THE VERBALIST. (continued 4)

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.

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,

"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.'

"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.

"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.

"'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.

"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 ——.'

"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]

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

"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.

"'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.'

"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:

"Compare now:

"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."

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.

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).

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:

"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.

"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 perspire. 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 rules1 thus far laid down2 furnish ample foundation for3 the general statement that an easy and natural4 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 moral8 and mental discipline. (2) Through continuous and intimate9 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: