the gerund (i. e., the word _me_ or _my_ in _me doing_ or _my doing_)
in the possessive instead of in the objective or subjective case.
Take the typical sentence: I dislike my best friend(’s) violating my
privacy. It cannot be a true account of the matter to say that _friend_
is the object of _I dislike_, and has a participle _violating_ attached
to it. For (a) we can substitute _resent_, which never takes a personal
object, for _dislike_, without changing the sense. (b) If we substitute
a passive construction, also without changing the sense, we find that
_dislike_ has quite a different object--_privacy_.--I dislike my
privacy being violated by my friend. (c) Many of us would be willing to
adopt the sentiment conveyed who yet would not admit for a moment that
they disliked their best friend even when he intruded; they condemn the
sin, but not the sinner.
_Violating_ then is not an ordinary participle. It does not follow
yet that it is a gerund. It may be an extraordinary participle, fused
into one notion with the noun, so that _a friend violating_ means
_the-violation-by-a-friend_. The Latin scholar here at once puts in
the idiom of _occisus Caesar_, which does not generally mean _Caesar
after he was killed_, as it naturally should, but the killing of
Caesar, or the fact that Caesar had been killed. The parallel is close
(though the use is practically confined to the passive in Latin), and
familiar to all who know any Latin at all. But it shows not so much
what the English construction is as how educated people have been
able to reconcile themselves to an ambiguous and not very reasonable
idiom--not very reasonable, that is, after language has thrown off its
early limitations, and got over the first difficulty of accomplishing
abstract expression of any kind. The sort of fusion assumed is
further illustrated for the Latinist, though not so closely, by the
Latin accusative and infinitive. This theory then takes _violating_
for a participle fused into one notion with _friend_. There are two
difficulties.
I. The construction in English is, though in the nature of things not
as common, yet as easy in the passive as in the active. Now the passive
of _violating_ is either _violated_ or _being violated_. It is quite
natural to say, Privacy violated once is no longer inviolable. Why then
should it be most unnatural to say, The worst of privacy violated once
is that it is no longer inviolable? No one, not purposely seeking the
unusual for some reason or other, would omit _being_ before _violated_
in the second. Yet as participles _violated_ and _being violated_ are
equally good--not indeed always, but in this context, as the simpler
Privacy sentence shows. The only difference between the two participles
(except that in brevity, which tells against _being violated_) is that
the longer form can also be the gerund, and the shorter cannot. The
almost invariable choice of it is due to the instinctive feeling that
what we are using is or ought to be the gerund. A more convincing
instance than this mere adaptation of our original example may be added:
Many years ago I became impressed with the necessity for _our infantry
being taught and practised_ in the skilful use of their rifle.--LORD
ROBERTS.
_The necessity for our infantry taught and practised_ is absolutely
impossible. But why, _if being_ taught is participle, and not gerund?
II. Assuming that the fused-participle theory is satisfactory and
recognized, whence comes the general, though not universal impression
among those who, without being well versed in grammar, are habitually
careful how they speak and write, that constructions like the following
are ignorant vulgarisms?--It is no use he (his) doing it; it is no use
him (his) doing it; that need not prevent us (our) believing; excuse
me (my) interrupting you; a thing (thing’s) existing does not prove
that it ought to exist; I was annoyed by Tom (Tom’s) hesitating; the
Tsar (Tsar’s) leaving Russia is significant; it failed through the King
(King’s) refusing his signature; without us (our) hearing the man, the
facts cannot be got at; without the man (man’s) telling us himself, we
can never know. With a single exception for one (not both) of the first
two, none of these ought to cause a moment’s uneasiness to any one who
was consciously or unconsciously in the fused-participle frame of mind;
and if they do cause uneasiness it shows that that frame of mind is not
effectively present.
The Fused-Participle Theory, having no sufficient answer to these
objections, but seeing that the gerund’s case is also weak, naturally
tries a counter-attack:--If on the other hand the gerund theory is
satisfactory and recognized, how is it conceivable that people should
leave out the possessive _’s_ in the reckless way they do? To which,
however, the Gerund makes reply:--I regret that they do leave it out,
but at least we can see how they come to; it is the combined result of
a mistake and an inconvenience. The mistake is caused by certain types
of sentence in which a real, not a fused participle is so used that the
noun and its (unfused) participle give a sense hardly distinguishable
from a possessive noun and a gerund. Examples are:
This plan has now been abandoned owing to _circumstances requiring_
the convocation of representatives of the people at the earliest
possible moment.--_Times._
... by imposing as great difficulty as possible on _parents and
publicans using_ child messengers.--_Times._
Of course no obstacles should be put in the way of _charitable people
providing_ free or other meals if they think fit.--_Times._
The notion of _the Czar being addressed_ in such terms by the
nobility of his capital would have been regarded as an absolute
impossibility.--_Spectator._
There is of course a difference. For instance, in the example about
the Czar, as in a previous one about _conceiving Matthew Arnold
permitting_, the participle has a pictorial effect; it invites us to
imagine the physical appearance of these two great men under indignity
instead of merely thinking of the abstract indignity, as we should
have done if _Czar’s_ and _Arnold’s_ had shown that we had a gerund;
but the difference is very fine; the possessive sign might be inserted
without practical effect in all these four, and in hundreds like them.
And unlearned people may be excused for deducing that the subject of
the gerund can be used at pleasure without the possessive sign, while
the learned comfort themselves with the fused-participle theory. That
is the mistake. The inconvenience is this: it is easy enough to use the
possessive adjectives (_my_, &c.), and to add the possessive sign to
most names and many single nouns; but the subject of a gerund is often
a long phrase, after which the sign is intolerable. So the mistake
(that the gerund may have a subject not marked by the possessive)
is eagerly applied to obviating the inconvenience (that long gerund
subjects must be avoided). And that is why people drop their possessive
_’s_, and why you, the Fused Participle, flourish, defrauding both
me, the Gerund, and the honest participle. Thus answered, the Fused
Participle does not continue the argument, but pleads only that there
is room for all three forms.
Before giving some examples to help in the decision, we shall summarize
our own opinion. (1) It is not a matter to be decided by appeal
to historical grammar. All three constructions may have separate
legitimate descents, and yet in the interests of clear thought and
expression it may be better for one of them to be abandoned. (2) There
are two opposite tendencies at present: among careful writers, to
avoid the fused participle (this, being negative, can naturally not
be illustrated) and to put possessive signs in slightly uncomfortable
places by way of compensation; among slovenly writers, to throw off
all limits of length for the subject of the fused participle. (3) Long
fused-participle phrases are a variety of abstract expression, and
as such to be deprecated. Among the resources of civilization is the
power of choosing between different ways of saying the same thing; and
literary skill is very much a matter of exercising that power; a writer
should recognize that if he cannot get round an ugly fused participle
there is still much for him to learn. (4) Opportunities for ambiguity
are so abundant in English, owing to the number of words whose parsing
depends on context, that all aids to precision are valuable; and it
is not too much to expect a writer to know and let us know whether he
means a participle or a gerund.
_a._ That the possessive of all pronouns that have the form should be
used instead of the objective or subjective is hardly disputed. Correct
accordingly:
You may rely upon _me_ doing all in my power.--SIR W. HARCOURT.
The confounded fetterlock clapped on my movements by old Griffiths
prevents _me_ repairing to England in person.--SCOTT.
But when it comes to _us_ following his life and example....--_Daily
Telegraph._
Nothing can prevent _it_ being the main issue at the General
Election.--_Spectator._
One of them, if you will pardon _me_ reminding you, is that no
discussion is to pass between us.--E. F. BENSON.
Frederick had already accepted the crown, lest James should object to
_him_ doing so.--_Times._
... notwithstanding the fact that their suspicions of ease-loving,
ear-tickling parsons prevent _them_ supporting the commercial churches
of our time.--_Daily Telegraph._
_b._ Examples in which the possessive of nouns might be written without
a qualm.
Nearly a week passed over without _Mr. Fairford_ hearing a word
directly from his son.--SCOTT.
Mrs. Downe Wright had not forgiven the indignity of _her son_ having
been refused by Mary.--S. FERRIER.
In no other religion is there a thought of _man_ being saved by grace
and not by merit.--_Daily Telegraph._
And it is said that, on _a visitor_ once asking to see his library,
Descartes led him....--HUXLEY.
It is true that one of our objects was to prevent[10] _children_
‘sipping’ the liquor they were sent for.--_Times._
Orders were sometimes issued to prohibit[1a] _soldiers_ buying and
eating cucumbers.--_Times._
Renewed efforts at a settlement in 1891 failed through the
_Swedish Government_ leading off with a flippant and offensive
suggestion.--NANSEN.
Hurried reading results in _the learner_ forgetting half of what he
reads, or in _his_ forming vague conceptions.--SWEET.
_c._ All the last set involved what were either actual or virtual names
of persons; there is more difficulty with abstract nouns, compound
subjects, and words of which the possessive is ugly. Those that may
perhaps bear the possessive mark will be put first, and alterations
suggested for the others.
We look forward to _much attention_ being given.--_Times._
He affirmed that such increases were the rule in that city on _the
change_ being made.--_Times._
I live in hopes of _this discussion_ resulting in some modification
in our form of belief.--_Daily Telegraph._ (that this discussion may
result)
The real objection to the possessive here is merely the addition to the
crowd of sibilants.
In the event of _the passage_ being found, he will esteem it a favour
... (if the passage is found)
Conceive my vexation at being told by Papa this morning that he had
not the least objection to _Edward and me_ marrying whenever we
pleased.--S. FERRIER. (our)
Or, if the names are essential, _did not in the least mind how soon
Edward and I married_.
It has been replied to the absurd taunt about _the French_ inventing
nothing, that at least Descartes invented German philosophy.--MORLEY.
(Frenchmen’s)
_d._ A modern construction called the compound possessive was mentioned
at the end of the section on Cases. It is sometimes ugly, sometimes
inoffensive; that is a matter of degree and of knowing where to draw
the line; there is no objection to it in principle. And the application
of it will sometimes help out a gerund. The first quotation gives a
compound possessive simply; the second, a gerund construction to which
it ought to be applicable; the third and fourth, two to which it can be
applied; and the last, one to which it cannot.
A protestation, read at Edinburgh, was followed, on _Archibald
Johnston of Warriston’s_ suggestion, by....--J. R. GREEN.
The retirement of Judge Stonor was made the subject of special
reference yesterday on the occasion of _Sir W. L. Selfe, his
successor_, taking his seat in Marylebone County Court.--_Times._
The mere fact of _such a premier_ being endured shows....--BAGEHOT.
There is no possibility of _the dissolution of the legislative union_
becoming a vital question.--_Spectator._
If some means could be devised for ... insisting upon _many English
guardians of the poor_ making themselves more acquainted....--_Times._
The only objection to a possessive mark after _successor_ is that
the two commas cannot be dispensed with; we must say _when ...
took_ for _on the occasion of ... taking_. _Such a premier’s_ will
certainly pass. In the _Spectator_ sentence, we should ourselves
allow _union’s_; opinions will differ. But to put the _’s_ after
_poor_ in the last sentence would be ridiculous; that sentence must be
rewritten--insisting that many English guardians of the poor should
make--or else _poor-law Guardians’_ must be used.
_e._ Sometimes we can get over the difficulty without abandoning the
gerund, by some slight change of order.
This incentive can only be supplied by _the nation itself_ taking the
matter up seriously.--LORD ROBERTS.
If _itself’s_ is objected to, omit _itself_ (or shift it to the end),
and write _nation’s_.
_f._ But many types of sentence remain that will have to be completely
changed if the gerund is to be recognizable. It will be admitted about
most of our examples that the change is not to be regretted. The
subject of the gerund is italicized in each, to emphasize its length.
We have to account for _the collision of two great fleets, so equal in
material strength that the issue was thought doubtful by many careful
statisticians_, ending in the total destruction of one of them and
in the immunity of the other from damage greater than might well be
incurred in a mere skirmish.--_Times._
For _account for ... ending_ write _ascertain why ... ended_. The
sentence is radically bad, because the essential construction seems
complete at _collision_--a false scent. That, which is one of the worst
literary sins, is the frequent result of long fused participles. It is
quite practically possible here for readers to have supposed that they
were going to be told why the fleets met, and not why the meeting ended
as it did. In the remaining sentences, we shall say when there is false
scent, but leave the reader to examine it.
The success of the negotiations depends on _the Russian Minister at
Tokio_ being allowed to convince Japan that....--_Times._
The compound possessive--Tokio’s--is tempting, but perhaps overbold.
Insert _whether_ after _depends on_, and write _is_ for _being_.
So far from _this_ being the case, the policy ... was actually decided
upon before ... the question ... was raised.--_Times._
Omit _being the case_.
We are not without tokens of _an openness for this higher truth also,
of a keen though uncultivated sense for it_, having existed in
Burns.--CARLYLE.
For the first _of_ write _that_, omit the second _of_, and omit
_having_. False scent.
There is no apparent evidence of _an early peace_ being necessitated
by the pecuniary exigencies of the Russian Government.--SIR HOWARD
VINCENT.
For _of ... being_ write _that ... will be_, if _peace’s_ cannot be
endured.
The general effect of his words was to show the absurdity of _the
Secretary of State for War, and our military authorities generally_,
denouncing the Militia as useless or redundant.--_Spectator._
For _the absurdity of ... denouncing_ write _how absurd it was for ...
to denounce_. False scent, though less deceptive.
Apparently his mission was decided upon without _that of the British
and Spanish Ministers_ having been taken into account, or, at all
events, without their having been sufficiently reckoned with.--_Times._
Without regard (at all events without sufficient regard) to that of....
... capital seeking employment in foreign protected countries, in
consequence of _manufacturing business in many branches in which it
might be employed at home_ being rendered unprofitable by our system
of free trade.--LORD GOSCHEN.
For _in consequence of ... being_ write _because ... has been_. Bad
false scent again.
So far from _the relief given to agriculture by the State paying
one-half of the rates_ being inequitable, it is but a bare act of
justice.--_Spectator._
Observe the fused participle within fused participle here; and read
thus: So far from its being inequitable that the state should relieve,
&c.
After these specimens, chosen not as exceptional ones, but merely as
not admitting of simple correction by insertion of the possessive mark,
the reader will perhaps agree that the long gerund subject--or rather
noun phrase of the fused participle--is a monstrosity, the abolition of
which would be a relief to him, and good discipline for the writer.
Two sentences are added to show the chaotic state of present practice.
Noticing the bold use of the strict gerund in the first, we conclude
that the author is a sound gerundite, faithful in spite of all
temptations; but a few pages later comes the needless relapse into
fused participle.
I remember old _Colney’s_ once, in old days, _calling_ that kind of
marriage a sarcophagus.--MEREDITH.
She had thought in her heart that _Mr. Barmby espousing_ the girl
would smoothe a troubled prospect.--MEREDITH.
The following looks like a deliberate avoidance of both constructions
by a writer who is undecided between the two. _Its being_ is what
should have been written.
I do not say that the advice is not sound, or complain that it is
given. I do deprecate _that it should be_ taken.--_Times._
And perhaps a shyness of _something’s being shown_ accounts for the
next odd arrangement; it is true that entire recasting is what is
called for.
_There being shown to be something_ radically defective in the
management of the Bank _led_ to the appointment of a Committee.--H. D.
MACLEOD.
=2. When must the subject of the gerund (or infinitive) be expressed,
and when omitted?=
This is not a controversial matter like the last; the principles are
quite simple, and will be accepted; but it is necessary to state and
illustrate them because they are often forgotten. As the same mistakes
are sometimes made with the infinitive, that is to be considered as
included.
Roughly, the subject of the gerund (or infinitive) should be expressed
if it is different from, and omitted if it is the same as, the subject
of the sentence. To omit it when different is positively wrong, and may
produce actual ambiguity or worse, though sometimes there is only a
slipshod effect; to insert it when the same is generally clumsy.
No one would say ‘I succeeded to his property upon dying’, because, _I_
being the subject of the sentence, _my_ is naturally suggested instead
of the necessary _his_ as subject of the gerund; the _his_ must be
inserted before _dying_, even though the nature of the case obviates
ambiguity. To take an instance that will show both sides, the following
is correct:
I shut the door and stood with my back to it. Then, instead of _his
philandering_ with Bess, I, Clementina MacTaggart, had some plain
speech with John Barnaby.--CROCKETT.
Subject of the sentence, I; subject of the gerund, he; they are
different; therefore the _he_ must be expressed, in the shape of
_his_. Now rewrite the main sentence as--John Barnaby heard some plain
speech from me, Clementina MacTaggart. The sense is the same; but the
_his_ before _philandering_ at once becomes superfluous; it is not
yet seriously in the way, because we do not know what is the subject
of _philandering_, the name only coming later. Now rewrite it again
as--Then John Barnaby heard some plain speech from ... instead of ...
The _his_ is now so clumsy as to be almost impossible.
The insertion of superfluous subjects is much less common than the
omission of necessary ones; but three examples follow. The first is a
rare and precious variety; the second has no apparent justification;
for the third it may be said that the unusual _his_ has the same effect
as the insertion of the parenthetic words _as he actually does_ after
_limiting_ would have had.
You took food to him, but instead of _he reaching_ out his hand and
taking it, he kept asking for food.--_Daily Telegraph._
Harsh facts: sure as she was of _her_ never _losing_ her filial hold
of the beloved.--MEREDITH.
I have said that Mr. Chamberlain has no warrant for _his limiting_ the
phrase ... to the competitive manufacture of goods.--LORD GOSCHEN.
In giving the rule summarily, we used the phrase _subject of the
sentence_. That phrase is not to be confined to the subject of the main
sentence, but to be referred instead, when necessary, to the subject of
the subordinate clause in which the gerund may stand. For instance:
The good, the illuminated, sit apart from the rest, censuring their
dullness and vices, as if they thought that, _by sitting_ very grand
in their chairs, the very brokers, attorneys, and congressmen would
see the error of their ways, and flock to them.--EMERSON.
Here _by sitting_ breaks the rule, though the subject of _sitting_
is the same as that of the main verb _sit_, because the subject of
the clause in which _sitting_ comes is not _the good_, but _brokers,
&c._ The right way to mend this is not to insert _their_ before
_sitting_--which after all is clumsy, though correct--but to make _the
good_ the subject of the clause also, by writing _as if they thought
that by sitting ... they would make the brokers ... see the error_.
And sometimes _subject of the sentence_ is to be interpreted still more
freely as the word grammatically dominant in the part of the sentence
that contains the gerund. For instance:
From the Bible alone was she taught the duties of morality, but
familiarized to her taste _by hearing_ its stories and precepts from
the lips she best loved.--S. FERRIER.
Here the dominant word is _Bible_, to which _familiarized_ belongs. So,
though _she_ does happen to be the main subject, _her_ must be inserted
because the _familiarized_ phrase removes the gerund from the reach of
the main subject.
After these explanations we add miscellaneous instances. It will be
seen that transgression of the rule, though it seldom makes a sentence
ambiguous enough to deceive, easily makes it ambiguous enough to amuse
the reader at wrong moments, or gives an impression of amateurish work.
Mistakes are mended, sometimes by inserting the subject of the gerund
(or infinitive), sometimes by changing the main subject to make it the
same as that of the gerund, sometimes by other recasting.
... an excellent arrangement for a breeching, which, when released,
remains with the carriage, so that lead or centre horses can be put in
the wheel _without having_ to affix a new breeching.--_Times._
Lucky, reflects the reader, since horses are not good at affixing
breechings. Write _the drivers can put ... horses ... without having to
affix_.
I cultivated a passionless and cold exterior, for I discovered that
_by assuming_ such a character, certain otherwise crafty persons
would talk more readily before me.--CORELLI.
Write _if I assumed_; or else _I should induce certain ... persons
to talk_. It will be noticed that the mistake here, and often, is
analogous to the most frequent form of wrongly attached participle
(participle, 5); the writer does not observe that he has practically
passed from the sphere of the sentence whose subject was the word that
he still allows to operate.
_After following_ a country Church of England clergyman for a period
of half a century, a newly-appointed, youthful vicar, totally
unacquainted with rural life, comes into the parish, and at once
commences to alter the services of the Church, believed in by the
parishioners for generations.--_Daily Telegraph._
Grammar gives _his_, i. e., the new vicar’s, as subject of _following_;
it is really either _my_ or _the parishioners’_. Insert _my_ or _our_,
or write _After we (I) have followed_.
I am sensible that _by conniving_ at it it will take too deep root
ever to be eradicated.--_Times._
Insert _our_, or write _if connived at_.
This was experienced by certain sensitive temperaments, either by
sensations which produced shivering, or _by seeing_ at night a
peculiar light in the air.--_Times._
Who or what sees? Certainly not _this_, the main subject. Not even
_temperaments_, which have no eyes. Write _Persons of sensitive
temperament experienced this, &c._
But the commercial interests of both Great Britain and the United
States were too closely affected by the terms of the Russo-Chinese
agreement _to let_ it pass unnoticed.--_Times._
It is not the interests that cannot let it pass, but the countries.
Insert _for those countries_ before _to let_; or write _Both Great
Britain and the United States were too closely affected in their
interests to let...._
And it would be well for all concerned, for motor drivers and the
public alike, if this were made law, instead of _fixing_ a maximum
speed.--_Times._
Write _if the law required this...._
And _in order to bring_ her to a right understanding, she underwent a
system of persecution.--S. FERRIER.
Write _they subjected her to_ for _she underwent_.
Her friendship is too precious to me, not _to doubt_ my own merits on
the one hand, and not to be anxious for the preservation of it on the
other.--RICHARDSON.
Write _I value her friendship too highly not to...._
One cannot do good to a man whose mouth has been gagged _in order not
to hear_ what he desires for his welfare.--_Times._
Grammar suggests that his mouth--or, if indulgent, that he--is not to
hear; but the person meant is _one_. Write _one has gagged_ for _has
been gagged_.
Germany has, alas! victories enough _not to add_ one of the kind which
would have been implied in the retirement of M. Delcassé.--_Times._
It is France, not Germany, that should not add. Write _without France’s
adding_.
_In order to obtain_ peace, ordinary battles followed by ordinary
victories and ordinary results will only lead to a useless
prolongation of the struggle.--_Times._
This is a triumph of inconsequence. Write _If peace is the object, it
should be remembered that ordinary...._
It will have occurred to the reader that, while most of the sentences
quoted are to be condemned, objection to a few of them might be called
pedantic. The fact is that every writer probably breaks the rule
often, and escapes notice, other people’s, his own, or both. Different
readers, however, will be critical in different degrees; and whoever
breaks the rule does so at his own risk; if his offence is noticed,
that is hanging evidence against him by itself; if it is not noticed,
it is not an offence. Of saying on page 127 _Mistakes are mended
sometimes by inserting the subject_, we plead Guilty if we were caught
in the act, but otherwise Not Guilty.
=3. Choice between the gerund with preposition and the infinitive.=
It was said in the preliminary section on the Participle and Gerund
that _writing_--the verbal noun or gerund--and _to write_--the
infinitive--are in some sense synonyms; but phrases were given showing
that it is by no means always indifferent which of the two is used. It
is a matter of idiom rather than of grammar; but this seems the most
convenient place for drawing attention to it. To give satisfactory
rules would require many more examples and much more space than can
be afforded. But something will be gained if students are convinced
(1) that many of the mistakes made give sentences the appearance of
having been written by a foreigner or one who is not at home with the
literary language; (2) that the mistakes are nearly always on one side,
the infinitive being the form that should only be used with caution;
(3) that a slight change in arrangement may require a change from
infinitive to gerund or vice versa.
_a._ When the infinitive or gerund is attached to a noun, defining
or answering the question _what_ (hope, &c.) about it, it is almost
always better to use the gerund with of; not quite always, however; for
instance, _an intention to return_, usually, and _a tendency to think_
always.
The vain _hope to be understood_ by everybody possessed of a ballot
makes us in the United States perhaps guiltier than public men in
Great Britain in the use of that monstrous muddled dichotomy ‘capital
and labour’.--_Times._
What hope?--That of being understood. Write it so, and treat all the
following similarly:
The habitual _necessity to amass_ [of amassing] matter for the weekly
sermon, set him noting...--MEREDITH.
We wish to be among the first to felicitate Mr. Whitelaw Reid upon
his _opportunity to exercise_ [of exercising] again the distinguished
talents which...--_Times._
Men lie twenty times in as many hours in the _hope to propitiate_ [of
propitiating] you.--CORELLI.
We left the mound in the twilight, with the _design to return_ [of
returning] the next morning.--EMERSON.
The main duties of government were omitted--the _duty to instruct_ [of
instructing] the ignorant, _to supply_ [of supplying] the poor with
work and good guidance.--EMERSON.
Mr. Hay’s _purpose to preserve or restore_ [of preserving or
restoring] the integrity of the administrative entity of China has
never been abandoned.--_Times._
My _custom to be dressed_ [of being dressed] for the day, as
soon as breakfast is over, ... will make such a step less
suspected.--RICHARDSON.
He points out that if Russia accepted the agreement, she would not
attain her _object to clear_ [of clearing] the situation, inasmuch
as....--_Times._
What accounts for these mistakes is the analogy of forms like: Our
design was to return; it is a duty to instruct; man has power to
interpret (but _the_ power of interpreting); it is my custom to be
dressed.
When, however, the noun thus defined is more or less closely fused into
a single idea with the verb that governs it, the infinitive becomes
legitimate, though seldom necessary.
The menace to have secreted Solmes, and that other, that I _had
thoughts to run away_ with her foolish brother, ... so much terrified
the dear creature....--RICHARDSON.
I passed my childhood here, and _had a weakness here to close_ my
life.--BEACONSFIELD.
Before ten o’clock in the evening, Gasca _had the satisfaction to see_
the bridge so well secured that....--PRESCOTT.
Almagro’s followers _made as little scruple to appropriate_ to their
own use such horses and arms as they could find.--PRESCOTT.
_Had thoughts_ means _was planning_; _had a weakness_ means _desired_;
_had the satisfaction_, _was pleased_; _made as little scruple_,
_scrupled as little_.
Again, an interval between the noun defined and the infinitive or
gerund makes the former more tolerable.
_The necessity_ which has confronted the Tokio War Office, _to
enlarge_ their views of the requirements of the situation.--_Times._
Or the infinitive is used to avoid a multiplication of _of_.
He had as much as any man ever had that _gift_ of a great preacher _to
make_ the oratorical fervour which persuades himself while it lasts
into the abiding conviction of his hearers.--LOWELL.
The pastures of Tartary were still remembered by the tenacious
_practice_ of the Norsemen _to eat_ horseflesh at religious
feasts.--EMERSON.
If the noun has the indefinite article the infinitive is better
sometimes.
But our recognition of it implies a corresponding _duty to make_ the
most of such advantages.--_Times._
_A_ duty to make: _the_ duty of making. Compare _power_ and _the power_
above.
The following is probably an adaptation (not to be commended) of _it is
necessary for Russia to secure_--_for Russia to secure_ being regarded
as a fused infinitive like the Latin accusative and infinitive.
His views on the _necessity_ for Russia _to secure_ the command of the
sea....--_Times._
_b._ Though the gerund with _of_ is the usual construction after nouns,
they sometimes prefer the gerund with other prepositions also to the
infinitive. The gerund with _in_ should be used, for instance, in the
following. But euphony operates again in the first.
... the extraordinary _remissness_ of the English commanders _to
utilize_ their preponderating strength against the Boers.--_Times._
Lord Kenyon reminded the House of the resistance met with to
vaccination, to [of?] the possible _effect_ of the proposal _to
increase_ that resistance....--_Times._
I think sculpture and painting have an _effect to teach_ us manners
and abolish hurry.--EMERSON.
Such a capitulation would be inconsistent with the position of any
Great Power, independently of the _humiliation_ there would be for
England and France _to submit_ their agreement for approval and
perhaps modification to Germany.--_Times._
The humiliation there would be in submitting; or the humiliation it
would be to submit.
_c._ After verbs and adjectives the infinitive is much more common; but
no one will use a gerund where an infinitive is required, while many
will do the reverse.
But history _accords_ with the Japanese practice _to show_ [in
showing] that....--_Times._
We must necessarily appeal to the intuition, and _aim_ much
more _to suggest_ than _to describe_ [at suggesting than at
describing].--EMERSON.
But they can only highly serve us, when they _aim_ not _to drill_, but
_to create_ [at drilling, but at creating].--EMERSON.
So far from _aiming to be_ mistress of Europe, she was rapidly sinking
into the almost helpless prey of France.--J. R. GREEN.
This is to avoid _aiming at be_ing; compare the avoidance of double
_of_ above.
_Lose no time_, I pray you, _to advise_.--RICHARDSON.
_In advising_ may have been avoided as ambiguous.
Egotism has its root in the cardinal necessity by which each
individual _persists to be_ [in being] what he is.--EMERSON.
I do not _despair to see_ [of seeing] a motor public
service.--_Guernsey Advertiser._
Their journeymen are far too declamatory, and too much _addicted to
substitute_ [substituting] vague and puerile dissertations for solid
instruction.--MORLEY.
In the common phrase _addicted to drink_, drink is a noun, not a verb.
His blackguard countrymen, always _averse_, as their descendants
are, _to give_ [giving] credit to anybody, for any valuable
quality.--BORROW.
Is he _to be blamed_, if he thinks a person would make a wife worth
having, _to endeavour_ [for endeavouring] to obtain her?--RICHARDSON.
_d._ If a deferred subject, anticipated by _it_, is to be verbal, it
must of course be either the infinitive or a gerund without preposition.
Fortune, who has generally been ready to gratify my inclinations,
provided _it_ cost her very little _by so doing_....--BORROW.
SHALL AND WILL
It is unfortunate that the idiomatic use, while it comes by nature to
southern Englishmen (who will find most of this section superfluous),
is so complicated that those who are not to the manner born can hardly
acquire it; and for them the section is in danger of being useless. In
apology for the length of these remarks it must be said that the short
and simple directions often given are worse than useless. The observant
reader soon loses faith in them from their constant failure to take him
right; and the unobservant is the victim of false security.
Roughly speaking, _should_ follows the same rules as _shall_, and
_would_ as _will_; in what follows, Sh. may be taken as an abbreviation
for _shall_, _should_, and _should have_, and W. for _will_, _would_,
and _would have_.
In our usage of the Sh. and W. forms, as seen in principal sentences,
there are elements belonging to three systems. The first of these, in
which each form retains its full original meaning, and the two are
not used to give different persons of the same tense, we shall call
the pure system: the other two, both hybrids, will be called, one the
coloured-future, the other the plain-future system. In Old English
there was no separate future; present and future were one. _Shall_
and _will_ were the presents of two verbs, to which belong also the
pasts _should_ and _would_, the conditionals _should_ and _would_, and
the past conditionals _should have_ and _would have_. _Shall_ had the
meaning of command or obligation, and _will_ of wish. But as commands
and wishes are concerned mainly with the future, it was natural that
a future tense auxiliary should be developed out of these two verbs.
The coloured future results from the application to future time of
those forms that were practically useful in the pure system; they
consequently retain in the coloured future, with some modifications,
the ideas of command and wish proper to the original verbs. The plain
future results from the taking of those forms that were practically
out of work in the pure system to make what had not before existed,
a simple future tense; these have accordingly not retained the ideas
of command and wish. Which were the practically useful and which the
superfluous forms in the pure system must now be explained.
_Thou shall not steal_ is the type of _shall_ in the pure system. We
do not ordinarily issue commands to ourselves; consequently _I shall_
is hardly required; but we often ask for orders, and therefore _shall
I?_ is required. The form of the _shall_ present in the pure system is
accordingly:
Shall I? You shall. He shall. Shall we? They shall.
As to the past tense, orders cannot be given, but may be asked about,
so that, for instance, _What should I do?_ (i. e., What was I to do?)
can be done all through interrogatively.
In the conditionals, both statement and question can be done all
through. I can give orders to my imaginary, though not to my actual
self. I cannot say (as a command) _I shall do it_; but I can say, as a
conditional command, _I should do it_.
_I shall_ and _we shall_ are accordingly the superfluous forms of the
present _shall_ in the pure system.
Again, with _will_, _I will_ meaning _it is my will_, it is obvious
that we can generally state this only of ourselves; we do not know the
inside of other people’s minds, but we can ask about it. The present
runs, then,
I will. Will you? Will he? We will. Will they?
The past tense can here be done all through, both positively and
interrogatively. For though we cannot tell other people’s present will,
we can often infer their past will from their actions. So (I was asked,
but) _I would not_, and _Why would I do it?_ all through. And similarly
in the conditionals, _I would not_ (if I could), &c.
The spare forms supplied by the present _will_, then, are _you will_,
_he will_, _they will_; and these, with _I shall_, _we shall_, are
ready, when the simple future is required, to construct it out of. We
can now give
Rule 1. The Pure System
When Sh. and W. retain the full original meanings of command and wish,
each of them is used in all three persons, so far as it is required.
The following examples show most of what we inherit directly from the
pure system.
Thou shalt not steal. Not required in first person.
Shall I open the door? Not required in second.
You should not say such things. In all persons.
And shall Trelawny die? Hardly required in second.
Whom should he meet but Jones? (... was it his fate....) In all.
Why should you suspect me? In all.
It should seem so. (It would apparently be incumbent on us to believe)
Isolated idiom with third.
I will have my way. Not required in second and third; but see below.
I (he) asked him (me) to do it, but he (I) would not. In all.
I would not have done it for the world. In all.
I would be told to wait a while (Habitual). In all.
Will you come with me? Not required in first.
I would I were dead. Not required in second and third.
He will bite his nails, whatever I say. In all.
He will often stand on his head. In all.
You will still be talking (i. e., you always are). Not required in
first.
A coat will last two years with care.
It will be noticed that the last four forms are among those that were
omitted as not required by the pure system. _Will_ would rarely be
required in second and third person statements, but would of course be
possible in favourable circumstances, as in describing habitual action,
where the will of another may be inferred from past experience. The
last of all is a natural extension of the idiom even to things that
have no will. All these ‘habitual’ uses are quite different from _I
will have my way_; and though _you will have your way_ is possible,
it always has the ‘habitual’ meaning, which _I will have my way_ is
usually without.
All the forms in the above list, and others like them, have three
peculiarities--that they are not practically futures as distinguished
from presents; that they use Sh. for all persons, or W. for all
persons, if the idea is appropriate to all persons; and that the
ideas are simply, or with very little extension, those of command or
obligation and wish.
* * * * *
The coloured-future system is so called because, while the future sense
is more distinct, it is still coloured with the speaker’s mood; command
and wish receive extensions and include promise, permission, menace,
consent, assurance, intention, refusal, offer, &c.; and the forms
used are invariably those--from both Sh. and W.--that we called the
practically useful ones in the pure system. That is, we have always
I will, shall I? You shall, will you? He shall, will he? We will,
shall we? They shall, will they?
And the conditionals, _should_ and _would_, _should have_ and _would
have_, are used with exactly the same variations. It will be borne in
mind, however, that no clear line of division can be drawn between
the pure system and the coloured-future system, since the latter
is developed naturally (whereas the plain-future system is rather
developed artificially) out of the former. And especially the questions
of the coloured future are simply those of the pure system without any
sort of modification.
Rule 2. The Coloured-Future System
In future and conditional statements that include (without the use of
special words for the purpose) an expression of the speaker’s (not
necessarily of the subject’s) wish, intention, menace, assurance,
consent, refusal, promise, offer, permission, command, &c.--in such
sentences the first person has W., the second and third persons Sh.
I will tell you presently. My promise.
You shall repent it before long. My menace.
He shall not have any. My refusal.
We would go if we could. Our conditional intention.
You should do it if we could make you. Our conditional command.
They should have had it if they had asked. My conditional consent.
The only questions possible here are the asking for orders and the
requests already disposed of under Rule 1.
Observe that _I would like_ (which is not English) is not justified by
this rule, because the speaker’s mood is expressed by _like_, and does
not need double expression; it ought to be _I should like_, under Rule
3.
Observe also that _I sha’n’t_, _You will go to your room and stay
there_, are only apparent exceptions, which will be explained under
Rule 3.
The archaic literary forms _You shall find_, _A rogue shall often
pass for an honest man_, though now affected and pretentious, are
grammatically defensible. The speaker asks us to take the fact on his
personal assurance.
The forms little required in the pure system, and therefore ready to
hand for making the new plain future, were _I_, and _we_, _shall_;
_you_, _he_, and _they_, _will_. These accordingly constitute the plain
future, and the corresponding forms of the plain conditional are used
analogously. Questions follow the same rule, with one very important
exception, which will be given a separate rule (4). We now give
Rule 3. The Plain-Future System
In plain statements about the future, and in the principal clause,
result, or apodosis, of plain conditional sentences (whether the
subordinate clause, condition, or _if_-clause, is expressed or not),
the first person has Sh., the second and third persons W. Questions
conform, except those of the second person, for which see Rule 4.
I shall, you will, die some day.
Shall I, will they, be here to-morrow?
We should, he would, have consented if you had asked.
Should we, would he, have missed you if you had been there?
I should, you would, like a bathe.
Should I, would he, like it myself, himself?
Some apparent exceptions, already anticipated, must here be explained.
It may be said that _I shall execute your orders_ being the speaker’s
promise, _You will go to your room_ being the speaker’s command, and
_Sha’n’t_ (the nursery abbreviation for _I shall not do it_) being the
speaker’s refusal, these are all coloured futures, so that Sh. and
W. should be reversed in each. They are such in effect, but they are
not in form. In each, the other form would be possible and correct.
The first is a promise only so far as the hearer chooses to take as
a promise the plain future or impersonal prophecy; but the speaker
emphasizes his obedience by implying that of course, since the order
has been given, it will be executed; the matter is settled without
his unimportant consent. The other two gain force by the opposite
assumption that the speaker’s will and the future are absolutely
identical, so that what he intends may be confidently stated as a
future fact. In the first example the desired submissiveness, in the
other two the desired imperiousness, supercilious or passionate, are
attained by the same impersonality.
Before giving the rule for second-person questions, we observe that
questions generally follow the rule of the class of statement they
correspond to. This was shown in the pure system (Rule 1). There are
no questions (apart from those already accounted for by the pure
system) belonging to the coloured future (Rule 2). In the plain future
(Rule 3), first and third person questions are like the plain-future
statements. But second-person questions under the plain future
invariably use Sh. or W. according as the answer for which the speaker
is prepared has Sh. or W. Care is necessary, however, in deciding
what that answer is. In _Should (would) you like a bathe?_ _should_
is almost always right, because the answer expected is almost always
either _Yes, I should_, or _No, I should not_, the question being
asked for real information. It is true that _Would you like?_ is very
commonly used, like the equally wrong _I would like_; but it is only
correct when the answer is intended to be given by the asker:--_No, of
course you would not._ A clearer illustration of this is the following
sentence, which requires Sh. or W. according to circumstances: _Will
(shall) you, now so fresh and fair, be in a hundred years nothing but
mouldering dust?_. This might possibly be asked in expectation of
an answer from the person apostrophized--_Yes, I shall._ Much more
probably it would be asked in expectation of the answer from the
speaker himself to his own question--_Alas! yes, you will._ And _shall_
ought to be used for the question only in the first case, _will_ in
the second case. Similarly, _Ah, yes, that is all very well; but will
(shall) you be able to do it?_ Use _will_ if the answer is meant to be
_No, of course you will not_; _shall_, if the answer expected is _Yes,
I shall_, or _No, I shall not_.
In practice, Sh. is more commonly required, because questions asked
for information are commoner than rhetorical ones. But observe the
common _Would you believe it?_, Answer, _No, of course you would not._
_Should you believe it?_, also possible, would indicate real curiosity
about the other person’s state of mind, which is hardly ever felt.
_Would you believe it?_, however, might also be accounted for on the
ground that the answer would be _No, I would not_, which would be a
coloured-future form, meaning _I should never consent to believe_.
Rule 4. Second-person Questions
Second-person questions invariably have Sh. or W. by assimilation to
the answer expected.
It may be added, since it makes the application of the rule easier,
that the second-person questions belonging not to the plain future but
to the pure system are also, though not because of assimilation, the
same in regard to Sh. and W. as their answers. Thus _Will you come?_
_Yes, I will_ (each on its merits), as well as _Shall you be there?_
_Yes, I shall_ (assimilation). _Should you not have known?_ _Yes, I
should_ (each on its merits; _should_ means _ought_), as well as _What
should you think?_ _I should think you were right_ (assimilation). The
true form for all second-person questions, then, can be ascertained by
deciding what the expected answer is.
This completes what need be said about principal sentences, with the
exception of one important usage that might cause perplexity. If
some one says to me ‘You would think so yourself if you were in my
position’, I may either answer ‘No, I should not’ regularly, or may
catch up his word, and retain the W., though the alteration of person
requires Sh. Thus--‘Would I, though? No, I wouldn’t’. Accordingly,
Rule 5. Echoes
A speaker repeating and adapting another’s words may neglect to make
the alteration from Sh. to W., or from W. to Sh., that an alteration of
the person strictly requires.
We have now all the necessary rules for principal sentences, and can
put down a few examples of the right usage, noteworthy for various
reasons, and some blunders, the latter being illustrated in proportion
to their commonness. The number of the rule observed or broken will be
added in brackets for reference. The passage from Johnson with which
the correct examples begin is instructive.
_Right._
I would (2) injure no man, and should (3) provoke no resentment;
I would (2) relieve every distress, and should (3) enjoy the
benedictions of gratitude. I would (2) choose my friends among the
wise, and my wife among the virtuous; and therefore should (3) be in
no danger from treachery or unkindness. My children should (2) by my
care be learned and pious, and would (3) repay to my age what their
childhood had received.--JOHNSON.
Chatham, it should (1) seem, ought to have taken the same
side.--MACAULAY.
For instance, when we allege, that it is against reason to tax a
people under so many restraints in trade as the Americans, the noble
lord in the blue riband shall (2) tell you....--BURKE.
The ‘critic fly’, if it do but alight on any plinth or single
cornice of a brave stately building, shall (2) be able to declare,
with its half-inch vision, that here is a speck, and there an
inequality.--CARLYLE.
John, why should you waste yourself (1) upon those ugly giggling
girls?--R. G. WHITE.
It wouldn’t be quite proper to take her alone, would it? What should
(4) you say?--R. G. WHITE.
Whether I have attained this, the future shall decide (2. I consent to
accept the verdict of the future).--_Times._
_Wrong._
We give first many examples of the mistake that is out of all
proportion the commonest--using the coloured future when the speaker’s
mood is sufficiently given by a separate word. In the second example,
for instance, _I would ask the favour_ would be quite right, and would
mean _I should like to ask_. As it stands, it means _I should like to
like to ask_. The same applies to the other instances, which are only
multiplied to show how dangerous this particular form is.
Among these ... I would be inclined to place (3) those who acquiesce
in the phenomenalism of Mr. Herbert Spencer.--_Daily Telegraph._
As one of the founders of the Navy League, I would like (3) to ask the
favour of your well-known courtesy....--_Times._
I would be glad (3) to have some account of his behaviour.--RICHARDSON.
I would like (3) also to talk with you about the thing which has come
to pass.--JOWETT.
But give your definition of romance. I would like to hear it (3).--F.
M. CRAWFORD.
These are typical of thousands of paragraphs in the newspaper.... We
would (3) wish for brighter news.--_Westminster Gazette._
I have already had some offers of assistance, and I would be glad (3)
to receive any amount towards the object.--_Times._
Some examples follow that have not this excuse; and the first two
deserve comment--the first because it results in serious ambiguity, the
second because it is possibly not wrong.
The two fleets present seven Russian battleships against four
Japanese--less than two to one; two Russian armoured cruisers against
eight, and seven Russian torpedo-boat destroyers against an indefinite
number of the enemy. Here we will (3) not exaggerate in attributing to
the Japanese three or four to one.--MAHAN.
With _will_, the meaning must be: We won’t call them three or four to
one, because that would be exaggeration. But the meaning is intended to
be: We will call them that, and it will be no exaggeration. _Shall_ is
absolutely necessary, however, to make it bear that interpretation.
This character who delights us may commit murder like Macbeth, or fly
the battle for his sweetheart as did Antony, or betray his country
like Coriolanus, and yet we will rejoice (3) in every happiness that
comes to him.--W. B. YEATS.
It is possible that this is the use of _will_ described as the
‘habitual’ use--he will often stand on his head--under Rule 1. But this
is very rare, though admissible, in the first person of the present.
_We shall rejoice_, or simply _we rejoice_, would be the plain way of
saying it.
If this passion was simply painful, we would (3) shun with the
greatest care all persons and places that could excite such a
passion.--BURKE.
What would (3) we be without our appetites?--S. FERRIER.
If I was ever to be detected, I would (3) have nothing for it but to
drown myself.--S. FERRIER.
I will (3) never forget, in the year 1858, one notorious
revivalist.--_Daily Telegraph._
As long as I am free from all resentment, hardness, and scorn, I would
(3) be able to face the life with much more calm and confidence than I
would....--WILDE.
In the next two, if ‘I think’, and the _if_-clause, were removed, the
_shall_ and _will_ would stand, expressing resolve according to Rule 2.
But with those additions it is clear that prophecy or pure future is
meant; and _shall_ and _will_ should be _will_ and _shall_.
Nothing, I think, shall ever make me (3) forgive him.--RICHARDSON.
We were victorious in 1812, and we will (3) be victorious now at any
cost, if we are strong in an alliance between the governing class and
the governed.--_Times._
=We now proceed to Subordinate Clauses, and first to the Substantival.=
The word ‘reported’ will mean ‘made indirect’ or ‘subordinated
substantivally’, not always actually reported.
=Reported statement= is quite simple when it is of the pure system
or the coloured future; the Sh. or W. of the original statement is
retained in the reported form, unaffected by any change of person that
the reporting involves. Thus: (Pure system) _He forgave me_ (_you_,
or _her_), _though he said I_ (_you_, or _she_) _should not have
left him in the lurch like that._ (Coloured future) _You said I_ (or
_he_) _should repent it_; either of these is a report of either _You
shall repent it_ or _He shall repent it_. (Coloured future) _You said
you_ (or _I said I_) _would apologize_; both are reports of _I will
apologize_.
But with the plain-future system there is difficulty and some
inconsistency. The change of person sometimes required by reported
speech has almost always the effect here of introducing Sh. if _I_
or _we_ appears in the words as reported, and usually the effect of
introducing W. if _you_, _he_, or _they_, appears. The following are
all the types in which doubt can arise, except that each of these may
occur in either number, and in past or present. The form that would be
required by analogy (keeping the original Sh. or W.) is given first,
and the one generally used instead is added in brackets. Reporting _I
shall never succeed_, we get
You said you should (would) never succeed.
He says he shall (will) never succeed.
Reporting _you will_ (or _he will_) _never succeed_, we get
You say I will (shall) never succeed.
He said I would (should) never succeed.
Even those persons who have generally a just confidence in their own
correctness about Sh. and W. will allow that they have some doubt about
the first pair; and nearly every one will find W. in the second pair,
however reasonable and consistent, intolerable.
If the reader will now go through the four sentences again, and
substitute for _succeed_ the phrase _do it_ (which may or may not mean
_succeed_), he will see that the orthodox _should_ and _shall_ of the
first pair become actually more natural than the commoner _would_ and
_will_; and that even in the second pair _will_ and _would_ are now
tolerable. The reason is that with _do it_ there is risk of confusion
with the reported forms of _I will never do it_ and _you shall never
do it_, which are not plain futures, but coloured futures meaning
something quite different.
=Reported questions= present the same difficulties. Again those only
are doubtful that belong to the plain future. There, for instance,
reporting _Shall you do it?_ we can say by the correct analogy _I asked
him whether he should_; and we generally do so if the verb, as here,
lends itself to ambiguity: _I asked him whether he would do it_ is
liable to be mistaken for the report of _Will you do it?_--a request.
If on the other hand (as in reporting _Shall you be there?_) there is
little risk of misunderstanding, _I asked him whether he would_ is
commoner. And again it is only in extreme cases, if even then, that
the original W. can be kept when the report introduces _I_ in place
of the original question’s _you_ or _he_. For instance, the original
question being _How will he be treated?_, it may be just possible
to say _You had made up your mind how I would be treated_, because
_You had made up your mind how I should be treated_ almost inevitably
suggests (assisted by the ambiguity of _making up your mind_, which may
imply either resolve or inference) that the original question was _How
shall he be treated?_
It would be well, perhaps, if writers who take their responsibilities
seriously would stretch a point sometimes to keep the more consistent
and less ambiguous usage alive; but for practical purposes the rule
must run:
Rule 6. Substantival Clauses.
In these (whether ‘reported’ strictly or otherwise subordinated)
pure-system or coloured-future forms invariably keep the Sh. or W. of
the original statement or question, unaffected by any change of person.
Reports of plain-future forms do this also, if there would be serious
danger of ambiguity, but almost always have Sh. in the first person,
and usually W. in the second and third persons.
As the division of substantival clauses into indirect (or reported
or subordinate or oblique) statements, questions, _and commands_,
is familiar, it may be well to explain that in English the reported
command strictly so called hardly exists. In what has the force of
a reported command it is in fact a statement that is reported. For
instance, _He said I was to go_, though used as the indirect form of
_Go_, is really the indirect of the statement _You are to go_. _He
ordered that they should be released_ (though the actual words were _Be
they_, or _Let them be, released_) is formed on the coloured-future
statement, _They shall be released_. It is therefore unnecessary to
give special rules for reported command. But there are one or two types
of apparent indirect command about which, though there is no danger of
error, the reader may feel curious.
a. _I stipulate that I shall, you shall, he shall, do it._ Why _shall_
in all persons? because the original form is: _I_ (_you_, _he_) _shall
do it_, _I stipulate that_, where _shall_ means _am to_, _are to_, _is
to_; that is, it is a pure-system form.
b. _I beg that you_ (or _he_) _will do it._ _He begs that I will do
it._ Again the original is pure-system: _You_ (or _he_) _will_ (i. e.,
you consent to) _do it: that is what I beg._ _I will_ (i. e., I consent
to) _do it: that is what he begs._
c. _I beg that I_ (or _he_) _shall not suffer for it._ _You begged that
I should not suffer for it._ Observe that b. has _will_ and a. and c.
_shall_, because it is only in b. that the volition of the subject of
_shall_ or _will_ is concerned.
d. _I wish you would not sneeze._ Before subordination this is: _You
will not sneeze: that is what I wish._ W. remains, but _will_ becomes
_would_ to give the remoteness always connected with wish, which is
seen also, for instance, in _I wish I were_ instead of _I wish I be_.
Before going on to examples of substantival clauses, we also register,
again rather for the curious than for the practical reader, the
peculiar but common use of _should_ contained in the following:
It is not strange that his admiration for those writers should have
been unbounded.--MACAULAY.
In this use _should_ goes through all persons and is equivalent to
a gerund with possessive: _that a man should be_ is the same as _a
man’s being_. We can only guess at its origin; our guess is that (1)
_should_ is the remote form for _shall_, as _would_ for _will_ in d.
above, substituted in order to give an effect of generality; and (2)
the use of _shall_ is the archaic one seen in _You shall find_, &c. So:
a man shall be afraid of his shadow; that a man should be afraid (as a
generally observed fact) is strange.
After each of the substantival clauses, of which examples now follow,
we shall say whether it is a reported (subordinated) statement, or
question, and give what we take to be the original form of the
essential words, even when further comment is unnecessary.
Examples of Sh. and W. in Substantival clauses.
_Right._
You, my dear, believe you shall be unhappy, if you have Mr. Solmes:
your parents think the contrary; and that you will be undoubtedly so,
were you to have Mr. Lovelace.--RICHARDSON.
Statement. The original of the first is _I shall be_; of the second,
_she will be_. In this and the next three the strictly analogical form
that we recommended is kept.
I have heard the Princess declare that she should not willingly die in
a crowd.--JOHNSON.
Statement. I should not.
People imagine they should be happy in circumstances which they would
find insupportably burthensome in less than a week.--COWPER.
Statement. We should. _They would_ is not ‘reported’.
Do you really fancy you should be more beholden to your
correspondent, if he had been damning you all the time for your
importunity?--STEVENSON.
Statement. I should be.
The nation had settled the question that it would not have
conscription.--_Times._
Statement. We will not. The blundering insertion of _the
question_--perhaps due to some hazy notion of ‘putting the
question’--may be disregarded.
When the war will end still depends on Japan.--_Times._
Question. When will it end?
Shaftesbury’s anger vented itself in threats that the advisers of this
dissolution should pay for it with their heads.--J. R. GREEN.
Statement. You shall pay.
He [i. e., James II] regarded his ecclesiastical supremacy as a
weapon.... Under Henry and Elizabeth it had been used to turn the
Church of England from Catholic to Protestant. Under James it should
be used to turn it back again.--J. R. GREEN.
Statement. Under me it shall be. The reporting word not expressed.
She could not bear the sight of all these things that reminded her of
Anthony and of her sin. Perhaps she should die soon; she felt very
feeble.--ELIOT.
Statement. I shall. Again the reporting word absent.
There will never perhaps be a time when every question between London
and Washington shall be laid at rest.--_Times._
This is not properly speaking reported speech. But the _shall_ is
accounted for by a sort of allusion to a supposed prophecy--every
_question shall one day be laid at rest_. In that prophecy, _shall_
would convey that the prophet gave his personal guarantee for it, and
would come under Rule 2. This is not to be confused with the use of
_shall_ in indefinite clauses that will be noticed later.
_Wrong._
The four began their descent, not knowing at what step they should
meet death nor which of them should reach the shore alive.--F. M.
CRAWFORD.
Questions. At what step shall we meet? Which of us will reach? The
first is accordingly right, the second wrong. The modern writer--who
has been at the pains to use the strictly correct _should_ in the first
place rather than the now common _would_--has not seen, as Richardson
did in the first of the right examples, that his two clauses are
dissimilar.
I hope that our sympathy shall survive these little revolutions
undiminished.--STEVENSON.
Statement. Will survive. It is possible, however, that the original
was thought of, or rather felt, as Our sympathy shall survive. But as
the effect of that is to give the speaker’s personal guarantee for
the truth of the thing, it is clearly not a proper statement to make
dependent on the doubtful word _hope_.
After mentioning the advance made in reforms of the military force of
the country he [Lord Lansdowne] announced that the Government should
not oppose the motion, readily availing themselves of Lord Wemyss’s
suggestion that....--_Times._
Statement. We shall not, or the Government will not. Probably Lord
Lansdowne said _we_, and that accounts for _should_. But if _The
Times_ chooses to represent _we_ by _the Government_, it must also
represent _shall_ by _would_.
It came with a strange stunning effect upon us all--the consciousness
that never again would we hear the grind of those positive boot-heels
on the gravel.--CROCKETT.
Statement. We shall never.
I think that if the matter were handed over to the parish councils ...
we would within a twelvemonth have exactly such a network of rifle
clubs as is needed.--CONAN DOYLE.
Statement. We should. Of these two instances it may be thought that
the writers would have made the mistake in the original unsubordinated
sentence, instead of its arising in the process of subordination;
our experience is, however, that many people do in fact go wrong in
subordinate clauses who are alive to the danger in simple sentences.
The Prime Minister ... would at once have asked the Opposition if
they could suggest any further means for making the inquiry more
drastic and complete, with the assurance that if they could suggest
any such means, they would at once be incorporated in the Government
scheme.--_Spectator._
Statement. They shall be incorporated. We have classed this as wrong
on the assumption, supported by the word _assurance_, that the Prime
Minister gave a promise, and therefore used the coloured future, and
did not state a fact and use the plain future.
Another type of subordinate clause important for Sh. and W. is =the
conditional protasis or if-clause=. It is not necessary, nor with
modern writers usual, to mark the future or conditional force of this
separately, since it is sufficiently indicated by the apodosis. For
instance, _If you come I shall be glad_; _if you came I should be
glad_; _if you had come I should have been glad_. But in formal style
or with a slight difference of meaning, it is often superfluously done
in the protasis too. Sh. is then used for all persons, as, _If he
should come, you would learn how the matter stands_. So:
Japan will adhere to her pledge of neutrality unless Russia shall
first violate hers.--_Times._
But to the rule that the protasis takes _shall_ there are three
exceptions, real or apparent; W. is found under the following
circumstances:
(1.) An original pure-system or coloured-future W. is not changed
to Sh. by being used in subordination to _if_ (or _unless_). It is
retained with its full original force instead of some verb like _wish_
or _choose_. In _If we would believe we might move mountains_, the
meaning is _If we chose to believe_, different from that of _If we
believed_ or _should believe_. So
It would be much better if you would not be so hypocritical, Captain
Wybrow.--ELIOT.
If you consented not to be, or did not insist on being.
It would be valuable if he would somewhat expand his ideas regarding
local defence by Volunteers.--_Times._
If he consented to.
(2.) When the _if_-clause (though a genuine condition) is incorrectly
expressed for the sake of brevity and compresses two verbs into one,
the W. proper to the retained verb is sometimes necessarily used
instead of the Sh. proper to the verb that, though it contains in
strict logic the essential protasis, has been crushed out. Thus:
_If it will be useless I shall prefer not to do it._ It is not the
uselessness that is the condition of the preference; for the use or
uselessness is subsequent to the decision; it is my conviction of the
uselessness; so that the full form would be _If I shall be_ (or _am_ in
ordinary speech) _convinced that it will be useless, I shall prefer_,
&c. The following example can be defended on this ground, _if never
again will he_ standing for _if he shall realize that he will never_;
the feebleness that decides his not wishing is subsequent to it, and
can only condition it if taken in the sense of his anticipation of
feebleness.
And if there is to be no recovery, _if never again will he_ be young
and strong and passionate, if the actual present shall be to him
always like a thing read in a book or remembered out of the far-away
past; he will not greatly wish for the continuance of a twilight
that....--STEVENSON.
The next is more difficult only because, besides the compression, the
_if_-clause is protasis not to the expressed main sentence, but to
another that is suppressed.
I shall wait for fine weather, if that will ever come.--R. G. WHITE.
Given fully, this would run: I shall wait for fine weather; (at least I
should say so) if (I were sure that) that will ever come.
(3.) When an _if_-clause is not a condition at all, as for instance
where it expresses contrast, and is almost equivalent to _although_,
the ordinary plain-future use prevails. Thus: _If annihilation will
end our joys it will also end our griefs._ Contrast with this the real
condition, in: _If annihilation shall end_ (or _ends_) _our joys, we
shall never regret the loss of them._
=Indefinite clauses, relative or other=, bearing the same relation to
a conditional or future principal sentence that a conditional protasis
bears to its apodosis follow the same rules. Thus _Whoever compares
the two will find_ is equivalent to _If any one compares_; _When we
have won the battle we can decide that question_ is equivalent to _If
ever we have won_. Accordingly we can if we choose write _Whoever shall
compare_, and _When we shall have won_; but we cannot write _When
we will have won_, and must only write _Whoever will compare_ if we
distinctly mean _Whoever chooses to compare_. As there is sometimes
difficulty in analysing indefinite clauses of this sort, one or two
instances had better be considered.
The candidate who should have distinguished himself most was to be
chosen.
This is clear enough; it is equivalent to _if any one should have ...
he was...._
We must ask ourselves what victory will cost the Russian people when
at length it will become possible to conclude the peace so ardently
desired.--_Times._
Equivalent to _If ever it at length becomes_. _Will_ is therefore
wrong; either _becomes_, or _shall become_.
Nothing can now prevent it from continuing to distil upwards
until there shall be no member of the legislature who shall not
know....--HUXLEY.
This is a complicated example. The _shalls_ will be right if it appears
that each _shall_-clause is equivalent to a conditional protasis. We
may show it by starting at the end as with the house that Jack built
and constructing the sentence backwards, subordinating by stages, and
changing _will_ to _shall_ as the protases come in; it will be allowed
that _until_ means _to the time when_, and that _when_ may be resolved
into _if ever_. Thus we get: _a._ One will know. _b._ None will be a
member of the legislature unless one shall know. _c._ It will distil to
the time if ever none shall be a member unless one shall know.
Think what I will about them, I must take them for politeness’
sake.--R. G. WHITE.
Although _think what I will_ is an indefinite relative clause, meaning
practically _whatever I think_, _will_ here is right, the strict sense
being _whatever I choose to think_. Indeed the time of _think_ is
probably not, at any rate need not be, future at all; compare _Think
what I will, I do not tell my thoughts._
We now give
=Rule 7. Conditional protasis and Indefinite Clauses=
In the protasis or _if_-clause of conditional sentences Sh. may be used
with all persons. Generally neither Sh. nor W. is used. W. is only used
(1) when the full meaning of _wish_ is intended; it may then be used
with all persons; (2) when the protasis is elliptically expressed; W.
may then be necessary with the second and third persons; (3) when the
_if_-clause is not a real conditional protasis; there is then no reason
for Sh. with second and third persons. Indefinite classes of similar
character follow the same rules.
A few right but exceptional, and some wrong subordinate clauses may now
be added.
Examples of Sh. and W. in Subordinate Clauses.
_Right._
As an opiate, or spirituous liquors, shall suspend the operation of
grief....--BURKE.
We may conceive Mr. Worldly Wiseman accosting such an one, and the
conversation that should thereupon ensue.--STEVENSON.
She is such a spare, straight, dry old lady--such a pew of a
woman--that you should find as many individual sympathies in a
chip.--DICKENS.
In these three we have the archaic _shall_ of personal assurance that
comes under Rule 2, and its corresponding conditional, appearing in
subordinate clauses. There is no objection to it except that, in modern
writers, its context must be such as to exonerate it from the charge of
affectation.
The longing of the army for a fresh struggle which should restore its
glory.--J. R. GREEN.
This use of Sh. after final relatives is seen, if the compound sentence
is resolved, to point to an original coloured future: We long for a
fresh struggle; a fresh struggle shall restore (that is, we intend it
to restore) our glory.
He was tormented by that restless jealousy which should seem to belong
only to minds burning with the desire of fame.--MACAULAY.
This is the _should seem_ explained under Rule 1 appearing also as
subordinate.
_Wrong._
It should never be, but often is, forgotten that when the apodosis
of a conditional sentence (with or without expressed protasis) is
subordinate it is nevertheless still an apodosis, and has still Sh. in
the first, W. in the second and third persons.
In ‘he struck him a blow’, we do not feel the first object to be
datival, as we would in ‘he gave him a blow’.--H. SWEET.
I cannot let the moment pass at which I would have been enjoying
a visit to you after your severe illness without one word of
sympathy.--GLADSTONE.
It would mean that I would always be haunted by an intolerable sense
of disgrace.--WILDE.
But though I would not willingly part with such scraps of science, I
do not set the same store by them.--STEVENSON.
We must reconcile what we would like to do with what we can
do.--_Times._
All these are wrong; in the last two the mistake is perhaps accounted
for by the presence of _willingly_ and _like_. _I would not willingly_
can indeed be defended at the cost of admitting that _willingly_ is
mere tautology, and saying that _I would not_ means _I should not
consent to_, according to Rule 2.
It may be worth while to add that the subordinate apodosis still
follows the rule even if it is subordinated to _if_, so that it is part
of the protasis of another conditional sentence. The following, which
is of course quite correct, seems, but only seems, to break the rules
both for protasis and apodosis: If you would be patient for yourself,
you should be patient for me. But we have W. with second person in the
protasis because _would be patient_ is also apodosis to the implied
protasis _if occasion should arise_; and the _should_ with second
person in the apodosis is not a conditional _should_ at all, but a
pure-system _should_, which would be the same with any person; it means
simply _you ought_, or _it would be your duty_.
The result in part of a genuine anxiety lest the Chinese would
gradually grow until they monopolized the country.--_Times._
We have purposely refrained until now from invoking the subjunctive,
because the word is almost meaningless to Englishmen, the thing having
so nearly perished. But on this instance it must be remarked that
when conjunctions like _lest_, which could once or still can take a
subjunctive (as _lest he die_), use a compound form instead, they use
the Sh. forms for all persons. It is a matter of little importance,
since hardly any one would go wrong in such a sentence.
THE PERFECT INFINITIVE
This has its right and its wrong uses. The right are obvious, and can
be left alone. Even of the wrong some are serviceable, if not strictly
logical. _I hoped to have succeeded_, for instance, means _I hoped
to succeed, but I did not succeed_, and has the advantage of it in
brevity; it is an idiom that it would be a pity to sacrifice on the
altar of Reason. So:
Philosophy began to congratulate herself upon such a proselyte from
the world of business, and hoped to have extended her power under the
auspices of such a leader.--BURKE.
And here he cannot forbear observing, that it was the duty of
that publisher to have rebutted a statement which he knew to be a
calumny.--BORROW.
I was going to have asked, when....--SLADEN.
But other perfects, while they are still more illogical than these,
differ as little in meaning from the present as the _deposuisse_, dear
to the hearts of elegiac writers ancient and modern, differs from
_deponere_. And whereas there is at least metre, and very useful metre,
in _deposuisse_, there is in our corresponding perfect infinitive
neither rhyme nor reason. Thus,
With whom on those golden summer evenings I should have liked to have
taken a stroll in the hayfield.--THACKERAY.
_To have taken_ means simply to take; the implication of non-fulfilment
that justified the perfects above is here needless, being already given
in _I should have liked_; and the doubled _have_ is ugly in sound.
Similar are
If my point had not been this, I should not have endeavoured to have
shown the connexion.--_Times._
The author can only wish it had been her province to have raised
plants of nobler growth.--S. FERRIER.
Had you given your advice in any determined or positive manner, I had
been ready to have been concluded by it.--RICHARDSON.
Jim Scudamore would have been the first man to have acknowledged the
anomaly.--CROCKETT.
Though certainly before she commenced her mystic charms she would have
liked to have known who he was.--BEACONSFIELD.
Peggy would have liked to have shown her turban and bird of paradise
at the ball.--THACKERAY.
It might have been thought to be a question of bare alternatives, and
to have been susceptible of no compromise.--BAGEHOT.
The less excusable that Bagehot has started with the correct _to be_.
Another very common form, still worse, occurs especially after _seem_
and _appear_, and results from the writer’s being too lazy to decide
whether he means _He seems to have been_, or _He seemed to be_. The
mistake may be in either verb or both.
[Repudiating the report of an interview] I warned him when he spoke
to me that I could not speak to him at all if I was to be quoted as
an authority. _He seemed to have taken_ this as applying only to the
first question he asked me.--_Westminster Gazette._ (seems)
They, as it has been said of Sterne, seemed to have wished, every
now and then, to have thrown their wigs into the faces of their
auditors.--I. DISRAELI. (seem to have wished ... to throw)
Lady Austen’s fashionable friends occasioned no embarrassment; they
_seemed to have preferred_ some more fashionable place for summering
in, for they _are_ not again spoken of.--SOUTHEY. (seem)
Sometimes _have_ is even transferred from the verb with which it would
make sense to the other with which it makes nonsense.
On the point of church James was obdurate.... He would like to have
insisted on the other grudging items.--SLADEN.
In the next, the perfect is wanted; for a child that has been flogged
cannot be left unflogged--not, that is, in the past; and the future is
not meant.
A child flogged left-handedly had better be left unflogged.--POE.
We add, for the reader’s refreshment rather than for practical
purposes, an illustration of where careless treatment of _have_ may end:
Oh, Burgo, hadst thou not have been a very child, thou shouldst have
known that now, at this time of day--after all that thy gallant steed
had done for thee--it was impossible for thee or him.--TROLLOPE.
CONDITIONALS
These, which cost the schoolboy at his Latin and Greek some weary
hours, need not detain us long. The reader passes lightly and
unconsciously in his own language over mixtures that might have caused
him searchings of heart in a dead one.
But there is one corrupt and meaningless form, apparently gaining
ground, that calls for protest. When a clause begins with _as if_, it
must be remembered that there is an ellipse. _I treat her as tenderly
as if she were my daughter_ would be in full _I treat her as tenderly
as I should if she were_, &c. If this is forgotten, there is danger in
some sentences, though not in this one, of using a present indicative
in the place where the verb _were_ stands. So:
We will not appear like fools in this matter, and as if we _have_ no
authority over our own daughter.--RICHARDSON.
This may be accounted for, but not justified, as an attempt to express
what should be merely implied, our actual possession of authority.
As if the fruit or the flower not only _depends_ on a root as one
of the conditions among others of its development, but _is_ itself
actually the root.--MORLEY.
This is absolutely indefensible so far as _is_ is concerned; _depends_
has the same motive as _have_ in the Richardson.
But this looks as if he _has_ included the original 30,000
men.--_Times._
There have been rumours lately, as if the present state of the nation
_may_ seem to this species of agitators a favourable period for
recommencing their intrigues.--SCOTT.
This is a place where _as if_ should not have been used at all. If it
is used, the verb should be _seemed_, not _may seem_, the full form
being _as there would be_ (_rumours_). Read _suggesting that_ for _as
if_, and _seems_ for _may seem_.
General Linevitch reports that the army is concentrating as if it
_intends_ to make a stand.--_Times._
A mixture between _it apparently intends_ and _as if it intended_.
As if the same end _may_ not, and must not, be compassed, according to
its circumstances, by a great diversity of ways.--BURKE.
_May_ should be _might_. _As if it may not_ is made to do the work of
_as if it might not, as of course it may_.
The same rule applies to _as though_.
The use of true subjunctive forms (if he be, though it happen) in
conditional sentences is for various reasons not recommended. These
forms, with the single exception of _were_, are perishing so rapidly
that an experienced word-actuary[11] puts their expectation of life at
one generation. As a matter of style, they should be avoided, being
certain to give a pretentious air when handled by any one except the
skilful and practised writers who need no advice from us. And as a
matter of grammar, the instinct for using subjunctives rightly is
dying with the subjunctive, so that even the still surviving _were_ is
often used where it is completely wrong. So
It would be advisable to wait for fuller details before making any
attempt to appraise the significance of the raid from the military
point of view, if, indeed, the whole expedition _were_ not planned
with an eye to effect.--_Times._
Here the last clause means _though perhaps it was only planned with
an eye to effect_ (_and therefore has no military significance_). But
_if_ followed by _were not_ necessarily means that it certainly is.
The mistake here results in making the clause look as if it were the
protasis to _It would be advisable_, with which it has in fact nothing
whatever to do; it is a note on the words _military significance_.
Write _was_ for _were_.
... and who, taking my offered hand, bade me ‘Good morning’--nightfall
though it _were_.--_Times._
The sentence describes a meeting with a person who knew hardly any
English; he said good morning, though it _was_ nightfall. A single
example may be added of the intrusion of _were_ for _was_ in a sentence
that is not conditional.
Dr. Chalmers was a believer in an Establishment as he conceived an
Establishment should be. Whether such an Establishment _were_ possible
or not it is not for me now to discuss.--LORD ROSEBERY.
_Were_, however, is often right and almost necessary: other
subjunctives are never necessary, often dangerous, and in most writers
unpleasantly formal. The tiro had much better eschew them.
‘DOUBT THAT’ AND ‘DOUBT WHETHER’
Instances will be found in Part II of verbs constructed with wrong
prepositions or conjunctions. Most mistakes of this kind are
self-evident; but the verb ‘doubt’, which is constructed with ‘that’
or ‘whether’ according to the circumstances under which the doubt is
expressed, requires special notice. The broad distinction is between
the positive, ‘I doubt whether (that)’ and the negative, ‘I do not
doubt that (whether)’; and the rule, in order to include implied as
well as expressed negatives, questions as well as statements, will run
thus:
The word used depends upon the writer’s or speaker’s opinion as to the
reasonableness of the doubt, no matter in whose mind it is said to
exist or not to exist.
1. If there is nothing to show that the writer considers the doubt an
unreasonable one, the word is always ‘whether’, which reminds us that
there is a suppressed alternative:
I doubt whether this is true (or not).
Every one is at liberty to doubt whether ... (or not).
To this part of the rule there is no exception.
2. If it is evident that the writer disapproves of the doubt, the words
introducing it amount to an affirmation on his part that the thing
doubted is undoubtedly true; the alternative is no longer offered;
‘that’ is therefore the word:
I do not doubt that (i. e., I am sure that)....
Who can doubt that...?
This, however, is modified by 3.
3. The ‘vivid’ use of ‘whether’. When the writer’s point is rather
the extravagance of the doubt than the truth of the thing doubted,
‘whether’ is often retained:
It is as if a man should doubt whether he has a head on his shoulders.
Can we imagine any man seriously doubting whether...?
Here, according to 2., we ought to have ‘that’, since the writer
evidently regards the doubt as absurd. But in the first sentence it
is necessary for the force of the illustration that the deplorable
condition of the doubter’s mind should be vividly portrayed:
accordingly, he is represented to us as actually handling the two
alternatives. Similarly, in the second, we are invited to picture
to ourselves, if we can, a hesitation so ludicrous in the writer’s
opinion. We shall illustrate this point further by a couple of
sentences in which again the state of mind of the doubter, not the
truth of the thing doubted, is clearly the point, but in which ‘that’
has been improperly substituted for the vivid ‘whether’:
She found herself wondering at the breath she drew, doubting that
another would follow.--MEREDITH.
I am afraid that you will become so afraid of men’s motives as to
doubt that any one can be honest.--TROLLOPE.
The mistake commonly made is to use ‘that’ for ‘whether’ in violation
of 1. ‘Whether’ is seldom used in place of ‘that’, and apparent
violations of 2. often prove to be legitimate exceptions of the ‘vivid’
kind. Some of our examples may suggest that when the dependent clause
is placed before the verb, ‘that’ appears because the writer had not
decided what verb of doubt or denial to use. This is probably the true
explanation of many incorrect _thats_, but is not a sufficient defence.
It supplies, on the contrary, an additional reason for adhering to
‘whether’: the reader is either actually misled or at any rate kept in
needless suspense as to what is going to be said, because the writer
did not make up his mind at the right time how to say it. ‘Whether’
at the beginning at once proclaims an open question: after ‘that’ we
expect (or ought to expect) ‘I have _no_ reason to doubt’.
In all the following, ‘whether’ should have been used.
There is nothing for it but to doubt such diseases exist.--H. G. WELLS.
‘Whether’ is never suppressed.
I do not think it would have pleased Mr. Thackeray; and to doubt that
he would have wished to see it carried out determines my view of the
matter.--GREENWOOD.
That the movement is as purely industrial as the leaders of the strike
claim may be doubted.--_Times._
And I must be allowed to doubt that there is any class who
deliberately omit....--_Times._
He may doubt that his policy will be any more popular in England a
year or two hence than it is now.--GREENWOOD.
I doubt the correctness of the assertion.... I doubt, I say, that
Becky would have selected either of these young men.--THACKERAY.
But that his army, if it retreats, will carry with it all its guns ...
we are inclined to doubt.--_Times._
It was generally doubted that France would permit the use of her
port.--_Times._
PREPOSITIONS
In an uninflected language like ours these are ubiquitous, and it is
quite impossible to write tolerably without a full knowledge, conscious
or unconscious, of their uses. Misuse of them, however, does not
often result in what may be called in the fullest sense blunders of
syntax, but mostly in offences against idiom. It is often impossible
to convince a writer that the preposition he has used is a wrong one,
because there is no reason in the nature of things, in logic, or in
the principles of universal grammar (whichever way it may be put), why
that preposition should not give the desired meaning as clearly as the
one that we tell him he should have used. Idioms are special forms of
speech that for some reason, often inscrutable, have proved congenial
to the instinct of a particular language. To neglect them shows a
writer, however good a logician he may be, to be no linguist--condemns
him, from that point of view, more clearly than grammatical blunders
themselves. But though the subject of prepositions is thus very
important, the idioms in which they appear are so multitudinous that it
is hopeless to attempt giving more than the scantiest selection; this
may at least put writers on their guard. Usages of this sort cannot be
acquired from dictionaries and grammars, still less from a treatise
like the present, not pretending to be exhaustive; good reading with
the idiomatic eye open is essential. We give a few examples of what to
avoid.
1. After adjectives and adverbs.
Another stroke of palsy soon rendered Sir Sampson _unconscious_ even
_to_ the charms of Grizzy’s conversation.--S. FERRIER.
Being _oblivious to_ the ill feeling it would be certain to
engender.--_Cheltenham Examiner._
To me it is incredible that the British people, who own one-half of
the world’s sea-going ships, should be so _oblivious to_ the manner in
which....--_Times._
Insensible to, but unconscious of; indifferent to, but oblivious of
The adjectives _different_ and _averse_, with their adverbs or nouns,
_differently_, _difference_, _aversion_, _averseness_, call for a few
words of comment. There is no essential reason whatever why either set
should not be as well followed by _to_ as by _from_. But _different
to_ is regarded by many newspaper editors and others in authority
as a solecism, and is therefore better avoided by those to whom the
approval of such authorities is important. It is undoubtedly gaining
ground, and will probably displace _different from_ in no long time;
perhaps, however, the conservatism that still prefers _from_ is
not yet to be named pedantry. It is at any rate defensive, and not
offensive pedantry, _different to_ (though ‘found in writers of all
ages’--_Oxford Dictionary_) being on the whole the aggressor. With
_averse_, on the other hand, though the _Oxford Dictionary_ gives a
long roll of good names on each side, the use of _from_ may perhaps
be said to strike most readers as a distinct protest against the more
natural _to_, so that _from_ is here the aggressor, and the pedantry,
if it is pedantry, is offensive. Our advice is to write _different
from_ and _averse to_. We shall give a few examples, and add to them
two sentences in which the incorrect use of _from_ with other words
looks like the result of insisting on the slightly artificial use of it
after different and averse.
My experience caused me to make quite _different_ conclusions _to_
those of the Coroner for Westminster.--_Times._
It will be noticed that _to_ is more than usually uncomfortable when it
does not come next to _different_.
We must feel charitably towards those who think _differently to_
ourselves.--_Daily Telegraph._
Why should these profits be employed _differently to_ the profits made
by capitalists at home?--LORD GOSCHEN.
Ah, how _different_ were my feelings as I sat proudly there on the box
_to_ those I had the last time I mounted that coach!--THACKERAY.
What is the great _difference_ of the one _to_ the other?--_Daily
Telegraph._
_From_ would in this last be clearly better than _to_; but _between the
two_ would be better than either.
The Queen and the cabinet, however, were entirely _averse to_ meddling
with the council.--MORLEY.
Perhaps he is not _averse from_ seeing democrats on this, as on
railway rates, range themselves with him.--_Times._
In all democratic circles _aversion from_ the Empire of the Tsar may
be intensified by the events of the last few days.--_Times._
_To_ no kind of begging are people so _averse_ as _to_ begging
pardon.--_Guesses at Truth._
This _averseness_ in the dissenting churches _from_ all that looks
like absolute government.--BURKE.
I deeply regret the _aversion to_ ‘conscience clauses’.--GLADSTONE.
But she had no sort of _aversion for_ either Puritan or Papist.--J. R.
GREEN.
_Disagree from_ (for _with_), and _adverse from_ (for _to_), seem to
have resulted from the superstition against _averse_ and _different to_.
A general proposition, which applies just as much to those who
_disagree from_ me as to those who agree with me.--LORD ROSEBERY.
There were politicians in this country who had been very _adverse
from_ the Suez Canal scheme altogether.--F. GREENWOOD.
2. After verbs.
I _derive_ an unholy pleasure _in_ noting.--_Guernsey Evening Press._
We must _content ourselves_ for the moment _by_ observing that from
the juridical standpoint the question is a doubtful one.--_Times._
The petition which now reaches us from Bloemfontein ... _contents
itself by_ begging that the isolation laws may be carried out nearer
to the homes of the patients.--_Times._
I content you _by_ submitting: I content myself _with_ saying.
‘Doing one’s duty’ generally _consists of_ being moral, kind and
charitable.--_Daily Telegraph._
The external world which is dealt with by natural science _consisted_,
according to Berkeley, _in_ ideas. According to Mr. Mill it _consists
of_ sensations and permanent possibilities of sensation.--BALFOUR.
The moon consists _of_ green cheese: virtue consists _in_ being good.
_Consist of_ gives a material, _consist in_ a definition. Mr. Balfour’s
‘elegant variation’ (see _Airs and Graces_) is certainly wrong, though
nominalists and realists will perhaps differ about which should
have been used in both sentences, and no one below the degree of a
metaphysician can pretend to decide between them.
A scholar _endowed by_ [with] an ample knowledge and persuasive
eloquence to cite and instance.--MEREDITH.
I say to you plainly there is no end _to_ [at] which your practical
faculty can _aim_....--EMERSON.
He urged that it was an undesirable thing to be always _tinkering
with_ this particular trade.--_Times._
We tamper _with_, but tinker _at_, the thing that is to be operated on.
You may hunt the alien from his overcrowded tenement, you may _forbid_
him, if you like, _from toiling_ ten hours a day for a wage of a few
shillings.--_Times._
_His toiling_, or _him to toil_.
His readiness, not only at catching a point, but at making the most of
it _on a moment’s notice_, was amazing.--BRYCE.
_On_ the spur of the moment, but _at_ a moment’s notice. The motive
was, no doubt, to avoid repeating _at_; but such devices are sins if
they are detected.
Nataly had her sense of safety in _acquiescing to_ such a
voice.--MEREDITH.
We acquiesce _in_, not _to_, though either phrase is awkward enough
with _a voice_; _to_ is probably accounted for again by the desire to
avoid repeating _in_.
3. After nouns.
There can be no _fault found to_ her manners or sentiments.--SCOTT.
I find fault _with_: I find a fault _in_. Write _in_ or _with_, as one
or the other phrase is meant.
The Diet should leave to the Tsar _the initiative of_ taking such
measures as may be necessary.--_Times._
M. Delcassé took _the initiative of_ turning the conversation to
Moroccan affairs.--_Times._
We assume the _right of_ turning, we take the _initiative in_ turning.
Those, who are urging with most ardour what are called the greatest
_benefits_ of mankind.--EMERSON.
Benefits _of_ the benefactor, but _to_ the beneficiary.
A power to marshal and adjust particulars, which can only come from an
_insight of_ [into] their whole connection.--EMERSON.
From its driving energy, its personal weight, its invincible _oblivion
to_ [of] certain things, there sprang up in Redwood’s mind the most
grotesque and strange of images.--H. G. WELLS.
4. Superfluous prepositions, whether due to ignorance of idiom,
negligence, or mistaken zeal for accuracy.
_As to_ Mr. Lovelace’s approbation of your assumption-scheme, I wonder
not _at_.--RICHARDSON.
A something _of_ which the sense can in no way assist the mind to form
a conception _of_.--_Daily Telegraph._
The Congress could occupy itself with no more important question than
_with_ this.--HUXLEY.
This is due to confusion with ‘could occupy itself with no question
more profitably than with this’.
5. Necessary prepositions omitted.
The Lady Henrietta ... _wrote him_ regularly through his bankers, and
once in a while he _wrote her_.--BARONESS VON HUTTEN.
_Write_ without _to_ will now pass in commercial letters only;
elsewhere, we can say ‘I write you a report, a letter’, but neither ‘I
will write you’ simply, nor ‘I wrote you that there was danger’. That
is, we must only omit the _to_ when _you_ not only is the indirect
object, but is unmistakably so at first sight. It may be said that
_I write you_ is good old English. So is _he was a-doing of it_; _I
guess_ is good Chaucerian. But in neither case can the appeal to a dead
usage--dead in polite society, or in England--justify what is a modern
vulgarism.
6. Compound prepositions and conjunctions.
The increasing use of these is much to be regretted. They, and the
love for abstract expression with which they are closely allied, are
responsible for much of what is flaccid, diffuse, and nerveless, in
modern writing. They are generally, no doubt, invented by persons who
want to express a more precise shade of meaning than they can find in
anything already existing; but they are soon caught up by others who
not only do not need the new delicate instrument, but do not understand
it. _Inasmuch_ as, for instance, originally expressed that the truth
of its clause gave the exact measure of the truth that belonged to the
main sentence. So (from the _Oxford Dictionary_):
God is only God inasmuch as he is the Moral Governor of the
world.--SIR W. HAMILTON.
But long before Hamilton’s day the word passed, very naturally, into
the meaning, for which it need never have been invented, of _since_ or
_because_. Consequently most people who need the original idea have
not the courage to use _inasmuch as_ for it, like Sir W. Hamilton,
but resort to new combinations with _far_. Those new combinations,
however, as will be shown, fluctuate and are confused with one another.
The best thing we can now do with _inasmuch_ as is to get it decently
buried; when it means _since_, _since_ is better; when it means what it
once meant, no one understands it. The moral we wish to draw is that
these compounds should be left altogether alone except in passages
where great precision is wanted. Just as a word like _save_ (except)
is ruined for the poet by being used on every page of ordinary prose
(which it disfigures in revenge for its own degradation), so _inasmuch_
as is spoilt for the logician.
We shall first illustrate the absurd prevailing abuse of the compound
preposition _as to_. In each of the following sentences, if _as to_
is simply left out, no difference whatever is made in the meaning.
It is only familiarity with unnecessary circumlocution that makes
such a state of things tolerable to any one with a glimmering of
literary discernment. _As to_ flows from the pen now at every possible
opportunity, till many writers seem quite unaware that such words as
_question_ or _doubt_ can bear the weight of a _whether_-clause without
help from this offensive parasite.
With the idea of endeavouring to ascertain as to this, I
invited....--_Times._
Confronted with the simple question as to in what way other people’s
sisters, wives and daughters differ from theirs....--_Daily Telegraph._
It is not quite clear as to what happened.--_Westminster Gazette._
Doubt is expressed as to whether the fall of Port Arthur will
materially affect the situation.--_Times._
I feel tempted to narrate one that occurred to me, leaving it
to your judgment as to whether it is worthy of notice in your
paper.--_Spectator._
I was entirely indifferent as to the results of the game, caring
nothing at all _as to_ whether I had losses or gains.--CORELLI.
The first _as to_ in this may pass, though plain _to_ is better.
German anticipations with regard to the future are apparently based
upon the question as to how far the Sultan will....--_Times._
But you are dying to know what brings me here, and even if you find
nothing new in it you will perhaps think _it_ makes some difference
_as to_ who says a thing.--GREENWOOD.
This is the worst of all. The subject of _makes_ (anticipated in the
ordinary way by _it_) is _who says a thing_; but the construction
is obscured by the insertion of _as to_. We are forced to suppose,
wrongly, that _it_ means _what brings me here_. Worse than the worst,
however, at least more aggressively wrong, is an instance that we find
while correcting this sheet for the press:
... Although it is open to doubt as to what extent individual saving
through more than one provident institution prevails.--_Westminster
Gazette._
Another objection to the compound prepositions and conjunctions is
that they are frequently confused with one another or miswritten. We
illustrate from two sets. (_a_) The word _view_ is common in the forms
_in view of_, _with a view to_, _with the view of_. The first expresses
external circumstances, existing or likely to occur, that must be taken
into account; as, _In view of these doubts about the next dividend, we
do not recommend_.... The other two both express the object aimed at,
but must not have the correspondence, _a_ view _to_, _the_ view _of_,
upset.
A Resolution was moved and carried _in favour of_ giving facilities
to the public vaccination officers of the Metropolis to enter the
schools of the Board _for the purpose of_ examining the arms of the
children _with a view to_ advising the parents to allow their children
to be vaccinated.--_Spectator._
The Sultan ... will seek to obtain money by contracting loans with
private firms _in view of_ beginning for himself the preliminary
reforms.--_Times._
If Germany has anything to propose _in view of_ the safeguarding
of her own interests, it will certainly meet with that courteous
consideration which is traditional in French diplomacy.--_Times._
Its execution is being carefully prepared _with a view of_ avoiding
any collision with the natives.--_Times._
My company has been approached by several firms _with a view of_
overcoming the difficulty.--_Times._
Of these the first is correct; but the sentence it comes in is so
typical of the compound-prepositional style that no one who reads it
will be surprised that its patrons should sometimes get mixed; how
should people who write like that keep their ideas clear? The second
should have _with a view to_. Still more should the third, which is
ambiguous as well as unidiomatic; the words used ought to mean _seeing
that her interests are safeguarded already_. The fourth and fifth
should again have _with a view to_ (or _with the view of_).
(_b_) The combinations with _far_--_as far as_, _so far as_, _so
far that_, _in so far as_, _in so far that_, of which the last
is certainly, and the last but one probably needless--have some
distinctions and limitations often neglected. For instance, _as far as_
must not be followed by a mere noun except in the literal sense, _as
far as London_. _So far as_ and _so far that_ are distinguished by good
writers in being applied, the first to clauses that contain a doubtful
or varying fact, the other to clauses containing an ascertained or
positive fact. _So far as_ (and _in so far as_), that is, means _to
whatever extent_, and _so far that_ means _to this extent, namely that_.
The question of the Capitulations and of the Mixed Tribunals is not in
any way essentially British, save _in so far as_ the position of Great
Britain in Egypt makes her primarily responsible.--_Times._
Correct; but _except that_ would be much better than _save in so far
as_.
Previous to 1895, when a separate constitution existed for the Bombay
and Madras armies, possibly a military department and a military
member were necessary in order to focus at the seat of government
the general military situation in India, but in the judgment of many
officers well qualified to form an opinion, no such department under
present conditions is really requisite, _in so far as_ the action of
the Commander-in-Chief is thwarted in cases where he should be the
best judge of what is necessary.--_Times._
Entirely wrong. It is confused with _inasmuch as_, and _since_ should
be written.
The officials have done their utmost to enforce neutrality, and
have _in so far_ succeeded _as_ the Baltic fleet keeps outside the
three-mile limit.--_Times._
Should be _so far succeeded that_; we are meant to understand that the
fleet does keep outside, though it does not go right away as might be
wished.
The previous appeal made by M. Delcassé was _so far_ successful _as_
the Tsar himself sent orders to Admiral Rozhdestvensky to comply with
the injunctions of the French colonial authorities.--_Times._
_As_ should be _that_. It is not doubtful to what extent or whether the
Tsar sent. He did send; that is the only point.
They are exceptional in character, _in so far as_ they do not appear
to be modifications of the epidermis.--HUXLEY.
Should probably be _so far exceptional that_. The point is that
there _is_ this amount of the exceptional in them, not that their
irregularity depends on the doubtful fact of their not being
modifications; the word _appear_ ought otherwise to have been
parenthetically arranged.
This influence was _so far_ indirect _in that_ it was greatly
furthered by Le Sage, who borrowed the form of his Spanish
contemporaries.--_Times._
A mixture of _was so far indirect that_ and _was indirect in that_.
He seemed quickly to give up first-hand observation and to be content
to reproduce and re-reproduce his early impressions, always trusting
to his own invention, and the reading public’s inveterate preference
for symmetry and satisfaction, to pull him through. They have
pulled him through _in so far as_ they have made his name popular;
but an artist and a realist--possibly even a humourist--have been
lost.--_Times._
_In so far as_ leaves the popularity and the pulling through doubtful,
which they are clearly not meant to be. It should be _so far that_.
A man can get help from above to do what _as far as_ human possibility
has proved out of his power.--_Daily Telegraph._
This is a whole sentence, not a fragment, as might be supposed. But
_as far as_ (except in the local sense) must have a verb, finite or
infinite. Supply _goes_.
The large majority would reply in the affirmative, _in so far as_ to
admit that there is a God.--_Daily Telegraph._
_So far as to admit_, or _in so far as they would admit_; not the
mixture. And this distinction is perhaps the only justification for the
existence of _in so far as_ by the side of _so far as_; the first is
only conjunction, the second can be preposition as well.
FOOTNOTES:
[10] The reason why many who as a rule use the possessive are willing
to do without it after verbs like _prevent_ is perhaps this: in _I
prevented him going_ they consciously or unconsciously regard both
_him_ and _going_ as nouns, one the indirect, one the direct object, as
in _I refused him leave_.
[11] Dr. Henry Bradley, _The Making of English_, p. 53.