TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Bold text is denoted by =equal signs=.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have
been placed at the end of the book.
The tables in this book are best viewed using a monospace font.
Page 15 has some unusual characters to describe the phonetic
pronunciation of some words. These will display on this device as
ä a with diaeresis
ḗ e with macron and acute accent
ĭ i with breve
ṓ o with macron and acute
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
_The_ ENGLISH _of_ MILITARY
COMMUNICATIONS
_By_
WILLIAM A. GANOE
_Major of Infantry, United States Army_
Assistant Professor of English
United States Military Academy
[Illustration: (colophon)]
The Collegiate Press
GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING COMPANY
MENASHA, WISCONSIN
_Copyright, 1918
by
George Banta Publishing Company_
PRINTED AND BOUND BY
GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING CO.
MANUFACTURING PUBLISHERS
MENASHA, WISCONSIN
CONTENTS
PAGE
FOREWORD V
PREFACE VII
CHAPTER I—Our Approach to a Critical Matter 1
CHAPTER II—Military Communications 20
CHAPTER III—Problems in the Composition of the Field Message 33
CHAPTER IV—More Problems on the Composition of the Field Message 41
CHAPTER V—Verbal Field Message 49
CHAPTER VI—The Field Order, The Estimate, The Decision,
The Expression 58
CHAPTER VII—Problems in the Field Order 73
CHAPTER VIII—More Problems of the Composition of the Field Order 93
CHAPTER IX—The Verbal Field Order 110
CHAPTER X—The Operation Order, Orders, Letters of Instruction 124
CHAPTER XI—The War Diary—The Report—Routine Orders 147
CHAPTER XII—Official Correspondence—Explanations—Lectures 165
APPENDICES 187
FOREWORD
It is important in military matters that a writer shall express
definitely the ideas he intends to convey and in such phraseology
that there can be no misunderstanding of the language used.
Carelessly or improperly phrased instructions have caused many
miscarriages of military plans. The attainment of perfection in the
use of language is a matter of painstaking study and the gradual
refinement of practice. Merely dreaming of what one will do when
responsibility is thrust upon him is not the way to prepare for
successful achievement. It is the duty of every self respecting
officer to be ready to do not only his best but to do what is right.
When one has qualified himself to write or dictate orders and
instructions properly he has already learned to interpret those he
may receive from others. Accuracy of language demands discipline
of mind. Under our system of raising war armies much has had to be
entrusted to men without either discipline of mind or of character.
This makes it necessary for officers not only to be qualified
themselves to prepare and to interpret orders, but to teach the art
to others.
Carelessly written instructions are like contoured maps with the base
data omitted, leaving one in doubt as to whether he is observing a
hill or a depression. A recent instance of such carelessness, coming
under my observation, may serve to illustrate this: orders were
received at my headquarters to call out certain reservists for actual
service and direct them to report at Fort Wayne, Indiana. In the
execution of the order individual telegrams were dispatched during
the night. As orders had been received previously to turn over for
the training of such reservists several permanent posts, including
Fort Wayne, near Detroit, Michigan, telegraphic inquiry was made
to find out if a mistake had been made. The reply established that
the Post of Fort Wayne, Michigan, and not the City of Fort Wayne,
Indiana, was intended.
Modern warfare of nations-in-arms is vastly different from the
campaigns and open field fighting of the smaller armies of past
wars. Nations no longer entrust the preparation and solution of
their military problems to old type of practical soldiers. Military
Academies, War Colleges, and General Staff Colleges have become
necessary to insure that only trained men shall be entrusted with the
preparation of instructions for the employment of the forces.
To combine the study of tactical problems, the preparation of orders
and the correct use of language, as contemplated by Major Ganoe, will
afford a great advantage to the student of today, and should make the
diaries, journals, and war histories of the future finished writings
without necessity for editing. These are the true sources of military
history, a knowledge of which is essential to the ambitious officer
desirous of perfecting himself in his profession.
(signed) WILLIAM HARDING CARTER,
_Major General, United States Army_.
PREFACE
This course of lessons has for its sole object a demonstration to
the military man that rhetoric is a big part of his profession. If
he sees this advantage early it is hoped that he will not slight
his rich language as so many of us have done to our later regret.
Vocational training in English! That is practically what this book
is. It is recognizing rhetoric for the first time as a separate study
in the field service regulations. Just as we take up topography,
engineering, sanitation, and supply as sciences by themselves in
order to fit our efficiency into the team work of battle later, so
here we apply ourselves to that part of field work which helps us
state our ideas in a proper military manner.
The course is in no way tactics, but it forms an excellent primer
to tactics. It leads up to and aids in the solution of tactical
problems by passing over military ground. Because it is a combination
of analysis and synthesis, rhetoric, as we know, is, unlike the
exact sciences, purely a secondary subject. Its material, whether
of poetry, essay, or fiction, is indiscriminate in its selection
of matter so long as the matter is good. The idea in this book is
to make both the material and the treatment count—to place the
emphasis upon the manner of expressing oneself and to let the
student see incidentally the interesting military features as he is
passing along. He will be learning what he has never before had the
opportunity of taking up separately, and what will lead him more
easily into intricate tactical paths afterwards.
Some will criticise the book in that the author is not conforming to
the principles which he is enunciating. They will say, “He tells us
to boil our communications to the clearest minimum while he himself
deals in reiteration and illumination.” Although this objection
appears just, it is nevertheless cursory. A closer view will reveal
the fact that the _purpose_ and _readers_ of communications are quite
different from the _purpose_ and _readers_ of a text book. One of
the first principles we learn in rhetoric is to suit our treatment
and diction to our _purpose_ and _readers_. Commanders await with
interest and expectancy the words of a field message or order.
Students await with skepticism or inertia the chapters of their
lessons. Although we rightly can prescribe the severest clearness
for something which is bound to be absorbed, we cannot be satisfied
with one precise, colorless statement of that which is likely to be
ignored. The student must be cudgeled and enticed. As a proof of
the correctness of this position, this course has been tried with
unexpected success upon the Cadets of the United States Military
Academy. The very items which have been repeated and highly colored
have proven themselves to the instructors to be the very ones which
have more easily driven the points home.
Grateful acknowledgment is made by the author to Lieut. Colonel L. H.
Holt, Professor of English and History, who made the book possible;
to Captain G. Hoisington, Infantry, for drawing a plate; to Captains
J. R. N. Weaver, Infantry, R. H. Lee, Coast Artillery Corps, L. E.
Moreton, Coast Artillery Corps, C. C. Benson, Cavalry, and J. H.
Grant, 24th Infantry, for their valuable criticism; and to Major A.
W. Chilton, Infantry, for the revision of the book in order to make
it conform to the practical work passed over—by his disinterested
correction the whole becomes more valuable as a text.
W. A. G.
CHAPTER I
OUR APPROACH TO A CRITICAL MATTER
All military language should be of the utmost brevity and clarity.
Death and disaster are the direct results of ambiguity. Throughout
all history mistaken directions and information have been the ruin
of whole campaigns. Careless wording, like careless shooting, is not
only ineffective but often suicidal.
The object of these few lessons is to give practice in putting the
language of military communication into form. It is hoped that by
means of certain technical and rhetorical principles the student may
gain proficiency in expressing his thoughts as he intends them and as
military efficiency demands them.
Our Field Service Regulations state that “clear and decisive orders
are the logical result of definite and sure decisions.” But this
statement does _not_ imply that if a person arrives at a definite
and sure decision, he gains clear and decisive phraseology without
effort on his part. General Wagner, a pioneer among American military
authorities, divides into completely separate operations the act
of deciding upon a definite plan of action and that of drafting or
framing orders which will carry that decision into effect. One is
purely military and has to do with dispositions of forces; the other
is mainly rhetorical and has to do with manipulations of language.
Many a military man has decided certainly in his own mind what he
is going to do in order to carry out his mission, only to be faced
immediately with a harder task. He must set that definite idea in
the mind of some one else. “How,” he sighs, “shall I put this so as
to let my Captains, Smith and Jones, know exactly what I want?” He
seats himself on a warm rock under the blazing sun and chews his
pencil. What he at first writes down, he finds, is full of loop-holes
and is not expressive of what he means. He tries again, crosses out
words here and there, adds others, and changes his sentences until
the whole is undecipherable. In disgust he tears up the paper and
tries again. After fifteen minutes of such effort he holds in his
hand a few paragraphs of which he is not proud, but which will have
to do. There has been no want, perhaps, of clear tactical reasoning
on his part, but rather a distinct lack of ability to drive common
English home. His case, we find, is not exceptional. One has only to
listen to the discussions of military beginners (or of some, alas,
who are not military beginners) to hear this statement confirmed. How
often after having given careful or even brilliant estimates of a
situation will a man burst out with, “I know what I mean right here,
but don’t quite know how to say it!” All the way along there has been
a decided blank space between decision in the mind and embodiment in
language.
Whether slang, profanity, or colloquialisms have cut into our
ordinary speech to such an extent as to keep us at a loss for the
apt word, or whether we have grown careless or slovenly in our
habits of expression, is a matter with which we are not concerned
here. We do know that we are continually hampered by our inability
to state absolutely our meaning. This lack of skill in composition
which besets us, we must overcome in our profession, for the sake
of the lives dependent upon our words. Napoleon sitting at his desk
scribbling off orders and messages as fast as his nimble fingers can
travel, his secretaries standing about him grasping each finished
piece from under his pen and sending it off immediately by courier
without revision or correction, is a dazzling picture for the
military leader to contemplate. In his writing, a commander capable
of carrying out single-handed all the phases and minor items of the
mightiest of campaigns could, no doubt, be precise and accurate
habitually. He _was_ a genius. Yet Napoleon had had long years of
practice in putting his will into words; for, we are told, he began
to compose orders and to think tactically and strategically at a
time of life when most of us have not even chosen our careers.
If, then, we can try our hand at transcribing our ideas in as
formative a period as possible in our military careers, we, too,
may attain a proficiency that will become a second nature with us.
At least, we may put behind us a great part of this uninteresting
but indispensable work of learning to control our language, before
we confront the more serious task of straightening out tactical and
strategical difficulties in the presence of the enemy.
Incidentally, while we are on our way in our progress in expression,
we may pick up much valuable military information. In our practice
with tactical language we must make use of certain facts which have
been found by experience appropriate to certain happenings connected
with officers’ and soldiers’ duties. We shall be in constant touch
with the workings of patrols, advance guards, outposts, and forces
in battle. Like so many reporters we shall be present at maneuvers
putting our notes into graphic and specific form.
Now, however, we are going to rivet our attention to the main
issue—the mastery of clear and brief military communication. It has
been mentioned that such ready skill often prevents loss of battles
and human life. It prevents another loss which we have not taken up
separately—the loss of time. The officer who sat chewing his pencil
on the warm rock threw away from ten to twelve minutes which might
have been used profitably upon the accomplishment of his mission—an
amount of time which might have given the very advantage needed to
gain a complete victory over the enemy. If he had had a skilful
working knowledge of his own Mother Tongue, the delay would not have
occurred. His effectiveness was lost for want of power of expression.
To illustrate further, consider for a moment an army post going about
its routine duties of drill, guard, and police. Into the Adjutant’s
office walks an individual who announces himself to be Major Smart
of the Inspector General’s Department. On being introduced to the
Colonel, he identifies himself, and gives immediate orders that the
Colonel shall have his regiment on the parade ground ready for field
service in fifteen minutes. When the troops are formed, the Inspector
rides up to the Colonel, hands him a typewritten tactical problem,
and asks for a solution of it as soon as possible. The Inspector then
takes out his watch and observes. If the Colonel consumes more than
a reasonable number of minutes in writing his orders, or if he shows
a hesitancy in so doing, or if he must seek aid from his Adjutant,
it is surprising to note how soon after Major Smart’s departure from
the post, the Colonel receives a letter from Washington apprising him
of his shortcomings, and recommending, for his own good, a speedy
remedy. Because of the inroads upon efficiency, the War Department,
like any good business firm, cannot brook vacillation or unwarranted
loss of time.
We must, then, adopt some method or procedure by which we will
effectually beat down the causes of this loss of time, battles, and
life. After analysing past proficiencies and deficiencies in military
communication, we spy out from all the roads to the goal open to us,
two which appear to be shorter than the rest. If we guide ourselves
along these we shall come upon our object in the quickest way. Since
the first leads into the second, they are given here in order. We
should strive: (1) To learn to find quickly expressions which will
cover information and decisions that are trying to struggle into
language; and (2) To plant that information and decision into the
recipient’s understanding exactly as it was rooted in our minds.
_The first process is that of defining thoughts exactly and briefly._
_The second process is that of making those thoughts so unmistakable
that the most stupid cannot misunderstand and the most captious
cannot misinterpret._
After we have done the first, we should look over our work and be
certain that we have done the second.
The first has to do with the kind of situation that faced the man
who knew what he “wanted to say but couldn’t express himself.” Some
authorities argue that there is no difference between clear thinking
and clear expression. They give no place to the “mute inglorious
Milton.” They would not concede that the man groping for language
had formed a definite plan in his mind, because that plan was not
definite enough to be expressed. “If he has not thought in language,”
they say, “he has not really thought.” Their opponents claim that a
man thinks in pictures, and that he conceives his ideas as a painter
imagines objects. In his mind are the outlines and colors of what
he considers. There is truth in both views of the matter. But it is
likely from what we know of the training of the military man that his
mind works more by visualizing the troops and by conjuring up the
scene than by gaining his conceptions through words. His forces are
moving along roads, occupying trenches, or surging into conflict.
His map is not a plane surface with names upon it, but a vision of
highways, waving corps, and rolling hills. He is looking at these
things without mentally describing them. For the purpose of this
course, we shall take the view that there are occasions where we
deduce certain results, but are unable, because of unfamiliarity
with framing good sentences or because of a small vocabulary, to
communicate those results or deductions in accordance with common
usage.
The second road can be illustrated by comparison with the first.
There is a wide difference, although at first there does not
appear to be, between merely stating a thing clearly and making
it unmistakable. The first is but a negative approach to complete
certainty of expression, but the second must be a positive one. The
distinction is one more or less of attitude of mind, and although
heretofore it has been overlooked as an entity in English text
books and military regulations, it assuredly illustrates itself in
two types of men who actually exist. The man who is content with
merely making himself clear takes the attitude of, “O, well, they
will get what I meant because any other interpretation is absurd
or incorrect.” The man who is not content unless he makes himself
unmistakable says, “I won’t let any of them have the slightest
excuse for any other interpretation; when I get through there will
be but _one_ interpretation and that will be _mine_.” The first one
in sending a message to his commanding officer locates himself by
putting in his heading, “Irrigation ditch 500 yards east of southeast
corner of Catholic Church.” He notices another irrigation ditch fifty
yards further to the east, but says to himself, “If my commanding
officer measures the distance on the map he will know which one I
mean.” The second man, upon looking about him and discovering the
other ditch, does not accept the chance of letting his commanding
officer confuse the two ditches by a possible difference of maps
or measuring instruments. He investigates further. By moving a few
yards to the top of a hillock he notices that the farther ditch
is entirely a dirt construction whereas the one he occupies is a
concrete one. He confirms this intelligence by looking at his map
which shows the ditches to be as he has made them out. He, therefore,
heads his message, “Concrete irrigation ditch 500 yards east of
southeast corner of Catholic Church.” This is a case where an added
word has made the meaning more proof against error. There are similar
cases where a word taken away, or the change of a phrase, clause, or
sentence, will make the recipient of the communication more sure of
the true state of affairs.
To sum up as far as we have gone, we see that our object is to put
military communication into proper form; that the failure to make
our expression of the utmost brevity and clarity causes loss of
efficiency, battles, and life; that a condition of inability to
express ourselves exists widely; that by starting as early as we can
to practice clear and brief form within the bounds of rhetorical
and military rules (which, after all, are nothing more than those
of common sense), we shall overcome this deficiency; and that for
ourselves we are going to direct our course along two highways, viz.:
(1) To learn to find quickly expressions which will cover information
and decisions that are trying to struggle into language; and
(2) To plant that information or decision in the recipient’s
understanding exactly as it was rooted in our minds.
We have, so far, rehearsed the general attitude we must adopt toward
conquering indefinite and lengthy expression. Because this weakness
is so natural to us, we cannot afford to trifle with it if we wish
to become a factor in battle. Positive decisions and information
must be given in a positive way. Since no other kind of decision or
information is countenanced in the military service, we must search
for specific means of having our language stand sturdily by itself.
It must not choke our idea or our will, however little. Our
decisiveness must reach our farthest superior or subordinate; and
_words_, _phrases_, _clauses_, _sentences_, and _paragraphs_ are
going to be our only representatives. They alone will stand for us.
Every pencil mark on that paper will be a part of the photograph of
our intelligence. Our phraseology will be ourselves. We shall be
judged by it, and rightly so, at a time when we shall have no chance
to offer an amendment, an excuse, or an _I-didn’t-mean-quite-that_.
Guide-posts must mark our highways, if we are in earnest about our
destination of brevity and clarity. In the specific hints which
follow as to what to do and what not to do, there will be no attempt
to point the way to literary effects which have entertainment for
their sole object. Our effort must be to find a practical and speedy
outlet for military information and decision through the most
unmistakable channels. But since we must be terse and clear even to
entertain, most of the rules of English will apply here. So we must
not betray surprise or anguish when we are beset on our way by some
old enemies with whom we have wrestled in rhetorics. In meeting them
again we shall become the stronger because of the exercise on new
and professional ground. The effort to put facts into forceful and
compact form now, will create for us such a habit of brevity and
clarity that later on we shall have room in our natural language for
only such _ideas_ and _decisions_ as are brief and clear.
WHAT WE MUST NOT DO
AS TO WORDS.
1. Never use a term which depends upon the point of view of the
observer, such as _right_, _left_, _in front of_, _behind_, _on this
side_, _beyond_, and the like. Any of these directions may be turned
askew in nine cases out of ten for the hearer or reader. Use instead
_north_, _east_, etc.—the points of the compass—designations which do
not change. To give an exact position of a place, state the _number
of yards_ it lies _south_, _west_, etc., of a certain point on the
map or of a well-known object called _a reference point_.
Exceptions.—_Right_ and _left_ may be used in regard to individuals,
banks of a stream, and flanks of troops, because their _rights_ and
_lefts_ do not change. The right of a man is the side on which his
right arm is no matter which way he faces; the right bank of a stream
is the right as the observer faces down stream; the right flank of
a body of troops is the right as the troops face the enemy. (Troops
in retreat are supposed to be facing the enemy. The rear guard in
reality is doing so.)
2. Do not use qualifying words such as, _sort of_, _kind of_, _very_,
_almost_, _quite_, _exceedingly_, _tremendously_, _somewhat_,
_rather_, _nearly_, and the like;
For,
(a). They lessen force, because they render uncertain ideas which
should be definite; and
(b). They mean different things to different people. Smith’s _almost_
may achieve; Jones’ _almost_ may scarcely start.
3. Do not use slang. There is usually a word which will express the
meaning more truthfully. “Putting it over” may mean complete victory
or a sniper’s accurate shot. The phrase is not truthful.
4. Use no abbreviations except A. M., and P. M., and those given in
Appendix 9 of our Field Service Regulations.[1] Noon and midnight
should be written out fully.
5. Never use _he_, _it_, _this_, _him_, _her_, _their_, _them_,
_that_, _those_, _which_, _whose_, or the like, without looking at
them from every angle to make sure that they refer to a _single
word_. If they refer to a whole statement or to two or more possible
words, they are used wrongly. The addition of a noun will usually fix
the meaning. Suppose you were to receive a message with this sentence
in it:
The platoon leader assigned to one squad the wrong objective, and
it delayed the firing.
Grammatically, the objective delayed the firing. Logically, either
the act of the platoon leader or the squad delayed the firing. You
make out by re-reading the whole message that it must have been the
mistake of the platoon leader which delayed the firing. But in the
meantime you have lost three minutes, and the government has lost
that much efficiency.
_And this_ or _which_ in place of “_and it_” in the message would
have made the sense no clearer. But _and this error_, or _which
error_, makes the meaning unmistakable.
6. Never use a participle without inspecting it to see that it does
not dangle—that it refers to the subject of the sentence rightly.
Example:
“Looking over the crater, the periscope of the enemy was seen to
turn.”
What this sentence really says is that the periscope was looking
over the crater—a very possible happening. But all circumstances
connected with the idea, after a series of mental deductions on the
part of the reader, reveal that the writer had been looking over the
crater at the periscope. The commander who received this information
might have been led to believe that the periscope was situated in the
crater. At least he was delayed, if not misled.
7. Do not use _and_ except where necessary. Usually, when we connect
clauses with it, we do not mean _and_, but some more expressive word
such as _because_, _whereas_, _when_, etc.
8. Do not use any word which might not mean the same thing to any
probable recipients, or might not commonly be understood. For
instance, to a southerner _evening_ means something different from
its significance to a northerner, and to an Englishman _clever_ has
not the American meaning. Watch the words which have local standards.
AS TO PHRASES AND CLAUSES.
1. Do not allow a phrase or a clause to string out your expression
when one word might answer. Boil your communication to the clearest
minimum.
(a). We went back to headquarters with all possible speed. We
hurried to headquarters.
Here the specific verb _hurried_ does away with your phrase _with all
possible speed_.
(b). When we were present in the cantonment, the soldiers looked as
though they were quite hungry.
Our inspection of the cantonment revealed the soldiers to be hungry.
Here _our inspection_ does away with the clause _when we were
present_; and _to be hungry_ does away with _as though they were
quite hungry_.
This error of spreading words is common to ordinary writers and is
most tiring and time-wasting to readers.
2. Do not omit words from your phrases and clauses where there is a
chance for misunderstanding. Examples:
The detachment commander will be with the main body until 7 a. m.
and thereafter the advance guard.
What is really stated is that the advance guard will be with the main
body after 7 a. m.—an unintended statement. Make your grammar accord
absolutely with your meaning. Add the _with_ which belongs before
_the advance_, and notice how the sense is brought out. Again,
They order us to go to Brownsville and do impossible things.
In this sentence do they order us to do impossible things, or do they
themselves do impossible things?
Add the sign of the infinitive where it belongs before _do_. _And to
do impossible things_ reads unmistakably.
3. Do not use a participial phrase without first inspecting it to see
that it holds but one idea.
Having changed our position, the enemy was confused.
What this sentence really says is that the enemy, when he had changed
our position, was confused. This meaning is evidently not intended
from the very nature of the statement.
It is clearer and more accurate to use a finite form of the verb
instead of the participle; as,—
Because we changed our position we confused the enemy.
Or if you can condense with accuracy,
The change in our position confused the enemy.
AS TO SENTENCES.
1. Avoid long involved sentences. Even if they are grammatically
well constructed, they are liable to rhetorical error. The following
sentence because of its length violates unity:
“The organization of the German army is today well known to
American Army officers, and experience has shown that German
problems and solutions of a complex character changed in
translation to conform to American units are often more troublesome
for the student to understand than the original would be, as, on
account of the difference in the size of the units, it is often
necessary in reading such a translation to go back to the German
organization in order to explain a distribution of troops, which,
though simple for a German division, would be an awkward one for a
division organized after our own Field Service Regulations.”
The first thought given to the reader is that “the organization of
the German army is today well known to American Army officers.”
The last thought of the sentence is that the “explanation of a
distribution of troops would be an awkward one for a division
organized after our own Field Service Regulations.” The path from the
first thought to the second is long and winding. In fact the two do
not belong in the same sentence as the sense stands.
With a simple change we can make the whole easier to read:
The organization of the German army is today well known to American
Army officers. Their experience has shown that German problems and
solutions of a complex character changed in translation to conform
to American units are often more troublesome for the student to
understand than the original would be. On account of the difference
in the size of the units, it is often necessary in reading such
a translation to go back to the German organization in order to
explain a distribution of troops, which, though simple for a German
division, would be an awkward one for a division organized after
our own Field Service Regulations.
The reader has been allowed to take in a thought at a time instead of
three thoughts at once.
In spite of the injunction in our Field Service Regulations that
“short sentences are easily understood,” such long and involved
expressions as the above have abounded among military writers.
In war, this continuous motion in a single sentence has marred
undertakings; in peace, it has robbed efficiency. It has been an
incubus upon general orders, and even communications in the field.
CAUTION.—By short sentences we do not mean choppy sentences—sentences
unnecessarily short as,—
The battalion halted for the night. It ate supper. Then the
battalion relieved the outpost.
Here the reader has been stopped when he should have been kept going,
for there is in reality but one thought in the three separate
sentences. They should be combined into some such form as this,—
After the battalion had halted for the night and had eaten supper,
it relieved the outpost.
The proper relation of ideas is here expressed for the reader. He
knows that the relief of the outpost is the main consideration,
depending in point of time upon the halt and supper. And the whole
thought is not too big for him to take in as he reads.
The first error, illustrated by the sentence concerning German
organization, is a fault common to older writers. They have allowed
themselves to grow into the habit of adding qualifying phrases and
clauses to sentences already completed until their additions come to
swamp the originals. The second error, illustrated by the sentence
concerning the battalion relieving the outpost, is a fault common
to young writers. They have not yet formed the habit of relating in
their own minds the separate ideas of a complete thought.
The happy mean between these two indefinite extremes is the one we
wish to find—the sentence that gives speedy and accurate intelligence.
2. Do not use compound sentences containing _and_, save where they
cannot be avoided. Here is a common piece of slovenliness found in
such a construction.—
The wagon trains pulled out and the troops ate breakfast.
Any one of the following is more definite.
After the wagon trains pulled out the troops ate breakfast.
The wagon trains pulled out before the troops ate breakfast.
As the wagon trains pulled out the troops ate breakfast.
The writer in the first instance was too lazy or stupid to think out
the specific meaning of _and_ for the reader.
Remember, also, that the use of _and_ to connect clauses leads us
into the treacherous “run-on sentences”—the sentence that flits from
subject to subject like an old gossip.
“They fell into the trap and so the commanding officer’s orders
were lost and they remained there twenty days and were finally
removed to a prison camp and there winter soon came on and finally
they were released and went home in the spring.”
The sentence, in addition to having too many ideas in it, has them
unrelated.
WHAT WE MUST DO
AS TO WORDS.
1. Every geographical name must be printed in capitals, thus,—
WEST POINT, MARNE RIVER, PARIS.
This rule does not mean that the names must be printed, merely, but
that every letter must be capitalized legibly.
If the place be not pronounced as it is spelled, it should appear
thus,—XENIA (Zē′-nĭ-ä), POUGHKEEPSIE (Pṓ-kĭp′-sĭ), CHIHUAHUA
(Chḗ-wä′-wä).
A road must be designated by enough points to make it unmistakable
along the entire course considered; thus:—
BIGLERVILLE—582—CENTER MILLS. (See map, A-8 and 7.) The 582 inserted
in this case keeps the course from being confused with the turn-off
toward GUERNSEY. If the course were intended to lie through GUERNSEY,
the road would appear thus,—
BIGLERVILLE—GUERNSEY—CENTER MILLS.
2. Use the words of one syllable preferably. You will find that the
longer words come to you more readily but are usually more hazy in
meaning. You will gain vigor and clearness by the cultivation of
Anglo-Saxon.
3. Do not connect two sentences by a comma; for example:—
The phrase does not imply motion, thus it would mean nothing to say
that the battery is advancing on the line Twins-Concrete Ford.
The error here is not so much one of punctuation as of sentence
idea. Somehow, the thought does not run smoothly. We find that two
separate thoughts without much relationship have been compressed into
a single sentence—into something which should be a complete whole,
and go from capital to period without break. Oftentimes, by showing
this relationship, we may bring the idea within bounds of a single
sentence; for example:—
Since the phrase does not imply motion, it would mean nothing to
say that the battery is advancing on the line, etc.
4. Watch the position of your adverbs. When you mean,—
We captured almost all the ammunition,
Do not say,—
We almost captured all the ammunition.
The first means that we captured at least a part of the ammunition;
the second means that we were close to success, but failed to capture
ammunition.
5. Use the words _head_ and _tail_ when speaking of a column of
troops. The head is the leading element and the tail is the other
end, no matter in which direction the column happens to be facing.
6. In the newspaper or book that you are reading, every time you meet
a new word make it yours. Look up the meaning in the dictionary until
you are sure that you know how to use the word.
At the first opportunity, employ it in your conversation or writing.
Sooner or later “dope” and the eternal “damn” will have ceased to
fill in endless crevices in your talk and their places will have
been taken by incisive words. You will awake to find that you are
expressing yourself more easily and plainly. On the other hand, every
word you pass over or for which you merely consult the dictionary,
is a tool cast aside in your building of an officer. Every bit of
slang or profanity which now crowds out the appropriate word will
later rise up and clog your thought at a time when you are making
your utmost endeavor to put into clear, forceful English your plan of
action or your order.
AS TO PHRASES AND CLAUSES.
Remember to place phrases and clauses nearest the words they modify.
Captain George will divide the tools equally among the battalions
_which are fit for felling timber_.
The change of the italicized clause to its proper position next the
word _tools_, gives the intended meaning.
AS TO SENTENCES.
1. Use the short complex sentence; such as:—
An attack is expected tomorrow from strong hostile forces whose
advanced troops are near FORT MONTGOMERY.
The enemy’s infantry disappeared to the south as soon as our
advance cavalry came over the hill.
The use of _when_, _since_, _because_, _where_, _whenever_,
_although_, _after_, _till_, _until_, _as_, _so long as_, _now
that_, _whence_, _whither_, _inasmuch as_, _that_, _in order that_,
_so that_, and _lest_, with the finite form of the verb is a good
construction to practice.
Notice how compact and explicit is the following:—
Lest the enemy should turn your flank, keep veering to the east.
Try to put this same thought into twelve words by means of a
different construction.
2. When you start with one kind of construction, keep it up unless
there be some good reason to change it. If you begin with the past
tense and third person, have the past tense and third person continue
throughout the sentence or sentences.
It is reported that extensive preparations are being made in the
vicinity of CAMBRAI and the enemy has stored railroad material
there.
It is reported that the enemy has made extensive preparations at
CAMBRAI and has stored railroad material there.
Which sentence reads along with less break?
Again,
It is advisable to advance part of the ammunition columns and that
the division should follow at 200 yards.
Better,
It is advisable to advance part of the ammunition columns and to
have the division follow at 200 yards.
Now that specific guides have been posted near the grammatical turns
of the road, let us look at two general rules covering everything we
do.
1. _Write legibly._—Rain, wear in the pocket, dim and fading lights,
and crumpled paper are going to make havoc of your orders and
messages in war time. Your commanding officer must be able to make
out your script as well as your meaning. Now is the moment to make
your handwriting a size or two larger and noticeably plainer.
2. _Inspect the form._ After you have written your ideas legibly,
_look at them searchingly to see that they mean only what you intend_.
You cannot be too cold-blooded about this act for two reasons.
In the first place, there is a habit which is strong upon us. We
have all been too prone to state a thing haphazardly, and then to
exclaim, “You know what I mean!” The person addressed, of course, is
not going to acknowledge that he has not the brains to understand; so
the jumble is never smoothed out. Thus in nine-tenths of our off-hand
moments we have been accustomed to say what we do _not_ mean. The
habit is so strong that when we find ourselves dealing with matters
of life and death, we are still liable to whisper to ourselves,
“O, well, he’ll get it.” The result is that the part of the order,
message, or report, which struck us as having our usual clearness,
is a puzzle to the recipient.
In the second place, the impression has grown up in the minds of many
that substance, no matter how it is mixed, is all that is necessary.
There has come about a certain proud disregard of the _manner_ in
which a thing is expressed. Too many technical books have failed of
their purpose because the writer, although he was an expert in his
line, did not know how to present his subject in an attractive form.
In the same way explanations have failed upon the drill ground, and
lectures have made excellent tacticians appear like school-boys. The
very manner of communication has not only spoiled the taste for the
subject matter but has hindered its absorption. His audience has not
understood his explanation.
In inspecting your work, take the attitude that the recipient is
skeptical of everything you have said.
* * * * *
It is assumed that you wish to fasten in your mind everything in this
chapter. The following method is suggested as the best short-cut:
1. Make an outline of the whole chapter, expressing the main idea of
each paragraph and sub-paragraph in two or three words.
2. Close your books.
3. With the aid of your outline see whether you can call to your mind
everything the paragraph or sub-paragraph means.