



Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Stephen Blundell
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net









                                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.


                                BY
                           ALFRED AYRES.


 We remain shackled by timidity till we have learned to speak with
 propriety.--JOHNSON.

 As a man is known by his company, so a man's company may be known
 by his manner of expressing himself.--SWIFT.

                          [Illustration]

                             NEW YORK:
                     D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,
                     1, 3, AND 5 BOND STREET.
                               1887.




                           COPYRIGHT BY
                     D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,
                               1881




    Transcriber's Note

    Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note. Archaic
    spellings have been retained as printed.




PREFATORY NOTE.


The title-page sufficiently sets forth the end this little book is
intended to serve.

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."

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,"
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.

Suggestions and criticisms are solicited, with the view of profiting by
them in future editions.

If "The Verbalist" receive as kindly a welcome as its companion volume,
"The Orthoëpist," has received, I shall be content.

                                                  A. A.
 NEW YORK, _October_, 1881.




    Eschew fine words as you would rouge.--HARE.

    Cant is properly a double-distilled lie; the second power of a
    lie.--CARLYLE.

    If a gentleman be to study any language, it ought to be that of his
    own country.--LOCKE.

    In language the unknown is generally taken for the
    magnificent.--RICHARD GRANT WHITE.

    He who has a superlative for everything, wants a measure for the
    great or small.--LAVATER.

    Inaccurate writing is generally the expression of inaccurate
    thinking.--RICHARD GRANT WHITE.

    To acquire a few tongues is the labor of a few years; but to be
    eloquent in one is the labor of a life.--ANONYMOUS.

    Words and thoughts are so inseparably connected that an artist in
    words is necessarily an artist in thoughts.-WILSON FLAGG.

    It is an invariable maxim that words which add nothing to the sense
    or to the clearness must diminish the force of the
    expression.--CAMPBELL.

    Propriety of thought and propriety of diction are commonly found
    together. Obscurity of expression generally springs from confusion
    of ideas.--MACAULAY.

    He who writes badly thinks badly. Confusedness in words can proceed
    from nothing but confusedness in the thoughts which give rise to
    them.--COBBETT.




THE VERBALIST.


A--AN. 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 _an_ before a word beginning with an
aspirated _h_, when the accented syllable of the word is the second. For
myself, so long as I continue to aspirate the _h's_ in such words as
_heroic_, _harangue_, and _historical_, I shall continue to use _a_
before them; and when I adopt the Cockney mode of pronouncing such
words, then I shall use _an_ 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 _an_ high mountain and eminent," as
it is to say _an_ harangue, _an_ heroic, or _an_ historical. _An_ 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 _h's_ 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 _a_ and not _an_ before such _h's_ until we decide
to ape the Cockney mode of pronouncing them.

Errors are not unfrequently made by omitting to repeat the article in a
sentence. It should always be repeated 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 _a_ white horse." See
THE.

ABILITY--CAPACITY. The distinctions between these two words are not
always observed by those who use them. "_Capacity_ is the power of
receiving and retaining knowledge with facility; _ability_ 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."

ABORTIVE. An outlandish use of this word may be occasionally met with,
especially in the newspapers. "A lad was yesterday caught in the act of
_abortively_ 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 _abortion_ used in the sense of failure, but never by those
that study to express themselves in chaste English.

ABOVE. There is little authority for using this word as an adjective.
Instead of, "the _above_ statement," say, "the _foregoing_ statement."
_Above_ is also used very inelegantly for _more than_; as, "above a
mile," "above a thousand"; also, for _beyond_; as, "above his strength."

ACCIDENT. See CASUALTY.

ACCORD. "He [the Secretary of the Treasury] was shown through the
building, and the information he desired was _accorded_
him."--Reporters' English.

    "The heroes prayed, and Pallas from the skies
    _Accords_ their vow."--Pope.

The goddess of wisdom, when she granted the prayers of her worshipers,
may be said to have _accorded_; not so, however, when the clerks of our
Sub-Treasury answer the inquiries of their chief.

ACCUSE. See BLAME IT ON.

ACQUAINTANCE. See FRIEND.

AD. This abbreviation for the word _advertisement_ is very justly
considered a gross vulgarism. It is doubtful whether it is permissible
under any circumstances.

ADAPT--DRAMATIZE. In speaking and in writing of stage matters, these
words are often misused. To _adapt_ 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 _adapted_; i.
e., altered to suit the taste of the public before which the translation
is to be represented. To _dramatize_ 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 _adaptation_; in the second, a _dramatization_.

ADJECTIVES. "Very often adjectives stand where adverbs might be
expected; as, 'drink _deep_,' 'this looks _strange_,' 'standing
_erect_.'

"We have also examples of one adjective qualifying another adjective;
as, '_wide_ open,' '_red_ hot,' 'the _pale_ blue sky.' Sometimes the
corresponding adverb is used, but with a different meaning; as, 'I found
the way _easy_--_easily_'; 'it appears _clear_--_clearly_.' Although
there is a propriety in the employment of the adjective in certain
instances, yet such forms as '_indifferent_ well,' '_extreme_ bad,' are
grammatical errors. 'He was interrogated _relative_ to that
circumstance,' should be _relatively_, or _in relation to_. It is not
unusual to say, 'I would have done it _independent_ of that
circumstance,' but _independently_ is the proper construction.

"The employment of adjectives for adverbs is accounted for by the
following considerations:

"(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.

"(2.) In the oldest English the adverb was regularly formed from the
adjective by adding 'e,' as 'soft, soft_e_,' and the dropping of the 'e'
left the adverb in the adjective form; thus, '_clæne_,' adverb, became
'clean,' and appears in the phrase '_clean_ gone'; '_fæste_, fast,' 'to
stick _fast_.' By a false analogy, many adjectives that never formed
adverbs in _-e_ were freely used as adverbs in the age of Elizabeth:
'Thou didst it _excellent_,' '_equal_ (for _equally_) good,'
'_excellent_ well.' This gives precedent for such errors as those
mentioned above.

"(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 _clear_,' 'clear' is part of the
predicate of 'matter.' 'They arrived _safe_': 'safe' does not qualify
'arrived,' but goes with it to complete the predicate. So, 'he sat
_silent_,' 'he stood _firm_.' 'It comes _beautiful_' and 'it comes
_beautifully_' 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 _gleaming_ through the
trees': 'gleaming' is a shortened predicate of 'church'; and the full
form would be, 'the church stood _and gleamed_.' The participle retains
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. '_Passing_ strange' is elliptical: 'passing
(surpassing) _what is_ strange.'"--Bain.

"The comparative adjectives _wiser_, _better_, _larger_, etc., and the
contrasting adjectives _different_, _other_, etc., are often so placed
as to render the construction of the sentence awkward; as, 'That is a
much _better_ statement of the case _than_ yours,' instead of, 'That
statement of the case is much _better than_ yours'; 'Yours is a _larger_
plot of ground _than_ John's,' instead of, 'Your plot of ground is
_larger than_ John's'; 'This is a _different_ course of proceeding
_from_ what I expected,' instead of, 'This course of proceeding is
_different from_ what I expected'; 'I could take no _other_ method of
silencing him _than_ the one I took,' instead of, 'I could take no
method of silencing him _other than_ the one I took.'"--Gould's "Good
English," p. 69.

ADMINISTER. "Carson died from blows _administered_ by policeman
Johnson."--"New York Times." If policeman Johnson was as barbarous as is
this use of the verb _to administer_, it is to be hoped that he was
hanged. Governments, oaths, medicine, affairs--such as the affairs of
the state--are _administered_, but not blows: _they_ are _dealt_.

ADOPT. This word is often used instead of _to decide upon_, and of _to
take_; thus, "The measures _adopted_ [by Parliament], as the result of
this inquiry, will be productive of good." Better, "The measures
_decided upon_," etc. Instead of, "What course shall you _adopt_ to get
your pay?" say, "What course shall you _take_," etc. _Adopt_ is properly
used in a sentence like this: "The course (or measures) proposed by Mr.
Blank was _adopted_ by the committee." That is, what was Blank's was
_adopted_ by the committee--a correct use of the word, as _to adopt_,
means, to assume as one's own.

_Adopt_ 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 _relieved_ of the care of a
child, not that he wishes to _assume_ the care of one.

AGGRAVATE. This word is often used when the speaker means to provoke,
irritate, or anger. Thus, "It _aggravates_ [provokes] me to be
continually found fault with"; "He is easily _aggravated_ [irritated]."
To _aggravate_ means to make worse, to heighten. We therefore very
properly speak of _aggravating_ circumstances. To say of a person that
he is _aggravated_ is as incorrect as to say that he is _palliated_.

AGRICULTURIST. This word is to be preferred to _agriculturalist_. See
CONVERSATIONIST.

ALIKE. This word is often most bunglingly coupled with _both_. 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.

ALL. See UNIVERSAL.

ALL OVER. "The disease spread _all over_ the country." It is more
logical and more emphatic to say, "The disease spread _over all_ the
country."

ALLEGORY. An elaborated metaphor is called an _allegory_; 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:

"Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast 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."

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.

ALLOW. This word is frequently misused in the West and South, where it
is made to do service for _assert_ or _to be of opinion_. Thus, "He
_allows_ that he has the finest horse in the country."

ALLUDE. 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. _Allude_ 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.

ALONE. This word is often improperly used for _only_. That is _alone_
which is unaccompanied; that is _only_ of which there is no other.
"Virtue _alone_ makes us happy," means that virtue unaided suffices to
make us happy; "Virtue _only_ 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 _alone_." Dr. Quackenbos should
have written, "By man _only_". See also ONLY.

AMATEUR--NOVICE. There is much confusion in the use of these two words,
although they are entirely distinct from each other in meaning. An
_amateur_ is one versed in, or a lover and practicer of, any particular
pursuit, art, or science, but _not_ engaged in it professionally. A
_novice_ 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 _novice_ and not an _amateur_. An amateur may be an
artist of great experience and extraordinary skill.

AMELIORATE. "The health of the Empress of Germany is greatly
_ameliorated_." Why not say _improved_?

AMONG. See BETWEEN.

AMOUNT OF PERFECTION. The observant reader of periodical literature
often notes forms of expression which are perhaps best characterized by
the word _bizarre_. Of these queer locutions, _amount of perfection_ is
a very good example. Mr. G. F. Watts, in the "Nineteenth Century," says,
"An _amount of perfection_ has been reached which I was by no means
prepared for." What Mr. Watts meant to say was, doubtless, that a
_degree of excellence_ 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.

AND. Few vulgarisms are more common than the use of _and_ for _to_.
Examples: "Come _and_ see me before you go"; "Try _and_ do what you can
for him"; "Go _and_ see your brother, if you can." In such sentences as
these, the proper particle to use is clearly _to_ and not _and_.

_And_ is sometimes improperly used instead of _or_; thus, "It is obvious
that a language like the Greek _and_ Latin" (language?), etc., should
be, "a language like the Greek _or the_ Latin" (language), etc. There is
no such thing as a Greek and Latin language.

ANSWER--REPLY. These two words should not be used indiscriminately. An
_answer_ is given to a question; a _reply_, to an assertion. When we are
addressed, we _answer_; when we are accused, we _reply_. We _answer_
letters, and _reply_ to any arguments, statements, or accusations they
may contain. Crabb is in error in saying that _replies_ "are used in
personal discourse only." _Replies_, as well as _answers_, are written.
We very properly write, "I have now, I believe, _answered_ all your
questions and _replied_ to all your arguments." A _rejoinder_ is made to
a _reply_. "Who goes there?" he cried; and, receiving no _answer_, he
fired. "The advocate _replied_ to the charges made against his client."

ANTICIPATE. Lovers of big words have a fondness for making this verb do
duty for _expect_. _Anticipate_ is derived from two Latin words meaning
_before_ and _to take_, 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
_anticipated_"; "By this means it is _anticipated_ that the time from
Europe will be lessened two days."

ANTITHESIS. A phrase that opposes contraries is called an _antithesis_.

    "I see a chief who leads my chosen sons,
    All armed with points, _antitheses_, and puns."

The following are examples:

    "Though gentle, yet not dull;
    Strong, without rage; without o'erflowing, full."

    "Contrasted faults through all their manners reign;
    Though poor, luxurious; though submissive, vain;
    Though grave, yet trifling; zealous, yet untrue;
    And e'en in penance planning sins anew."

The following is an excellent example of _personification_ and
_antithesis_ combined:

    "Talent convinces; Genius but excites:
    That tasks the reason; this the soul delights.
    Talent from sober judgment takes its birth,
    And reconciles the pinion to the earth;
    Genius unsettles with desires the mind,
    Contented not till earth be left behind."

In the following extract from Johnson's "Life of Pope," individual
peculiarities are contrasted by means of antitheses:

"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 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."

There are forms of antithesis in which the contrast is only of a
secondary kind.

ANY. This word is sometimes made to do service for _at all_. We say
properly, "She is not _any_ better"; but we can not properly say, "She
does not see _any_," meaning that she is blind.

ANYBODY ELSE. "Public School Teachers are informed that _anybody else's_
is correct."--"New York Times," Sunday, July 31, 1881. An English writer
says: "In such phrases as anybody else, and the like, _else_ is often
put in the possessive case; as, 'anybody else's servant'; and some
grammarians defend this use of the possessive case, arguing that
_somebody else_ is a compound noun." It is better grammar and more
euphonious to consider _else_ as being an adjective, and to form the
possessive by adding the apostrophe and _s_ to the word that _else_
qualifies; thus, anybody's else, nobody's else, somebody's else.

ANYHOW. "An exceedingly vulgar phrase," says Professor Mathews, in his
"Words: Their Use and Abuse." "Its use, _in any manner_, by one who
professes to write and speak the English tongue with purity, is
unpardonable." 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.

ANXIETY OF MIND. See EQUANIMITY OF MIND.

APOSTROPHE. 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 _apostrophe_. The following are some
examples:

                      "O gentle sleep,
    Nature's soft nurse, how have I frighted thee,
    That thou no more wilt weigh my eyelids down,
    And steep my senses in forgetfulness?"
    "Sail on, thou lone imperial bird
    Of quenchless eye and tireless wing!"

              "Help, angels, make assay!
    Bow, stubborn knees! and heart with strings of steel,
    Be soft as sinews of the new-born babe:
    All may yet be well!"

APPEAR. See SEEM.

APPRECIATE. If any word in the language has cause to complain of
ill-treatment, this one has. _Appreciate_ means, to estimate
_justly_--to set the _true_ value on men or things, their worth, beauty,
or advantages of any sort whatsoever. Thus, an overestimate is no more
_appreciation_ than is an underestimate; hence it follows that such
expressions as, "I appreciate it, or her, or him, _highly_," can not be
correct. We _value_, or _prize_, things highly, not _appreciate_ them
highly. This word is also very improperly made to do service for _rise_,
or _increase_, in value; thus, "Land _appreciates_ rapidly in the West."
Dr. L. T. Townsend blunders in the use of _appreciate_ 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 _more highly appreciated_."

APPREHEND--COMPREHEND. 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 _apprehend_ is simply to take an idea into the mind--it
is the mind's first effort--while to _comprehend_ is _fully to
understand_. We are dull or quick of _apprehension_. Children
_apprehend_ much that they do not _comprehend_. Trench says: "We
_apprehend_ many truths which we do not _comprehend_." "_Apprehend_,"
says Crabb, "expresses the weakest kind of belief, the having [of] the
least idea of the presence of a thing."

APT. Often misused for _likely_, and sometimes for _liable_. "What is he
_apt_ to be doing?" "Where shall I be _apt_ to find him?" "If properly
directed, it will be _apt_ to reach me." In such sentences as these,
_likely_ is the proper word to use. "If you go there, you will be _apt_
to get into trouble." Here either _likely_ or _liable_ is the proper
word, according to the thought the speaker would convey.

ARCTICS. See RUBBERS.

ARTIST. 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 _artists_. Painters, sculptors, architects, actors, and
singers, nowadays, generally prefer being thus called, rather than to be
spoken of as _artists_.

AS. "Not _as_ I know": read, "not _that_ I know." "This is not _as_ good
as the last": read, "not _so_ good." "It may be complete _so_ far as
the specification is concerned": correctly, "_as_ far as."

_As_, preceded by _such_ or by _same_, has the force of a relative
applying to persons or to things. "He offered me the _same_ conditions
_as_ he offered you." "The same conditions _that_" would be equally
proper. See, also, LIKE.

ASCRIBE. See IMPUTE.

AT. Things are sold _by_, not _at_, auction. "The scene is more
beautiful _at_ night than by day": say, "_by_ night."

AT ALL. "It is not strange, for my uncle is King of Denmark." Had
Shakespeare written, "It is not _at all_ strange," it is clear that his
diction would have been much less forcible. "I do not wish for any _at
all_"; "I saw no one _at all_"; "If he had any desire _at all_ to see
me, he would come where I am." The _at all_ 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.

AT BEST. Instead of _at best_ and _at worst_, we should say at _the_
best and at _the_ worst.

AT LAST. See AT LENGTH.

AT LEAST. This adverbial phrase is often misplaced. "'The Romans
understood liberty _at least_ as well as we.' This must be interpreted
to mean, 'The Romans understood liberty _as well as we_ understand
liberty.' The intended meaning is, 'that whatever things the Romans
failed to understand, they understood _liberty_.' To express this
meaning we might put it thus: 'The Romans understood _at least_ liberty
as well as we _do_'; 'liberty, _at least_, the Romans understood as well
as we do.' 'A tear, _at least_, is due to the unhappy'; '_at least_ a
tear is due to the unhappy'; 'a tear is due _at least_ to the unhappy';
'a tear is due to the unhappy _at least_'--all express different
meanings. 'This can not, _often at least_, be done'; 'this can not be
done _often, at least_.' (1. 'It often happens that this can not be
done.' 2. 'It does not often happen that this can be done.') So, 'man is
_always_ capable of laughing'; 'man is capable of laughing
_always_.'"--Bain.

AT LENGTH. This phrase is often used instead of _at last_. "_At length_
we managed to get away": read, "_at last_." "_At length_ we heard from
him." To hear from any one _at length_ is to hear fully; i. e., in
detail.

AUTHORESS. With regard to the use of this and certain other words of
like formation, Mr. Gould, in his "Good English," says: "_Poet_ means
simply a person who writes poetry; and _author_, in the sense under
consideration, a person who writes poetry or prose--not a _man_ who
writes, but a _person_ 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, _authoress_ and _poetess_ are superfluous.
And they are superfluous, also, in another respect--that they are very
rarely used, indeed they hardly _can_ be used, independently of the
_name_ 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 _men_. They are,
moreover, liable to the charge of affectation and prettiness, to say
nothing of pedantic pretension to accuracy.

"If the _ess_ is to be permitted, there is no reason for excluding it
from _any_ noun that indicates a person; and the next editions of our
dictionaries may be made complete by the addition of _writress_,
_officeress_, _manageress_, _superintendentess_, _secretaryess_,
_treasureress_, _walkeress_, _talkeress_, and so on to the end of the
vocabulary."

AVOCATION. See VOCATION.

BAD COLD. Inasmuch as colds are never _good_, why say a _bad_ cold? We
may talk about _slight_ colds and _severe_ colds, but not about _bad_
colds.

BAGGAGE. See LUGGAGE.

BALANCE. This word is very frequently and very erroneously used in the
sense of _rest_, _remainder_. It properly means _the excess of one thing
over another_, and in this sense and in no other should it be used.
Hence it is improper to talk about the _balance_ of the edition, of the
evening, of the money, of the toasts, of the men, etc. In such cases we
should say the _rest_ or the _remainder_.

BARBARISM. Defined as an offense against good usage, by the use of an
improper word, i. e., a word that is antiquated or improperly formed.
_Preventative_, _enthuse_, _agriculturalist_, _donate_, etc., are
barbarisms. See also SOLECISM.

BEEN TO. We not unfrequently hear a superfluous _to_ tacked to a
sentence; thus, "Where have you been _to_?"

BEG. We often see letters begin with the words, "I _beg_ to acknowledge
the receipt of your favor," etc. We should write, "I _beg leave_ to
acknowledge," etc. No one would say, "I beg to tell you," instead of, "I
beg _leave_ to tell you."

BEGIN--COMMENCE. 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 COMMENCE.

BEING BUILT. See IS BEING BUILT.

BELONGINGS. An old idiomatic expression now coming into use again.

BESIDE--BESIDES. In the later unabridged editions of Webster's
dictionary we find the following remarks concerning the use of these two
words: "_Beside_ and _besides_, 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 _beside_ be used only and always as a
preposition, with the original meaning _by the side of_; as, to sit
_beside_ a fountain; or with the closely allied meaning _aside from_, or
_out of_; as, this is _beside_ our present purpose: 'Paul, thou art
_beside_ thyself.' The adverbial sense to be wholly transferred to the
cognate word. 2. That _besides_, as a preposition, take the remaining
sense, _in addition to_; as, _besides_ all this; _besides_ the
consideration here offered: 'There was a famine in the land _besides_
the first famine.' And that it also take the adverbial sense of
_moreover_, _beyond_, etc., which had been divided between the words;
as, _besides_, there are other considerations which belong to this
case."

BEST. See AT BEST.

BETWEEN. This word is often misused for _among_; thus, "The word
_fellow_, however much in use it may be _between_ men, sounds very
objectionable from the lips of women."--"London Queen." Should be,
"_among_ men." _Between_ is used in reference to two things, parties, or
persons; _among_, in reference to a greater number. "Castor and Pollux
with one soul _between_ them." "You have _among_ you many a purchased
slave."

BLAME IT ON. Here is a gross vulgarism which we sometimes hear from
persons of considerable culture. They use it in the sense of _accuse_ or
_suspect_; thus, "He _blames it on_ his brother," meaning that he
_accuses_ or _suspects_ his brother of having done it, or of being at
fault for it.

BOGUS. A colloquial term incompatible with dignified diction.

BOTH. We sometimes hear such absurd sentences as, "They _both_ resemble
each other very much"; "They are _both_ alike"; "They _both_ met in the
street." _Both_ is likewise redundant in the following sentence: "It
performs at the same time the offices _both_ of the nominative and
objective cases."

BOUND. The use of this word in the sense of _determined_ is not only
inelegant but indefensible. "I am _bound_ to have it," should be, "I am
_determined_ to have it."

BRAVERY--COURAGE. The careless often use these two words as though they
were interchangeable. _Bravery_ is inborn, is instinctive; _courage_ is
the product of reason, calculation. There is much merit in being
courageous, little merit in being brave. Men who are simply _brave_ are
careless, while the courageous man is always cautious. _Bravery_ often
degenerates into temerity. _Moral courage_ 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 _moral courage_ is one
of the rarest and most admirable of virtues.

Alfred the Great, in resisting the attacks of the Danes, displayed
_bravery_; in entering their camp as a spy, he displayed _courage_.

BRING--FETCH--CARRY. The indiscriminate use of these three words is very
common. To _bring_ is to convey to or toward--a simple act; to _fetch_
means to _go_ and bring--a compound act; to _carry_ often implies motion
from the speaker, and is followed by _away_ or _off_, and thus is
opposed to _bring_ and _fetch_. Yet one hears such expressions as, "Go
to Mrs. D.'s and _bring_ her this bundle; and here, you may _fetch_ her
this book also." We use the words correctly thus: "_Fetch_, or _go
bring_, me an apple from the cellar"; "When you come home _bring_ some
lemons"; "_Carry_ this book home with you."

BRITISH AGAINST AMERICAN ENGLISH. "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 _different to_ for _different from_, 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.

BRITISH AGAINST AMERICAN ORTHOËPY. "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 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
_dic-tion-ar-y_, _mil-it-ar-y_, 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 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 _dactyl_ or a _trochee_, and comes home an _amphibrach_ or
an _iambus_. 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.

"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
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.

BRYANT'S PROHIBITED WORDS. See INDEX EXPURGATORIUS.

BUT. This word is misused in various ways. "I do not doubt _but_ he will
be here": read, doubt _that_. "I should not wonder _but_": read, _if_.
"I have no doubt _but_ that he will go": suppress _but_. "I do not doubt
_but_ that it is true": suppress _but_. "There can be no doubt _but_
that the burglary is the work of professional cracksmen."--"New York
Herald." Doubt _that_, and not _but that_. "A careful canvass leaves no
doubt _but_ that the nomination," etc.: suppress _but_. "There is no
reasonable doubt _but_ that it is all it professes to be": suppress
_but_. "The mind no sooner entertains any proposition _but_ it presently
hastens," etc.: read, _than_. "No other resource _but_ this was allowed
him": read, _than_.

BY. See AT.

CALCULATE. 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. _If this is true_, we can not say a thing is
_calculated_ 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, _likely_ or _apt_, for example. Cobbett, however,
says, "That, to Her, whose great example is so well _calculated_ to
inspire," etc.; and, "The first two of the three sentences are well
enough _calculated_ for ushering," etc. _Calculate_ is sometimes
vulgarly used for _intend_, _purpose_, _expect_; as, "He _calculates_ to
get off to-morrow."

CALIBER. This word is sometimes used very absurdly; as, "Brown's Essays
are of a much higher _caliber_ than Smith's." It is plain that the
proper word to use here is _order_.

CANT. _Cant_ 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 LYING!

"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'?"

"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 _improve_ this and that text, and they must do so and so
in a prayerful way; and so on."

CAPACITY. See ABILITY.

CAPTION. This word is often used for _heading_, but, thus used, it is
condemned by careful writers. The true meaning of _caption_ is a
seizure, an arrest. It does not come from a Latin word meaning _a
head_, but from a Latin word meaning _to seize_.

CARET. Cobbett writes of the caret to his son: "The last thing I shall
mention under this head is the _caret_ [^], 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
_blunder-mark_. I would have you, my dear James, scorn the use of the
thing. _Think_ before you write; let it be your custom to _write
correctly_ and in _a plain hand_. 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 _read_ and to _understand_
what you write. This will make your handwriting and also your meaning
_plain_. 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."

CARRY. See BRING.

CASE. 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_."--George Merideth
in "The Tragic Comedies," Eng. ed., vol. i, p. 33. "Let's you and _I_
go": say, _me_. We can not say, Let _I_ go. Properly, Let's go, i. e.,
let us go, or, let you and _me_ go. "He is as good as _me_": say, as
_I_. "She is as tall as _him_": say, as _he_. "You are older than _me_":
say, than _I_. "Nobody said so but _he_": say, but _him_. "Every one
can master a grief but _he_ that hath it": correctly, but _him_. "John
went out with James and _I_": say, and _me_. "You are stronger than
_him_": say, than _he_. "Between you and _I_": say, and _me_. "Between
you and _they_": say, and _them_. "He gave it to John and _I_": say, and
_me_. "You told John and _I_": say, and _me_. "He sat between him and
_I_": say, and _me_. "He expects to see you and _I_": say, and _me_.
"You were a dunce to do it. Who? _me_?" say, _I_. Supply the ellipsis,
and we should have, Who? _me_ a dunce to do it? "Where are you going?
Who? _me_?" say, _I_. We can't say, _me_ going. "_Who_ do you mean?"
say, _whom_. "Was it _them_?" say, _they_. "If I _was him_, I would do
it": say, _were he_. "If I _was her_, I would not go": say, _were she_.
"Was it _him_?" say, _he_. "Was it _her_?" say, _she_. "For the benefit
of those _whom_ he thought were his friends": say, _who_. 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 _whom_ were his friends."

"On the supposition," says Bain, "that the interrogative _who_ has
_whom_ for its objective, the following are errors: '_who_ do you take
me to be?' '_who_ should I meet the other day?' '_who_ is it by?' '_who_
did you give it to?' '_who_ to?' '_who_ for?' But, considering that
these expressions _occur with the best writers and speakers_, that they
_are more energetic_ than the other form, and that they _lead to no
ambiguity_, it may be doubted whether grammarians have not exceeded
their province in condemning them."

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. '_Who_, of all the men in
the world, do you think I _saw_ to-day?' '_Who_, for the sake of
numerous services, the office was given to.' In both these cases it
should be _whom_. Bring the verb in the first and the preposition in the
second case closer to the relative, as, _who I saw_, _to who the office
was given_, and you see the error at once. But take care! '_Whom_, of
all the men in the world, do you think, _was_ chosen to be sent as an
ambassador?' '_Whom_, for the sake of his numerous services, _had_ an
office of honor bestowed upon him.' These are nominative cases, and
ought to have _who_; that is to say, _who was chosen_, _who had an
office_."

"Most grammarians," says Dr. Bain, in his "Higher English Grammar,"
"have laid down this rule: 'The verb _to be_ has the same case after as
before it.' Macaulay censures the following as a solecism: 'It was _him_
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 _him_?" said the lady in _questionable grammar_.' But,
notwithstanding this," continues Dr. Bain, "we certainly hear in the
actual speech of all classes of society such expressions as 'it was
_me_,' 'it was _him_,' 'it was _her_,' more frequently than the
prescribed form.[1] 'This shy creature, my brother says, is _me_'; 'were
it _me_, I'd show him the difference.'--Clarissa Harlowe. 'It is not
_me_[2] you are in love with.'--Addison. 'If there is one character more
base than another, it is _him_ who,' etc.--Sydney Smith. 'If I were
_him_'; 'if I had been _her_,' etc. The authority of good writers is
strong on the side of objective forms. There is also the analogy of the
French language; for while 'I am here' is _je suis ici_, the answer to
'who is there?' is _moi_ (me); and _c'est moi_ (it is _me_) is the
legitimate phrase--never _c'est je_ (it is I)."

But _moi_, according to all French grammarians, is very often in the
nominative case. _Moi_ 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_" the correct translation of the phrase, and not "It is _me_." The
French equivalent of "I! I am here," is "Moi! je suis ici." The
Frenchman uses _moi_ in the nominative case when _je_ would be
inharmonious. Euphony with him is a matter of more importance than
grammatical correctness. Bescherelle gives many examples of _moi_ 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
_me_," we must do as the French do--consider _me_ as being in the
nominative case, and offer _euphony_ as our reason for thus using it.

When shall we put nouns (or pronouns) preceding verbal, or participial,
nouns, as they are called by some grammarians--infinitives in _ing_, as
they are called by others--in the possessive case?

"'I am surprised at _John's_ (or _his_, _your_, etc.) _refusing_ to go.'
'I am surprised at _John_ (or _him_, _you_, etc.) _refusing_ to go.' [In
the latter sentence _refusing_ 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 _him going_
forward': better, 'They prevented _his going_ forward.' 'He was
dismissed without any _reason being_ assigned.' 'The boy died through
his _clothes being_ burned.' 'We hear little of any _connection being_
kept up between the two nations.' 'The men rowed vigorously for fear of
the _tide turning_ against us.' _But most examples of the construction
without the possessive form are_ OBVIOUSLY DUE TO MERE SLOVENLINESS....
'In case of _your being_ absent': here _being_ is an infinitive [verbal,
or participial, noun] qualified by the possessive _your_. 'In case of
_you being_ present': here _being_ would have to be construed as a
participle. _The possessive construction is, in this case, the primitive
and regular construction_; THE OTHER IS A MERE LAPSE. 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 _demand_ creating supply':
in strictness, '_Demand's_ creating supply.' 'A petition was presented
against the _license being_ granted.' But for the awkwardness of
extending the possessive to impersonal subjects, it would be right to
say, 'against the _license's being_ granted.' 'He had conducted the ball
without any _complaint being_ urged against him.' The possessive would
be suitable, but undesirable and unnecessary."--Professor Alexander
Bain.

"Though the _ordinary_ 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, _in my opinion, the three
possessives are all wrong_: 'The kitchen, too, now begins to give
dreadful note of preparation; not from _armorers_ accomplishing the
knights, but from the _shopmaid's_ chopping force-meat, the
_apprentice's_ cleaning knives, and the _journeyman's_ receiving a
practical lesson in the art of waiting at table.' 'The daily instances
of _men's_ dying around us.' Say rather, 'Of _men_ dying around us.' The
leading word in sense ought not to be made the adjunct in
construction."--Goold Brown.

CASUALTY. This word is often heard with the incorrect addition of a
syllable, _casuality_, which is not recognized by the lexicographers.
Some writers object to the word casualty, and always use its synonym
_accident_.

CELEBRITY. "A number of _celebrities_ 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
_distinguished persons_.

CHARACTER--REPUTATION. These two words are not synonyms, though often
used as such. _Character_ means the sum of distinguishing qualities.
"Actions, looks, words, steps, form the alphabet by which you may spell
characters."--Lavater. _Reputation_ 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 _reputation_,
but not _character_. Sir Peter does not leave his _character_ behind
him, but his _reputation_--his _good name_.

CHEAP. 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
_low-priced_, when one means low-priced, than to use the word _cheap_.
What is low-priced, as everybody knows, is often _dear_, and what is
high-priced is often _cheap_. A diamond necklace might be _cheap_ at
ten thousand dollars, and a pinchbeck necklace dear at ten dollars.

CHERUBIM. The Hebrew plural of _cherub_. "We are authorized," says Dr.
Campbell, "both by use and analogy, to say either _cherubs_ and
_seraphs_, according to the English idiom, or _cherubim_ and _seraphim_,
according to the Oriental. The former suits better the familiar, the
latter the solemn, style. As the words _cherubim_ and _seraphim_ are
plural, the terms _cherubims_ and _seraphims_, as expressing the plural,
are quite improper."--"Philosophy of Rhetoric."

CITIZEN. 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 _citizens_ were injured by the explosion."
Here some other word--_persons_, for example--should be used.

CLEVER. In this country the word _clever_ 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
_smart_, though it is a less colloquial term, and is of wider
application. In England the phrase "a _clever_ man" is the equivalent of
the French phrase, "_un homme d'esprit_." The word is properly used in
the following sentences: "Every work of Archbishop Whately must be an
object of interest to the admirers of _clever_ reasoning"; "Cobbett's
letter ... very _clever_, but very mischievous"; "Bonaparte was
certainly as _clever_ a man as ever lived."

CLIMAX. A clause, a sentence, a paragraph, or any literary composition
whatsoever, is said to end with a _climax_ 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 is called an _anti-climax_. Here are some examples of climax:

"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."

"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."

"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!"

CO. The prefix _co_ should be used only when the word to which it is
joined begins with a vowel, as in _co-eval_, _co-incident_,
_co-operate_, etc. _Con_ is used when the word begins with a consonant,
as in _con-temporary_, _con-junction_, etc. _Co-partner_ is an exception
to the rule.

COMMENCE. 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
_commence_ 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 _commence_ in any sense; they prefer
to use its Saxon equivalent, _begin_. See, also, BEGIN.

COMPARISON. When only two objects are compared, the comparative and not
the superlative degree should be used; thus, "Mary is the _older_ of the
two"; "John is the _stronger_ of the two"; "Brown is the _richer_ of
the two, and the _richest_ man in the city"; "Which is the _more_
desirable, health or wealth?" "Which is the _most_ desirable, health,
wealth, or genius?"

    "Of two such lessons, why forget
    The _nobler_ and the _manlier_ one?"

COMPLETED. This word is often incorrectly used for _finished_. That is
_complete_ which lacks nothing; that is _finished_ which has had all
done to it that was intended. The builder of a house may _finish_ it and
yet leave it very _incomplete_.

CONDIGN. 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 _condign_ praise"; i. e., his endeavors shall
not lack _proper_ or their _merited_ praise. "A villain _condignly_
punished" is a villain punished _according to his deserts_. To use
_condign_ in the sense of _severe_ is just as incorrect as it would be
to use _deserved_ or _merited_ in the sense of _severe_.

CONFIRMED INVALID. This phrase is a convenient mode of expressing the
idea it conveys, but it is difficult to defend, inasmuch as _confirmed_
means strengthened, established.

CONSEQUENCE. This word is sometimes used instead of _importance_ or
_moment_; as, "They were all persons of more or less _consequence_":
read, "of more or less _importance_." "It is a matter of no
_consequence_": read, "of no _moment_."

CONSIDER. "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." _Consider_ means, to meditate, to deliberate, to reflect, to
revolve in the mind; and yet it is made to do service for _think_,
_suppose_, and _regard_. Thus: "I _consider_ his course very
unjustifiable"; "I have always _considered_ it my duty," etc.; "I
_consider_ him as being the cleverest man of my acquaintance."

CONTEMPTIBLE. This word is sometimes used for _contemptuous_. An old
story says that a man once said to Dr. Parr, "Sir, I have a
_contemptible_ opinion of you." "That does not surprise me," returned
the Doctor; "all your opinions are _contemptible_." What is worthless or
weak is _contemptible_. Despicable is a word that expresses a still more
intense degree of the contemptible. A traitor is a _despicable_
character, while a poltroon is only _contemptible_.

CONTINUALLY. See PERPETUALLY.

CONTINUE ON. The _on_ 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 _on_ our way." In such sentences, however, as
"Continue _on_," "He continued to read _on_," "The fever continued _on_
for some hours," and the like, the _on_ generally serves no purpose.

CONVERSATIONIST. This word is to be preferred to _conversationalist_.
Mr. Richard Grant White says that _conversationalist_ and
_agriculturalist_ are inadmissible. On the other hand, Dr. Fitzedward
Hall says: "As for _conversationist_ and _conversationalist_,
_agriculturist_ and _agriculturalist_, as all are alike legitimate
formations, it is for convention to decide which we are to prefer."

CONVOKE--CONVENE. 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 _assemble_, or
_convene_, and nothing binding on those _assembled_, or _convened_: one
_assembles_, or _convenes_, by invitation or request; one attends to the
notice or not, at pleasure. _Convoke_, on the other hand, is _an act of
authority_; 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 _convokes_, not _convenes_, the Senate.

CORPOREAL--CORPORAL. These adjectives, though regarded as synonyms, are
not used indiscriminately. _Corporal_ is used in reference to the body,
or animal frame, in its proper sense; _corporeal_, to the animal
substance in an extended sense--opposed to spiritual. _Corporal_
punishment; _corporeal_ or _material_ form or substance.

    "That to _corporeal_ substances could add
    Speed most spiritual."--Milton.

    "What seemed _corporal_
    Melted as breath into the wind."--Shakespeare.

COUPLE. 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 _two_ for it would
often materially improve the diction.

COURAGE. See BRAVERY.

CRIME--VICE--SIN. The confusion that exists in the use of these words is
due largely to an imperfect understanding of their respective meanings.
_Crime_ 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.
_Vice_ is a course of wrong-doing, and is not modified either by
country, religion, or condition. As for _sin_, 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 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 _crime_, but it was, in the eyes of most people,
neither a _vice_ nor a _sin_.

CRUSHED OUT. "The rebellion was finally _crushed out_." Out of what? We
may _crush_ the life out of a man, or _crush_ a man to death, and
_crush_, not _crush out_, a rebellion.

CULTURED. 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 _culture_, but, though the dictionaries recognize the
verb _to culture_, we do not use it. Be this objection valid or be it
not, _cultured_ having but two syllables, while its synonym _cultivated_
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.

CURIOUS. This word is often used instead of _strange_ or _remarkable_.
"A _curious_ fact": better, "a _remarkable_ fact." "A _curious_
proceeding": better, "a _strange_ proceeding."

DANGEROUS. "He is pretty sick, but not _dangerous_." Dangerous people
are generally most dangerous when they are most vigorous. Say, rather,
"He is sick, but not _in danger_."

DEAREST. "A gentleman once began a letter to his bride thus: 'My
_dearest_ Maria.' The lady replied: 'My dear John, I beg that you will
mend either your morals or your grammar. You call me your "_dearest_
Maria"; am I to understand that you have other Marias'?"--Moon's "Bad
English."

DECEIVING. "You are _deceiving_ me." Not unfrequently _deceiving_ is
used when the speaker means _trying to deceive_. It is when we do not
suspect deception that we are deceived.

DECIMATE. 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
_decimated_ by the enemy's artillery." "Though terribly _tithed_" would
be equally correct.

DEMEAN. This word is sometimes erroneously used in the sense of _to
debase_, _to disgrace_, _to humble_. It is a reflexive verb, and its
true meaning is _to behave_, _to carry_, _to conduct_; as, "He _demeans
himself_ in a gentlemanly manner," i. e., He _behaves_, or _carries_, or
_conducts_, himself in a gentlemanly manner.

DENUDE. "The vulture," says Brande, "has some part of the head and
sometimes of the neck _denuded_ of feathers." Most birds might be
_denuded_ of the feathers on their heads; not so, however, the vulture,
for his head is always featherless. A thing can not be _denuded_ of what
it does not have. Denuding a vulture's head and neck of the feathers is
like _denuding_ an eel of its scales.

DEPRECATE. Strangely enough, this word is often used in the sense of
disapprove, censure, condemn; as, "He _deprecates_ the whole
proceeding"; "Your course, from first to last, is universally
_deprecated_." But, according to the authorities, the word really means,
to endeavor to avert by prayer; to pray exemption or deliverance from;
to beg off; to entreat; to urge against.

"Daniel kneeled upon his knees to _deprecate_ the captivity of his
people."--Hewyt.

DESPITE. This word is often incorrectly preceded by _in_ and followed by
_of_; thus, "_In_ despite _of_ all our efforts to detain him, he set
out"; which should be, "Despite all our efforts," etc., or "_In spite
of_ all our efforts," etc.

DETERMINED. See BOUND.

DICTION. This is a general term, and is applicable to a single sentence
or to a connected composition. _Bad diction_ may be due to errors in
grammar, to a confused disposition of words, or to an improper use of
words. _Diction_, 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:

"The leading genius[1] of the People's College at Chautauqua Lake, with
a [the?] view of providing for his course[2] a text-book, asked for the
publication of the following laws and principles of speech.[3]

"The author, not seeing sufficient reason[4] for withholding what had
been of much practical benefit[5] to himself, consented.[6]

"The subject-matter herein contained is an outgrowth from[7] occasional
instructions[8] given[9] while occupying the chair[10] of Sacred
Rhetoric."

1. The phrase _leading genius_ 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, rhetoric, or what?[3] 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. "_Sufficient_
reason"! Then there were reasons why Professor Townsend ought to have
kept these good things all to himself; only, they were not _sufficient_.
5. "Practical benefit"! Is there _any_ such thing as impractical
benefit? Are not all benefits practical? and, if they are, what purpose
does the epithet _practical_ serve? 6. Consented to what? It is easy to
see that the Doctor means _acceded to the request_, 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. _The outgrowth of_
would be English. 8. "Occasional instructions"! Very vague, and well
calculated to set the reader to guessing again. 9. Given to whom? 10.
"_The_ chair." The definite article made it necessary for the writer to
specify what particular chair of Sacred Rhetoric he meant.

These ten lines are a fair specimen of the diction of the entire volume.

Page 131. "To render a _given ambiguous or_ 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 _recommending suggestions_?

Dr. Townsend speaks of _mastering a subject before publishing it_.
Publishing a subject?

Page 133. "Violations of simplicity, whatever the type, show either that
_the mind of_ the writer is tainted with affectation, or _else_ that _an
effort is making_ to conceal _conscious_ poverty of _sentiment_ 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.

Page 143. "This _quality_ is fully _stated_ and recommended," etc. Who
has ever heard of _stating a quality_?

On page 145 Dr. Townsend says: "A person can not read a single book of
poor style without having his own style vitiated." _A book of poor
style_ is an awkward expression, to say the least. _A single
badly-written book_ would have been unobjectionable.

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.?

Page 161. "The boy studies ... geography and hates everything connected
with the sea and land." Why _the_ boy? As there are few things besides
seals and turtles that are connected with the sea _and_ land, the boy in
question has few things to hate.

On page 175, Dr. Townsend heads a chapter thus: "_Art_ of acquiring
_Skill_ 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. "_How_ to acquire skill" is probably what is meant.

On page 232, "Jeremy Taylor is among the best 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."

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 _clergymen_ more than _those_ of other professions will study this
treatise." The antecedent of the relative _those_ being _clergymen_, the
sentence, it will be perceived, says: "The author has felt that
_clergymen_ more than _clergymen of other professions_ will study this
treatise." Comment on such "art" as Professor Townsend's is not
necessary.

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:
"_Large capital_ always manages to make _itself_ master of the
situation; it is the small capitalist and the small landholder that
would suffer," etc. Should be, "_The large capitalist ... himself_,"
etc. Again: "The small farmer would ... be despoiled ... of the meager
profit which _strenuous_ labor had conquered from the _reluctant_ soil."
Not only are the epithets in italics superfluous, and consequently
weakening in their effect, but idiom does not permit _strenuous_ to be
used to qualify _labor_: _hard_ labor and _strenuous_ effort. Again:
"Capital has always the choice _of_ a large field." Should be, "the
choice _offered by_ a large field." Again: "Should capital be withdrawn,
tenements would soon prove insufficient." Should be, "_the number of_
tenements would," etc. Again: "Men of wealth, therefore, would find
their Fifth 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 _intrust_ one
another with _opportunities_. _To enrich_ 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
_resulted_ from labor is not _justly_ ... an object _of_ confiscation."
_Accrue_ is properly used more in the sense of _spontaneous growth_.
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 _the_ growth _of each place_ and _all the_ enterprises
_connected with it_ 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 _should_ attempt to confiscate this increase by means of
taxes, either rentals _would_ increase correspondingly, or such a check
_would_ be put upon growth and enterprise that greater injury would,"
etc. Again: "The _theory_ that land ... is a _boon_ of Nature, to which
every person has an inalienable right equal to every other person, is
not new." The words _theory_ and _boon_ are here misused. A _theory_ is
a system of suppositions. The things man receives from Nature are
_gifts_, not _boons_: the gift of reason, the gift of speech, etc. The
sentence should be: "The _declaration_ (or _assertion_) that land ... is
a _gift_ of Nature, to which every person has an inalienable right equal
to _that of any_ 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 _man_ has as good a right as another, is not new." By
substituting the word _man_ for _person_, 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 _inalienable_ only encumbers the sentence.

"We have thus[1] passed in review[2] the changes and improvements[3]
which the revision contains[4] in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
It has[5] not, indeed,[6] been possible to refer to[7] them all; but so
many illustrations[8] have been given in[9] the several classes
described that the reader will have[10] a satisfactory[11] survey of the
whole subject. Whatever may be said of other portions[12] of the New
Testament, we think it will be generally admitted that in this Epistle
the changes have improved the old[13] translation. They are such as[14]
make the English version[15] conform more completely[16] to the Greek
original. If this be[17] true, the revisers have done a good work for
the Church.[18] If it be true[19] with regard to all the New Testament
books, the work which they have done will remain[20] a blessing to the
readers of those books for[21] 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."

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 _thus_ to _now_; 2, write _some of_ the
changes; 3, strike out _and improvements_; 4, for _contains changes_
substitute some other form of expression; 5, instead of _has been_,
write _was_; 6, strike out _indeed_; 7, instead of _refer to_, write
_cite_; 8, change _illustrations_ to _examples_; 9, instead of _in_,
write _of_; 10, instead of _the reader will have_, write _the reader
will be able to get_; 11, change _satisfactory_ to _tolerable_; 12,
change _portions_ to _parts_; 13, not talk of the _old_ translation, as
we have no new one; 14, strike out as superfluous the words _are such
as_; 15, change _version_ to _text_; 16, substitute _nearly_ for
_completely_, which does not admit of comparison; 17, substitute the
indicative for the conditional; 18, end sentence with the word _work_;
19, introduce _also_ after _be_; 20, instead of _remain_, in the sense
of _be_, use _be_; 21, introduce _the_ after _for_. 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.

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:

"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."

DIE WITH. Man and brute die _of_, and not _with_, fevers, consumption,
the plague, pneumonia, old age, and so on.

DIFFER. Writers differ _from_ one another in opinion with regard to the
particle we should use with this verb. Some say they differ _with_,
others that they differ _from_, their neighbors in opinion. The weight
of authority is on the side of always using _from_, though A may differ
_with_ C from D in opinion with regard, say, to the size of the fixed
stars. "I differ, as to this matter, _from_ Bishop Lowth."--Cobbett.
_Different to_ is heard sometimes instead of _different from_.

DIRECTLY. The Britons have a way of using this word in the sense of
_when_, _as soon as_. This is quite foreign to its true meaning, which
is immediately, at once, straightway. They say, for example,
"_Directly_ 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 _as
soon as_: "But, after all, it may simply anticipate on the English of
the future."

DIRT. 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
_dirt_ road when an unpaved road is meant.

DISCOMMODE. This word is rarely used; _incommode_ is accounted the
better form.

DISREMEMBER. This is a word vulgarly used in the sense of _forget_. It
is said to be more frequently heard in the South than in the North.

DISTINGUISH. This verb is sometimes improperly used for _discriminate_.
We _distinguish_ by means of the senses as well as of the understanding;
we _discriminate_ by means of the understanding only. "It is difficult,
in some cases, to _distinguish between_," etc.: should be, "It is
difficult, in some cases, to _discriminate between_," etc. We
_distinguish_ one thing _from another_, and _discriminate between_ two
or more things.

DOCK--WHARF. The first of these words is often improperly used for the
second. Of docks there are several kinds: a _naval dock_ is a place for
the keeping of naval stores, timber, and materials for ship-building; a
_dry dock_ is a place where vessels are drawn out of the water for
repairs; a _wet dock_ is a place where vessels are kept afloat at a
certain level while they are loaded and unloaded; a _sectional dock_ is
a contrivance for raising vessels out of the water on a series of
air-tight boxes. A _dock_, then, is a place into which things are
received; hence, a man might fall _into_ a dock, but could no more fall
_off_ a dock than he could fall off a hole. A _wharf_ 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 _pier_. Vessels lie at
_wharves_ and _piers_, not at _docks_.

DONATE. This word, which is defined as meaning to give, to contribute,
is looked upon by most champions of good English as being an
abomination. _Donation_ is also little used by careful writers.
"_Donate_," says Mr. Gould, "may be dismissed with this remark: so long
as its place is occupied by _give_, _bestow_, _grant_, _present_, etc.,
it is not needed; and it should be unceremoniously bowed out, or thrust
out, of the seat into which it has, temporarily, intruded."

DONE. This past participle is often very inelegantly, if not improperly,
used thus: "He did not cry out as some have _done_ against it," which
should read, "He did not cry out as some have against it"; i. e., "as
some _have cried out_ against it."

"Done is frequently a very great offender against grammar," says
Cobbett. "_To do_ is the _act of doing_. We see people write, 'I _did_
not speak yesterday so well as I wished to have _done_.' Now, what is
meant by the writer? He means to say that he _did_ not speak so well as
he then _wished_, or was wishing, _to speak_. Therefore, the sentence
should be, 'I did not speak yesterday so well as I wished _to do_.' That
is to say, 'so well as I wished to do it'; that is to say, to do or to
perform _the act of speaking_.

"Take great care not to be too free in your use of the verb _to do_ in
any of its times or modes. It is a nice little handy word, and, like our
oppressed _it_, it is made use of very often when the writer is at a
_loss_ for what to put down. _To do_ is to _act_, and therefore it never
can, in any of its parts, supply the place of a _neuter_ verb. 'How do
you do?' Here _do_ refers to the _state_, 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 _end_, as it might have _done_, with the former
beautiful period.' That is to say, _done it_. And then we ask, Done
what? Not the _act of ending_, because in this case there is _no action_
at all. The verb means _to come to an end_, _to cease_, _not to go any
further_. This same verb _to end_ is sometimes an active verb: 'I _end_
my sentence'; _then_ the verb _to do_ may supply its place; as, 'I have
not ended my sentence so well as I might have _done_'; that is, done
_it_; that is, done, or performed, the _act of ending_. But the Number
of the 'Spectator' was no _actor_; it was expected to _perform_ nothing;
it was, by the Doctor, wished to have _ceased_ to proceed. 'Did not
_end_ as it very well might have ended....' This would have been
correct; but the Doctor wished to avoid the _repetition_, and thus he
fell into bad grammar. 'Mr. Speaker, I do not _feel_ so well satisfied
as I should have _done_ if the Right Honorable Gentleman had explained
the matter more fully.' To _feel_ 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 _to do_, is as senseless. Done _what_? Done _the act of
feeling_! 'I do not _feel_ so well satisfied as I should have _done_, or
_executed_, or _performed_ the _act of feeling_'! What incomprehensible
words!"

DON'T. Everybody knows that _don't_ is a contraction of _do not_, and
that _doesn't_ is a contraction of _does not_; and yet _nearly_
everybody is guilty of using _don't_ when he should use _doesn't_. "So
you _don't_ go; John _doesn't_ either, I hear."

DOUBLE GENITIVE. 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.

DRAMATIZE. See ADAPT.

DRAWING-ROOM. See PARLOR.

DRESS--GOWN. Within the memory of many persons the outer garment worn by
women was properly called a _gown_ by everybody, instead of being
improperly called a _dress_, as it now is by nearly everybody.

DRIVE. See RIDE.

DUE--OWING. These two words, though close synonyms, should not be used
indiscriminately. The mistake usually made is in using _due_ instead of
_owing_. That is _due_ which ought to be paid as a debt; that is _owing_
which is to be referred to as a source. "It was _owing_ to his exertions
that the scheme succeeded." "It was _owing_ to your negligence that the
accident happened." "A certain respect is _due_ to men's prejudices."
"This was _owing_ to an indifference to the pleasures of life." "It is
_due_ to the public that I should tell all I know of the matter."

EACH OTHER. "Their great authors address themselves, not to their
country, but to _each other_."--Buckle. _Each other_ is properly applied
to two only; _one another_ must be used when the number considered
exceeds two. Buckle should have written _one another_ and not _each
other_, unless he meant to intimate that the Germans had only two great
authors, which is not probable.

EAT. 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
_ate_ and _eaten_. To refined ears the other forms smack of vulgarity,
although supported by good authority. "I _ate_ an apple." "I have
_eaten_ dinner." "John _ate_ supper with me." "As soon as you have
_eaten_ breakfast we will set out."

EDITORIAL. The use of this adjective as a substantive is said to be an
Americanism.

EDUCATION. 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 _education_; 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 _education_.
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. _Education_, 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 _deserves_ 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 _uneducated_--i. e., coarse, unbred, unschooled in those things
which alone make men welcome in the society of the refined.

EFFECTUATE. This word, together with _ratiocinate_ and _eventuate_, is
said to be a great favorite with the rural members of the Arkansas
legislature.

EFFLUVIUM. The plural of this word is _effluvia_. 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."

EFFORT WITHOUT EFFECT. "Some writers deal in expletives to a degree that
tires the ear and offends the understanding. With them everything is
_excessively_, or _immensely_, or _extremely_, or _vastly_, or
_surprisingly_, or _wonderfully_, or _abundantly_, or the like. The
notion of such writers is that these words give _strength_ to what they
are saying. This is a great error. Strength must be found in the
_thought_, or it will never be found in the _words_. Big-sounding words,
without thoughts corresponding, are effort without effect."--William
Cobbett. See FORCIBLE-FEEBLE.

EGOIST. "One of a class of philosophers who professed to be sure of
nothing but their own existence."--Reid.

EGOTIST. "One who talks much of himself."

"A tribe of _egotists_ for whom I have always had a mortal
aversion."--"Spectator."

EITHER. This word means, strictly, the _one_ or the _other_ of two.
Unlike _both_, which means two taken collectively, _either_, like
_each_, may mean _two considered separately_; but in this sense _each_
is the better word to use. "Give me _either_ of them" means, Give me the
one or the other of two. "He has a farm on _either_ 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 _both_ 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 _either_ in the sense of _each_, though biblical and
defensible, may be accounted little if any better than an affectation.
_Neither_ is the negative of _either_. _Either_ is responded to by
_or_, _neither_ by _nor_; as, "_either_ this _or_ that," "_neither_ this
_nor_ that." _Either_ and _neither_ should not--strictly--be used in
relation to more than two objects. But, though both _either_ and
_neither_ 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, _any_
and _none_ should be used instead of _either_ and _neither_; as, "_any_
of the three," not, "_either_ of the three"; "_none_ of the four," not,
"_neither_ of the four."

EITHER ALTERNATIVE. The word _alternative_ means a choice offered
between two things. An _alternative writ_, for example, offers the
_alternative_ 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 _either_ alternative," "_Two_ alternatives are
presented to me," "_Several_ alternatives presented themselves," and the
like, are not correct English. The word is correctly used thus: "I am
confronted with a hard _alternative_: I must either denounce a friend or
betray my trust." We rarely hear the word _alternate_ or any of its
derivatives correctly pronounced.

ELDER. See OLDER.

ELEGANT. Professor Proctor says: "If you say to an American, 'This is a
fine morning,' he is likely to reply, 'It is an _elegant_ morning,' or
perhaps oftener by using simply the word _elegant_. This is not a
pleasing use of the word." This is not American English, Professor, but
popinjay English.

ELLIPSIS. The omission of a word or of words necessary to complete the
grammatical construction, but not necessary to make the meaning clear,
is called an _ellipsis_. We almost always, whether in speaking or in
writing, leave out some of the words necessary to the _full_ 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 _theatre_." "I shall spend the summer at
my aunt's"; i. e., at my aunt's _house_.

By supplying the _ellipses_ we can often discover the errors in a
sentence, if there are any.

ENJOY BAD HEALTH. As no one has ever been known to _enjoy_ bad health,
it is better to employ some other form of expression than this. Say, for
example, he is in _feeble_, or _delicate_, health.

ENTHUSE. 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."

EPIGRAM. "The word _epigram_ 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 words.... In the
_epigram_ the mind is roused by a conflict or contradiction between the
form of the language and the meaning really conveyed."--Bain.

Some examples are:

"When you have nothing to say, say it."

"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.

"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.

"By indignities men come to dignities."

"Some people are too foolish to commit follies."

"He went to his imagination for his facts, and to his memory for his
tropes."

EPITHET. 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 _epithet_ is a word that expresses a
quality, good or bad; a term that expresses an attribute. "All
_adjectives_ are _epithets_, but all _epithets_ are not _adjectives_,"
says Crabb; "thus, in Virgil's Pater Æneas, the _pater_ is an _epithet_,
but not an _adjective_." _Epithet_ is the technical term of the
rhetorician; _adjective_, that of the grammarian.

EQUALLY AS WELL. A redundant form of expression, as any one will see who
for a moment considers it. _As well_, or _equally well_, expresses quite
as much as _equally as well_.

EQUANIMITY OF MIND. This phrase is tautological, and expresses no more
than does _equanimity_ (literally, "equalmindedness") alone; hence, _of
mind_ is superfluous, and consequently inelegant. _Anxiety of mind_ is a
scarcely less redundant form of expression. _A capricious mind_ is in
the same category.

ERRATUM. Plural, _errata_.

ESQUIRE. 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, _Esqr._" He means no more nor less than when he writes _Mr._
(master). The use of _Esq._ 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.

EUPHEMISM. 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
_euphemism_.

EVENTUATE. See EFFECTUATE.

EVERLASTINGLY. 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 _everlastingly_ shoot along, don't they!"

EVERY. 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 _every_ pains, _every_ confidence, _every_ praise, _every_ charity,
and so on. We also have such diction as, "_Every one_ has this in
common"; meaning, "_All of us_ have this in common."

EVERY-DAY LATIN. _A fortiori_: with stronger reason. _A posteriori_:
from the effect to the cause. _A priori_: from the cause to the effect.
_Bona fide_: in good faith; in reality. _Certiorari_: to be made more
certain. _Ceteris paribus_: other circumstances being equal. _De facto_:
in fact; in reality. _De jure_: in right; in law. _Ecce homo_: behold
the man. _Ergo_: therefore. _Et cetera_: and the rest; and so on.
_Excerpta_: extracts. _Exempli gratia_: by way of example; abbreviated,
_e. g._, and _ex. gr._ _Ex officio_: by virtue of his office. _Ex
parte_: on one side; an _ex parte_ statement is a statement on one side
only. _Ibidem_: in the same place; abbreviated, _ibid._ _Idem_: the
same. _Id est_: that is; abbreviated, _i. e._ _Imprimis_: in the first
place. _In statu quo_: in the former state; just as it was. _In statu
quo ante bellum_: in the same state as before the war. _In transitu_: in
passing. _Index expurgatorius_: a purifying index. _In extremis_: at the
point of death. _In memoriam_: in memory. _Ipse dixit_: on his sole
assertion. _Item_: also. _Labor omnia vincit_: labor overcomes every
difficulty. _Locus sigilli_: the place of the seal. _Multum in parvo_:
much in little. _Mutatis mutandis_: after making the necessary changes.
_Ne plus ultra_: nothing beyond; the utmost point. _Nolens volens_:
willing or unwilling. _Nota bene_: mark well; take particular notice.
_Omnes_: all. _O tempora, O mores!_ O the times and the manners! _Otium
cum dignitate_: ease with dignity. _Otium sine dignitate_: ease without
dignity. _Particeps criminis_: an accomplice. _Peccavi_: I have sinned.
_Per se_: by itself. _Prima facie_: on the first view or appearance; at
first sight. _Pro bono publico_: for the public good. _Quid nunc_: what
now? _Quid pro quo_: one thing for another; an equivalent. _Quondam_:
formerly. _Rara avis_: a rare bird; a prodigy. _Resurgam_: I shall rise
again. _Seriatim_: in order. _Sine die_: without specifying any
particular day; to an indefinite time. _Sine qua non_: an indispensable
condition. _Sui generis_: of its own kind. _Vade mecum_: go with me.
_Verbatim_: word by word. _Versus_: against. _Vale_: fare-well. _Via_:
by the way of. _Vice_: in the place of. _Vide_: see. _Vi et armis_: by
main force. _Viva voce_: orally; by word of mouth. _Vox populi, vox
Dei_: the voice of the people is the voice of God.

EVIDENCE--TESTIMONY. These words, though differing widely in meaning,
are often used indiscriminately by careless speakers. _Evidence_ is that
which _tends_ to convince; _testimony_ is that which is _intended_ to
convince. In a judicial investigation, for example, there might be a
great deal of _testimony_--a great deal of _testifying_--and very little
_evidence_; and the _evidence_ might be quite the reverse of the
_testimony_. See PROOF.

EXAGGERATION. "Weak minds, feeble writers and speakers delight in
_superlatives_." See EFFORT WITHOUT EFFECT.

EXCEPT. "No one need apply _except_ he is thoroughly familiar with the
business," should be, "No one need apply _unless_," etc.

EXCESSIVELY. That class of persons who are never content with any form
of expression that falls short of the superlative, frequently use
_excessively_ when _exceedingly_ or even the little word _very_ would
serve their turn better. They say, for example, that the weather is
_excessively hot_, when they should content themselves with saying
simply that the weather is _very warm_, or, if the word suits them
better, _hot_. 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.

EXECUTE. This word means to follow out to the end, to carry into effect,
to accomplish, to fulfill, to perform; 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 _laws_ and _sentences_ are executed, but not
_criminals_, 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 _hanged_.

EXPECT. This verb always has reference to what is to come, never to what
is past. We can not _expect_ backward. Instead, therefore, of saying, "I
_expect_, you thought I would come to see you yesterday," we should say,
"I _suppose_," etc.

EXPERIENCE. "We _experience_ great difficulty in getting him to take his
medicine." The word _have_ ought to be big enough, in a sentence like
this, for anybody. "We _experienced_ great hardships." Better, "We
_suffered_."

EXTEND. 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 _showed_ me every courtesy," than "They _extended_
every courtesy to me." See EVERY.

FALSE GRAMMAR. 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 _were_ just or
not."--Emerson. "I proceeded to inquire if the 'extract' ... _were_ a
veritable quotation."--Emerson. Should be _was_ in both cases. "How
_sweet_ the moonlight sleeps!"--Townsend, "Art of Speech," vol. i, p.
114. Should be _sweetly_. "There is no question _but_ these arts ...
will greatly aid him," etc.--Ibid., p. 130. Should be _that_. "Nearly
all who have been distinguished in literature or oratory have made ...
the generous confession that their attainments _have been_ reached
through patient and laborious industry. They have declared that speaking
and writing, though once difficult for them, _have become_ well-nigh
recreations."--Ibid., p. 143. The _have been_ should be _were_, and the
_have become_ should be _became_. "Many pronominal adverbs are
correlatives of _each other_."--Harkness's "New Latin Grammar," p. 147.
Should be _one another_. "Hot and cold springs, boiling springs, and
quiet springs lie within a few feet of _each other_, but _none of them
are properly geysers_."--Appletons' "Condensed Cyclopædia," vol. ii, p.
414. Should be _one another_, and _not one of them is properly a
geyser_. "How much better for you as seller and the nation as buyer ...
than to sink ... in cutting _one another's_ throats." Should be _each
other's_. "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
_preached_ before the inmates of a lunatic asylum. By way of
illustration he painted a scene in which a man, _who had been_ condemned
to be _hanged_, _was_ reprieved under the gallows."

FEMALE. The terms _male_ and _female_ are not unfrequently used where
good taste would suggest some other word. For example, we see over the
doors of school-houses, "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.

FETCH. See BRING.

FEWER. See LESS.

FINAL COMPLETION. If there were such a thing as a plurality or a series
of completions, there would, of course, be such a thing as the _final_
completion; but, as every completion is final, to talk about a _final
completion_ is as absurd as it would be to talk about a _final
finality_.

FIRST RATE. 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 _first
rate_; 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."

FIRSTLY. George Washington Moon says in defense of _firstly_: "I do not
object to the occasional use of _first_ as an adverb; but, in sentences
where it would be followed by _secondly_, _thirdly_, 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 _firstly_ on
certain occasions, the fact remains that the employment of it on any
occasion is not the best usage." Webster inserts _firstly_, but remarks,
"Improperly used for _first_."

FLEE--FLY. These verbs, though near of kin, are not interchangeable. For
example, we can not say, "He _flew_ the city," "He _flew_ from his
enemies," "He _flew_ at the approach of danger," _flew_ being the
imperfect tense of _to fly_, which is properly used to express the
action of birds on the wing, of kites, arrows, etc. The imperfect tense
of _to flee_ is _fled_; hence, "He _fled_ the city," etc.

FORCIBLE-FEEBLE. This is a "novicy" kind of diction in which the
would-be forcible writer defeats his object by the overuse of
expletives. Examples: "And yet the _great_ centralization of wealth is
one of the [great] evils of the day. All that Mr. ---- _utters_ [says]
upon this point is _forcible and_ just. This centralization is due to
the _enormous_ reproductive power of capital, to the _immense_ advantage
that _costly and complicated_ machinery gives to _great_ [large]
establishments, and to _the marked_ difference of personal force among
men." The first _great_ is misplaced; the word _utters_ is misused; the
second _great_ is ill-chosen. The other words in italics only enfeeble
the sentence. Again: "In countries where _immense_ [large] estates
exist, a breaking up of these _vast_ demesnes into _many_ minor
freeholds would no doubt be a [of] _very_ great advantage." Substitute
_large_ for _immense_, and take out _vast_, _many_, and _very_, and the
language becomes much more forcible. Again: "The _very_ first effect of
the ---- taxation plan would be destructive to the interests of this
_great multitude_ [class]; it would impoverish our _innumerable_
farmers, _it would_ confiscate the earnings of [our] _industrious_
tradesmen and artisans, _it would_ [and] paralyze the hopes of
_struggling_ 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.

FRIEND--ACQUAINTANCE. 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 _acquaintance_
instead of _friend_. "Your friend" 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 FRIEND of the first man in the land, and that, too, when he
is, perhaps, a comparative stranger and asking a favor.

GALSOME. Here is a good, sonorous Anglo-Saxon word--meaning malignant,
venomous, churlish--that has fallen into disuse.

GENTLEMAN. Few things are in worse taste than to use the term
_gentleman_, whether in the singular or plural, to designate the sex.
"If I was a _gentleman_," says Miss Snooks. "_Gentlemen_ have just as
much curiosity as _ladies_," says Mrs. Jenkins. "_Gentlemen_ have so
much more liberty than we _ladies_ have," says Mrs. Parvenue. Now, if
these ladies were ladies, they would in each of these cases use the word
_man_ instead of _gentleman_, and _woman_ instead of _lady_; further,
Miss Snooks would say, "If I _were_." Well-bred men, men of culture and
refinement--gentlemen, in short--use the terms _lady_ and _gentleman_
comparatively little, and they are especially careful not to call
themselves _gentlemen_ when they can avoid it. A gentleman, for example,
does not say, "I, with some _other_ gentlemen, went," etc.; he is
careful to leave out the word _other_. The men who use these terms most,
and especially those who lose no opportunity to proclaim themselves
_gentlemen_, 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 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 _Sir_, while Smith & Brown are
often addressed as _Gentlemen_--or, vulgarly, as _Gents_. Better, much,
is it to address them as _Sirs_.

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."

GENTS. Of all vulgarisms, this is, perhaps, the most offensive. If we
say _gents_, why not say _lades_?

GERUND. "'I have work _to do_,' 'there is no more _to say_,' are phrases
where the verb is not in the common infinitive, but in the form of the
_gerund_. 'He is the man _to do_ it, or _for doing_ it.' 'A house _to
let_,' 'the course _to steer_ by,' 'a place _to lie_ in,' 'a thing _to
be_ done,' 'a city _to take_ refuge in,' 'the means _to do_ 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 done.' When the _to_ ceased in the
twelfth century to be a distinctive mark of the dative infinitive or
gerund, _for_ was introduced to make the writer's intention clear. Hence
the familiar form in 'what went ye out _for to see_?' 'they came _for to
show_ him the temple.'"--Bain.

GET. In sentences expressing simple possession--as, "I have _got_ a
book," "What has he _got_ there?" "Have you _got_ any news?" "They have
_got_ a new house," etc.--_got_ is entirely superfluous, if not, as some
writers contend, absolutely incorrect. Possession is completely
expressed by _have_. "Foxes have holes; the birds of the air have
nests"; not, "Foxes have _got_ holes; the birds of the air have _got_
nests." Formerly the imperfect tense of this verb was _gat_, which is
now obsolete, and the perfect participle was _gotten_, which, some
grammarians say, is growing obsolete. If this be true, there is no good
reason for it. If we say _eaten_, _written_, _striven_, _forgotten_, why
not say _gotten_, where this form of the participle is more
euphonious--as it often is--than _got_?

GOODS. 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 _goods_; but Mrs. Arnold and Mrs. Constable should, and I doubt
not do, speak of their gowns as being made of fine or coarse _silk_,
_cashmere_, _muslin_, or whatever the material may be.

GOULD AGAINST ALFORD. 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[4] of the Dean's book, taken as a whole. He
must be held responsible for every error in it; because, as has been
shown, he has had full leisure for its revision.[5] The errors are,
nevertheless, numerous; and the shortest way to exhibit them is[6] 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:

Paragraph

4. "Into _another_ land _than_"; should be, "into a land _other than_."

16. "We do not follow rule in spelling other words, but custom"; should
be, "we do not follow _rule, but custom_, in spelling," etc.

18. "The distinction is observed in French, but _never appears_ to have
been made," etc.; read, "_appears never_ to have been made."

61. "_Rather_ to aspirate more _than_ less"; should be, "to aspirate
more _rather than_ less."

9. "It is said also _only_ to occur three times," etc.; read, "_occur
only_ three times."

44. "This doubling _only takes place_ in a syllable," etc.; read,
"_takes place only_."

142. "Which can _only_ be decided when those circumstances are known";
read, "_can be decided only_ when," etc.

166. "I will _only_ say that it produces," etc.; read, "I will _say
only_," etc.

170. "It is said that this can _only_ be filled in thus"; read, "can be
_filled in only_ thus."

368. "I can _only_ deal with the complaint in a general way"; read,
"_deal with the complaint only_," etc.

86. "_In_ so far as they are idiomatic," etc. What is the use of _in_?

171. "Try the experiment"; "_tried_ the experiment." Read, _make_ and
_made_.

345. "It is _most_ generally used of that very sect," etc. Why _most_?

362. "The joining together two clauses with a third," etc.; read, "_of
two_ clauses," etc.

GOWN. See DRESS.

GRADUATED. Students do not _graduate_; they _are_ graduated. Hence most
writers nowadays say, "I _was_, he _was_, or they _were_ graduated"; and
ask, "When _were_ you, or _was_ he, graduated?"

GRAMMATICAL ERRORS. "The correctness of the expression _grammatical
errors_ has been disputed. 'How,' it has been asked, 'can an error be
grammatical?' How, it may be replied, can we with propriety say,
_grammatically incorrect_? Yet we can do so.

"No one will question the propriety of saying _grammatically correct_.
Yet the expression is the acknowledgment of things _grammatically
INcorrect_. Likewise the phrase _grammatical correctness_ implies the
existence of _grammatical INcorrectness_. If, then, a sentence is
_grammatically incorrect_, or, what is the same thing, has _grammatical
incorrectness_, it includes a GRAMMATICAL ERROR. _Grammatically
incorrect_ signifies INCORRECT WITH RELATION TO THE RULES OF GRAMMAR.
_Grammatical errors_ signifies ERRORS WITH RELATION TO THE RULES OF
GRAMMAR.

"They who ridicule the phrase _grammatical errors_, and substitute the
phrase _errors in grammar_, 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.

"Of the two expressions--_a grammatical error_, and _an error in
grammar_--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!'

"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."

GRATUITOUS. 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
_gratuitous_ conjectures."--Porson. "A _gratuitous_ assumption."--Godwin.
"The _gratuitous_ theory."--Southey. "A _gratuitous_ invention."--De
Quincey. "But it is needless to dwell on the improbability of a
hypothesis which has been shown to be altogether _gratuitous_."--Dr.
Newman.

GROW. 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 _grow_ dark, to _grow_ weak or strong, to _grow_ faint,
etc. But it is doubtful whether what is large can properly be said to
_grow_ small. In this sense, _become_ would seem to be the better word.

GUMS. See RUBBERS.

HAD HAVE. 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 _have_ known it," "Had you _have_
seen it," "Had we _have_ been there."

HAD OUGHT. 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 _had_ ought to go." A
fitting reply would be, "Yes, I think he better had." _Ought_ says all
that _had ought_ says.

HAD RATHER. This expression and _had better_ are much used, but, in the
opinion of many, are indefensible. We hear them in such sentences as, "I
_had_ rather not do it," "You _had_ better go home." "Now, what tense,"
it is asked, "is _had do_ and _had go_?" If we transpose the words thus,
"You _had do_ better (to) go home," it becomes at once apparent, it is
asserted, that the proper word to use in connection with _rather_ and
_better_ is not _had_, but _would_; thus, "I _would_ rather not do it,"
"You _would_ better go home." Examples of this use of _had_ 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 SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.

HALF. "It might have been expressed in _one_ half the space." We see at
a glance that _one_ here is superfluous.

HANGED--HUNG. The irregular form, _hung_, of the past participle of the
verb _to hang_ is most used; but, when the word denotes suspension by
the neck for the purpose of destroying life, the regular form,
_hanged_, is always used by careful writers and speakers.

HASTE. See HURRY.

HEADING. See CAPTION.

HEALTHY--WHOLESOME. The first of these two words is often improperly
used for the second; as, "Onions are a _healthy_ vegetable." A man, if
he is in good health, is _healthy_; the food he eats, if it is not
deleterious, is _wholesome_. A _healthy_ ox makes _wholesome_ food. We
speak of _healthy_ surroundings, a _healthy_ climate, situation,
employment, and of _wholesome_ food, advice, examples. _Healthful_ is
generally used in the sense of conducive to health, virtue, morality;
as, _healthful_ exercise, the _healthful_ spirit of the
community--meaning that the spirit that prevails in the community is
conducive to virtue and good morals.

HELPMATE. The dictionaries suggest that this word is a corruption of
_help_ and _meet_, 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 _helpmeet_.
If, as is possible, the words in Genesis mean, "I will make him a help,
meet [suitable] for him," then neither _helpmate_ nor _helpmeet_ has any
_raison d'être_.

HIGHFALUTIN. 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 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."

HINTS. "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.

"One of the greatest of all faults in writing and in speaking is this:
the using of many words to _say little_. In order to guard yourself
against this fault, inquire what is the _substance_, or _amount_, 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
_amount_ 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 your guard against _talking a great deal_ and _saying
little_."--Cobbett.

"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 _a spade_, not a
_well-known oblong instrument of manual husbandry_; let home be _home_,
not a _residence_; a place a _place_, not a _locality_; 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.

"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.

"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 _enjoyed_
a life of peace or a natural _death_.' Alison, in his 'History of
Europe,' writes: 'Two great sins--one of _omission_ and one of
commission--have been _committed_ by the states of Europe in modern
times.' And not long since a worthy 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 _embracing_ 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'?

"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."

"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 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 _truth_, the
foundation of all excellence of style."--Hall.

"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.

HONORABLE. See REVEREND.

HOW. "I have heard _how_ in Italy one is beset on all sides by beggars":
read, "heard _that_." "I have heard _how_ some critics have been
pacified with claret and a supper, and others laid asleep with soft
notes of flattery."--Dr. Johnson. The _how_ in this sentence also should
be _that_. _How_ means the _manner in which_. We may, therefore, say, "I
have heard _how_ he went about it to circumvent you."

"And it is good judgment alone can dictate _how far_ to proceed in it
and _when_ to stop." Cobbett comments on this sentence in this wise:
"Dr. Watts is speaking here of writing. In such a case, an adverb, like
_how far_, expressive of longitudinal space, introduces a _rhetorical
figure_; for the plain meaning is, that judgment will dictate _how much
to write on it_ and not _how far to proceed in it_. The figure, however,
is very proper and much better than the literal words. But when a figure
is _begun_ it should be carried on throughout, which is not the case
here; for the Doctor begins with a figure of longitudinal space and
ends with a figure of _time_. It should have been, _where_ to stop. Or,
how _long_ to proceed in it and _when_ to stop. To tell a man _how far_
he is to go into the Western countries of America, and _when_ he is to
stop, is a very different thing from telling him _how far_ he is to go
and _where_ 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."

HUMANITARIANISM. 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 _humanitarian_, 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 _humanitarianism_ of his eloquent
discourse."--Hatton.

HUNG. See HANGED.

HURRY. Though widely different in meaning, both the verb and the noun
_hurry_ are continually used for _haste_ and _hasten_. _Hurry_ implies
not only _haste_, but haste with confusion, flurry; while _haste_
implies only rapidity of action, an eager desire to make progress, and,
unlike _hurry_, is not incompatible with deliberation and dignity. It is
often wise to _hasten_ in the affairs of life; but, as it is never wise
to proceed without forethought and method, it is never wise to _hurry_.
Sensible people, then, may be often in _haste_, but are never in a
_hurry_; and we tell others to _make haste_, and not to _hurry up_.

HYPERBOLE. The magnifying of things beyond their natural limits is
called _hyperbole_. 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 _hyperbolical_. Hyperbole is exaggeration.

"Our common forms of compliment are almost all of them extravagant
_hyperboles_."--Blair.

Some examples are the following:

"Rivers of blood and hills of slain."

"They were swifter than eagles; they were stronger than lions."

    "The sky shrunk upward with unusual dread,
    And trembling Tiber <DW37>'d beneath his bed."

    "So frowned the mighty combatants, that hell
    Grew darker at their frown."

"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."

ICE-CREAM--ICE-WATER. 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 _iced_; hence,
properly, _iced_ cream and not _ice_-cream. The product of melted ice is
_ice_-water, whether it be cold or warm; but water made cold with ice is
_iced_ water, and not _ice_-water.

IF. "I doubt _if_ this will ever reach you": say, "I doubt _whether_
this will ever reach you."

ILL. See SICK.

ILLY. It will astonish not a few to learn that there is no such word as
_illy_. The form of the adverb, as well as of the adjective and the
noun, is _ill_. A thing is _ill_ formed, or _ill_ done, or _ill_ made,
or _ill_ constructed, or _ill_ put together.

    "_Ill_ fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
    Where wealth accumulates and men decay."--Goldsmith.

IMMODEST. This adjective and its synonyms, _indecent_ and _indelicate_,
are often used without proper discrimination being made in their
respective meanings. _Indecency_ and _immodesty_ are opposed to
morality: the former in externals, as dress, words, and looks; the
latter in conduct and disposition. "_Indecency_," says Crabb, "may be a
partial, _immodesty_ is a positive and entire breach of the moral law.
_Indecency_ is less than _immodesty_, but more than _indelicacy_." It is
_indecent_ for a man to marry again very soon after the death of his
wife. It is _indelicate_ for any one to obtrude himself upon another's
retirement. It is _indecent_ for women to expose their persons as do
some whom we can not call _immodest_.

    "Immodest words admit of no defense,
    For want of decency is want of sense."
                          --Earl of Roscommon.

IMPROPRIETY. As a rhetorical term, defined as an error in using words in
a sense different from their recognized signification.

IMPUTE. Non-painstaking writers not unfrequently use _impute_ instead of
_ascribe_. "The numbers [of blunders] that have been _imputed_ to him
are endless."--"Appletons' Journal." The use of _impute_ in this
connection is by no means indefensible; still it would have been better
to use _ascribe_.

IN OUR MIDST. The phrases _in our midst_ and _in their midst_ 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 _in
the midst_ no one objects. "Jesus came and stood in the midst." "There
was a hut _in the midst_ of the forest."

IN RESPECT OF. "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 _in respect of_, _in
regard of_, for _in_ or _with_ respect _to_, or regard _to_. 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.

IN SO FAR AS. A phrase often met with, and in which the _in_ is
superfluous. "A want of proper opportunity would suffice, _in_ so far as
the want could be shown." "We are to act up to the extent of our
knowledge; but, _in_ so far as our knowledge falls short," etc.

INAUGURATE. This word, which means to install in office with certain
ceremonies, is made, by many lovers of big words, to do service for
_begin_; but the sooner these rhetorical high-fliers stop _inaugurating_
and content themselves with simply _beginning_ 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.

INDECENT. See IMMODEST.

INDEX EXPURGATORIUS. 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 (for 'coffin'); claimed (for
'asserted'); collided; commence (for 'begin'); compete; cortége (for
'procession'); cotemporary (for 'contemporary'); couple (for 'two');
<DW54> (for '<DW64>'); 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')."

This index is offered here as a curiosity rather than as a guide, though
in the main it might safely be used as 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.

INDICATIVE AND SUBJUNCTIVE. "'I _see_ the signal,' is unconditional;
'_if_ I _see_ the signal,' is the same fact expressed in the form of a
condition. The one form is said to be in the _indicative_ mood, the mood
that simply _states or indicates_ the action; the other form is in the
_subjunctive_, 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
_is subjoined to_ another affirmation: '_If I see the signal_, I will
call out.'

"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 SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.

INDIVIDUAL. This word is often most improperly used for _person_; as,
"The _individual_ I saw was not over forty"; "There were several
_individuals_ on board that I had never seen before." _Individual_
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.

INDORSE. Careful writers generally discountenance the use of _indorse_
in the sense of _sanction_, _approve_, _applaud_. In this signification
it is on the list of prohibited words in some of our newspaper offices.
"The following rules are _indorsed_ by nearly all writers upon this
subject."--Dr. Townsend. It is plain that the right word to use here is
_approved_. "The public will heartily _indorse_ the sentiments uttered
by the court."--New York "Evening Telegram." "The public will heartily
_approve_ the sentiments _expressed_ by the court," is what the sentence
should be.

INFINITIVE MOOD. 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 _of doing_," etc. Say, _to do_. "I desire to reply ...
to the proposal _of substituting_ a tax upon land values ... and
_making_ this tax, as near [nearly] as may be, equal to rent," etc. Say,
_to substitute_ and _to make_. "This quality is of prime importance when
the chief object is _the imparting of_ knowledge." Say, _to impart_.

INITIATE. 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.

INNUMERABLE NUMBER. A repetitional expression to be avoided. We may say
_innumerable_ times, or _numberless_ times, but we should not say an
_innumerable number_ of times.

INTERROGATION. The rhetorical figure that asks a question in order to
emphasize the reverse of what is asked is called _interrogation_; 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?"

"Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice?"

INTRODUCE. See PRESENT.

IRONY. 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 _irony_. Irony is a kind of delicate sarcasm or
satire--raillery, mockery.

"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 _irony_ may appear
irreligion."--Cambridge.

IRRITATE. See AGGRAVATE.

IS BEING BUILT. A tolerable idea of the state of the discussion
regarding the propriety of using the locution _is being built_, 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:

"There is properly _no passive_ form, in English, _corresponding to the
progressive_ form in the _active_ voice, except where it is made by the
participle _ing_, 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, 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.

"This mode of expression _had no existence_ in the language till _within
the last fifty years_.[7] 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 _necessary_ form.

"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 _no progressive form_ of the verb _to be_, and no need of it; hence,
there is no such expression in English as _is being_. Of course the
expression '_is being_ built,' for example, is not a compound of _is
being_ and _built_, but of _is_ and _being built_; that is, of the verb
_to be_ and the _present participle passive_. 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 _continuance_ of the action; as,
_is loved_, _is desired_, etc., and in which, of course, the form in
question (_is being built_) is not required. Nobody would think of
saying, 'He is being loved'; 'This result is being desired.'

"The use of this form is justified only by _condemning an established
usage_ of the language; namely, the passive sense in some verbs of the
participle in _ing_. 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 _ing_ 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.

"This new doctrine is in _opposition_ to the almost _unanimous judgment_
of the _most distinguished grammarians_ 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 _is being built_,"
"The bridge _was being built_," and so forth, it is one of the most
absurd and monstrous innovations ever thought of. "The work _is now
being published_," is certainly no better English than, "The work _was
being published_, _has been being published_, _had been being
published_, _shall or will be being published_, _shall or will have
been being published_," 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 _ing_ 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
_ing_ 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, _is being built_, _is being committed_, 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 "_is being done_," for the good old English idiom "_is
doing_"--an absurd periphrasis driving out a pointed and pithy turn of
the English language.'--'N. A. Review,' quoted by Mr. Wells, p. 148.
'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."

Mr. Richard Grant White, in his "Words and Their Uses," expresses his
opinion of the locution _is being_ 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 _is being done_, or
rather, _is being_, 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 _ex
parte_ examination that "it can hardly be that such an incongruous and
ridiculous form of speech as _is being done_ was contrived by a man who,
by any stretch of the name, should be included among grammarians."

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."

To these gentlemen, and to those who are of their way of thinking with
regard to _is being_, Dr. Fitzedward Hall replies at some length, in an
article published in "Scribner's Monthly" for April, 1872. Dr. Hall
writes:

"'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 _being built_," instead of,
"The house is _building_."' Such is the assertion and such is the
opinion of some anonymous luminary,[8] 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,'[9] is
spoken of in 'The North American Review'[10] 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.

"As lately as 1860, Dr. Worcester, referring to _is being built_, etc.,
while acknowledging that 'this new form has 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 _is being_ with a perfect participle in
a very few books published between A. D. 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.'

"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 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 _is being built_ or _is being done_, 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 _is being torn out_ by the roots by a
mutton-fisted barber.'[11] 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.,[12] we read of 'such [nunneries] as at
this time _are being reëstablished_.'

"'While my hand _was being drest_ by Mr. Young, I spoke for the first
time,' wrote Coleridge, in March, 1797.

"Charles Lamb speaks of realities which '_are being acted_ before us,'
and of 'a man who _is being strangled_.'

"Walter Savage Landor, in an imaginary conversation, represents Pitt as
saying: 'The man who possesses them may read Swedenborg and Kant while
he _is being tossed_ in a blanket.' Again: 'I have seen nobles, men and
women, kneeling in the street before these bishops, when no ceremony of
the Catholic Church _was being performed_.' Also, in a translation from
Catullus: 'Some criminal _is being tried_ for murder.'

"Nor does Mr. De Quincey scruple at such English as 'made and _being
made_,' 'the bride that _was being married_ to him,' and 'the shafts of
Heaven _were_ even now _being forged_.' On one occasion he writes, 'Not
done, not even (according to modern purism) _being done_'; as if
'purism' meant exactness, rather than the avoidance of neoterism.

"I need, surely, name no more, among the dead, who found _is being
built_, 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.'

"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.[13]

"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 that people still use such phrases as
'Chelsea Hospital _was building_,' and 'the train _was preparing_.'
'Hence we see,' he adds,[14] 'that the form _is being done_, _is being
made_, _is being built_, 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
_is_, etc., _in_, afterward corrupted into _a_, to a verbal substantive.
'The house _is in building_' could be taken to mean nothing but _ædes
ædificantur_; and, when the _in_ gave place to _a_,[15] it was still
manifest enough, from the context, that _building_ was governed by a
preposition. The second stage of change, however, namely, when the _a_
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
_is a-building_ 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 representation, a just
resentment of ambiguity was evidenced in the creation of _is being
built_. 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 _is forging_,"' in the opinion of
Dr. Johnson, is 'a vicious expression, probably corrupted from a phrase
more pure, but now somewhat obsolete, ... "the brass _is a-forging_."'
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 saw one dragging into
light_, 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 _whether she was taking to account by some disappointed
votary_, 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.

"Inasmuch as, concurrently with _building_ for the active participle,
and _being built_ for the corresponding passive participle, we possessed
the former, with _is_ 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 _is_ to the latter, producing the
form _is being built_. 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 and pretensions. In _has built_ and _will build_, we find
the active participle perfect and the active infinitive subjoined to
auxiliaries; and so, in _has been built_ and _will be built_, the
passive participle perfect and the passive infinitive are subjoined to
auxiliaries. In _is building_ and _is being built_, 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. _Built_ is determined as active or passive by the
verbs which qualify it, _have_ and _be_; and the grammarians are right
in considering it, when embodied in _has built_, as active, since its
analogue, embodied in _has been built_, is the exclusively passive _been
built_. Besides this, _has been_ + _built_ would signify something like
_has existed, built_,[16] which is plainly neuter. We are debarred,
therefore, from such an analysis; and, by parity of reasoning, we may
not resolve _is being built_ into _is being_ + _built_. It must have
been an inspiration of analogy, felt or unfelt, that suggested the form
I am discussing. _Is being_ + _built_, as it can mean, pretty nearly,
only _exists, built_, 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 _is_ to the passive
concretion _being built_.[17]

"The analogical justification of _is being built_ which I have brought
forward is so obvious that, as it occurred to 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 _is being built_,
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.

"'One who _is being beaten_' is, to Archbishop Whately, 'uncouth
English.' '"The bridge _is being built_," 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 _is building_."'[18] 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.

"In Mr. Marsh's estimation, _is being built_ 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' _is building_ in favor of the modern
phrase 'is to violate the laws of language 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 _is building_, he points out,
inclusively, a blemish in _is being built_.

"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
_is being built_, 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?

"Again we read, 'Some precise and feeble-minded soul, having been taught
that there is a passive voice in English, and that, for instance,
_building_ is an active participle, and _builded_ or _built_ a passive,
felt conscientious scruples at saying "the house _is building_." 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 soul' were roused by _been
built_, not by _built_, I suspect his chapter on _is being built_ 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 _is_ with _being_; in the making of the verb _to be_ 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.'[19] Lastly, 'The question is thus
narrowed simply to this, Does _to be being_ (_esse ens_) mean anything
more or other than _to be_?'

"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, _is being built_, on his understanding of it,
that is to say, _is being_ + _built_, he represents by _ens ædificatus
est_, as 'the supposed corresponding Latin phrase.'[20] The Latin is
illegitimate; and he infers that, therefore, the English is the same.
But _ædificans est_, a translation, on the model which he offers, of the
active _is building_, is quite as illegitimate as _ens æedificatus est_.
By parity of _non-sequitur_, we are, therefore, to surrender the active
_is building_. Assume that a phrase in a given language is indefensible
unless it has its counterpart in some other language; from the very
conception and definition of an idiom every idiom is illegitimate.

"I now pass to another point. '_To be_ and _to exist_ 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, _being_ forewarned of danger, fled," we say, "He, _existing_
forewarned of danger, fled." When we say that a thing _is_ done, we say
that it _exists_ done.... _Is being done_ is simply _exists existing
done_.' But, since _is_ and _exists_ are equipollent, and so _being_ and
_existing, is being_ is the same as the unimpeachable _is existing_. Q.
_non_ E. D. _Is existing_ ought, of course, to be no less objectionable
to Mr. White than _is being_. Just as absurd, too, should he reckon the
Italian _sono stato_, _era stato_, _sia stato_, _fossi stato_, _saro
stato_, _sarei stato_, _essere stato_, and _essendo stato_. For in
Italian both _essere_ and _stare_ are required to make up the verb
substantive, as in Latin both _esse_ and the offspring of _fuere_ are
required; and _stare_, primarily 'to stand,' is modified into a true
auxiliary. The alleged 'full absurdity of this phrase,' to wit, _is
being built_, '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 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.

"Mr. Marsh, after setting forth the all-sufficiency of _is building_, 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 _is being
missed_, but I know that a considerable sum _is being wanted_ to make up
the amount"; "the great Victoria Bridge _has been being built_ more than
two years"; "when I reach London, the ship Leviathan _will be being
built_"; "if my orders had been followed, the coat _would have been
being made yesterday_"; "if the house _had_ then _been being built_, the
mortar _would have been being mixed_."' 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 _-er_ and _-est_, or with _more_
and _most_, just as their ear or pleasure dictated. They wrote
_plainlier_ and _plainliest_, or _more plainly_ and _most plainly_; and
some adverbs, as _early_, _late_, _often_, _seldom_, and _soon_, we
still compare in a way now become anomalous. And as our forefathers
treated their adverbs we still treat many adjectives. _Furthermore_,
_obligingness_, _preparedness_, and _designedly_ seem quite natural; yet
we do not feel that they authorize us to talk of 'the _seeingness_ of
the eye,' 'the _understoodness_ of a sentence,' or of 'a statement
_acknowledgedly_ correct.' 'The now too notorious fact' is tolerable;
but 'the never to be sufficiently execrated monster Bonaparte' is
intolerable. The sun may be _shorn_ of his splendor; but we do not allow
cloudy weather to _shear_ him of it. How, then, can any one claim that a
man who prefers to say _is being built_ should say _has been being
built_? Are not awkward instances of the old form, typified by _is
building_, 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 _reliable_,
in the sense of _worthy of confidence_, is altogether unidiomatic'; and
yet, at p. 112, he writes '_reliable_ evidence.' Again, at p. 396 of the
same work, he rules that _whose_, in 'I passed a house _whose_ 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 _whose_ 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.

"Beckford's Lisbon fortune-teller, before had into court, was
'_dragging_ into light,' and, perchance, '_was taking_ to account.' Many
moderns would say and write '_being dragged_ into light,' and '_was
being taken_ to account.' But, if we 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 _unidiomatic_ 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 _is being built_ 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.

"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
_is being built_. 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 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 _is being built_ 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.

"Prior to the evolution of _is being built_ and _was being built_, we
possessed no discriminate equivalents to _ædificatur_ and
_ædificabatur_; _is built_ and _was built_, by which they were rendered,
corresponding exactly to _ædificatus est_ and _ædificatus erat_. _Cum
ædificaretur_ was to us the same as _ædificabatur_. 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.[21] The purists may, accordingly, dismiss their
apprehensions, especially as the neoterists have, clearly, a keener
horror of phraseological ungainliness than themselves. One may have no
hesitation about saying 'the house _is being built_,' and may yet recoil
from saying that 'it _should have been being built_ last Christmas'; and
the same person--just as, provided he did not feel a harshness,
inadequacy, and ambiguity in the passive 'the house _is building_,' he
would use the expression--will, more likely than not, elect _is in
preparation_ preferentially to _is being prepared_. 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 _is
eaten_.' 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 _was built_,' 'while the ark _was
prepared_,' writes Mr. White himself.[22] Shakespeare is commended for
his ambiguous _is eaten_, though _in eating_ or _an eating_ 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. '_Is eaten_,' says Mr. White,
'does not mean _has been eaten_.' 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 _was eaten_ of worms'; the original,
γενόμενος σκωληκόβρωτος, yielding, but for its participle, 'he became
worm-eaten.'

"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.'"

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.

IT. Cobbett discourses of this little neuter pronoun in this wise: "The
word _it_ 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 _it_. A very remarkable instance of this pressing
of poor _it_ 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 _Doctor of Divinity_ 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 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 _merits_ of his grammar; and which
sentences are by Mr. Murray given to us in the following words: 'The
unwearied exertions of this gentleman _have_ done more toward
elucidating the obscurities and embellishing the structure of our
language than any _other writer_ on the subject. _Such a work_ has long
been wanted, and from the success with which _it_ is executed, can not
be too highly appreciated.'

"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
_it_, which we find forced into the Doctor's service in the second
sentence, relates to '_such a work_,' though this work is nothing that
has an existence, notwithstanding it is said to be '_executed_.' In the
first sentence, the 'exertions' become, all of a sudden, a '_writer_':
the _exertions_ have done more than 'any _other_ writer'; for, mind you,
it is not the _gentleman_ that has done anything; it is 'the
_exertions_' that _have_ done what is said to be done. The word
_gentleman_ 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
_exertions_ have done more than any _other writer_.' This is on a level
with 'This gentleman's _dog_ has killed more hares than any _other
sportsman_.' No doubt Doctor Abercrombie _meant_ to say, 'The exertions
of this gentleman have done more _than those_ 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.'
_Meant!_ 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 _means_ to say, 'Poll Cherrycheek has given me this
handkerchief'; and yet we are too apt to _laugh at him_ and to call him
_ignorant_; 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.

"However, my dear James, let this strong and striking instance of the
misuse of the word _it_ serve you in the way of caution. Never put an
_it_ upon paper without thinking well of what you are about. When I see
many _its_ in a page, I always tremble for the writer."

JEOPARDIZE. This is a modern word which we could easily do without, as
it means neither more nor less than its venerable progenitor _to
jeopard_, which is greatly preferred by all careful writers.

JUST GOING TO. Instead of "I am _just going to_ go," it is better to
say, "I am just _about_ to go."

KIDS. "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 _silks_?"

KIND. See POLITE.

KNIGHTS TEMPLARS. The name of this ancient body has been adopted by a
branch of the Masonic fraternity, but in a perverted form--_Knights
Templar_; 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 _Templar_ 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 _Knights Templars_, and not
_Knights Templar_. Members of the contemporaneous order of St. John of
Jerusalem were commonly called Knights Hospitallers.

LADY. To use the term _lady_, 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 _man_ and _woman_. Gentlemen and ladies establish their
claims to being called such by their bearing, and not by arrogating to
themselves, _even indirectly_, the titles. In England, the title _lady_
is properly correlative to _lord_; 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 _lady_, a clever
_lady_, a well-dressed _lady_, a good _lady_, a modest _lady_, a
charitable _lady_, an amiable _lady_, a handsome _lady_, a fascinating
_lady_," and the like, are studiously avoided by persons of refinement.
_Ladies_ say, "we _women_, the _women_ of America, _women's_ apparel,"
and so on; _vulgar_ women talk about "us _ladies_, the _ladies_ of
America, _ladies'_ 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-_woman_; 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-_lady_. 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 _lady_ and _gentleman_ 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 _women_ in
Ohio."

In a late number of the "London Queen" was the following: "The terms
_ladies_ and _gentlemen_ 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 _gentleman_ when he should be called a _man_, or speaking of a
man as a _man_ when he should be spoken of as a _gentleman_; or alluding
to a lady as a _woman_ when she should be alluded to as a _lady_, or
speaking of a woman as a _lady_ when she should properly be termed a
_woman_. 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 _man_
or when he is a _gentleman_; and, although he 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 _man_ to a man, and
never a _gentleman_; to a woman, he is occasionally a _man_ and
occasionally a _gentleman_; but a man would far oftener term a woman a
_woman_ than he would term her a _lady_. When a man makes use of an
adjective in speaking of a lady, he almost invariably calls her a
_woman_. Thus, he would say, 'I met a rather agreeable _woman_ at dinner
last night'; but he would _not_ say, 'I met an agreeable _lady_'; but he
might say, 'A _lady_, a friend of mine, told me,' etc., when he would
_not_ say, 'A _woman_, a friend of mine, told me,' etc. Again, a man
would say, 'Which of the _ladies_ did you take in to dinner?' He would
certainly not say, 'Which of the _women_,' etc.

"Speaking of people _en masse_, 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 [_one another_],
they might, perhaps, in speaking of a man, call him a _gentleman_; but,
otherwise, it would be more usual to speak of him as a _man_. Ladies,
when speaking of each other [_one another_], usually employ the term
_woman_ in preference to that of _lady_. Thus they would say, 'She is a
very good-natured _woman_,' 'What sort of a _woman_ is she?' the term
_lady_ being entirely out of place under such circumstances. Again, the
term young _lady_ gives place as far as possible to the term _girl_,
although it greatly depends upon the amount of intimacy existing as to
which term is employed."

LANGUAGE. A note in Worcester's Dictionary says: "_Language_ 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.
_Tongue_ refers especially to an original language; as, 'the Hebrew
_tongue_.' The modern languages are derived from the original
_tongues_." If this be correct, then he who speaks French, German,
English, Spanish, and Italian, may properly say that he speaks five
_languages_, but only one _tongue_.

LAY--LIE. Errors are frequent in the use of these two irregular verbs.
_Lay_ is often used for _lie_, and _lie_ is sometimes used for _lay_.
This confusion in their use is due in some measure, doubtless, to the
circumstance that _lay_ appears in both verbs, it being the imperfect
tense of _to lie_. We say, "A mason _lays_ bricks," "A ship _lies_ at
anchor," etc. "I must _lie_ down"; "I must _lay_ myself down"; "I must
_lay_ this book on the table"; "He _lies_ on the grass"; "He _lays_ his
plans well"; "He _lay_ on the grass"; "He _laid_ it away"; "He has
_lain_ in bed long enough"; "He has _laid up_ some money," "_in_ a
stock," "_down_ the law"; "He is _laying_ out the grounds"; "Ships _lie_
at the wharf"; "Hens _lay_ eggs"; "The ship _lay_ at anchor"; "The hen
_laid_ an egg." It will be seen that _lay_ always expresses transitive
action, and that _lie_ expresses rest.

    "Here _lies_ our sovereign lord, the king,
      Whose word no man relies on;
    He never says a foolish thing,
      Nor ever does a wise one."

--Written on the bedchamber door of Charles II, by the Earl of
Rochester.

LEARN. This verb was long ago used as a synonym of _teach_, but in this
sense it is now obsolete. To _teach_ is to give instruction; to _learn_
is to take instruction. "I will _learn_, if you will _teach_ me." See
TEACH.

LEAVE. 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 _leave_ in the sense of _let_; thus, "_Leave_ me be";
"_Leave_ it alone"; "_Leave_ her be--don't bother her"; "_Leave_ me see
it."

LEND. See LOAN.

LENGTHY. 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
_long_: "a _long_ discussion," "a _long_ discourse," etc.

LENIENCY. Mr. Gould calls this word and _lenience_ "two philological
abortions." _Lenity_ is undoubtedly the proper word to use, though both
Webster and Worcester do recognize _leniency_ and _lenience_.

LESS. This word is much used instead of _fewer_. _Less_ relates to
quantity; _fewer_ to number. Instead of, "There were not _less_ than
twenty persons present," we should say, "There were not _fewer_ than
twenty persons present."

LESSER. This form of the comparative of _little_ is accounted a
corruption of _less_. It may, however, be used instead of _less_ with
propriety in verse, and also, in some cases, in prose. We may say, for
example, "Of two evils choose the _less_," or "the _lesser_." The latter
form, in sentences like this, is the more euphonious.

LIABLE. 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
_li'ble_ to find some beans?" See, also, APT.

LIE. See LAY.

LIKE--AS. Both these words express similarity; _like_ (adjective)
comparing things, _as_ (adverb) comparing action, existence, or quality.
Like is followed by an object only, and does not admit of a verb in the
same construction. _As_ must be followed by a verb expressed or
understood. We say, "He looks _like_ his brother," or "He looks _as_ his
brother _looks_." "Do _as_ I do," not "_like_ I do." "You must speak
_as_ James does," not "_like_ James does." "He died _as_ he had lived,
_like_ a dog." "It is _as_ blue _as_ indigo"; i. e., "as indigo is."

LIKE, TO. See LOVE.

LIKELY. See APT.

LIT. This form of the past participle of the verb _to light_ is now
obsolete. "Have you _lighted_ the fire?" "The gas is _lighted_." _Het_
for _heated_ is a similar, but much greater, vulgarism.

LOAN--LEND. There are those who contend that there is no such verb as
_to loan_, although it has been found in 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 _penchant_ for big
words who will prefer it to its synonym _lend_. Better far to say
"_Lend_ me your umbrella" than "_Loan_ me your umbrella."

LOCATE--SETTLE. The use of the verb _to locate_ in the sense of _to
settle_ is said to be an Americanism. Although the dictionaries
recognize _to locate_ as a neuter verb, as such it is marked "rarely
used," and, in the sense of _to settle_, it is among the vulgarisms that
careful speakers and writers are studious to avoid. A man _settles_, not
_locates_, in Nebraska. "Where do you intend to _settle_?" not _locate_.
See, also, SETTLE.

LOGGERHEADS. "In the mean time France is at _loggerheads
internally_."--"New York Herald," April 29, 1881. Loggerheads
_internally_?!

LOOKS BEAUTIFULLY. It is sometimes interesting to note the difference
between _vulgar_ bad grammar and _genteel_ 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
_shocking_"; the latter says, "This bonnet looks _shockingly_." In the
first sentence the epithet qualifies the verb _is trimmed_, and
consequently should have its adverbial form--_shockingly_; in the second
sentence the epithet qualifies the _appearance_--a noun--of the bonnet,
and consequently should have its adjectival form--_shocking_. The second
sentence means to say, "This bonnet presents a shocking appearance." The
bonnet certainly does not really _look_; it is _looked at_, and to the
_looker_ its appearance is _shocking_. So we say, in like manner, of a
person, that he or she looks _sweet_, or _charming_, or _beautiful_, or
_handsome_, or _horrid_, or _graceful_, or _timid_, and so on, always
using an adjective. "Miss Coghlan, as Lady Teazle, looked _charmingly_."
The grammar of the "New York Herald" would not have been any more
incorrect if it had said that Miss Coghlan looked _gladly_, or _sadly_,
or _madly_, or _delightedly_, or _pleasedly_. A person may look _sick_
or _sickly_, but in both cases the qualifying word is an adjective. The
verbs to _smell_, to _feel_, to _sound_, and to _appear_ 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 _sweet_"; "The butter
smells _good_, or _bad_, or _fresh_"; "I feel _glad_, or _sad_, or
_bad_, or _despondent_, or _annoyed_, or _nervous_"; "This construction
sounds _harsh_"; "How _delightful_ the country appears!"

On the other hand, to _look_, to _feel_, to _smell_, to _sound_, and to
_appear_ are found in sentences where the qualifying word must be an
adverb; thus, "He feels his loss _keenly_"; "The king looked
_graciously_ on her"; "I smell it _faintly_." We might also say, "He
feels _sad_ [adjective], because he feels his loss _keenly_" (adverb);
"He appears _well_" (adverb).

The expression, "_She seemed confusedly_, or _timidly_," is not a whit
more incorrect than "_She looked beautifully_, or _charmingly_." See
ADJECTIVES.

LOVE--LIKE. Men who are at all careful in the selection of language to
express their thoughts, and have not an undue leaning toward the
superlative, _love_ few things: their wives, their sweethearts, their
kinsmen, truth, justice, and their country. Women, on the contrary, as a
rule, _love_ a multitude of things, and, among their loves, the thing
they perhaps love most is--taffy.

LUGGAGE--BAGGAGE. The former of these words is generally used in
England, the latter in America.

LUNCH. This word, when used as a substantive, may at the best be
accounted an inelegant abbreviation of _luncheon_. The dictionaries
barely recognize it. The proper phraseology to use is, "Have you
_lunched_?" or, "Have you had your _luncheon_?" or, better, "Have you
had _luncheon_?" as we may in most cases presuppose that the person
addressed would hardly take anybody's else luncheon.

LUXURIOUS--LUXURIANT. 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 _rank growth_, but now all careful
writers and speakers use it in the sense of _indulging_ or _delighting
in luxury_. We talk of a _luxurious_ table, a _luxurious_ liver,
_luxurious_ ease, _luxurious_ freedom. Luxuriant, on the other hand, is
restricted to the sense of _rank_, or _excessive_, growth or production;
thus, _luxuriant_ weeds, _luxuriant_ foliage or branches, _luxuriant_
growth.

    "Prune the _luxuriant_, the uncouth refine,
    But show no mercy to an empty line."--Pope.

MAD. Professor Richard A. Proctor, in a recent number of "The
Gentleman's Magazine," says: "The word _mad_ in America seems nearly
always to mean _angry_. For _mad_, as we use the word, Americans say
_crazy_. Herein they have manifestly impaired the language." Have they?

                "Now, in faith, Gratiano,
    You give your wife too unkind a cause of grief;
    An 'twere, to me, I would be _mad at_ it."
                              --"Merchant of Venice."

"And being exceedingly _mad_ against them, I persecuted them even unto
strange cities."--Acts xxvi, II.

MAKE A VISIT. The phrase "_make_ a visit," according to Dr. Hall,
whatever it once was, is no longer English.

MALE. See FEMALE.

MARRY. There has been some discussion, at one time and another, with
regard to the use of this word. Is John Jones married _to_ Sally Brown
or _with_ 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,
_properly_, Sally Brown is married _to_ John Jones, and that this would
be the proper way to make the announcement of their having been wedded,
and not John Jones _to_ Sally Brown.

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 _act_ 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 _married_
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 _fact_ 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." _Got married_ is a vulgarism.

MAY. In the sense of _can_, _may_, in a negative clause, has become
obsolete. "Though we _may_ say a horse, we _may_ not say a ox." The
first _may_ here is permissible; not so, however, the second, which
should be _can_.

MEAT. At table, we ask for and offer beef, mutton, veal, steak, turkey,
duck, etc., and do not ask for nor offer _meat_, which, to say the
least, is inelegant. "Will you have [not, take] another piece of _beef_
[not, of _the_ beef]?" not, "Will you have another piece of _meat_?"

MEMORANDUM. The plural is _memoranda_, except when the singular means a
book; then the plural is _memorandums_.

MERE. 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 _merely_ meet with
no response." What the writer evidently intended to say is, that _mere_
words meet with no response.

METAPHOR. An _implied_ 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."

Worcester's definition of a _metaphor_ 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
_comparison is implied, though not formally expressed_; a comparison or
simile comprised in a word; as, 'Thy word is a _lamp_ to my feet.'" A
_metaphor_ differs from a _simile_ in being expressed without any sign
of comparison; thus, "the _silver_ moon" is a _metaphor_; "the moon is
bright as silver" is a simile. Examples:

    "But look, the morn, in russet mantle clad,
    Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastern hill."

    "Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased--
    Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow?"

                      "At length Erasmus
    Stemmed the wild torrent of a barbarous age,
    And drove those holy Vandals off the stage."

"Censure is the tax a man pays to the public for being eminent."

METONYMY. 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 _metonymy_.

"One very common species of _metonymy_ is, when the badge is put for the
office. Thus we say the _miter_ for the priesthood; the _crown_ for
royalty; for military occupation we say the _sword_; and for the
literary professions, those especially of theology, law, and physic, the
common expression is the _gown_."--Campbell.

Dr. Quackenbos, in his "Course of Composition and Rhetoric," says:
"_Metonymy_ 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 _Moses_ and _the prophets_,' i. e., their
writings; '_Gray hairs_ should be respected,' i. e., _old age_. 2.
Progenitor and posterity; as, 'Hear, O Israel!' i. e., _descendants of
Israel_. 3. Subject and attribute; as, '_Youth_ and _beauty_ shall be
laid in dust,' i. e., _the young_ and _beautiful_. 4. Place and
inhabitant; as, 'What _land_ is so barbarous as to allow this
injustice?' i. e., what _people_. 5. Container and thing contained; as,
'Our _ships_ next opened fire,' i. e., our _sailors_. 6. Sign and thing
signified; as, 'The _scepter_ shall not depart from Judah,' i. e.,
_kingly_ power. 7. Material and thing made of it; as, 'His _steel_
gleamed on high,' i. e., his _sword_."

"Petitions having proved unsuccessful, it was determined to approach the
throne more boldly."

MIDST, THE. See IN OUR MIDST.

MIND--CAPRICIOUS. "Lord Salisbury's _mind_ is _capricious_."--"Tribune,"
April 3, 1881. See EQUANIMITY OF MIND.

MISPLACED CLAUSES. 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 [_to witness_] in peaceful England. _In the
sister island, indeed, we had read of such horrors_, 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.

"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.

"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."

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 _in England_." What the writer
intended was, "in England _as normal_"--a very different thought. "The
Normal School is a commodious building capable of accommodating three
hundred students four stories high." "HOUSEKEEPER.--A highly respectable
middle-aged Person who has been filling the above Situation with a
gentleman for upwards of eleven years and who is now deceased is anxious
to meet a similar one." "TO PIANO-FORTE MAKERS.--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 ONLY.

MISPLACED WORDS. "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 _misplacing_ of a part of
them, the meaning may be wholly destroyed; and even made to be the
contrary of what it ought to be."

"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, _however
uneasy_, he could not then _escape_, _by a kind introduction_ of the
only subject on which I believed him to be able to speak with
propriety."--Dr. Johnson.

"This," says Cobbett, "is a very bad sentence altogether. '_However
uneasy_' applies to _assembly_ and not to _gentleman_. Only observe how
easily this might have been avoided. 'From which _he_, _however uneasy_,
could not then escape.' After this we have, '_he_ could not then
_escape_, _by a kind introduction_.' We know what is _meant_; but the
Doctor, with all his _commas_, 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.'"

"Reason is the glory of human nature, and one of the chief eminences
whereby we are raised above our fellow-creatures, the brutes, _in this
lower world_."--Doctor Watts' "Logic."

"I have before showed an error," Cobbett remarks, "in the _first_
sentence of Doctor Watts' work. This is the _second_ sentence. The words
_in this lower world_ are not words _misplaced_ only; they are wholly
_unnecessary_, and they do great harm; for they do these two things:
first, they imply _that there are brutes in the higher world_; and,
second, they excite a doubt _whether we are raised above those brutes_.

"I might greatly extend the number of my extracts from these authors;
but here, I trust, are enough. I had noted down about _two hundred
errors_ in Dr. Johnson's 'Lives of the Poets'; but, afterward perceiving
that he had revised and corrected 'The Rambler' with _extraordinary
care_, I chose to make my extracts from that work rather than from the
'Lives of the Poets.'"

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 _properly_ be broiled" and "The fish should be
_properly_ broiled" is apparent at a glance. "The colon may be
_properly_ used in the following cases": should be, "may _properly_ be
used." "This mode of expression _rather suits_ a familiar than a grave
style": should be, "suits a familiar _rather than_ a grave style." "It
is a frequent error _in the writings even_ of some good authors": should
be, "in the writings of _even some good_ authors." "_Both_ the
circumstances of contingency and futurity are necessary": should be,
"The circumstances of contingency and futurity are _both_ necessary."
"He has made charges ... which he has failed _utterly_ 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."

MISTAKEN. "If I am not _mistaken_, you are in the wrong": say, "If I
_mistake not_." "I tell you, you are _mistaken_." Here _mistaken_ means,
"You are wrong; you do not understand"; but it might be taken to mean,
"I _mistake you_." For "you are _mistaken_," say, "you _mistake_." 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 _you are mistaken_ could be defended. Until they do
invent such a theory, it will be better to say _you mistake_, _he
mistakes_, and so on; or _you are_, or _he is_--as the case may be--_in
error_.

MORE PERFECT. Such expressions as, "the _more_ perfect of the two," "the
_most_ perfect thing of the kind I have ever seen," "the _most_ 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.

MOST. "Everybody abuses this word," says Mr. Gould in his "Good
English"; and then, in another paragraph, he adds: "If a man would cross
out _most_ wherever he can find it in any book in the English language,
he would in _al_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 _most_ profound
silence"; "a _most_ just idea"; "a _most_ complete orator"; "this was
_most_ extraordinary"; "an object of _most_ perfect esteem"; "a _most_
extensive erudition"; "he gave it _most_ liberally away"; "it is, _most_
assuredly, not because I value his services least"; "would _most_
seriously affect us"; "that such a system must _most_ widely and _most_
powerfully," etc.; "it is _most_ effectually nailed to the counter"; "it
is _most_ undeniable that," etc.

This word is much, and very erroneously, used for _almost_. "He comes
here _most_ every day." The user of such a sentence as this means to say
that he comes _nearly_ every day, but he _really says_, if he says
anything, that he comes more every day than he does every night. In such
sentences _almost_, and not _most_, is the word to use.

MUTUAL. This word is much misused in the phrase "our _mutual_ friend."
Macaulay says: "_Mutual_ friend is a low vulgarism for _common_ friend."
_Mutual_ 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 _mutual_ affection, or a _mutual_
aversion," i. e., they like or dislike each other; or, "John and James
are _mutually_ dependent," i. e., they are dependent on each other. In
using the word _mutual_, care should be taken not to add the words _for
each other_ or _on each other_, the thought conveyed by these words
being already expressed in the word _mutual_. "Dependent on each other"
is the exact equivalent of "mutually dependent"; hence, saying that John
and James are _mutually_ dependent _on each other_ 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.

MYSELF. This form of the personal pronoun is properly used in the
nominative case only where _increased emphasis_ is aimed at.

    "I had as lief not be as live to be
    In awe of such a thing as I _myself_."

"I will do it _myself_," "I saw it _myself_." It is, therefore,
incorrect to say, "Mrs. Brown and myself were both very much pleased."

NAME. This word is sometimes improperly used for _mention_; thus, "I
never _named_ the matter to any one": should be, "I never _mentioned_
the matter to any one."

NEIGHBORHOOD. See VICINITY.

NEITHER. See EITHER.

NEITHER--NOR. "He would _neither_ give wine, _nor_ oil, _nor_
money."--Thackeray. The conjunction should be placed before the excluded
object; "neither _give_" implies neither some other _verb_, a meaning
not intended. Rearrange thus, taking all the common parts of the
contracted sentences together: "He would give _neither_ wine, _nor_ oil,
_nor_ money." So, "She can _neither_ help her beauty, _nor_ her courage,
_nor_ her cruelty" (Thackeray), should be, "She can help _neither_,"
etc. "He had _neither_ time to intercept _nor_ to stop her" (Scott),
should be, "He had time _neither_ to intercept," etc. "Some _neither_
can for wits _nor_ critics pass" (Pope), should be, "Some can _neither_
for wits _nor_ critics pass."

NEVER. Grammarians differ with regard to the correctness of using
_never_ in such sentences as, "He is in error, though _never_ so wise,"
"Charm he _never_ so wisely." In sentences like these, to say the least,
it is better, in common with the great majority of writers, to use
_ever_.

NEW. This adjective is often misplaced. "He has a _new_ suit of clothes
and a _new_ pair of gloves." It is not the _suit_ and the _pair_ that
are new, but the _clothes_ and the _gloves_.

NICE. Archdeacon Hare remarks of the use, or rather misuse, of this
word: "That stupid vulgarism by which we use the word _nice_ 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 _nice_ cheese-cake, a _nice_ tragedy, a
_nice_ sermon, a _nice_ day, a _nice_ country, as if a universal deluge
of _niaiserie_--for _nice_ seems originally to have been only
_niais_--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 _nice_ distinction, a _nice_ discrimination, a _nice_
calculation, a _nice_ point, and about a person's being _nice_, and
over-_nice_, and the like; but we certainly ought not to talk about
"Othello's" being a _nice_ tragedy, about Salvini's being a _nice_
actor, or New York bay's being a _nice_ harbor.[23]

NICELY. The very quintessence of popinjay vulgarity is reached when
_nicely_ is made to do service for _well_, in this wise: "How do you
do?" "_Nicely_." "How are you?" "_Nicely_."

NO. This word of negation is responded to by _nor_ in sentences like
this: "Let your meaning be obscure, and _no_ grace of diction _nor_ any
music of well-turned sentences will make amends."

"Whether he is there or _no_." Supply the ellipsis, and we have,
"Whether he is there or _no_ there." Clearly, the word to use in
sentences like this is not _no_, but _not_. And yet our best writers
sometimes inadvertently use _no_ with _whether_. Example: "But perhaps
some people are quite indifferent _whether_ or _no_ it is said,"
etc.--Richard Grant White, in "Words and Their Uses," p. 84. Supply the
ellipsis, and we have, "said or _no_ said." In a little book entitled
"Live and Learn," I find, "No _less_ than fifty persons were there; No
_fewer_," etc. In correcting one mistake, the writer himself makes one.
It should be, "_Not_ fewer," etc. If we ask, "There were fifty persons
there, were there or were there _not_?" the reply clearly would be,
"There were _not_ fewer than fifty." "There was _no_ one of them who
would not have been proud," etc., should be, "There was _not_ one of
them."

NOT. The correlative of _not_, when it stands in the first member of a
sentence, is _nor_ or _neither_. "_Not_ for thy ivory _nor_ thy gold
will I unbind thy chain." "I will _not_ do it, _neither_ shall you."

The wrong placing of _not_ often gives rise to an imperfect negation;
thus, "John and James were _not_ there," means that John and James were
not there _in company_. It does not exclude the presence of one of them.
The negative should precede in this case: "Neither John _nor_ James was
there." "Our company was _not_ present" (as a company, but some of us
might have been), should be, "No member of our company was present."

NOT--BUT ONLY. "Errors frequently arise in the use of _not_--but _only_,
to understand which we must attend to the force of the whole
expression. 'He did _not_ pretend to extirpate French music, _but only_
to cultivate and civilize it.' Here the _not_ is obviously misplaced.
'He pretended, or professed, _not_ to extirpate.'"--Bain.

NOTORIOUS. Though this word can not be properly used in any but a bad
sense, we sometimes see it used instead of _noted_, which may be used in
either a good or a bad sense. _Notorious_ characters are always persons
to be shunned, whereas _noted_ characters may or may not be persons to
be shunned.

"This is the tax a man must pay for his virtues--they hold up a torch to
his vices and render those frailties _notorious_ in him which would pass
without observation in another."--Lacon.

NOVICE. See AMATEUR.

NUMBER. 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 _them_ to deposit in the box." Should be, to
_him_. "A person may be very near-sighted if _they_ can not recognize an
acquaintance ten feet off." Should be, if _he_.

The verb _to be_ is often used in the singular instead of in the plural;
thus, "There _is_ several reasons why it would be better": say, _are_.
"How many _is_ there?" say, _are_. "There _is_ four": say, _are_. "_Was_
there many?" say, _were_. "No matter how many there _was_": say, _were_.

A verb should agree in number with its subject, and not with its
predicate. We say, for example, "Death _is_ the wages of sin," and "The
wages of sin _are_ death."

"When singular nouns connected by _and_ are preceded by _each_,
_every_, or _no_, the verb must be singular." We say, for example,
"_Each_ boy and _each_ girl _studies_." "_Every_ leaf, and _every_ twig,
and _every_ drop of water _teems_ with life." "_No_ book and _no_ paper
_was_ arranged."

_Each_ being singular, a pronoun or verb to agree with it must also be
singular; thus, "Let them depend each on _his_ own exertions"; "Each
city has _its_ peculiar privileges"; "Everybody has a right to look
after _his_ own interest."

Errors are often the result of not repeating the verb; thus, "Its
significance is as varied as the passions": correctly, "as _are_ the
passions." "The words are as incapable of analysis as the thing
signified": correctly, "as _is_ the thing signified."

OBSERVE. The dictionaries authorize the use of this word as a synonym of
_say_ and _remark_; as, for example, "What did you _observe_?" for "What
did you _say_, or _remark_?" In this sense, however, it is better to
leave _observe_ to the exclusive use of those who delight in being fine.

O'CLOCK. "It is a quarter _to_ ten o'clock." What does this statement
mean, literally? We _understand_ by it that it lacks a quarter of ten,
i. e., of being ten; but it does not really mean that. Inasmuch as _to_
means toward, it _really_ means a quarter after nine. We should say,
then, a quarter _of_, which means, literally, a quarter _out of_ ten.

OF ALL OTHERS. "The vice of covetousness, _of all others_, enters
deepest into the soul." This sentence says that covetousness is one of
the _other_ vices. A thing can not be _another_ thing, nor can it be one
of a number of _other_ 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, _above_ all others, enters," etc.

OF ANY. This phrase is often used when _of all_ is meant; thus, "This is
the largest _of any_ I have seen." Should be, "the largest _of all_,"
etc.

OFF OF. In such sentences as, "Give me a yard _off of_ this piece of
calico," either the _off_ or the _of_ is vulgarly superfluous. The
sentence would be correct with either one, but not with both of them.
"The apples fell _off of_ the tree": read, "fell _off_ the tree."

OFTEN. This adverb is properly compared by changing its termination:
often, oftener, oftenest. Why some writers use _more_ and _most_ to
compare it, it is not easy to see; this mode of comparing it is
certainly not euphonious.

OH--O. It is only the most careful writers who use these two
interjections with proper discrimination. The distinction between them
is said to be modern. _Oh_ 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." _O_, 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?"

OLDER--ELDER. "He is the _older_ man of the two, and the _oldest_ in the
neighborhood." "He is the _elder_ of the two sons, and the _eldest_ of
the family." "The _elder_ son is heir to the estate; he is _older_ than
his brother by ten years."

ON TO. We get _on_ a chair, _on_ an omnibus, _on_ a stump, and _on_ a
spree, and not on _to_.

ONE. 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, "Suppose _I_ were to lose my way in a
wood"; or, "Suppose _you_ were to lose your way in a wood"; or, "Suppose
_one_ were to lose _one's_ 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 _one's_ honesty were impeached, what should
_one_ do?" is more courtly than to take either one's self or the person
addressed for the example.

_One_ should be followed by _one_, and not by _he_. "The better
acquainted _one_ is with any kind of rhetorical trick, the less liable
_he_ is to be misled by it." Should be, "the less liable _one_ is to be
misled by it."

In the phrase, "any of the little _ones_," _one_ 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 _one_, or ripe _ones_."

Professor Bain says, in his "Composition Grammar":

"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: '_One_
may be ashamed to consume half _one's_ days in bringing sense and rhyme
together.' It would be against idiom to say 'half _his_ days.'

"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:

                        "'Alack! _one_ lies _oneself_
    Even in the stating that _one's_ end was truth,
    Truth only, if _one_ states so much in words.'

"The representative 'I' or 'we' occasionally acts the part of 'one.' The
following sentence presents a curious alternation of 'we' with
'one'--possibly not accidental (George Eliot): 'It's a desperately
vexatious thing that, after all _one's_ reflections and quiet
determinations, _we_ should be ruled by moods that _one_ can't calculate
on beforehand.' By the use of 'we' here, a more pointed reference is
suggested, while the vagueness actually remains.

"Fenimore Cooper, like Scott, is not very particular; an example may be
quoted: 'Modesty is a poor man's wealth; but, as _we_ grow substantial
in the world, patroon, _one_ can afford to begin to speak truth of
_himself_ as well as of _his_ 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.

"The form 'a man,' which was at one time common, seems to be reviving.
In 'Adam Bede' we have, '_A man_ can never do anything at variance with
his own nature.' We might substitute 'one.'

"'Men' was more frequent in good writing formerly than now. 'Neither do
_men_ light a candle, and put it under a bushel.' 'Do _men_ gather
grapes of thorns?' Hume is fond of expressing a general subject by
'men.'

"'Small birds are much more exposed to the cold than large _ones_.' This
usage is hardly 'indefinite'; and it needs no further exemplification."

ONLY. 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 its pages, papers of sterling merit [only] will
_only_ appear" (Miss Braddon); "Things are getting dull down in Texas;
they _only_ shot [only] three men down there last week"; "I have _only_
got [only] three." _Only_ is sometimes improperly used for _except_ or
_unless_; thus, "The trains will not stop _only_ when the bell rings."
The meaning here is clearly "_except_ when the bell rings."

Dr. Bain, in his "Higher English Grammar," speaking of the order of
words, says:

"The word requiring most attention is _only_.

"According to the position of _only_, the same words may be made to
express very different meanings.

"'He _only_ lived for their sakes.' Here _only_ must be held as
qualifying '_lived_ for their sakes,' the emphasis being on _lived_, the
word immediately adjoining. The meaning then is 'he _lived_,' but did
not _work_, did not _die_, did not do any other thing for their sakes.

"'He lived _only_ for their sakes.' _Only_ 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.

"'He lived for their sakes _only_.' 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 _only_,' is an insinuation that more was
expected.

"By the use of _alone_, instead of _only_, other meanings are expressed.
'He _alone_ lived for their sakes'; that is, _he, and nobody else_, did
so. 'He lived for their sakes _alone_,' or, 'for the sake of them
_alone_'; that is, not for the sake of any other persons. 'It was
_alone_ by the help of the Confederates that any such design could be
carried out.' Better _only_.

"'When men grow virtuous in their old age, they _only_ make a sacrifice
to God of the devil's leavings.'--Pope. Here _only_ is rightly placed.
'Think _only_ of the past as its remembrance gives you pleasure,' should
be, 'think of the past, _only_ as its remembrance,' etc. 'As he did not
leave his name, it was _only_ known that a gentleman had called on
business': it was known _only_. 'I can _only_ 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 _refute_
it.' 'The <DW64>s are to appear at church _only_ in boots'; that is,
when the <DW64>s go to church they are to have no clothing but boots.
'The <DW64>s are to appear _only_ 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, _in boots_, with its verb, _appear_, and to make _only_ qualify
_at church_ and no more: 'the <DW64>s are to appear in boots _only_ at
church.'"

It thus appears very plain that we should look well to our _onlys_.

OUGHT--SHOULD. These two words, though they both imply obligation,
should not be used indiscriminately. _Ought_ is the stronger term; what
we _ought_ to do, we are morally bound to do. We _ought_ to be truthful
and honest, and _should_ be respectful to our elders and kind to our
inferiors.

OVERFLOWN. _Flown_ is the past participle of _to fly_, and _flowed_ of
_to flow_. As, therefore, a river does not _fly_ over its banks, but
_flows_ over them, we should say of it that it has over_flowed_, and not
that it has over_flown_.

OVERLY. This word is now used only by the unschooled.

OWING. See DUE.

PANTS. This abbreviation is not used by those who are careful in the
choice of words. The purist does not use the word _pantaloons_ even, but
_trousers_. _Pants_ are worn by _gents_ who eat _lunches_ and _open_
wine, and _trousers_ are worn by _gentlemen_ who eat _luncheons_ and
_order_ wine.

PARAPHERNALIA. 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.

PARLOR. This word, in the sense of _drawing-room_, according to Dr.
Hall, except in the United States and some of the English colonies, is
obsolete.

PARTAKE. This is a very fine word to use for _eat_; just the word for
young women who hobble on French heels.

PARTIALLY--PARTLY. "It is only _partially_ done." This use of the adverb
_partially_ is sanctioned by high authority, but that does not make it
correct. A thing done in part is _partly_, not _partially_, done.

PARTICIPLES. When the present participle is used substantively, in
sentences like the following, it is preceded by the definite article and
followed by the preposition _of_. The omitting of the preposition is a
common error. Thus, "Or, it is _the drawing_ a conclusion which was
before either unknown or dark," should be, "the drawing _of_ 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 _of_ bad verses." "There is a misuse of the article _a_ which is
very common. It is the using it before the word _most_."--Moon. Most
writers would have said "the using _of_ it." Mr. Moon argues for his
construction.

PARTICLES. "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:

"'It was characterized _with_ eloquence': read, 'by.'

"'A testimonial _of_ the merits of his grammar': read, 'to.'

"'It was an example of the love _to form_ comparisons': read, 'of
forming.'

"'Repetition is always to be preferred _before_ obscurity': read, 'to.'

"'He made an effort _for meeting_ them': read, 'to meet.'

"'They have no _other_ object _but_ to come': read, 'other object than,'
or omit 'other.'

"Two verbs are not unfrequently followed by a single preposition, which
accords with one only; e. g., 'This duty _is repeated_ and inculcated
_upon_ the reader.' 'Repeat _upon_' is nonsense; we must read 'is
repeated _to_ and inculcated upon.'"--Nichol's "English Composition," p.
39. We often see _for_ used with the substantive _sympathy_; the best
practice, however, uses _with_; thus, "Words can not express the deep
sympathy I feel _with_ you."--Queen Victoria.

PARTY. 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 _person_.

PATRONIZE. This word and its derivatives would be 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' _custom_, not
their _patronage_. A man can have no _patrons_ without incurring
obligations--without becoming a _protégé_; 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
_patrons_ 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 _patronizes_ John Smith.

PELL-MELL. This adverb means mixed or mingled together; as, "Men,
horses, chariots, crowded _pell-mell_." 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 _mixed together_."

PER. This Latin preposition is a good deal used in English, as, for
example, in such phrases as _per_ day, _per_ man, _per_ pound, _per_
ton, and so on. In all such cases it is better to use plain English, and
say, _a_ day, _a_ man, _a_ pound, _a_ ton, etc. _Per_ is correct before
Latin nouns only; as, per annum, per diem, per cent., etc.

PERFORM. "She _performs_ on the piano beautifully." In how much better
taste it is to say simply, "She _plays_ the piano well," or, more
superlatively, "exceedingly well," or "admirably"! If we talk about
_performing_ on musical instruments, to be consistent, we should call
those who _perform_, piano-performers, cornet-performers,
violin-performers, and so on.

PERPETUALLY. This word is sometimes misused for _continually_. Dr.
William Mathews, in his "Words, their Use and Abuse," says: "The Irish
are _perpetually_ using _shall_ for _will_." _Perpetual_ means never
ceasing, continuing without intermission, uninterrupted; while
_continual_ means that which is constantly renewed and recurring with
perhaps frequent stops and interruptions. As the Irish do something
_besides_ misuse _shall_, the Doctor should have said that they
_continually_ use _shall_ for _will_. I might perhaps venture to
intimate that _perpetually_ 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, _perpetually_ interlarding their conversation with
them."

PERSON. See PARTY; also, INDIVIDUAL.

PERSONALTY. This word does not, as some persons think, mean the articles
worn on one's person. It is properly a law term, and means _personal
property_. "There is but one case on record of a peer of England leaving
over $7,500,000 personalty."

PERSONIFICATION. 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 _personification_ or
_prosopopœia_.

"The mountains _sing together_, the hills rejoice and _clap their
hands_." "The worm, _aware_ of his intent, _harangued_ him thus."

    "See, _Winter_ comes to _rule_ the varied year,
    _Sullen_ and _sad_ with all his rising train."--Thomson.

    "So saying, her rash hand, in evil hour,
    Forth reaching to the fruit, she plucked, she ate!
    _Earth felt the wound; and Nature from her seat,
    Sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe,
    That all was lost._"--Milton.

    "War and Love are strange compeers.
    War sheds blood, and Love sheds tears;
    War has swords, and Love has darts;
    War breaks heads, and Love breaks hearts."

"Levity is often less foolish and gravity less wise than each of them
appears."

"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.

    "Knowledge and wisdom, far from being one,
    Have ofttimes no connection. Knowledge dwells
    In heads replete with thoughts of other men;
    Wisdom in minds attentive to their own.
    Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;
    Wisdom is humble that he knows no more."--Cowper.

PHENOMENON. Plural, _phenomena_.

PLEAD. The imperfect tense and the perfect participle of the verb _to
plead_ are both _pleaded_ and not _plead_. "He _pleaded_ not guilty."
"You should have _pleaded_ your cause with more fervor."

PLENTY. In Worcester's Dictionary we find the following note: "_Plenty_
is much used colloquially as an adjective, in the sense of _plentiful_,
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 _plentiful_'; and
Dr. Campbell, in his 'Philosophy of Rhetoric,' says: '_Plenty_ for
_plentiful_ appears to me so gross a vulgarism that I should not have
thought it worthy of a place here if I had not sometimes found it in
works of considerable merit.'" We should say, then, that money is
_plentiful_, and not that it is _plenty_.

PLEONASM. Redundancy or pleonasm is the use of more words than are
necessary to express the thought clearly. "They returned _back again_ to
the _same_ city _from_ whence they came _forth_": the five words in
italics are _redundant_ or _pleonastic_. "The different departments of
science and of art _mutually_ reflect light _on each other_": either of
the expressions in italics embodies the whole idea. "The _universal_
opinion of _all_ men" is a pleonastic expression often heard. "I wrote
you _a letter_ yesterday": here _a letter_ is redundant.

Redundancy is _sometimes_ permissible for the surer conveyance of
meaning, for emphasis, and in the language of poetic embellishment.

POLITE. This word is much used by persons of doubtful culture, where
those of the better sort use the word _kind_. We accept _kind_, not
_polite_ invitations; and, when any one has been obliging, we tell him
that he has been _kind_; and, when an interviewing reporter tells us of
his having met with a _polite_ 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 _kind_ reception."--Atterbury.

PORTION. This word is often incorrectly used for _part_. A _portion_ is
properly a part assigned, allotted, set aside for a special purpose; a
share, a division. The verb _to portion_ means to divide, to parcel, to
endow. We ask, therefore, "In what _part_ [not, in what _portion_] of
the country, state, county, town, or street do you live?"--or, if we
prefer grandiloquence to correctness, _reside_. In the sentence, "A
large _portion_ of the land is unfilled," the right word would be
either _part_ or _proportion_, according to the intention of the writer.

POSTED. A word very much and very inelegantly used for _informed_. Such
expressions as, "I will _post_ you," "I must _post_ myself up," "If I
had been better _posted_," and the like, are, at the best, but one
remove from slang.

PREDICATE. This word is often very incorrectly used in the sense of _to
base_; as, "He _predicates_ 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
_to speak before_, and has come to be properly used in the sense of
_assumed_ or believed to be the consequence of. Examples: "Contentment
is _predicated_ of virtue"; "Good health may be _predicated_ 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.

PREJUDICE--PREPOSSESS. Both these words mean, to incline in one
direction or the other for some reason not founded in justice; but by
common consent _prejudice_ has come to be used in an unfavorable sense,
and _prepossess_ in a favorable one. Thus, we say, "He is _prejudiced_
against him," and "He is _prepossessed_ in his favor." We sometimes hear
the expression, "He is _prejudiced_ in his favor," but this can not be
accounted a good use of the word.

PREPOSITIONS. The errors made in the use of the prepositions are very
numerous. "The indolent child is one who [that?] has a strong aversion
_from_ action of any sort."--Graham's "English Synonymes," p. 236. The
prevailing and best modern usage is in favor of _to_ instead of _from_
after _averse_ and _aversion_, and before the object. "Clearness ...
enables the reader to see thoughts without noticing the language _with_
which they are clothed."--Townsend's "Art of Speech." We clothe thoughts
_in_ language. "Shakespeare ... and the Bible are ... models _for_ the
English-speaking tongue."--Ibid. If this means models of English, then
it should be _of_; but if it means models for English organs of speech
to practice on, then it should be _for_; or if it means models to model
English tongues after, then also it should be _for_. "If the resemblance
is too faint, the mind is fatigued _while_ attempting to trace the
analogies." "Aristotle is in error _while_ thus describing
governments."--Ibid. Here we have two examples, not of the misuse of the
preposition, but of the erroneous use of the adverb _while_ instead of
the preposition _in_. "For my part I can not think that Shelley's
poetry, except _by_ snatches and fragments, has the value of the good
work of Wordsworth or Byron."--Matthew Arnold. Should be, "except _in_
snatches." "Taxes with us are collected nearly [almost] solely _from_
real and personal estate."--"Appletons' Journal." Taxes are levied _on_
estates and collected _from_ the owners.

"If I am not commended _for_ 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 _for_ the beauty of his works, and we may
_pardon_ him _for_ their brevity, if we deem the brevity _a fault_; but
this is not what he means. He means that, at any rate, he shall have the
_merit_ of brevity. 'If I am not commended for the beauty of my works, I
may hope to be pardoned _on account of_ 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 _seesaw_ in which
Dr. Johnson so much delighted, and which, falling into the hands of
novel-writers and of members of Parliament, 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."

The rhetoricians would have us avoid such forms of expression as, "The
boy went _to_ and asked the advice _of_ his teacher"; "I called _on_ and
had a conversation _with_ my brother."

Very often the preposition is not repeated in a sentence, when it should
be. We say properly, "He comes from Ohio or _from_ Indiana"; or, "He
comes _either_ from Ohio or Indiana."

PREPOSSESS. See PREJUDICE.

PRESENT--INTRODUCE. Few errors are more common, especially among those
who are always straining to be fine, than that of using _present_, in
the social world, instead of _introduce_. _Present_ means to place in
the presence of a superior; _introduce_, 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 _introduced_ 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.

PRESUMPTIVE. This word is sometimes misused by the careless for
_presumptuous_.

PREVENTIVE. A useless and unwarranted syllable is sometimes added to
this word--_preventative_.

PREVIOUS. This adjective is much used in an adverbial sense; thus,
"_Previous_ to my return," etc. Until _previous_ is recognized as an
adverb, if we would speak grammatically, we must say, "_Previously_ to
my return." "_Previously_ to my leaving England, I called on his
lordship."

PROCURE. This is a word much used by people who strive to be fine.
"Where did you _get_ it?" with them is, "Where did you _procure_ it?"

PROFANITY. 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.

PROMISE. This word is sometimes very improperly used for _assure_; thus,
"I _promise_ you I was very much astonished."

PRONOUNS OF THE FIRST PERSON. "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
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.

"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, _we_ saw a man coming toward _us_'; '_we_ like _our_ new curate';
'you do _us_ poets the greatest injustice'; '_we_ must see to the
efficiency of _our_ forces.' The widest use of the pronoun will be
mentioned presently.

"'We' is used for 'I' in the decrees of persons in authority; as when
King Lear says:

        'Know that _we_ have divided
    In three _our_ kingdom.'

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.

"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.

"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 'we.' '_We_ are weak and
fallible'; '_we_ are of yesterday'; '_we_ are doomed to dissolution.'
'Here have _we_ no continuing city, but _we_ seek one to come.'

"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 _us_ [the author] now consider why _we_
[humanity generally] overrate distant good.' In such a case the author
should fall back upon the singular for himself--'_I_ will now
consider--.' '_We_ [speaker] think _we_ [himself and hearers together]
should come to the conclusion.' Say, either '_I_ think,' or '_you_
would.'

"The following extract from Butler exemplifies a similar confusion:
'Suppose _we_ [representative] are capable of happiness and of misery in
degrees equally intense and extreme, yet _we_ [rep.] are capable of the
latter for a much longer time, beyond all comparison. _We_ [change of
subject to a limited class] see men in the tortures of pain--. Such is
_our_ [back to representative] make that anything may become the
instrument of pain and sorrow to _us_.' The 'we' at the commencement of
the second sentence--'_We_ see men in the tortures'--could be
advantageously changed to 'you,' or the passive construction could be
substituted; the remaining _we_'s would then be consistently
representative.

"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_ see in walking is seen because _I_ have an organ of
vision.' The question of general moral obligation is forcibly stated by
Paley in the individual form, 'Why am _I_ obliged to keep my word?' It
is sometimes well to confine the attention 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."

PRONOUNS OF THE SECOND PERSON. "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.[24]

"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' (_du_) is the address of familiarity and intimacy;
while the ordinary pronoun is the curiously indirect 'they' (_Sie_). 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, _thou_ reasonest well.' So in the
Commandments, 'thou' addresses to each individual an unavoidable appeal:
'_Thou_ shall not----.' But our ordinary means of making the personal
appeal is, 'you, _sir_,' 'you, _madam_,' 'my _Lord_, 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
irreverent to merge this vast personality in a promiscuous assemblage.

"'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 _you_ stamp a
little louder than ordinary, _you_ hear the sound repeated'; 'Some
practice is required to see these animals in the thick forest, even when
_you_ hear them close by _you_.'

"There should not be a mixture of 'thou' and 'you' in the same passage.
Thus, Thackeray (Adventures of Philip): 'So, as _thy_ sun rises, friend,
over the humble house-tops round about _your_ home, shall _you_ wake
many and many a day to duty and labor.' So, Cooper (Water-Witch):
'_Thou_ hast both master and mistress? _You_ have told us of the latter,
but we would know something of the former. Who is _thy_ master?'
Shakespeare, Scott, and others might also be quoted.

"'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."

PROOF. This word is much and very improperly used for _evidence_, which
is only the medium of _proof_, _proof_ being the effect of _evidence_.
"What _evidence_ have you to offer in _proof_ of the truth of your
statement?" See also EVIDENCE.

PROPOSE--PURPOSE. Writers and speakers often fail to discriminate
properly between the respective meanings of these two verbs. _Propose_,
correctly used, means, to put forward or to offer for _the
consideration of others_; hence, _a proposal_ is a scheme or design
offered for acceptance or consideration, a proposition. _Purpose_ means,
to intend, to design, to resolve; hence, _a purpose_ is an intention, an
aim, that which one sets _before one's self_. Examples: "What do you
_purpose_ doing in the matter?" "What do you _propose_ that we shall do
in the matter?" "I will do" means "I _purpose_ doing, or to do." "I
_purpose_ 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
_to write_" and not, "I purpose _writing_," using the verb in the
infinitive rather than in the participial form. "On which he _purposed_
to mount one of his little guns." See INFINITIVE.

PROPOSITION. This word is often used when _proposal_ would be better,
for the reason that _proposal_ has but one meaning, and is shorter by
one syllable. "He demonstrated the _proposition_ of Euclid, and rejected
the _proposal_ of his friend."

PROSAIST. Dr. Hall is of opinion that this is a word we shall do well to
encourage. It is used by good writers.

PROVEN. This form for the past participle of the verb _to prove_ is said
to be a Scotticism. It is not used by careful writers and speakers. The
correct form is _proved_.

PROVIDING. The present participle of the verb _to provide_ is sometimes
vulgarly used for the conjunction _provided_, as in this sentence from
the "London Queen": "Society may be congratulated, ... _providing_
that," etc.

PROVOKE. See AGGRAVATE.

PUNCTUATION. 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. 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:

At Ramessa there lived a benevolent and hospitable prior, who caused
these lines to be painted over his door:

    "Be open evermore,
    O thou my door!
    To none be shut--to honest or to poor!"

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:

    "Be open evermore,
    O thou my door!
    To none--be shut to honest or to poor!"

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.

  THE COMMA.--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:

  "In the following examples, gathered from various sources--chiefly
  from standard books--the superfluous commas are inclosed in
  parentheses:

  "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.'

  "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 _had_ left their home that caused the rising.

  "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:

  "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.' 6. 'If Loring is defeated
  in the Sixth District[,] it can be borne.'

  "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."

  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."

  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, means war at any
  cost." "Sailors, who are generally superstitious, say it is unlucky to
  embark on Friday."

  Adverbs and short phrases, _when they break the connection_, 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."

  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."

  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."

  Words used in apposition should be isolated by commas. "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.

  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?"

  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."

  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."

  The comma is used after adjectives, nouns, and verbs in sentences like
  the following:

      "Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils
      Shrunk to this little measure?"

      "He fills, he bounds, connects and equals all."

      "Who to the enraptured heart, and ear, and eye
      Teach beauty, virtue, truth, and love, and melody."[25]

  "He rewarded his friends, chastised his foes, set Justice on her seat,
  and made his conquest secure."

  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."

  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."

  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."

  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."[26]

  A comma is placed between short members of compound sentences,
  connected by _and_, _but_, _for_, _nor_, _or_, _because_, _whereas_,
  _that_ 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."

  A comma must not be placed before _that_ except when it is equivalent
  to _in order that_. "He says that he will be here."

  A comma must not be placed before _and_ 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."

  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 _only_, the meaning of this sentence is doubtful.

  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."[27]

  "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 _too_, _also_,
  _therefore_, and _perhaps_, when introduced so as not to interfere
  with the harmonious flow of the period; and, particularly, when the
  sentence is short."[28] "Robert Horton, M. D., F. R. S." "To those who
  labor, sleep is doubly pleasant"; "Sleep 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."

  "_When you are in doubt as to the propriety of inserting commas, omit
  them_; IT IS BETTER TO HAVE TOO FEW THAN TOO MANY."--Quackenbos.

  THE SEMICOLON.--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 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 _as_ 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."

  THE COLON.--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 _say_. "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 greatest pleasure?" Turning on his heel, the sage replied,
  "To get rid of fools."'"

  Formal enumerations of particulars, and direct quotations, when
  introduced by such phrases as _in these words_, _as follows_, _the
  following_, _namely_, _this_, _these_, _thus_, 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.

      "All were attentive to the godlike man
      When from his lofty couch he thus began:
      'Great queen,'" etc.--Dryden.

  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:--

      "'Ladies and gentlemen, we are,'" etc.

  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 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."

  THE PERIOD.--Complete sentences are always followed either by a
  period, or by an exclamation or an interrogation point.[29]

  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.

  INTERROGATION-POINT.--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."

  EXCLAMATION-POINT.--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?"

      "Night, sable goddess! from her ebon throne,
      In rayless majesty now stretches forth
      Her leaden scepter o'er a slumbering world.
      Silence, how dead! and darkness, how profound!"--Young.

      "Hail, holy light! offspring of heaven just born!"--Milton.

      "But thou, O Hope! with eyes so fair,
      What was thy delighted measure?"--Collins.

  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.

  An exclamation-point sometimes gives the same words quite another
  meaning. The difference between "What's that?" and "What's that!" is
  obvious.

  THE DASH.--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 _dash_. 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 _dashes_? Those who have
  thought proper, like Mr. Lindley Murray, to place the _dash_ amongst
  the _grammatical points_, ought to give us some rule relative to its
  different longitudinal dimensions in different cases. The _inch_, the
  _three-quarter-inch_, the _half-inch_, the _quarter-inch_: these would
  be something determinate; but '_the dash_,' without measure, must be a
  perilous thing for the young grammarian to handle. In short, '_the
  dash_' is a cover for ignorance as to the use of points, and it can
  answer no other purpose."

  This is one of the few instances in which Cobbett was wrong. The
  _dash_ 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 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."

      "He suffered--but his pangs are o'er;
        Enjoyed--but his delights are fled;
      Had friends--his friends are now no more;
        And foes--his foes are dead."--Montgomery.

  "Greece, Carthage, Rome,--where are they?" "He chastens;--but he
  chastens to save."

  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."

  PARENTHESIS.--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.

      "Know then this truth (enough for man to know),
      Virtue alone is happiness below."--Pope.

      "The bliss of man (could pride that blessing find)
      Is not to act or think beyond mankind."

  BRACKETS.--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.

  THE APOSTROPHE.--This point is used to denote the omission of letters
  and sometimes of figures; as, Jan'y, '81; _I've_ for _I have_;
  _you'll_ for _you will_; _'tis_ for _it is_; _don't_ for _do not_;
  _can't_ for _can not_; It was in the year '93; the spirit of '76; It
  was in the years 1812, '13, and '14.

  Also to denote the possessive case; as, Brown's house; the king's
  command; Moses' staff; for conscience' sake; the boys' garden.

  Also with _s_ to denote the plural of letters, figures, and signs; as,
  Cross your _t_'s, dot your _i_'s, and mind your _p_'s and _q_'s; make
  your 5's better, and take out the _x_'s.

  CAPITALS.--A capital letter should begin every sentence, every line of
  verse, and every direct quotation.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  THE PARAGRAPH.--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 give one's letters a
  shapely appearance that they otherwise never have.

PURCHASE. This word is much preferred to its synonym _buy_, by that
class of people who prefer the word _reside_ to _live_, _procure_ to
_get_, _inaugurate_ to _begin_, 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.

PURPOSE. See PROPOSE.

QUANTITY. This word is often improperly used for _number_. _Quantity_
should be used in speaking of what is measured or weighed; _number_, of
what is counted. Examples: "What _quantity_ of apples have you, and what
_number_ of pineapples?" "Delaware produces a large _quantity_ of
peaches and a large _number_ of melons."

QUIT.--This word means, properly, to leave, to go away from, to forsake;
as, "Avaunt! _quit_ 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, "_Quit_ your nonsense"; "_Quit_ laughing";
"_Quit_ your noise"; "He has _quit_ smoking," and so on.

QUITE. 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 _rather_; as,
"It is _quite_ warm"; "She is _quite_ tall"; "He is _quite_ proficient."
Sometimes it is incorrectly used in the sense of _considerable_; as,
_quite_ an amount, _quite_ a number, _quite_ a fortune. _Quite_,
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 _quite_ ladylike."

RAILROAD DEPOT. Few things are more offensive to fastidious ears than to
hear a railway _station_ called a _depot_. 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_way_--stop for passengers, or the
points from which they start and at which they arrive, are, properly,
the _stations_.

RAILWAY. The English prefer this word to rail_road_.

RAISE THE RENT. An expression incorrectly used for _increase the rent_.

RARELY. It is no uncommon thing to see this adverb improperly used in
such sentences as, "It is very _rarely_ that the puppets of the romancer
assume," etc.--"Appletons' Journal," February, 1881, p. 177. "But," says
the defender of this phraseology, "_rarely_ qualifies a verb--the verb
_to be_." 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 _rarely_ that," etc., I would say, It
is very _sadly_ that persons of culture will write and then defend--or
rather try to defend--such grammar.

RATIOCINATE. See EFFECTUATE.

REAL.--This adjective is often vulgarly used in the sense of the adverb
_very_; thus, _real_ nice, _real_ pretty, _real_ angry, _real_ cute, and
so on.

RECOMMEND. 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
_recommended_ to meet," etc. What the resolving gentlemen meant was,
that the tax-payers should be _counseled_ to meet.

REDUNDANCY. See PLEONASM.

RELIABLE. This is a modern word which is often met with; but it is not
used by our careful writers. They prefer its synonym _trustworthy_, and
argue that, in consequence of being ill-formed, _reliable_ can not
possibly have the signification in which it is used.

REMAINDER. See BALANCE.

RENDITION. This word is much misused for _rendering_. Example: "The
excellence of Mr. Gilbert's _rendition_ of certain characters, Sir Peter
and Sir Antony, for instance, is not equaled," etc. _Rendition_ means
the act of yielding possession, surrender, as the _rendition_ of a town
or fortress. The sentence above should read, "The excellence of Mr.
Gilbert's _rendering_," etc. _Rendition_ is also sometimes improperly
used for _performance_.

REPLY. See ANSWER.

REPUTATION. See CHARACTER.

RESIDE. A big word that Mr. Wouldbe uses where Mr. Is uses the little
word _live_.

RESIDENCE. In speaking of a man's domicile, it is not only in better
taste but more correct to use the term _house_ than _residence_. A man
has a _residence_ in New York, when he has lived here long enough to
have the right to exercise the franchise here; and he may have a _house_
in Fifth Avenue where he _lives_. People who _are_ live in houses;
people who _would be_ reside in residences. The former _buy_ things; the
latter _purchase_ them.

REST. See BALANCE.

RESTIVE. 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
_restive_." Webster gives impatient, uneasy, as a second meaning; and
this is the sense in which the word is nearly always used.

RETIRE. It is only the over-nice who use _retire_ in the sense of _go to
bed_.

REVEREND--HONORABLE. Many persons are in doubt whether they should or
should not put _the_ 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.

RHETORIC. The art which has for its object the rendering of language
effective is called _rhetoric_. Without some study of the art of
composition, no one can expect to write well, or to judge the literary
work of others.

    "True ease in writing comes from art, not chance,
    As those move easiest who have learned to dance."

RIDE--DRIVE. 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 _ride_ means, according to all the lexicographers,
"to be carried on a horse or other animal, or in any kind of vehicle or
carriage."

RIGHT. Singularly enough, this word is made, by some people, to do
service for _ought_, _in duty bound_, under _obligation_ to; thus, "You
had a _right_ to tell me," meaning, "You should have told me." "The
Colonists contended that they _had no right_ to pay taxes," meaning,
"They were _under no obligation_ to pay taxes," i. e., that it was
unjust to tax them.

RIGHT HERE. The expressions "right here" and "right there" are
Americanisms. Correctly, "just here" and "just there."

ROLLING. The use of this participial adjective in the sense of
undulating is said to be an Americanism. Whether an Americanism or not,
it would seem to be quite unobjectionable.

RUBBERS. This word, in common with _gums_ and _arctics_, is often, in
defiance of good taste, used for _overshoes_.

SABBATH. 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 _Sunday_.

SARCASM. Bain says that _sarcasm_ 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 _sarcasm_ is the indulgence only of personal resentment, and
is never justifiable.

SATIRE. The holding up to ridicule of the follies and weaknesses of
mankind, by way of rebuke, is called _satire_. Satire is general rather
than individual, its object being the reformation of abuses. A
_lampoon_, which has been defined as a _personal satire_, attacks the
individual rather than his fault, and is intended to injure rather than
to reform.

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."

SAW. The imperfect tense of the verb _to see_ is carelessly used by good
writers and speakers when they should use the perfect; thus, "I never
_saw_ anything like it before," when the meaning intended is, "I _have_
never [in all my life] _seen_ anything like it before [until now]." We
say properly, "I never _saw_ anything like it _when I was in Paris_";
but, when the period of time referred to extends to the time when the
statement is made, it must be _have seen_. Like mistakes are made in
the use of other verbs, but they are hardly as common; yet we often hear
such expressions as, "I _was_ never in Philadelphia," "I never _went_ to
the theatre in my life," instead of _have been_ in Philadelphia, and
_have gone_ to the theatre.

SECTION. The use of this word for region, neighborhood, vicinity, part
(of the town or country), is said to be a Westernism. A _section_ is a
division of the public lands containing six hundred and forty acres.

SEEM--APPEAR. Graham, in his "English Synonymes," says of these two
words: "What _seems_ is in the mind; what _appears_ is external. Things
_appear_ as they present themselves to the eye; they _seem_ as they are
represented to the mind. Things _appear_ good or bad, as far as we can
judge by our senses. Things _seem_ 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
_appear_, our senses are deceived; when things are not what they _seem_,
our judgment is at fault."

"No man had ever a greater power over himself, or was less the man he
_seemed_ to be, which shortly after _appeared_ to everybody, when he
cared less to keep on the mask."--Clarendon.

SELDOM OR EVER. This phrase should be "seldom _if_ ever," or "seldom or
_never_."

SERAPHIM. This is the plural of _seraph_. "One of the _seraphim_." "To
Thee cherubim and seraphim continually do cry." See CHERUBIM.

SET--SIT. The former of these two verbs is often incorrectly used for
the latter. To _set_; imperfect tense, _set_; participles, _setting_,
_set_. To _sit_; imperfect tense, _sat_; participles, _sitting_, _sat_.
To _set_ means to put, to place, to plant; to put in any place,
condition, state, or posture. We say, to _set_ about, to _set_ against,
to _set_ out, to _set_ going, to _set_ apart, to _set_ aside, to _set_
down (to put in writing). To _sit_ means to rest on the lower part of
the body, to repose on a seat, to perch, as a bird, etc. We say, "_Sit_
up," i. e., rise from lying to sitting; "We will _sit_ up," i. e., will
not go to bed; "_Sit_ down," i. e., place yourself on a seat. We _sit_ a
horse and we _sit_ for a portrait. Garments _sit_ well or otherwise.
Congress _sits_, so does a court. "I have _sat_ up long enough." "I have
_set_ it on the table." We _set_ down figures, but we _sit_ down on the
ground. We _set_ a hen, and a hen _sits_ on eggs. We should say,
therefore, "as cross as a _sitting_ [not, as a _setting_] hen."

SETTLE. This word is often inelegantly, if not incorrectly, used for
_pay_. We _pay_ our way, _pay_ our fare, _pay_ our hotel-bills, and the
like. See, also, LOCATE.

SHALL AND WILL. 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 _shall_ and _will_ can much better be learned from example than from
precept. Many persons who use them, and also _should_ and _would_, 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, "_Will_ I put the kettle on,
ma'am?" when your Irish or Scotch countess would not be in the least
disturbed by it.

  SHALL, _in an affirmative sentence, in the first person, and_ WILL _in
  the second and third persons, merely announce future action_. Thus, "I
  _shall_ go to town to-morrow." "I _shall_ not; I _shall_ wait for
  better weather." "We _shall_ be glad to see you." "I _shall_ soon be
  twenty." "We _shall_ set out early, and _shall_ try to arrive by
  noon." "You _will_ be pleased." "You _will_ soon be twenty." "You
  _will_ find him honest." "He _will_ go with us."

  SHALL, _in an affirmative sentence, in the second and third persons,
  announces the speaker's intention to control_. Thus, "You _shall_ hear
  me out." "You _shall_ go, sick or well." "He _shall_ be my heir."
  "They _shall_ go, whether they want to go or not."

  WILL, _in the first person, expresses a promise, announces the
  speaker's intention to control, proclaims a determination_. Thus, "I
  _will_ [I promise to] assist you." "I _will_ [I am determined to] have
  my right." "We _will_ [we promise to] come to you in the morning."

  SHALL, _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_. Thus,
  "_Shall_ I go with you?" "When _shall_ we see you again?" "When
  _shall_ I receive it?" "When _shall_ I get well?" "When _shall_ we get
  there?" "_Shall_ he come with us?" "_Shall_ you demand indemnity?"
  "_Shall_ you go to town to-morrow?" "What _shall_ you do about it?"

  WILL, _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_. Thus, "_Will_ you have an apple?" "_Will_
  you go with me to my uncle's?" "_Will_ he be of the party?" "_Will_
  they be willing to receive us?" "When _will_ he be here?"

  _Will_ can not be used interrogatively in the first person singular or
  plural. We can not say, "_Will_ I go?" "_Will_ I help you?" "_Will_ I
  be late?" "_Will_ we get there in time?" "_Will_ we see you again
  soon?"

  Official courtesy, in order to avoid the semblance of compulsion,
  conveys its commands in the _you-will_ form instead of the strictly
  grammatical _you-shall_ form. It says, for example, "You _will_
  proceed to Key West, where you will find further instructions awaiting
  you."

  A clever writer on the use of _shall_ and _will_ says that whatever
  concerns one's beliefs, hopes, fears, likes, or dislikes, can not be
  expressed in conjunction with _I will_. Are there no exceptions to
  this rule? If I say, "I think I _shall_ 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 _will_ 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 _shall_ lose it";
  "I hope that I _shall_ be well"; "I believe that I _shall_ have the
  ague"; "I hope that I _shall_ not be left alone"; "I fear that we
  _shall_ have bad weather"; "I _shall_ dislike the country"; "I _shall_
  like the performance." The writer referred to asks, "How can one say,
  'I _will_ 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 _shall_ you get out of it?" "Oh, I _will_
  have the headache!" We request that people _will_ do thus or so, and
  not that they _shall_. Thus, "It is requested that no one _will_ leave
  the room."

  _Shall_ is rarely, if ever, used for _will_; it is _will_ that is used
  for _shall_. Expressions like the following are common: "Where _will_
  you be next week?" "I _will_ be at home." "We _will_ have dinner at
  six o'clock." "How _will_ you go about it?" "When _will_ you begin?"
  "When _will_ you set out?" "What _will_ you do with it?" In all such
  expressions, when it is a question of mere future action on the part
  of the person speaking or spoken to, the auxiliary must be _shall_,
  and not _will_.

  _Should_ and _would_ follow the regimen of _shall_ and _will_. _Would_
  is often used for _should_; _should_ rarely for _would_. Correct
  speakers say, "I _should_ go to town to-morrow if I had a horse." "I
  _should_ not; I _should_ wait for better weather." "We _should_ be
  glad to see you." "We _should_ have started earlier, if the weather
  had been clear." "I _should_ like to go to town, and _would_ go if I
  could." "I _would_ assist you if I could." "I _should_ have been ill
  if I had gone." "I _would_ I were home again!" "I _should_ go fishing
  to-day if I were home." "I _should_ so like to go to Europe!" "I
  _should_ prefer to see it first." "I _should_ be delighted." "I
  _should_ be glad to have you sup with me." "I knew that I _should_ be
  ill." "I feared that I _should_ lose it." "I hoped that I _should_ see
  him." "I thought I _should_ have the ague." "I hoped that I _should_
  not be left alone." "I was afraid that we _should_ have bad weather."
  "I knew I _should_ dislike the country." "I _should_ not like to do
  it, and _will_ not [determination] unless compelled to."

SHIMMY. "We derive from the French language our word
_chemise_--pronounced _shemmeeze_. 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--_shimmy_. Rather
than call it _shimmy_, resume the use of the old English words _shift_
and _smock_. Good usage unqualifiedly condemns _gents_, _pants_, _kids_,
_gums_, and _shimmy_."--"Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech."

SHOULD. See OUGHT.

SICK--ILL. These words are often used indiscriminately. _Sick_, however,
is the stronger word, and generally the better word to use. _Ill_ is
used in England more than with us: there _sick_ is generally limited to
the expressing of nausea; as, "sick at the stomach."

SIGNATURE, OVER OR UNDER? A man writes _under_, not _over_, a signature.
Charles Dickens wrote _under_ the signature of "Boz"; Mr. Samuel L.
Clemens writes _under_ the signature of "Mark Twain." The reason given
in Webster's Dictionary for preferring the use of _under_ is absurd;
viz., that the paper is _under_ 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 _under_ a certain date, though the date be placed, as it
often is, at the bottom of the page.

SIGNS. 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.

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 sleep is a _benediction_"; a placard, that they
have "Charlotte _de_ 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!

SIMILE. In rhetoric, a direct and formal comparison is called a
_simile_. It is generally denoted by _like_, _as_, or _so_; as,

                            "I have ventured,
    _Like_ little wanton boys that swim on bladders,
    These many summers in a sea of glory."

    "Thy smile is _as_ the dawn of vernal day."--Shakespeare.

    "_As_, down in the sunless retreats of the ocean,
      Sweet flow'rets are springing no mortal can see;
    _So_, deep in my bosom, the prayer of devotion,
      Unheard by the world, rises silent to thee."--Moore.

    "'Tis with our judgments _as_ with our watches; none
    Go just alike, yet each believes his own."--Pope.

    "Grace abused brings forth the foulest deeds,
    _As_ richest soil the most luxuriant weeds."--Cowper.

"_As_ no roads are so rough as those that have just been mended, _so_ no
sinners are so intolerant as those who have just turned
saints."--"Lacon."

SIN. See CRIME.

SINCE--AGO. Dr. Johnson says of these two adverbs: "Reckoning time
toward the present, we use _since_; as, 'It is a year _since_ it
happened': reckoning from the present, we use _ago_; as, 'It is a year
_ago_.' This is not, perhaps, always observed."

Dr. Johnson's rule will hardly suffice as a sure guide. _Since_ is often
used for _ago_, but _ago_ never for _since_. _Ago_ is derived from the
participle _agone_, while _since_ comes from a preposition. We say
properly, "not long" or "some time _ago_ [agone]." _Since_ requires a
verbal clause after it; as, "_Since_ I saw you"; "_Since_ he was here."

SING. Of the two forms--_sang_ and _sung_--for the imperfect tense of
the verb to _sing_, the former--_sang_--is to be preferred.

SIT. See SET.

SLANG. 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
_cant_, 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.

SMART. See CLEVER.

SMELL OF. See TASTE OF.

SO. See AS; SUCH; THAT.

SO MUCH SO. "The shipments by the coast steamers are very large, _so
much so_ [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, _so large_ as to tax,"
etc.

SOLECISM. 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.

"Modern grammarians designate by _solecism_ 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 _solecism_ may
at another be regarded as correct language. A _solecism_, therefore,
differs from a _barbarism_, inasmuch as the latter consists in the use
of a word or expression which is altogether contrary to the spirit of
the language, and can, properly speaking, never become established as
correct language."--"Penny Cyclopædia." See, also, BARBARISM.

SOME. This word is not unfrequently misused for _somewhat_; thus, "She
is _some_ better to-day." It is likewise often misused for _about_;
thus, "I think it is _some_ ten miles from here": read, "_about_ ten
miles from here."

SPECIALTY. This form has within a recent period been generally
substituted for _speciality_. There is no apparent reason, however, why
the _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.

SPECIOUS FALLACY. A _fallacy_ is a sophism, a logical artifice, a
deceitful or false appearance; while _specious_ means having the
appearance of truth, plausible. Hence we see that the very essence of a
_fallacy_ is its _speciousness_. We may very properly say that a
_fallacy_ is more or less _specious_, but we can not properly say that a
fallacy _is_ specious, since without speciousness we can have no
fallacies.

SPLENDID. 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, _splendid_ and _awful_ seem to be about the only
adjectives some of our superlative young women have in their
vocabularies.

STANDPOINT. 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, _point of view_.

STATE. This word, which properly means to make known specifically, to
explain particularly, is often misused for _say_. When _say_ says all
one _wants_ to say, why use a more pretentious word?

STOP. "Where are you _stopping_?" "At the Metropolitan." The proper word
to use here is _staying_. _To stop_ means to cease to go forward, to
leave off; and _to stay_ means to abide, to tarry, to dwell, to sojourn.
We _stay_, not _stop_, at home, at a hotel, or with a friend, as the
case may be.

STORM. 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 _storm_ a
violent commotion of the atmosphere is indispensable. A very high wind
constitutes a storm, though it be dry.

STRAIGHTWAY. Here is a good Anglo-Saxon word of _two_ syllables whose
place, without any good reason, is being usurped by the Latin word
_immediately_, of _five_ syllables.

STREET. We live _in_, not _on_--meet our acquaintances _in_, not
_on_--things occur _in_, not _on_--houses are built _in_, not _on_, the
street, and so forth.

STYLE. 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 _diction_; simplicity, conciseness,
gravity, elegance, diffuseness, floridity, force, feebleness,
coarseness, etc., belong to the domain of _style_.

SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD. 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.

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 _shall_ and _will_, 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:

"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 _be_ able,' 'if I _were_ strong
enough,' 'if thou _should_ come.'

"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.

"The following is the rule given for the use of the subjunctive mood:

"When in a conditional clause it is intended to express doubt or denial,
use the subjunctive mood.[30] 'If I _were_ sure of what you tell me, I
would go.'

"When the conditional clause is _affirmative_ and _certain_, the verb is
_indicative_: 'If that _is_ 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.

"As _futurity_ is by its nature uncertain, the subjunctive is
extensively used for future conditionality: 'If it _rain_, we shall not
be able to go'; 'if I _be_ well'; 'if he _come_ shortly'; 'if thou
_return_ at all in peace'; 'though he _slay_ me, yet will I trust in
him.' These events are all in the uncertain future, and are put in the
subjunctive.[31]

"A future result or consequence is expressed by the subjunctive in such
instances as these: 'I will wait till he _return_'; 'no fear lest dinner
_cool_'; 'thou shalt stone him with stones, that he _die_'; 'take heed
lest at any time your hearts _be_ overcharged with surfeiting.'

"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 our ignorance from our knowledge. 'If any of
my readers _has_ 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 _is_ bliss,' which I
(ironically) admit. Had Gray been speaking seriously, he would have
said, 'if ignorance _be_ bliss,' he himself dissenting from the
proposition.

"A wish contrary to the fact takes the subjunctive: 'I wish he _were_
here' (which he is not).

"An intention not yet carried out is also subjunctive: 'The sentence is
that you _be_ imprisoned.'

"The only correct form of the future subjunctive is--'if I should.' We
may say, 'I do not know whether or not I _shall_ 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 _absents_ himself, he shall forfeit a penny
for the use of the club'; this ought to be either 'absent,' or 'should
absent.' 'If thou _neglectest_ or _doest_ unwillingly what I command
thee, I will rack thee with old cramps'; better, 'if thou _neglect_ or
_do_ 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.

"The past subjunctive may imply denial; as, 'if the book _were_ in the
library (as it is not), it should be at your service.'

"'If the book _be_ in the library,' means, 'I do not know whether it be
or not.' We have thus the power of discriminating _three_ different
suppositions. 'If the book _is_ in the library' (as I know it is); 'if
it _be_' (I am uncertain); 'if it _were_' (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 _had_ gyves on,' implying that they
had not.

"The same power of the past tense is exemplified in 'if I _could_, I
would,' which means, 'I can not'; whereas, 'if I can, I will,' means 'I
do not know.'

"The past subjunctive may be expressed by an inversion: '_Had_ I the
power,' '_were_ I as I have been.'

"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 _would_ succeed'; 'if I had seen him, I _should_
have asked him.'

"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.'

    "'If 'twere done when 'tis done, then 't_were_ (would be) well
    It _were_ (should be) done quickly.'

"The English idiom appears sometimes to permit the use of an indicative
where we should expect a subjunctive form. 'Many acts, that _had_ been
otherwise blamable, were employed'; 'I _had_ fainted, unless I had
believed,' etc.

    "'Which else _lie_ furled and shrouded in the soul.'

"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 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 _had_ fainted' is, in construction, analogous to 'I
_should_ have fainted'; the word for futurity, 'shall,' not being
necessary to the sense, is withdrawn, and its past inflexion transferred
to 'have.' Compare Germ. _würde haben_ and _hätte_."

In addition to the foregoing, we find in Professor Bain's "Composition
Grammar" the following:

"The case most suited to the subjunctive is _contingent futurity_, or
the expression of an event unknown absolutely, as being still in the
future: 'If to-morrow _be_ fine, I will walk with you.'

"'Unless I _were_ prepared,' insinuates pretty strongly that I am or am
not prepared, according to the manner of the principal clause.

    "'What's a tall man unless he _fight_?'

    "'The sword hath ended him: so shall it thee,
    Unless thou _yield_ thee as my prisoner.'

    "'Who but must laugh, if such a man there _be_?
    Who would not weep, if Atticus _were_ he?'

"'I am to second Ion if he _fail_'; the failing is left quite doubtful.
'I should very imperfectly execute the task which I have undertaken if I
_were_ 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.

"The subjunctive appears in some other constructions. 'I hope to see the
exhibition before _it close_'; 'wait till he _return_'; 'thou shall
stand by the river's brink against he _come_'; 'take heed lest passion
_sway_ thy judgment'; 'speak to me, though it _be_ in wrath'; 'if he
_smite_ him with an instrument of iron so that he _die_, he is a
murderer'; 'beware this night that thou _cross_ not my footsteps'
(Shelley).

"Again. 'Whatever this _be_'; 'whoever he _be_'; 'howe'er it _be_'
(Tennyson); and such like.

    "'And _as long_, O God, _as_ she
    _Have_ a grain of love for me,
    So long, no doubt, no doubt,
    Shall I nurse in my dark heart,
    However weary, a spark of will
    Not to be trampled out.'

"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 _shouldst_': 'if thou, Lord, _shouldst_ mark
iniquities.'

"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.

"'_If_ you _should_ abandon your Penelope and your home for Calypso,
----': '_should_ you abandon ----.'

            "'_Go_ not my horse the better,
    I must become a borrower of the night
    For a dark hour or twain.'

    "'Here had we now our country's honor roof'd
    _Were_ the graced person of our Banquo present.'

    "'_Be_ thou a spirit of health or goblin damn'd,
    _Bring_ with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell,
    _Be_ thy intents wicked or charitable,
    Thou com'st in such a questionable shape
    That I will speak to thee.'

    "'_Come_ one, _come_ all, this rock shall fly
    From its firm base as soon as I.'--Scott.

"The following examples are given by Mätzner:

"'Varney's communications, _be_ they what they might, were operating in
his favor.'--Scott.

"'Governing persons, _were_ they never so insignificant intrinsically,
have for most part plenty of Memoir-writers.'--Carlyle.

"'Even _were_ I disposed, I could not gratify the reader.'--Warren.

"'Bring them back to me, _cost_ what it may.'--Coleridge, 'Wallenstein.'

"'And _will_ you, _nill_ you, I will marry you.'--'Taming of the Shrew.'

"_Were_ is used in the principal clause for 'should be' or 'would
be.'[32]

    "'I _were_ (=should be) a fool, not less than if a panther
    Were panic-stricken by the antelope's eye,
    If she escape me.'--Shelley.

    "'Were you but riding forth to air yourself,
    Such parting _were_ too petty.'

"'He _were_ (=would be) no lion, were not Romans hinds.'

    "'Should he be roused out of his sleep to-night, ...
    It _were_ not well; indeed it _were_ not well.'--Shelley.

"_Had_ is sometimes used in the principal clause for 'should have' or
'would have.'[33]

"'Had I known this before we set out, I think I _had_ (= would have)
remained at home.'--Scott.

    "'Hadst thou been kill'd when first thou didst presume,
    Thou _hadst_ not lived to kill a son of mine.'

                                        "'If he
    Had killed me, he _had_ done a kinder deed.'

    "'For once he _had_ been ta'en or slain,
    An it had not been his ministry.'--Scott.

    "'If thou hadst said him nay, it _had_ been sin.'[34]

"'_Had_ 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.

"'I _had_ as lief not be.' That is--'I _would_ as lief _have_ not (_to_)
be' = 'I would as willingly (or as soon) have non-existence.'

"'_Had_ you rather Cæsar were living----?' '_Would_ you rather _have_
(_would_ you _prefer_ that) Cæsar were living?'

"'He _had_ better reconsider the matter' is 'he _would_ better _have_
(_to_) reconsider the matter.'

    "'I _had_ rather be a kitten and cry mew
    Than one of these same metre ballad-mongers;
    I _had_ rather hear a brazen canstick turned.'

"Let us compare this form with another that appears side by side with it
in early writers. (Cp. Lat. 'habeo' and 'mihi est.')

"The construction of 'had' is thus illustrated in Chaucer, as in--Nonne
Prestes Tale, 300:

    "'By God, I _hadde_ levere than my scherte,
    That ye hadde rad his legend, as I have.'

"Compare now:

    "'Ah _me were levere_ with lawe _loose_ my lyf
    Then so to fote hem _falle_.'--Wright, 'Polit. S.'

"Here 'were' is unquestionably for 'would be'; and the whole expression
might be given by 'had,' thus: 'Ah, _I hadde_ levere ----,' '(to)
_loose_' and '(to) _falle_,' changing from subjects of 'were' to objects
of 'hadde.'

"So, in the Chaucer example above, if we substitute 'be' for 'have,' we
shall get the same meaning, thus: 'By God, _me were_ levere ----.' The
interchange helps us to see more clearly that 'hadde' is to be explained
as subjunctive for 'would have.'" See INDICATIVE AND SUBJUNCTIVE.

SUCH. "I have never before seen _such_ a large ox." By a little
transposing of the words of this sentence, we have, "I have never before
seen an ox _such_ large," which makes it quite clear that we should say
_so large an ox_ and not _such a large ox_. As proof that this error in
the use of _such_ is common, we find in Mr. George Washington Moon's
"Dean's English and Bad English," the sentence, "With all due deference
to _such_ a high authority on _such_ a very important matter." With a
little transposing, this sentence is made to read, "With all due
deference to an authority _such_ high on a matter _such_ very
important." It is clear that the sentence should read, "With all due
deference to _so_ high an authority on _so_ very important a matter."
The phrases, _such_ a handsome, _such_ a lovely, _such_ a long, _such_
narrow, etc., are incorrect, and should be _so_ handsome, _so_ lovely,
_so_ long, and so on.

SUMMON. This verb comes in for its full share of mauling. We often hear
such expressions as "I will _summons_ him," instead of _summon_ him;
and "He was _summonsed_," instead of _summoned_.

SUPERFLUOUS WORDS. "Whenever I try to write well, I _always_ find I can
do it." "I shall have finished by the _latter_ end of the week." "Iron
sinks _down_ in water." "He combined _together_ all the facts." "My
brother called on me, and we _both_ took a walk." "I can do it _equally_
as well as he." "We could not forbear _from_ doing it." "Before I go, I
must _first_ be paid." "We were compelled to return _back_." "We forced
them to retreat _back_ fully a mile." "His conduct was approved _of_ by
everybody." "They conversed _together_ for a long time." "The balloon
rose _up_ very rapidly." "Give me another _one_." "Come home as soon as
_ever_ you can." "Who finds him _in_ money?" "He came in last _of all_."
"He has _got_ all he can carry." "What have you _got_?" "No matter what
I have _got_." "I have _got_ the headache." "Have you _got_ any
brothers?" "No, but I have _got_ a sister." All the words in _italics_
are superfluous.

SUPERIOR. This word is not unfrequently used for able, excellent,
gifted; as, "She is a _superior_ woman," meaning an _excellent_ woman;
"He is a _superior_ man," meaning an _able_ man. The expression _an
inferior man_ is not less objectionable.

SUPPOSITITIOUS. This word is _properly_ used in the sense of put by a
trick into the place or character belonging to another, spurious,
counterfeit, not genuine; and _improperly_ in the sense of conjectural,
hypothetical, imaginary, presumptive; as, "This is a _supposititious_
case," meaning an _imaginary_ or _presumptive_ case. "The English critic
derived his materials from a stray copy of some _supposititious_ indexes
devised by one of the 'Post' reporters."--"Nation." Here is a correct
use of the word.

SWOSH. 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,[35] 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 _swosh_.

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.

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 _Not Me_--that is, both Nature and Art, and all
other men, and my own body--must be ranked under this name 'NATURE.' 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. _Nature_, in the common
sense, refers to essences unchanged by man: space, the air, the river,
the leaf. _Art_ 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."

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."

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 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."

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."

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 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."

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 _swosh_, 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.

"Whatever is dark is deep. Stir a puddle, and it is deeper than a
well."--Swift.

SYNECDOCHE. 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, _synecdoche_. "The bay was
covered with _sails_"; i. e., with _ships_. "The man was old, careworn,
and gray"; i. e., literally, _his hair_, not the man, was gray. "_Nine
tenths_ of every man's happiness depends on the reception he meets with
in the world." "He had seen seventy _winters_." "Thus spoke the
_tempter_": here the part of the character is named that suits the
occasion.

"His roof was at the service of the outcast; the unfortunate ever found
a welcome at his threshold."

TAKE. I copy from the "London Queen": "The verb _to take_ is open to
being considered a vulgar verb when used in reference to dinner, tea, or
to refreshments of any kind. 'Will you _take_' is not considered _comme
il faut_; the verb in favor for the offering of civilities being _to
have_." According to "The Queen," then, we must say, "Will you _have_
some dinner, tea, coffee, wine, fish, beef, salad," etc.

TASTE OF. The redundant _of_, often used, in this country, in connection
with the transitive verbs _to taste_ and _to smell_, is a Yankeeism. We
_taste_ or _smell_ a thing, not taste _of_ nor smell _of_ a thing. The
neuter verbs _to taste_ and _to smell_ are often followed by _of_. "If
butter _tastes of_ brass." "For age but _tastes of_ pleasures."

    "You shall stifle in your own report,
    and _smell of_ calumny."--Shakespeare.

TAUTOLOGY. Among the things to be avoided in writing is _tautology_,
which is _the repeating of the same thought_, whether in the same or in
different words.

TAUTOPHONY. "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 _tautology_."--Dr. G. P. Quackenbos,
"Advanced Course of Composition and Rhetoric," p. 300. Dr. Quackenbos is
in error. The repetition of the same _sense_ is tautology, and the
repetition of the same _sound_, 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
_tautophony_.

TEACH. To impart knowledge, to inform, to instruct; as, "_Teach_ me how
to do it"; "_Teach_ me to swim"; "He _taught_ me to write." The
uncultured often misuse _learn_ for _teach_. See LEARN.

TENSE. The errors made in the use of the tenses are manifold. The one
most frequently made by persons of culture--the one that everybody
makes would, perhaps, be nearer the fact--is that of using the
_imperfect_ instead of the _perfect_ tense; thus, "I never _saw_ it
played but once": say, _have seen_. "He was the largest man I ever
_saw_": say, _have seen_. "I never in my life _had_ such trouble": say,
_have had_. 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 _have gone_": say, _to
go_. "It was my intention to _have_ come": say, _to come_. "I expected
to _have found_ you here": say, _to find_. "I was very desirous to _have
gone_": say, _to go_. "He was better than I expected to _have found_
him": say, _to find_.

Among other common errors are the following: "I _seen_ him when he
_done_ it": say, "I _saw_ him when he _did_ it." "I should have _went_
home": say, _gone_. "If he had _went_": say, _gone_. "I wish you had
_went_": say, _gone_. "He has _went_ out": say, _gone_. "I _come_ to
town this morning": say, _came_. "He _come_ to me for advice": say,
_came_. "It _begun_ very late": say, _began_. "It had already _began_":
say, _begun_. "The following toasts were _drank_": say, _drunk_. "His
text was that God _was_ love": say, _is_ love. Another error is made in
such sentences as these: "If I had _have_ known": say, _had known_. "If
he had _have_ come as he promised": say, _had come_. "If you had _have_
told me": say, _had told_.

TESTIMONY. See EVIDENCE.

THAN. _Than_ and _as_ implying comparison have the same case after as
before them. "He owes more than _me_": read, than _I_--i. e., more than
_I owe_. "John is not so old as _her_": read, as _she_--i. e., as _she
is_. We should say, then, "He is stronger than _she_," "She is older
than _he_," "You are richer than _I_," etc. But it does not always
happen that the nominative case comes after _than_ or _as_. "I love you
more than _him_," "I give you more than _him_," "I love you as well as
_him_"; that is to say, "I love you more than _I love him_," "I give you
more than _I give him_," "I love you as well as _I love him_." Take away
_him_ and put _he_ in all these cases, and the grammar is just as good,
but the meaning is quite different. "I love you as well as _him_," means
that I love you as well _as I love him_; but, "I love you as well as
_he_," means that I love you as well _as he loves you_.

THAN WHOM. Cobbett, in his "Grammar of the English Language," says:
"There is an erroneous way of employing _whom_, 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, _than
whom_ no man was more hearty in the cause.' 'Cromwell, _than whom_ 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, _who_ should be made use
of: for it is _nominative_ and not objective. 'No man was more hearty in
the cause _than he was_'; 'No man was better skilled in artifice _than
he was_.'[36] It is a very common Parliament-house phrase, and therefore
presumably _corrupt_; but it is a Dr. Johnson phrase, too: 'Pope, _than
whom_ few men had more vanity.' The Doctor did not say, 'Myself, _than
whom_ 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.'

"I differ in this matter from Bishop Lowth, who says that 'The relative
_who_, having reference to no verb or preposition understood, but only
to its antecedent, when it follows _than_, is _always in the objective
case_; even though the pronoun, if substituted in its place, would be in
the nominative.' And then he gives an instance from Milton. 'Beelzebub,
_than whom_, Satan except, none higher sat.' It is curious enough that
this sentence of the Bishop is, itself, ungrammatical! Our poor
unfortunate _it_ is so placed as to make it a matter of doubt whether
the Bishop meant it to relate to _who_ or to _its antecedent_. However,
we know its meaning; but, though he says that _who_, when it follows
_than_, 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 _verb_ or _preposition_ understood.' I do
not see the _reason_, 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 _verb_ or _preposition_, either
expressed or understood. What is meant by Milton? 'Than Beelzebub, none
_sat_ 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 _than who_ sat, except
Satan'; and not, 'no devil sat higher _than whom_ sat.'[37] The
supposition that there can be a noun or pronoun which has reference to
_no verb_ and _no preposition_, is certainly a mistake."

Of this, Dr. Fitzedward Hall remarks, in his "Recent Exemplifications of
False Philology": "That any one 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 _than_ a preposition, others may resolve at their leisure and
pleasure."

THANKS. There are many persons who think it in questionable taste to use
_thanks_ for _thank you_.

THAT. The best writers often appear to grope after a separate employment
for the several relatives.

"'THAT' _is the proper restrictive, explicative, limiting, or defining
relative_.

"'_That_,' 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 _whose_ priest
_that_ I am'; Chaucer writes--'This Abbot _which that_ was an holy man,'
'his love _the which that_ 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 _fall
in with the most general use of 'that,' especially beyond the limits of
formal composition_.

"The use of 'that' solely as restrictive, with 'who' and 'which' solely
as coördinating, _also avoids ambiguities_ 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, _who_ had not known him long,' we may mean either that
his English friends generally were surprised (the relative being, in
that case, _coördinating_), 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 _that_
had not known him long.' So in the following sentence there is a similar
ambiguity in the use of 'which': 'the next winter _which_ 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
_that_ you will spend in town.'

"A further consideration in favor of employing 'that' for explicative
clauses is the unpleasant effect arising from the _too frequent
repetition of 'who' and 'which.'_ 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.

"The following examples will serve further to illustrate the distinction
between _that_, on the one hand, and _who_ and _which_, on the other:

"'In general, Mr. Burchell was fondest of the company of children,
_whom_ he used to call harmless little men.' 'Whom' is here
idiomatically used, being the equivalent of '_and them_ he used to
call,' etc.

    "'Bacon at last, a mighty man, arose,
    _Whom_ a wise king and nation chose
    Lord Chancellor of both their laws.'

Here, also, 'whom' is equal to 'and him.'

"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 _whom_ he has entertained
magnificently.' Compare another of Addison's sentences: 'a man of polite
imagination is let into a great many pleasures _that_ the vulgar are not
capable of receiving.'

"Both relatives are introduced discriminatingly in this passage:--'She
had learned that from Mrs. Wood, _who_ had heard it from her husband,
_who_ had heard it at the public-house from the landlord, _who_ had been
let into the secret by the boy _that_ carried the beer to some of the
prisoners.'

"The following sentences are ambiguous under the modern system of using
'who' for both purposes:--'I met the boatman _who_ took me across the
ferry.' If 'who' is the proper relative here, the meaning is, 'I met the
boatman, _and he_ 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 _who_ has
learned to dance is James.' This means either 'the youngest boy is
James, _and he_ 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.

"Turning now to 'which,' we may have a series of parallel examples. 'The
court, _which_ gives currency to manners, should be exemplary': here the
meaning is 'the court should be exemplary, _for the court_ gives
currency to manners.' 'Which' is the idiomatic relative in this case.
'The cat, _which_ 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 _which_ does
not tend to the improvement of practice is utterly unworthy of regard.'
The meaning is restrictive; 'a theory _that_ does not tend.' The
following sentence is one of many from Goldsmith that give 'that'
instead of 'which':--'Age, _that_ lessens the enjoyment of life,
increases our desire of living.' Thackeray also was fond of this usage.
But it is not very common.

"'Their faith tended to make them improvident; but a wise instinct
taught them that if there was one thing _which_ 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.

"'All words, _which_ are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of
mistake.' This gives an erroneous impression, and should be 'all words
_that_ are signs of complex ideas.'

"'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 _which_ have for many years been
relinquished': say instead, 'incorporeal rights _that_ have for many
years,' and the sense is clear.

"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, _which_ alarmed his mother very
much.' The antecedent is obviously not the noun 'wall,' but the fact
expressed by the entire clause--'William ran,' etc. 'He by no means
wants sense, _which_ 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; _which_ you must allow marks a great mind.' 'We have done
many things _which_ we ought not to have done,' might mean 'we ought not
_to have done many things_'; that is, 'we ought to have done few
things.' 'That' would give the exact sense intended: 'we have done many
things _that_ we ought not to have done.' 'He began to look after his
affairs himself, _which_ was the way to make them prosper.'

"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.[38]

"'It is curious that the only circumstance connected with Scott, and
related by Lockhart, _of which_ I was a witness, is incorrectly stated
in the "Life of Sir Walter."'--Leslie's 'Memoirs.' The relative should
be restrictive: '_that_ I was a witness _of_.'

"'There are many words _which_ are adjectives _which_ have nothing to do
with the qualities of the nouns _to which_ they are put.'--Cobbett.
Better: 'there are many words _that_ are adjectives _that_ have nothing
to do with the qualities of the nouns (_that_) they are put _to_.'

"'Other objects, _of which_ 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 _that_ we have not occasion to speak _of_ so frequently,
we do not,' etc.

"'Sorrow for the dead is the only sorrow _from which_ we refuse to be
divorced': 'the only sorrow (_that_) we refuse to be divorced _from_.'

"'Why, there is not a single sentence in this play _that_ I do not know
the meaning _of_.'--Addison.

"'Originality is a thing we constantly clamor _for_, and constantly
quarrel _with_.'--Carlyle.

"'A spirit more amiable, but less vigorous, than Luther's would have
shrunk back from the dangers _which_ he braved and surmounted': '_that_
he braved'; 'the dangers _braved_ and _surmounted_ by him.'

"'Nor is it at all improbable that the emigrants had been guilty of
those faults _from which_ civilized men _who_ settle among an
uncivilized people are rarely free.'--Macaulay. 'Nor is it at all
improbable that the emigrants had been guilty of _the_ faults _that_
(_such_ faults _as_) civilized men _that settle_ (_settling_, or
_settled_) among an uncivilized people are rarely free _from_.'

"'Prejudices are notions or opinions _which_ the mind entertains without
knowing the grounds and reasons of them, and _which_ 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 _entertained_ by the
mind without knowing the grounds and reasons of them, and _assented_ to
without examination.'

"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, (_which_) _and this_ he did.'"--Bain's "Higher
English Grammar."

This word is sometimes vulgarly used for _so_; thus, "I was _that_
nervous I forgot everything"; "I was _that_ frightened I could hardly
stand."

THE. 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; 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, _the_ Latin, and _the_
Greek," etc.

THEN. 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 _then_ 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 _then_,
as an adjective, will ever again find favor with careful writers.

THENCE. See WHENCE.

THINK FOR. We not unfrequently hear a superfluous _for_ tacked to a
sentence; thus, "You will find that he knows more about the affair than
you think _for_."

THOSE KIND. "_Those_ kind of apples _are_ best": read, "_That_ kind of
apples _is_ 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 _sort_ or
_kind_ of people."

THOSE WHO. This phrase, applied in a restrictive sense, is the modern
substitute for the ancient idiom _they that_, an idiom in accordance
with the true meaning of _that_.

"'_They that_ told me the story said'; 'Blessed are _they that_ mourn';
'and Simon and _they that_ were with him'; 'I love _them that_ love me,
and _they that_ seek me early shall find me'; '_they that_ are whole
have no need of a physician'; 'how sweet is the rest of _them that_
labor!' 'I can not tell who to compare them to so fitly as to _them
that_ pick pockets in the presence of the judge'; '_they that_ enter
into the state of marriage cast a die of the greatest contingency' (J.
Taylor).

    "'_That_ man hath perfect blessedness
    _Who_ walketh not astray,'

if expressed according to the old idiom would be, '_the_ man
hath--_that_ walketh.'

"'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 '_that_ case _to which_ you allude' for
'the case (_that_) you allude _to_.'

"Take now the following: 'The Duke of Wellington is not one of _those
who_ interfere with matters _over which_ he has no control': 'the Duke
is not one of _them that_ interfere in matters _that_ they have no
control _over_ (matters _that_ they can not control, _beyond their
control_, _out of their province_).' If 'them that' sounds too
antiquated, we may adopt as a convenient compromise, 'the Duke is not
one of _those that_'; or, 'the Duke is not one to _interfere_ in matters
out of his province'; 'the duke is not one _that interferes_ with _what_
he has no control _over_.'"--Bain.

THREADBARE QUOTATIONS. 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 _usés et cassés_ 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"; "fair women and brave men"; "revelry by
night"; "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

TO. It is a well-established rule of grammar that _to_, the sign of the
infinitive mood, should not be used for the infinitive itself: thus, "He
has not done it, nor is he likely _to_." It should be, "nor is he likely
_to do it_."

We often find _to_, 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.

Very often _to_ is used instead of _at_; thus, "I have been _to_ the
theatre, _to_ church, _to_ my uncle's, _to_ a concert," and so on. In
all these cases, the preposition to use is clearly _at_, and not _to_.
See, also, AND.

TO THE FORE. An old idiomatic phrase, now freely used again.

TONGUE. "Much _tongue_ and much judgment seldom go
together."--L'Estrange. See LANGUAGE.

TOWARD. Those who profess to know about such things say that etymology
furnishes no pretext for the adding of _s_ to _ward_ in such words as
_backward_, _forward_, _toward_, _upward_, _onward_, _downward_,
_afterward_, _heavenward_, _earthward_, and the like.

TRANSFERRED EPITHET. This is the shifting of a qualifying word from its
proper subject to some allied subject. Examples:

    "The little fields made green
    By husbandry of many _thrifty years_."

"He plods his _weary way_." "Hence to your _idle bed_!" 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 _lunatic asylum_, the _criminal court_, the _condemned cell_,
the _blind asylum_, the _cholera hospital_, the _foundling asylum_, and
the like.

    "Still in harmonious intercourse they lived
    The rural day, and talked the flowing heart."

"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."

TRANSPIRE. 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 _per_spire. _Transpire_ 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 _transpire_"; "It _transpires_ [leaks out] that S. & B. control
the enterprise"; "Soon after the funeral it _transpired_ [became known]
that the dead woman was alive"; "It has _transpired_ [leaked out] that
the movement originated with John Blank"; "No report of the proceedings
was allowed to _transpire_"; "It has not yet _transpired_ who the
candidate is to be." The word is incorrectly used thus: "The Mexican war
_transpired_ in 1847"; "The drill will _transpire_ under shelter"; "The
accident _transpired_ one day last week"; "Years will _transpire_ before
it will be finished"; "More than a century _transpired_ before it was
revisited by civilized man."

TRIFLING MINUTIÆ. The meaning of _trifles_ and of _minutiæ_ is so nearly
the same that no one probably ever uses the phrase _trifling minutiæ_
except from thoughtlessness.

TRUSTWORTHY. See RELIABLE.

TRY. This word is often improperly used for _make_. We _make_
experiments, not _try_ them, which is as incorrect as it would be to
say, _try_ the _attempt_, or the _trial_.

UGLY. 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.

UNBEKNOWN. This word is no longer used except by the unschooled.

UNDERHANDED. This word, though found in the dictionaries, is a
vulgarism, and as such is to be avoided. The proper word is _underhand_.
An _underhand_, not an _underhanded_, proceeding.

UNIVERSAL--ALL. "He is _universally_ esteemed by _all_ who know him." If
he is _universally_ esteemed, he must be esteemed by _all_ who know him;
and, if he is esteemed by _all_ who know him, he must be _universally_
esteemed.

UPWARD OF. This phrase is often used, if not improperly, at least
inelegantly, for _more than_; thus, "I have been here for _upward of_ a
year"; "For _upward of_ three quarters of a century she has," etc.,
meaning, for _more than_ three quarters of a century.

UTTER. This verb is often misused for _say_, _express_. To _utter_ means
to _speak_, to _pronounce_; and its derivative _utterance_ means the
act, manner, or power of uttering, vocal expression; as, "the utterance
of articulate sounds." We _utter_ a cry; _express_ a thought or
sentiment; _speak_ our mind; and, though prayers are _said_, they may be
_uttered_ in a certain tone or manner. "Mr. Blank is right in all he
_utters_": read, _says_. "The court _uttered_ a sentiment that all will
applaud": read, _expressed_ a sentiment.

The primary meaning of the adjective _utter_ 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, entire; but he who uses it
indiscriminately as a synonym of these words will frequently utter
_utter_ nonsense--i. e., he will utter that which is without the pale of
sense. For example, we can not say _utter_ concord, but we can say
_utter_ discord--i. e., without the pale of concord.

VALUABLE. 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 _valuable_ 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."

VAST. This word is often met with in forcible-feeble diction, where it
is used instead of _great_ or _large_ 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.

VERACITY. 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," _veracity_
is entirely superfluous, it having precisely the same meaning as truth.
The phrase, "A big, large man," is equally good diction.

VERBIAGE. An unnecessary profusion of words is called _verbiage_:
verbosity, wordiness.

"I thought what I read of it _verbiage_."--Johnson.

Sometimes a better name than verbiage for wordiness would be
_emptiness_. Witness: "Clearness may be developed and cultivated in
three ways, (_a_) By constantly practicing in heart and life the
thoughts and ways of honesty and frankness." The first sentence
evidently means, "Clearness may be _attained_ 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[1] thus far laid down[2] furnish ample
foundation for[3] the general statement that an easy and natural[4]
expression, an exact verbal incarnation of one's thinking,[5] together
with the power of using appropriate figures, and of making nice
discriminations between approximate synonyms,[6] each being an important
factor in correct style, are attained in two ways.[7] (1) Through
moral[8] and mental discipline. (2) Through continuous and intimate[9]
acquaintance with such authors as best exemplify those attainments."[10]

1. Would not _laws_ cover the whole ground? 2. _En passant_ I would
remark that Dr. Townsend did not make these laws, though he so
intimates. 3. I suggest the word _justify_ in place of these four. 4.
What is natural is easy; _easy_, therefore, is superfluous. 5. If this
means anything, it does not mean more than the adjective _clear_ would
express, if properly used in the sentence. 6. _Approximate_ 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.

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 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."

The following sentence is from a leading magazine: "If we begin a system
of interference, _regulating men's gains_, bolstering here, _in order to
strengthen this interest_, [and] repressing _elsewhere_ [there], in
order to equalize wealth, we shall do _an_ [a] _immense_ deal of
mischief, and without bringing about a more agreeable condition of
things _than now_ [we] shall _simply_ discourage enterprise, repress
industry, and check material growth _in all directions_." Read without
the eighteen words in italics and with the four inclosed.

"Nothing disgusts sooner than the empty pomp of language."

VICE. See CRIME.

VICINITY. This word is sometimes incorrectly used without the possessive
pronoun; thus, "Washington and vicinity," instead of "Washington and
_its_ vicinity." The primary meaning of _vicinity_ is nearness,
proximity. In many of the cases in which vicinity is used,
_neighborhood_ would be the better word, though _vicinity_ is perhaps
preferable where it is a question of mere locality.

VOCATION--AVOCATION. These words are frequently confounded. A man's
_vocation_ is his profession, his calling, his business; and his
_avocations_ are the things that occupy him incidentally. Mademoiselle
Bernhardt's _vocation_ is acting; her _avocations_ are painting and
sculpture. "The tracing of resemblances among the objects and events of
the world is a constant _avocation_ of the human mind."

VULGAR. 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 _vulgar_ 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 _indecent_, but is not _vulgar_.

WAS. "He said he had come to the conclusion that there _was_ no God."
"The greatest of Byron's works _was_ 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 _is_, not _was_.

WHARF. See DOCK.

WHAT. "He would not believe but _what_ I did it": read, but _that_. "I
do not doubt _but what_ I shall go to Boston to-morrow": read, doubt
_that_. We say properly, "I have nothing _but what_ you see"; "You have
brought everything _but what_ I wanted."

WHENCE. As this adverb means--unaided--_from_ what place, source, or
cause, it is, as Dr. Johnson styled it, "a vicious mode of speech" to
say _from whence_, Milton to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor is there
any more propriety in the phrase _from thence_, as _thence_
means--unaided--from that place. "_Whence_ do you come?" not "_From
whence_ do you come?" Likewise, "He went _hence_," not "_from hence_."

WHETHER. This conjunction is often improperly repeated in a sentence;
thus, "I have not decided whether I shall go to Boston or _whether I
shall go_ to Philadelphia."

WHICH. This pronoun as an _interrogative_ applies to _persons_ as well
as to _things_; as a _relative_, it is now made to refer to _things
only_.

"_Which_ is employed in coördinate sentences, where _it_, or _they_, and
a conjunction might answer the purpose; thus, 'At school I studied
geometry, _which_ (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, _which_ (and it, or although it) had never done him
harm.' Such instances represent the most accurate meaning of _which_.
_Who_ and _which_ might be termed the COÖRDINATING RELATIVES.

"_Which_ is likewise used in _restrictive_ clauses that limit or explain
the antecedent; as, 'The house _which_ he built still remains.' Here the
clause introduced by _which_ 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 _who_, our most idiomatic
writers prefer _that_ in this particular application, and would say,
'The house _that_ he built still remains.'"

"_Which_ sometimes has a special reference attaching to it, as the
neuter relative: 'Cæsar crossed the Rubicon, _which_ was in effect a
declaration of war.' The antecedent in this instance is not _Rubicon_,
but the entire clause.

"There is a peculiar usage where _which_ may _seem_ to be still
regularly used in reference to persons, as in 'John is a soldier,
_which_ I should like to be,' that is, 'And I should like _to be a
soldier_.'" See THAT.

WHO. There are few persons, even among the most cultivated, who do not
make frequent mistakes in the use of this pronoun. They say, "_Who_ did
you see?" "_Who_ did you meet?" "_Who_ did he marry?" "_Who_ did you
hear?" "_Who_ did he know?" "_Who_ are you writing to?" "_Who_ 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
_whom_, and not _who_. 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.

_Who_ was little used as a relative till about the sixteenth century.
Bain says: "In modern use, more especially in books, _who_ is frequently
employed to introduce a clause intended to restrict, define, limit, or
explain a noun (or its equivalent); as, 'That is the man _who_ spoke to
us yesterday.'"

"Here the clause introduced by _who_ is necessary to define or explain
the antecedent _the man_; without it, we do not know who _the man_ is.
Such relative clauses are typical _adjective_ clauses--i. e., they have
the same effect as adjectives in limiting nouns. This may be called the
RESTRICTIVE use of the relative.

"Now it will be found that the practice of our most idiomatic writers
and speakers is to prefer _that_ to _who_ in this application.

"_Who_ is properly used in such coördinate sentences as, 'I met the
watchman, _who_ told me there had been a fire.' Here the two clauses are
distinct and independent; in such a case, _and he_ might be substituted
for _who_.

"Another form of the same use is when the second clause is of the kind
termed adverbial, where we may resolve _who_ into a personal or
demonstrative pronoun and conjunction. 'Why should we consult Charles,
_who_ (_for he_, _seeing that he_) knows nothing of the matter?'

"_Who_ may be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with
_whom_. For many good writers and speakers say '_who_ are you talking
of?' '_who_ does the garden belong to?' '_who_ is this for?' '_who_
from?'" etc.

If this be true--if _who may_ be regarded as a modern objective form,
side by side with _whom_--then, of course, such expressions as "_Who_
did you see?" "_Who_ did you meet?" "_Who_ did he marry?" "_Who_ were
you with?" "_Who_ 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 _correct_, few grammarians will concede. See THAT.

WHOLE. This word is sometimes most improperly used for _all_; thus, "The
_whole_ 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.

WHOLESOME. See HEALTHY.

WHOSE. Mr. George Washington Moon discountenances the use of _whose_ as
the possessive of _which_. He says, "The best writers, when speaking of
inanimate objects, use _of which_ instead of _whose_." The correctness
of this statement is doubtful. The truth is, I think, that good writers
use that form for the possessive case of _which_ that in their judgment
is, in each particular case, the more euphonious, giving the preference,
perhaps, to _of which_. On this subject Dr. Campbell says: "The
possessive of _who_ is properly _whose_. The pronoun _which_,
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 _who_, and thus have substituted one syllable in the room
of three, as in the example following: 'Philosophy, _whose_ end is to
instruct us in the knowledge of nature,' for 'Philosophy, _the_ end _of
which_ 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."

Professor Bain says: "_Whose_, although the possessive of _who_, and
practically of _which_, is yet frequently employed for the purpose of
restriction: 'We are the more likely to guard watchfully against those
faults _whose_ deformity we have seen fully displayed in others.' This
is better than 'the deformity _of which_ we have seen.' 'Propositions of
_whose_ truth we have no certain knowledge.'--Locke." Dr. Fitzedward
Hall says that the use of _whose_ for _of which_, where the antecedent
is not only irrational but inanimate, has had the support of high
authority for several hundred years.

WIDOW WOMAN. Since widows are always women, why say a widow _woman_? It
would be perfectly correct to say a _widowed_ woman.

WIDOWHOOD. There is good authority for using this word in speaking of
men as well as of women.

WITHOUT. This word is often improperly used instead of _unless_; as,
"You will never live to my age _without_ you keep yourself in breath and
exercise"; "I shall not go _without_ my father consents": properly,
_unless_ my father consents, or, _without_ my father's consent.

WORST. We should say _at the worst_, not _at worst_.

WOVE. The past participle of the verb _to weave_ is _woven_. "Where was
this cloth _woven_?" not _wove_.

YOU ARE MISTAKEN. See MISTAKEN.

YOU WAS. Good usage does, and it is to be hoped always will, consider
_you was_ a gross vulgarism, certain grammarians to the contrary
notwithstanding. _You_ 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 _you_ 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 _third_
person plural. The exact equivalent in German of our _How are you?_ is,
_How are they?_ Those who would say _you was_ should be consistent, and
in like manner say _you has_ and _you does_.

YOURS, &C. 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,
_Yours, &c._


THE END.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] 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.

[2] "It may be confidently affirmed that with good speakers, in the case
of negation, _not me_ is the usual practice."--Bain. This, I confidently
affirm, is not true in America.--A. A.

[3] Should be, _a text-book for his course_, and not, _for his course a
text-book_.

[4] Mr. Gould criticises the Dean's _diction_, not his _style_.

[5] Better, "to revise it."

[6] "Is _to put them_ in tabular form."

[7] Bullions' "Grammar" was published in 1867.

[8] "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."

[9] "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."

[10] "Vol. xlv, p. 504 (1837)."

[11] "'The Life and Correspondence of the late Robert Southey,' vol. i,
p. 249."

[12] "Vol. i, p. 338. 'A student who _is being crammed_'; 'that verb is
eternally _being declined_.'--'The Doctor,' pp. 38 and 40 (mono-tome
ed.)."

[13] "In 'Put Yourself in his Place,' chapter x, he writes: 'She basked
in the present delight, and looked as if she _was being taken_ to heaven
by an angel.'"

[14] "'Words,' etc., p. 340."

[15] "Thomas Fuller writes: 'At his arrival, the last stake of the
Christians was _on losing_.'--'The Historie of the Holy Warre,' p. 218
(ed. 1647)."

[16] "I express myself in this manner because I distinguish between _be_
and _exist_."

[17] "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 _being read to_ by Anne, who, though she reads well, is not
fond of the task.'--'Sir Charles Grandison,' vol. iii, p. 46 (ed. 1754).

"The transition is very slight by which we pass from 'sits being read
to' to 'is being read to.'"

[18] "I am here indebted to the last edition of Dr. Worcester's
'Dictionary,' preface, p. xxxix."

[19] "'Words and their Uses,' p. 353."

[20] "'_It is being_ is simply equal to _it is_. And, in the supposed
corresponding Latin phrases, _ens factus est_, _ens ædificatus est_ (the
obsoleteness of _ens_ as a participle being granted), the monstrosity is
not in the use of _ens_ with _factus_, but in that of _ens_ with _est_.
The absurdity is, in Latin, just what it is in English, the use of _is_
with _being_, the making of the verb _to be_ a complement to
itself.'--_Ibid._, pp. 354, 355.

"Apparently, Mr. White recognizes no more difference between
_supplement_ and _complement_ than he recognizes between _be_ and
_exist_. See the extract I have made above, from p. 353."

[21] "'But those things which, _being not now doing_, 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 _being not now doing_, which
is to translate μὴ γινόμενα, the modern school, if they pursued
uniformity with more of fidelity than of taste, would have to put _being
not now being done_. There is not much to choose between the two."

[22] "'Words and their Uses,' p. 343."

[23] 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.

[24] "The use of the plural for the singular was established as early
the beginning of the fourteenth century."--Morris, p. 118, § 153.

[25] "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."

[26] "This usage violates one of the fundamental principles of
punctuation; it indicates, very improperly, that the noun _man_ is more
closely connected with _learned_ than with the other adjectives. Analogy
and perspicuity require a comma after _learned_."--Quackenbos.

[27] Many writers would omit the last two commas in this sentence.

[28] The commas before and after _particularly_ are hardly necessary.

[29] The only exception to this rule is the occasional use of the colon
to separate two short sentences that are closely connected.

[30] "Dr. Angus on the 'English Tongue,' art. 527."

[31] "In the following passages, the indicative mood would be more
suitable than the subjunctive: 'If thou _be_ the Son of God, command
that these stones be made bread'; 'if thou _be_ 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 _art_ the Son of
God.' Likewise in the following: 'Now if Christ _be_ 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 _is_ preached.'
In the continuation, the conditional clauses are of a different
character, and 'be' is appropriate: 'But if there _be_ no resurrection
from the dead, then is Christ not risen. And if Christ _be_ not risen,
then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.' Again, 'If
thou _bring_ thy gift to the altar, and there remember_est_,' etc.
Consistency and correctness require 'remember.'"--Harrison on the
"English Language," p. 287.

[32] "So, in German, _wäre_ for _würde sein_. 'Hätt' ich Schwingen,
hätt' ich Flügel, nach den Hügeln _zög_' ich hin,' for '_würde_ ich
_ziehen_.'"

[33] "So, in German, _hätte_ occurs for _würde haben_. 'Wäre er da
gewesen, so _hätten_ wir ihn gesehen,' for 'so _würden_ wir ihn gesehen
_haben_.' _Hätten_ is still conditional, not indicative. In Latin, the
pluperfect _indicative_ is occasionally used; which is explained as a
more vivid form."

[34] "In _principal_ clauses the inflection of the second person is
always retained: 'thou had_st_,' 'thou would_st_, should_st_,' etc. In
the example, the subordinate clause, although subjunctive, shows,
'had_st_.' And this usage is exceedingly common."

[35] 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."

[36] "Cromwell--_than he_ no man was more skilled in artifice; or,
Cromwell--no man was more skilled in artifice _than he_ (was)."

[37] "No devil sat higher than _he_ sat, except Satan."

[38] "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.'

"The following examples, taken from Massinger's 'Grand Duke of
Florence,' will show what was the usage of the Elizabethan writers:--

    "'For I must use the freedom I _was born with_.'

    "'In that dumb rhetoric _which_ you _make use of_.'

                          "'---- if I had been heir
    Of all the globes and sceptres mankind _bows to_.'

                    "'---- the name of friend
    _Which_ you are pleased to _grace me with_.'

          "'---- wilfully ignorant in my opinion
    Of what it did _invite him to_.'

    "'I look to her as on a princess
    _I dare not be ambitious of_.'

                      "'---- a duty
    _That I was born with_.'"




                            THE ORTHOËPIST:


                         _A PRONOUNCING MANUAL_,

              CONTAINING ABOUT THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
                WORDS, INCLUDING A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF
              THE NAMES OF FOREIGN AUTHORS, ARTISTS, ETC.,
                     THAT ARE OFTEN MISPRONOUNCED.

                            By ALFRED AYRES.

̤
SELECTIONS FROM THE WORK.

 ạb-dō´mẹn, _not_ ăb´dọ-mĕn.

 ạc-crṳe´, _not_ -crū´.
   The orthoëpists agree that _u_, preceded by _r_ in the same syllable,
   generally becomes simply _oo_, as in _rude_, _rumor_, _rural_, _rule_,
   _ruby_.

 ạl-lŏp´ạ-thy; ạl-lŏp´ạ-thĭst.

 Ăr´ạ-bĭc, _not_ Ạ-rā´bĭc.

 Asia--ā´shẹ-ȧ, _not_ ā´zhȧ.

 ay, _or_ aye (meaning _yes_)--ī.

 aye (meaning _always_)--ā.

 Bĭs´märck, _not_ bĭz´-.
   At the end of a syllable, _s_, in German, has invariably its sharp,
   hissing sound.

 Cairo--in Egypt, kī´rō; in the United States, kā´rō.

 Courbet--ko̤r´bā´.

 dĕc´ạde, _not_ dẹ-kād´.

 dẹ-cō´roŭs.
   The authority is small, and is becoming less, for saying
   _dĕc´o-roŭs_, which is really as incorrect as it would be to say
   _sŏn´o-roŭs_.

 dĕf´ị-cĭt, _not_ dẹ-fĭç´it.

 dịs̱-dāin´, _not_ dis-.

 dịs̱-hŏn´or, _not_ dis-.

 ĕc-ọ-nŏm´ị-cạl, _or_ ē-cọ-nŏm´ị-cạl.
   The first is the marking of a large majority of the orthoëpists.

 ẹ-nēr´vāte.
   The only authority for saying _ĕn´er-vāte_ is popular usage; all
   the orthoëpists say _e-nẽr´vāte_.

 ĕp´ọc̵h, _not_ ē´pŏc̵h.
   The latter is a Websterian pronunciation, which is not even permitted
   in the late editions.

 fĭn-ạn-ciēr´.
   This much-used word is rarely pronounced correctly.

 Heī´nẹ, _not_ hine.
   Final _e_ in German is never silent.

 honest--ŏn´est, _not_ -ĭst, _nor_ -ŭst.
   "Hon_est_, hon_est_ Iago," is preferable to "hon_ust_, hon_ust_ Iago,"
   some of our accidental Othellos to the contrary notwithstanding.

 ĭs̱´ọ-lāte, _or_ ĭs´ọ-late, _not_ ī´sọ-lāt.
   The first marking is Walker's, Worcester's, and Smart's; the second,
   Webster's.


                  ONE VOL., 18MO, CLOTH. PRICE, $1.00.

          New York: D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3, & 5 Bond Street.





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Verbalist, by 
Thomas Embly Osmun, (AKA Alfred Ayres)

*** 