> should I meet +the other day?' '<i>who</i> is it by?' '<i>who</i> did you give it to?' +'<i>who</i> to?' '<i>who</i> for?' But, considering that these expressions +<i>occur with the best writers and speakers</i>, that they <i>are +more energetic</i> than the other form, and that they <i>lead to +no ambiguity</i>, it may be doubted whether grammarians +have not exceeded their province in condemning them."</p> + +<p>Cobbett, in writing of the pronouns, says: "When the +relatives are placed in the sentence at a distance from their +antecedents or verbs or prepositions, the ear gives us no +assistance. '<i>Who</i>, of all the men in the world, do you<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> +think I <i>saw</i> to-day?' '<i>Who</i>, for the sake of numerous services, +the office was given to.' In both these cases it +should be <i>whom</i>. Bring the verb in the first and the preposition +in the second case closer to the relative, as, <i>who I +saw</i>, <i>to who the office was given</i>, and you see the error at +once. But take care! '<i>Whom</i>, of all the men in the world, +do you think, <i>was</i> chosen to be sent as an ambassador?' +'<i>Whom</i>, for the sake of his numerous services, <i>had</i> an +office of honor bestowed upon him.' These are nominative +cases, and ought to have <i>who</i>; that is to say, <i>who was +chosen</i>, <i>who had an office</i>."</p> + +<p>"Most grammarians," says Dr. Bain, in his "Higher +English Grammar," "have laid down this rule: 'The verb <i>to +be</i> has the same case after as before it.' Macaulay censures +the following as a solecism: 'It was <i>him</i> that Horace Walpole +called a man who never made a bad figure but as an +author.' Thackeray similarly adverts to the same deviation +from the rule: '"Is that <i>him</i>?" said the lady in <i>questionable +grammar</i>.' But, notwithstanding this," continues Dr. +Bain, "we certainly hear in the actual speech of all classes +of society such expressions as 'it was <i>me</i>,' 'it was <i>him</i>,' 'it +was <i>her</i>,' more frequently than the prescribed form.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> 'This +shy creature, my brother says, is <i>me</i>'; 'were it <i>me</i>, I'd show +him the difference.'—Clarissa Harlowe. 'It is not <i>me</i><a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> you +are in love with.'—Addison. 'If there is one character +more base than another, it is <i>him</i> who,' etc.—Sydney Smith. +'If I were <i>him</i>'; 'if I had been <i>her</i>,' etc. The authority +of good writers is strong on the side of objective forms.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> +There is also the analogy of the French language; for while +'I am here' is <i>je suis ici</i>, the answer to 'who is there?' is +<i>moi</i> (me); and <i>c'est moi</i> (it is <i>me</i>) is the legitimate phrase—never +<i>c'est je</i> (it is I)."</p> + +<p>But <i>moi</i>, according to all French grammarians, is very +often in the nominative case. <i>Moi</i> is in the nominative +case when used in reply to "Who is there?" and also in +the phrase "C'est moi," which makes "It is <i>I</i>" the correct +translation of the phrase, and not "It is <i>me</i>." The French +equivalent of "I! I am here," is "Moi! je suis ici." The +Frenchman uses <i>moi</i> in the nominative case when <i>je</i> would +be inharmonious. Euphony with him is a matter of more +importance than grammatical correctness. Bescherelle +gives many examples of <i>moi</i> in the nominative. Here are +two of them: "Mon avocat et moi sommes de cet avis. +Qui veut aller avec lui? Moi." If we use such phraseology +as "It is <i>me</i>," we must do as the French do—consider <i>me</i> +as being in the nominative case, and offer <i>euphony</i> as our +reason for thus using it.</p> + +<p>When shall we put nouns (or pronouns) preceding verbal, +or participial, nouns, as they are called by some grammarians—infinitives +in <i>ing</i>, as they are called by others—in the +possessive case?</p> + +<p>"'I am surprised at <i>John's</i> (or <i>his</i>, <i>your</i>, etc.) <i>refusing</i> +to go.' 'I am surprised at <i>John</i> (or <i>him</i>, <i>you</i>, etc.) <i>refusing</i> +to go.' [In the latter sentence <i>refusing</i> is a participle.] +The latter construction is not so common with pronouns as +with nouns, especially with such nouns as do not readily +take the possessive form. 'They prevented <i>him going</i> forward': +better, 'They prevented <i>his going</i> forward.' 'He +was dismissed without any <i>reason being</i> assigned.' 'The +boy died through his <i>clothes being</i> burned.' 'We hear little +of any <i>connection being</i> kept up between the two nations.'<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> +'The men rowed vigorously for fear of the <i>tide turning</i> +against us.' <i>But most examples of the construction without +the possessive form are</i> <span class="smcap">obviously due to mere slovenliness</span>.... +'In case of <i>your being</i> absent': here <i>being</i> is +an infinitive [verbal, or participial, noun] qualified by the +possessive <i>your</i>. 'In case of <i>you being</i> present': here +<i>being</i> would have to be construed as a participle. <i>The possessive +construction is, in this case, the primitive and regular +construction</i>; <span class="smcap">the other is a mere lapse</span>. The +difficulty of adhering to the possessive form occurs when the +subject is not a person: 'It does not seem safe to rely on +the rule of <i>demand</i> creating supply': in strictness, '<i>Demand's</i> +creating supply.' 'A petition was presented +against the <i>license being</i> granted.' But for the awkwardness +of extending the possessive to impersonal subjects, it +would be right to say, 'against the <i>license's being</i> granted.' +'He had conducted the ball without any <i>complaint +being</i> urged against him.' The possessive would be suitable, +but undesirable and unnecessary."—Professor Alexander +Bain.</p> + +<p>"Though the <i>ordinary</i> syntax of the possessive case is +sufficiently plain and easy, there is, perhaps, among all the +puzzling and disputable points of grammar, nothing more +difficult of decision than are some questions that occur respecting +the right management of this case. The observations +that have been made show that possessives before +participles are seldom to be approved. The following example +is manifestly inconsistent with itself; and, <i>in my +opinion, the three possessives are all wrong</i>: 'The kitchen, +too, now begins to give dreadful note of preparation; +not from <i>armorers</i> accomplishing the knights, but from the +<i>shopmaid's</i> chopping force-meat, the <i>apprentice's</i> cleaning +knives, and the <i>journeyman's</i> receiving a practical lesson in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> +the art of waiting at table.' 'The daily instances of <i>men's</i> +dying around us.' Say rather, 'Of <i>men</i> dying around us.' +The leading word in sense ought not to be made the adjunct +in construction."—Goold Brown.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Casualty" id="Casualty"></a>Casualty.</b> This word is often heard with the incorrect +addition of a syllable, <i>casuality</i>, which is not recognized +by the lexicographers. Some writers object to the word +casualty, and always use its synonym <i>accident</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Celebrity.</b> "A number of <i>celebrities</i> witnessed the +first representation." This word is frequently used, especially +in the newspapers, as a concrete term; but it +would be better to use it in its abstract sense only, +and in sentences like the one above to say <i>distinguished +persons</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Character" id="Character"></a>Character—Reputation.</b> These two words are not +synonyms, though often used as such. <i>Character</i> means +the sum of distinguishing qualities. "Actions, looks, +words, steps, form the alphabet by which you may spell +characters."—Lavater. <i>Reputation</i> means the estimation +in which one is held. One's reputation, then, is what is +thought of one's character; consequently, one may have a +good reputation and a bad character, or a good character +and a bad reputation. Calumny may injure <i>reputation</i>, but +not <i>character</i>. Sir Peter does not leave his <i>character</i> behind +him, but his <i>reputation</i>—his <i>good name</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Cheap.</b> The dictionaries define this adjective as meaning, +bearing a low price, or to be had at a low price; but +nowadays good usage makes it mean that a thing may be +had, or has been sold, at a bargain. Hence, in order to +make sure of being understood, it is better to say <i>low-priced</i>, +when one means low-priced, than to use the word <i>cheap</i>. +What is low-priced, as everybody knows, is often <i>dear</i>, and +what is high-priced is often <i>cheap</i>. A diamond necklace<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> +might be <i>cheap</i> at ten thousand dollars, and a pinchbeck +necklace dear at ten dollars.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Cherubim" id="Cherubim"></a>Cherubim.</b> The Hebrew plural of <i>cherub</i>. "We are +authorized," says Dr. Campbell, "both by use and analogy, +to say either <i>cherubs</i> and <i>seraphs</i>, according to the English +idiom, or <i>cherubim</i> and <i>seraphim</i>, according to the Oriental. +The former suits better the familiar, the latter the solemn, +style. As the words <i>cherubim</i> and <i>seraphim</i> are plural, the +terms <i>cherubims</i> and <i>seraphims</i>, as expressing the plural, are +quite improper."—"Philosophy of Rhetoric."</p> + +<p><b>Citizen.</b> This word properly means one who has certain +political rights; when, therefore, it is used, as it often +is, to designate persons who may be aliens, it, to say the +least, betrays a want of care in the selection of words. +"Several <i>citizens</i> were injured by the explosion." Here +some other word—<i>persons</i>, for example—should be used.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Clever" id="Clever"></a>Clever.</b> In this country the word <i>clever</i> is most improperly +used in the sense of good-natured, well-disposed, +good-hearted. It is properly used in the sense in which +we are wont most inelegantly to use the word <i>smart</i>, though +it is a less colloquial term, and is of wider application. In +England the phrase "a <i>clever</i> man" is the equivalent of the +French phrase, "<i>un homme d'esprit</i>." The word is properly +used in the following sentences: "Every work of Archbishop +Whately must be an object of interest to the admirers +of <i>clever</i> reasoning"; "Cobbett's letter ... very +<i>clever</i>, but very mischievous"; "Bonaparte was certainly as +<i>clever</i> a man as ever lived."</p> + +<p><b>Climax.</b> A clause, a sentence, a paragraph, or any literary +composition whatsoever, is said to end with a <i>climax</i> +when, by an artistic arrangement, the more effective is +made to follow the less effective in regular gradation. +Any great departure from the order of ascending strength<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> +is called an <i>anti-climax</i>. Here are some examples of climax:</p> + +<p>"Give all diligence; add to your faith, virtue; and to +virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance; and to +temperance, patience; and to patience, godliness; and to +godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, +charity."</p> + +<p>"What is every year of a wise man's life but a criticism +on the past! Those whose life is the shortest live long +enough to laugh at one half of it; the boy despises the infant, +the man the boy, the sage both, and the Christian +all."</p> + +<p>"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! +how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express +and admirable! in action, how like an angel! in apprehension, +how like a god!"</p> + +<p><b>Co.</b> The prefix <i>co</i> should be used only when the word +to which it is joined begins with a vowel, as in <i>co-eval</i>, <i>co-incident</i>, +<i>co-operate</i>, etc. <i>Con</i> is used when the word begins +with a consonant, as in <i>con-temporary</i>, <i>con-junction</i>, etc. +<i>Co-partner</i> is an exception to the rule.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Commence" id="Commence"></a>Commence.</b> The Britons use or misuse this word in +a manner peculiar to themselves. They say, for example, +"commenced merchant," "commenced actor," "commenced +politician," and so on. Dr. Hall tells us that <i>commence</i> has +been employed in the sense of "begin to be," "become," +"set up as," by first-class writers, for more than two centuries. +Careful speakers make small use of <i>commence</i> in any +sense; they prefer to use its Saxon equivalent, <i>begin</i>. See, +also, <span class="smcap"><a href="#Begin">Begin</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Comparison.</b> When only two objects are compared, +the comparative and not the superlative degree should be +used; thus, "Mary is the <i>older</i> of the two"; "John is the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> +<i>stronger</i> of the two"; "Brown is the <i>richer</i> of the two, and +the <i>richest</i> man in the city"; "Which is the <i>more</i> desirable, +health or wealth?" "Which is the <i>most</i> desirable, +health, wealth, or genius?"</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Of two such lessons, why forget<br /></span> +<span class="i0">The <i>nobler</i> and the <i>manlier</i> one?"<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p><b>Completed.</b> This word is often incorrectly used for +<i>finished</i>. That is <i>complete</i> which lacks nothing; that is +<i>finished</i> which has had all done to it that was intended. +The builder of a house may <i>finish</i> it and yet leave it very +<i>incomplete</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Condign.</b> It is safe to say that most of those who +use this word do not know its meaning, which is, suitable, +deserved, merited, proper. "His endeavors shall not lack +<i>condign</i> praise"; i. e., his endeavors shall not lack <i>proper</i> +or their <i>merited</i> praise. "A villain <i>condignly</i> punished" is +a villain punished <i>according to his deserts</i>. To use <i>condign</i> +in the sense of <i>severe</i> is just as incorrect as it would +be to use <i>deserved</i> or <i>merited</i> in the sense of <i>severe</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Confirmed Invalid.</b> This phrase is a convenient mode +of expressing the idea it conveys, but it is difficult to defend, +inasmuch as <i>confirmed</i> means strengthened, established.</p> + +<p><b>Consequence.</b> This word is sometimes used instead +of <i>importance</i> or <i>moment</i>; as, "They were all persons of +more or less <i>consequence</i>": read, "of more or less <i>importance</i>." +"It is a matter of no <i>consequence</i>": read, "of no +<i>moment</i>."</p> + +<p><b>Consider.</b> "This word," says Mr. Richard Grant +White, in his "Words and Their Uses," "is perverted +from its true meaning by most of those who use it." <i>Consider</i> +means, to meditate, to deliberate, to reflect, to revolve +in the mind; and yet it is made to do service for<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> +<i>think</i>, <i>suppose</i>, and <i>regard</i>. Thus: "I <i>consider</i> his course +very unjustifiable"; "I have always <i>considered</i> it my duty," +etc.; "I <i>consider</i> him as being the cleverest man of my +acquaintance."</p> + +<p><b>Contemptible.</b> This word is sometimes used for <i>contemptuous</i>. +An old story says that a man once said to Dr. +Parr, "Sir, I have a <i>contemptible</i> opinion of you." "That +does not surprise me," returned the Doctor; "all your +opinions are <i>contemptible</i>." What is worthless or weak is +<i>contemptible</i>. Despicable is a word that expresses a still +more intense degree of the contemptible. A traitor is a +<i>despicable</i> character, while a poltroon is only <i>contemptible</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Continually.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Perpetually">Perpetually</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Continue on.</b> The <i>on</i> in this phrase is generally superfluous. +"We continued on our way" is idiomatic English, +and is more euphonious than the sentence would be without +the particle. The meaning is, "We continued to travel +<i>on</i> our way." In such sentences, however, as "Continue +<i>on</i>," "He continued to read <i>on</i>," "The fever continued +<i>on</i> for some hours," and the like, the <i>on</i> generally serves +no purpose.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Conversationist" id="Conversationist"></a>Conversationist.</b> This word is to be preferred to +<i>conversationalist</i>. Mr. Richard Grant White says that <i>conversationalist</i> +and <i>agriculturalist</i> are inadmissible. On the +other hand, Dr. Fitzedward Hall says: "As for <i>conversationist</i> +and <i>conversationalist</i>, <i>agriculturist</i> and <i>agriculturalist</i>, +as all are alike legitimate formations, it is for convention +to decide which we are to prefer."</p> + +<p><b>Convoke—Convene.</b> At one time and another there +has been some discussion with regard to the correct use of +these two words. According to Crabb, "There is nothing +imperative on the part of those that <i>assemble</i>, or <i>convene</i>, +and nothing binding on those <i>assembled</i>, or <i>convened</i>: one<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> +<i>assembles</i>, or <i>convenes</i>, by invitation or request; one attends +to the notice or not, at pleasure. <i>Convoke</i>, on the other +hand, is <i>an act of authority</i>; it is the call of one who has +the authority to give the call; it is heeded by those who +feel themselves bound to attend." Properly, then, President +Arthur <i>convokes</i>, not <i>convenes</i>, the Senate.</p> + +<p><b>Corporeal—Corporal.</b> These adjectives, though regarded +as synonyms, are not used indiscriminately. <i>Corporal</i> +is used in reference to the body, or animal frame, in +its proper sense; <i>corporeal</i>, to the animal substance in an +extended sense—opposed to spiritual. <i>Corporal</i> punishment; +<i>corporeal</i> or <i>material</i> form or substance.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"That to <i>corporeal</i> substances could add<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Speed most spiritual."—Milton.<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"What seemed <i>corporal</i><br /></span> +<span class="i0">Melted as breath into the wind."—Shakespeare.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p><b>Couple.</b> In its primitive signification, this word does +not mean simply two, but two that are united by some +bond; such as, for example, the tie that unites the sexes. +It has, however, been so long used to mean two of a kind +considered together, that in this sense it may be deemed +permissible, though the substitution of the word <i>two</i> for it +would often materially improve the diction.</p> + +<p><b>Courage.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Bravery">Bravery</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Crime" id="Crime"></a>Crime—Vice—Sin.</b> The confusion that exists in the +use of these words is due largely to an imperfect understanding +of their respective meanings. <i>Crime</i> is the violation +of the law of a state; hence, as the laws of states differ, +what is crime in one state may not be crime in another. +<i>Vice</i> is a course of wrong-doing, and is not modified either +by country, religion, or condition. As for <i>sin</i>, it is very +difficult to define what it is, as what is sinful in the eyes of +one man may not be sinful in the eyes of another; what is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> +sinful in the eyes of a Jew may not be sinful in the eyes of +a Christian; and what is sinful in the eyes of a Christian of +one country may not be sinful in the eyes of a Christian of +another country. In the days of slavery, to harbor a runaway +slave was a <i>crime</i>, but it was, in the eyes of most people, +neither a <i>vice</i> nor a <i>sin</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Crushed out.</b> "The rebellion was finally <i>crushed out</i>." +Out of what? We may <i>crush</i> the life out of a man, or +<i>crush</i> a man to death, and <i>crush</i>, not <i>crush out</i>, a rebellion.</p> + +<p><b>Cultured.</b> This word is said to be a product of Boston—an +excellent place for anybody or anything to come +from. Many persons object to its use on the ground that +there can be no such participial adjective, because there is +no verb in use from which to form it. We have in use +the substantive <i>culture</i>, but, though the dictionaries recognize +the verb <i>to culture</i>, we do not use it. Be this objection +valid or be it not, <i>cultured</i> having but two syllables, +while its synonym <i>cultivated</i> has four, it is likely +to find favor with those who employ short words when +they convey their meaning as well as long ones. Other +adjectives of this kind are, moneyed, whiskered, slippered, +lettered, talented, cottaged, lilied, anguished, gifted, and +so forth.</p> + +<p><b>Curious.</b> This word is often used instead of <i>strange</i> +or <i>remarkable</i>. "A <i>curious</i> fact": better, "a <i>remarkable</i> +fact." "A <i>curious</i> proceeding": better, "a <i>strange</i> proceeding."</p> + +<p><b>Dangerous.</b> "He is pretty sick, but not <i>dangerous</i>." +Dangerous people are generally most dangerous when they +are most vigorous. Say, rather, "He is sick, but not <i>in +danger</i>."</p> + +<p><b>Dearest.</b> "A gentleman once began a letter to his<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> +bride thus: 'My <i>dearest</i> Maria.' The lady replied: 'My +dear John, I beg that you will mend either your morals or +your grammar. You call me your "<i>dearest</i> Maria"; am I +to understand that you have other Marias'?"—Moon's +"Bad English."</p> + +<p><b>Deceiving.</b> "You are <i>deceiving</i> me." Not unfrequently +<i>deceiving</i> is used when the speaker means <i>trying to deceive</i>. +It is when we do not suspect deception that we are +deceived.</p> + +<p><b>Decimate.</b> This word, meaning as it properly does to +tithe, to take the tenth part, is hardly permissible in the +sense in which it is used in such sentences as, "The regiment +held its position, though terribly <i>decimated</i> by the +enemy's artillery." "Though terribly <i>tithed</i>" would be +equally correct.</p> + +<p><b>Demean.</b> This word is sometimes erroneously used in +the sense of <i>to debase</i>, <i>to disgrace</i>, <i>to humble</i>. It is a reflexive +verb, and its true meaning is <i>to behave</i>, <i>to carry</i>, <i>to +conduct</i>; as, "He <i>demeans himself</i> in a gentlemanly manner," +i. e., He <i>behaves</i>, or <i>carries</i>, or <i>conducts</i>, himself in a +gentlemanly manner.</p> + +<p><b>Denude.</b> "The vulture," says Brande, "has some +part of the head and sometimes of the neck <i>denuded</i> of +feathers." Most birds might be <i>denuded</i> of the feathers on +their heads; not so, however, the vulture, for his head is +always featherless. A thing can not be <i>denuded</i> of what +it does not have. Denuding a vulture's head and neck of +the feathers is like <i>denuding</i> an eel of its scales.</p> + +<p><b>Deprecate.</b> Strangely enough, this word is often +used in the sense of disapprove, censure, condemn; as, +"He <i>deprecates</i> the whole proceeding"; "Your course, +from first to last, is universally <i>deprecated</i>." But, according +to the authorities, the word really means, to endeavor to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> +avert by prayer; to pray exemption or deliverance from; +to beg off; to entreat; to urge against.</p> + +<p>"Daniel kneeled upon his knees to <i>deprecate</i> the captivity +of his people."—Hewyt.</p> + +<p><b>Despite.</b> This word is often incorrectly preceded by +<i>in</i> and followed by <i>of</i>; thus, "<i>In</i> despite <i>of</i> all our efforts +to detain him, he set out"; which should be, "Despite all +our efforts," etc., or "<i>In spite of</i> all our efforts," etc.</p> + +<p><b>Determined.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Bound">Bound</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Diction.</b> This is a general term, and is applicable to +a single sentence or to a connected composition. <i>Bad diction</i> +may be due to errors in grammar, to a confused disposition +of words, or to an improper use of words. <i>Diction</i>, +to be good, requires to be only correct and clear. Of excellent +examples of bad diction there are very many in +a little work by Dr. L. T. Townsend, Professor of Sacred +Rhetoric in Boston University, the first volume of which +has lately come under my notice. The first ten lines of +Dr. Townsend's preface are:</p> + +<p>"The leading genius<span class="fnanchor">1</span> of the People's College at Chautauqua +Lake, with a [the?] view of providing for his course<span class="fnanchor">2</span> +a text-book, asked for the publication of the following laws +and principles of speech.<span class="fnanchor">3</span></p> + +<p>"The author, not seeing sufficient reason<span class="fnanchor">4</span> for withholding +what had been of much practical benefit<span class="fnanchor">5</span> to himself, +consented.<span class="fnanchor">6</span></p> + +<p>"The subject-matter herein contained is an outgrowth +from<span class="fnanchor">7</span> occasional instructions<span class="fnanchor">8</span> given<span class="fnanchor">9</span> while occupying the +chair<span class="fnanchor">10</span> of Sacred Rhetoric."</p> + +<p>1. The phrase <i>leading genius</i> is badly chosen. Founder, +projector, head, organizer, principal, or president—some one +of these terms would probably have been appropriate. 2. +What course? Race-course, course of ethics, æsthetics,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> +rhetoric, or what?<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> 3. "The following laws and principles +of speech." And how came these laws and principles in +existence? Who made them? We are to infer, it would +seem, that Professor Townsend made them, and that the +world would have had to go without the laws that govern +language and the principles on which language is formed +had it pleased Professor Townsend to withhold them. 4. +"<i>Sufficient</i> reason"! Then there were reasons why Professor +Townsend ought to have kept these good things all +to himself; only, they were not <i>sufficient</i>. 5. "Practical +benefit"! Is there <i>any</i> such thing as impractical benefit? +Are not all benefits practical? and, if they are, what +purpose does the epithet <i>practical</i> serve? 6. Consented +to what? It is easy to see that the Doctor means <i>acceded +to the request</i>, but he is a long way from saying +so. The object writers usually have in view is to convey +thought, not to set their readers to guessing. 7. <i>The +outgrowth of</i> would be English. 8. "Occasional instructions"! +Very vague, and well calculated to set the reader +to guessing again. 9. Given to whom? 10. "<i>The</i> chair." +The definite article made it necessary for the writer to +specify what particular chair of Sacred Rhetoric he meant.</p> + +<p>These ten lines are a fair specimen of the diction of the +entire volume.</p> + +<p>Page 131. "To render a <i>given ambiguous or</i> unintelligible +sentence transparent, the following suggestions are +recommended." The words in italics are unnecessary, +since what is ambiguous is unintelligible. Then who has +ever heard of <i>recommending suggestions</i>?</p> + +<p>Dr. Townsend speaks of <i>mastering a subject before publishing +it</i>. Publishing a subject?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span></p> + +<p>Page 133. "Violations of simplicity, whatever the +type, show either that <i>the mind of</i> the writer is tainted with +affectation, or <i>else</i> that <i>an effort is making</i> to conceal <i>conscious</i> +poverty of <i>sentiment</i> under loftiness of expression." +Here is an example of a kind of sentence that can be +mended in only one way—by rewriting, which might be +done thus: Violations of simplicity, whatever the type, +show either that the writer is tainted with affectation, or +that he is making an effort to conceal poverty of thought +under loftiness of expression.</p> + +<p>Page 143. "This <i>quality</i> is fully <i>stated</i> and recommended," +etc. Who has ever heard of <i>stating a quality</i>?</p> + +<p>On page 145 Dr. Townsend says: "A person can not +read a single book of poor style without having his own +style vitiated." <i>A book of poor style</i> is an awkward expression, +to say the least. <i>A single badly-written book</i> would +have been unobjectionable.</p> + +<p>Page 160. "The presented picture produces instantly +a definite effect." Why this unusual disposition of +words? Why not say, in accordance with the idiom of +the language, "The picture presented instantly produces," +etc.?</p> + +<p>Page 161. "The boy studies ... geography and hates +everything connected with the sea and land." Why <i>the</i> +boy? As there are few things besides seals and turtles that +are connected with the sea <i>and</i> land, the boy in question +has few things to hate.</p> + +<p>On page 175, Dr. Townsend heads a chapter thus: +"<i>Art</i> of acquiring <i>Skill</i> in the use of Poetic Speech." +This reminds one of the man who tried to lift himself over +a fence by taking hold of the seat of his breeches. "<i>How</i> +to acquire skill" is probably what is meant.</p> + +<p>On page 232, "Jeremy Taylor is among the best<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> +models of long sentences which are both clear and logical." +Jeremy Taylor is a clear and logical long sentence?! True, +our learned rhetorician says so, but he doesn't mean it. +He means, "In Jeremy Taylor we find some of the best +examples of long sentences which are at once clear and +logical."</p> + +<p>Since the foregoing was written, the second volume of +Professor Townsend's "Art of Speech" has been published. +In the brief preface to this volume we find this characteristic +sentence: "The author has felt that <i>clergymen</i> more +than <i>those</i> of other professions will study this treatise." +The antecedent of the relative <i>those</i> being <i>clergymen</i>, the +sentence, it will be perceived, says: "The author has felt +that <i>clergymen</i> more than <i>clergymen of other professions</i> will +study this treatise." Comment on such "art" as Professor +Townsend's is not necessary.</p> + +<p>I find several noteworthy examples of bad diction in an +article in a recent number of an Australian magazine. The +following are some of them: "<i>Large capital</i> always manages +to make <i>itself</i> master of the situation; it is the small +capitalist and the small landholder that would suffer," +etc. Should be, "<i>The large capitalist ... himself</i>," etc. +Again: "The small farmer would ... be despoiled ... +of the meager profit which <i>strenuous</i> labor had conquered +from the <i>reluctant</i> soil." Not only are the epithets in +italics superfluous, and consequently weakening in their +effect, but idiom does not permit <i>strenuous</i> to be used to +qualify <i>labor</i>: <i>hard</i> labor and <i>strenuous</i> effort. Again: +"Capital has always the choice <i>of</i> a large field." Should +be, "the choice <i>offered by</i> a large field." Again: "Should +capital be withdrawn, tenements would soon prove insufficient." +Should be, "<i>the number of</i> tenements would," etc. +Again: "Men of wealth, therefore, would find their Fifth<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> +Avenue mansions and their summer villas a little more +burdened with taxes, but with this increase happily balanced +by the exemption of their bonds and mortgages, their +plate and furniture." The thought here is so simple that +we easily divine it; but, if we look at the sentence at all +carefully, we find that, though we supply the ellipses in the +most charitable manner possible, the sentence really says: +"Men would find their mansions more burdened, but would +find them with this increased burden happily balanced by +the exemption," etc. The sentence should have been framed +somewhat in this wise: "Men ... would find their ... +mansions ... more burdened with taxes, but this increase +in the taxes on their real estate would be happily balanced +by the exemption from taxation of their bonds, mortgages, +plate, and furniture." Again: "Men generally ... would +be inclined to laugh at the idea of intrusting the modern +politician with such gigantic opportunities for enriching his +favorites." We do not <i>intrust</i> one another with <i>opportunities</i>. +<i>To enrich</i> would better the diction. Again: "The +value of land that has accrued from labor is not ... a just +object for confiscation." Correctly: "The value of land +that has <i>resulted</i> from labor is not <i>justly</i> ... an object <i>of</i> +confiscation." <i>Accrue</i> is properly used more in the sense of +<i>spontaneous growth</i>. Again: "If the state attempts to confiscate +this increase by means of taxes, either rentals will +increase correspondingly, or such a check will be put upon +<i>the</i> growth <i>of each place</i> and <i>all the</i> enterprises <i>connected with +it</i> that greater injury would be done than if things had been +left untouched." We have here, it will be observed, a confusion +of moods; the sentence begins in the indicative and +ends in the conditional. The words in italics are worse +than superfluous. Rewritten: "If the state <i>should</i> attempt +to confiscate this increase by means of taxes, either rentals<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> +<i>would</i> increase correspondingly, or such a check <i>would</i> be +put upon growth and enterprise that greater injury would," +etc. Again: "The <i>theory</i> that land ... is a <i>boon</i> of Nature, +to which every person has an inalienable right equal +to every other person, is not new." The words <i>theory</i> and +<i>boon</i> are here misused. A <i>theory</i> is a system of suppositions. +The things man receives from Nature are <i>gifts</i>, not <i>boons</i>: +the gift of reason, the gift of speech, etc. The sentence +should be: "The <i>declaration</i> (or <i>assertion</i>) that land ... is +a <i>gift</i> of Nature, to which every person has an inalienable +right equal to <i>that of any</i> other person, is not new." Or, +more simply and quite as forcibly: "... to which one person +has an inalienable right equal to that of another, is not +new." Or, more simply still, and more forcibly: "... to +which one <i>man</i> has as good a right as another, is not new." +By substituting the word <i>man</i> for <i>person</i>, we have a word +of one syllable that expresses, in this connection, all that +the longer word expresses. The fewer the syllables, if the +thought be fully expressed, the more vigorous the diction. +Inalienability being foreign to the discussion, the long word +<i>inalienable</i> only encumbers the sentence.</p> + +<p>"We have thus<span class="fnanchor">1</span> passed in review<span class="fnanchor">2</span> the changes and improvements<span class="fnanchor">3</span> +which the revision contains<span class="fnanchor">4</span> in the First Epistle +to the Corinthians. It has<span class="fnanchor">5</span> not, indeed,<span class="fnanchor">6</span> been possible +to refer to<span class="fnanchor">7</span> them all; but so many illustrations<span class="fnanchor">8</span> have been +given in<span class="fnanchor">9</span> the several classes described that the reader will +have<span class="fnanchor">10</span> a satisfactory<span class="fnanchor">11</span> survey of the whole subject. Whatever +may be said of other portions<span class="fnanchor">12</span> of the New Testament, +we think it will be generally admitted that in this +Epistle the changes have improved the old<span class="fnanchor">13</span> translation. +They are such as<span class="fnanchor">14</span> make the English version<span class="fnanchor">15</span> conform +more completely<span class="fnanchor">16</span> to the Greek original. If this be<span class="fnanchor">17</span> true, +the revisers have done a good work for the Church.<span class="fnanchor">18</span> If it<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> +be true<span class="fnanchor">19</span> with regard to all the New Testament books, the +work which they have done will remain<span class="fnanchor">20</span> a blessing to the +readers of those books for<span class="fnanchor">21</span> generations to come. But the +blessing will be only in the clearer presentation of the Divine +truth, and, therefore, it will be only to the glory of God."</p> + +<p>This astonishingly slipshod bit of composition is from +the pen of the Rev. Dr. Timothy Dwight. If the learned +Professor of Divinity in Yale College deemed it worth while +to give a little thought to manner as well as to matter, it is +probable that his diction would be very different from what +it is; and, if he were to give a few minutes to the making +of verbal corrections in the foregoing paragraph, he would, +perhaps, do something like this: 1, change <i>thus</i> to <i>now</i>; 2, +write <i>some of</i> the changes; 3, strike out <i>and improvements</i>; +4, for <i>contains changes</i> substitute some other form of expression; +5, instead of <i>has been</i>, write <i>was</i>; 6, strike out <i>indeed</i>; +7, instead of <i>refer to</i>, write <i>cite</i>; 8, change <i>illustrations</i> +to <i>examples</i>; 9, instead of <i>in</i>, write <i>of</i>; 10, instead +of <i>the reader will have</i>, write <i>the reader will be able to get</i>; +11, change <i>satisfactory</i> to <i>tolerable</i>; 12, change <i>portions</i> to +<i>parts</i>; 13, not talk of the <i>old</i> translation, as we have no +new one; 14, strike out as superfluous the words <i>are such +as</i>; 15, change <i>version</i> to <i>text</i>; 16, substitute <i>nearly</i> for +<i>completely</i>, which does not admit of comparison; 17, substitute +the indicative for the conditional; 18, end sentence +with the word <i>work</i>; 19, introduce <i>also</i> after <i>be</i>; 20, instead +of <i>remain</i>, in the sense of <i>be</i>, use <i>be</i>; 21, introduce +<i>the</i> after <i>for</i>. As for the last sentence, it reminds one of +Mendelssohn's "Songs without Words," though here we +have, instead of a song and no words, words and no song, +or rather no meaning. As is often true of cant, we have +here simply a syntactical arrangement of words signifying—nothing.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span></p> + +<p>If Professor Dwight were of those who, in common +with the Addisons and Macaulays and Newmans, think it +worth while to give some attention to diction, the thought +conveyed in the paragraph under consideration would, perhaps, +have been expressed somewhat in this wise:</p> + +<p>"We have now passed in review some of the changes +that, in the revision, have been made in the First Epistle +to the Corinthians. It was not possible to cite them all, +but a sufficient number of examples of the several classes +described have been given to enable the reader to get a tolerable +survey of the whole subject. Whatever may be said +of the other parts of the New Testament, we think it will +be generally admitted that in this Epistle the changes have +improved the translation. They make the English text +conform more nearly to the Greek. This being true, the +revisers have done a good work; and, if it be also true with +regard to all the New Testament books, the work which +they have done will be a blessing to the readers of these +books for the generations to come."</p> + +<p><b>Die with.</b> Man and brute die <i>of</i>, and not <i>with</i>, fevers, +consumption, the plague, pneumonia, old age, and so on.</p> + +<p><b>Differ.</b> Writers differ <i>from</i> one another in opinion with +regard to the particle we should use with this verb. Some +say they differ <i>with</i>, others that they differ <i>from</i>, their +neighbors in opinion. The weight of authority is on the +side of always using <i>from</i>, though A may differ <i>with</i> C +from D in opinion with regard, say, to the size of the fixed +stars. "I differ, as to this matter, <i>from</i> Bishop Lowth."—Cobbett. +<i>Different to</i> is heard sometimes instead of <i>different +from</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Directly.</b> The Britons have a way of using this word +in the sense of <i>when</i>, <i>as soon as</i>. This is quite foreign to +its true meaning, which is immediately, at once, straightway.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> +They say, for example, "<i>Directly</i> he reached the city, +he went to his brother's." "Directly he [the saint] was +dead, the Arabs sent his woolen shirt to the sovereign."—"London +News." Dr. Hall says of its use in the sense of +<i>as soon as</i>: "But, after all, it may simply anticipate on the +English of the future."</p> + +<p><b>Dirt.</b> This word means filth or anything that renders +foul and unclean, and means nothing else. It is often improperly +used for earth or loam, and sometimes even for +sand or gravel. We not unfrequently hear of a <i>dirt</i> road +when an unpaved road is meant.</p> + +<p><b>Discommode.</b> This word is rarely used; <i>incommode</i> +is accounted the better form.</p> + +<p><b>Disremember.</b> This is a word vulgarly used in the +sense of <i>forget</i>. It is said to be more frequently heard in +the South than in the North.</p> + +<p><b>Distinguish.</b> This verb is sometimes improperly used +for <i>discriminate</i>. We <i>distinguish</i> by means of the senses +as well as of the understanding; we <i>discriminate</i> by means +of the understanding only. "It is difficult, in some cases, +to <i>distinguish between</i>," etc.: should be, "It is difficult, in +some cases, to <i>discriminate between</i>," etc. We <i>distinguish</i> +one thing <i>from another</i>, and <i>discriminate between</i> two or +more things.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Dock" id="Dock"></a>Dock—Wharf.</b> The first of these words is often improperly +used for the second. Of docks there are several +kinds: a <i>naval dock</i> is a place for the keeping of naval stores, +timber, and materials for ship-building; a <i>dry dock</i> is a +place where vessels are drawn out of the water for repairs; +a <i>wet dock</i> is a place where vessels are kept afloat at a certain +level while they are loaded and unloaded; a <i>sectional +dock</i> is a contrivance for raising vessels out of the water on +a series of air-tight boxes. A <i>dock</i>, then, is a place into<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> +which things are received; hence, a man might fall <i>into</i> a +dock, but could no more fall <i>off</i> a dock than he could fall off +a hole. A <i>wharf</i> is a sort of quay built by the side of the +water. A similar structure built at a right angle with the +shore is generally called a <i>pier</i>. Vessels lie at <i>wharves</i> and +<i>piers</i>, not at <i>docks</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Donate.</b> This word, which is defined as meaning to +give, to contribute, is looked upon by most champions of +good English as being an abomination. <i>Donation</i> is also +little used by careful writers. "<i>Donate</i>," says Mr. Gould, +"may be dismissed with this remark: so long as its place is +occupied by <i>give</i>, <i>bestow</i>, <i>grant</i>, <i>present</i>, etc., it is not needed; +and it should be unceremoniously bowed out, or thrust +out, of the seat into which it has, temporarily, intruded."</p> + +<p><b>Done.</b> This past participle is often very inelegantly, if +not improperly, used thus: "He did not cry out as some +have <i>done</i> against it," which should read, "He did not cry +out as some have against it"; i. e., "as some <i>have cried out</i> +against it."</p> + +<p>"Done is frequently a very great offender against grammar," +says Cobbett. "<i>To do</i> is the <i>act of doing</i>. We see +people write, 'I <i>did</i> not speak yesterday so well as I wished +to have <i>done</i>.' Now, what is meant by the writer? He +means to say that he <i>did</i> not speak so well as he then +<i>wished</i>, or was wishing, <i>to speak</i>. Therefore, the sentence +should be, 'I did not speak yesterday so well as I wished +<i>to do</i>.' That is to say, 'so well as I wished to do it'; that is +to say, to do or to perform <i>the act of speaking</i>.</p> + +<p>"Take great care not to be too free in your use of the +verb <i>to do</i> in any of its times or modes. It is a nice little +handy word, and, like our oppressed <i>it</i>, it is made use of +very often when the writer is at a <i>loss</i> for what to put down. +<i>To do</i> is to <i>act</i>, and therefore it never can, in any of its<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> +parts, supply the place of a <i>neuter</i> verb. 'How do you +do?' Here <i>do</i> refers to the <i>state</i>, and is essentially passive +or neuter. Yet, to employ it for this purpose is very +common. Dr. Blair, in his 23d Lecture, says: 'It is somewhat +unfortunate that this Number of the "Spectator" +did not <i>end</i>, as it might have <i>done</i>, with the former beautiful +period.' That is to say, <i>done it</i>. And then we ask, +Done what? Not the <i>act of ending</i>, because in this case +there is <i>no action</i> at all. The verb means <i>to come to an +end</i>, <i>to cease</i>, <i>not to go any further</i>. This same verb <i>to +end</i> is sometimes an active verb: 'I <i>end</i> my sentence'; +<i>then</i> the verb <i>to do</i> may supply its place; as, 'I have not +ended my sentence so well as I might have <i>done</i>'; that is, +done <i>it</i>; that is, done, or performed, the <i>act of ending</i>. But +the Number of the 'Spectator' was no <i>actor</i>; it was expected +to <i>perform</i> nothing; it was, by the Doctor, wished to have +<i>ceased</i> to proceed. 'Did not <i>end</i> as it very well might have +ended....' This would have been correct; but the Doctor +wished to avoid the <i>repetition</i>, and thus he fell into bad +grammar. 'Mr. Speaker, I do not <i>feel</i> so well satisfied as +I should have <i>done</i> if the Right Honorable Gentleman had +explained the matter more fully.' To <i>feel</i> satisfied is—when +the satisfaction is to arise from conviction produced by fact +or reasoning—a senseless expression; and to supply its +place, when it is, as in this case, a neuter verb, by <i>to do</i>, is +as senseless. Done <i>what</i>? Done <i>the act of feeling</i>! 'I +do not <i>feel</i> so well satisfied as I should have <i>done</i>, or <i>executed</i>, +or <i>performed</i> the <i>act of feeling</i>'! What incomprehensible +words!"</p> + +<p><b>Don't.</b> Everybody knows that <i>don't</i> is a contraction of +<i>do not</i>, and that <i>doesn't</i> is a contraction of <i>does not</i>; and yet +<i>nearly</i> everybody is guilty of using <i>don't</i> when he should +use <i>doesn't</i>. "So you <i>don't</i> go; John <i>doesn't</i> either, I hear."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Double Genitive.</b> An anecdote of Mr. Lincoln—an +anecdote of Mr. Lincoln's. We see at a glance that these +two phrases are very different in meaning. So, also, a portrait +of Brown—a portrait of Brown's. No precise rule +has ever been given to guide us in our choice between these +two forms of the possessive case. Sometimes it is not material +which form is employed; where, however, it is material—and +it generally is—we must consider the thought +we wish to express, and rely on our discrimination.</p> + +<p><b>Dramatize.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Adapt">Adapt</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Drawing-room.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Parlor">Parlor</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Dress" id="Dress"></a>Dress—Gown.</b> Within the memory of many persons +the outer garment worn by women was properly called a +<i>gown</i> by everybody, instead of being improperly called a +<i>dress</i>, as it now is by nearly everybody.</p> + +<p><b>Drive.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Ride">Ride</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Due" id="Due"></a>Due—Owing.</b> These two words, though close synonyms, +should not be used indiscriminately. The mistake +usually made is in using <i>due</i> instead of <i>owing</i>. That is <i>due</i> +which ought to be paid as a debt; that is <i>owing</i> which is to +be referred to as a source. "It was <i>owing</i> to his exertions +that the scheme succeeded." "It was <i>owing</i> to your negligence +that the accident happened." "A certain respect is +<i>due</i> to men's prejudices." "This was <i>owing</i> to an indifference +to the pleasures of life." "It is <i>due</i> to the public that +I should tell all I know of the matter."</p> + +<p><b>Each other.</b> "Their great authors address themselves, +not to their country, but to <i>each other</i>."—Buckle. <i>Each +other</i> is properly applied to two only; <i>one another</i> must be +used when the number considered exceeds two. Buckle +should have written <i>one another</i> and not <i>each other</i>, unless +he meant to intimate that the Germans had only two great +authors, which is not probable.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Eat.</b> Grammarians differ very widely with regard to +the conjugation of this verb; there is no doubt, however, +that from every point of view the preferable forms for the +preterite and past participle are respectively <i>ate</i> and <i>eaten</i>. +To refined ears the other forms smack of vulgarity, although +supported by good authority. "I <i>ate</i> an apple." "I have +<i>eaten</i> dinner." "John <i>ate</i> supper with me." "As soon as +you have <i>eaten</i> breakfast we will set out."</p> + +<p><b>Editorial.</b> The use of this adjective as a substantive +is said to be an Americanism.</p> + +<p><b>Education.</b> This is one of the most misused of words. +A man may be well acquainted with the contents of text-books, +and yet be a person of little <i>education</i>; on the other +hand, a man may be a person of good education, and yet +know little of the contents of text-books. Abraham Lincoln +and Edwin Forrest knew comparatively little of what +is generally learned in schools; still they were men of culture, +men of <i>education</i>. A man may have ever so much +book-knowledge and still be a boor; but a man can not be +a person of good education and not be—so far as manner +is concerned—a gentleman. <i>Education</i>, then, is a whole +of which Instruction and Breeding are the parts. The man +or the woman—even in this democratic country of ours—who +<i>deserves</i> the title of gentleman or lady is always a person +of education; i. e., he or she has a sufficient acquaintance +with books and with the usages of social intercourse +to acquit himself or herself creditably in the society of cultivated +people. Not moral worth, nor learning, nor wealth, +nor all three combined, can unaided make a gentleman, for +with all three a man might be <i>uneducated</i>—i. e., coarse, unbred, +unschooled in those things which alone make men +welcome in the society of the refined.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Effectuate" id="Effectuate"></a>Effectuate.</b> This word, together with <i>ratiocinate</i> and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span> +<i>eventuate</i>, is said to be a great favorite with the rural members +of the Arkansas legislature.</p> + +<p><b>Effluvium.</b> The plural of this word is <i>effluvia</i>. It is +a common error with those who have no knowledge of Latin +to speak of "a disagreeable effluvia," which is as incorrect +as it would be to talk about "a disagreeable vapors."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Effort_without_Effect" id="Effort_without_Effect"></a>Effort without Effect.</b> "Some writers deal in expletives +to a degree that tires the ear and offends the understanding. +With them everything is <i>excessively</i>, or <i>immensely</i>, +or <i>extremely</i>, or <i>vastly</i>, or <i>surprisingly</i>, or <i>wonderfully</i>, or +<i>abundantly</i>, or the like. The notion of such writers is that +these words give <i>strength</i> to what they are saying. This is +a great error. Strength must be found in the <i>thought</i>, or it +will never be found in the <i>words</i>. Big-sounding words, +without thoughts corresponding, are effort without effect."—William +Cobbett. See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Forcible-feeble">Forcible-feeble</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Egoist.</b> "One of a class of philosophers who professed +to be sure of nothing but their own existence."—Reid.</p> + +<p><b>Egotist.</b> "One who talks much of himself."</p> + +<p>"A tribe of <i>egotists</i> for whom I have always had a mortal +aversion."—"Spectator."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Either" id="Either"></a>Either.</b> This word means, strictly, the <i>one</i> or the <i>other</i> +of two. Unlike <i>both</i>, which means two taken collectively, +<i>either</i>, like <i>each</i>, may mean <i>two considered separately</i>; but in +this sense <i>each</i> is the better word to use. "Give me <i>either</i> +of them" means, Give me the one or the other of two. +"He has a farm on <i>either</i> side of the river" would mean +that he has two farms, one on each (or either) side of the +river. "He has a farm on <i>both</i> sides of the river" would +mean that his farm lies partly on the one side of the river +and partly on the other. The use of <i>either</i> in the sense of +<i>each</i>, though biblical and defensible, may be accounted little +if any better than an affectation. <i>Neither</i> is the negative<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span> +of <i>either</i>. <i>Either</i> is responded to by <i>or</i>, <i>neither</i> by <i>nor</i>; +as, "<i>either</i> this <i>or</i> that," "<i>neither</i> this <i>nor</i> that." <i>Either</i> +and <i>neither</i> should not—strictly—be used in relation to +more than two objects. But, though both <i>either</i> and <i>neither</i> +are strictly applicable to two only, they have been for a +very long time used in relation to more than two by many +good writers; and, as it is often convenient so to use them, +it seems probable that the custom will prevail. When more +than two things are referred to, <i>any</i> and <i>none</i> should be +used instead of <i>either</i> and <i>neither</i>; as, "<i>any</i> of the three," +not, "<i>either</i> of the three"; "<i>none</i> of the four," not, "<i>neither</i> +of the four."</p> + +<p><b>Either Alternative.</b> The word <i>alternative</i> means a +choice offered between two things. An <i>alternative writ</i>, +for example, offers the <i>alternative</i> of choosing between the +doing of a specified act or of showing cause why it is not +done. Such propositions, therefore, as, "You are at liberty +to choose <i>either</i> alternative," "<i>Two</i> alternatives are +presented to me," "<i>Several</i> alternatives presented themselves," +and the like, are not correct English. The word is +correctly used thus: "I am confronted with a hard <i>alternative</i>: +I must either denounce a friend or betray my trust." +We rarely hear the word <i>alternate</i> or any of its derivatives +correctly pronounced.</p> + +<p><b>Elder.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Older">Older</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Elegant.</b> Professor Proctor says: "If you say to an +American, 'This is a fine morning,' he is likely to reply, +'It is an <i>elegant</i> morning,' or perhaps oftener by using simply +the word <i>elegant</i>. This is not a pleasing use of the +word." This is not American English, Professor, but popinjay +English.</p> + +<p><b>Ellipsis.</b> The omission of a word or of words necessary +to complete the grammatical construction, but not<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span> +necessary to make the meaning clear, is called an <i>ellipsis</i>. +We almost always, whether in speaking or in writing, leave +out some of the words necessary to the <i>full</i> expression of +our meaning. For example, in dating a letter to-day, we +should write, "New York, August 25, 1881," which would +be, if fully written out, "I am now writing in the city of +New York; this is the twenty-fifth day of August, and this +month is in the one thousand eight hundred and eighty-first +year of the Christian era." "I am going to Wallack's" +means, "I am going to Wallack's <i>theatre</i>." "I shall spend +the summer at my aunt's"; i. e., at my aunt's <i>house</i>.</p> + +<p>By supplying the <i>ellipses</i> we can often discover the +errors in a sentence, if there are any.</p> + +<p><b>Enjoy bad Health.</b> As no one has ever been known +to <i>enjoy</i> bad health, it is better to employ some other form +of expression than this. Say, for example, he is in <i>feeble</i>, +or <i>delicate</i>, health.</p> + +<p><b>Enthuse.</b> This is a word that is occasionally heard in +conversation, and is sometimes met with in print; but it +has not as yet made its appearance in the dictionaries. +What its ultimate fate will be, of course, no one can tell; +for the present, however, it is studiously shunned by those +who are at all careful in the selection of their language. It +is said to be most used in the South. The writer has never +seen it anywhere in the North but in the columns of the +"Boston Congregationalist."</p> + +<p><b>Epigram.</b> "The word <i>epigram</i> signified originally an +inscription on a monument. It next came to mean a short +poem containing some single thought pointedly expressed, +the subjects being very various—amatory, convivial, moral, +eulogistic, satirical, humorous, etc. Of the various devices +for brevity and point employed in such compositions, especially +in modern times, the most frequent is a play upon<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> +words.... In the <i>epigram</i> the mind is roused by a conflict +or contradiction between the form of the language and the +meaning really conveyed."—Bain.</p> + +<p>Some examples are:</p> + +<p>"When you have nothing to say, say it."</p> + +<p>"We can not see the wood for the trees"; that is, we +can not get a general view because we are so engrossed with +the details.</p> + +<p>"Verbosity is cured by a large vocabulary"; that is, he +who commands a large vocabulary is able to select words +that will give his meaning tersely.</p> + +<p>"By indignities men come to dignities."</p> + +<p>"Some people are too foolish to commit follies."</p> + +<p>"He went to his imagination for his facts, and to his +memory for his tropes."</p> + +<p><b>Epithet.</b> Many persons use this word who are in error +with regard to its meaning; they think that to "apply epithets" +to a person is to vilify and insult him. Not at all. +An <i>epithet</i> is a word that expresses a quality, good or bad; +a term that expresses an attribute. "All <i>adjectives</i> are <i>epithets</i>, +but all <i>epithets</i> are not <i>adjectives</i>," says Crabb; "thus, +in Virgil's Pater Æneas, the <i>pater</i> is an <i>epithet</i>, but not an +<i>adjective</i>." <i>Epithet</i> is the technical term of the rhetorician; +<i>adjective</i>, that of the grammarian.</p> + +<p><b>Equally as well.</b> A redundant form of expression, as +any one will see who for a moment considers it. <i>As well</i>, +or <i>equally well</i>, expresses quite as much as <i>equally as well</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Equanimity_of_mind" id="Equanimity_of_mind"></a>Equanimity of mind.</b> This phrase is tautological, +and expresses no more than does <i>equanimity</i> (literally, +"equalmindedness") alone; hence, <i>of mind</i> is superfluous, +and consequently inelegant. <i>Anxiety of mind</i> is a scarcely +less redundant form of expression. <i>A capricious mind</i> is in +the same category.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Erratum.</b> Plural, <i>errata</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Esquire.</b> An esquire was originally the shield-bearer +of a knight. It is much, and, in the opinion of some, rather +absurdly, used in this country. Mr. Richard Grant White +says on the subject of its use: "I have yet to discover +what a man means when he addresses a letter to John +Dash, <i>Esqr.</i>" He means no more nor less than when he +writes <i>Mr.</i> (master). The use of <i>Esq.</i> is quite as prevalent +in England as in America, and has little more meaning +there than here. It simply belongs to our stock of courteous +epithets.</p> + +<p><b>Euphemism.</b> A description which describes in inoffensive +language that which is of itself offensive, or a +figure which uses agreeable phraseology when the literal +would be offensive, is called a <i>euphemism</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Eventuate.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Effectuate">Effectuate</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Everlastingly.</b> This adverb is misused in the South +in a manner that is very apt to excite the risibility of one +to whom the peculiar misuse is new. The writer recently +visited the upper part of New York with a distinguished +Southern poet and journalist. It was the gentleman's first +ride over an elevated road. When we were fairly under +way, in admiration of the rate of speed at which the cars +were moving, he exclaimed, "Well, they do just <i>everlastingly</i> +shoot along, don't they!"</p> + +<p><b><a name="Every" id="Every"></a>Every.</b> This word, which means simply each or all +taken separately, is of late years frequently made, by slipshod +speakers, to do duty for perfect, entire, great, or all +possible. Thus we have such expressions as <i>every</i> pains, +<i>every</i> confidence, <i>every</i> praise, <i>every</i> charity, and so on. +We also have such diction as, "<i>Every one</i> has this in common"; +meaning, "<i>All of us</i> have this in common."</p> + +<p><b>Every-day Latin.</b> <i>A fortiori</i>: with stronger reason.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> +<i>A posteriori</i>: from the effect to the cause. <i>A priori</i>: from +the cause to the effect. <i>Bona fide</i>: in good faith; in reality. +<i>Certiorari</i>: to be made more certain. <i>Ceteris paribus</i>: +other circumstances being equal. <i>De facto</i>: in fact; in +reality. <i>De jure</i>: in right; in law. <i>Ecce homo</i>: behold +the man. <i>Ergo</i>: therefore. <i>Et cetera</i>: and the rest; and +so on. <i>Excerpta</i>: extracts. <i>Exempli gratia</i>: by way of +example; abbreviated, <i>e. g.</i>, and <i>ex. gr.</i> <i>Ex officio</i>: by +virtue of his office. <i>Ex parte</i>: on one side; an <i>ex parte</i> +statement is a statement on one side only. <i>Ibidem</i>: in the +same place; abbreviated, <i>ibid.</i> <i>Idem</i>: the same. <i>Id est</i>: +that is; abbreviated, <i>i. e.</i> <i>Imprimis</i>: in the first place. +<i>In statu quo</i>: in the former state; just as it was. <i>In statu +quo ante bellum</i>: in the same state as before the war. <i>In +transitu</i>: in passing. <i>Index expurgatorius</i>: a purifying +index. <i>In extremis</i>: at the point of death. <i>In memoriam</i>: +in memory. <i>Ipse dixit</i>: on his sole assertion. <i>Item</i>: also. +<i>Labor omnia vincit</i>: labor overcomes every difficulty. <i>Locus +sigilli</i>: the place of the seal. <i>Multum in parvo</i>: much +in little. <i>Mutatis mutandis</i>: after making the necessary +changes. <i>Ne plus ultra</i>: nothing beyond; the utmost +point. <i>Nolens volens</i>: willing or unwilling. <i>Nota bene</i>: +mark well; take particular notice. <i>Omnes</i>: all. <i>O tempora, +O mores!</i> O the times and the manners! <i>Otium cum +dignitate</i>: ease with dignity. <i>Otium sine dignitate</i>: ease +without dignity. <i>Particeps criminis</i>: an accomplice. <i>Peccavi</i>: +I have sinned. <i>Per se</i>: by itself. <i>Prima facie</i>: on +the first view or appearance; at first sight. <i>Pro bono publico</i>: +for the public good. <i>Quid nunc</i>: what now? <i>Quid +pro quo</i>: one thing for another; an equivalent. <i>Quondam</i>: +formerly. <i>Rara avis</i>: a rare bird; a prodigy. <i>Resurgam</i>: +I shall rise again. <i>Seriatim</i>: in order. <i>Sine +die</i>: without specifying any particular day; to an indefinite<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> +time. <i>Sine qua non</i>: an indispensable condition. <i>Sui +generis</i>: of its own kind. <i>Vade mecum</i>: go with me. +<i>Verbatim</i>: word by word. <i>Versus</i>: against. <i>Vale</i>: fare-well. +<i>Via</i>: by the way of. <i>Vice</i>: in the place of. <i>Vide</i>: +see. <i>Vi et armis</i>: by main force. <i>Viva voce</i>: orally; by +word of mouth. <i>Vox populi, vox Dei</i>: the voice of the +people is the voice of God.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Evidence" id="Evidence"></a>Evidence—Testimony.</b> These words, though differing +widely in meaning, are often used indiscriminately by +careless speakers. <i>Evidence</i> is that which <i>tends</i> to convince; +<i>testimony</i> is that which is <i>intended</i> to convince. In a judicial +investigation, for example, there might be a great deal +of <i>testimony</i>—a great deal of <i>testifying</i>—and very little <i>evidence</i>; +and the <i>evidence</i> might be quite the reverse of the +<i>testimony</i>. See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Proof">Proof</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Exaggeration.</b> "Weak minds, feeble writers and +speakers delight in <i>superlatives</i>." See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Effort_without_Effect">Effort without +Effect</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Except.</b> "No one need apply <i>except</i> he is thoroughly +familiar with the business," should be, "No one need +apply <i>unless</i>," etc.</p> + +<p><b>Excessively.</b> That class of persons who are never +content with any form of expression that falls short of the +superlative, frequently use <i>excessively</i> when <i>exceedingly</i> or +even the little word <i>very</i> would serve their turn better. +They say, for example, that the weather is <i>excessively hot</i>, +when they should content themselves with saying simply +that the weather is <i>very warm</i>, or, if the word suits them +better, <i>hot</i>. Intemperance in the use of language is as +much to be censured as intemperance in anything else; +like intemperance in other things, its effect is vulgarizing.</p> + +<p><b>Execute.</b> This word means to follow out to the end, +to carry into effect, to accomplish, to fulfill, to perform;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> +as, to execute an order, to execute a purpose. And the +dictionaries and almost universal usage say that it also +means to put to death in conformity with a judicial sentence; +as, to execute a criminal. Some of our careful +speakers, however, maintain that the use of the word in +this sense is indefensible. They say that <i>laws</i> and <i>sentences</i> +are executed, but not <i>criminals</i>, and that their execution +only rarely results in the death of the persons upon whom +they are executed. In the hanging of a criminal, it is, then, +not the criminal who is executed, but the law and the sentence. +The criminal is <i>hanged</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Expect.</b> This verb always has reference to what is to +come, never to what is past. We can not <i>expect</i> backward. +Instead, therefore, of saying, "I <i>expect</i>, you thought +I would come to see you yesterday," we should say, "I +<i>suppose</i>," etc.</p> + +<p><b>Experience.</b> "We <i>experience</i> great difficulty in getting +him to take his medicine." The word <i>have</i> ought to +be big enough, in a sentence like this, for anybody. "We +<i>experienced</i> great hardships." Better, "We <i>suffered</i>."</p> + +<p><b>Extend.</b> This verb, the primary meaning of which is +to stretch out, is used, especially by lovers of big words, in +connections where to give, to show, or to offer would be +preferable. For example, it is certainly better to say, +"They <i>showed</i> me every courtesy," than "They <i>extended</i> +every courtesy to me." See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Every">Every</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>False Grammar.</b> Some examples of false grammar +will show what every one is the better for knowing: that +in literature nothing should be taken on trust; that errors +of grammar even are found where we should least expect +them. "I do not know whether the imputation <i>were</i> just +or not."—Emerson. "I proceeded to inquire if the 'extract' +... <i>were</i> a veritable quotation."—Emerson. Should<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> +be <i>was</i> in both cases. "How <i>sweet</i> the moonlight sleeps!"—Townsend, +"Art of Speech," vol. i, p. 114. Should be +<i>sweetly</i>. "There is no question <i>but</i> these arts ... will +greatly aid him," etc.—Ibid., p. 130. Should be <i>that</i>. "Nearly +all who have been distinguished in literature or oratory +have made ... the generous confession that their attainments +<i>have been</i> reached through patient and laborious industry. +They have declared that speaking and writing, +though once difficult for them, <i>have become</i> well-nigh recreations."—Ibid., +p. 143. The <i>have been</i> should be <i>were</i>, and +the <i>have become</i> should be <i>became</i>. "Many pronominal adverbs +are correlatives of <i>each other</i>."—Harkness's "New +Latin Grammar," p. 147. Should be <i>one another</i>. "Hot +and cold springs, boiling springs, and quiet springs lie within +a few feet of <i>each other</i>, but <i>none of them are properly +geysers</i>."—Appletons' "Condensed Cyclopædia," vol. ii, p. +414. Should be <i>one another</i>, and <i>not one of them is properly a +geyser</i>. "How much better for you as seller and the nation +as buyer ... than to sink ... in cutting <i>one another's</i> +throats." Should be <i>each other's</i>. "A minister, noted for +prolixity of style, was once preaching before the inmates of +a lunatic asylum. In one of his illustrations he painted a +scene of a man condemned to be hung, but reprieved under +the gallows." These two sentences are so faulty that the +only way to mend them is to rewrite them. They are from +a work that professes to teach the "art of speech." Mended: +"A minister, noted for his prolixity, once <i>preached</i> before +the inmates of a lunatic asylum. By way of illustration +he painted a scene in which a man, <i>who had been</i> +condemned to be <i>hanged</i>, <i>was</i> reprieved under the gallows."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Female" id="Female"></a>Female.</b> The terms <i>male</i> and <i>female</i> are not unfrequently +used where good taste would suggest some other +word. For example, we see over the doors of school-houses,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> +"Entrance for males," "Entrance for females." +Now bucks and bulls are males as well as boys and men, +and cows and sows are females as well as girls and women.</p> + +<p><b>Fetch.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Bring">Bring</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Fewer.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Less">Less</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Final Completion.</b> If there were such a thing as a +plurality or a series of completions, there would, of course, +be such a thing as the <i>final</i> completion; but, as every +completion is final, to talk about a <i>final completion</i> is as +absurd as it would be to talk about a <i>final finality</i>.</p> + +<p><b>First rate.</b> There are people who object to this phrase, +and yet it is well enough when properly placed, as it is, for +example, in such a sentence as this: "He's a 'first class' +fellow, and I like him <i>first rate</i>; if I didn't, 'you bet' I'd +just give him 'hail Columbia' for 'blowing' the thing +all round town like the big fool that he is."</p> + +<p><b>Firstly.</b> George Washington Moon says in defense of +<i>firstly</i>: "I do not object to the occasional use of <i>first</i> as +an adverb; but, in sentences where it would be followed +by <i>secondly</i>, <i>thirdly</i>, etc., I think that the adverbial form is +preferable." To this, one of Mr. Moon's critics replies: +"However desirable it may be to employ the word <i>firstly</i> +on certain occasions, the fact remains that the employment +of it on any occasion is not the best usage." Webster inserts +<i>firstly</i>, but remarks, "Improperly used for <i>first</i>."</p> + +<p><b>Flee—Fly.</b> These verbs, though near of kin, are not +interchangeable. For example, we can not say, "He <i>flew</i> +the city," "He <i>flew</i> from his enemies," "He <i>flew</i> at the approach +of danger," <i>flew</i> being the imperfect tense of <i>to fly</i>, +which is properly used to express the action of birds on +the wing, of kites, arrows, etc. The imperfect tense of <i>to +flee</i> is <i>fled</i>; hence, "He <i>fled</i> the city," etc.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Forcible-feeble" id="Forcible-feeble"></a>Forcible-feeble.</b> This is a "novicy" kind of diction<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> +in which the would-be forcible writer defeats his object by +the overuse of expletives. Examples: "And yet the <i>great</i> +centralization of wealth is one of the [great] evils of the +day. All that Mr. —— <i>utters</i> [says] upon this point is +<i>forcible and</i> just. This centralization is due to the <i>enormous</i> +reproductive power of capital, to the <i>immense</i> advantage +that <i>costly and complicated</i> machinery gives to <i>great</i> +[large] establishments, and to <i>the marked</i> difference of personal +force among men." The first <i>great</i> is misplaced; the +word <i>utters</i> is misused; the second <i>great</i> is ill-chosen. The +other words in italics only enfeeble the sentence. Again: +"In countries where <i>immense</i> [large] estates exist, a breaking +up of these <i>vast</i> demesnes into <i>many</i> minor freeholds would +no doubt be a [of] <i>very</i> great advantage." Substitute <i>large</i> +for <i>immense</i>, and take out <i>vast</i>, <i>many</i>, and <i>very</i>, and the +language becomes much more forcible. Again: "The <i>very</i> +first effect of the —— taxation plan would be destructive +to the interests of this <i>great multitude</i> [class]; it would impoverish +our <i>innumerable</i> farmers, <i>it would</i> confiscate the +earnings of [our] <i>industrious</i> tradesmen and artisans, <i>it +would</i> [and] paralyze the hopes of <i>struggling</i> millions." +What a waste of portly expletives is here! With them the +sentence is high-flown and weak; take them out, and introduce +the words inclosed in brackets, and it becomes +simple and forcible.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Friend" id="Friend"></a>Friend—Acquaintance.</b> Some philosopher has said +that he who has half a dozen friends in the course of his +life may esteem himself fortunate; and yet, to judge from +many people's talk, one would suppose they had friends by +the score. No man knows whether he has any friends or +not until he has "their adoption tried"; hence, he who is +desirous to call things by their right names will, as a rule, +use the word <i>acquaintance</i> instead of <i>friend</i>. "Your friend"<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span> +is a favorite and very objectionable way many people, especially +young people, have of writing themselves at the +bottom of their letters. In this way the obscure stripling +protests himself the <span class="smcap">friend</span> of the first man in the land, +and that, too, when he is, perhaps, a comparative stranger +and asking a favor.</p> + +<p><b>Galsome.</b> Here is a good, sonorous Anglo-Saxon word—meaning +malignant, venomous, churlish—that has fallen +into disuse.</p> + +<p><b>Gentleman.</b> Few things are in worse taste than to use +the term <i>gentleman</i>, whether in the singular or plural, to +designate the sex. "If I was a <i>gentleman</i>," says Miss +Snooks. "<i>Gentlemen</i> have just as much curiosity as <i>ladies</i>," +says Mrs. Jenkins. "<i>Gentlemen</i> have so much more liberty +than we <i>ladies</i> have," says Mrs. Parvenue. Now, if these +ladies were ladies, they would in each of these cases use the +word <i>man</i> instead of <i>gentleman</i>, and <i>woman</i> instead of <i>lady</i>; +further, Miss Snooks would say, "If I <i>were</i>." Well-bred +men, men of culture and refinement—gentlemen, in short—use +the terms <i>lady</i> and <i>gentleman</i> comparatively little, and +they are especially careful not to call themselves <i>gentlemen</i> +when they can avoid it. A gentleman, for example, does +not say, "I, with some <i>other</i> gentlemen, went," etc.; he is +careful to leave out the word <i>other</i>. The men who use +these terms most, and especially those who lose no opportunity +to proclaim themselves <i>gentlemen</i>, belong to that class +of men who cock their hats on one side of their heads, and +often wear them when and where gentlemen would remove +them; who pride themselves on their familiarity with the +latest slang; who proclaim their independence by showing +the least possible consideration for others; who laugh long +and loud at their own wit; who wear a profusion of cheap +finery, such as outlandish watch-chains hooked in the lowest<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span> +button-hole of their vests, Brazilian diamonds in their +shirt-bosoms, and big seal-rings on their little fingers; who +use bad grammar and interlard their conversation with big +oaths. In business correspondence Smith is addressed as +<i>Sir</i>, while Smith & Brown are often addressed as <i>Gentlemen</i>—or, +vulgarly, as <i>Gents</i>. Better, much, is it to address +them as <i>Sirs</i>.</p> + +<p>Since writing the foregoing, I have met with the following +paragraph in the London publication, "All the Year +Round": "Socially, the term 'gentleman' has become almost +vulgar. It is certainly less employed by gentlemen +than by inferior persons. The one speaks of 'a man I +know,' the other of 'a gentleman I know.' In the one +case the gentleman is taken for granted, in the other it +seems to need specification. Again, as regards the term +'lady.' It is quite in accordance with the usages of society +to speak of your acquaintance the duchess as 'a very nice +person.' People who would say 'very nice lady' are not +generally of a social class which has much to do with +duchesses; and if you speak of one of these as a 'person,' +you will soon be made to feel your mistake."</p> + +<p><b>Gents.</b> Of all vulgarisms, this is, perhaps, the most +offensive. If we say <i>gents</i>, why not say <i>lades</i>?</p> + +<p><b>Gerund.</b> "'I have work <i>to do</i>,' 'there is no more <i>to +say</i>,' are phrases where the verb is not in the common infinitive, +but in the form of the <i>gerund</i>. 'He is the man <i>to +do</i> it, or <i>for doing</i> it.' 'A house <i>to let</i>,' 'the course <i>to steer</i> +by,' 'a place <i>to lie</i> in,' 'a thing <i>to be</i> done,' 'a city <i>to take</i> +refuge in,' 'the means <i>to do</i> ill deeds,' are adjective gerunds; +they may be expanded into clauses: 'a house that the +owner lets or will let'; 'the course that we should steer +by'; 'a thing that should be done'; 'a city wherein one +may take refuge'; 'the means whereby ill deeds may be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span> +done.' When the <i>to</i> ceased in the twelfth century to be +a distinctive mark of the dative infinitive or gerund, <i>for</i> +was introduced to make the writer's intention clear. Hence +the familiar form in 'what went ye out <i>for to see</i>?' 'they +came <i>for to show</i> him the temple.'"—Bain.</p> + +<p><b>Get.</b> In sentences expressing simple possession—as, "I +have <i>got</i> a book," "What has he <i>got</i> there?" "Have you +<i>got</i> any news?" "They have <i>got</i> a new house," etc.—<i>got</i> +is entirely superfluous, if not, as some writers contend, absolutely +incorrect. Possession is completely expressed by +<i>have</i>. "Foxes have holes; the birds of the air have +nests"; not, "Foxes have <i>got</i> holes; the birds of the air +have <i>got</i> nests." Formerly the imperfect tense of this verb +was <i>gat</i>, which is now obsolete, and the perfect participle +was <i>gotten</i>, which, some grammarians say, is growing obsolete. +If this be true, there is no good reason for it. If we +say <i>eaten</i>, <i>written</i>, <i>striven</i>, <i>forgotten</i>, why not say <i>gotten</i>, +where this form of the participle is more euphonious—as it +often is—than <i>got</i>?</p> + +<p><b>Goods.</b> This term, like other terms used in trade, should +be restricted to the vocabulary of commerce. Messrs. Arnold +& Constable, in common with the Washington Market +huckster, very properly speak of their wares as their <i>goods</i>; +but Mrs. Arnold and Mrs. Constable should, and I doubt +not do, speak of their gowns as being made of fine or +coarse <i>silk</i>, <i>cashmere</i>, <i>muslin</i>, or whatever the material +may be.</p> + +<p><b>Gould against Alford.</b> Mr. Edward S. Gould, in his +review of Dean Alford's "Queen's English," remarks, on +page 131 of his "Good English": "And now, as to the +style<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> of the Dean's book, taken as a whole. He must be +held responsible for every error in it; because, as has been<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> +shown, he has had full leisure for its revision.<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> The errors +are, nevertheless, numerous; and the shortest way to exhibit +them is<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> in tabular form." In several instances Mr. +Gould would not have taken the Dean to task had he +known English better. The following are a few of Mr. +Gould's corrections in which he is clearly in the right:</p> + +<p>Paragraph</p> + +<p>4. "Into <i>another</i> land <i>than</i>"; should be, "into a land +<i>other than</i>."</p> + +<p>16. "We do not follow rule in spelling other words, +but custom"; should be, "we do not follow <i>rule, but custom</i>, +in spelling," etc.</p> + +<p>18. "The distinction is observed in French, but <i>never +appears</i> to have been made," etc.; read, "<i>appears never</i> to +have been made."</p> + +<p>61. "<i>Rather</i> to aspirate more <i>than</i> less"; should be, +"to aspirate more <i>rather than</i> less."</p> + +<p>9. "It is said also <i>only</i> to occur three times," etc.; +read, "<i>occur only</i> three times."</p> + +<p>44. "This doubling <i>only takes place</i> in a syllable," etc.; +read, "<i>takes place only</i>."</p> + +<p>142. "Which can <i>only</i> be decided when those circumstances +are known"; read, "<i>can be decided only</i> when," +etc.</p> + +<p>166. "I will <i>only</i> say that it produces," etc.; read, "I +will <i>say only</i>," etc.</p> + +<p>170. "It is said that this can <i>only</i> be filled in thus"; +read, "can be <i>filled in only</i> thus."</p> + +<p>368. "I can <i>only</i> deal with the complaint in a general +way"; read, "<i>deal with the complaint only</i>," etc.</p> + +<p>86. "<i>In</i> so far as they are idiomatic," etc. What is the +use of <i>in</i>?</p> + +<p>171. "Try the experiment"; "<i>tried</i> the experiment." +Read, <i>make</i> and <i>made</i>.</p> + +<p>345. "It is <i>most</i> generally used of that very sect," etc. +Why <i>most</i>?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span></p> + +<p>362. "The joining together two clauses with a third," +etc.; read, "<i>of two</i> clauses," etc.</p> + +<p><b>Gown.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Dress">Dress</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Graduated.</b> Students do not <i>graduate</i>; they <i>are</i> graduated. +Hence most writers nowadays say, "I <i>was</i>, he +<i>was</i>, or they <i>were</i> graduated"; and ask, "When <i>were</i> you, +or <i>was</i> he, graduated?"</p> + +<p><b>Grammatical Errors.</b> "The correctness of the expression +<i>grammatical errors</i> has been disputed. 'How,' it +has been asked, 'can an error be grammatical?' How, it +may be replied, can we with propriety say, <i>grammatically +incorrect</i>? Yet we can do so.</p> + +<p>"No one will question the propriety of saying <i>grammatically +correct</i>. Yet the expression is the acknowledgment +of things <i>grammatically <span class="smcap">in</span>correct</i>. Likewise the phrase +<i>grammatical correctness</i> implies the existence of <i>grammatical +<span class="smcap">in</span>correctness</i>. If, then, a sentence is <i>grammatically incorrect</i>, +or, what is the same thing, has <i>grammatical incorrectness</i>, it +includes a <span class="smcap">grammatical error</span>. <i>Grammatically incorrect</i> +signifies <span class="smcap">incorrect with relation to the rules of +grammar.</span> <i>Grammatical errors</i> signifies <span class="smcap">errors with relation +to the rules of grammar</span>.</p> + +<p>"They who ridicule the phrase <i>grammatical errors</i>, and +substitute the phrase <i>errors in grammar</i>, make an egregious +mistake. Can there, it may be asked with some show of +reason, be an error in grammar? Why, grammar is a +science founded in our nature, referable to our ideas of +time, relation, method; imperfect, doubtless, as to the system +by which it is represented; but surely we can speak +of error in that which is error's criterion! All this is +hypercritical, but hypercriticism must be met with its own +weapons.</p> + +<p>"Of the two expressions—<i>a grammatical error</i>, and <i>an</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span> +<i>error in grammar</i>—the former is preferable. If one's judgment +can accept neither, one must relinquish the belief in +the possibility of tersely expressing the idea of an offense +against grammatical rules. Indeed, it would be difficult +to express the idea even by circumlocution. Should some +one say, 'This sentence is, according to the rules of grammar, +incorrect.' 'What!' the hypercritic may exclaim, 'incorrect! +and according to the rules of grammar!' 'This +sentence, then,' the corrected person would reply, 'contains +an error in grammar.' 'Nonsense!' the hypercritic may +shout, 'grammar is a science; you may be wrong in its +interpretation, but principles are immutable!'</p> + +<p>"After this, it need scarcely be added that, grammatically, +no one can make a mistake, that there can be no +grammatical mistake, that there can be no bad grammar, +and, consequently, no bad English; a very pleasant conclusion, +which would save us a great amount of trouble if it +did not lack the insignificant quality of being true."—"Vulgarisms +and Other Errors of Speech."</p> + +<p><b>Gratuitous.</b> There are those who object to the use of +this word in the sense of unfounded, unwarranted, unreasonable, +untrue. Its use in this sense, however, has the sanction +of abundant authority. "Weak and <i>gratuitous</i> conjectures."—Porson. +"A <i>gratuitous</i> assumption."—Godwin. +"The <i>gratuitous</i> theory."—Southey. "A <i>gratuitous</i> invention."—De +Quincey. "But it is needless to dwell on the +improbability of a hypothesis which has been shown to be +altogether <i>gratuitous</i>."—Dr. Newman.</p> + +<p><b>Grow.</b> This verb originally meant to increase in size, +but has normally come to be also used to express a change +from one state or condition to another; as, to <i>grow</i> dark, to +<i>grow</i> weak or strong, to <i>grow</i> faint, etc. But it is doubtful +whether what is large can properly be said to <i>grow</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span> +small. In this sense, <i>become</i> would seem to be the better +word.</p> + +<p><b>Gums.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Rubbers">Rubbers</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Had have.</b> Nothing could be more incorrect than the +bringing together of these two auxiliary verbs in this manner; +and yet we occasionally find it in writers of repute. +Instead of "Had I known it," "Had you seen it," "Had +we been there," we hear, "Had I <i>have</i> known it," "Had +you <i>have</i> seen it," "Had we <i>have</i> been there."</p> + +<p><b>Had ought.</b> This is a vulgarism of the worst description, +yet we hear people, who would be highly indignant +if any one should intimate that they were not ladies and +gentlemen, say, "He <i>had</i> ought to go." A fitting reply +would be, "Yes, I think he better had." <i>Ought</i> says all +that <i>had ought</i> says.</p> + +<p><b>Had rather.</b> This expression and <i>had better</i> are much +used, but, in the opinion of many, are indefensible. We +hear them in such sentences as, "I <i>had</i> rather not do it," +"You <i>had</i> better go home." "Now, what tense," it is asked, +"is <i>had do</i> and <i>had go</i>?" If we transpose the words thus, +"You <i>had do</i> better (to) go home," it becomes at once apparent, +it is asserted, that the proper word to use in connection +with <i>rather</i> and <i>better</i> is not <i>had</i>, but <i>would</i>; thus, "I <i>would</i> +rather not do it," "You <i>would</i> better go home." Examples +of this use of <i>had</i> can be found in the writings of our best +authors. For what Professor Bain has to say on this subject +in his "Composition Grammar," see <span class="smcap"><a href="#Subjunctive_Mood">Subjunctive +Mood</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Half.</b> "It might have been expressed in <i>one</i> half the +space." We see at a glance that <i>one</i> here is superfluous.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Hanged" id="Hanged"></a>Hanged—Hung.</b> The irregular form, <i>hung</i>, of the +past participle of the verb <i>to hang</i> is most used; but, when +the word denotes suspension by the neck for the purpose of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span> +destroying life, the regular form, <i>hanged</i>, is always used by +careful writers and speakers.</p> + +<p><b>Haste.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Hurry">Hurry</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Heading.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Caption">Caption</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Healthy" id="Healthy"></a>Healthy—Wholesome.</b> The first of these two words +is often improperly used for the second; as, "Onions are a +<i>healthy</i> vegetable." A man, if he is in good health, is <i>healthy</i>; +the food he eats, if it is not deleterious, is <i>wholesome</i>. +A <i>healthy</i> ox makes <i>wholesome</i> food. We speak of <i>healthy</i> +surroundings, a <i>healthy</i> climate, situation, employment, and +of <i>wholesome</i> food, advice, examples. <i>Healthful</i> is generally +used in the sense of conducive to health, virtue, morality; +as, <i>healthful</i> exercise, the <i>healthful</i> spirit of the community—meaning +that the spirit that prevails in the community +is conducive to virtue and good morals.</p> + +<p><b>Helpmate.</b> The dictionaries suggest that this word is +a corruption of <i>help</i> and <i>meet</i>, as we find these words used +in Gen. ii, 18, "I will make him a help meet for him," and +that the proper word is <i>helpmeet</i>. If, as is possible, the +words in Genesis mean, "I will make him a help, meet +[suitable] for him," then neither <i>helpmate</i> nor <i>helpmeet</i> has +any <i>raison d'être</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Highfalutin.</b> This is a style of writing often called the +freshman style. It is much indulged in by very young men, +and by a class of older men who instinctively try to make +up in clatter for what they lack in matter. Examples of this +kind of writing are abundant in Professor L. T. Townsend's +"Art of Speech," which, as examples, are all the better for +not being of that exaggerated description sometimes met +within the newspapers. Vol. i, p. 131: "Very often adverbs, +prepositions, and relatives drift so far from their moorings +as to lose themselves, or make attachments where they +do not belong." Again, p. 135: "Every law of speech enforces<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span> +the statement that there is no excuse for such inflated +and defective style. [Such style!] To speak thus is treason +in the realms and under the laws of language." Again, +p. 175: "Cultivate figure-making habitudes. This is done +by asking the spiritual import of every physical object +seen; also by forming the habit of constantly metaphorizing. +Knock at the door of anything met which interests, +and ask, 'Who lives here?' The process is to look, then +close the eyes, then look within." The blundering inanity +of this kind of writing is equaled only by its bumptious +grandiloquence. On p. 137 Dr. Townsend quotes +this wholesome admonition from Coleridge: "If men +would only say what they have to say in plain terms, how +much more eloquent they would be!" As an example of +reportorial highfalutin, I submit the following: "The spirit +of departed day had joined communion with the myriad +ghosts of centuries, and four full hours fled into eternity +before the citizens of many parts of the town found out +there was a freshet here at all."</p> + +<p><b>Hints.</b> "Never write about any matter that you do +not well understand. If you clearly understand all about +your matter, you will never want thoughts, and thoughts +instantly become words.</p> + +<p>"One of the greatest of all faults in writing and in +speaking is this: the using of many words to <i>say little</i>. +In order to guard yourself against this fault, inquire what is +the <i>substance</i>, or <i>amount</i>, of what you have said. Take a +long speech of some talking Lord and put down upon paper +what the amount of it is. You will most likely find that +the <i>amount</i> is very small; but at any rate, when you +get it, you will then be able to examine it and to tell +what it is worth. A very few examinations of the sort +will so frighten you that you will be for ever after upon<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span> +your guard against <i>talking a great deal</i> and <i>saying little</i>."—Cobbett.</p> + +<p>"Be simple, be unaffected, be honest in your speaking and +writing. Never use a long word where a short one will do. +Call a spade <i>a spade</i>, not a <i>well-known oblong instrument +of manual husbandry</i>; let home be <i>home</i>, not a <i>residence</i>; +a place a <i>place</i>, not a <i>locality</i>; and so of the rest. Where +a short word will do, you always lose by using a long one. +You lose in clearness; you lose in honest expression of +your meaning; and, in the estimation of all men who are +qualified to judge, you lose in reputation for ability. The +only true way to shine, even in this false world, is to be +modest and unassuming. Falsehood may be a very thick +crust, but, in the course of time, truth will find a place to +break through. Elegance of language may not be in the +power of all of us; but simplicity and straightforwardness +are. Write much as you would speak; speak as you think. +If with your inferiors, speak no coarser than usual; if with +your superiors, no finer. Be what you say; and, within +the rules of prudence, say what you are."—Dean Alford.</p> + +<p>"Go critically over what you have written, and strike +out every word, phrase, and clause which it is found will +leave the sentence neither less clear nor less forcible than +it is without them."—Swinton.</p> + +<p>"With all watchfulness, it is astonishing what slips are +made, even by good writers, in the employment of an inappropriate +word. In Gibbon's 'Rise and Fall,' the following +instance occurs: 'Of nineteen tyrants who started up +after the reign of Gallienus, there was not one who <i>enjoyed</i> +a life of peace or a natural <i>death</i>.' Alison, in his 'History +of Europe,' writes: 'Two great sins—one of <i>omission</i> +and one of commission—have been <i>committed</i> by the states +of Europe in modern times.' And not long since a worthy<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span> +Scotch minister, at the close of the services, intimated his +intention of visiting some of his people as follows: 'I +intend, during this week, to visit in Mr. M——'s district, +and will on this occasion take the opportunity of <i>embracing</i> +all the servants in the district.' When worthies such as +these offend, who shall call the bellman in question as he +cries, 'Lost, a silver-handled silk lady's parasol'?</p> + +<p>"The proper arrangement of words into sentences and +paragraphs gives clearness and strength. To attain a clear +and pithy style, it may be necessary to cut down, to rearrange, +and to rewrite whole passages of an essay. Gibbon +wrote his 'Memoirs' six times, and the first chapter of +his 'History' three times. Beginners are always slow to +prune or cast away any thought or expression which may +have cost labor. They forget that brevity is no sign of +thoughtlessness. Much consideration is needed to compress +the details of any subject into small compass. Essences +are more difficult to prepare, and therefore more +valuable, than weak solutions. Pliny wrote to one of his +friends, 'I have not time to write you a short letter, therefore +I have written you a long one.' Apparent elaborateness +is always distasteful and weak. Vividness and strength +are the product of an easy command of those small trenchant +Saxon monosyllables which abound in the English language."—"Leisure +Hour."</p> + +<p>"As a rule, the student will do well to banish for +the present all thought of ornament or elegance, and to +aim only at expressing himself plainly and clearly. The +best ornament is always that which comes unsought. Let +him not beat about the bush, but go straight to the point. +Let him remember that what is written is meant to be +read; that time is short; and that—other things being +equal—the fewer words the better.... Repetition is a far<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span> +less serious fault than obscurity. Young writers are often +unduly afraid of repeating the same word, and require to +be reminded that it is always better to use the right word +over again than to replace it by a wrong one—and a word +which is liable to be misunderstood is a wrong one. A +frank repetition of a word has even sometimes a kind of +charm—as bearing the stamp of <i>truth</i>, the foundation of all +excellence of style."—Hall.</p> + +<p>"A young writer is afraid to be simple; he has no +faith in beauty unadorned, hence he crowds his sentences +with superlatives. In his estimation, turgidity passes for +eloquence, and simplicity is but another name for that +which is weak and unmeaning."—George Washington +Moon.</p> + +<p><b>Honorable.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Reverend">Reverend</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>How.</b> "I have heard <i>how</i> in Italy one is beset on all +sides by beggars": read, "heard <i>that</i>." "I have heard +<i>how</i> some critics have been pacified with claret and a supper, +and others laid asleep with soft notes of flattery."—Dr. +Johnson. The <i>how</i> in this sentence also should be <i>that</i>. +<i>How</i> means the <i>manner in which</i>. We may, therefore, +say, "I have heard <i>how</i> he went about it to circumvent +you."</p> + +<p>"And it is good judgment alone can dictate <i>how far</i> +to proceed in it and <i>when</i> to stop." Cobbett comments +on this sentence in this wise: "Dr. Watts is speaking here +of writing. In such a case, an adverb, like <i>how far</i>, expressive +of longitudinal space, introduces a <i>rhetorical figure</i>; +for the plain meaning is, that judgment will dictate <i>how +much to write on it</i> and not <i>how far to proceed in it</i>. The +figure, however, is very proper and much better than the +literal words. But when a figure is <i>begun</i> it should be carried +on throughout, which is not the case here; for the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span> +Doctor begins with a figure of longitudinal space and ends +with a figure of <i>time</i>. It should have been, <i>where</i> to stop. +Or, how <i>long</i> to proceed in it and <i>when</i> to stop. To tell a +man <i>how far</i> he is to go into the Western countries of +America, and <i>when</i> he is to stop, is a very different thing +from telling him <i>how far</i> he is to go and <i>where</i> he is to +stop. I have dwelt thus on this distinction for the purpose +of putting you on the watch and guarding you against confounding +figures. The less you use them the better, till +you understand more about them."</p> + +<p><b>Humanitarianism.</b> This word, in its original, theological +sense, means the doctrine that denies the godhead +of Jesus Christ, and avers that he was possessed of a human +nature only; a <i>humanitarian</i>, therefore, in the theological +sense, is one who believes this doctrine. The word +and its derivatives are, however, nowadays, both in this +country and in England, most used in a humane, philanthropic +sense; thus, "The audience enthusiastically endorsed +the <i>humanitarianism</i> of his eloquent discourse."—Hatton.</p> + +<p><b>Hung.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Hanged">Hanged</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Hurry" id="Hurry"></a>Hurry.</b> Though widely different in meaning, both the +verb and the noun <i>hurry</i> are continually used for <i>haste</i> and +<i>hasten</i>. <i>Hurry</i> implies not only <i>haste</i>, but haste with confusion, +flurry; while <i>haste</i> implies only rapidity of action, +an eager desire to make progress, and, unlike <i>hurry</i>, is not +incompatible with deliberation and dignity. It is often +wise to <i>hasten</i> in the affairs of life; but, as it is never wise +to proceed without forethought and method, it is never +wise to <i>hurry</i>. Sensible people, then, may be often in +<i>haste</i>, but are never in a <i>hurry</i>; and we tell others to <i>make +haste</i>, and not to <i>hurry up</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Hyperbole.</b> The magnifying of things beyond their<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> +natural limits is called <i>hyperbole</i>. Language that signifies, +literally, more than the exact truth, more than is really intended +to be represented, by which a thing is represented +greater or less, better or worse than it really is, is said to +be <i>hyperbolical</i>. Hyperbole is exaggeration.</p> + +<p>"Our common forms of compliment are almost all of +them extravagant <i>hyperboles</i>."—Blair.</p> + +<p>Some examples are the following:</p> + +<p>"Rivers of blood and hills of slain."</p> + +<p>"They were swifter than eagles; they were stronger than lions."</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"The sky shrunk upward with unusual dread,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">And trembling Tiber div'd beneath his bed."<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"So frowned the mighty combatants, that hell<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Grew darker at their frown."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"I saw their chief tall as a rock of ice; his spear the +blasted fir; his shield the rising moon; he sat on the shore +like a cloud of mist on a hill."</p> + +<p><b>Ice-cream—Ice-water.</b> As for ice-cream, there is no +such thing, as ice-cream would be the product of frozen +cream, i. e., cream made from ice by melting. What is +called ice-cream is cream <i>iced</i>; hence, properly, <i>iced</i> cream +and not <i>ice</i>-cream. The product of melted ice is <i>ice</i>-water, +whether it be cold or warm; but water made cold with ice +is <i>iced</i> water, and not <i>ice</i>-water.</p> + +<p><b>If.</b> "I doubt <i>if</i> this will ever reach you": say, "I +doubt <i>whether</i> this will ever reach you."</p> + +<p><b>Ill.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Sick">Sick</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Illy.</b> It will astonish not a few to learn that there is +no such word as <i>illy</i>. The form of the adverb, as well as +of the adjective and the noun, is <i>ill</i>. A thing is <i>ill</i> formed, +or <i>ill</i> done, or <i>ill</i> made, or <i>ill</i> constructed, or <i>ill</i> put together.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span></p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"<i>Ill</i> fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Where wealth accumulates and men decay."—Goldsmith.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p><b><a name="Immodest" id="Immodest"></a>Immodest.</b> This adjective and its synonyms, <i>indecent</i> +and <i>indelicate</i>, are often used without proper discrimination +being made in their respective meanings. <i>Indecency</i> and +<i>immodesty</i> are opposed to morality: the former in externals, +as dress, words, and looks; the latter in conduct and disposition. +"<i>Indecency</i>," says Crabb, "may be a partial, +<i>immodesty</i> is a positive and entire breach of the moral law. +<i>Indecency</i> is less than <i>immodesty</i>, but more than <i>indelicacy</i>." +It is <i>indecent</i> for a man to marry again very soon after the +death of his wife. It is <i>indelicate</i> for any one to obtrude +himself upon another's retirement. It is <i>indecent</i> for women +to expose their persons as do some whom we can not +call <i>immodest</i>.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Immodest words admit of no defense,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">For want of decency is want of sense."<br /></span> +<span class="i9">—Earl of Roscommon.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p><b>Impropriety.</b> As a rhetorical term, defined as an +error in using words in a sense different from their recognized +signification.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Impute" id="Impute"></a>Impute.</b> Non-painstaking writers not unfrequently use +<i>impute</i> instead of <i>ascribe</i>. "The numbers [of blunders] +that have been <i>imputed</i> to him are endless."—"Appletons' +Journal." The use of <i>impute</i> in this connection is by no +means indefensible; still it would have been better to use +<i>ascribe</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="In_our_midst" id="In_our_midst"></a>In our midst.</b> The phrases <i>in our midst</i> and <i>in their +midst</i> are generally supposed to be of recent introduction; +and, though they have been used by some respectable +writers, they nevertheless find no favor with those who +study propriety in the use of language. To the phrase +<i>in the midst</i> no one objects. "Jesus came and stood<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span> +in the midst." "There was a hut <i>in the midst</i> of the +forest."</p> + +<p><b>In respect of.</b> "The deliberate introduction of incorrect +forms, whether by the coinage of new or the revival +of obsolete and inexpressive syntactical combinations, ought +to be resisted even in trifles, especially where it leads to +the confusion of distinct ideas. An example of this is the +recent use of the adverbial phrases <i>in respect of</i>, <i>in regard +of</i>, for <i>in</i> or <i>with</i> respect <i>to</i>, or regard <i>to</i>. This innovation +is without any syntactical ground, and ought to be condemned +and avoided as a mere grammatical crotchet."—George +P. Marsh, "Lectures on the English Language," +p. 660.</p> + +<p><b>In so far as.</b> A phrase often met with, and in which +the <i>in</i> is superfluous. "A want of proper opportunity +would suffice, <i>in</i> so far as the want could be shown." "We +are to act up to the extent of our knowledge; but, <i>in</i> so far +as our knowledge falls short," etc.</p> + +<p><b>Inaugurate.</b> This word, which means to install in +office with certain ceremonies, is made, by many lovers of +big words, to do service for <i>begin</i>; but the sooner these +rhetorical high-fliers stop <i>inaugurating</i> and content themselves +with simply <i>beginning</i> the things they are called +upon to do in the ordinary routine of daily life, the sooner +they will cease to set a very bad example.</p> + +<p><b>Indecent.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Immodest">Immodest</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Index_expurgatorius" id="Index_expurgatorius"></a>Index expurgatorius.</b> William Cullen Bryant, who +was a careful student of English, while he was editor of the +"New York Evening Post," sought to prevent the writers +for that paper from using "over and above (for 'more +than'); artiste (for 'artist'); aspirant; authoress; beat (for +'defeat'); bagging (for 'capturing'); balance (for 'remainder'); +banquet (for 'dinner' or 'supper'); bogus; casket<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span> +(for 'coffin'); claimed (for 'asserted'); collided; commence +(for 'begin'); compete; cortége (for 'procession'); +cotemporary (for 'contemporary'); couple (for 'two'); +darky (for 'negro'); day before yesterday (for 'the day +before yesterday'); début; decrease (as a verb); democracy +(applied to a political party); develop (for 'expose'); +devouring element (for 'fire'); donate; employé; enacted +(for 'acted'); indorse (for 'approve'); en route; esq.; +graduate (for 'is graduated'); gents (for 'gentlemen'); +'Hon.'; House (for 'House of Representatives'); humbug; +inaugurate (for 'begin'); in our midst; item (for +'particle, extract, or paragraph'); is being done, and all +passives of this form; jeopardize; jubilant (for 'rejoicing'); +juvenile (for 'boy'); lady (for 'wife'); last (for 'latest'); +lengthy (for 'long'); leniency (for 'lenity'); loafer; loan +or loaned (for 'lend' or 'lent'); located; majority (relating +to places or circumstances, for 'most'); Mrs. President, +Mrs. Governor, Mrs. General, and all similar titles; mutual +(for 'common'); official (for 'officer'); ovation; on yesterday; +over his signature; pants (for 'pantaloons'); parties +(for 'persons'); partially (for 'partly'); past two weeks +(for 'last two weeks,' and all similar expressions relating to +a definite time); poetess; portion (for 'part'); posted (for +'informed'); progress (for 'advance'); reliable (for 'trustworthy'); +rendition (for 'performance'); repudiate (for +'reject' or 'disown'); retire (as an active verb); Rev. (for +'the Rev.'); rôle (for 'part'); roughs; rowdies; secesh; +sensation (for 'noteworthy event'); standpoint (for 'point +of view'); start, in the sense of setting out; state (for +'say'); taboo; talent (for 'talents' or 'ability'); talented; +tapis; the deceased; war (for 'dispute' or 'disagreement')."</p> + +<p>This index is offered here as a curiosity rather than as +a guide, though in the main it might safely be used as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span> +such. No valid reason, however, can be urged for discouraging +the use of several words in the list; the words aspirant, +banquet, casket, compete, decrease, progress, start, +talented, and deceased, for example.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Indicative_and_Subjunctive" id="Indicative_and_Subjunctive"></a>Indicative and Subjunctive.</b> "'I <i>see</i> the signal,' is +unconditional; '<i>if</i> I <i>see</i> the signal,' is the same fact expressed +in the form of a condition. The one form is said +to be in the <i>indicative</i> mood, the mood that simply <i>states +or indicates</i> the action; the other form is in the <i>subjunctive</i>, +conditional, or conjunctive mood. There is sometimes a +slight variation made in English, to show that an affirmation +is made as a condition. The mood is called 'subjunctive,' +because the affirmation <i>is subjoined to</i> another affirmation: +'<i>If I see the signal</i>, I will call out.'</p> + +<p>"Such forms as 'I may see,' 'I can see,' have sometimes +been considered as a variety of mood, to which the name +'Potential' is given. But this can not properly be maintained. +There is no trace of any inflection corresponding +to this meaning, as we find with the subjunctive. Moreover, +such a mood would have itself to be subdivided into indicative +and subjunctive forms: 'I may go,' 'if I may go.' +And further, we might proceed to constitute other moods +on the same analogy, as, for example, an obligatory mood—'I +must go,' or 'I ought to go'; a mood of resolution—'I +will go, you shall go'; a mood of gratification—'I am +delighted to go'; of deprecation—'I am grieved to go.' +The only difference in the two last instances is the use of +the sign of the infinitive 'to,' which does not occur after +'may,' 'can,' 'must,' 'ought,' etc.; but that is not an +essential difference. Some grammarians consider the form +'I do go' a separate mood, and term it the emphatic mood. +But all the above objections apply to it likewise, as well as +many others."—Bain. See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Subjunctive_Mood">Subjunctive Mood</a></span>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span></p> + +<p><b><a name="Individual" id="Individual"></a>Individual.</b> This word is often most improperly used +for <i>person</i>; as, "The <i>individual</i> I saw was not over forty"; +"There were several <i>individuals</i> on board that I had never +seen before." <i>Individual</i> means, etymologically, that which +can not be divided, and is used, in speaking of things as +well as of persons, to express unity. It is opposed to the +whole, or that which is divisible into parts.</p> + +<p><b>Indorse.</b> Careful writers generally discountenance the +use of <i>indorse</i> in the sense of <i>sanction</i>, <i>approve</i>, <i>applaud</i>. +In this signification it is on the list of prohibited words in +some of our newspaper offices. "The following rules are +<i>indorsed</i> by nearly all writers upon this subject."—Dr. +Townsend. It is plain that the right word to use here is +<i>approved</i>. "The public will heartily <i>indorse</i> the sentiments +uttered by the court."—New York "Evening Telegram." +"The public will heartily <i>approve</i> the sentiments <i>expressed</i> +by the court," is what the sentence should be.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Infinitive_Mood" id="Infinitive_Mood"></a>Infinitive Mood.</b> When we can choose, it is generally +better to use the verb in the infinitive than in the participial +form. "Ability being in general the power <i>of doing</i>," etc. +Say, <i>to do</i>. "I desire to reply ... to the proposal <i>of substituting</i> +a tax upon land values ... and <i>making</i> this tax, as +near [nearly] as may be, equal to rent," etc. Say, <i>to substitute</i> +and <i>to make</i>. "This quality is of prime importance +when the chief object is <i>the imparting of</i> knowledge." Say, +<i>to impart</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Initiate.</b> This is a pretentious word, which, with its +derivatives, many persons—especially those who like to be +grandiloquent—use, when homely English would serve their +turn much better.</p> + +<p><b>Innumerable Number.</b> A repetitional expression to be +avoided. We may say <i>innumerable</i> times, or <i>numberless</i> times, +but we should not say an <i>innumerable number</i> of times.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Interrogation.</b> The rhetorical figure that asks a question +in order to emphasize the reverse of what is asked is +called <i>interrogation</i>; as, "Do we mean to submit to this +measure? Do we mean to submit, and consent that we ourselves, +our country and its rights, shall be trampled on?"</p> + +<p>"Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty +pervert justice?"</p> + +<p><b>Introduce.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Present">Present</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Irony.</b> That mode of speech in which what is meant +is contrary to the literal meaning of the words—in which +praise is bestowed when censure is intended—is called <i>irony</i>. +Irony is a kind of delicate sarcasm or satire—raillery, +mockery.</p> + +<p>"In writings of humor, figures are sometimes used of so +delicate a nature that it shall often happen that some people +will see things in a direct contrary sense to what the author +and the majority of the readers understand them: to such +the most innocent <i>irony</i> may appear irreligion."—Cambridge.</p> + +<p><b>Irritate.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Aggravate">Aggravate</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Is_being_built" id="Is_being_built"></a>Is being built.</b> A tolerable idea of the state of the discussion +regarding the propriety of using the locution <i>is +being built</i>, and all like expressions, will, it is hoped, be +obtained from the following extracts. The Rev. Peter +Bullions, in his "Grammar of the English Language," says:</p> + +<p>"There is properly <i>no passive</i> form, in English, <i>corresponding +to the progressive</i> form in the <i>active</i> voice, except +where it is made by the participle <i>ing</i>, in a passive sense; +thus, 'The house is building'; 'The garments are making'; +'Wheat is selling,' etc. An attempt has been made by +some grammarians, of late, to banish such expressions from +the language, though they have been used in all time past +by the best writers, and to justify and defend a clumsy solecism,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span> +which has been recently introduced chiefly through +the newspaper press, but which has gained such currency, +and is becoming so familiar to the ear, that it seems likely +to prevail, with all its uncouthness and deformity. I refer +to such expressions as 'The house is being built'; 'The +letter is being written'; 'The mine is being worked'; +'The news is being telegraphed,' etc., etc.</p> + +<p>"This mode of expression <i>had no existence</i> in the language +till <i>within the last fifty years</i>.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> This, indeed, would +not make the expression wrong, were it otherwise unexceptionable; +but its recent origin shows that it is not, as is +pretended, a <i>necessary</i> form.</p> + +<p>"This form of expression, when analyzed, is found not +to express what it is intended to express, and would be used +only by such as are either ignorant of its import or are +careless and loose in their use of language. To make this +manifest, let it be considered, first, that there is <i>no progressive +form</i> of the verb <i>to be</i>, and no need of it; hence, there +is no such expression in English as <i>is being</i>. Of course the +expression '<i>is being</i> built,' for example, is not a compound +of <i>is being</i> and <i>built</i>, but of <i>is</i> and <i>being built</i>; that is, of +the verb <i>to be</i> and the <i>present participle passive</i>. Now, let +it be observed that the only verbs in which the present +participle passive expresses a continued action are those +mentioned above as the first class, in which the regular +passive form expresses a <i>continuance</i> of the action; as, <i>is +loved</i>, <i>is desired</i>, etc., and in which, of course, the form in +question (<i>is being built</i>) is not required. Nobody would +think of saying, 'He is being loved'; 'This result is +being desired.'</p> + +<p>"The use of this form is justified only by <i>condemning +an established usage</i> of the language; namely, the passive<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span> +sense in some verbs of the participle in <i>ing</i>. In reference +to this it is flippantly asked, 'What does the house +build?' 'What does the letter write?' etc.—taking for +granted, without attempting to prove, that the participle in +<i>ing</i> can not have a passive sense in any verb. The following +are a few examples from writers of the best reputation, +which this novelty would condemn: 'While the ceremony +was performing.'—Tom. Brown. 'The court was then +holding.'—Sir G. McKenzie. 'And still be doing, never +done.'—Butler. 'The books are selling.'—Allen's 'Grammar.' +'To know nothing of what is transacting in the +regions above us.'—Dr. Blair. 'The spot where this new +and strange tragedy was acting.'—E. Everett. 'The fortress +was building.'—Irving. 'An attempt is making in +the English parliament.'—D. Webster. 'The church now +erecting in the city of New York.'—'N. A. Review.' +'These things were transacting in England.'—Bancroft.</p> + +<p>"This new doctrine is in <i>opposition</i> to the almost <i>unanimous +judgment</i> of the <i>most distinguished grammarians</i> +and critics, who have considered the subject, and expressed +their views concerning it. The following are a specimen: +'Expressions of this kind are condemned by some critics; +but the usage is unquestionably of far better authority, and +(according to my apprehension) in far better taste, than the +more complex phraseology which some late writers adopt +in its stead; as, "The books are now being sold."'—Goold +Brown. 'As to the notion of introducing a new and more +complex passive form of conjugation, as, "The bridge <i>is +being built</i>," "The bridge <i>was being built</i>," and so forth, it is +one of the most absurd and monstrous innovations ever +thought of. "The work <i>is now being published</i>," is certainly +no better English than, "The work <i>was being published</i>, +<i>has been being published</i>, <i>had been being published</i>,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span> +<i>shall or will be being published</i>, <i>shall or will have been being +published</i>," and so on through all the moods and tenses. +What a language shall we have when our verbs are thus +conjugated!'—Brown's 'Gr. of Eng. Gr.,' p. 361. De War +observes: 'The participle in <i>ing</i> is also passive in many +instances; as, "The house is building," "I heard of a +plan forming,"' etc.—Quoted in 'Frazee's Grammar,' p. +49. 'It would be an absurdity, indeed, to give up the only +way we have of denoting the incomplete state of action by +a passive form (viz., by the participle in <i>ing</i> in the passive +sense).'—Arnold's 'English Grammar,' p. 46. 'The present +participle is often used passively; as, "The ship is +building." The form of expression, <i>is being built</i>, <i>is being +committed</i>, etc., is almost universally condemned by grammarians, +but it is sometimes met with in respectable writers; +it occurs most frequently in newspaper paragraphs and in +hasty compositions. See Worcester's "Universal and Critical +Dictionary."'—Weld's 'Grammar,' pp. 118 and 180. +'When we say, "The house is building," the advocates of +the new theory ask, "Building what?" We might ask, in +turn, when you say, "The field ploughs well,"—"Ploughs +what?" "Wheat sells well,"—"Sells what?" If usage allows +us to say, "Wheat sells at a dollar," in a sense that is +not active, why may we not say, "Wheat is selling at a dollar," +in a sense that is not active?'—Hart's 'Grammar,' +p. 76. 'The prevailing practice of the best authors is in +favor of the simple form; as, "The house is building."'—Wells' +'School Grammar,' p. 148. 'Several other expressions +of this sort now and then occur, such as the newfangled +and most uncouth solecism "<i>is being done</i>," for the +good old English idiom "<i>is doing</i>"—an absurd periphrasis +driving out a pointed and pithy turn of the English language.'—'N. +A. Review,' quoted by Mr. Wells, p. 148.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span> +'The phrase, "is being built," and others of a similar kind, +have been for a few years insinuating themselves into our +language; still they are not English.'—Harrison's 'Rise, +Progress, and Present Structure of the English Language.' +'This mode of expression [the house is being built] is becoming +quite common. It is liable, however, to several +important objections. It appears formal and pedantic. It +has not, as far as I know, the support of any respectable +grammarian. The easy and natural expression is, "The +house is building."'—Prof. J. W. Gibbs."</p> + +<p>Mr. Richard Grant White, in his "Words and Their +Uses," expresses his opinion of the locution <i>is being</i> in this +wise: "In bad eminence, at the head of those intruders in +language which to many persons seem to be of established +respectability, but the right of which to be at all is not fully +admitted, stands out the form of speech <i>is being done</i>, or +rather, <i>is being</i>, which, about seventy or eighty years ago, +began to affront the eye, torment the ear, and assault the +common sense of the speaker of plain and idiomatic English." +Mr. White devotes thirty pages of his book to the +discussion of the subject, and adduces evidence that is +more than sufficient to convince those who are content with +an <i>ex parte</i> examination that "it can hardly be that such +an incongruous and ridiculous form of speech as <i>is being +done</i> was contrived by a man who, by any stretch of the +name, should be included among grammarians."</p> + +<p>Mr. George P. Marsh, in his "Lectures on the English +Language," says that the deviser of the locution in question +was "some grammatical pretender," and that it is "an +awkward neologism, which neither convenience, intelligibility, +nor syntactical congruity demands."</p> + +<p>To these gentlemen, and to those who are of their way +of thinking with regard to <i>is being</i>, Dr. Fitzedward Hall<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> +replies at some length, in an article published in "Scribner's +Monthly" for April, 1872. Dr. Hall writes:</p> + +<p>"'All really well educated in the English tongue lament +the many innovations introduced into our language +from America; and I doubt if more than one of these +novelties deserve acceptation. That one is, substituting a +compound participle for an active verb used in a neuter +signification: for instance, "The house is <i>being built</i>," instead +of, "The house is <i>building</i>."' Such is the assertion +and such is the opinion of some anonymous luminary,<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> +who, for his liberality in welcoming a supposed Americanism, +is somewhat in advance of the herd of his countrymen. +Almost any popular expression which is considered as a +novelty, a Briton is pretty certain to assume, off-hand, to +have originated on our side of the Atlantic. Of the assertion +I have quoted, no proof is offered; and there is little +probability that its author had any to offer. 'Are being,' +in the phrase 'are being thrown up,'<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> is spoken of in 'The +North American Review'<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> as 'an outrage upon English +idiom, "to be detested, abhorred, execrated, and given +over to six thousand" penny-paper editors'; and the fact +is, that phrases of the form here pointed at have hitherto +enjoyed very much less favor with us than with the English.</p> + +<p>"As lately as 1860, Dr. Worcester, referring to <i>is being +built</i>, etc., while acknowledging that 'this new form has<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span> +been used by some respectable writers,' speaks of it as +having 'been introduced' 'within a few years.' Mr. +Richard Grant White, by a most peculiar process of ratiocination, +endeavors to prove that what Dr. Worcester +calls 'this new form' came into existence just fifty-six +years ago. He premises that in Jarvis's translation of +'Don Quixote,' published in 1742, there occurs 'were carrying,' +and that this, in the edition of 1818, is sophisticated +into 'were being carried.' 'This change,' continues our +logician, 'and the appearance of <i>is being</i> with a perfect +participle in a very few books published between <span class="smcap">a. d.</span> 1815 +and 1820, indicate the former period as that of the origin +of this phraseology, which, although more than half a century +old, is still pronounced a novelty as well as a nuisance.'</p> + +<p>"Who, in the next place, devised our modern imperfects +passive? The question is not, originally, of my +asking; but, as the learned are at open feud on the subject, +it should not be passed by in silence. Its deviser is, +more than likely, as undiscoverable as the name of the +valiant antediluvian who first tasted an oyster. But the +deductive character of the miscreant is another thing; and +hereon there is a war between the philosophers. Mr. G. P. +Marsh, as if he had actually spotted the wretched creature, +passionately and categorically denounces him as 'some +grammatical pretender.' 'But,' replies Mr. White, 'that +it is the work of any grammarian is more than doubtful. +Grammarians, with all their faults, do not deform language +with fantastic solecisms, or even seek to enrich it with new +and startling verbal combinations. They rather resist +novelty, and devote themselves to formulating that which +use has already established.' In the same page with this, +Mr. White compliments the great unknown as 'some precise<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span> +and feeble-minded soul,' and elsewhere calls him 'some +pedantic writer of the last generation.' To add even one +word toward a solution of the knotty point here indicated +transcends, I confess, my utmost competence. It is painful +to picture to one's self the agonizing emotions with +which certain philologists would contemplate an authentic +effigy of the Attila of speech who, by his <i>is being built</i> or +<i>is being done</i>, first offered violence to the whole circle of +the proprieties. So far as I have observed, the first grammar +that exhibits them is that of Mr. R. S. Skillern, M. A., +the first edition of which was published at Gloucester in +1802. Robert Southey had not, on the 9th of October, +1795, been out of his minority quite two months when, +evidently delivering himself in a way that had already become +familiar enough, he wrote of 'a fellow whose uttermost +upper grinder <i>is being torn out</i> by the roots by a +mutton-fisted barber.'<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> This is in a letter. But repeated +instances of the same kind of expression are seen in Southey's +graver writings. Thus, in his 'Colloquies,' etc.,<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> we read +of 'such [nunneries] as at this time <i>are being reëstablished</i>.'</p> + +<p>"'While my hand <i>was being drest</i> by Mr. Young, I +spoke for the first time,' wrote Coleridge, in March, 1797.</p> + +<p>"Charles Lamb speaks of realities which '<i>are being +acted</i> before us,' and of 'a man who <i>is being strangled</i>.'</p> + +<p>"Walter Savage Landor, in an imaginary conversation, +represents Pitt as saying: 'The man who possesses them +may read Swedenborg and Kant while he <i>is being tossed</i> in +a blanket.' Again: 'I have seen nobles, men and women,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span> +kneeling in the street before these bishops, when no ceremony +of the Catholic Church <i>was being performed</i>.' Also, +in a translation from Catullus: 'Some criminal <i>is being +tried</i> for murder.'</p> + +<p>"Nor does Mr. De Quincey scruple at such English as +'made and <i>being made</i>,' 'the bride that <i>was being married</i> +to him,' and 'the shafts of Heaven <i>were</i> even now <i>being +forged</i>.' On one occasion he writes, 'Not done, not even +(according to modern purism) <i>being done</i>'; as if 'purism' +meant exactness, rather than the avoidance of neoterism.</p> + +<p>"I need, surely, name no more, among the dead, who +found <i>is being built</i>, or the like, acceptable. 'Simple-minded +common people and those of culture were alike +protected against it by their attachment to the idiom of +their mother tongue, with which they felt it to be directly +at variance.' So Mr. White informs us. But the writers +whom I have quoted are formidable exceptions. Even +Mr. White will scarcely deny to them the title of 'people +of culture.'</p> + +<p>"So much for offenders past repentance; and we all +know that the sort of phraseology under consideration is +daily becoming more and more common. The best written +of the English reviews, magazines, and journals are perpetually +marked by it; and some of the choicest of living +English writers employ it freely. Among these, it is +enough if I specify Bishop Wilberforce and Mr. Charles +Reade.<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p> + +<p>"Extracts from Bishop Jewel downward being also given, +Lord Macaulay, Mr. Dickens, 'The Atlantic Monthly,' and +'The Brooklyn Eagle' are alleged by Mr. White in proof<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> +that people still use such phrases as 'Chelsea Hospital <i>was +building</i>,' and 'the train <i>was preparing</i>.' 'Hence we see,' +he adds,<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> 'that the form <i>is being done</i>, <i>is being made</i>, <i>is +being built</i>, lacks the support of authoritative usage from +the period of the earliest classical English to the present +day.' I fully concur with Mr. White in regarding 'neither +"The Brooklyn Eagle" nor Mr. Dickens as a very high +authority in the use of language'; yet, when he has renounced +the aid of these contemned straws, what has he to +rest his inference on, as to the present day, but the practice +of Lord Macaulay and 'The Atlantic Monthly'? Those +who think fit will bow to the dictatorship here prescribed +to them; but there may be those with whom the classic +sanction of Southey, Coleridge, and Landor will not be +wholly void of weight. All scholars are aware that, to +convey the sense of the imperfects passive, our ancestors, +centuries ago, prefixed, with <i>is</i>, etc., <i>in</i>, afterward corrupted +into <i>a</i>, to a verbal substantive. 'The house <i>is in building</i>' +could be taken to mean nothing but <i>ædes ædificantur</i>; +and, when the <i>in</i> gave place to <i>a</i>,<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> it was still manifest +enough, from the context, that <i>building</i> was governed by a +preposition. The second stage of change, however, namely, +when the <i>a</i> was omitted, entailed, in many cases, great +danger of confusion. In the early part of the last century, +when English was undergoing what was then thought to +be purification, the polite world substantially resigned <i>is +a-building</i> to the vulgar. Toward the close of the same +century, when, under the influence of free thought, it began +to be felt that even ideas had a right to faithful and unequivocal<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span> +representation, a just resentment of ambiguity was +evidenced in the creation of <i>is being built</i>. The lament is +too late that the instinct of reformation did not restore the +old form. It has gone forever; and we are now to make +the best of its successors. '"The brass <i>is forging</i>,"' in the +opinion of Dr. Johnson, is 'a vicious expression, probably +corrupted from a phrase more pure, but now somewhat +obsolete, ... "the brass <i>is a-forging</i>."' Yet, with a true +Tory's timidity and aversion to change, it is not surprising +that he went on preferring what he found established, +vicious as it confessedly was, to the end. But was the +expression 'vicious' solely because it was a corruption? +In 1787 William Beckford wrote as follows of the fortune-tellers +of Lisbon: '<i>I saw one dragging into light</i>, as I +passed by the ruins of a palace thrown down by the earthquake. +Whether a familiar of the Inquisition was griping +her in his clutches, or <i>whether she was taking to account by +some disappointed votary</i>, I will not pretend to answer.' +Are the expressions here italicized either perspicuous or +graceful? Whatever we are to have in their place, we +should be thankful to get quit of them.</p> + +<p>"Inasmuch as, concurrently with <i>building</i> for the active +participle, and <i>being built</i> for the corresponding passive +participle, we possessed the former, with <i>is</i> prefixed, as the +active present imperfect, it is in rigid accordance with the +symmetry of our verb that, to construct the passive present-imperfect, +we prefix <i>is</i> to the latter, producing the form <i>is +being built</i>. Such, in its greatest simplicity, is the procedure +which, as will be seen, has provoked a very levanter +of ire and vilification. But anything that is new will be +excepted to by minds of a certain order. Their tremulous +and impatient dread of removing ancient landmarks even +disqualifies them for thoroughly investigating its character<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> +and pretensions. In <i>has built</i> and <i>will build</i>, we find the +active participle perfect and the active infinitive subjoined +to auxiliaries; and so, in <i>has been built</i> and <i>will be built</i>, +the passive participle perfect and the passive infinitive are +subjoined to auxiliaries. In <i>is building</i> and <i>is being built</i>, +we have, in strict harmony with the constitution of the perfect +and future tenses, an auxiliary followed by the active +participle present and the passive participle present. <i>Built</i> +is determined as active or passive by the verbs which qualify +it, <i>have</i> and <i>be</i>; and the grammarians are right in considering +it, when embodied in <i>has built</i>, as active, since its +analogue, embodied in <i>has been built</i>, is the exclusively +passive <i>been built</i>. Besides this, <i>has been</i> + <i>built</i> would +signify something like <i>has existed, built</i>,<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> which is plainly +neuter. We are debarred, therefore, from such an analysis; +and, by parity of reasoning, we may not resolve <i>is being +built</i> into <i>is being</i> + <i>built</i>. It must have been an inspiration +of analogy, felt or unfelt, that suggested the form I +am discussing. <i>Is being</i> + <i>built</i>, as it can mean, pretty +nearly, only <i>exists, built</i>, would never have been proposed +as adequate to convey any but a neuter sense; whereas it +was perfectly natural for a person aiming to express a passive +sense to prefix <i>is</i> to the passive concretion <i>being built</i>.<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a></p> + +<p>"The analogical justification of <i>is being built</i> which I +have brought forward is so obvious that, as it occurred to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span> +myself more than twenty years ago, so it must have occurred +spontaneously to hundreds besides. It is very singular that +those who, like Mr. Marsh and Mr. White, have pondered +long and painfully over locutions typified by <i>is being built</i>, +should have missed the real ground of their grammatical +defensibleness, and should have warmed themselves, in their +opposition to them, into uttering opinions which no calm +judgment can accept.</p> + +<p>"'One who <i>is being beaten</i>' is, to Archbishop Whately, +'uncouth English.' '"The bridge <i>is being built</i>," and other +phrases of the like kind, have pained the eye' of Mr. David +Booth. Such phrases, according to Mr. M. Harrison, 'are +not English.' To Professor J. W. Gibbs 'this mode of expression +... appears formal and pedantic'; and 'the easy +and natural expression is, "The house <i>is building</i>."'<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> In +all this, little or nothing is discernible beyond sheer prejudice, +the prejudice of those who resolve to take their stand +against an innovation, regardless of its utility, and who are +ready to find an argument against it in any random epithet +of disparagement provoked by unreasoning aversion. And +the more recent denouncers in the same line have no more +reason on their side than their elder brethren.</p> + +<p>"In Mr. Marsh's estimation, <i>is being built</i> illustrates +'corruption of language'; it is 'clumsy and unidiomatic'; +it is 'at best but a philological coxcombry'; it 'is an awkward +neologism, which neither convenience, intelligibility, +nor syntactical congruity demands, and the use of which +ought, therefore, to be discountenanced, as an attempt at +the artificial improvement of the language in a point which +needed no amendment.' Again, 'To reject' <i>is building</i> in +favor of the modern phrase 'is to violate the laws of language<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span> +by an arbitrary change; and, in this particular case, +the proposed substitute is at war with the genius of the +English tongue.' Mr. Marsh seems to have fancied that, +wherever he points out a beauty in <i>is building</i>, he points +out, inclusively, a blemish in <i>is being built</i>.</p> + +<p>"The fervor and feeling with which Mr. White advances +to the charge are altogether tropical. 'The full absurdity +of this phrase, the essence of its nonsense, seems not to +have been hitherto pointed out.' It is not 'consistent with +reason'; and it is not 'conformed to the normal development +of the language.' It is 'a monstrosity, the illogical, +confusing, inaccurate, unidiomatic character of which I +have at some length, but yet imperfectly, set forth.' Finally, +'In fact, it means nothing, and is the most incongruous +combination of words and ideas that ever attained respectable +usage in any civilized language.' These be 'prave +'ords'; and it seems a pity that so much sterling vituperative +ammunition should be expended in vain. And that it +is so expended thinks Mr. White himself; for, though passing +sentence in the spirit of a Jeffreys, he is not really on +the judgment-seat, but on the lowest hassock of despair. +As concerns the mode of expression exemplified by <i>is being +built</i>, he owns that 'to check its diffusion would be a hopeless +undertaking.' If so, why not reserve himself for service +against some evil not avowedly beyond remedy?</p> + +<p>"Again we read, 'Some precise and feeble-minded +soul, having been taught that there is a passive voice in +English, and that, for instance, <i>building</i> is an active participle, +and <i>builded</i> or <i>built</i> a passive, felt conscientious +scruples at saying "the house <i>is building</i>." For what could +the house build?' As children say at play, Mr. White +burns here. If it had occurred to him that the 'conscientious +scruples' of his hypothetical, 'precise, and feeble-minded<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span> +soul' were roused by <i>been built</i>, not by <i>built</i>, I suspect +his chapter on <i>is being built</i> would have been much +shorter than it is at present, and very different. 'The +fatal absurdity in this phrase consists,' he tells us, 'in the +combination of <i>is</i> with <i>being</i>; in the making of the verb <i>to +be</i> a supplement, or, in grammarians' phrase, an auxiliary +to itself—an absurdity so palpable, so monstrous, so ridiculous, +that it should need only to be pointed out to be +scouted.'<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> Lastly, 'The question is thus narrowed simply +to this, Does <i>to be being</i> (<i>esse ens</i>) mean anything more or +other than <i>to be</i>?'</p> + +<p>"Having convicted Mr. White of a mistaken analysis, I +am not concerned with the observations which he founds +on his mistake. However, even if his analysis had been +correct, some of his arguments would avail him nothing. +For instance, <i>is being built</i>, on his understanding of it, that +is to say, <i>is being</i> + <i>built</i>, he represents by <i>ens ædificatus est</i>, +as 'the supposed corresponding Latin phrase.'<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> The Latin +is illegitimate; and he infers that, therefore, the English is +the same. But <i>ædificans est</i>, a translation, on the model +which he offers, of the active <i>is building</i>, is quite as illegitimate +as <i>ens æedificatus est</i>. By parity of <i>non-sequitur</i>, we +are, therefore, to surrender the active <i>is building</i>. Assume +that a phrase in a given language is indefensible unless it<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span> +has its counterpart in some other language; from the very +conception and definition of an idiom every idiom is illegitimate.</p> + +<p>"I now pass to another point. '<i>To be</i> and <i>to exist</i> are,' +to Mr. White's apprehension, 'perfect synonyms, or more +nearly perfect, perhaps, than any two verbs in the language. +In some of their meanings there is a shade of difference, +but in others there is none whatever; and the latter are +those which serve our present purpose. When we say, "He, +<i>being</i> forewarned of danger, fled," we say, "He, <i>existing</i> +forewarned of danger, fled." When we say that a thing <i>is</i> +done, we say that it <i>exists</i> done.... <i>Is being done</i> is simply +<i>exists existing done</i>.' But, since <i>is</i> and <i>exists</i> are equipollent, +and so <i>being</i> and <i>existing, is being</i> is the same as +the unimpeachable <i>is existing</i>. Q. <i>non</i> E. D. <i>Is existing</i> +ought, of course, to be no less objectionable to Mr. White +than <i>is being</i>. Just as absurd, too, should he reckon the +Italian <i>sono stato</i>, <i>era stato</i>, <i>sia stato</i>, <i>fossi stato</i>, <i>saro stato</i>, +<i>sarei stato</i>, <i>essere stato</i>, and <i>essendo stato</i>. For in Italian +both <i>essere</i> and <i>stare</i> are required to make up the verb substantive, +as in Latin both <i>esse</i> and the offspring of <i>fuere</i> are +required; and <i>stare</i>, primarily 'to stand,' is modified into +a true auxiliary. The alleged 'full absurdity of this phrase,' +to wit, <i>is being built</i>, 'the essence of its nonsense,' vanishes +thus into thin air. So I was about to comment bluntly, not +forgetting to regret that any gentleman's cultivation of logic +should fructify in the shape of irrepressible tendencies to +suicide. But this would be precipitate. Agreeably to one +of Mr. White's judicial placita, which I make no apology +for citing twice, 'no man who has preserved all his senses +will doubt for a moment that "to exist a mastiff or a mule" +is absolutely the same as "to be a mastiff or a mule."' +Declining to admit their identity, I have not preserved all<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span> +my senses; and, accordingly—though it may be in me the +very superfetation of lunacy—I would caution the reader to +keep a sharp eye on my arguments, hereabouts particularly. +The Cretan, who, in declaring all Cretans to be liars, left +the question of his veracity doubtful to all eternity, fell into +a pit of his own digging. Not unlike the unfortunate Cretan, +Mr. White has tumbled headlong into his own snare. +It was, for the rest, entirely unavailing that he insisted on +the insanity of those who should gainsay his fundamental +postulate. Sanity, of a crude sort, may accept it; and +sanity may put it to a use other than its propounder's.</p> + +<p>"Mr. Marsh, after setting forth the all-sufficiency of <i>is +building</i>, in the passive sense, goes on to say: 'The reformers +who object to the phrase I am defending must, in +consistency, employ the proposed substitute with all passive +participles, and in other tenses as well as the present. They +must say, therefore, "The subscription-paper <i>is being missed</i>, +but I know that a considerable sum <i>is being wanted</i> to make +up the amount"; "the great Victoria Bridge <i>has been being +built</i> more than two years"; "when I reach London, the +ship Leviathan <i>will be being built</i>"; "if my orders had +been followed, the coat <i>would have been being made yesterday</i>"; +"if the house <i>had</i> then <i>been being built</i>, the mortar +<i>would have been being mixed</i>."' We may reply that, while +awkward instances of the old form are most abundant in +our literature, there is no fear that the repulsive elaborations +which have been worked out in ridicule of the new +forms will prove to have been anticipations of future usage. +There was a time when, as to their adverbs, people compared +them, to a large extent, with <i>-er</i> and <i>-est</i>, or with +<i>more</i> and <i>most</i>, just as their ear or pleasure dictated. They +wrote <i>plainlier</i> and <i>plainliest</i>, or <i>more plainly</i> and <i>most +plainly</i>; and some adverbs, as <i>early</i>, <i>late</i>, <i>often</i>, <i>seldom</i>, and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span> +<i>soon</i>, we still compare in a way now become anomalous. +And as our forefathers treated their adverbs we still treat +many adjectives. <i>Furthermore</i>, <i>obligingness</i>, <i>preparedness</i>, +and <i>designedly</i> seem quite natural; yet we do not feel that +they authorize us to talk of 'the <i>seeingness</i> of the eye,' 'the +<i>understoodness</i> of a sentence,' or of 'a statement <i>acknowledgedly</i> +correct.' 'The now too notorious fact' is tolerable; +but 'the never to be sufficiently execrated monster +Bonaparte' is intolerable. The sun may be <i>shorn</i> of his +splendor; but we do not allow cloudy weather to <i>shear</i> him +of it. How, then, can any one claim that a man who prefers +to say <i>is being built</i> should say <i>has been being built</i>? +Are not awkward instances of the old form, typified by <i>is +building</i>, as easily to be picked out of extant literature as +such instances of the new form, likely ever to be used, are +to be invented? And 'the reformers' have not forsworn +their ears. Mr. Marsh, at p. 135 of his admirable 'Lectures,' +lays down that 'the adjective <i>reliable</i>, in the sense of +<i>worthy of confidence</i>, is altogether unidiomatic'; and yet, +at p. 112, he writes '<i>reliable</i> evidence.' Again, at p. 396 of +the same work, he rules that <i>whose</i>, in 'I passed a house +<i>whose</i> windows were open,' is 'by no means yet fully established'; +and at p. 145 of his very learned 'Man and Nature' +he writes 'a quadrangular pyramid, the perpendicular +of <i>whose</i> sides,' etc. Really, if his own judgments sit so +very loose on his practical conscience, we may, without being +chargeable with exaction, ask of him to relax a little +the rigor of his requirements at the hands of his neighbors.</p> + +<p>"Beckford's Lisbon fortune-teller, before had into court, +was '<i>dragging</i> into light,' and, perchance, '<i>was taking</i> to account.' +Many moderns would say and write '<i>being dragged</i> +into light,' and '<i>was being taken</i> to account.' But, if we<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span> +are to trust the conservative critics, in comparison with expressions +of the former pattern, those of the latter are +'uncouth,' 'clumsy,' 'awkward neologisms,' 'philological +coxcombries,' 'formal and pedantic,' 'incongruous and ridiculous +forms of speech,' 'illogical, confusing, inaccurate +monstrosities.' Moreover, they are neither 'consistent with +reason' nor 'conformed to the normal development of the +language'; they are 'at war with the genius of the English +tongue'; they are 'unidiomatic'; they are 'not English.' +In passing, if Mr. Marsh will so define the term <i>unidiomatic</i> +as to evince that it has any applicability to the +case in hand, or if he will arrest and photograph 'the genius +of the English tongue,' so that we may know the original +when we meet with it, he will confer a public favor. +And now I submit for consideration whether the sole +strength of those who decry <i>is being built</i> and its congeners +does not consist in their talent for calling hard names. If +they have not an uneasy subconsciousness that their cause +is weak, they would, at least, do well in eschewing the violence +to which, for want of something better, the advocates +of weak causes proverbially resort.</p> + +<p>"I once had a friend who, for some microscopic penumbra +of heresy, was charged, in the words of his accuser, +with 'as near an approach to the sin against the Holy +Ghost as is practicable to human infirmity.' Similarly, on +one view, the feeble potencies of philological turpitude +seem to have exhibited their most consummate realization +in engendering <i>is being built</i>. The supposed enormity perpetrated +in its production, provided it had fallen within the +sphere of ethics, would, at the least, have ranked, with its +denunciators, as a brand-new exemplification of total depravity. +But, after all, what incontestable defect in it has +any one succeeded in demonstrating? Mr. White, in opposing<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span> +to the expression objections based on an erroneous +analysis, simply lays a phantom of his own evoking; and, +so far as I am informed, other impugners of <i>is being built</i> +have, absolutely, no argument whatever against it over and +beyond their repugnance to novelty. Subjected to a little +untroubled contemplation, it would, I am confident, have +ceased long ago to be matter of controversy; but the dust +of prejudice and passion, which so distempers the intellectual +vision of theologians and politicians, is seen to make, +with ruthless impartiality, no exception of the perspicacity +of philologists.</p> + +<p>"Prior to the evolution of <i>is being built</i> and <i>was being +built</i>, we possessed no discriminate equivalents to <i>ædificatur</i> +and <i>ædificabatur</i>; <i>is built</i> and <i>was built</i>, by which they +were rendered, corresponding exactly to <i>ædificatus est</i> and +<i>ædificatus erat</i>. <i>Cum ædificaretur</i> was to us the same as +<i>ædificabatur</i>. On the wealth of the Greek in expressions +of imperfect passive I need not dwell. With rare exceptions, +the Romans were satisfied with the present-imperfect +and the past-imperfect; and we, on the comparatively few +occasions which present themselves for expressing other imperfects, +shall be sure to have recourse to the old forms +rather than to the new, or else to use periphrases.<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> The +purists may, accordingly, dismiss their apprehensions, especially +as the neoterists have, clearly, a keener horror of +phraseological ungainliness than themselves. One may<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> +have no hesitation about saying 'the house <i>is being built</i>,' +and may yet recoil from saying that 'it <i>should have been +being built</i> last Christmas'; and the same person—just as, +provided he did not feel a harshness, inadequacy, and ambiguity +in the passive 'the house <i>is building</i>,' he would use +the expression—will, more likely than not, elect <i>is in preparation</i> +preferentially to <i>is being prepared</i>. If there are any +who, in their zealotry for the congruous, choose to adhere +to the new form in its entire range of exchangeability for +the old, let it be hoped that they will find, in Mr. Marsh's +speculative approbation of consistency, full amends for the +discomfort of encountering smiles or frowns. At the same +time, let them be mindful of the career of Mr. White, with +his black flag and no quarter. The dead Polonius was, in +Hamlet's phrase, at supper, 'not where he eats, but where +he <i>is eaten</i>.' Shakespeare, to Mr. White's thinking, in this +wise expressed himself at the best, and deserves not only +admiration therefor, but to be imitated. 'While the ark +<i>was built</i>,' 'while the ark <i>was prepared</i>,' writes Mr. White +himself.<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> Shakespeare is commended for his ambiguous +<i>is eaten</i>, though <i>in eating</i> or <i>an eating</i> would have been not +only correct in his day, but, where they would have come +in his sentence, univocal. With equal reason a man would +be entitled to commendation for tearing his mutton-chops +with his fingers, when he might cut them up with a knife +and fork. '<i>Is eaten</i>,' says Mr. White, 'does not mean <i>has +been eaten</i>.' Very true; but a continuous unfinished passion—Polonius's +still undergoing manducation, to speak +Johnsonese—was in Shakespeare's mind; and his words +describe a passion no longer in generation. The King of +Denmark's lord chamberlain had no precedent in Herod, +when 'he <i>was eaten</i> of worms'; the original, <span title="genomenos skôlêkobrôtos">γενόμενος σκωληκόβρωτος</span><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span>, yielding, but for its participle, 'he became +worm-eaten.'</p> + +<p>"Having now done with Mr. White, I am anxious, before +taking leave of him, to record, with all emphasis, that +it would be the grossest injustice to write of his elegant +'Life and Genius of Shakespeare,' a book which does +credit to American literature, in the tone which I have +found unavoidable in dealing with his 'Words and their +Uses.'"</p> + +<p>The student of English who has honestly weighed the +arguments on both sides of the question, must, I believe, +be of opinion that our language is the richer for having +two forms for expressing the Progressive Passive. Further, +he must, I believe, be of opinion that in very many cases +he conforms to the most approved usage of our time by +employing the old form; that, however, if he were to employ +the old form in all cases, his meaning would sometimes +be uncertain.</p> + +<p><b>It.</b> Cobbett discourses of this little neuter pronoun in +this wise: "The word <i>it</i> is the greatest troubler that I +know of in language. It is so small and so convenient that +few are careful enough in using it. Writers seldom spare +this word. Whenever they are at a loss for either a nominative +or an objective to their sentence, they, without any +kind of ceremony, clap in an <i>it</i>. A very remarkable instance +of this pressing of poor <i>it</i> into actual service, contrary +to the laws of grammar and of sense, occurs in a +piece of composition, where we might, with justice, insist +on correctness. This piece is on the subject of grammar; +it is a piece written by a <i>Doctor of Divinity</i> and read by +him to students in grammar and language in an academy; +and the very sentence that I am now about to quote is +selected by the author of a grammar as testimony of high<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span> +authority in favor of the excellence of his work. Surely, +if correctness be ever to be expected, it must be in a case +like this. I allude to two sentences in the 'Charge of the +Reverend Doctor Abercrombie to the Senior Class of the +Philadelphia Academy,' published in 1806; which sentences +have been selected and published by Mr. Lindley +Murray as a testimonial of the <i>merits</i> of his grammar; and +which sentences are by Mr. Murray given to us in the following +words: 'The unwearied exertions of this gentleman +<i>have</i> done more toward elucidating the obscurities +and embellishing the structure of our language than any +<i>other writer</i> on the subject. <i>Such a work</i> has long been +wanted, and from the success with which <i>it</i> is executed, +can not be too highly appreciated.'</p> + +<p>"As in the learned Doctor's opinion obscurities can be +elucidated, and as in the same opinion Mr. Murray is an +able hand at this kind of work, it would not be amiss were +the grammarian to try his skill upon this article from the +hand of his dignified eulogist; for here is, if one may use +the expression, a constellation of obscurities. Our poor +oppressed <i>it</i>, which we find forced into the Doctor's service +in the second sentence, relates to '<i>such a work</i>,' though this +work is nothing that has an existence, notwithstanding it +is said to be '<i>executed</i>.' In the first sentence, the 'exertions' +become, all of a sudden, a '<i>writer</i>': the <i>exertions</i> +have done more than 'any <i>other</i> writer'; for, mind you, +it is not the <i>gentleman</i> that has done anything; it is 'the +<i>exertions</i>' that <i>have</i> done what is said to be done. The +word <i>gentleman</i> is in the possessive case, and has nothing +to do with the action of the sentence. Let us give the sentence +a turn, and the Doctor and the grammarian will hear +how it will sound. 'This gentleman's <i>exertions</i> have done +more than any <i>other writer</i>.' This is on a level with 'This<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span> +gentleman's <i>dog</i> has killed more hares than any <i>other sportsman</i>.' +No doubt Doctor Abercrombie <i>meant</i> to say, 'The +exertions of this gentleman have done more <i>than those</i> of +any other writer. Such a work as this gentleman's has +long been wanted; his work, seeing the successful manner +of its execution, can not be too highly commended.' +<i>Meant!</i> No doubt at all of that! And when we hear a +Hampshire ploughboy say, 'Poll Cherrycheek have giv'd +a thick handkecher,' we know very well that he <i>means</i> to +say, 'Poll Cherrycheek has given me this handkerchief'; +and yet we are too apt to <i>laugh at him</i> and to call him +<i>ignorant</i>; which is wrong, because he has no pretensions +to a knowledge of grammar, and he may be very skillful as +a ploughboy. However, we will not laugh at Doctor Abercrombie, +whom I knew, many years ago, for a very kind +and worthy man. But, if we may, in any case, be allowed +to laugh at the ignorance of our fellow-creatures, that case +certainly does arise when we see a professed grammarian, +the author of voluminous precepts and examples on the +subject of grammar, producing, in imitation of the possessors +of valuable medical secrets, testimonials vouching for +the efficacy of his literary panacea, and when, in those +testimonials, we find most flagrant instances of bad grammar.</p> + +<p>"However, my dear James, let this strong and striking +instance of the misuse of the word <i>it</i> serve you in the way +of caution. Never put an <i>it</i> upon paper without thinking +well of what you are about. When I see many <i>its</i> in a +page, I always tremble for the writer."</p> + +<p><b>Jeopardize.</b> This is a modern word which we could +easily do without, as it means neither more nor less than +its venerable progenitor <i>to jeopard</i>, which is greatly preferred +by all careful writers.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Just going to.</b> Instead of "I am <i>just going to</i> go," it is +better to say, "I am just <i>about</i> to go."</p> + +<p><b>Kids.</b> "This is another vile contraction. Habit blinds +people to the unseemliness of a term like this. How would +it sound if one should speak of silk gloves as <i>silks</i>?"</p> + +<p><b>Kind.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Polite">Polite</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Knights Templars.</b> The name of this ancient body +has been adopted by a branch of the Masonic fraternity, +but in a perverted form—<i>Knights Templar</i>; and this form +is commonly seen in print, whether referring to the old +knights or to their modern imitators. This doubtless is +due to the erroneous impression that <i>Templar</i> is an adjective, +and so can not take the plural form; while in fact +it is a case of two nouns in apposition—a double designation—meaning +Knights of the order of Templars. Hence +the plural should be <i>Knights Templars</i>, and not <i>Knights +Templar</i>. Members of the contemporaneous order of St. +John of Jerusalem were commonly called Knights Hospitallers.</p> + +<p><b>Lady.</b> To use the term <i>lady</i>, whether in the singular +or in the plural, simply to designate the sex, is in the worst +possible taste. There is a kind of pin-feather gentility +which seems to have a settled aversion to using the terms +<i>man</i> and <i>woman</i>. Gentlemen and ladies establish their +claims to being called such by their bearing, and not by +arrogating to themselves, <i>even indirectly</i>, the titles. In +England, the title <i>lady</i> is properly correlative to <i>lord</i>; but +there, as in this country, it is used as a term of complaisance, +and is appropriately applied to women whose lives are exemplary, +and who have received that school and home education +which enables them to appear to advantage in the +better circles of society. Such expressions as "She is a +fine <i>lady</i>, a clever <i>lady</i>, a well-dressed <i>lady</i>, a good <i>lady</i>, a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span> +modest <i>lady</i>, a charitable <i>lady</i>, an amiable <i>lady</i>, a handsome +<i>lady</i>, a fascinating <i>lady</i>," and the like, are studiously avoided +by persons of refinement. <i>Ladies</i> say, "we <i>women</i>, the +<i>women</i> of America, <i>women's</i> apparel," and so on; <i>vulgar</i> +women talk about "us <i>ladies</i>, the <i>ladies</i> of America, +<i>ladies'</i> apparel," and so on. If a woman of culture and +refinement—in short, a lady—is compelled from any cause +soever to work in a store, she is quite content to be called +a sales-<i>woman</i>; not so, however, with your young woman +who, being in a store, is in a better position than ever +before. She, Heaven bless her! boils with indignation +if she is not denominated a sales-<i>lady</i>. Lady is often the +proper term to use, and then it would be very improper to +use any other; but it is very certain that the terms <i>lady</i> +and <i>gentleman</i> are least used by those persons who are +most worthy of being designated by them. With a nice +discrimination worthy of special notice, one of our daily +papers recently said: "Miss Jennie Halstead, daughter of +the proprietor of the 'Cincinnati Commercial,' is one of the +most brilliant young <i>women</i> in Ohio."</p> + +<p>In a late number of the "London Queen" was the following: +"The terms <i>ladies</i> and <i>gentlemen</i> become in themselves +vulgarisms when misapplied, and the improper application +of the wrong term at the wrong time makes all the +difference in the world to ears polite. Thus, calling a man +a <i>gentleman</i> when he should be called a <i>man</i>, or speaking +of a man as a <i>man</i> when he should be spoken of as a +<i>gentleman</i>; or alluding to a lady as a <i>woman</i> when she +should be alluded to as a <i>lady</i>, or speaking of a woman +as a <i>lady</i> when she should properly be termed a <i>woman</i>. +Tact and a sense of the fitness of things decide these points, +there being no fixed rule to go upon to determine when a +man is a <i>man</i> or when he is a <i>gentleman</i>; and, although he<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span> +is far oftener termed the one than the other, he does not +thereby lose his attributes of a gentleman. In common +parlance, a man is always a <i>man</i> to a man, and never a +<i>gentleman</i>; to a woman, he is occasionally a <i>man</i> and occasionally +a <i>gentleman</i>; but a man would far oftener term +a woman a <i>woman</i> than he would term her a <i>lady</i>. When +a man makes use of an adjective in speaking of a lady, he +almost invariably calls her a <i>woman</i>. Thus, he would say, +'I met a rather agreeable <i>woman</i> at dinner last night'; +but he would <i>not</i> say, 'I met an agreeable <i>lady</i>'; but he +might say, 'A <i>lady</i>, a friend of mine, told me,' etc., when +he would <i>not</i> say, 'A <i>woman</i>, a friend of mine, told me,' +etc. Again, a man would say, 'Which of the <i>ladies</i> did +you take in to dinner?' He would certainly not say, 'Which +of the <i>women</i>,' etc.</p> + +<p>"Speaking of people <i>en masse</i>, it would be to belong to +a very advanced school to refer to them in conversation as +'men and women,' while it would be all but vulgar to style +them 'ladies and gentlemen,' the compromise between the +two being to speak of them as 'ladies and men.' Thus a +lady would say, 'I have asked two or three ladies and several +men'; she would not say, 'I have asked several men +and women'; neither would she say, 'I have asked several +ladies and gentlemen.' And, speaking of numbers, it would +be very usual to say, 'There were a great many ladies, and +but very few men present,' or, 'The ladies were in the +majority, so few men being present.' Again, a lady would +not say, 'I expect two or three men,' but she would say, +'I expect two or three gentlemen.' When people are on +ceremony with each other [<i>one another</i>], they might, perhaps, +in speaking of a man, call him a <i>gentleman</i>; but, +otherwise, it would be more usual to speak of him as a <i>man</i>. +Ladies, when speaking of each other [<i>one another</i>], usually<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span> +employ the term <i>woman</i> in preference to that of <i>lady</i>. Thus +they would say, 'She is a very good-natured <i>woman</i>,' 'What +sort of a <i>woman</i> is she?' the term <i>lady</i> being entirely out +of place under such circumstances. Again, the term young +<i>lady</i> gives place as far as possible to the term <i>girl</i>, although +it greatly depends upon the amount of intimacy existing as +to which term is employed."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Language" id="Language"></a>Language.</b> A note in Worcester's Dictionary says: +"<i>Language</i> is a very general term, and is not strictly confined +to utterance by words, as it is also expressed by the +countenance, by the eyes, and by signs. <i>Tongue</i> refers +especially to an original language; as, 'the Hebrew +<i>tongue</i>.' The modern languages are derived from the +original <i>tongues</i>." If this be correct, then he who speaks +French, German, English, Spanish, and Italian, may properly +say that he speaks five <i>languages</i>, but only one +<i>tongue</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Lay" id="Lay"></a>Lay—Lie.</b> Errors are frequent in the use of these two +irregular verbs. <i>Lay</i> is often used for <i>lie</i>, and <i>lie</i> is sometimes +used for <i>lay</i>. This confusion in their use is due in +some measure, doubtless, to the circumstance that <i>lay</i> appears +in both verbs, it being the imperfect tense of <i>to lie</i>. +We say, "A mason <i>lays</i> bricks," "A ship <i>lies</i> at anchor," +etc. "I must <i>lie</i> down"; "I must <i>lay</i> myself down"; +"I must <i>lay</i> this book on the table"; "He <i>lies</i> on the +grass"; "He <i>lays</i> his plans well"; "He <i>lay</i> on the grass"; +"He <i>laid</i> it away"; "He has <i>lain</i> in bed long enough"; +"He has <i>laid up</i> some money," "<i>in</i> a stock," "<i>down</i> the +law"; "He is <i>laying</i> out the grounds"; "Ships <i>lie</i> at the +wharf"; "Hens <i>lay</i> eggs"; "The ship <i>lay</i> at anchor"; +"The hen <i>laid</i> an egg." It will be seen that <i>lay</i> always +expresses transitive action, and that <i>lie</i> expresses +rest.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span></p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Here <i>lies</i> our sovereign lord, the king,<br /></span> +<span class="i2">Whose word no man relies on;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">He never says a foolish thing,<br /></span> +<span class="i2">Nor ever does a wise one."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>—Written on the bedchamber door of Charles II, by the +Earl of Rochester.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Learn" id="Learn"></a>Learn.</b> This verb was long ago used as a synonym of +<i>teach</i>, but in this sense it is now obsolete. To <i>teach</i> is to +give instruction; to <i>learn</i> is to take instruction. "I will +<i>learn</i>, if you will <i>teach</i> me." See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Teach">Teach</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Leave.</b> There are grammarians who insist that this +verb should not be used without an object, as, for example, +it is used in such sentences as, "When do you leave?" "I +leave to-morrow." The object of the verb—home, town, +or whatever it may be—is, of course, understood; but this, +say these gentlemen, is not permissible. On this point +opinions will, I think, differ; they will, however, not differ +with regard to the vulgarity of using <i>leave</i> in the sense of +<i>let</i>; thus, "<i>Leave</i> me be"; "<i>Leave</i> it alone"; "<i>Leave</i> her +be—don't bother her"; "<i>Leave</i> me see it."</p> + +<p><b>Lend.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Loan">Loan</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Lengthy.</b> This word is of comparatively recent origin, +and, though it is said to be an Americanism, it is a good +deal used in England. The most careful writers, however, +both here and elsewhere, much prefer the word <i>long</i>: "a +<i>long</i> discussion," "a <i>long</i> discourse," etc.</p> + +<p><b>Leniency.</b> Mr. Gould calls this word and <i>lenience</i> +"two philological abortions." <i>Lenity</i> is undoubtedly the +proper word to use, though both Webster and Worcester +do recognize <i>leniency</i> and <i>lenience</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Less" id="Less"></a>Less.</b> This word is much used instead of <i>fewer</i>. <i>Less</i> +relates to quantity; <i>fewer</i> to number. Instead of, "There +were not <i>less</i> than twenty persons present," we should<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span> +say, "There were not <i>fewer</i> than twenty persons present."</p> + +<p><b>Lesser.</b> This form of the comparative of <i>little</i> is accounted +a corruption of <i>less</i>. It may, however, be used +instead of <i>less</i> with propriety in verse, and also, in some +cases, in prose. We may say, for example, "Of two evils +choose the <i>less</i>," or "the <i>lesser</i>." The latter form, in sentences +like this, is the more euphonious.</p> + +<p><b>Liable.</b> Richard Grant White, in inveighing against +the misuse of this word, cites the example of a member from +a rural district, who called out to a man whom he met in +the village, where he was in the habit of making little purchases: +"I say, mister, kin yer tell me whar I'd be <i>li'ble</i> +to find some beans?" See, also, <span class="smcap"><a href="#Apt">Apt</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Lie.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Lay">Lay</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Like" id="Like"></a>Like—As.</b> Both these words express similarity; <i>like</i> +(adjective) comparing things, <i>as</i> (adverb) comparing action, +existence, or quality. Like is followed by an object only, +and does not admit of a verb in the same construction. +<i>As</i> must be followed by a verb expressed or understood. +We say, "He looks <i>like</i> his brother," or "He looks <i>as</i> +his brother <i>looks</i>." "Do <i>as</i> I do," not "<i>like</i> I do." "You +must speak <i>as</i> James does," not "<i>like</i> James does." "He +died <i>as</i> he had lived, <i>like</i> a dog." "It is <i>as</i> blue <i>as</i> indigo"; +i. e., "as indigo is."</p> + +<p><b>Like, To.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Love">Love</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Likely.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Apt">Apt</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Lit.</b> This form of the past participle of the verb <i>to +light</i> is now obsolete. "Have you <i>lighted</i> the fire?" "The +gas is <i>lighted</i>." <i>Het</i> for <i>heated</i> is a similar, but much greater, +vulgarism.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Loan" id="Loan"></a>Loan—Lend.</b> There are those who contend that there +is no such verb as <i>to loan</i>, although it has been found in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span> +our literature for more than three hundred years. Whether +there is properly such a verb or not, it is quite certain that +it is only those having a vulgar <i>penchant</i> for big words who +will prefer it to its synonym <i>lend</i>. Better far to say "<i>Lend</i> +me your umbrella" than "<i>Loan</i> me your umbrella."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Locate" id="Locate"></a>Locate—Settle.</b> The use of the verb <i>to locate</i> in the +sense of <i>to settle</i> is said to be an Americanism. Although +the dictionaries recognize <i>to locate</i> as a neuter verb, as such +it is marked "rarely used," and, in the sense of <i>to settle</i>, it +is among the vulgarisms that careful speakers and writers +are studious to avoid. A man <i>settles</i>, not <i>locates</i>, in Nebraska. +"Where do you intend to <i>settle</i>?" not <i>locate</i>. See, also, +<span class="smcap"><a href="#Settle">Settle</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Loggerheads.</b> "In the mean time France is at <i>loggerheads +internally</i>."—"New York Herald," April 29, 1881. +Loggerheads <i>internally</i>?!</p> + +<p><b>Looks beautifully.</b> It is sometimes interesting to note +the difference between <i>vulgar</i> bad grammar and <i>genteel</i> bad +grammar, or, more properly, between non-painstaking and +painstaking bad grammar. The former uses, for example, +adjectives instead of adverbs; the latter uses adverbs instead +of adjectives. The former says, "This bonnet is +trimmed <i>shocking</i>"; the latter says, "This bonnet looks +<i>shockingly</i>." In the first sentence the epithet qualifies the +verb <i>is trimmed</i>, and consequently should have its adverbial +form—<i>shockingly</i>; in the second sentence the epithet qualifies +the <i>appearance</i>—a noun—of the bonnet, and consequently +should have its adjectival form—<i>shocking</i>. The +second sentence means to say, "This bonnet presents a +shocking appearance." The bonnet certainly does not really +<i>look</i>; it is <i>looked at</i>, and to the <i>looker</i> its appearance is +<i>shocking</i>. So we say, in like manner, of a person, that he +or she looks <i>sweet</i>, or <i>charming</i>, or <i>beautiful</i>, or <i>handsome</i>,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span> +or <i>horrid</i>, or <i>graceful</i>, or <i>timid</i>, and so on, always using an +adjective. "Miss Coghlan, as Lady Teazle, looked <i>charmingly</i>." +The grammar of the "New York Herald" would +not have been any more incorrect if it had said that Miss +Coghlan looked <i>gladly</i>, or <i>sadly</i>, or <i>madly</i>, or <i>delightedly</i>, or +<i>pleasedly</i>. A person may look <i>sick</i> or <i>sickly</i>, but in both +cases the qualifying word is an adjective. The verbs to +<i>smell</i>, to <i>feel</i>, to <i>sound</i>, and to <i>appear</i> are also found in sentences +in which the qualifying word must be an adjective +and not an adverb. We say, for example, "The rose smells +<i>sweet</i>"; "The butter smells <i>good</i>, or <i>bad</i>, or <i>fresh</i>"; "I +feel <i>glad</i>, or <i>sad</i>, or <i>bad</i>, or <i>despondent</i>, or <i>annoyed</i>, or <i>nervous</i>"; +"This construction sounds <i>harsh</i>"; "How <i>delightful</i> +the country appears!"</p> + +<p>On the other hand, to <i>look</i>, to <i>feel</i>, to <i>smell</i>, to <i>sound</i>, +and to <i>appear</i> are found in sentences where the qualifying +word must be an adverb; thus, "He feels his loss <i>keenly</i>"; +"The king looked <i>graciously</i> on her"; "I smell it <i>faintly</i>." +We might also say, "He feels <i>sad</i> [adjective], because he +feels his loss <i>keenly</i>" (adverb); "He appears <i>well</i>" (adverb).</p> + +<p>The expression, "<i>She seemed confusedly</i>, or <i>timidly</i>," is +not a whit more incorrect than "<i>She looked beautifully</i>, or +<i>charmingly</i>." See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Adjectives">Adjectives</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Love" id="Love"></a>Love—Like.</b> Men who are at all careful in the selection +of language to express their thoughts, and have not an +undue leaning toward the superlative, <i>love</i> few things: their +wives, their sweethearts, their kinsmen, truth, justice, and +their country. Women, on the contrary, as a rule, <i>love</i> a +multitude of things, and, among their loves, the thing they +perhaps love most is—taffy.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Luggage" id="Luggage"></a>Luggage—Baggage.</b> The former of these words is +generally used in England, the latter in America.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Lunch.</b> This word, when used as a substantive, may +at the best be accounted an inelegant abbreviation of <i>luncheon</i>. +The dictionaries barely recognize it. The proper +phraseology to use is, "Have you <i>lunched</i>?" or, "Have +you had your <i>luncheon</i>?" or, better, "Have you had <i>luncheon</i>?" +as we may in most cases presuppose that the person +addressed would hardly take anybody's else luncheon.</p> + +<p><b>Luxurious—Luxuriant.</b> The line is drawn much more +sharply between these two words now than it was formerly. +Luxurious was once used, to some extent at least, in the +sense of <i>rank growth</i>, but now all careful writers and speakers +use it in the sense of <i>indulging</i> or <i>delighting in luxury</i>. +We talk of a <i>luxurious</i> table, a <i>luxurious</i> liver, <i>luxurious</i> +ease, <i>luxurious</i> freedom. Luxuriant, on the other hand, is +restricted to the sense of <i>rank</i>, or <i>excessive</i>, growth or production; +thus, <i>luxuriant</i> weeds, <i>luxuriant</i> foliage or +branches, <i>luxuriant</i> growth.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Prune the <i>luxuriant</i>, the uncouth refine,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">But show no mercy to an empty line."—Pope.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p><b>Mad.</b> Professor Richard A. Proctor, in a recent number +of "The Gentleman's Magazine," says: "The word +<i>mad</i> in America seems nearly always to mean <i>angry</i>. For +<i>mad</i>, as we use the word, Americans say <i>crazy</i>. Herein +they have manifestly impaired the language." Have they?</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i5">"Now, in faith, Gratiano,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">You give your wife too unkind a cause of grief;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">An 'twere, to me, I would be <i>mad at</i> it."<br /></span> +<span class="i10">—"Merchant of Venice."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"And being exceedingly <i>mad</i> against them, I persecuted +them even unto strange cities."—Acts xxvi, II.</p> + +<p><b>Make a visit.</b> The phrase "<i>make</i> a visit," according +to Dr. Hall, whatever it once was, is no longer English.</p> + +<p><b>Male.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Female">Female</a></span>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Marry.</b> There has been some discussion, at one time +and another, with regard to the use of this word. Is John +Jones married <i>to</i> Sally Brown or <i>with</i> Sally Brown, or are +they married to each other? Inasmuch as the woman loses +her name in that of the man to whom she is wedded, and +becomes a member of his family, not he of hers—inasmuch +as, with few exceptions, it is her life that is merged in his—it +would seem that, <i>properly</i>, Sally Brown is married <i>to</i> John +Jones, and that this would be the proper way to make the +announcement of their having been wedded, and not John +Jones <i>to</i> Sally Brown.</p> + +<p>There is also a difference of opinion as to whether the +active or the passive form is preferable in referring to a person's +wedded state. In speaking definitely of the <i>act</i> of +marriage, the passive form is necessarily used with reference +to either spouse. "John Jones was married to Sally +Brown on Dec. 1, 1881"; not, "John Jones <i>married</i> Sally +Brown" on such a date, for (unless they were Quakers) +some third person married him to her and her to him. +But, in speaking indefinitely of the <i>fact</i> of marriage, the +active form is a matter of course. "Whom did John Jones +marry?" "He married Sally Brown." "John Jones, when +he had sown his wild oats, married [married himself, as the +French say] and settled down." <i>Got married</i> is a vulgarism.</p> + +<p><b>May.</b> In the sense of <i>can</i>, <i>may</i>, in a negative clause, +has become obsolete. "Though we <i>may</i> say a horse, we +<i>may</i> not say a ox." The first <i>may</i> here is permissible; not +so, however, the second, which should be <i>can</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Meat.</b> At table, we ask for and offer beef, mutton, +veal, steak, turkey, duck, etc., and do not ask for nor offer +<i>meat</i>, which, to say the least, is inelegant. "Will you have +[not, take] another piece of <i>beef</i> [not, of <i>the</i> beef]?" not, +"Will you have another piece of <i>meat</i>?"<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Memorandum.</b> The plural is <i>memoranda</i>, except when +the singular means a book; then the plural is <i>memorandums</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Mere.</b> This word is not unfrequently misplaced, and +sometimes, as in the following sentence, in consequence of +being misplaced, it is changed to an adverb: "It is true of +men as of God, that words <i>merely</i> meet with no response." +What the writer evidently intended to say is, that <i>mere</i> +words meet with no response.</p> + +<p><b>Metaphor.</b> An <i>implied</i> comparison is called a metaphor; +it is a more terse form of expression than the simile. +Take, for example, this sentence from Spenser's "Philosophy +of Style": "As, in passing through the crystal, beams +of white light are decomposed into the colors of the rainbow; +so, in traversing the soul of the poet, the colorless +rays of truth are transformed into brightly-tinted poetry." +Expressed in metaphors, this becomes: "The white light +of truth, in traversing the many-sided, transparent soul of +the poet, is refracted into iris-hued poetry."</p> + +<p>Worcester's definition of a <i>metaphor</i> is: "A figure of +speech founded on the resemblance which one object is +supposed to bear, in some respect, to another, or a figure +by which a word is transferred from a subject to which it +properly belongs to another, in such a manner that a <i>comparison +is implied, though not formally expressed</i>; a comparison +or simile comprised in a word; as, 'Thy word is a +<i>lamp</i> to my feet.'" A <i>metaphor</i> differs from a <i>simile</i> in being +expressed without any sign of comparison; thus, "the +<i>silver</i> moon" is a <i>metaphor</i>; "the moon is bright as silver" +is a simile. Examples:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"But look, the morn, in russet mantle clad,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastern hill."<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased—<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow?"<br /></span><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i7">"At length Erasmus<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Stemmed the wild torrent of a barbarous age,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">And drove those holy Vandals off the stage."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"Censure is the tax a man pays to the public for being +eminent."</p> + +<p><b>Metonymy.</b> The rhetorical figure that puts the effect +for the cause, the cause for the effect, the container for the +thing contained, the sign, or symbol, for the thing signified, +or the instrument for the agent, is called <i>metonymy</i>.</p> + +<p>"One very common species of <i>metonymy</i> is, when the +badge is put for the office. Thus we say the <i>miter</i> for the +priesthood; the <i>crown</i> for royalty; for military occupation +we say the <i>sword</i>; and for the literary professions, those +especially of theology, law, and physic, the common expression +is the <i>gown</i>."—Campbell.</p> + +<p>Dr. Quackenbos, in his "Course of Composition and +Rhetoric," says: "<i>Metonymy</i> is the exchange of names between +things related. It is founded, not on resemblance, +but on the relation of, 1. Cause and effect; as,'They have +<i>Moses</i> and <i>the prophets</i>,' i. e., their writings; '<i>Gray hairs</i> +should be respected,' i. e., <i>old age</i>. 2. Progenitor and posterity; +as, 'Hear, O Israel!' i. e., <i>descendants of Israel</i>. +3. Subject and attribute; as, '<i>Youth</i> and <i>beauty</i> shall be +laid in dust,' i. e., <i>the young</i> and <i>beautiful</i>. 4. Place and +inhabitant; as, 'What <i>land</i> is so barbarous as to allow this +injustice?' i. e., what <i>people</i>. 5. Container and thing contained; +as, 'Our <i>ships</i> next opened fire,' i. e., our <i>sailors</i>. +6. Sign and thing signified; as, 'The <i>scepter</i> shall not depart +from Judah,' i. e., <i>kingly</i> power. 7. Material and +thing made of it; as, 'His <i>steel</i> gleamed on high,' i. e., his +<i>sword</i>."</p> + +<p>"Petitions having proved unsuccessful, it was determined +to approach the throne more boldly."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Midst, The.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#In_our_midst">In our midst</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Mind—Capricious.</b> "Lord Salisbury's <i>mind</i> is <i>capricious</i>."—"Tribune," +April 3, 1881. See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Equanimity_of_mind">Equanimity of +Mind</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Misplaced Clauses.</b> In writing and speaking, it is as +important to give each clause its proper place as it is to +place the words properly. The following are a few instances +of misplaced clauses and adjuncts: "All these circumstances +brought close to us a state of things which we +never thought to have witnessed [<i>to witness</i>] in peaceful +England. <i>In the sister island, indeed, we had read of such +horrors</i>, but now they were brought home to our very +household hearth."—Swift. Better: "We had read, indeed, +of such horrors occurring in the sister island," etc.</p> + +<p>"The savage people in many places in America, except +the government of families, have no government at all, and +live at this day in that savage manner as I have said +before."—Hobbes. Better: "The savage people ... in +America have no government at all, except the government +of families," etc.</p> + +<p>"I shall have a comedy for you, in a season or two at +farthest, that I believe will be worth your acceptance."—Goldsmith. +Bettered: "In a season or two at farthest, I +shall have a comedy for you that I believe will be worth +your acceptance."</p> + +<p>Among the following examples of the wrong placing of +words and clauses, there are some that are as amusing as +they are instructive: "This orthography is regarded as normal +<i>in England</i>." What the writer intended was, "in England +<i>as normal</i>"—a very different thought. "The Normal +School is a commodious building capable of accommodating +three hundred students four stories high." "<span class="smcap">Housekeeper.</span>—A +highly respectable middle-aged Person who has been<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span> +filling the above Situation with a gentleman for upwards of +eleven years and who is now deceased is anxious to meet a +similar one." "<span class="smcap">To Piano-Forte Makers.</span>—A lady keeping +a first-class school requiring a good piano, is desirous of +receiving a daughter of the above in exchange for the same." +"The Moor, seizing a bolster boiling over with rage and +jealousy, smothers her." "The Dying Zouave the most +wonderful mechanical representation ever seen of the last +breath of life being shot in the breast and life's blood leaving +the wound." "Mr. T—— presents his compliments to +Mr. H——, and I have got a hat that is not his, and, if he +have a hat that is not yours, no doubt they are the expectant +ones." See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Only">Only</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Misplaced Words.</b> "Of all the faults to be found +in writing," says Cobbett, "this is one of the most common, +and perhaps it leads to the greatest number of misconceptions. +All the words may be the proper words to +be used upon the occasion, and yet, by a <i>misplacing</i> of a +part of them, the meaning may be wholly destroyed; and +even made to be the contrary of what it ought to be."</p> + +<p>"I asked the question with no other intention than to +set the gentleman free from the necessity of silence, and to +give him an opportunity of mingling on equal terms with a +polite assembly from which, <i>however uneasy</i>, he could not +then <i>escape</i>, <i>by a kind introduction</i> of the only subject on +which I believed him to be able to speak with propriety."—Dr. +Johnson.</p> + +<p>"This," says Cobbett, "is a very bad sentence altogether. +'<i>However uneasy</i>' applies to <i>assembly</i> and not to +<i>gentleman</i>. Only observe how easily this might have been +avoided. 'From which <i>he</i>, <i>however uneasy</i>, could not then +escape.' After this we have, '<i>he</i> could not then <i>escape</i>, <i>by +a kind introduction</i>.' We know what is <i>meant</i>; but the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span> +Doctor, with all his <i>commas</i>, leaves the sentence confused. +Let us see whether we can not make it clear. 'I asked the +question with no other intention than, by a kind introduction +of the only subject on which I believed him to be able +to speak with propriety, to set the gentleman free from the +necessity of silence, and to give him an opportunity of +mingling on equal terms with a polite assembly from which +he, however uneasy, could not then escape.'"</p> + +<p>"Reason is the glory of human nature, and one of the +chief eminences whereby we are raised above our fellow-creatures, +the brutes, <i>in this lower world</i>."—Doctor Watts' +"Logic."</p> + +<p>"I have before showed an error," Cobbett remarks, "in +the <i>first</i> sentence of Doctor Watts' work. This is the +<i>second</i> sentence. The words <i>in this lower world</i> are not +words <i>misplaced</i> only; they are wholly <i>unnecessary</i>, and +they do great harm; for they do these two things: first, +they imply <i>that there are brutes in the higher world</i>; and, +second, they excite a doubt <i>whether we are raised above +those brutes</i>.</p> + +<p>"I might greatly extend the number of my extracts from +these authors; but here, I trust, are enough. I had noted +down about <i>two hundred errors</i> in Dr. Johnson's 'Lives of +the Poets'; but, afterward perceiving that he had revised +and corrected 'The Rambler' with <i>extraordinary care</i>, I +chose to make my extracts from that work rather than from +the 'Lives of the Poets.'"</p> + +<p>The position of the adverb should be as near as possible +to the word it qualifies. Sometimes we place it before the +auxiliary and sometimes after it, according to the thought +we wish to express. The difference between "The fish +should <i>properly</i> be broiled" and "The fish should be <i>properly</i> +broiled" is apparent at a glance. "The colon may be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span> +<i>properly</i> used in the following cases": should be, "may +<i>properly</i> be used." "This mode of expression <i>rather suits</i> +a familiar than a grave style": should be, "suits a familiar +<i>rather than</i> a grave style." "It is a frequent error <i>in the +writings even</i> of some good authors": should be, "in the +writings of <i>even some good</i> authors." "<i>Both</i> the circumstances +of contingency and futurity are necessary": should +be, "The circumstances of contingency and futurity are <i>both</i> +necessary." "He has made charges ... which he has +failed <i>utterly</i> to sustain."—"New York Tribune." Here +it is uncertain at first sight which verb the adverb is intended +to qualify; but the nature of the case makes it +probable that the writer meant "has utterly failed to sustain."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Mistaken" id="Mistaken"></a>Mistaken.</b> "If I am not <i>mistaken</i>, you are in the +wrong": say, "If I <i>mistake not</i>." "I tell you, you are +<i>mistaken</i>." Here <i>mistaken</i> means, "You are wrong; you +do not understand"; but it might be taken to mean, "I +<i>mistake you</i>." For "you are <i>mistaken</i>," say, "you <i>mistake</i>." +If, as Horace and Professor Davidson aver, usage +in language makes right, then the grammarians ought long +ago to have invented some theory upon which the locution +<i>you are mistaken</i> could be defended. Until they do invent +such a theory, it will be better to say <i>you mistake</i>, <i>he mistakes</i>, +and so on; or <i>you are</i>, or <i>he is</i>—as the case may be—<i>in +error</i>.</p> + +<p><b>More perfect.</b> Such expressions as, "the <i>more</i> perfect +of the two," "the <i>most</i> perfect thing of the kind I have +ever seen," "the <i>most</i> complete cooking-stove ever invented," +and the like, can not be defended logically, as nothing +can be more perfect than perfection, or more complete +than completeness. Still such phrases are, and probably +will continue to be, used by good writers.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Most.</b> "Everybody abuses this word," says Mr. Gould +in his "Good English"; and then, in another paragraph, he +adds: "If a man would cross out <i>most</i> wherever he can +find it in any book in the English language, he would in +<i>al</i>most every instance improve the style of the book." +That this statement may appear within bounds, he gives +many examples from good authors, some of which are the +following: "a <i>most</i> profound silence"; "a <i>most</i> just idea"; +"a <i>most</i> complete orator"; "this was <i>most</i> extraordinary"; +"an object of <i>most</i> perfect esteem"; "a <i>most</i> extensive +erudition"; "he gave it <i>most</i> liberally away"; "it is, <i>most</i> +assuredly, not because I value his services least"; "would +<i>most</i> seriously affect us"; "that such a system must <i>most</i> +widely and <i>most</i> powerfully," etc.; "it is <i>most</i> effectually +nailed to the counter"; "it is <i>most</i> undeniable that," etc.</p> + +<p>This word is much, and very erroneously, used for <i>almost</i>. +"He comes here <i>most</i> every day." The user of +such a sentence as this means to say that he comes <i>nearly</i> +every day, but he <i>really says</i>, if he says anything, that he +comes more every day than he does every night. In such +sentences <i>almost</i>, and not <i>most</i>, is the word to use.</p> + +<p><b>Mutual.</b> This word is much misused in the phrase +"our <i>mutual</i> friend." Macaulay says: "<i>Mutual</i> friend is +a low vulgarism for <i>common</i> friend." <i>Mutual</i> properly relates +to two persons, and implies reciprocity of sentiment—sentiment, +be it what it may, received and returned. Thus, +we say properly, "John and James have a <i>mutual</i> affection, +or a <i>mutual</i> aversion," i. e., they like or dislike each +other; or, "John and James are <i>mutually</i> dependent," i. e., +they are dependent on each other. In using the word <i>mutual</i>, +care should be taken not to add the words <i>for each +other</i> or <i>on each other</i>, the thought conveyed by these words +being already expressed in the word <i>mutual</i>. "Dependent<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span> +on each other" is the exact equivalent of "mutually dependent"; +hence, saying that John and James are <i>mutually</i> +dependent <i>on each other</i> is as redundant in form as it would +be to say that the editors of "The Great Vilifier" are the +biggest, greatest mud-slingers in America.</p> + +<p><b>Myself.</b> This form of the personal pronoun is properly +used in the nominative case only where <i>increased emphasis</i> +is aimed at.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"I had as lief not be as live to be<br /></span> +<span class="i0">In awe of such a thing as I <i>myself</i>."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"I will do it <i>myself</i>," "I saw it <i>myself</i>." It is, therefore, +incorrect to say, "Mrs. Brown and myself were both very +much pleased."</p> + +<p><b>Name.</b> This word is sometimes improperly used for +<i>mention</i>; thus, "I never <i>named</i> the matter to any one": +should be, "I never <i>mentioned</i> the matter to any one."</p> + +<p><b>Neighborhood.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Vicinity">Vicinity</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Neither.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Either">Either</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Neither—Nor.</b> "He would <i>neither</i> give wine, <i>nor</i> oil, +<i>nor</i> money."—Thackeray. The conjunction should be +placed before the excluded object; "neither <i>give</i>" implies +neither some other <i>verb</i>, a meaning not intended. Rearrange +thus, taking all the common parts of the contracted +sentences together: "He would give <i>neither</i> wine, <i>nor</i> oil, +<i>nor</i> money." So, "She can <i>neither</i> help her beauty, <i>nor</i> +her courage, <i>nor</i> her cruelty" (Thackeray), should be, "She +can help <i>neither</i>," etc. "He had <i>neither</i> time to intercept +<i>nor</i> to stop her" (Scott), should be, "He had time <i>neither</i> +to intercept," etc. "Some <i>neither</i> can for wits <i>nor</i> critics +pass" (Pope), should be, "Some can <i>neither</i> for wits <i>nor</i> +critics pass."</p> + +<p><b>Never.</b> Grammarians differ with regard to the correctness +of using <i>never</i> in such sentences as, "He is in error,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span> +though <i>never</i> so wise," "Charm he <i>never</i> so wisely." In +sentences like these, to say the least, it is better, in common +with the great majority of writers, to use <i>ever</i>.</p> + +<p><b>New.</b> This adjective is often misplaced. "He has a +<i>new</i> suit of clothes and a <i>new</i> pair of gloves." It is not +the <i>suit</i> and the <i>pair</i> that are new, but the <i>clothes</i> and the +<i>gloves</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Nice.</b> Archdeacon Hare remarks of the use, or rather +misuse, of this word: "That stupid vulgarism by which we +use the word <i>nice</i> to denote almost every mode of approbation, +for almost every variety of quality, and, from sheer +poverty of thought, or fear of saying anything definite, +wrap up everything indiscriminately in this characterless +domino, speaking at the same breath of a <i>nice</i> cheese-cake, +a <i>nice</i> tragedy, a <i>nice</i> sermon, a <i>nice</i> day, a <i>nice</i> country, +as if a universal deluge of <i>niaiserie</i>—for <i>nice</i> seems originally +to have been only <i>niais</i>—had whelmed the whole island." +Nice is as good a word as any other in its place, +but its place is not everywhere. We talk very properly +about a <i>nice</i> distinction, a <i>nice</i> discrimination, a <i>nice</i> calculation, +a <i>nice</i> point, and about a person's being <i>nice</i>, and +over-<i>nice</i>, and the like; but we certainly ought not to talk +about "Othello's" being a <i>nice</i> tragedy, about Salvini's being +a <i>nice</i> actor, or New York bay's being a <i>nice</i> harbor.<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a></p> + +<p><b>Nicely.</b> The very quintessence of popinjay vulgarity is +reached when <i>nicely</i> is made to do service for <i>well</i>, in this +wise: "How do you do?" "<i>Nicely</i>." "How are you?" +"<i>Nicely</i>."</p> + +<p><b>No.</b> This word of negation is responded to by <i>nor</i> in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span> +sentences like this: "Let your meaning be obscure, and +<i>no</i> grace of diction <i>nor</i> any music of well-turned sentences +will make amends."</p> + +<p>"Whether he is there or <i>no</i>." Supply the ellipsis, and +we have, "Whether he is there or <i>no</i> there." Clearly, +the word to use in sentences like this is not <i>no</i>, but <i>not</i>. +And yet our best writers sometimes inadvertently use <i>no</i> +with <i>whether</i>. Example: "But perhaps some people are +quite indifferent <i>whether</i> or <i>no</i> it is said," etc.—Richard +Grant White, in "Words and Their Uses," p. 84. Supply +the ellipsis, and we have, "said or <i>no</i> said." In a little +book entitled "Live and Learn," I find, "No <i>less</i> than +fifty persons were there; No <i>fewer</i>," etc. In correcting +one mistake, the writer himself makes one. It should be, +"<i>Not</i> fewer," etc. If we ask, "There were fifty persons +there, were there or were there <i>not</i>?" the reply clearly +would be, "There were <i>not</i> fewer than fifty." "There +was <i>no</i> one of them who would not have been proud," etc., +should be, "There was <i>not</i> one of them."</p> + +<p><b>Not.</b> The correlative of <i>not</i>, when it stands in the first +member of a sentence, is <i>nor</i> or <i>neither</i>. "<i>Not</i> for thy +ivory <i>nor</i> thy gold will I unbind thy chain." "I will <i>not</i> +do it, <i>neither</i> shall you."</p> + +<p>The wrong placing of <i>not</i> often gives rise to an imperfect +negation; thus, "John and James were <i>not</i> there," +means that John and James were not there <i>in company</i>. It +does not exclude the presence of one of them. The negative +should precede in this case: "Neither John <i>nor</i> James +was there." "Our company was <i>not</i> present" (as a company, +but some of us might have been), should be, "No +member of our company was present."</p> + +<p><b>Not—but only.</b> "Errors frequently arise in the use +of <i>not</i>—but <i>only</i>, to understand which we must attend to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span> +the force of the whole expression. 'He did <i>not</i> pretend to +extirpate French music, <i>but only</i> to cultivate and civilize it.' +Here the <i>not</i> is obviously misplaced. 'He pretended, or +professed, <i>not</i> to extirpate.'"—Bain.</p> + +<p><b>Notorious.</b> Though this word can not be properly +used in any but a bad sense, we sometimes see it used +instead of <i>noted</i>, which may be used in either a good or a +bad sense. <i>Notorious</i> characters are always persons to be +shunned, whereas <i>noted</i> characters may or may not be persons +to be shunned.</p> + +<p>"This is the tax a man must pay for his virtues—they +hold up a torch to his vices and render those frailties <i>notorious</i> +in him which would pass without observation in another."—Lacon.</p> + +<p><b>Novice.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Amateur">Amateur</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Number.</b> It is not an uncommon thing for a pronoun +in the plural number to be used in connection with an +antecedent in the singular. At present, the following notice +may be seen in some of our Broadway omnibuses: "Fifty +dollars reward for the conviction of any person caught collecting +or keeping fares given to <i>them</i> to deposit in the +box." Should be, to <i>him</i>. "A person may be very near-sighted +if <i>they</i> can not recognize an acquaintance ten feet +off." Should be, if <i>he</i>.</p> + +<p>The verb <i>to be</i> is often used in the singular instead of +in the plural; thus, "There <i>is</i> several reasons why it would +be better": say, <i>are</i>. "How many <i>is</i> there?" say, <i>are</i>. +"There <i>is</i> four": say, <i>are</i>. "<i>Was</i> there many?" say, <i>were</i>. +"No matter how many there <i>was</i>": say, <i>were</i>.</p> + +<p>A verb should agree in number with its subject, and not +with its predicate. We say, for example, "Death <i>is</i> the +wages of sin," and "The wages of sin <i>are</i> death."</p> + +<p>"When singular nouns connected by <i>and</i> are preceded<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span> +by <i>each</i>, <i>every</i>, or <i>no</i>, the verb must be singular." We say, +for example, "<i>Each</i> boy and <i>each</i> girl <i>studies</i>." "<i>Every</i> leaf, +and <i>every</i> twig, and <i>every</i> drop of water <i>teems</i> with life." +"<i>No</i> book and <i>no</i> paper <i>was</i> arranged."</p> + +<p><i>Each</i> being singular, a pronoun or verb to agree with +it must also be singular; thus, "Let them depend each on +<i>his</i> own exertions"; "Each city has <i>its</i> peculiar privileges"; +"Everybody has a right to look after <i>his</i> own interest."</p> + +<p>Errors are often the result of not repeating the verb; +thus, "Its significance is as varied as the passions": correctly, +"as <i>are</i> the passions." "The words are as incapable +of analysis as the thing signified": correctly, "as <i>is</i> +the thing signified."</p> + +<p><b>Observe.</b> The dictionaries authorize the use of this +word as a synonym of <i>say</i> and <i>remark</i>; as, for example, +"What did you <i>observe</i>?" for "What did you <i>say</i>, or <i>remark</i>?" +In this sense, however, it is better to leave <i>observe</i> +to the exclusive use of those who delight in being +fine.</p> + +<p><b>O'clock.</b> "It is a quarter <i>to</i> ten o'clock." What does +this statement mean, literally? We <i>understand</i> by it that +it lacks a quarter of ten, i. e., of being ten; but it does not +really mean that. Inasmuch as <i>to</i> means toward, it <i>really</i> +means a quarter after nine. We should say, then, a quarter +<i>of</i>, which means, literally, a quarter <i>out of</i> ten.</p> + +<p><b>Of all others.</b> "The vice of covetousness, <i>of all others</i>, +enters deepest into the soul." This sentence says that +covetousness is one of the <i>other</i> vices. A thing can not be +<i>another</i> thing, nor can it be one of a number of <i>other</i> things. +The sentence should be, "Of all the vices, covetousness enters +deepest into the soul"; or, "The vice of covetousness, +of all the vices, enters," etc.; or, "The vice of covetousness, +<i>above</i> all others, enters," etc.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Of any.</b> This phrase is often used when <i>of all</i> is +meant; thus, "This is the largest <i>of any</i> I have seen." +Should be, "the largest <i>of all</i>," etc.</p> + +<p><b>Off of.</b> In such sentences as, "Give me a yard <i>off of</i> +this piece of calico," either the <i>off</i> or the <i>of</i> is vulgarly superfluous. +The sentence would be correct with either one, +but not with both of them. "The apples fell <i>off of</i> the +tree": read, "fell <i>off</i> the tree."</p> + +<p><b>Often.</b> This adverb is properly compared by changing +its termination: often, oftener, oftenest. Why some writers +use <i>more</i> and <i>most</i> to compare it, it is not easy to see; this +mode of comparing it is certainly not euphonious.</p> + +<p><b>Oh—O.</b> It is only the most careful writers who use +these two interjections with proper discrimination. The +distinction between them is said to be modern. <i>Oh</i> is +simply an exclamation, and should always be followed by +some mark of punctuation, usually by an exclamation point. +"Oh! you are come at last." "Oh, help him, you sweet +heavens!" "Oh, woe is me!" "Oh! I die, Horatio." +<i>O</i>, in addition to being an exclamation, denotes a calling to +or adjuration; thus, "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O +earth!" "O grave, where is thy victory?" "O heavenly +powers, restore him!" "O shame! where is thy blush?"</p> + +<p><b><a name="Older" id="Older"></a>Older—Elder.</b> "He is the <i>older</i> man of the two, and +the <i>oldest</i> in the neighborhood." "He is the <i>elder</i> of the +two sons, and the <i>eldest</i> of the family." "The <i>elder</i> son is +heir to the estate; he is <i>older</i> than his brother by ten years."</p> + +<p><b>On to.</b> We get <i>on</i> a chair, <i>on</i> an omnibus, <i>on</i> a stump, +and <i>on</i> a spree, and not on <i>to</i>.</p> + +<p><b>One.</b> Certain pronouns of demonstrative signification +are called indefinite because they refer to no particular +subject. This is one of them. If we were putting a supposition +by way of argument or illustration, we might say,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span> +"Suppose <i>I</i> were to lose my way in a wood"; or, "Suppose +<i>you</i> were to lose your way in a wood"; or, "Suppose <i>one</i> +were to lose <i>one's</i> way in a wood." All these forms are +used, but, as a rule, the last is to be preferred. The first +verges on egotism, and the second makes free with another's +person, whereas the third is indifferent. "If <i>one's</i> honesty +were impeached, what should <i>one</i> do?" is more courtly than +to take either one's self or the person addressed for the +example.</p> + +<p><i>One</i> should be followed by <i>one</i>, and not by <i>he</i>. "The +better acquainted <i>one</i> is with any kind of rhetorical trick, +the less liable <i>he</i> is to be misled by it." Should be, "the +less liable <i>one</i> is to be misled by it."</p> + +<p>In the phrase, "any of the little <i>ones</i>," <i>one</i> is the numeral +employed in the manner of a pronoun, by indicating something +that has gone before, or, perhaps, has to come after. +"I like peaches, but I must have a ripe <i>one</i>, or ripe <i>ones</i>."</p> + +<p>Professor Bain says, in his "Composition Grammar":</p> + +<p>"This pronoun continually lands writers in difficulties. +English idiom requires that, when the pronoun has to be +again referred to, it should be used itself a second time. +The correct usage is shown by Pope: '<i>One</i> may be ashamed +to consume half <i>one's</i> days in bringing sense and rhyme together.' +It would be against idiom to say 'half <i>his</i> days.'</p> + +<p>"Still, the repetition of the pronoun is often felt to be +heavy, and writers have recourse to various substitutions. +Even an ear accustomed to the idiom can scarcely accept +with unmixed pleasure this instance from Browning:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i8">"'Alack! <i>one</i> lies <i>oneself</i><br /></span> +<span class="i0">Even in the stating that <i>one's</i> end was truth,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Truth only, if <i>one</i> states so much in words.'<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"The representative 'I' or 'we' occasionally acts the +part of 'one.' The following sentence presents a curious<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span> +alternation of 'we' with 'one'—possibly not accidental +(George Eliot): 'It's a desperately vexatious thing that, +after all <i>one's</i> reflections and quiet determinations, <i>we</i> should +be ruled by moods that <i>one</i> can't calculate on beforehand.' +By the use of 'we' here, a more pointed reference is suggested, +while the vagueness actually remains.</p> + +<p>"Fenimore Cooper, like Scott, is not very particular; an +example may be quoted: 'Modesty is a poor man's wealth; +but, as <i>we</i> grow substantial in the world, patroon, <i>one</i> can +afford to begin to speak truth of <i>himself</i> as well as of <i>his</i> +neighbor.' Were Cooper a careful writer, we might persuade +ourselves that he chose 'we' and 'one' with a purpose: +'we' might indicate that the speaker had himself +and the patroon directly in his eye, although at the same +time he wanted to put it generally; and 'one' might hint +that modesty succeeded in getting the better of him. But +'himself' and 'his' would alone show that such speculations +are too refined for the occasion.</p> + +<p>"The form 'a man,' which was at one time common, +seems to be reviving. In 'Adam Bede' we have, '<i>A man</i> +can never do anything at variance with his own nature.' +We might substitute 'one.'</p> + +<p>"'Men' was more frequent in good writing formerly +than now. 'Neither do <i>men</i> light a candle, and put it +under a bushel.' 'Do <i>men</i> gather grapes of thorns?' +Hume is fond of expressing a general subject by 'men.'</p> + +<p>"'Small birds are much more exposed to the cold than +large <i>ones</i>.' This usage is hardly 'indefinite'; and it +needs no further exemplification."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Only" id="Only"></a>Only.</b> This word, when used as an adjective, is more +frequently misplaced than any other word in the language. +Indeed, I am confident that it is not correctly placed half +the time, either in conversation or in writing. Thus, "In<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span> +its pages, papers of sterling merit [only] will <i>only</i> appear" +(Miss Braddon); "Things are getting dull down in Texas; +they <i>only</i> shot [only] three men down there last week"; +"I have <i>only</i> got [only] three." <i>Only</i> is sometimes improperly +used for <i>except</i> or <i>unless</i>; thus, "The trains will +not stop <i>only</i> when the bell rings." The meaning here is +clearly "<i>except</i> when the bell rings."</p> + +<p>Dr. Bain, in his "Higher English Grammar," speaking +of the order of words, says:</p> + +<p>"The word requiring most attention is <i>only</i>.</p> + +<p>"According to the position of <i>only</i>, the same words may +be made to express very different meanings.</p> + +<p>"'He <i>only</i> lived for their sakes.' Here <i>only</i> must be +held as qualifying '<i>lived</i> for their sakes,' the emphasis being +on <i>lived</i>, the word immediately adjoining. The meaning +then is 'he <i>lived</i>,' but did not <i>work</i>, did not <i>die</i>, did not do +any other thing for their sakes.</p> + +<p>"'He lived <i>only</i> for their sakes.' <i>Only</i> now qualifies +'for their sakes,' and the sentence means he lived for this +one reason, namely, for their sakes, and not for any other +reason.</p> + +<p>"'He lived for their sakes <i>only</i>.' The force of the word +when placed at the end is peculiar. Then it often has a +diminutive or disparaging signification. 'He lived for their +sakes,' and not for any more worthy reason. 'He gave +sixpence <i>only</i>,' is an insinuation that more was expected.</p> + +<p>"By the use of <i>alone</i>, instead of <i>only</i>, other meanings +are expressed. 'He <i>alone</i> lived for their sakes'; that is, +<i>he, and nobody else</i>, did so. 'He lived for their sakes <i>alone</i>,' +or, 'for the sake of them <i>alone</i>'; that is, not for the sake +of any other persons. 'It was <i>alone</i> by the help of the Confederates +that any such design could be carried out.' Better +<i>only</i>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span></p> + +<p>"'When men grow virtuous in their old age, they <i>only</i> +make a sacrifice to God of the devil's leavings.'—Pope. +Here <i>only</i> is rightly placed. 'Think <i>only</i> of the past as its +remembrance gives you pleasure,' should be, 'think of the +past, <i>only</i> as its remembrance,' etc. 'As he did not leave +his name, it was <i>only</i> known that a gentleman had called +on business': it was known <i>only</i>. 'I can <i>only</i> refute the +accusation by laying before you the whole': this would +mean, 'the only thing I am able to do is to refute; I may +not retaliate, or let it drop, I must <i>refute</i> it.' 'The negroes +are to appear at church <i>only</i> in boots'; that is, when the +negroes go to church they are to have no clothing but boots. +'The negroes are to appear <i>only</i> at church in boots' might +mean that they are not to appear anywhere but at church, +whether in boots or out of them. The proper arrangement +would be to connect the adverbial adjunct, <i>in boots</i>, with +its verb, <i>appear</i>, and to make <i>only</i> qualify <i>at church</i> and +no more: 'the negroes are to appear in boots <i>only</i> at +church.'"</p> + +<p>It thus appears very plain that we should look well to +our <i>onlys</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Ought" id="Ought"></a>Ought—Should.</b> These two words, though they both +imply obligation, should not be used indiscriminately. <i>Ought</i> +is the stronger term; what we <i>ought</i> to do, we are morally +bound to do. We <i>ought</i> to be truthful and honest, and +<i>should</i> be respectful to our elders and kind to our inferiors.</p> + +<p><b>Overflown.</b> <i>Flown</i> is the past participle of <i>to fly</i>, and +<i>flowed</i> of <i>to flow</i>. As, therefore, a river does not <i>fly</i> over +its banks, but <i>flows</i> over them, we should say of it that it +has over<i>flowed</i>, and not that it has over<i>flown</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Overly.</b> This word is now used only by the unschooled.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Owing.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Due">Due</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Pants.</b> This abbreviation is not used by those who are +careful in the choice of words. The purist does not use +the word <i>pantaloons</i> even, but <i>trousers</i>. <i>Pants</i> are worn +by <i>gents</i> who eat <i>lunches</i> and <i>open</i> wine, and <i>trousers</i> are +worn by <i>gentlemen</i> who eat <i>luncheons</i> and <i>order</i> wine.</p> + +<p><b>Paraphernalia.</b> This is a law term. In Roman law, +it meant the goods which a woman brought to her husband +besides her dowry. In English law, it means the goods +which a woman is allowed to have after the death of her +husband, besides her dower, consisting of her apparel and +ornaments suitable to her rank. When used in speaking +of the affairs of every-day life, it is generally misused.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Parlor" id="Parlor"></a>Parlor.</b> This word, in the sense of <i>drawing-room</i>, according +to Dr. Hall, except in the United States and some +of the English colonies, is obsolete.</p> + +<p><b>Partake.</b> This is a very fine word to use for <i>eat</i>; +just the word for young women who hobble on French +heels.</p> + +<p><b>Partially—Partly.</b> "It is only <i>partially</i> done." This +use of the adverb <i>partially</i> is sanctioned by high authority, +but that does not make it correct. A thing done in part +is <i>partly</i>, not <i>partially</i>, done.</p> + +<p><b>Participles.</b> When the present participle is used substantively, +in sentences like the following, it is preceded +by the definite article and followed by the preposition <i>of</i>. +The omitting of the preposition is a common error. Thus, +"Or, it is <i>the drawing</i> a conclusion which was before either +unknown or dark," should be, "the drawing <i>of</i> a conclusion." +"Prompted by the most extreme vanity, he persisted +in the writing bad verses," should be, "in writing +bad verses," or "in the writing <i>of</i> bad verses." "There +is a misuse of the article <i>a</i> which is very common. It is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span> +the using it before the word <i>most</i>."—Moon. Most writers +would have said "the using <i>of</i> it." Mr. Moon argues for +his construction.</p> + +<p><b>Particles.</b> "Nothing but study of the best writers and +practice in composition will enable us to decide what are +the prepositions and conjunctions that ought to go with +certain verbs. The following examples illustrate some +common blunders:</p> + +<p>"'It was characterized <i>with</i> eloquence': read, 'by.'</p> + +<p>"'A testimonial <i>of</i> the merits of his grammar': read, +'to.'</p> + +<p>"'It was an example of the love <i>to form</i> comparisons': +read, 'of forming.'</p> + +<p>"'Repetition is always to be preferred <i>before</i> obscurity': +read, 'to.'</p> + +<p>"'He made an effort <i>for meeting</i> them': read, 'to +meet.'</p> + +<p>"'They have no <i>other</i> object <i>but</i> to come': read, 'other +object than,' or omit 'other.'</p> + +<p>"Two verbs are not unfrequently followed by a single +preposition, which accords with one only; e. g., 'This +duty <i>is repeated</i> and inculcated <i>upon</i> the reader.' 'Repeat +<i>upon</i>' is nonsense; we must read 'is repeated <i>to</i> and inculcated +upon.'"—Nichol's "English Composition," p. 39. +We often see <i>for</i> used with the substantive <i>sympathy</i>; the +best practice, however, uses <i>with</i>; thus, "Words can not +express the deep sympathy I feel <i>with</i> you."—Queen Victoria.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Party" id="Party"></a>Party.</b> This is a very good word in its place, but it +is very much out of its place when used—as it often is +by the vulgar—where good taste would use the word +<i>person</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Patronize.</b> This word and its derivatives would be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span> +much less used by the American tradesman than they are, +if he were better acquainted with their true meaning. Then +he would solicit his neighbors' <i>custom</i>, not their <i>patronage</i>. +A man can have no <i>patrons</i> without incurring obligations—without +becoming a <i>protégé</i>; while a man may have customers +innumerable, and, instead of placing himself under +obligations to them, he may place them under obligations +to him. Princes are the <i>patrons</i> of those tradesmen whom +they allow to call themselves their purveyors; as, "John +Smith, Haberdasher to H. R. H. the Prince of Wales." +Here the Prince <i>patronizes</i> John Smith.</p> + +<p><b>Pell-mell.</b> This adverb means mixed or mingled together; +as, "Men, horses, chariots, crowded <i>pell-mell</i>." It +can not properly be applied to an individual. To say, for +example, "He rushed pell-mell down the stairs," is as incorrect +as it would be to say, "He rushed down the stairs +<i>mixed together</i>."</p> + +<p><b>Per.</b> This Latin preposition is a good deal used in +English, as, for example, in such phrases as <i>per</i> day, <i>per</i> +man, <i>per</i> pound, <i>per</i> ton, and so on. In all such cases it +is better to use plain English, and say, <i>a</i> day, <i>a</i> man, <i>a</i> +pound, <i>a</i> ton, etc. <i>Per</i> is correct before Latin nouns only; +as, per annum, per diem, per cent., etc.</p> + +<p><b>Perform.</b> "She <i>performs</i> on the piano beautifully." +In how much better taste it is to say simply, "She <i>plays</i> +the piano well," or, more superlatively, "exceedingly well," +or "admirably"! If we talk about <i>performing</i> on musical +instruments, to be consistent, we should call those who +<i>perform</i>, piano-performers, cornet-performers, violin-performers, +and so on.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Perpetually" id="Perpetually"></a>Perpetually.</b> This word is sometimes misused for +<i>continually</i>. Dr. William Mathews, in his "Words, their +Use and Abuse," says: "The Irish are <i>perpetually</i> using<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span> +<i>shall</i> for <i>will</i>." <i>Perpetual</i> means never ceasing, continuing +without intermission, uninterrupted; while <i>continual</i> +means that which is constantly renewed and recurring with +perhaps frequent stops and interruptions. As the Irish +do something <i>besides</i> misuse <i>shall</i>, the Doctor should have +said that they <i>continually</i> use <i>shall</i> for <i>will</i>. I might perhaps +venture to intimate that <i>perpetually</i> is likewise misused +in the following sentence, which I copy from the "London +Queen," if I were not conscious that the monster who can +write and print such a sentence would not hesitate to cable +a thunderbolt at an offender on the slightest provocation. +Judge, if my fears are groundless: "But some few people +contract the ugly habit of making use of these expressions +unconsciously and continuously, <i>perpetually</i> interlarding +their conversation with them."</p> + +<p><b>Person.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Party">Party</a></span>; also, <span class="smcap"><a href="#Individual">Individual</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Personalty.</b> This word does not, as some persons +think, mean the articles worn on one's person. It is properly +a law term, and means <i>personal property</i>. "There is +but one case on record of a peer of England leaving over +$7,500,000 personalty."</p> + +<p><b>Personification.</b> That rhetorical figure which attributes +sex, life, or action to inanimate objects, or ascribes to +objects and brutes the acts and qualities of rational beings, +is called <i>personification</i> or <i>prosopopœia</i>.</p> + +<p>"The mountains <i>sing together</i>, the hills rejoice and <i>clap +their hands</i>." "The worm, <i>aware</i> of his intent, <i>harangued</i> +him thus."</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"See, <i>Winter</i> comes to <i>rule</i> the varied year,<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>Sullen</i> and <i>sad</i> with all his rising train."—Thomson.<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"So saying, her rash hand, in evil hour,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Forth reaching to the fruit, she plucked, she ate!<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>Earth felt the wound; and Nature from her seat,</i><br /></span><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span> +<span class="i0"><i>Sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe,</i><br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>That all was lost.</i>"—Milton.<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"War and Love are strange compeers.<br /></span> +<span class="i0">War sheds blood, and Love sheds tears;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">War has swords, and Love has darts;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">War breaks heads, and Love breaks hearts."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"Levity is often less foolish and gravity less wise than +each of them appears."</p> + +<p>"The English language, by reserving the distinction +of gender for living beings that have sex, gives especial +scope for personification. The highest form of personification +should be used seldom, and only when justified by the +presence of strong feeling."—Bain.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Knowledge and wisdom, far from being one,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Have ofttimes no connection. Knowledge dwells<br /></span> +<span class="i0">In heads replete with thoughts of other men;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Wisdom in minds attentive to their own.<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Wisdom is humble that he knows no more."—Cowper.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p><b>Phenomenon.</b> Plural, <i>phenomena</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Plead.</b> The imperfect tense and the perfect participle +of the verb <i>to plead</i> are both <i>pleaded</i> and not <i>plead</i>. "He +<i>pleaded</i> not guilty." "You should have <i>pleaded</i> your cause +with more fervor."</p> + +<p><b>Plenty.</b> In Worcester's Dictionary we find the following +note: "<i>Plenty</i> is much used colloquially as an adjective, +in the sense of <i>plentiful</i>, both in this country and in +England; and this use is supported by respectable authorities, +though it is condemned by various critics. Johnson +says: 'It is used barbarously, I think, for <i>plentiful</i>'; and +Dr. Campbell, in his 'Philosophy of Rhetoric,' says: '<i>Plenty</i> +for <i>plentiful</i> appears to me so gross a vulgarism that I +should not have thought it worthy of a place here if I had<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span> +not sometimes found it in works of considerable merit.'" +We should say, then, that money is <i>plentiful</i>, and not that +it is <i>plenty</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Pleonasm" id="Pleonasm"></a>Pleonasm.</b> Redundancy or pleonasm is the use of more +words than are necessary to express the thought clearly. +"They returned <i>back again</i> to the <i>same</i> city <i>from</i> whence +they came <i>forth</i>": the five words in italics are <i>redundant</i> +or <i>pleonastic</i>. "The different departments of science and +of art <i>mutually</i> reflect light <i>on each other</i>": either of the +expressions in italics embodies the whole idea. "The <i>universal</i> +opinion of <i>all</i> men" is a pleonastic expression often +heard. "I wrote you <i>a letter</i> yesterday": here <i>a letter</i> is +redundant.</p> + +<p>Redundancy is <i>sometimes</i> permissible for the surer conveyance +of meaning, for emphasis, and in the language of +poetic embellishment.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Polite" id="Polite"></a>Polite.</b> This word is much used by persons of doubtful +culture, where those of the better sort use the word +<i>kind</i>. We accept <i>kind</i>, not <i>polite</i> invitations; and, when +any one has been obliging, we tell him that he has been +<i>kind</i>; and, when an interviewing reporter tells us of his +having met with a <i>polite</i> reception, we may be sure that the +person by whom he has been received deserves well for his +considerate kindness. "I thank you and Mrs. Pope for +my <i>kind</i> reception."—Atterbury.</p> + +<p><b>Portion.</b> This word is often incorrectly used for <i>part</i>. +A <i>portion</i> is properly a part assigned, allotted, set aside for +a special purpose; a share, a division. The verb <i>to portion</i> +means to divide, to parcel, to endow. We ask, therefore, +"In what <i>part</i> [not, in what <i>portion</i>] of the country, +state, county, town, or street do you live?"—or, if we prefer +grandiloquence to correctness, <i>reside</i>. In the sentence, +"A large <i>portion</i> of the land is unfilled," the right word<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span> +would be either <i>part</i> or <i>proportion</i>, according to the intention +of the writer.</p> + +<p><b>Posted.</b> A word very much and very inelegantly used +for <i>informed</i>. Such expressions as, "I will <i>post</i> you," "I +must <i>post</i> myself up," "If I had been better <i>posted</i>," and +the like, are, at the best, but one remove from slang.</p> + +<p><b>Predicate.</b> This word is often very incorrectly used +in the sense of <i>to base</i>; as, "He <i>predicates</i> his opinion on +insufficient data." Then we sometimes hear people talk +about predicating an action upon certain information or +upon somebody's statement. To predicate means primarily +<i>to speak before</i>, and has come to be properly used in the +sense of <i>assumed</i> or believed to be the consequence of. +Examples: "Contentment is <i>predicated</i> of virtue"; "Good +health may be <i>predicated</i> of a good constitution." He who +is not very sure that he uses the word correctly would do +better not to use it at all.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Prejudice" id="Prejudice"></a>Prejudice—Prepossess.</b> Both these words mean, to +incline in one direction or the other for some reason +not founded in justice; but by common consent <i>prejudice</i> +has come to be used in an unfavorable sense, and <i>prepossess</i> +in a favorable one. Thus, we say, "He is <i>prejudiced</i> +against him," and "He is <i>prepossessed</i> in his favor." We +sometimes hear the expression, "He is <i>prejudiced</i> in his +favor," but this can not be accounted a good use of the +word.</p> + +<p><b>Prepositions.</b> The errors made in the use of the prepositions +are very numerous. "The indolent child is one +who [that?] has a strong aversion <i>from</i> action of any sort."—Graham's +"English Synonymes," p. 236. The prevailing +and best modern usage is in favor of <i>to</i> instead of <i>from</i> +after <i>averse</i> and <i>aversion</i>, and before the object. "Clearness +... enables the reader to see thoughts without noticing<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> +the language <i>with</i> which they are clothed."—Townsend's +"Art of Speech." We clothe thoughts <i>in</i> language. +"Shakespeare ... and the Bible are ... models <i>for</i> the +English-speaking tongue."—Ibid. If this means models of +English, then it should be <i>of</i>; but if it means models for +English organs of speech to practice on, then it should be +<i>for</i>; or if it means models to model English tongues after, +then also it should be <i>for</i>. "If the resemblance is too +faint, the mind is fatigued <i>while</i> attempting to trace the +analogies." "Aristotle is in error <i>while</i> thus describing +governments."—Ibid. Here we have two examples, not +of the misuse of the preposition, but of the erroneous use +of the adverb <i>while</i> instead of the preposition <i>in</i>. "For +my part I can not think that Shelley's poetry, except <i>by</i> +snatches and fragments, has the value of the good work of +Wordsworth or Byron."—Matthew Arnold. Should be, +"except <i>in</i> snatches." "Taxes with us are collected nearly +[almost] solely <i>from</i> real and personal estate."—"Appletons' +Journal." Taxes are levied <i>on</i> estates and collected +<i>from</i> the owners.</p> + +<p>"If I am not commended <i>for</i> the beauty of my works, +I may hope to be pardoned for their brevity." Cobbett +comments on this sentence as follows: "We may commend +him <i>for</i> the beauty of his works, and we may <i>pardon</i> +him <i>for</i> their brevity, if we deem the brevity <i>a fault</i>; but +this is not what he means. He means that, at any rate, he +shall have the <i>merit</i> of brevity. 'If I am not commended +for the beauty of my works, I may hope to be pardoned <i>on +account of</i> their brevity.' This is what the Doctor meant; +but this would have marred a little the antithesis: it would +have unsettled a little of the balance of that <i>seesaw</i> in +which Dr. Johnson so much delighted, and which, falling +into the hands of novel-writers and of members of Parliament,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span> +has, by moving unencumbered with any of the Doctor's +reason or sense, lulled so many thousands asleep! +Dr. Johnson created a race of writers and speakers. 'Mr. +Speaker, that the state of the nation is very critical, all men +will allow; but that it is wholly desperate, few will believe.' +When you hear or see a sentence like this, be sure +that the person who speaks or writes it has been reading +Dr. Johnson, or some of his imitators. But, observe, these +imitators go no further than the frame of the sentences. +They, in general, take care not to imitate the Doctor in +knowledge and reasoning."</p> + +<p>The rhetoricians would have us avoid such forms of expression +as, "The boy went <i>to</i> and asked the advice <i>of</i> his +teacher"; "I called <i>on</i> and had a conversation <i>with</i> my +brother."</p> + +<p>Very often the preposition is not repeated in a sentence, +when it should be. We say properly, "He comes from +Ohio or <i>from</i> Indiana"; or, "He comes <i>either</i> from Ohio +or Indiana."</p> + +<p><b>Prepossess.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Prejudice">Prejudice</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Present" id="Present"></a>Present—Introduce.</b> Few errors are more common, +especially among those who are always straining to be fine, +than that of using <i>present</i>, in the social world, instead of +<i>introduce</i>. <i>Present</i> means to place in the presence of a +superior; <i>introduce</i>, to bring to be acquainted. A person is +presented at court, and on an official occasion to our President; +but persons who are unknown to each other are +<i>introduced</i> by a common acquaintance. And in these introductions, +it is the younger who is introduced to the +older; the lower to the higher in place or social position; +the gentleman to the lady. A lady should say, as a rule, +that Mr. Blank was introduced to her, not that she was +introduced to Mr. Blank.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Presumptive.</b> This word is sometimes misused by the +careless for <i>presumptuous</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Preventive.</b> A useless and unwarranted syllable is +sometimes added to this word—<i>preventative</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Previous.</b> This adjective is much used in an adverbial +sense; thus, "<i>Previous</i> to my return," etc. Until <i>previous</i> +is recognized as an adverb, if we would speak grammatically, +we must say, "<i>Previously</i> to my return." "<i>Previously</i> +to my leaving England, I called on his lordship."</p> + +<p><b>Procure.</b> This is a word much used by people who +strive to be fine. "Where did you <i>get</i> it?" with them is, +"Where did you <i>procure</i> it?"</p> + +<p><b>Profanity.</b> The extent to which some men habitually +interlard their talk with oaths is disgusting even to many +who, on occasion, do not themselves hesitate to give expression +to their feelings in oaths portly and unctuous. If +these fellows could be made to know how offensive to +decency they make themselves, they would, perhaps, be +less profane.</p> + +<p><b>Promise.</b> This word is sometimes very improperly +used for <i>assure</i>; thus, "I <i>promise</i> you I was very much +astonished."</p> + +<p><b>Pronouns of the First Person.</b> "The ordinary uses +of 'I' and 'we,' as the singular and plural pronouns of the +first person, would appear to be above all ambiguity, uncertainty, +or dispute. Yet when we consider the force of +the plural 'we,' we are met with a contradiction; for, as +a rule, only one person can speak at the same time to the +same audience. It is only by some exceptional arrangement, +or some latitude or license of expression, that several +persons can be conjoint speakers. For example, a plurality +may sing together in chorus, and may join in the responses +at church, or in the simultaneous repetition of the Lord's<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span> +Prayer or the Creed. Again, one person may be the authorized +spokesman in delivering a judgment or opinion +held by a number of persons in common. Finally, in written +compositions, the 'we' is not unsuitable, because a +plurality of persons may append their names to a document.</p> + +<p>"A speaker using 'we' may speak for himself and one +or more others; commonly he stands forward as the representative +of a class, more or less comprehensive. 'As soon +as my companion and I had entered the field, <i>we</i> saw a +man coming toward <i>us</i>'; '<i>we</i> like <i>our</i> new curate'; 'you +do <i>us</i> poets the greatest injustice'; '<i>we</i> must see to the +efficiency of <i>our</i> forces.' The widest use of the pronoun +will be mentioned presently.</p> + +<p>"'We' is used for 'I' in the decrees of persons in authority; +as when King Lear says:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i2">'Know that <i>we</i> have divided<br /></span> +<span class="i0">In three <i>our</i> kingdom.'<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>By the fiction of plurality a veil of modesty is thrown over +the assumption of vast superiority over human beings generally. +Or, 'we' may be regarded as an official form whereby +the speaker personally is magnified or enabled to rise to +the dignity of the occasion.</p> + +<p>"The editorial 'we' is to be understood on the same +principle. An author using 'we' appears as if he were not +alone, but sharing with other persons the responsibility of +his views.</p> + +<p>"This representative position is at its utmost stretch in +the practice of using 'we' for human beings generally; as +in discoursing on the laws of human nature. The preacher, +the novelist, or the philosopher, in dwelling upon the +peculiarity of our common constitution, being himself an +example of what he is speaking of, associates the rest of +mankind with him, and speaks collectively by means of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span> +'we.' '<i>We</i> are weak and fallible'; '<i>we</i> are of yesterday'; +'<i>we</i> are doomed to dissolution.' 'Here have <i>we</i> no continuing +city, but <i>we</i> seek one to come.'</p> + +<p>"It is not unfrequent to have in one sentence, or in +close proximity, both the editorial and the representative +meaning, the effect being ambiguity and confusion. 'Let +<i>us</i> [the author] now consider why <i>we</i> [humanity generally] +overrate distant good.' In such a case the author should +fall back upon the singular for himself—'<i>I</i> will now consider—.' +'<i>We</i> [speaker] think <i>we</i> [himself and hearers +together] should come to the conclusion.' Say, either '<i>I</i> +think,' or '<i>you</i> would.'</p> + +<p>"The following extract from Butler exemplifies a similar +confusion: 'Suppose <i>we</i> [representative] are capable of +happiness and of misery in degrees equally intense and +extreme, yet <i>we</i> [rep.] are capable of the latter for a much +longer time, beyond all comparison. <i>We</i> [change of subject +to a limited class] see men in the tortures of pain—. +Such is <i>our</i> [back to representative] make that anything +may become the instrument of pain and sorrow to <i>us</i>.' +The 'we' at the commencement of the second sentence—'<i>We</i> +see men in the tortures'—could be advantageously +changed to 'you,' or the passive construction could be +substituted; the remaining <i>we</i>'s would then be consistently +representative.</p> + +<p>"From the greater emphasis of singularity, energetic +speakers and writers sometimes use 'I' as representative of +mankind at large. Thus: 'The current impressions received +through the senses are not voluntary in origin. What +<i>I</i> see in walking is seen because <i>I</i> have an organ of vision.' +The question of general moral obligation is forcibly stated +by Paley in the individual form, 'Why am <i>I</i> obliged to +keep my word?' It is sometimes well to confine the attention<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span> +of the hearer or reader to his own relation to the +matter under consideration, more especially in difficult or +non-popular argument or exposition. The speaker, by +using 'I,' does the action himself, or makes himself the +example, the hearer being expected to put himself in the +same position."—Bain's "Composition Grammar."</p> + +<p><b>Pronouns of the Second Person.</b> "Anomalous usages +have sprung up in connection with these pronouns. The +plural form has almost wholly superseded the singular; a +usage more than five centuries old.<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></p> + +<p>"The motive is courtesy. The singling out of one person +for address is supposed to be a liberty or an excess of +familiarity; and the effect is softened or diluted by the +fiction of taking in others. If our address is uncomplimentary, +the sting is lessened by the plural form; and if the +reverse, the shock to modesty is not so great. This is a +refinement that was unknown to the ancient languages. +The orators of Greece delighted in the strong, pointed, +personal appeal implied in the singular 'thou.' In modern +German, 'thou' (<i>du</i>) is the address of familiarity and intimacy; +while the ordinary pronoun is the curiously indirect +'they' (<i>Sie</i>). On solemn occasions, we may revert +to 'thou.' Cato, in his meditative soliloquy on reading +Plato's views on the immortality of the soul before killing +himself, says: 'Plato, <i>thou</i> reasonest well.' So in the +Commandments, 'thou' addresses to each individual an +unavoidable appeal: '<i>Thou</i> shall not——.' But our ordinary +means of making the personal appeal is, 'you, <i>sir</i>,' +'you, <i>madam</i>,' 'my <i>Lord</i>, you——,' etc.; we reserve 'thou' +for the special case of addressing the Deity. The application +of the motive of courtesy is here reversed; it would be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span> +irreverent to merge this vast personality in a promiscuous +assemblage.</p> + +<p>"'You' is not unfrequently employed, like 'we,' as a +representative pronoun. The action is represented with +great vividness, when the person or persons addressed may +be put forward as the performers: 'There is such an echo +among the old ruins, and vaults, that if <i>you</i> stamp a little +louder than ordinary, <i>you</i> hear the sound repeated'; 'Some +practice is required to see these animals in the thick forest, +even when <i>you</i> hear them close by <i>you</i>.'</p> + +<p>"There should not be a mixture of 'thou' and 'you' +in the same passage. Thus, Thackeray (Adventures of +Philip): 'So, as <i>thy</i> sun rises, friend, over the humble +house-tops round about <i>your</i> home, shall <i>you</i> wake many +and many a day to duty and labor.' So, Cooper (Water-Witch): +'<i>Thou</i> hast both master and mistress? <i>You</i> have +told us of the latter, but we would know something of the +former. Who is <i>thy</i> master?' Shakespeare, Scott, and +others might also be quoted.</p> + +<p>"'Ye' and 'you' were at one time strictly distinguished +as different cases; 'ye' was nominative, 'you' objective +(dative or accusative). But the Elizabethan dramatists confounded +the forms irredeemably; and 'you' has gradually +ousted 'ye' from ordinary use. 'Ye' is restricted to the +expression of strong feeling, and in this employment occurs +chiefly in the poets."—Bain's "Composition Grammar."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Proof" id="Proof"></a>Proof.</b> This word is much and very improperly used +for <i>evidence</i>, which is only the medium of <i>proof</i>, <i>proof</i> being +the effect of <i>evidence</i>. "What <i>evidence</i> have you to offer in +<i>proof</i> of the truth of your statement?" See also <span class="smcap"><a href="#Evidence">Evidence</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Propose" id="Propose"></a>Propose—Purpose.</b> Writers and speakers often fail to +discriminate properly between the respective meanings of +these two verbs. <i>Propose</i>, correctly used, means, to put<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span> +forward or to offer for <i>the consideration of others</i>; hence, <i>a +proposal</i> is a scheme or design offered for acceptance or consideration, +a proposition. <i>Purpose</i> means, to intend, to +design, to resolve; hence, <i>a purpose</i> is an intention, an aim, +that which one sets <i>before one's self</i>. Examples: "What +do you <i>purpose</i> doing in the matter?" "What do you +<i>propose</i> that we shall do in the matter?" "I will do" means +"I <i>purpose</i> doing, or to do." "I <i>purpose</i> to write a history +of England from the accession of King James the Second +down to a time which is within the memory of men still +living."—Macaulay. It will be observed that Macaulay +says, "I purpose <i>to write</i>" and not, "I purpose <i>writing</i>," +using the verb in the infinitive rather than in the participial +form. "On which he <i>purposed</i> to mount one of his little +guns." See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Infinitive_Mood">Infinitive</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Proposition.</b> This word is often used when <i>proposal</i> +would be better, for the reason that <i>proposal</i> has but one +meaning, and is shorter by one syllable. "He demonstrated +the <i>proposition</i> of Euclid, and rejected the <i>proposal</i> +of his friend."</p> + +<p><b>Prosaist.</b> Dr. Hall is of opinion that this is a word +we shall do well to encourage. It is used by good writers.</p> + +<p><b>Proven.</b> This form for the past participle of the verb +<i>to prove</i> is said to be a Scotticism. It is not used by careful +writers and speakers. The correct form is <i>proved</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Providing.</b> The present participle of the verb <i>to provide</i> +is sometimes vulgarly used for the conjunction <i>provided</i>, +as in this sentence from the "London Queen": "Society +may be congratulated, ... <i>providing</i> that," etc.</p> + +<p><b>Provoke.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Aggravate">Aggravate</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Punctuation.</b> The importance of punctuation can not +be overestimated; it not only helps to make plain the meaning +of what one writes, but it may prevent one's being misconstrued.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span> +Though no two writers could be found who +punctuate just alike, still in the main those who pay attention +to the art put in their stops in essentially the same +manner. The difference that punctuation may make in the +meaning of language is well illustrated by the following +anecdote:</p> + +<p>At Ramessa there lived a benevolent and hospitable +prior, who caused these lines to be painted over his door:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Be open evermore,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">O thou my door!<br /></span> +<span class="i0">To none be shut—to honest or to poor!"<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>In time the good prior was succeeded by a man as selfish +as his predecessor was generous. The lines over the door +of the priory were allowed to remain; one stop, however, +was altered, which made them read thus:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Be open evermore,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">O thou my door!<br /></span> +<span class="i0">To none—be shut to honest or to poor!"<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>He punctuates best who makes his punctuation contribute +most to the clear expression of his thought; and +that construction is best that has least need of being punctuated.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">The Comma.</span>—The chief difference in the punctuation +of different writers is usually in their use of the comma, in +regard to which there is a good deal of latitude; much is +left to individual taste. Nowadays the best practice uses +it sparingly. An idea of the extent to which opinions +differ with regard to the use of the comma may be formed +from the following excerpt from a paper prepared for +private use:</p> + +<p>"In the following examples, gathered from various +sources—chiefly from standard books—the superfluous commas +are inclosed in parentheses:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span></p> + +<p>"1. 'It remains(,) perhaps(,) to be said(,) that, if any +lesson at all(,) as to these delicate matters(,) is needed(,) in +this period, it is not so much a lesson,' etc. 2. 'The obedience +is not due to the power of a right authority, but to +the spirit of fear, and(,) therefore(,) is(,) in reality(,) no +obedience at all.' 3. 'The patriot disturbances in Canada +... awakened deep interest among the people of the United +States(,) who lived adjacent to the frontier.' 4. 'Observers(,) +who have recently investigated this point(,) do not all agree,' +etc. 5. 'The wind did(,) in an instant(,) what man and +steam together had failed to do in hours.' 6. 'All the cabin +passengers(,) situated beyond the center of the boat(,) were +saved.' 7. 'No other writer has depicted(,) with so much +art or so much accuracy(,) the habits, the manners,' etc. 8. +'If it shall give satisfaction to those who have(,) in any way(,) +befriended it, the author will feel,' etc. 9. 'Formed(,) or +consisting of(,) clay.' 10. 'The subject [witchcraft] grew +interesting; and(,) to examine Sarah Cloyce and Elizabeth +Proctor, the deputy-governor(,) and five other magistrates(,) +went to Salem.' 11. 'The Lusitanians(,) who had not left +their home(,) rose as a man,' etc. 12. 'Vague reports ... had +preceded him to Washington, and his Mississippi friends(,) +who chanced to be at the capital(,) were not backward to +make their boast of him.' 13. 'Our faith has acquired a +new vigor(,) and a clearer vision.' 14. 'In 1819(,) he removed +to Cambridge.' 15. 'Doré was born at Strasburg(,) +in 1832, and labors,' etc. 16. 'We should never apply dry +compresses, charpie, or wadding(,) to the wound.' 17. '—to +stand idle, to look, act, or think(,) in a leisurely way.' 18. +'—portraits taken from the farmers, schoolmasters, and +peasantry(,) of the neighborhood.' 19. '—gladly welcomed +painters of Flanders, Holland, and Spain(,) to their +shores.'<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span></p> + +<p>"In all these cases, the clauses between or following the +inclosed commas are so closely connected grammatically +with the immediately preceding words or phrases, that they +should be read without a perceptible pause, or with only a +slight one for breath, without change of voice. Some of +the commas would grossly pervert the meaning if strictly +construed. Thus, from No. 3 it would appear that the +people of the United States in general lived adjacent to the +frontier; from No. 4, that all observers have recently investigated +the point in question; from No. 6, that all the +cabin passengers were so situated that they were saved, +whereas it is meant that only a certain small proportion of +them were saved; from No. 10 (Bancroft), that somebody +whose name is accidentally omitted went to Salem 'to examine +Sarah Cloyce and Elizabeth Proctor, the deputy-governor, +and five other magistrates'; from No. 11, that +none of the Lusitanians had left their home, whereas it was +the slaughter by the Romans of a great number of them who +<i>had</i> left their home that caused the rising.</p> + +<p>"Commas are frequently omitted, and in certain positions +very generally, where the sense and correct reading +require a pause. In the following examples, such commas, +omitted in the works from which they were taken, are inclosed +in brackets:</p> + +<p>"1. 'The modes of thought[,] and the types of character +which those modes produce[,] are essentially and universally +transformed.' 2. 'Taken by itself[,] this doctrine +could have no effect whatever; indeed[,] it would amount +to nothing but a verbal proposition.' 3. 'Far below[,] the +little stream of the Oder foamed over the rocks.' 4. 'When +the day returned[,] the professor, the artist[,] and I rowed +to within a hundred yards of the shore.' 5. 'Proceeding +into the interior of India[,] they passed through Belgaum.'<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span> +6. 'If Loring is defeated in the Sixth District[,] it can be +borne.'</p> + +<p>"In No. 3, the reader naturally enunciates 'the little +stream of the Oder' as in the objective case after 'below'; +but there he comes to a predicate which compels him to go +back and read differently. In No. 4, it appears that 'the +day returned the professor,' and then 'the artist and I +rowed,' etc."</p> + +<p>All clauses should generally be isolated by commas; +where, however, the connection is very close or the clause +is very short, no point may be necessary. "But his pride +is greater than his ignorance, and what he wants in knowledge +he supplies by sufficiency." "A man of polite imagination +can converse with a picture, and find an agreeable +companion in a statue." "Though he slay me, yet will I +trust him." "The prince, his father being dead, succeeded." +"To confess the truth, I was much at fault." +"As the heart panteth after the water-brooks, so panteth +my soul after thee." "Where the bee sucks, there suck +I." "His father dying, he succeeded to the estate." +"The little that is known, and the circumstance that little +is known, must be considered as honorable to him."</p> + +<p>The comma is used before and after a phrase when coördinating +and not restrictive. "The jury, having retired +for half an hour, brought in a verdict." "The stranger, +unwilling to obtrude himself on our notice, left in the +morning." "Rome, the city of the Emperors, became the +city of the Popes." "His stories, which made everybody +laugh, were often made to order." "He did not come, +which I greatly regret." "The younger, who was yet a +boy, had nothing striking in his appearance." "They +passed the cup to the stranger, who drank heartily." +"Peace at any price, which these orators seem to advocate,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span> +means war at any cost." "Sailors, who are generally +superstitious, say it is unlucky to embark on Friday."</p> + +<p>Adverbs and short phrases, <i>when they break the connection</i>, +should be between commas. Some of the most +common words and phrases so used are the following: +Also, too, there, indeed, perhaps, surely, moreover, likewise, +however, finally, namely, therefore, apparently, meanwhile, +consequently, unquestionably, accordingly, notwithstanding, +in truth, in fact, in short, in general, in reality, +no doubt, of course, as it were, at all events, to be brief, +to be sure, now and then, on the contrary, in a word, by +chance, in that case, in the mean time, for the most part. +"History, in a word, is replete with moral lessons." "As +an orator, however, he was not great." "There is, remember, +a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue." +"Our civilization, therefore, is not an unmixed +good." "This, I grant you, is not of great importance."</p> + +<p>If, however, the adverb does not break the connection, +but readily coalesces with the rest of the sentence, the +commas are omitted. "Morning will come at last, however +dark the night may be." "We then proceeded on +our way." "Our civilization is therefore not an unmixed +good." "Patience, I say; your mind perhaps may +change."</p> + +<p>Adverbial phrases and clauses beginning a sentence are +set off by commas. "In truth, I could not tell." "To +sum up, the matter is this." "Everything being ready, +they set out." "By looking a little deeper, the reason +will be found." "Finally, let me sum up the argument." +"If the premises were admitted, I should deny the conclusion." +"Where your treasure is, there will your heart be +also."</p> + +<p>Words used in apposition should be isolated by commas.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span> +"Newton, the great mathematician, was very modest." +"And he, their prince, shall rank among my peers." +In such sentences, however, as, "The mathematician Newton +was very modest," and "The Emperor Napoleon was +a great soldier," commas are not used.</p> + +<p>The name or designation of a person addressed is isolated +by commas. "It touches you, my lord, as well as +me." "John, come here." "Mr. President, my object is +peace." "Tell me, boy, where do you live?" "Yes, sir, +I will do as you say." "Mr. Brown, what is your number?"</p> + +<p>Pairs of words.—"Old and young, rich and poor, wise +and foolish, were involved." "Sink or swim, live or die, +survive or perish, I give my hand and heart to this vote." +"Interest and ambition, honor and shame, friendship and +enmity, gratitude and revenge, are the prime movers in +public transactions."</p> + +<p>A restrictive clause is not separated by a comma from +the noun. "Every one must love a boy who [that] is attentive +and docile." "He preaches sublimely who [that] +lives a holy life." "The things which [that] are seen are +temporal." "A king depending on the support of his subjects +can not rashly go to war." "The sailor who [that] is +not superstitious will embark any day."</p> + +<p>The comma is used after adjectives, nouns, and verbs +in sentences like the following:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Shrunk to this little measure?"<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"He fills, he bounds, connects and equals all."<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Who to the enraptured heart, and ear, and eye<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Teach beauty, virtue, truth, and love, and melody."<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a><br /></span> +</div></div> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span></p> +<p>"He rewarded his friends, chastised his foes, set +Justice on her seat, and made his conquest secure."</p> + +<p>The comma is used to separate adjectives in opposition, +but closely connected. "Though deep, yet clear; though +gentle, yet not dull." "Liberal, not lavish, is kind Nature's +hand." "Though black, yet comely; and though +rash, benign."</p> + +<p>After a nominative, where the verb is understood. +"To err is human; to forgive, divine." "A wise man +seeks to shine in himself; a fool, in others." "Conversation +makes a ready man; writing, an exact man; reading, +a full man."</p> + +<p>A long subject is often separated from the predicate by +a comma. "Any one that refuses to earn an honest livelihood, +is not an object of charity." "The circumstance of +his being unprepared to adopt immediate and decisive +measures, was represented to the Government." "That +he had persistently disregarded every warning and persevered +in his reckless course, had not yet undermined +his credit with his dupes." "That the work of forming +and perfecting the character is difficult, is generally allowed."</p> + +<p>In a series of adjectives that precede their noun, a +comma is placed after each except the last; there usage +omits the point. "A beautiful, tall, willowy, sprightly +girl." "A quick, brilliant, studious, learned man."<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p> + +<p>A comma is placed between short members of compound<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span> +sentences, connected by <i>and</i>, <i>but</i>, <i>for</i>, <i>nor</i>, <i>or</i>, <i>because</i>, +<i>whereas</i>, <i>that</i> expressing purpose (so that, in order that), +and other conjunctions. "Be virtuous, that you may be +respected." "Love not sleep, lest you come to poverty." +"Man proposes, but God disposes."</p> + +<p>A comma must not be placed before <i>that</i> except when +it is equivalent to <i>in order that</i>. "He says that he will be +here."</p> + +<p>A comma must not be placed before <i>and</i> when it connects +two words only. "Time and tide wait for no man." +"A rich and prosperous people." "Plain and honest truth +wants no artificial covering."</p> + +<p>A comma is sometimes necessary to prevent ambiguity. +"He who pursues pleasure only defeats the object of his +creation." Without a comma before or after <i>only</i>, the +meaning of this sentence is doubtful.</p> + +<p>The following sentences present some miscellaneous +examples of the use of the comma by writers on punctuation: +"Industry, as well as genius, is essential to the +production of great works." "Prosperity is secured to a +state, not by the acquisition of territory or riches, but by +the encouragement of industry." "Your manners are affable, +and, for the most part, pleasing."<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a></p> + +<p>"However fairly a bad man may appear to act, we +distrust him." "Why, this is rank injustice." "Well, +follow the dictates of your inclination." "The comma +may be omitted in the case of <i>too</i>, <i>also</i>, <i>therefore</i>, and <i>perhaps</i>, +when introduced so as not to interfere with the harmonious +flow of the period; and, particularly, when the +sentence is short."<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> "Robert Horton, M. D., F. R. S." +"To those who labor, sleep is doubly pleasant"; "Sleep<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span> +is doubly pleasant to those who labor." "Those who +persevere, succeed." "To be overlooked, slighted, and +neglected; to be misunderstood, misrepresented, and slandered; +to be trampled under foot by the envious, the ignorant, +and the vile; to be crushed by foes, and to be distrusted +and betrayed even by friends—such is too often the +fate of genius." "She is tall, though not so handsome as +her sister." "Verily, verily, I say unto you." "Whatever +is, is right." "What is foreordained to be, will be." "The +Emperor Augustus was a patron of the fine arts." "Augustus, +the Emperor, was a patron of the fine arts." +"United, we stand; divided, we fall." "God said, Let +there be light." "July 21, 1881." "President Garfield +was shot, Saturday morning, July 2, 1881; he died, Monday +night, Sept. 19, 1881." "I am, sir, very respectfully, your +obedient servant, John Jones." "New York, August, +1881." "Room 20, Equitable Building, Broadway, New +York."</p> + +<p>"<i>When you are in doubt as to the propriety of inserting +commas, omit them</i>; <span class="smcap">it is better to have too few than +too many</span>."—Quackenbos.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The Semicolon.</span>—Reasons are preceded by semicolons; +"Economy is no disgrace; for it is better to live on a little +than to outlive a great deal." Clauses in opposition are +separated by a semicolon when the second is introduced by +an adversative: "Straws swim at the surface; but pearls +lie at the bottom"; "Lying lips are an abomination to the +Lord; but they that deal truly are his delight." Without +the adversative, the colon is to be preferred: "Prosperity +showeth vice: adversity, virtue." The great divisions of a +sentence must be pointed with a semicolon when the minor +divisions are pointed with commas: "Mirth should be the +embroidery of conversation, not the web; and wit the ornament<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span> +of the mind, not the furniture." The things enumerated +must be separated by semicolons, when the enunciation +of particulars is preceded by a colon: "The value +of a maxim depends on four things: the correctness of the +principle it embodies; the subject to which it relates; the +extent of its application; and the ease with which it may +be practically carried out." When <i>as</i> introduces an example, +it is preceded by a semicolon. When several +successive clauses have a common connection with a preceding +or following clause, they are separated by semicolons; +as, "Children, as they gamboled on the beach; +reapers, as they gathered the harvest; mowers, as they +rested from using the scythe; mothers, as they busied themselves +about the household—were victims to an enemy, +who disappeared the moment a blow was struck." "Reason +as we may, it is impossible not to read in such a fate much +that we know not how to interpret; much of provocation +to cruel deeds and deep resentment; much of apology for +wrong and perfidy; much of doubt and misgiving as to the +past; much of painful recollections; much of dark foreboding." +"Philosophers assert that Nature is unlimited; +that her treasures are endless; that the increase of knowledge +will never cease."</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The Colon.</span>—This point is less used now than formerly: +its place is supplied by the period, the semicolon, or +the dash; and sometimes, even by the comma. The colon +is used very differently by different writers. "He was +heard to say, 'I have done with this world.'" Some writers +would put a colon, some a comma, after <i>say</i>. "When the +quoted passage is brought in without any introductory +word, if short," says Quackenbos, "it is generally preceded +by a comma; if long, by a colon; as, 'A simpleton, meeting +a philosopher, asked him, "What affords wise men the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span> +greatest pleasure?" Turning on his heel, the sage replied, +"To get rid of fools."'"</p> + +<p>Formal enumerations of particulars, and direct quotations, +when introduced by such phrases as <i>in these words</i>, +<i>as follows</i>, <i>the following</i>, <i>namely</i>, <i>this</i>, <i>these</i>, <i>thus</i>, etc., are +properly preceded by a colon. "We hold these truths to +be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they +are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable +rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit +of happiness." "Lord Bacon has summed up the whole +matter in the following words: 'A little philosophy inclineth +men's minds to atheism; but depth in philosophy +bringeth men's minds to religion.'" "The human family +is composed of five races: first, the Caucasian; second, +the Mongolian; third, the," etc.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"All were attentive to the godlike man<br /></span> +<span class="i0">When from his lofty couch he thus began:<br /></span> +<span class="i0">'Great queen,'" etc.—Dryden.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>When the quotation, or other matter, begins a new +paragraph, the colon is, by many writers, followed with a +dash; as, "The cloth being removed, the President rose +and said:—</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'Ladies and gentlemen, we are,'" etc.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>The colon is used to mark the greater breaks in sentences, +when the lesser breaks are marked by semicolons. +"You have called yourself an atom in the universe; you +have said that you are but an insect in the solar blaze: is +your present pride consistent with these professions?" "A +clause is either independent or dependent: independent, +if it forms an assertion by itself; dependent, if it enters +into some other clause with the value of a part of speech." +A colon is sometimes used instead of a period to separate +two short sentences, which are closely connected. "Never<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span> +flatter people: leave that to such as mean to betray them." +"Some things we can, and others we can not do: we can +walk, but we can not fly."</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The Period.</span>—Complete sentences are always followed +either by a period, or by an exclamation or an interrogation +point.<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a></p> + +<p>The period is also used after abbreviations; as, R. D. +Van Nostrand, St. Louis, Mo.; Jno. B. Morris, M. D., +F. R. S., London, Eng.; Jas. W. Wallack, Jr., New York +City, N. Y.; Jas. B. Roberts, Elocutionist, Phila., Pa.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Interrogation-point.</span>—This point is used after questions +put by the writer, and after questions reported directly. +"What can I do for you?" "Where are you going?" +"What do you say?" cried the General. "The child still +lives?" It should not be used when the question is reported +indirectly. "He asked me where I was going." +"The Judge asked the witness if he believed the man to +be guilty."</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Exclamation-point.</span>—This mark is placed after interjections, +after sentences and clauses of sentences of passionate +import, and after solemn invocations and addresses. +"Zounds! the man's in earnest." "Pshaw! what can we +do?" "Bah! what's that to me?" "Indeed! then I must +look to it." "Look, my lord, it comes!" "Rest, rest, +perturbed spirit!" "O heat, dry up my brains!" "Dear +maid, kind sister, sweet Ophelia!" "While in this part +of the country, I once more revisited—and, alas, with what +melancholy presentiments!—the home of my youth." "O +rose of May!" "Oh, from this time forth, my thoughts +be bloody or be nothing worth!" "O heavens! die two +months ago, and not forgotten yet?"<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span></p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Night, sable goddess! from her ebon throne,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">In rayless majesty now stretches forth<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Her leaden scepter o'er a slumbering world.<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Silence, how dead! and darkness, how profound!"—Young.<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Hail, holy light! offspring of heaven just born!"—Milton.<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"But thou, O Hope! with eyes so fair,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">What was thy delighted measure?"—Collins.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>It will be observed that the interjection O is an exception +to the rule: it is often followed by a comma, but never +by an exclamation-point.</p> + +<p>An exclamation-point sometimes gives the same words +quite another meaning. The difference between "What's +that?" and "What's that!" is obvious.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The Dash.</span>—Cobbett did not favor the use of this mark, +as we see from the following: "Let me caution you against +the use of what, by some, is called the <i>dash</i>. The dash is +a stroke along the line; thus, 'I am rich—I was poor—I +shall be poor again.' This is wild work indeed! Who is +to know what is intended by these <i>dashes</i>? Those who +have thought proper, like Mr. Lindley Murray, to place the +<i>dash</i> amongst the <i>grammatical points</i>, ought to give us some +rule relative to its different longitudinal dimensions in different +cases. The <i>inch</i>, the <i>three-quarter-inch</i>, the <i>half-inch</i>, +the <i>quarter-inch</i>: these would be something determinate; +but '<i>the dash</i>,' without measure, must be a perilous +thing for the young grammarian to handle. In short, '<i>the +dash</i>' is a cover for ignorance as to the use of points, and it +can answer no other purpose."</p> + +<p>This is one of the few instances in which Cobbett was +wrong. The <i>dash</i> is the proper point with which to mark +an unexpected or emphatic pause, or a sudden break or transition. +It is very often preceded by another point. "And<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span> +Huitzilopochtli—a sweet name to roll under one's tongue—for +how many years has this venerable war-god blinked in +the noonday sun!" "Crowds gathered about the newspaper +bulletins, recalling the feverish scenes that occurred +when the President's life was thought to be hanging by a +thread. 'Wouldn't it be too bad,' said one, 'if, after all—no, +I won't allow myself to think of it.'" "Was there +ever—but I scorn to boast." "You are—no, I'll not tell +you what you are."</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"He suffered—but his pangs are o'er;<br /></span> +<span class="i2">Enjoyed—but his delights are fled;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Had friends—his friends are now no more;<br /></span> +<span class="i2">And foes—his foes are dead."—Montgomery.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"Greece, Carthage, Rome,—where are they?" "He chastens;—but +he chastens to save."</p> + +<p>Dashes are much used where parentheses were formerly +employed. "In the days of Tweed the expression to divide +fair—forcible, if not grammatical—acquired much currency." +"In truth, the character of the great chief was depicted +two thousand five hundred years before his birth, and depicted—such +is the power of genius—in colors which will +be fresh as many years after his death." "To render the +Constitution perpetual—which God grant it may be!—it is +necessary that its benefits should be practically felt by all +parts of the country."</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Parenthesis.</span>—This mark is comparatively little used +nowadays. The dash is preferred, probably because it +disfigures the page less. The office of the parenthesis is +to isolate a phrase which is merely incidental, and which +might be omitted without detriment to the grammatical +construction.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Know then this truth (enough for man to know),<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Virtue alone is happiness below."—Pope.<br /></span><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"The bliss of man (could pride that blessing find)<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Is not to act or think beyond mankind."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Brackets.</span>—This mark is used principally to inclose +words improperly omitted by the writer, or words introduced +for the purpose of explanation or to correct an error. +The bracket is often used in this book.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The Apostrophe.</span>—This point is used to denote the +omission of letters and sometimes of figures; as, Jan'y, '81; +<i>I've</i> for <i>I have</i>; <i>you'll</i> for <i>you will</i>; <i>'tis</i> for <i>it is</i>; <i>don't</i> for +<i>do not</i>; <i>can't</i> for <i>can not</i>; It was in the year '93; the spirit +of '76; It was in the years 1812, '13, and '14.</p> + +<p>Also to denote the possessive case; as, Brown's house; +the king's command; Moses' staff; for conscience' sake; +the boys' garden.</p> + +<p>Also with <i>s</i> to denote the plural of letters, figures, and +signs; as, Cross your <i>t</i>'s, dot your <i>i</i>'s, and mind your <i>p</i>'s and +<i>q</i>'s; make your 5's better, and take out the <i>x</i>'s.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Capitals.</span>—A capital letter should begin every sentence, +every line of verse, and every direct quotation.</p> + +<p>All names of the Deity, of Jesus Christ, of the Trinity, +and of the Virgin Mary must begin with a capital. Pronouns +are usually capitalized when they refer to the Deity.</p> + +<p>Proper names, and nouns and adjectives formed from +proper names, names of streets, of the months, of the days +of the week, and of the holidays, are capitalized.</p> + +<p>Titles of nobility and of high office, when used to designate +particular persons, are capitalized; as, the Earl of +Dunraven, the Mayor of Boston, the Baron replied, the +Cardinal presided.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The Paragraph.</span>—In writing for the press, the division +of matter into paragraphs is often quite arbitrary; in letter-writing, +on the contrary, the several topics treated of should, +as a rule, be isolated by paragraphic divisions. These divisions<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span> +give one's letters a shapely appearance that they +otherwise never have.</p></div> + +<p><b>Purchase.</b> This word is much preferred to its synonym +<i>buy</i>, by that class of people who prefer the word <i>reside</i> to +<i>live</i>, <i>procure</i> to <i>get</i>, <i>inaugurate</i> to <i>begin</i>, and so on. They +are generally of those who are great in pretense, and who +would be greater still if they were to pretend to all they +have to pretend to.</p> + +<p><b>Purpose.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Propose">Propose</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Quantity.</b> This word is often improperly used for +<i>number</i>. <i>Quantity</i> should be used in speaking of what is +measured or weighed; <i>number</i>, of what is counted. Examples: +"What <i>quantity</i> of apples have you, and what +<i>number</i> of pineapples?" "Delaware produces a large +<i>quantity</i> of peaches and a large <i>number</i> of melons."</p> + +<p><b>Quit.</b>—This word means, properly, to leave, to go away +from, to forsake; as, "Avaunt! <i>quit</i> my sight." This is +the only sense in which the English use it. In America, +it is generally used in the sense of to leave off, to stop; as, +"<i>Quit</i> your nonsense"; "<i>Quit</i> laughing"; "<i>Quit</i> your +noise"; "He has <i>quit</i> smoking," and so on.</p> + +<p><b>Quite.</b> This word originally meant completely, perfectly, +totally, entirely, fully; and this is the sense in +which it was used by the early writers of English. It is +now often used in the sense of <i>rather</i>; as, "It is <i>quite</i> +warm"; "She is <i>quite</i> tall"; "He is <i>quite</i> proficient." +Sometimes it is incorrectly used in the sense of <i>considerable</i>; +as, <i>quite</i> an amount, <i>quite</i> a number, <i>quite</i> a fortune. +<i>Quite</i>, according to good modern usage, may qualify an +adjective, but not a noun. "She is quite the lady," is a +vile phrase, meaning, "She is very or <i>quite</i> ladylike."</p> + +<p><b>Railroad Depot.</b> Few things are more offensive to +fastidious ears than to hear a railway <i>station</i> called a <i>depot</i>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span> +A depot is properly a place where goods or stores of any +kind are kept; and the places at which the trains of a railroad—or, +better, rail<i>way</i>—stop for passengers, or the points +from which they start and at which they arrive, are, properly, +the <i>stations</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Railway.</b> The English prefer this word to rail<i>road</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Raise the rent.</b> An expression incorrectly used for +<i>increase the rent</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Rarely.</b> It is no uncommon thing to see this adverb +improperly used in such sentences as, "It is very <i>rarely</i> +that the puppets of the romancer assume," etc.—"Appletons' +Journal," February, 1881, p. 177. "But," says the +defender of this phraseology, "<i>rarely</i> qualifies a verb—the +verb <i>to be</i>." Not at all. The sentence, if written out in +full, would be, "It is a very rare thing that," etc., or "The +circumstance is a very rare one that," etc., or "It is a very +rare occurrence that," etc. To those who contend for +"It is very <i>rarely</i> that," etc., I would say, It is very <i>sadly</i> +that persons of culture will write and then defend—or +rather try to defend—such grammar.</p> + +<p><b>Ratiocinate.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Effectuate">Effectuate</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Real.</b>—This adjective is often vulgarly used in the +sense of the adverb <i>very</i>; thus, <i>real</i> nice, <i>real</i> pretty, <i>real</i> +angry, <i>real</i> cute, and so on.</p> + +<p><b>Recommend.</b> This word, which means to commend +or praise to another, to declare worthy of esteem, trust, or +favor, is sometimes put to strange uses. Example: "Resolved, +that the tax-payers of the county be <i>recommended</i> to +meet," etc. What the resolving gentlemen meant was, +that the tax-payers should be <i>counseled</i> to meet.</p> + +<p><b>Redundancy.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Pleonasm">Pleonasm</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Reliable" id="Reliable"></a>Reliable.</b> This is a modern word which is often met<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span> +with; but it is not used by our careful writers. They +prefer its synonym <i>trustworthy</i>, and argue that, in consequence +of being ill-formed, <i>reliable</i> can not possibly have +the signification in which it is used.</p> + +<p><b>Remainder.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Balance">Balance</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Rendition.</b> This word is much misused for <i>rendering</i>. +Example: "The excellence of Mr. Gilbert's <i>rendition</i> of +certain characters, Sir Peter and Sir Antony, for instance, +is not equaled," etc. <i>Rendition</i> means the act of yielding +possession, surrender, as the <i>rendition</i> of a town or +fortress. The sentence above should read, "The excellence +of Mr. Gilbert's <i>rendering</i>," etc. <i>Rendition</i> is also +sometimes improperly used for <i>performance</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Reply.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Answer">Answer</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Reputation.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Character">Character</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Reside.</b> A big word that Mr. Wouldbe uses where +Mr. Is uses the little word <i>live</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Residence.</b> In speaking of a man's domicile, it is not +only in better taste but more correct to use the term <i>house</i> +than <i>residence</i>. A man has a <i>residence</i> in New York, when +he has lived here long enough to have the right to exercise +the franchise here; and he may have a <i>house</i> in Fifth +Avenue where he <i>lives</i>. People who <i>are</i> live in houses; +people who <i>would be</i> reside in residences. The former +<i>buy</i> things; the latter <i>purchase</i> them.</p> + +<p><b>Rest.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Balance">Balance</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Restive.</b> Some of the dictionaries, Richard Grant +White, and some other writers, contend that this word, when +properly used, means unwilling to go, standing still stubbornly, +obstinate, stubborn, and nothing else. In combating +this opinion, Fitzedward Hall says: "Very few +instances, I apprehend, can be produced, from our literature, +of this use of <i>restive</i>." Webster gives impatient, uneasy,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span> +as a second meaning; and this is the sense in which +the word is nearly always used.</p> + +<p><b>Retire.</b> It is only the over-nice who use <i>retire</i> in the +sense of <i>go to bed</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Reverend" id="Reverend"></a>Reverend—Honorable.</b> Many persons are in doubt +whether they should or should not put <i>the</i> before these +adjectives. Emphatically, yes, they should. See "Words +and Their Uses," by Richard Grant White, for a full discussion +of the question; also "Good English," by Edward +S. Gould.</p> + +<p><b>Rhetoric.</b> The art which has for its object the rendering +of language effective is called <i>rhetoric</i>. Without +some study of the art of composition, no one can expect to +write well, or to judge the literary work of others.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"True ease in writing comes from art, not chance,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">As those move easiest who have learned to dance."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p><b><a name="Ride" id="Ride"></a>Ride—Drive.</b> Fashion, both in England and in this +country, says that we must always use the second of these +words when we speak of going out in a carriage, although +<i>ride</i> means, according to all the lexicographers, "to be carried +on a horse or other animal, or in any kind of vehicle +or carriage."</p> + +<p><b>Right.</b> Singularly enough, this word is made, by some +people, to do service for <i>ought</i>, <i>in duty bound</i>, under +<i>obligation</i> to; thus, "You had a <i>right</i> to tell me," meaning, +"You should have told me." "The Colonists contended +that they <i>had no right</i> to pay taxes," meaning, "They were +<i>under no obligation</i> to pay taxes," i. e., that it was unjust to +tax them.</p> + +<p><b>Right here.</b> The expressions "right here" and "right +there" are Americanisms. Correctly, "just here" and "just +there."</p> + +<p><b>Rolling.</b> The use of this participial adjective in the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span> +sense of undulating is said to be an Americanism. +Whether an Americanism or not, it would seem to be +quite unobjectionable.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Rubbers" id="Rubbers"></a>Rubbers.</b> This word, in common with <i>gums</i> and +<i>arctics</i>, is often, in defiance of good taste, used for <i>overshoes</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Sabbath.</b> This term was first used in English for Sunday, +or Lord's day, by the Puritans. Nowadays it is little +used in this sense. The word to use is <i>Sunday</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Sarcasm.</b> Bain says that <i>sarcasm</i> is vituperation softened +in the outward expression by the arts and figures of +disguise—epigram, innuendo, irony—and embellished with +the figures of illustration. Crabb says that <i>sarcasm</i> is the +indulgence only of personal resentment, and is never justifiable.</p> + +<p><b>Satire.</b> The holding up to ridicule of the follies and +weaknesses of mankind, by way of rebuke, is called <i>satire</i>. +Satire is general rather than individual, its object being +the reformation of abuses. A <i>lampoon</i>, which has +been defined as a <i>personal satire</i>, attacks the individual +rather than his fault, and is intended to injure rather than +to reform.</p> + +<p>Said Sheridan: "Satires and lampoons on particular +people circulate more by giving copies in confidence to the +friends of the parties than by printing them."</p> + +<p><b>Saw.</b> The imperfect tense of the verb <i>to see</i> is carelessly +used by good writers and speakers when they should +use the perfect; thus, "I never <i>saw</i> anything like it before," +when the meaning intended is, "I <i>have</i> never [in all +my life] <i>seen</i> anything like it before [until now]." We say +properly, "I never <i>saw</i> anything like it <i>when I was in +Paris</i>"; but, when the period of time referred to extends to +the time when the statement is made, it must be <i>have seen</i>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span> +Like mistakes are made in the use of other verbs, but they +are hardly as common; yet we often hear such expressions +as, "I <i>was</i> never in Philadelphia," "I never <i>went</i> to the +theatre in my life," instead of <i>have been</i> in Philadelphia, +and <i>have gone</i> to the theatre.</p> + +<p><b>Section.</b> The use of this word for region, neighborhood, +vicinity, part (of the town or country), is said to be a +Westernism. A <i>section</i> is a division of the public lands +containing six hundred and forty acres.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Seem" id="Seem"></a>Seem—Appear.</b> Graham, in his "English Synonymes," +says of these two words: "What <i>seems</i> is in the mind; +what <i>appears</i> is external. Things <i>appear</i> as they present +themselves to the eye; they <i>seem</i> as they are represented to +the mind. Things <i>appear</i> good or bad, as far as we can +judge by our senses. Things <i>seem</i> right or wrong as we +determine by reflection. Perception and sensation have to +do with appearing; reflection and comparison, with seeming. +When things are not what they <i>appear</i>, our senses are +deceived; when things are not what they <i>seem</i>, our judgment +is at fault."</p> + +<p>"No man had ever a greater power over himself, or +was less the man he <i>seemed</i> to be, which shortly after <i>appeared</i> +to everybody, when he cared less to keep on the +mask."—Clarendon.</p> + +<p><b>Seldom or ever.</b> This phrase should be "seldom <i>if</i> +ever," or "seldom or <i>never</i>."</p> + +<p><b>Seraphim.</b> This is the plural of <i>seraph</i>. "One of the +<i>seraphim</i>." "To Thee cherubim and seraphim continually +do cry." See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Cherubim">Cherubim</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Set" id="Set"></a>Set—Sit.</b> The former of these two verbs is often incorrectly +used for the latter. To <i>set</i>; imperfect tense, <i>set</i>; +participles, <i>setting</i>, <i>set</i>. To <i>sit</i>; imperfect tense, <i>sat</i>; participles, +<i>sitting</i>, <i>sat</i>. To <i>set</i> means to put, to place, to plant;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span> +to put in any place, condition, state, or posture. We say, +to <i>set</i> about, to <i>set</i> against, to <i>set</i> out, to <i>set</i> going, to +<i>set</i> apart, to <i>set</i> aside, to <i>set</i> down (to put in writing). To +<i>sit</i> means to rest on the lower part of the body, to repose +on a seat, to perch, as a bird, etc. We say, "<i>Sit</i> up," i. e., +rise from lying to sitting; "We will <i>sit</i> up," i. e., will not go +to bed; "<i>Sit</i> down," i. e., place yourself on a seat. We <i>sit</i> a +horse and we <i>sit</i> for a portrait. Garments <i>sit</i> well or otherwise. +Congress <i>sits</i>, so does a court. "I have <i>sat</i> up long +enough." "I have <i>set</i> it on the table." We <i>set</i> down figures, +but we <i>sit</i> down on the ground. We <i>set</i> a hen, and a hen +<i>sits</i> on eggs. We should say, therefore, "as cross as a <i>sitting</i> +[not, as a <i>setting</i>] hen."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Settle" id="Settle"></a>Settle.</b> This word is often inelegantly, if not incorrectly, +used for <i>pay</i>. We <i>pay</i> our way, <i>pay</i> our fare, <i>pay</i> +our hotel-bills, and the like. See, also, <span class="smcap"><a href="#Locate">Locate</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Shall and Will.</b> The nice distinctions that should be +made between these two auxiliaries are, in some parts of +the English-speaking world, often disregarded, and that, +too, by persons of high culture. The proper use of <i>shall</i> +and <i>will</i> can much better be learned from example than +from precept. Many persons who use them, and also <i>should</i> +and <i>would</i>, with well-nigh unerring correctness, do so unconsciously; +it is simply habit with them, and they, though +their culture may be limited, will receive a sort of verbal +shock from Biddy's inquiry, "<i>Will</i> I put the kettle on, +ma'am?" when your Irish or Scotch countess would not be +in the least disturbed by it.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Shall</span>, <i>in an affirmative sentence, in the first person, +and</i> <span class="smcap">WILL</span> <i>in the second and third persons, merely announce +future action</i>. Thus, "I <i>shall</i> go to town to-morrow." +"I <i>shall</i> not; I <i>shall</i> wait for better weather." "We <i>shall</i> +be glad to see you." "I <i>shall</i> soon be twenty." "We <i>shall</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span> +set out early, and <i>shall</i> try to arrive by noon." "You <i>will</i> +be pleased." "You <i>will</i> soon be twenty." "You <i>will</i> find +him honest." "He <i>will</i> go with us."</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shall</span>, <i>in an affirmative sentence, in the second and third +persons, announces the speaker's intention to control</i>. Thus, +"You <i>shall</i> hear me out." "You <i>shall</i> go, sick or well." +"He <i>shall</i> be my heir." "They <i>shall</i> go, whether they +want to go or not."</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Will</span>, <i>in the first person, expresses a promise, announces +the speaker's intention to control, proclaims a determination</i>. +Thus, "I <i>will</i> [I promise to] assist you." "I <i>will</i> [I am +determined to] have my right." "We <i>will</i> [we promise to] +come to you in the morning."</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Shall</span>, <i>in an interrogative sentence, in the first and third +persons, consults the will or judgment of another; in the +second person, it inquires concerning the intention or future +action of another</i>. Thus, "<i>Shall</i> I go with you?" "When +<i>shall</i> we see you again?" "When <i>shall</i> I receive it?" +"When <i>shall</i> I get well?" "When <i>shall</i> we get there?" +"<i>Shall</i> he come with us?" "<i>Shall</i> you demand indemnity?" +"<i>Shall</i> you go to town to-morrow?" "What +<i>shall</i> you do about it?"</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Will</span>, <i>in an interrogative sentence, in the second person, +asks concerning the wish, and, in the third person, concerning +the purpose or future action of others</i>. Thus, "<i>Will</i> you +have an apple?" "<i>Will</i> you go with me to my uncle's?" +"<i>Will</i> he be of the party?" "<i>Will</i> they be willing to receive +us?" "When <i>will</i> he be here?"</p> + +<p><i>Will</i> can not be used interrogatively in the first person +singular or plural. We can not say, "<i>Will</i> I go?" "<i>Will</i> +I help you?" "<i>Will</i> I be late?" "<i>Will</i> we get there in +time?" "<i>Will</i> we see you again soon?"</p> + +<p>Official courtesy, in order to avoid the semblance of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span> +compulsion, conveys its commands in the <i>you-will</i> form instead +of the strictly grammatical <i>you-shall</i> form. It says, +for example, "You <i>will</i> proceed to Key West, where you +will find further instructions awaiting you."</p> + +<p>A clever writer on the use of <i>shall</i> and <i>will</i> says that +whatever concerns one's beliefs, hopes, fears, likes, or dislikes, +can not be expressed in conjunction with <i>I will</i>. Are +there no exceptions to this rule? If I say, "I think I <i>shall</i> +go to Philadelphia to-morrow," I convey the impression that +my going depends upon circumstances beyond my control; +but if I say, "I think I <i>will</i> go to Philadelphia to-morrow," +I convey the impression that my going depends upon circumstances +within my control—that my going or not depends on +mere inclination. We certainly must say, "I fear that I <i>shall</i> +lose it"; "I hope that I <i>shall</i> be well"; "I believe that I +<i>shall</i> have the ague"; "I hope that I <i>shall</i> not be left +alone"; "I fear that we <i>shall</i> have bad weather"; "I +<i>shall</i> dislike the country"; "I <i>shall</i> like the performance." +The writer referred to asks, "How can one say, 'I <i>will</i> +have the headache'?" I answer, Very easily, as every +young woman knows. Let us see: "Mary, you know you +promised John to drive out with him to-morrow; how <i>shall</i> +you get out of it?" "Oh, I <i>will</i> have the headache!" +We request that people <i>will</i> do thus or so, and not that +they <i>shall</i>. Thus, "It is requested that no one <i>will</i> leave +the room."</p> + +<p><i>Shall</i> is rarely, if ever, used for <i>will</i>; it is <i>will</i> that is +used for <i>shall</i>. Expressions like the following are common: +"Where <i>will</i> you be next week?" "I <i>will</i> be at home." +"We <i>will</i> have dinner at six o'clock." "How <i>will</i> you go +about it?" "When <i>will</i> you begin?" "When <i>will</i> you +set out?" "What <i>will</i> you do with it?" In all such expressions, +when it is a question of mere future action on<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a></span> +the part of the person speaking or spoken to, the auxiliary +must be <i>shall</i>, and not <i>will</i>.</p> + +<p><i>Should</i> and <i>would</i> follow the regimen of <i>shall</i> and <i>will</i>. +<i>Would</i> is often used for <i>should</i>; <i>should</i> rarely for <i>would</i>. +Correct speakers say, "I <i>should</i> go to town to-morrow if +I had a horse." "I <i>should</i> not; I <i>should</i> wait for better +weather." "We <i>should</i> be glad to see you." "We <i>should</i> +have started earlier, if the weather had been clear." "I +<i>should</i> like to go to town, and <i>would</i> go if I could." "I +<i>would</i> assist you if I could." "I <i>should</i> have been ill if I +had gone." "I <i>would</i> I were home again!" "I <i>should</i> +go fishing to-day if I were home." "I <i>should</i> so like to go +to Europe!" "I <i>should</i> prefer to see it first." "I <i>should</i> +be delighted." "I <i>should</i> be glad to have you sup with +me." "I knew that I <i>should</i> be ill." "I feared that I +<i>should</i> lose it." "I hoped that I <i>should</i> see him." "I +thought I <i>should</i> have the ague." "I hoped that I <i>should</i> +not be left alone." "I was afraid that we <i>should</i> have bad +weather." "I knew I <i>should</i> dislike the country." "I +<i>should</i> not like to do it, and <i>will</i> not [determination] unless +compelled to."</p></div> + +<p><b>Shimmy.</b> "We derive from the French language our +word <i>chemise</i>—pronounced <i>shemmeeze</i>. In French, the +word denotes a man's shirt, as well as the under garment +worn by women. In this country, it is often pronounced +by people who should know better—<i>shimmy</i>. Rather than +call it <i>shimmy</i>, resume the use of the old English words +<i>shift</i> and <i>smock</i>. Good usage unqualifiedly condemns +<i>gents</i>, <i>pants</i>, <i>kids</i>, <i>gums</i>, and <i>shimmy</i>."—"Vulgarisms and +Other Errors of Speech."</p> + +<p><b>Should.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Ought">Ought</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Sick" id="Sick"></a>Sick—Ill.</b> These words are often used indiscriminately. +<i>Sick</i>, however, is the stronger word, and generally the better<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span> +word to use. <i>Ill</i> is used in England more than with us: +there <i>sick</i> is generally limited to the expressing of nausea; +as, "sick at the stomach."</p> + +<p><b>Signature, over or under?</b> A man writes <i>under</i>, not +<i>over</i>, a signature. Charles Dickens wrote <i>under</i> the signature +of "Boz"; Mr. Samuel L. Clemens writes <i>under</i> the +signature of "Mark Twain." The reason given in Webster's +Dictionary for preferring the use of <i>under</i> is absurd; +viz., that the paper is <i>under</i> the hand in writing. The +expression is elliptical, and has no reference to the position +either of the signature or of the paper. "Given under my +hand and seal" means "under the guarantee of my signature +and my seal." "Under his own signature" or "name" +means "under his own character, without disguise." "Under +the signature of Boz" means "under the disguise of the +assumed name Boz." We always write <i>under</i> a certain +date, though the date be placed, as it often is, at the bottom +of the page.</p> + +<p><b>Signs.</b> In one of the principal business streets of New +York there is a sign which reads, "German Lace Store." +Now, whether this is a store that makes a specialty of German +laces, or whether it is a store where all kinds of lace +are sold, kept by a German or after the German fashion, is +something that the sign doubtless means to tell us, but, +owing to the absence of a hyphen ("German-Lace Store," +or "German Lace-Store"), does not tell us. Nothing is more +common than erroneous punctuation in signs, and gross +mistakes by the unlettered in the wording of the simplest +printed matter.</p> + +<p>The bad taste, incorrect punctuation, false grammar, +and ridiculous nonsense met with on signs and placards, +and in advertisements, are really surprising. An advertisement +tells us that "a pillow which assists in procuring<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span> +sleep is a <i>benediction</i>"; a placard, that they have "Charlotte +<i>de</i> Russe" for sale within, which means, if it means +anything, that they have for sale somebody or something +called Charlotte of Russian; and, then, on how many signs +do we see the possessive case when the plural number is +intended!</p> + +<p><b>Simile.</b> In rhetoric, a direct and formal comparison is +called a <i>simile</i>. It is generally denoted by <i>like</i>, <i>as</i>, or +<i>so</i>; as,</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i9">"I have ventured,<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>Like</i> little wanton boys that swim on bladders,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">These many summers in a sea of glory."<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Thy smile is <i>as</i> the dawn of vernal day."—Shakespeare.<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"<i>As</i>, down in the sunless retreats of the ocean,<br /></span> +<span class="i2">Sweet flow'rets are springing no mortal can see;<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>So</i>, deep in my bosom, the prayer of devotion,<br /></span> +<span class="i2">Unheard by the world, rises silent to thee."—Moore.<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'Tis with our judgments <i>as</i> with our watches; none<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Go just alike, yet each believes his own."—Pope.<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Grace abused brings forth the foulest deeds,<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>As</i> richest soil the most luxuriant weeds."—Cowper.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"<i>As</i> no roads are so rough as those that have just been +mended, <i>so</i> no sinners are so intolerant as those who have +just turned saints."—"Lacon."</p> + +<p><b>Sin.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Crime">Crime</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Since—Ago.</b> Dr. Johnson says of these two adverbs: +"Reckoning time toward the present, we use <i>since</i>; as, +'It is a year <i>since</i> it happened': reckoning from the present, +we use <i>ago</i>; as, 'It is a year <i>ago</i>.' This is not, perhaps, +always observed."</p> + +<p>Dr. Johnson's rule will hardly suffice as a sure guide. +<i>Since</i> is often used for <i>ago</i>, but <i>ago</i> never for <i>since</i>. <i>Ago</i> is +derived from the participle <i>agone</i>, while <i>since</i> comes from a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</a></span> +preposition. We say properly, "not long" or "some time +<i>ago</i> [agone]." <i>Since</i> requires a verbal clause after it; as, +"<i>Since</i> I saw you"; "<i>Since</i> he was here."</p> + +<p><b>Sing.</b> Of the two forms—<i>sang</i> and <i>sung</i>—for the imperfect +tense of the verb to <i>sing</i>, the former—<i>sang</i>—is to be +preferred.</p> + +<p><b>Sit.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Set">Set</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Slang.</b> The slang that is heard among respectable +people is made up of genuine words, to which an arbitrary +meaning is given. It is always low, generally coarse, and +not unfrequently foolish. With the exception of <i>cant</i>, there +is nothing that is more to be shunned. We sometimes meet +with persons of considerable culture who interlard their +talk with slang expressions, but it is safe to assert that they +are always persons of coarse natures.</p> + +<p><b>Smart.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Clever">Clever</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Smell of.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Taste_of">Taste of</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>So.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#As">As</a></span>; <span class="smcap"><a href="#Such">Such</a></span>; <span class="smcap"><a href="#That">That</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>So much so.</b> "The shipments by the coast steamers +are very large, <i>so much so</i> [large?] as to tax the capacity of +the different lines."—"Telegram," September 19, 1881. +The sentence should be, "The shipments by the coast +steamers are very large, <i>so large</i> as to tax," etc.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Solecism" id="Solecism"></a>Solecism.</b> In rhetoric, a solecism is defined as an offense +against the rules of grammar by the use of words in a +wrong construction; false syntax.</p> + +<p>"Modern grammarians designate by <i>solecism</i> any word +or expression which does not agree with the established +usage of writing or speaking. But, as customs change, that +which at one time is considered a <i>solecism</i> may at another +be regarded as correct language. A <i>solecism</i>, therefore, +differs from a <i>barbarism</i>, inasmuch as the latter consists in +the use of a word or expression which is altogether contrary<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</a></span> +to the spirit of the language, and can, properly +speaking, never become established as correct language."—"Penny +Cyclopædia." See, also, <span class="smcap"><a href="#Barbarism">Barbarism</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Some.</b> This word is not unfrequently misused for <i>somewhat</i>; +thus, "She is <i>some</i> better to-day." It is likewise +often misused for <i>about</i>; thus, "I think it is <i>some</i> ten miles +from here": read, "<i>about</i> ten miles from here."</p> + +<p><b>Specialty.</b> This form has within a recent period been +generally substituted for <i>speciality</i>. There is no apparent +reason, however, why the <i>i</i> should be dropped, since it is +required by the etymology of the word, and is retained in +nearly all other words of the same formation.</p> + +<p><b>Specious Fallacy.</b> A <i>fallacy</i> is a sophism, a logical +artifice, a deceitful or false appearance; while <i>specious</i> +means having the appearance of truth, plausible. Hence +we see that the very essence of a <i>fallacy</i> is its <i>speciousness</i>. +We may very properly say that a <i>fallacy</i> is more or less +<i>specious</i>, but we can not properly say that a fallacy <i>is</i> specious, +since without speciousness we can have no fallacies.</p> + +<p><b>Splendid.</b> This poor word is used by the gentler sex +to qualify well-nigh everything that has their approval, from +a sugar-plum to the national capitol. In fact, <i>splendid</i> and +<i>awful</i> seem to be about the only adjectives some of our +superlative young women have in their vocabularies.</p> + +<p><b>Standpoint.</b> This is a word to which many students +of English seriously object, and among them are the editors +of some of our daily papers, who do not allow it to appear +in their columns. The phrase to which no one objects +is, <i>point of view</i>.</p> + +<p><b>State.</b> This word, which properly means to make +known specifically, to explain particularly, is often misused +for <i>say</i>. When <i>say</i> says all one <i>wants</i> to say, why use a +more pretentious word?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Stop.</b> "Where are you <i>stopping</i>?" "At the Metropolitan." +The proper word to use here is <i>staying</i>. <i>To stop</i> +means to cease to go forward, to leave off; and <i>to stay</i> +means to abide, to tarry, to dwell, to sojourn. We <i>stay</i>, +not <i>stop</i>, at home, at a hotel, or with a friend, as the case +may be.</p> + +<p><b>Storm.</b> Many persons indulge in a careless use of this +word, using it when they mean to say simply that it rains +or snows. To a <i>storm</i> a violent commotion of the atmosphere +is indispensable. A very high wind constitutes a +storm, though it be dry.</p> + +<p><b>Straightway.</b> Here is a good Anglo-Saxon word of +<i>two</i> syllables whose place, without any good reason, is +being usurped by the Latin word <i>immediately</i>, of <i>five</i> syllables.</p> + +<p><b>Street.</b> We live <i>in</i>, not <i>on</i>—meet our acquaintances <i>in</i>, +not <i>on</i>—things occur <i>in</i>, not <i>on</i>—houses are built <i>in</i>, not +<i>on</i>, the street, and so forth.</p> + +<p><b>Style.</b> This is a term that is used to characterize the +peculiarities that distinguish a writer or a composition. +Correctness and clearness properly belong to the domain of +<i>diction</i>; simplicity, conciseness, gravity, elegance, diffuseness, +floridity, force, feebleness, coarseness, etc., belong to +the domain of <i>style</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Subjunctive_Mood" id="Subjunctive_Mood"></a>Subjunctive Mood.</b> This mood is unpopular with not +a few now-a-day grammarians. One says that it is rapidly +falling into disuse; that, in fact, there is good reason to +suppose it will soon become obsolete. Another says that +it would, perhaps, be better to abolish it entirely, as its use +is a continual source of dispute among grammarians and of +perplexity to schools. Another says that it is a universal +stumbling-block; that nobody seems to understand it, although +almost everybody attempts to use it.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</a></span></p> + +<p>That the subjunctive mood is much less used now than +it was a hundred years ago is certain, but that it is obsolescent +is very far from certain. It would not be easy, I +think, to find a single contemporary writer who does not +use it. That it is not always easy to determine what form +of it we should employ is very true; but if we are justified in +abolishing it altogether, as Mr. Chandler suggests, because +its correct use is not always easy, then we are also justified +in abolishing the use of <i>shall</i> and <i>will</i>, and of the prepositions, +for surely their right use is likewise at times most +puzzling. Meanwhile, most persons will think it well to +learn to use the subjunctive mood properly. With that +object in view, one can not, perhaps, do better than to attend +to what Dr. Alexander Bain, Professor of Logic in +the University of Aberdeen, says upon the subject. In +Professor Bain's "Higher English Grammar" we find:</p> + +<p>"In subordinate clauses.—In a clause expressing a condition, +and introduced by a conjunction of condition, the +verb is sometimes, but not always, in the subjunctive mood: +'If I <i>be</i> able,' 'if I <i>were</i> strong enough,' 'if thou <i>should</i> +come.'</p> + +<p>"The subjunctive inflexions have been wholly lost. +The sense that something is wanting appears to have led +many writers to use indicative forms where the subjunctive +might be expected. The tendency appears strongest in the +case of 'wert,' which is now used as indicative (for 'wast') +only in poetical or elevated language.</p> + +<p>"The following is the rule given for the use of the subjunctive +mood:</p> + +<p>"When in a conditional clause it is intended to express +doubt or denial, use the subjunctive mood.<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> 'If I <i>were</i> +sure of what you tell me, I would go.'</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</a></span></p> +<p>"When the conditional clause is <i>affirmative</i> and <i>certain</i>, +the verb is <i>indicative</i>: 'If that <i>is</i> the case' (as you now tell +me, and as I believe), 'I can understand you.' This is +equivalent to a clause of assumption, or supposition: 'That +being the case,' 'inasmuch as that is the case,' etc.</p> + +<p>"As <i>futurity</i> is by its nature uncertain, the subjunctive +is extensively used for future conditionality: 'If it <i>rain</i>, we +shall not be able to go'; 'if I <i>be</i> well'; 'if he <i>come</i> shortly'; +'if thou <i>return</i> at all in peace'; 'though he <i>slay</i> me, +yet will I trust in him.' These events are all in the uncertain +future, and are put in the subjunctive.<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></p> + +<p>"A future result or consequence is expressed by the +subjunctive in such instances as these: 'I will wait till he +<i>return</i>'; 'no fear lest dinner <i>cool</i>'; 'thou shalt stone him +with stones, that he <i>die</i>'; 'take heed lest at any time your +hearts <i>be</i> overcharged with surfeiting.'</p> + +<p>"Uncertainty as to a past event may arise from our +own ignorance, in which case the subjunctive is properly +employed, and serves the useful purpose of distinguishing<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</a></span> +our ignorance from our knowledge. 'If any of my readers +<i>has</i> looked with so little attention upon the world around +him'; this would mean—'as I know that they have.' The +meaning intended is probably—'as I do not know whether +they have or not,' and therefore the subjunctive 'have' is +preferable. 'If ignorance <i>is</i> bliss,' which I (ironically) +admit. Had Gray been speaking seriously, he would have +said, 'if ignorance <i>be</i> bliss,' he himself dissenting from the +proposition.</p> + +<p>"A wish contrary to the fact takes the subjunctive: 'I +wish he <i>were</i> here' (which he is not).</p> + +<p>"An intention not yet carried out is also subjunctive: +'The sentence is that you <i>be</i> imprisoned.'</p> + +<p>"The only correct form of the future subjunctive is—'if +I should.' We may say, 'I do not know whether or not +I <i>shall</i> come'; but 'if I shall come,' expressing a condition, +is not an English construction. 'If he will' has a real +meaning, as being the present subjunctive of the verb +'will': 'if he be willing,' 'if he have the will.' It is in +accordance with good usage to express a future subjunctive +meaning by a present tense; but in that case the form must +be strictly subjunctive, and not indicative. 'If any member +<i>absents</i> himself, he shall forfeit a penny for the use of +the club'; this ought to be either 'absent,' or 'should +absent.' 'If thou <i>neglectest</i> or <i>doest</i> unwillingly what I command +thee, I will rack thee with old cramps'; better, 'if +thou <i>neglect</i> or <i>do</i> unwillingly,' or 'if thou should neglect.' +The indicative would be justified by the speaker's belief +that the supposition is sure to turn out to be the fact.</p> + +<p>"The past subjunctive may imply denial; as, 'if the +book <i>were</i> in the library (as it is not), it should be at your +service.'</p> + +<p>"'If the book <i>be</i> in the library,' means, 'I do not know<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</a></span> +whether it be or not.' We have thus the power of discriminating +<i>three</i> different suppositions. 'If the book <i>is</i> in the +library' (as I know it is); 'if it <i>be</i>' (I am uncertain); 'if it +<i>were</i>' (as I know it is not). So, 'if it rains,' 'if it rain,' 'if +it rained.' 'Nay, and the villains march wide between the +legs, as if they <i>had</i> gyves on,' implying that they had not.</p> + +<p>"The same power of the past tense is exemplified in +'if I <i>could</i>, I would,' which means, 'I can not'; whereas, +'if I can, I will,' means 'I do not know.'</p> + +<p>"The past subjunctive may be expressed by an inversion: +'<i>Had</i> I the power,' '<i>were</i> I as I have been.'</p> + +<p>"In Principal Clauses.—The principal clause in a conditional +statement also takes the subjunctive form when it +refers to what is future and contingent, and when it refers +to what is past and uncertain, or denied. 'If he should +try, he <i>would</i> succeed'; 'if I had seen him, I <i>should</i> have +asked him.'</p> + +<p>"The usual forms of the subjunctive in the principal +clause are 'would,' 'should,' 'would have,' 'should have'; +and it is to be noted that in this application the second persons +take the inflexional ending of the indicative: 'shouldst,' +'wouldst.'</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'If 'twere done when 'tis done, then 't<i>were</i> (would be) well<br /></span> +<span class="i0">It <i>were</i> (should be) done quickly.'<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"The English idiom appears sometimes to permit the +use of an indicative where we should expect a subjunctive +form. 'Many acts, that <i>had</i> been otherwise blamable, +were employed'; 'I <i>had</i> fainted, unless I had believed,' etc.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'Which else <i>lie</i> furled and shrouded in the soul.'<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"In 'else' there is implied a conditional clause that +would suit 'lie'; or the present may be regarded as a +more vivid form of expression. 'Had' may be indicative; +just as we sometimes find pluperfect indicative for pluperfect<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</a></span> +subjunctive in the same circumstances in Latin. We +may refer it to the general tendency, as already seen in the +uses of 'could,' 'would,' 'should,' etc., to express conditionality +by a past tense; or the indicative may be used +as a more direct and vivid mode. 'Had' may be subjunctive; +'I <i>had</i> fainted' is, in construction, analogous to 'I +<i>should</i> have fainted'; the word for futurity, 'shall,' not +being necessary to the sense, is withdrawn, and its past +inflexion transferred to 'have.' Compare Germ. <i>würde +haben</i> and <i>hätte</i>."</p> + +<p>In addition to the foregoing, we find in Professor Bain's +"Composition Grammar" the following:</p> + +<p>"The case most suited to the subjunctive is <i>contingent +futurity</i>, or the expression of an event unknown absolutely, +as being still in the future: 'If to-morrow <i>be</i> fine, I will +walk with you.'</p> + +<p>"'Unless I <i>were</i> prepared,' insinuates pretty strongly +that I am or am not prepared, according to the manner of +the principal clause.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'What's a tall man unless he <i>fight</i>?'<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'The sword hath ended him: so shall it thee,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Unless thou <i>yield</i> thee as my prisoner.'<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'Who but must laugh, if such a man there <i>be</i>?<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Who would not weep, if Atticus <i>were</i> he?'<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"'I am to second Ion if he <i>fail</i>'; the failing is left +quite doubtful. 'I should very imperfectly execute the +task which I have undertaken if I <i>were</i> merely to treat +of battles and sieges.' Macaulay thus implies that the +scope of his work is to be wider than mere battles and +sieges.</p> + +<p>"The subjunctive appears in some other constructions. +'I hope to see the exhibition before <i>it close</i>'; 'wait till he +<i>return</i>'; 'thou shall stand by the river's brink against he<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</a></span> +<i>come</i>'; 'take heed lest passion <i>sway</i> thy judgment'; 'speak +to me, though it <i>be</i> in wrath'; 'if he <i>smite</i> him with an instrument +of iron so that he <i>die</i>, he is a murderer'; 'beware +this night that thou <i>cross</i> not my footsteps' (Shelley).</p> + +<p>"Again. 'Whatever this <i>be</i>'; 'whoever he <i>be</i>'; 'howe'er +it <i>be</i>' (Tennyson); and such like.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'And <i>as long</i>, O God, <i>as</i> she<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>Have</i> a grain of love for me,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">So long, no doubt, no doubt,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Shall I nurse in my dark heart,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">However weary, a spark of will<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Not to be trampled out.'<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"The Future Subjunctive is given in our scheme of the +verb as 'should' in all persons: 'If I should, if thou +should, if he should.' In old English, we have 'thou +<i>shouldst</i>': 'if thou, Lord, <i>shouldst</i> mark iniquities.'</p> + +<p>"An inverted conditional form has taken deep root in +our language, and may be regarded as an elegant and forcible +variety. While dispensing with the conjunction, it +does not cause ambiguity; nevertheless, conditionality is +well marked.</p> + +<p>"'<i>If</i> you <i>should</i> abandon your Penelope and your home +for Calypso, ——': '<i>should</i> you abandon ——.'</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i4">"'<i>Go</i> not my horse the better,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">I must become a borrower of the night<br /></span> +<span class="i0">For a dark hour or twain.'<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'Here had we now our country's honor roof'd<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>Were</i> the graced person of our Banquo present.'<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'<i>Be</i> thou a spirit of health or goblin damn'd,<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>Bring</i> with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell,<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>Be</i> thy intents wicked or charitable,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Thou com'st in such a questionable shape<br /></span> +<span class="i0">That I will speak to thee.'<br /></span><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</a></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'<i>Come</i> one, <i>come</i> all, this rock shall fly<br /></span> +<span class="i0">From its firm base as soon as I.'—Scott.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"The following examples are given by Mätzner:</p> + +<p>"'Varney's communications, <i>be</i> they what they might, +were operating in his favor.'—Scott.</p> + +<p>"'Governing persons, <i>were</i> they never so insignificant +intrinsically, have for most part plenty of Memoir-writers.'—Carlyle.</p> + +<p>"'Even <i>were</i> I disposed, I could not gratify the reader.'—Warren.</p> + +<p>"'Bring them back to me, <i>cost</i> what it may.'—Coleridge, +'Wallenstein.'</p> + +<p>"'And <i>will</i> you, <i>nill</i> you, I will marry you.'—'Taming +of the Shrew.'</p> + +<p>"<i>Were</i> is used in the principal clause for 'should be' +or 'would be.'<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a></p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'I <i>were</i> (=should be) a fool, not less than if a panther<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Were panic-stricken by the antelope's eye,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">If she escape me.'—Shelley.<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'Were you but riding forth to air yourself,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Such parting <i>were</i> too petty.'<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"'He <i>were</i> (=would be) no lion, were not Romans +hinds.'</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'Should he be roused out of his sleep to-night, ...<br /></span> +<span class="i0">It <i>were</i> not well; indeed it <i>were</i> not well.'—Shelley.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"<i>Had</i> is sometimes used in the principal clause for +'should have' or 'would have.'<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</a></span></p><p>"'Had I known this before we set out, I think I <i>had</i> +(= would have) remained at home.'—Scott.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'Hadst thou been kill'd when first thou didst presume,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Thou <i>hadst</i> not lived to kill a son of mine.'<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i12">"'If he<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Had killed me, he <i>had</i> done a kinder deed.'<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'For once he <i>had</i> been ta'en or slain,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">An it had not been his ministry.'—Scott.<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'If thou hadst said him nay, it <i>had</i> been sin.'<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a><br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"'<i>Had</i> better, rather, best, as lief, as well, etc.,' is a +form that is explained under this heading. 'Had' stands +for 'would have.' The exploded notion that 'had' is a +corrupted 'would' must be guarded against.</p> + +<p>"'I <i>had</i> as lief not be.' That is—'I <i>would</i> as lief <i>have</i> +not (<i>to</i>) be' = 'I would as willingly (or as soon) have non-existence.'</p> + +<p>"'<i>Had</i> you rather Cæsar were living——?' '<i>Would</i> +you rather <i>have</i> (<i>would</i> you <i>prefer</i> that) Cæsar were living?'</p> + +<p>"'He <i>had</i> better reconsider the matter' is 'he <i>would</i> +better <i>have</i> (<i>to</i>) reconsider the matter.'</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'I <i>had</i> rather be a kitten and cry mew<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Than one of these same metre ballad-mongers;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">I <i>had</i> rather hear a brazen canstick turned.'<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"Let us compare this form with another that appears +side by side with it in early writers. (Cp. Lat. 'habeo' +and 'mihi est.')</p> + +<p>"The construction of 'had' is thus illustrated in Chaucer, +as in—Nonne Prestes Tale, 300:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</a></span></p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'By God, I <i>hadde</i> levere than my scherte,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">That ye hadde rad his legend, as I have.'<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"Compare now:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'Ah <i>me were levere</i> with lawe <i>loose</i> my lyf<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Then so to fote hem <i>falle</i>.'—Wright, 'Polit. S.'<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"Here 'were' is unquestionably for 'would be'; and +the whole expression might be given by 'had,' thus: 'Ah, +<i>I hadde</i> levere ——,' '(to) <i>loose</i>' and '(to) <i>falle</i>,' changing +from subjects of 'were' to objects of 'hadde.'</p> + +<p>"So, in the Chaucer example above, if we substitute +'be' for 'have,' we shall get the same meaning, thus: 'By +God, <i>me were</i> levere ——.' The interchange helps us to +see more clearly that 'hadde' is to be explained as subjunctive +for 'would have.'" See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Indicative_and_Subjunctive">Indicative and Subjunctive</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Such" id="Such"></a>Such.</b> "I have never before seen <i>such</i> a large ox." +By a little transposing of the words of this sentence, we +have, "I have never before seen an ox <i>such</i> large," which +makes it quite clear that we should say <i>so large an ox</i> and +not <i>such a large ox</i>. As proof that this error in the use of +<i>such</i> is common, we find in Mr. George Washington Moon's +"Dean's English and Bad English," the sentence, "With +all due deference to <i>such</i> a high authority on <i>such</i> a very +important matter." With a little transposing, this sentence +is made to read, "With all due deference to an authority +<i>such</i> high on a matter <i>such</i> very important." It is clear that +the sentence should read, "With all due deference to <i>so</i> high +an authority on <i>so</i> very important a matter." The phrases, +<i>such</i> a handsome, <i>such</i> a lovely, <i>such</i> a long, <i>such</i> narrow, +etc., are incorrect, and should be <i>so</i> handsome, <i>so</i> lovely, <i>so</i> +long, and so on.</p> + +<p><b>Summon.</b> This verb comes in for its full share of mauling. +We often hear such expressions as "I will <i>summons</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</a></span> +him," instead of <i>summon</i> him; and "He was <i>summonsed</i>," +instead of <i>summoned</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Superfluous Words.</b> "Whenever I try to write well, I +<i>always</i> find I can do it." "I shall have finished by the <i>latter</i> +end of the week." "Iron sinks <i>down</i> in water." "He combined +<i>together</i> all the facts." "My brother called on me, +and we <i>both</i> took a walk." "I can do it <i>equally</i> as well as +he." "We could not forbear <i>from</i> doing it." "Before I +go, I must <i>first</i> be paid." "We were compelled to return +<i>back</i>." "We forced them to retreat <i>back</i> fully a mile." +"His conduct was approved <i>of</i> by everybody." "They +conversed <i>together</i> for a long time." "The balloon rose <i>up</i> +very rapidly." "Give me another <i>one</i>." "Come home as +soon as <i>ever</i> you can." "Who finds him <i>in</i> money?" "He +came in last <i>of all</i>." "He has <i>got</i> all he can carry." "What +have you <i>got</i>?" "No matter what I have <i>got</i>." "I have +<i>got</i> the headache." "Have you <i>got</i> any brothers?" "No, +but I have <i>got</i> a sister." All the words in <i>italics</i> are superfluous.</p> + +<p><b>Superior.</b> This word is not unfrequently used for able, +excellent, gifted; as, "She is a <i>superior</i> woman," meaning +an <i>excellent</i> woman; "He is a <i>superior</i> man," meaning an +<i>able</i> man. The expression <i>an inferior man</i> is not less objectionable.</p> + +<p><b>Supposititious.</b> This word is <i>properly</i> used in the sense +of put by a trick into the place or character belonging to +another, spurious, counterfeit, not genuine; and <i>improperly</i> +in the sense of conjectural, hypothetical, imaginary, +presumptive; as, "This is a <i>supposititious</i> case," meaning +an <i>imaginary</i> or <i>presumptive</i> case. "The English critic derived +his materials from a stray copy of some <i>supposititious</i> +indexes devised by one of the 'Post' reporters."—"Nation." +Here is a correct use of the word.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Swosh.</b> There is a kind of ill-balanced brain in which +the reflective and the imaginative very much outweight the +perceptive. Men to whom this kind of an organization has +been given generally have active minds, but their minds +never present anything clearly. To their mental vision all +is ill-defined, chaotic. They see everything in a haze. +Whether such men talk or write, they are verbose, illogical, +intangible, will-o'-the-wispish. Their thoughts are phantomlike; +like shadows, they continually escape their grasp. +In their talk they will, after long dissertations, tell you that +they have not said just what they would like to say; there is +always a subtle, lurking something still unexpressed, which +something is the real essence of the matter, and which your +penetration is expected to divine. In their writings they +are eccentric, vague, labyrinthine, pretentious, transcendental,<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> +and frequently ungrammatical. These men, if write +they must, should confine themselves to the descriptive; +for when they enter the essayist's domain, which they are +very prone to do, they write what I will venture to call +<i>swosh</i>.</p> + +<p>We find examples in plenty of this kind of writing in +the essays of Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson. Indeed, the impartial +critic who will take the trouble to examine any of +Mr. Emerson's essays at all carefully, is quite sure to come +to the conclusion that Mr. Emerson has seen everything he +has ever made the subject of his essays very much as London +is seen from the top of Saint Paul's in a fog.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. Emerson's definition of Nature runs thus: "Philosophically +considered, the universe is composed of Nature +and the Soul. Strictly speaking, therefore, all that is separate +from us, all which philosophy distinguishes from the +<i>Not Me</i>—that is, both Nature and Art, and all other men, +and my own body—must be ranked under this name '<span class="smcap">Nature</span>.' +In enumerating the values of Nature and casting +up their sum, I shall use the word in both senses—in its +common and in its philosophical import. In inquiries so +general as our present one, the inaccuracy is not material; +no confusion of thought will occur. <i>Nature</i>, in the common +sense, refers to essences unchanged by man: space, +the air, the river, the leaf. <i>Art</i> is applied to the mixture +of his will with the same things, as in a house, a canal, a +picture, a statue. But his operations, taken together, are +so insignificant—a little chipping, baking, patching, and +washing—that in an impression so grand as that of the +world on the human mind they do not vary the result."</p> + +<p>In "Letters and Social Aims" Mr. Emerson writes: +"Eloquence is the power to translate a truth into language +perfectly intelligible to the person to whom you speak. He +who would convince the worthy Mr. Dunderhead of any +truth which Dunderhead does not see, must be a master of +his art. Declamation is common; but such possession of +thought as is here required, such practical chemistry as the +conversion of a truth written in God's language into a truth +in Dunderhead's language, is one of the most beautiful and +cogent weapons that is forged in the shop of the Divine +Artificer."</p> + +<p>The first paragraph of Mr. Emerson's "Essay on Art" +reads: "All departments of life at the present day—Trade, +Politics, Letters, Science, or Religion—seem to feel, +and to labor to express, the identity of their law. They are<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</a></span> +rays of one sun; they translate each into a new language +the sense of the other. They are sublime when seen as +emanations of a Necessity contradistinguished from the +vulgar Fate by being instant and alive, and dissolving man, +as well as his works, in its flowing beneficence. This influence +is conspicuously visible in the principles and history +of Art."</p> + +<p>Another paragraph from Mr. Emerson's "Essay on +Eloquence": "The orator, as we have seen, must be a +substantial personality. Then, first, he must have power +of statement—must have the fact, and know how to tell +it. In a knot of men conversing on any subject, the person +who knows most about it will have the ear of the +company, if he wishes it, and lead the conversation, no +matter what genius or distinction other men there present +may have; and, in any public assembly, him who has the +facts, and can and will state them, people will listen to, +though he is otherwise ignorant, though he is hoarse and +ungrateful, though he stutters and screams."</p> + +<p>Mr. Emerson, in his "Essay on Prudence," writes: +"There are all degrees of proficiency in knowledge of the +world. It is sufficient to our present purpose to indicate +three. One class live to the utility of the symbol, esteeming +health and wealth a final good. Another class +live above this mark to the beauty of the symbol, as the +poet and artist, and the naturalist and man of science. A +third class live above the beauty of the symbol to the +beauty of the thing signified; these are wise men. The +first class have common sense; the second, taste; and the +third, spiritual perception. Once in a long time a man +traverses the whole scale, and sees and enjoys the symbol +solidly; then, also, has a clear eye for its beauty; and, +lastly, whilst he pitches his tent on this sacred volcanic isle<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</a></span> +of nature, does not offer to build houses and barns thereon, +reverencing the splendor of God which he sees bursting +through each chink and cranny."</p> + +<p>Those who are wont to accept others at their self-assessment +and to see things through other people's eyes—and +there are many such—are in danger of thinking +this kind of writing very fine, when in fact it is not only the +veriest <i>swosh</i>, but that kind of swosh that excites at least +an occasional doubt with regard to the writer's sanity. +We can make no greater mistake than to suppose that the +reason we do not understand these rhetorical contortionists +is because they are so subtle and profound. We understand +them quite as well as they understand themselves. +At their very best, they are but incoherent diluters of other +men's ideas. They have but one thing to recommend them—honesty. +They believe in themselves.</p> + +<p>"Whatever is dark is deep. Stir a puddle, and it is +deeper than a well."—Swift.</p> + +<p><b>Synecdoche.</b> The using of the name of a part for +that of the whole, the name of the whole for that of a part, +or the using of a definite number for an indefinite, is called, +in rhetoric, <i>synecdoche</i>. "The bay was covered with <i>sails</i>"; +i. e., with <i>ships</i>. "The man was old, careworn, and gray"; +i. e., literally, <i>his hair</i>, not the man, was gray. "<i>Nine +tenths</i> of every man's happiness depends on the reception +he meets with in the world." "He had seen seventy <i>winters</i>." +"Thus spoke the <i>tempter</i>": here the part of the +character is named that suits the occasion.</p> + +<p>"His roof was at the service of the outcast; the unfortunate +ever found a welcome at his threshold."</p> + +<p><b>Take.</b> I copy from the "London Queen": "The +verb <i>to take</i> is open to being considered a vulgar verb when +used in reference to dinner, tea, or to refreshments of any<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</a></span> +kind. 'Will you <i>take</i>' is not considered <i>comme il faut</i>; +the verb in favor for the offering of civilities being <i>to have</i>." +According to "The Queen," then, we must say, "Will you +<i>have</i> some dinner, tea, coffee, wine, fish, beef, salad," etc.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Taste_of" id="Taste_of"></a>Taste of.</b> The redundant <i>of</i>, often used, in this country, +in connection with the transitive verbs <i>to taste</i> and <i>to +smell</i>, is a Yankeeism. We <i>taste</i> or <i>smell</i> a thing, not taste +<i>of</i> nor smell <i>of</i> a thing. The neuter verbs <i>to taste</i> and <i>to +smell</i> are often followed by <i>of</i>. "If butter <i>tastes of</i> brass." +"For age but <i>tastes of</i> pleasures."</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"You shall stifle in your own report,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">and <i>smell of</i> calumny."—Shakespeare.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p><b>Tautology.</b> Among the things to be avoided in writing +is <i>tautology</i>, which is <i>the repeating of the same thought</i>, +whether in the same or in different words.</p> + +<p><b>Tautophony.</b> "A regard for harmony requires us, in +the progress of a sentence, to avoid repeating a sound by +employing the same word more than once, or using, in +contiguous words, similar combinations of letters. This +fault is known as <i>tautology</i>."—Dr. G. P. Quackenbos, "Advanced +Course of Composition and Rhetoric," p. 300. Dr. +Quackenbos is in error. The repetition of the same <i>sense</i> +is tautology, and the repetition of the same <i>sound</i>, or, as +Dr. Quackenbos has it, "the repeating of a sound by employing +the same word more than once, or by using in +contiguous words similar combinations of letters," is <i>tautophony</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Teach" id="Teach"></a>Teach.</b> To impart knowledge, to inform, to instruct; +as, "<i>Teach</i> me how to do it"; "<i>Teach</i> me to swim"; "He +<i>taught</i> me to write." The uncultured often misuse <i>learn</i> +for <i>teach</i>. See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Learn">Learn</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Tense.</b> The errors made in the use of the tenses are +manifold. The one most frequently made by persons of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</a></span> +culture—the one that everybody makes would, perhaps, be +nearer the fact—is that of using the <i>imperfect</i> instead of +the <i>perfect</i> tense; thus, "I never <i>saw</i> it played but once": +say, <i>have seen</i>. "He was the largest man I ever <i>saw</i>": say, +<i>have seen</i>. "I never in my life <i>had</i> such trouble": say, +<i>have had</i>. Another frequent error, the making of which +is not confined to the unschooled, is that of using two +verbs in a past tense when only one should be in that time; +thus, "I intended to <i>have gone</i>": say, <i>to go</i>. "It was my +intention to <i>have</i> come": say, <i>to come</i>. "I expected to +<i>have found</i> you here": say, <i>to find</i>. "I was very desirous +to <i>have gone</i>": say, <i>to go</i>. "He was better than I expected +to <i>have found</i> him": say, <i>to find</i>.</p> + +<p>Among other common errors are the following: "I <i>seen</i> +him when he <i>done</i> it": say, "I <i>saw</i> him when he <i>did</i> it." +"I should have <i>went</i> home": say, <i>gone</i>. "If he had <i>went</i>": +say, <i>gone</i>. "I wish you had <i>went</i>": say, <i>gone</i>. "He has +<i>went</i> out": say, <i>gone</i>. "I <i>come</i> to town this morning": +say, <i>came</i>. "He <i>come</i> to me for advice": say, <i>came</i>. "It +<i>begun</i> very late": say, <i>began</i>. "It had already <i>began</i>": +say, <i>begun</i>. "The following toasts were <i>drank</i>": say, <i>drunk</i>. +"His text was that God <i>was</i> love": say, <i>is</i> love. Another +error is made in such sentences as these: "If I had <i>have</i> +known": say, <i>had known</i>. "If he had <i>have</i> come as he +promised": say, <i>had come</i>. "If you had <i>have</i> told me": +say, <i>had told</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Testimony.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Evidence">Evidence</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Than.</b> <i>Than</i> and <i>as</i> implying comparison have the +same case after as before them. "He owes more than +<i>me</i>": read, than <i>I</i>—i. e., more than <i>I owe</i>. "John is not +so old as <i>her</i>": read, as <i>she</i>—i. e., as <i>she is</i>. We should +say, then, "He is stronger than <i>she</i>," "She is older than +<i>he</i>," "You are richer than <i>I</i>," etc. But it does not always<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</a></span> +happen that the nominative case comes after <i>than</i> or <i>as</i>. +"I love you more than <i>him</i>," "I give you more than +<i>him</i>," "I love you as well as <i>him</i>"; that is to say, "I love +you more than <i>I love him</i>," "I give you more than <i>I give +him</i>," "I love you as well as <i>I love him</i>." Take away <i>him</i> +and put <i>he</i> in all these cases, and the grammar is just as +good, but the meaning is quite different. "I love you as +well as <i>him</i>," means that I love you as well <i>as I love him</i>; +but, "I love you as well as <i>he</i>," means that I love you as +well <i>as he loves you</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Than whom.</b> Cobbett, in his "Grammar of the English +Language," says: "There is an erroneous way of employing +<i>whom</i>, which I must point out to your particular +attention, because it is so often seen in very good writers, +and because it is very deceiving. 'The Duke of Argyll, +<i>than whom</i> no man was more hearty in the cause.' 'Cromwell, +<i>than whom</i> no man was better skilled in artifice.' A +hundred such phrases might be collected from Hume, +Blackstone, and even from Drs. Blair and Johnson. Yet +they are bad grammar. In all such cases, <i>who</i> should be +made use of: for it is <i>nominative</i> and not objective. 'No +man was more hearty in the cause <i>than he was</i>'; 'No man +was better skilled in artifice <i>than he was</i>.'<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> It is a very +common Parliament-house phrase, and therefore presumably +<i>corrupt</i>; but it is a Dr. Johnson phrase, too: 'Pope, <i>than +whom</i> few men had more vanity.' The Doctor did not say, +'Myself, <i>than whom</i> few men have been found more base, +having, in my dictionary, described a pensioner as a slave +of state, and having afterward myself become a pensioner.'</p> + +<p>"I differ in this matter from Bishop Lowth, who says<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</a></span> +that 'The relative <i>who</i>, having reference to no verb or +preposition understood, but only to its antecedent, when it +follows <i>than</i>, is <i>always in the objective case</i>; even though +the pronoun, if substituted in its place, would be in the +nominative.' And then he gives an instance from Milton. +'Beelzebub, <i>than whom</i>, Satan except, none higher sat.' It +is curious enough that this sentence of the Bishop is, itself, +ungrammatical! Our poor unfortunate <i>it</i> is so placed as +to make it a matter of doubt whether the Bishop meant it +to relate to <i>who</i> or to <i>its antecedent</i>. However, we know +its meaning; but, though he says that <i>who</i>, when it follows +<i>than</i>, is always in the objective case, he gives us no reason +for this departure from a clear general principle; unless +we are to regard as a reason the example of Milton, who +has committed many hundreds, if not thousands, of grammatical +errors, many of which the Bishop himself has +pointed out. There is a sort of side-wind attempt at +reason in the words, 'having reference to no <i>verb</i> or <i>preposition</i> +understood.' I do not see the <i>reason</i>, even if this +could be; but it appears to me impossible that a noun or +pronoun can exist in a grammatical state without having +reference to some <i>verb</i> or <i>preposition</i>, either expressed or +understood. What is meant by Milton? 'Than Beelzebub, +none <i>sat</i> higher, except Satan.' And when, in order +to avoid the repetition of the word Beelzebub, the relative +becomes necessary, the full construction must be, 'no devil +sat higher <i>than who</i> sat, except Satan'; and not, 'no devil +sat higher <i>than whom</i> sat.'<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> The supposition that there +can be a noun or pronoun which has reference to <i>no verb</i> +and <i>no preposition</i>, is certainly a mistake."</p> + +<p>Of this, Dr. Fitzedward Hall remarks, in his "Recent +Exemplifications of False Philology": "That any one<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</a></span> +but Cobbett would abide this as English is highly improbable; +and how the expression—a quite classical one—which +he discards can be justified grammatically, except by +calling its <i>than</i> a preposition, others may resolve at their +leisure and pleasure."</p> + +<p><b>Thanks.</b> There are many persons who think it in +questionable taste to use <i>thanks</i> for <i>thank you</i>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="That" id="That"></a>That.</b> The best writers often appear to grope after a +separate employment for the several relatives.</p> + +<p>"'<span class="smcap">That</span>' <i>is the proper restrictive, explicative, limiting, +or defining relative</i>.</p> + +<p>"'<i>That</i>,' the neuter of the definite article, was early in +use as a neuter relative. All the other oldest relatives +gradually dropt away, and 'that' came to be applied also +to plural antecedents, and to masculines and feminines. +When 'as,' 'which,' and 'who' came forward to share the +work of 'that,' there seems to have arisen not a little uncertainty +about the relatives, and we find curious double forms: +'whom that,' 'which that,' 'which as,' etc. Gower has, +'Venus <i>whose</i> priest <i>that</i> I am'; Chaucer writes—'This +Abbot <i>which that</i> was an holy man,' 'his love <i>the which that</i> +he oweth.' By the Elizabethan period, these double forms +have disappeared, and all the relatives are used singly without +hesitation. From then till now, 'that' has been struggling +with 'who' and 'which' to regain superior favor, +with varying success. 'Who' is used for persons, 'which' +for things, in both numbers; so is 'that'; and the only +opportunity of a special application of 'that' lies in the +important distinction between coördination and restriction. +Now, as 'who' and 'which' are most commonly preferred +for coördination, it would be a clear gain to confine them +to this sense, and to reserve 'that' for the restrictive application +alone. This arrangement, then, would <i>fall in with</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</a></span> +<i>the most general use of 'that,' especially beyond the limits of +formal composition</i>.</p> + +<p>"The use of 'that' solely as restrictive, with 'who' and +'which' solely as coördinating, <i>also avoids ambiguities</i> that +often attend the indiscriminate use of 'who' and 'which' +for coördinate and for restrictive clauses. Thus, when we +say, 'his conduct surprised his English friends, <i>who</i> had not +known him long,' we may mean either that his English +friends generally were surprised (the relative being, in that +case, <i>coördinating</i>), or that only a portion of them—namely, +the particular portion that had not known him long—were +surprised. In this last case the relative is meant to define +or explain the antecedent, and the doubt would be removed +by writing thus: 'his English friends <i>that</i> had not known +him long.' So in the following sentence there is a similar +ambiguity in the use of 'which': 'the next winter <i>which</i> +you will spend in town will give you opportunities of making +a more prudent choice.' This may mean, either 'you +will spend next winter in town' ('which' being coördinating), +or 'the next of the winters when you are to live in +town,' let that come when it may. In the former case, +'which' is the proper relative; in the latter case, the meaning +is restrictive or defining, and would be best brought out +by 'that': 'the next winter <i>that</i> you will spend in town.'</p> + +<p>"A further consideration in favor of employing 'that' +for explicative clauses is the unpleasant effect arising from +the <i>too frequent repetition of 'who' and 'which.'</i> Grammarians +often recommend 'that' as a means of varying the +style; but this end ought to be sought in subservience to +the still greater end of perspicuity.</p> + +<p>"The following examples will serve further to illustrate +the distinction between <i>that</i>, on the one hand, and <i>who</i> and +<i>which</i>, on the other:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</a></span></p> + +<p>"'In general, Mr. Burchell was fondest of the company +of children, <i>whom</i> he used to call harmless little men.' +'Whom' is here idiomatically used, being the equivalent of +'<i>and them</i> he used to call,' etc.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'Bacon at last, a mighty man, arose,<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>Whom</i> a wise king and nation chose<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Lord Chancellor of both their laws.'<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>Here, also, 'whom' is equal to 'and him.'</p> + +<p>"In the following instance the relative is restrictive or +defining, and 'that' would be preferable: 'the conclusion +of the "Iliad" is like the exit of a great man out of company +<i>whom</i> he has entertained magnificently.' Compare +another of Addison's sentences: 'a man of polite imagination +is let into a great many pleasures <i>that</i> the vulgar are +not capable of receiving.'</p> + +<p>"Both relatives are introduced discriminatingly in this +passage:—'She had learned that from Mrs. Wood, <i>who</i> had +heard it from her husband, <i>who</i> had heard it at the public-house +from the landlord, <i>who</i> had been let into the secret +by the boy <i>that</i> carried the beer to some of the prisoners.'</p> + +<p>"The following sentences are ambiguous under the +modern system of using 'who' for both purposes:—'I met +the boatman <i>who</i> took me across the ferry.' If 'who' is +the proper relative here, the meaning is, 'I met the boatman, +<i>and he</i> took me across,' it being supposed that the boatman +is known and definite. But if there be several boatmen, +and I wish to indicate one in particular by the circumstance +that he had taken me across the ferry, I should use 'that.' +'The youngest boy <i>who</i> has learned to dance is James.' +This means either 'the youngest boy is James, <i>and he</i> has +learned to dance,' or, 'of the boys, the youngest that has +learned to dance is James.' This last sense is restrictive, +and 'that' should be used.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</a></span></p> + +<p>"Turning now to 'which,' we may have a series of +parallel examples. 'The court, <i>which</i> gives currency to +manners, should be exemplary': here the meaning is 'the +court should be exemplary, <i>for the court</i> gives currency to +manners.' 'Which' is the idiomatic relative in this case. +'The cat, <i>which</i> you despise so much, is a very useful animal.' +The relative here also is coördinating, and not restrictive. +If it were intended to point out one individual +cat specially despised by the person addressed, 'that' would +convey the sense. 'A theory <i>which</i> does not tend to the +improvement of practice is utterly unworthy of regard.' +The meaning is restrictive; 'a theory <i>that</i> does not tend.' +The following sentence is one of many from Goldsmith that +give 'that' instead of 'which':—'Age, <i>that</i> lessens the enjoyment +of life, increases our desire of living.' Thackeray +also was fond of this usage. But it is not very common.</p> + +<p>"'Their faith tended to make them improvident; but a +wise instinct taught them that if there was one thing <i>which</i> +ought not to be left to fate, or to the precepts of a deceased +prophet, it was the artillery'; a case where 'that' is the +proper relative.</p> + +<p>"'All words, <i>which</i> are signs of complex ideas, furnish +matter of mistake.' This gives an erroneous impression, +and should be 'all words <i>that</i> are signs of complex ideas.'</p> + +<p>"'In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of +judges is to direct juries by analogy to the Statute of Limitations, +to decide against incorporeal rights <i>which</i> have for +many years been relinquished': say instead, 'incorporeal +rights <i>that</i> have for many years,' and the sense is clear.</p> + +<p>"It is necessary for the proper understanding of 'which' +to advert to its peculiar function of referring to a whole +clause as the antecedent: 'William ran along the top of the +wall, <i>which</i> alarmed his mother very much.' The antecedent<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</a></span> +is obviously not the noun 'wall,' but the fact expressed +by the entire clause—'William ran,' etc. 'He by no means +wants sense, <i>which</i> only serves to aggravate his former folly'; +namely, (not 'sense,' but) the circumstance 'that he does +not want sense.' 'He is neither over-exalted by prosperity, +nor too much depressed by misfortune; <i>which</i> you must +allow marks a great mind.' 'We have done many things +<i>which</i> we ought not to have done,' might mean 'we ought +not <i>to have done many things</i>'; that is, 'we ought to have +done few things.' 'That' would give the exact sense intended: +'we have done many things <i>that</i> we ought not to +have done.' 'He began to look after his affairs himself, +<i>which</i> was the way to make them prosper.'</p> + +<p>"We must next allude to the cases where the relative is +governed by a preposition. We can use a preposition before +'who' and 'which,' but when the relative is 'that,' the +preposition must be thrown to the end of the clause. Owing +to an imperfect appreciation of the genius of our language, +offense was taken at this usage by some of our leading +writers at the beginning of last century, and to this circumstance +we must refer the disuse of 'that' as the relative of +restriction.<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a></p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</a></span></p> +<p>"'It is curious that the only circumstance connected +with Scott, and related by Lockhart, <i>of which</i> I was a witness, +is incorrectly stated in the "Life of Sir Walter."'—Leslie's +'Memoirs.' The relative should be restrictive: +'<i>that</i> I was a witness <i>of</i>.'</p> + +<p>"'There are many words <i>which</i> are adjectives <i>which</i> +have nothing to do with the qualities of the nouns <i>to which</i> +they are put.'—Cobbett. Better: 'there are many words +<i>that</i> are adjectives <i>that</i> have nothing to do with the qualities +of the nouns (<i>that</i>) they are put <i>to</i>.'</p> + +<p>"'Other objects, <i>of which</i> we have not occasion to speak +so frequently, we do not designate by a name of their own.' +This, if amended, would be: 'other objects <i>that</i> we have +not occasion to speak <i>of</i> so frequently, we do not,' etc.</p> + +<p>"'Sorrow for the dead is the only sorrow <i>from which</i> +we refuse to be divorced': 'the only sorrow (<i>that</i>) we refuse +to be divorced <i>from</i>.'</p> + +<p>"'Why, there is not a single sentence in this play <i>that</i> +I do not know the meaning <i>of</i>.'—Addison.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</a></span></p> + +<p>"'Originality is a thing we constantly clamor <i>for</i>, and +constantly quarrel <i>with</i>.'—Carlyle.</p> + +<p>"'A spirit more amiable, but less vigorous, than Luther's +would have shrunk back from the dangers <i>which</i> he braved +and surmounted': '<i>that</i> he braved'; 'the dangers <i>braved</i> +and <i>surmounted</i> by him.'</p> + +<p>"'Nor is it at all improbable that the emigrants had +been guilty of those faults <i>from which</i> civilized men <i>who</i> +settle among an uncivilized people are rarely free.'—Macaulay. +'Nor is it at all improbable that the emigrants +had been guilty of <i>the</i> faults <i>that</i> (<i>such</i> faults <i>as</i>) civilized +men <i>that settle</i> (<i>settling</i>, or <i>settled</i>) among an uncivilized +people are rarely free <i>from</i>.'</p> + +<p>"'Prejudices are notions or opinions <i>which</i> the mind +entertains without knowing the grounds and reasons of +them, and <i>which</i> are assented to without examination.'—Berkeley. +The 'which' in both cases should be 'that,' +but the relative may be entirely dispensed with by participial +conversion: 'prejudices are notions or opinions <i>entertained</i> +by the mind without knowing the grounds and +reasons of them, and <i>assented</i> to without examination.'</p> + +<p>"The too frequent repetition of 'who' and 'which' +may be avoided by resolving them into the conjunction and +personal or other pronoun: 'In such circumstances, the +utmost that Bosquet could be expected to do was to hold +his ground, (<i>which</i>) <i>and this</i> he did.'"—Bain's "Higher +English Grammar."</p> + +<p>This word is sometimes vulgarly used for <i>so</i>; thus, +"I was <i>that</i> nervous I forgot everything"; "I was <i>that</i> +frightened I could hardly stand."</p> + +<p><b><a name="The" id="The"></a>The.</b> Bungling writers sometimes write sheer nonsense, +or say something very different from what they have +in their minds, by the simple omission of the definite article;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</a></span> +thus, "The indebtedness of the English tongue to the +French, Latin and Greek is disclosed in almost every sentence +framed." According to this, there is such a thing as +a French, Latin and Greek tongue. Professor Townsend +meant to say: "The indebtedness of the English tongue to +the French, <i>the</i> Latin, and <i>the</i> Greek," etc.</p> + +<p><b>Then.</b> The use of this word as an adjective is condemned +in very emphatic terms by some of our grammarians, +and yet this use of it has the sanction of such +eminent writers as Addison, Johnson, Whately, and Sir J. +Hawkins. Johnson says, "In his <i>then</i> situation," which, +if brevity be really the soul of wit, certainly has much +more soul in it than "In the situation he then occupied." +However, it is doubtful whether <i>then</i>, as an adjective, will +ever again find favor with careful writers.</p> + +<p><b>Thence.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Whence">Whence</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Think for.</b> We not unfrequently hear a superfluous +<i>for</i> tacked to a sentence; thus, "You will find that he +knows more about the affair than you think <i>for</i>."</p> + +<p><b>Those kind.</b> "<i>Those</i> kind of apples <i>are</i> best": read, +"<i>That</i> kind of apples <i>is</i> best." It is truly remarkable that +many persons who can justly lay claim to the possession +of considerable culture use this barbarous combination. It +would be just as correct to say, "Those flock of geese," or +"Those drove of cattle," as to say, "Those <i>sort</i> or <i>kind</i> of +people."</p> + +<p><b>Those who.</b> This phrase, applied in a restrictive sense, +is the modern substitute for the ancient idiom <i>they that</i>, an +idiom in accordance with the true meaning of <i>that</i>.</p> + +<p>"'<i>They that</i> told me the story said'; 'Blessed are +<i>they that</i> mourn'; 'and Simon and <i>they that</i> were with +him'; 'I love <i>them that</i> love me, and <i>they that</i> seek me +early shall find me'; '<i>they that</i> are whole have no need of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</a></span> +a physician'; 'how sweet is the rest of <i>them that</i> labor!' +'I can not tell who to compare them to so fitly as to <i>them +that</i> pick pockets in the presence of the judge'; '<i>they that</i> +enter into the state of marriage cast a die of the greatest +contingency' (J. Taylor).</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'<i>That</i> man hath perfect blessedness<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>Who</i> walketh not astray,'<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>if expressed according to the old idiom would be, '<i>the</i> man +hath—<i>that</i> walketh.'</p> + +<p>"'That' and 'those,' as demonstrative adjectives, refer +backward, and are not therefore well suited for the forward +reference implied in making use of 'that which' and 'those +who' as restrictive relatives. It is also very cumbrous to +say '<i>that</i> case <i>to which</i> you allude' for 'the case (<i>that</i>) you +allude <i>to</i>.'</p> + +<p>"Take now the following: 'The Duke of Wellington +is not one of <i>those who</i> interfere with matters <i>over which</i> +he has no control': 'the Duke is not one of <i>them that</i> interfere +in matters <i>that</i> they have no control <i>over</i> (matters +<i>that</i> they can not control, <i>beyond their control</i>, <i>out of their +province</i>).' If 'them that' sounds too antiquated, we may +adopt as a convenient compromise, 'the Duke is not one +of <i>those that</i>'; or, 'the Duke is not one to <i>interfere</i> in matters +out of his province'; 'the duke is not one <i>that interferes</i> +with <i>what</i> he has no control <i>over</i>.'"—Bain.</p> + +<p><b>Threadbare Quotations.</b> Among the things that are +in bad taste in speaking and writing, the use of threadbare +quotations and expressions is in the front rank. Some of +these <i>usés et cassés</i> old-timers are the following: "Their +name is legion"; "hosts of friends"; "the upper ten"; +"Variety is the spice of life"; "Distance lends enchantment +to the view"; "A thing of beauty is a joy for ever"; +"the light fantastic toe"; "own the soft impeachment";<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span> +"fair women and brave men"; "revelry by night"; "A +rose by any other name would smell as sweet."</p> + +<p><b>To.</b> It is a well-established rule of grammar that <i>to</i>, +the sign of the infinitive mood, should not be used for the +infinitive itself: thus, "He has not done it, nor is he likely +<i>to</i>." It should be, "nor is he likely <i>to do it</i>."</p> + +<p>We often find <i>to</i>, when the sign of the infinitive, separated +by an adverb from the verb to which it belongs. +Professor A. P. Peabody says that no standard English +writer makes this mistake, and that, so far as he knows, it +occurs frequently with but one respectable American writer.</p> + +<p>Very often <i>to</i> is used instead of <i>at</i>; thus, "I have been +<i>to</i> the theatre, <i>to</i> church, <i>to</i> my uncle's, <i>to</i> a concert," and so +on. In all these cases, the preposition to use is clearly <i>at</i>, +and not <i>to</i>. See, also, <span class="smcap"><a href="#And">And</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>To the Fore.</b> An old idiomatic phrase, now freely +used again.</p> + +<p><b>Tongue.</b> "Much <i>tongue</i> and much judgment seldom +go together."—L'Estrange. See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Language">Language</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Toward.</b> Those who profess to know about such +things say that etymology furnishes no pretext for the adding +of <i>s</i> to <i>ward</i> in such words as <i>backward</i>, <i>forward</i>, <i>toward</i>, +<i>upward</i>, <i>onward</i>, <i>downward</i>, <i>afterward</i>, <i>heavenward</i>, +<i>earthward</i>, and the like.</p> + +<p><b>Transferred Epithet.</b> This is the shifting of a qualifying +word from its proper subject to some allied subject. +Examples:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"The little fields made green<br /></span> +<span class="i0">By husbandry of many <i>thrifty years</i>."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"He plods his <i>weary way</i>." "Hence to your <i>idle bed</i>!" +By this figure the diction is rendered more terse and vigorous; +it is much used in verse. For the sake of conciseness, +it is used in prose in such phrases as the <i>lunatic asylum</i>,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</a></span> +the <i>criminal court</i>, the <i>condemned cell</i>, the <i>blind asylum</i>, +the <i>cholera hospital</i>, the <i>foundling asylum</i>, and the like.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Still in harmonious intercourse they lived<br /></span> +<span class="i0">The rural day, and talked the flowing heart."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>"There be some who, with everything to make them +happy, plod their discontented and melancholy way through +life, less grateful than the dog that licks the hand that +feeds it."</p> + +<p><b>Transpire.</b> This is one of the most frequently misused +words in the language. Its primary meaning is to +evaporate insensibly through the pores, but in this sense it +is not used; in this sense we use its twin sister <i>per</i>spire. +<i>Transpire</i> is now properly used in the sense of to escape +from secrecy, to become known, to leak out; and improperly +used in the sense of to occur, to happen, to come to +pass, and to elapse. The word is correctly used thus: +"You will not let a word concerning the matter <i>transpire</i>"; +"It <i>transpires</i> [leaks out] that S. & B. control the enterprise"; +"Soon after the funeral it <i>transpired</i> [became +known] that the dead woman was alive"; "It has <i>transpired</i> +[leaked out] that the movement originated with John +Blank"; "No report of the proceedings was allowed to +<i>transpire</i>"; "It has not yet <i>transpired</i> who the candidate +is to be." The word is incorrectly used thus: "The Mexican +war <i>transpired</i> in 1847"; "The drill will <i>transpire</i> +under shelter"; "The accident <i>transpired</i> one day last +week"; "Years will <i>transpire</i> before it will be finished"; +"More than a century <i>transpired</i> before it was revisited by +civilized man."</p> + +<p><b>Trifling Minutiæ.</b> The meaning of <i>trifles</i> and of <i>minutiæ</i> +is so nearly the same that no one probably ever uses +the phrase <i>trifling minutiæ</i> except from thoughtlessness.</p> + +<p><b>Trustworthy.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Reliable">Reliable</a></span>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Try.</b> This word is often improperly used for <i>make</i>. +We <i>make</i> experiments, not <i>try</i> them, which is as incorrect +as it would be to say, <i>try</i> the <i>attempt</i>, or the <i>trial</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Ugly.</b> In England, this word is restricted to meaning +ill-favored; with us it is often used—and not without authority—in +the sense of ill-tempered, vicious, unmanageable.</p> + +<p><b>Unbeknown.</b> This word is no longer used except by +the unschooled.</p> + +<p><b>Underhanded.</b> This word, though found in the dictionaries, +is a vulgarism, and as such is to be avoided. +The proper word is <i>underhand</i>. An <i>underhand</i>, not an +<i>underhanded</i>, proceeding.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Universal" id="Universal"></a>Universal—All.</b> "He is <i>universally</i> esteemed by <i>all</i> +who know him." If he is <i>universally</i> esteemed, he must +be esteemed by <i>all</i> who know him; and, if he is esteemed +by <i>all</i> who know him, he must be <i>universally</i> esteemed.</p> + +<p><b>Upward of.</b> This phrase is often used, if not improperly, +at least inelegantly, for <i>more than</i>; thus, "I have +been here for <i>upward of</i> a year"; "For <i>upward of</i> three +quarters of a century she has," etc., meaning, for <i>more than</i> +three quarters of a century.</p> + +<p><b>Utter.</b> This verb is often misused for <i>say</i>, <i>express</i>. +To <i>utter</i> means to <i>speak</i>, to <i>pronounce</i>; and its derivative +<i>utterance</i> means the act, manner, or power of uttering, +vocal expression; as, "the utterance of articulate +sounds." We <i>utter</i> a cry; <i>express</i> a thought or sentiment; +<i>speak</i> our mind; and, though prayers are <i>said</i>, they may be +<i>uttered</i> in a certain tone or manner. "Mr. Blank is right +in all he <i>utters</i>": read, <i>says</i>. "The court <i>uttered</i> a sentiment +that all will applaud": read, <i>expressed</i> a sentiment.</p> + +<p>The primary meaning of the adjective <i>utter</i> is outer, +on the outside; but it is no longer used in this sense. It is +now used in the sense of complete, total, perfect, mere,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</a></span> +entire; but he who uses it indiscriminately as a synonym +of these words will frequently utter <i>utter</i> nonsense—i. e., he +will utter that which is without the pale of sense. For +example, we can not say <i>utter</i> concord, but we can say <i>utter</i> +discord—i. e., without the pale of concord.</p> + +<p><b>Valuable.</b> The following sentence, which recently appeared +in one of the more fastidious of our morning papers, +is offered as an example of extreme slipshodness in the use +of language: "Sea captains are among the most <i>valuable</i> +contributors to the Park aviary." What the writer probably +meant to say is, "Sea captains are among those whose +contributions to the Park aviary are the most valuable."</p> + +<p><b>Vast.</b> This word is often met with in forcible-feeble +diction, where it is used instead of <i>great</i> or <i>large</i> to qualify +such words as number, majority, multitude, and the like. +Big words and expletives should be used only where they +are really needed; where they are not really needed, they +go wide of the object aimed at. The sportsman that hunts +small game with buck-shot comes home empty-handed.</p> + +<p><b>Veracity.</b> The loss would be a small one if we were +to lose this word and its derivatives. Truth and its derivatives +would supply all our needs. In the phrase so often +heard, "A man of truth and veracity," <i>veracity</i> is entirely +superfluous, it having precisely the same meaning as truth. +The phrase, "A big, large man," is equally good diction.</p> + +<p><b>Verbiage.</b> An unnecessary profusion of words is called +<i>verbiage</i>: verbosity, wordiness.</p> + +<p>"I thought what I read of it <i>verbiage</i>."—Johnson.</p> + +<p>Sometimes a better name than verbiage for wordiness +would be <i>emptiness</i>. Witness: "Clearness may be developed +and cultivated in three ways, (<i>a</i>) By constantly practicing +in heart and life the thoughts and ways of honesty and +frankness." The first sentence evidently means, "Clearness<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</a></span> +may be <i>attained</i> in three ways"; but what the second +sentence means—if it means anything—is more than I can +tell. Professor L. T. Townsend, "Art of Speech," vol. i, +p. 130, adds: "This may be regarded as the surest path to +greater transparency of style." The transparency of Dr. +Townsend's style is peculiar. Also, p. 144, we find: "The +laws and rules<span class="fnanchor">1</span> thus far laid down<span class="fnanchor">2</span> furnish ample foundation +for<span class="fnanchor">3</span> the general statement that an easy and natural<span class="fnanchor">4</span> +expression, an exact verbal incarnation of one's thinking,<span class="fnanchor">5</span> +together with the power of using appropriate figures, and +of making nice discriminations between approximate synonyms,<span class="fnanchor">6</span> +each being an important factor in correct style, are +attained in two ways.<span class="fnanchor">7</span> (1) Through moral<span class="fnanchor">8</span> and mental +discipline. (2) Through continuous and intimate<span class="fnanchor">9</span> acquaintance +with such authors as best exemplify those attainments."<span class="fnanchor">10</span></p> + +<p>1. Would not <i>laws</i> cover the whole ground? 2. <i>En +passant</i> I would remark that Dr. Townsend did not make +these laws, though he so intimates. 3. I suggest the word +<i>justify</i> in place of these four. 4. What is natural is easy; +<i>easy</i>, therefore, is superfluous. 5. If this means anything, +it does not mean more than the adjective <i>clear</i> would express, +if properly used in the sentence. 6. <i>Approximate</i> +synonyms!! Who ever heard of any antagonistic or even +of dissimilar synonyms? 7. The transparency of this sentence +is not unlike the transparency of corrugated glass. +8. What has morality to do with correctness? 9. An intimate +acquaintance would suffice for most people. 10. +Those attainments! What are they? Dr. Townsend's +corrugated style makes it hard to tell.</p> + +<p>This paragraph is so badly conceived throughout that +it is well-nigh impossible to make head, middle, or tail of +it; still, if I am at all successful in guessing what Professor<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</a></span> +Townsend wanted to say in it, then—when shorn of its +redundancy and high-flown emptiness—it will read somewhat +like this: "The laws thus far presented justify the +general statement that a clear and natural mode of expression—together +with that art of using appropriate figures +and that ability properly to discriminate between synonyms +which are necessary to correctness—is attained in +two ways. (1) By mental discipline. (2) By the study of +our best authors."</p> + +<p>The following sentence is from a leading magazine: "If +we begin a system of interference, <i>regulating men's gains</i>, +bolstering here, <i>in order to strengthen this interest</i>, [and] repressing +<i>elsewhere</i> [there], in order to equalize wealth, we +shall do <i>an</i> [a] <i>immense</i> deal of mischief, and without bringing +about a more agreeable condition of things <i>than now</i> +[we] shall <i>simply</i> discourage enterprise, repress industry, +and check material growth <i>in all directions</i>." Read without +the eighteen words in italics and with the four inclosed.</p> + +<p>"Nothing disgusts sooner than the empty pomp of language."</p> + +<p><b>Vice.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Crime">Crime</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Vicinity" id="Vicinity"></a>Vicinity.</b> This word is sometimes incorrectly used +without the possessive pronoun; thus, "Washington and +vicinity," instead of "Washington and <i>its</i> vicinity." The +primary meaning of <i>vicinity</i> is nearness, proximity. In +many of the cases in which vicinity is used, <i>neighborhood</i> +would be the better word, though <i>vicinity</i> is perhaps preferable +where it is a question of mere locality.</p> + +<p><b><a name="Vocation" id="Vocation"></a>Vocation—Avocation.</b> These words are frequently +confounded. A man's <i>vocation</i> is his profession, his calling, +his business; and his <i>avocations</i> are the things that +occupy him incidentally. Mademoiselle Bernhardt's <i>vocation</i> +is acting; her <i>avocations</i> are painting and sculpture.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</a></span> +"The tracing of resemblances among the objects and events +of the world is a constant <i>avocation</i> of the human mind."</p> + +<p><b>Vulgar.</b> By the many, this word is probably more +frequently used improperly than properly. As a noun, it +means the common people, the lower orders, the multitude, +the many; as an adjective, it means coarse, low, +unrefined, as "the <i>vulgar</i> people." The sense in which +it is misused is that of immodest, indecent. The wearing, +for example, of a gown too short at the top may be <i>indecent</i>, +but is not <i>vulgar</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Was.</b> "He said he had come to the conclusion that +there <i>was</i> no God." "The greatest of Byron's works <i>was</i> +his whole work taken together."—Matthew Arnold. What +is true at all times should be expressed by using the verb +in the present tense. The sentences above should read <i>is</i>, +not <i>was</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Wharf.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Dock">Dock</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>What.</b> "He would not believe but <i>what</i> I did it": +read, but <i>that</i>. "I do not doubt <i>but what</i> I shall go to +Boston to-morrow": read, doubt <i>that</i>. We say properly, +"I have nothing <i>but what</i> you see"; "You have brought +everything <i>but what</i> I wanted."</p> + +<p><b><a name="Whence" id="Whence"></a>Whence.</b> As this adverb means—unaided—<i>from</i> what +place, source, or cause, it is, as Dr. Johnson styled it, "a +vicious mode of speech" to say <i>from whence</i>, Milton to the +contrary notwithstanding. Nor is there any more propriety +in the phrase <i>from thence</i>, as <i>thence</i> means—unaided—from +that place. "<i>Whence</i> do you come?" not "<i>From +whence</i> do you come?" Likewise, "He went <i>hence</i>," not +"<i>from hence</i>."</p> + +<p><b>Whether.</b> This conjunction is often improperly repeated +in a sentence; thus, "I have not decided whether +I shall go to Boston or <i>whether I shall go</i> to Philadelphia."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</a></span></p> + +<p><b>Which.</b> This pronoun as an <i>interrogative</i> applies to +<i>persons</i> as well as to <i>things</i>; as a <i>relative</i>, it is now made +to refer to <i>things only</i>.</p> + +<p>"<i>Which</i> is employed in coördinate sentences, where <i>it</i>, +or <i>they</i>, and a conjunction might answer the purpose; thus, +'At school I studied geometry, <i>which</i> (and it) I found +useful afterward.' Here the new clause is something independent +added to the previous clause, and not limiting +that clause in any way. So in the adjectival clause; as, +'He struck the poor dog, <i>which</i> (and it, or although it) had +never done him harm.' Such instances represent the most +accurate meaning of <i>which</i>. <i>Who</i> and <i>which</i> might be +termed the <span class="smcap">coördinating relatives</span>.</p> + +<p>"<i>Which</i> is likewise used in <i>restrictive</i> clauses that limit +or explain the antecedent; as, 'The house <i>which</i> he built +still remains.' Here the clause introduced by <i>which</i> specifies, +or points out, the house that is the subject of the +statement, namely, by the circumstance that a certain person +built it. As remarked with regard to <i>who</i>, our most +idiomatic writers prefer <i>that</i> in this particular application, +and would say, 'The house <i>that</i> he built still remains.'"</p> + +<p>"<i>Which</i> sometimes has a special reference attaching to +it, as the neuter relative: 'Cæsar crossed the Rubicon, +<i>which</i> was in effect a declaration of war.' The antecedent +in this instance is not <i>Rubicon</i>, but the entire clause.</p> + +<p>"There is a peculiar usage where <i>which</i> may <i>seem</i> to +be still regularly used in reference to persons, as in 'John +is a soldier, <i>which</i> I should like to be,' that is, 'And I +should like <i>to be a soldier</i>.'" See <span class="smcap"><a href="#That">That</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Who.</b> There are few persons, even among the most +cultivated, who do not make frequent mistakes in the use +of this pronoun. They say, "<i>Who</i> did you see?" "<i>Who</i> +did you meet?" "<i>Who</i> did he marry?" "<i>Who</i> did you<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</a></span> +hear?" "<i>Who</i> did he know?" "<i>Who</i> are you writing +to?" "<i>Who</i> are you looking at?" In all these sentences +the interrogative pronoun is in the objective case, and +should be used in the objective form, which is <i>whom</i>, and +not <i>who</i>. To show that these sentences are not correct, +and are not defensible by supposing any ellipsis whatsoever, +we have only to put the questions in another form. +Take the first one, and, instead of "Who did you see?" +say, "Who saw you?" which, if correct, justifies us in saying, +"Who knew he," which is the equivalent of "Who did he +know?" But "Who saw you?" in this instance, is clearly +not correct, since it says directly the opposite of what is +intended.</p> + +<p><i>Who</i> was little used as a relative till about the sixteenth +century. Bain says: "In modern use, more especially +in books, <i>who</i> is frequently employed to introduce a +clause intended to restrict, define, limit, or explain a noun +(or its equivalent); as, 'That is the man <i>who</i> spoke to us +yesterday.'"</p> + +<p>"Here the clause introduced by <i>who</i> is necessary to +define or explain the antecedent <i>the man</i>; without it, we +do not know who <i>the man</i> is. Such relative clauses are +typical <i>adjective</i> clauses—i. e., they have the same effect as +adjectives in limiting nouns. This may be called the +<span class="smcap">restrictive</span> use of the relative.</p> + +<p>"Now it will be found that the practice of our most +idiomatic writers and speakers is to prefer <i>that</i> to <i>who</i> in +this application.</p> + +<p>"<i>Who</i> is properly used in such coördinate sentences +as, 'I met the watchman, <i>who</i> told me there had been a +fire.' Here the two clauses are distinct and independent; +in such a case, <i>and he</i> might be substituted for <i>who</i>.</p> + +<p>"Another form of the same use is when the second<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</a></span> +clause is of the kind termed adverbial, where we may resolve +<i>who</i> into a personal or demonstrative pronoun and +conjunction. 'Why should we consult Charles, <i>who</i> (<i>for +he</i>, <i>seeing that he</i>) knows nothing of the matter?'</p> + +<p>"<i>Who</i> may be regarded as a modern objective form, +side by side with <i>whom</i>. For many good writers and +speakers say '<i>who</i> are you talking of?' '<i>who</i> does the garden +belong to?' '<i>who</i> is this for?' '<i>who</i> from?'" etc.</p> + +<p>If this be true—if <i>who may</i> be regarded as a modern +objective form, side by side with <i>whom</i>—then, of course, +such expressions as "<i>Who</i> did you see?" "<i>Who</i> did you +meet?" "<i>Who</i> did he marry?" "<i>Who</i> were you with?" +"<i>Who</i> will you give it to?" and the like, are correct. That +they are used colloquially by well-nigh everybody, no one +will dispute; but that they are <i>correct</i>, few grammarians will +concede. See <span class="smcap"><a href="#That">That</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Whole.</b> This word is sometimes most improperly used +for <i>all</i>; thus, "The <i>whole</i> Germans seem to be saturated +with the belief that they are really the greatest people on +earth, and that they would be universally recognized as +being the greatest, if they were not so exceeding modest." +"The whole Russians are inspired with the belief that their +mission is to conquer the world."—Alison.</p> + +<p><b>Wholesome.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Healthy">Healthy</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>Whose.</b> Mr. George Washington Moon discountenances +the use of <i>whose</i> as the possessive of <i>which</i>. He +says, "The best writers, when speaking of inanimate objects, +use <i>of which</i> instead of <i>whose</i>." The correctness of +this statement is doubtful. The truth is, I think, that good +writers use that form for the possessive case of <i>which</i> that +in their judgment is, in each particular case, the more +euphonious, giving the preference, perhaps, to <i>of which</i>. +On this subject Dr. Campbell says: "The possessive of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</a></span> +<i>who</i> is properly <i>whose</i>. The pronoun <i>which</i>, originally indeclinable, +had no possessive. This was supplied, in the +common periphrastic manner, by the help of the preposition +and the article. But, as this could not fail to enfeeble +the expression, when so much time was given to mere conjunctives, +all our best authors, both in prose and verse, +have now come regularly to adopt, in such cases, the possessive +of <i>who</i>, and thus have substituted one syllable in +the room of three, as in the example following: 'Philosophy, +<i>whose</i> end is to instruct us in the knowledge of nature,' for +'Philosophy, <i>the</i> end <i>of which</i> is to instruct us.' Some +grammarians remonstrate; but it ought to be remembered +that use, well established, must give law to grammar, and +not grammar to use."</p> + +<p>Professor Bain says: "<i>Whose</i>, although the possessive +of <i>who</i>, and practically of <i>which</i>, is yet frequently employed +for the purpose of restriction: 'We are the more +likely to guard watchfully against those faults <i>whose</i> deformity +we have seen fully displayed in others.' This is +better than 'the deformity <i>of which</i> we have seen.' 'Propositions +of <i>whose</i> truth we have no certain knowledge.'—Locke." +Dr. Fitzedward Hall says that the use of <i>whose</i> +for <i>of which</i>, where the antecedent is not only irrational +but inanimate, has had the support of high authority for +several hundred years.</p> + +<p><b>Widow Woman.</b> Since widows are always women, +why say a widow <i>woman</i>? It would be perfectly correct +to say a <i>widowed</i> woman.</p> + +<p><b>Widowhood.</b> There is good authority for using this +word in speaking of men as well as of women.</p> + +<p><b>Without.</b> This word is often improperly used instead +of <i>unless</i>; as, "You will never live to my age <i>without</i> you +keep yourself in breath and exercise"; "I shall not go<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</a></span> +<i>without</i> my father consents": properly, <i>unless</i> my father +consents, or, <i>without</i> my father's consent.</p> + +<p><b>Worst.</b> We should say <i>at the worst</i>, not <i>at worst</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Wove.</b> The past participle of the verb <i>to weave</i> is +<i>woven</i>. "Where was this cloth <i>woven</i>?" not <i>wove</i>.</p> + +<p><b>You are mistaken.</b> See <span class="smcap"><a href="#Mistaken">Mistaken</a></span>.</p> + +<p><b>You was.</b> Good usage does, and it is to be hoped +always will, consider <i>you was</i> a gross vulgarism, certain +grammarians to the contrary notwithstanding. <i>You</i> is the +form of the pronoun in the second person plural, and must, +if we would speak correctly, be used with the corresponding +form of the verb. The argument that we use <i>you</i> in the +singular number is so nonsensical that it does not merit a +moment's consideration. It is a custom we have—and +have in common with other peoples—to speak to one another +in the second person plural, and that is all there is +of it. The Germans speak to one another in the <i>third</i> person +plural. The exact equivalent in German of our <i>How +are you?</i> is, <i>How are they?</i> Those who would say <i>you was</i> +should be consistent, and in like manner say <i>you has</i> and +<i>you does</i>.</p> + +<p><b>Yours, &c.</b> The ignorant and obtuse not unfrequently +profess themselves at the bottom of their letters "Yours, +&c." And so forth! forth what? Few vulgarisms are equally +offensive, and none could be more so. In printing correspondence, +the newspapers often content themselves with +this short-hand way of intimating that the writer's name +was preceded by some one of the familiar forms of ending +letters; this an occasional dunderhead seems to think is +sufficient authority for writing himself, <i>Yours, &c.</i></p> + + +<p class="czerop3">THE END.</p> + + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> If this is true in England, it is not true in America. Nowhere in +the United States is such "questionable grammar" as this frequently +heard in cultivated circles.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> "It may be confidently affirmed that with good speakers, in the +case of negation, <i>not me</i> is the usual practice."—Bain. This, I confidently +affirm, is not true in America.—A. A.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Should be, <i>a text-book for his course</i>, and not, <i>for his course a +text-book</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Mr. Gould criticises the Dean's <i>diction</i>, not his <i>style</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Better, "to revise it."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> "Is <i>to put them</i> in tabular form."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> Bullions' "Grammar" was published in 1867.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> "L. W. K., CLK., LL. D., EX. SCH., T. C., D. Of this reverend +gentleman's personality I know nothing. He does not say exactly +what he means; but what he means is, yet, unmistakable. The extract +given above is from 'Public Opinion,' January 20, 1866."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> "The analysis, taken for granted in this quotation, of 'are being +thrown up' into 'are being' and 'thrown up' will be dealt with in +the sequel, and shown to be untenable."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> "Vol. xlv, p. 504 (1837)."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> "'The Life and Correspondence of the late Robert Southey,' +vol. i, p. 249."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> "Vol. i, p. 338. 'A student who <i>is being crammed</i>'; 'that verb +is eternally <i>being declined</i>.'—'The Doctor,' pp. 38 and 40 (mono-tome +ed.)."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> "In 'Put Yourself in his Place,' chapter x, he writes: 'She +basked in the present delight, and looked as if she <i>was being taken</i> to +heaven by an angel.'"</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> "'Words,' etc., p. 340."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> "Thomas Fuller writes: 'At his arrival, the last stake of the +Christians was <i>on losing</i>.'—'The Historie of the Holy Warre,' p. 218 +(ed. 1647)."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> "I express myself in this manner because I distinguish between <i>be</i> +and <i>exist</i>."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> "Samuel Richardson writes: 'Jenny, who attends me here, has +more than once hinted to me that Miss Jervis loves to sit up late, +either reading or <i>being read to</i> by Anne, who, though she reads well, +is not fond of the task.'—'Sir Charles Grandison,' vol. iii, p. 46 (ed. +1754). +</p><p> +"The transition is very slight by which we pass from 'sits being +read to' to 'is being read to.'"</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> "I am here indebted to the last edition of Dr. Worcester's 'Dictionary,' +preface, p. xxxix."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> "'Words and their Uses,' p. 353."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> "'<i>It is being</i> is simply equal to <i>it is</i>. And, in the supposed corresponding +Latin phrases, <i>ens factus est</i>, <i>ens ædificatus est</i> (the obsoleteness +of <i>ens</i> as a participle being granted), the monstrosity is not in +the use of <i>ens</i> with <i>factus</i>, but in that of <i>ens</i> with <i>est</i>. The absurdity +is, in Latin, just what it is in English, the use of <i>is</i> with <i>being</i>, the +making of the verb <i>to be</i> a complement to itself.'—<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 354, 355. +</p><p> +"Apparently, Mr. White recognizes no more difference between <i>supplement</i> +and <i>complement</i> than he recognizes between <i>be</i> and <i>exist</i>. +See the extract I have made above, from p. 353."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> "'But those things which, <i>being not now doing</i>, or having not yet +been done, have a natural aptitude to exist hereafter, may be properly +said to appertain to the future.'—Harris's 'Hermes,' book I, chap. +viii (p. 155, foot-note, ed. 1771). For Harris's <i>being not now doing</i>, +which is to translate <span title="mê ginomena">μὴ γινόμενα</span>, the modern school, if they pursued +uniformity with more of fidelity than of taste, would have to put <i>being +not now being done</i>. There is not much to choose between the two."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> "'Words and their Uses,' p. 343."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> The possessive construction here is, in my judgment, not imperatively +demanded. There is certainly no lack of authority for putting +the three substantives in the accusative. The possessive construction +seems to me, however, to be preferable.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> "The use of the plural for the singular was established as early +the beginning of the fourteenth century."—Morris, p. 118, § 153.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> "Some writers omit the comma in cases where the conjunction is +used. But, as the conjunction is generally employed in such cases for +emphasis, commas ought to be used; although, where the words are +very closely connected, or where they constitute a clause in the midst +of a long sentence, they may be omitted."—Bigelow's "Handbook of +Punctuation."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> "This usage violates one of the fundamental principles of punctuation; +it indicates, very improperly, that the noun <i>man</i> is more +closely connected with <i>learned</i> than with the other adjectives. Analogy +and perspicuity require a comma after <i>learned</i>."—Quackenbos.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> Many writers would omit the last two commas in this sentence.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> The commas before and after <i>particularly</i> are hardly necessary.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> The only exception to this rule is the occasional use of the colon +to separate two short sentences that are closely connected.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> "Dr. Angus on the 'English Tongue,' art. 527."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> "In the following passages, the indicative mood would be more suitable +than the subjunctive: 'If thou <i>be</i> the Son of God, command +that these stones be made bread'; 'if thou <i>be</i> the Son of God, come +down from the cross.' For, although the address was not sincere on the +part of the speakers, they really meant to make the supposition or to +grant that he was the Son of God; 'seeing that thou <i>art</i> the Son of +God.' Likewise in the following: 'Now if Christ <i>be</i> preached, that +He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection +from the dead?' The meaning is, 'Seeing now that Christ +<i>is</i> preached.' In the continuation, the conditional clauses are of a different +character, and 'be' is appropriate: 'But if there <i>be</i> no resurrection +from the dead, then is Christ not risen. And if Christ <i>be</i> not +risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.' Again, +'If thou <i>bring</i> thy gift to the altar, and there remember<i>est</i>,' etc. Consistency +and correctness require 'remember.'"—Harrison on the "English +Language," p. 287.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> "So, in German, <i>wäre</i> for <i>würde sein</i>. 'Hätt' ich Schwingen, +hätt' ich Flügel, nach den Hügeln <i>zög</i>' ich hin,' for '<i>würde</i> ich +<i>ziehen</i>.'"</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> "So, in German, <i>hätte</i> occurs for <i>würde haben</i>. 'Wäre er da +gewesen, so <i>hätten</i> wir ihn gesehen,' for 'so <i>würden</i> wir ihn gesehen +<i>haben</i>.' <i>Hätten</i> is still conditional, not indicative. In Latin, the +pluperfect <i>indicative</i> is occasionally used; which is explained as a +more vivid form."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> "In <i>principal</i> clauses the inflection of the second person is always +retained: 'thou had<i>st</i>,' 'thou would<i>st</i>, should<i>st</i>,' etc. In the example, +the subordinate clause, although subjunctive, shows, 'had<i>st</i>.' +And this usage is exceedingly common."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> To those who are not quite clear as to what transcendentalism is, +the following lucid definition will be welcome: "It is the spiritual cognoscence +of psychological irrefragability connected with concutient +ademption of incolumnient spirituality and etherealized contention of +subsultory concretion." Translated by a New York lawyer, it stands +thus: "Transcendentalism is two holes in a sand-bank: a storm +washes away the sand-bank without disturbing the holes."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> "Cromwell—<i>than he</i> no man was more skilled in artifice; or, +Cromwell—no man was more skilled in artifice <i>than he</i> (was)."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> "No devil sat higher than <i>he</i> sat, except Satan."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> "Speaking of Dryden, Hallam says, 'His "Essay on Dramatic +Poesy," published in 1668, was reprinted sixteen years afterward, and +it is curious to observe the changes which Dryden made in the expression. +Malone has carefully noted all these; they show both the care +the author took with his own style, and the change which was gradually +working in the English language. The Anglicism of terminating the +sentence with a preposition is rejected. Thus, "I can not think so +contemptibly of the age I live in," is exchanged for "the age in which +I live." "A deeper expression of belief than all the actor can persuade +us to," is altered, "can insinuate into us." And, though the old form +continued in use long after the time of Dryden, it has of late years been +reckoned inelegant, and proscribed in all cases, perhaps with an unnecessary +fastidiousness, to which I have not uniformly deferred, since +our language is of Teutonic structure, and the rules of Latin and French +grammar are not always to bind us.' +</p><p> +"The following examples, taken from Massinger's 'Grand Duke of +Florence,' will show what was the usage of the Elizabethan writers:— +</p> +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'For I must use the freedom I <i>was born with</i>.'<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'In that dumb rhetoric <i>which</i> you <i>make use of</i>.'<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i8">"'—— if I had been heir<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Of all the globes and sceptres mankind <i>bows to</i>.'<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i7">"'—— the name of friend<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>Which</i> you are pleased to <i>grace me with</i>.'<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i4">"'—— wilfully ignorant in my opinion<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Of what it did <i>invite him to</i>.'<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"'I look to her as on a princess<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>I dare not be ambitious of</i>.'<br /></span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i7">"'—— a duty<br /></span> +<span class="i0"><i>That I was born with</i>.'"<br /></span> +</div></div> +</div> +</div> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="THE_ORTHOEPIST" id="THE_ORTHOEPIST"></a><big>THE ORTHOËPIST:</big></h2> + + +<p class="center"><i>A PRONOUNCING MANUAL</i>,<br /><br /> + +<b>Containing about Three Thousand Five Hundred<br /> +Words, including a Considerable Number of<br /> +the Names of Foreign Authors, Artists, etc.,<br /> +that are often mispronounced.</b></p> + +<h2>By ALFRED AYRES.</h2> + +<hr class="thin" /> + + +<h3>SELECTIONS FROM THE WORK.</h3> + + + +<ul><li>ạb-dō´mẹn, <i>not</i> ăb´dọ-mĕn.</li> + +<li>ạc-crṳe´, <i>not</i> -crū´.<ul> +<li><small><small>The orthoëpists agree that <i>u</i>, preceded by <i>r</i> in the same syllable, +generally becomes simply <i>oo</i>, as in <i>rude</i>, <i>rumor</i>, <i>rural</i>, <i>rule</i>, +<i>ruby</i>.</small></small></li></ul></li> + + +<li>ạl-lŏp´ạ-thy; ạl-lŏp´ạ-thĭst.</li> + + +<li>Ăr´ạ-bĭc, <i>not</i> Ạ-rā´bĭc.</li> + +<li>Asia—ā´shẹ-ȧ, <i>not</i> ā´zhȧ.</li> + +<li>ay, <i>or</i> aye (meaning <i>yes</i>)—ī.</li> + +<li>aye (meaning <i>always</i>)—ā.</li> + +<li>Bĭs´märck, <i>not</i> bĭz´-. +<ul><li><small><small>At the end of a syllable, <i>s</i>, in German, has invariably its sharp, +hissing sound.</small></small></li></ul></li> + +<li>Cairo—in Egypt, kī´rō; in the United States, kā´rō.</li> + +<li>Courbet—ko̤r´bā´.</li> + +<li>dĕc´ạde, <i>not</i> dẹ-kād´.</li> + +<li>dẹ-cō´roŭs. +<ul><li><small><small>The authority is small, and is becoming less, for saying +<i>dĕc´o-roŭs</i>, which is really as incorrect as it would be to say +<i>sŏn´o-roŭs</i>.</small></small></li></ul></li> + +<li>dĕf´ị-cĭt, <i>not</i> dẹ-fĭç´it.</li> + +<li>dịs̱-dāin´, <i>not</i> dis-.</li> + +<li>dịs̱-hŏn´or, <i>not</i> dis-.</li> + +<li>ĕc-ọ-nŏm´ị-cạl, <i>or</i> ē-cọ-nŏm´ị-cạl. +<ul><li><small><small>The first is the marking of a large majority of the orthoëpists.</small></small></li></ul></li> + +<li>ẹ-nēr´vāte. +<ul><li><small><small>The only authority for saying <i>ĕn´er-vāte</i> is popular usage; all +the orthoëpists say <i>e-nẽr´vāte</i>.</small></small></li></ul></li> + +<li>ĕp´ọc̵h, <i>not</i> ē´pŏc̵h. +<ul><li><small><small>The latter is a Websterian pronunciation, which is not even permitted +in the late editions.</small></small></li></ul></li> + +<li>fĭn-ạn-ciēr´. +<ul><li><small><small>This much-used word is rarely pronounced correctly.</small></small></li></ul></li> + +<li>Heī´nẹ, <i>not</i> hine. +<ul><li><small><small>Final <i>e</i> in German is never silent.</small></small></li></ul></li> + +<li>honest—ŏn´est, <i>not</i> -ĭst, <i>nor</i> -ŭst. +<ul><li><small><small>"Hon<i>est</i>, hon<i>est</i> Iago," is preferable to "hon<i>ust</i>, hon<i>ust</i> Iago," +some of our accidental Othellos to the contrary notwithstanding.</small></small></li></ul></li> + +<li>ĭs̱´ọ-lāte, <i>or</i> ĭs´ọ-late, <i>not</i> ī´sọ-lāt. +<ul><li><small><small>The first marking is Walker's, Worcester's, and Smart's; the second, +Webster's.</small></small></li></ul></li> + +</ul> + + + +<hr class="thin" /> + +<p class="center"><b>One vol., 18mo, cloth. Price, $1.00.</b></p> + +<hr class="thin" /> + +<p class="center">New York: D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3, & 5 Bond Street.</p> + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Verbalist, by +Thomas Embly Osmun, (AKA Alfred Ayres) + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE VERBALIST *** + +***** This file should be named 22457-h.htm or 22457-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/2/2/4/5/22457/ + +Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Stephen Blundell +and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> diff --git a/22457-h/images/001.png b/22457-h/images/001.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c93aeab --- /dev/null +++ b/22457-h/images/001.png |
