Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Richard J. Shiffer
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net
[Transcriber's Note: Every effort has been made to replicate this text
as faithfully as possible, including obsolete and variant spellings
and other inconsistencies. Text that has been changed to correct an
obvious error is noted at the end of this ebook.
Text set in bold print is indicated by asterisks, i.e., *Bold*.]
HOW TO WRITE CLEARLY.
_RULES AND EXERCISES_
ON
ENGLISH COMPOSITION.
BY THE
REV. EDWIN A. ABBOTT, M.A.,
HEAD MASTER OF THE CITY OF LONDON SCHOOL.
[Illustration: QUI LEGIT REGIT]
THE AUTHOR'S COPYRIGHT EDITION.
BOSTON:
ROBERTS BROTHERS.
1883.
UNIVERSITY PRESS: JOHN WILSON & SON.
CAMBRIDGE.
PREFACE.
Almost every English boy can be taught to write clearly, so far at
least as clearness depends upon the arrangement of words. Force,
elegance, and variety of style are more difficult to teach, and far
more difficult to learn; but clear writing can be reduced to rules. To
teach the art of writing clearly is the main object of these Rules and
Exercises.
Ambiguity may arise, not only from bad arrangement, but also from
other causes--from the misuse of single words, and from confused
thought. These causes are not removable by definite rules, and
therefore, though not neglected, are not prominently considered in
this book. My object rather is to point out some few continually
recurring causes of ambiguity, and to suggest definite remedies in
each case. Speeches in Parliament, newspaper narratives and articles,
and, above all, resolutions at public meetings, furnish abundant
instances of obscurity arising from the monotonous neglect of some
dozen simple rules.
The art of writing forcibly is, of course, a valuable
acquisition--almost as valuable as the art of writing clearly. But
forcible expression is not, like clear expression, a mere question of
mechanism and of the manipulation of words; it is a much higher power,
and implies much more.
Writing clearly does not imply thinking clearly. A man may think and
reason as obscurely as Dogberry himself, but he may (though it is not
probable that he will) be able to write clearly for all that. Writing
clearly--so far as arrangement of words is concerned--is a mere matter
of adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and auxiliary verbs, placed
and repeated according to definite rules.[1] Even obscure or illogical
thought can be clearly expressed; indeed, the transparent medium of
clear writing is not least beneficial when it reveals the illogical
nature of the meaning beneath it.
On the other hand, if a man is to write forcibly, he must (to use a
well-known illustration) describe Jerusalem as "sown with salt," not
as "captured," and the Jews not as being "subdued" but as "almost
exterminated" by Titus. But what does this imply? It implies
knowledge, and very often a great deal of knowledge, and it implies
also a vivid imagination. The writer must have eyes to see the vivid
side of everything, as well as words to describe what he sees. Hence
forcible writing, and of course tasteful writing also, is far less a
matter of rules than is clear writing; and hence, though forcible
writing is exemplified in the exercises, clear writing occupies most
of the space devoted to the rules.
Boys who are studying Latin and Greek stand in especial need of help
to enable them to write a long English sentence clearly. The periods
of Thucydides and Cicero are not easily rendered into our idiom
without some knowledge of the links that connect an English sentence.
There is scarcely any better training, rhetorical as well as logical,
than the task of construing Thucydides into genuine English; but the
flat, vague, long-winded Greek-English and Latin-English imposture
that is often tolerated in our examinations and is allowed to pass
current for genuine English, diminishes instead of increasing the
power that our pupils should possess over their native language. By
getting marks at school and college for construing good Greek and
Latin into bad English, our pupils systematically unlearn what they
may have been allowed to pick up from Milton and from Shakespeare.
I must acknowledge very large obligations to Professor Bain's treatise
on "English Composition and Rhetoric," and also to his English
Grammar. I have not always been able to agree with Professor Bain as
to matters of taste; but I find it difficult to express my admiration
for the systematic thoroughness and suggestiveness of his book on
Composition. In particular, Professor Bain's rule on the use of "that"
and "which" (see Rule 8) deserves to be better known.[2] The ambiguity
produced by the confusion between these two forms of the Relative is
not a mere fiction of pedants; it is practically serious. Take, for
instance, the following sentence, which appeared lately in one of our
ablest weekly periodicals: "There are a good many Radical members in
the House _who_ cannot forgive the Prime Minister for being a
Christian." Twenty years hence, who is to say whether the meaning is
"_and they_, i.e. _all the Radical_ members in the House," or "there
are a good many Radical members of the House _that_ cannot &c."?
Professor Bain, apparently admitting no exceptions to his useful rule,
amends many sentences in a manner that seems to me intolerably harsh.
Therefore, while laying due stress on the utility of the rule, I have
endeavoured to point out and explain the exceptions.
The rules are stated as briefly as possible, and are intended not so
much for use by themselves as for reference while the pupil is working
at the exercises. Consequently, there is no attempt to prove the rules
by accumulations of examples. The few examples that are given, are
given not to prove, but to illustrate the rules. The exercises are
intended to be written out and revised, as exercises usually are; but
they may also be used for _viva voce_ instruction. The books being
shut, the pupils, with their written exercises before them, may be
questioned as to the reasons for the several alterations they have
made. Experienced teachers will not require any explanation of the
arrangement or rather non-arrangement of the exercises. They have been
purposely mixed together unclassified to prevent the pupil from
relying upon anything but his own common sense and industry, to show
him what is the fault in each case, and how it is to be amended.
Besides references to the rules, notes are attached to each sentence,
so that the exercises ought not to present any difficulty to a
painstaking boy of twelve or thirteen, provided he has first been
fairly trained in English grammar.
The "Continuous Extracts" present rather more difficulty, and are
intended for boys somewhat older than those for whom the Exercises are
intended. The attempt to modernize, and clarify, so to speak, the
style of Burnet, Clarendon, and Bishop Butler,[3] may appear
ambitious, and perhaps requires some explanation. My object has, of
course, not been to _improve upon_ the style of these authors, but to
show how their meaning might be expressed more clearly in modern
English. The charm of the style is necessarily lost, but if the loss
is recognized both by teacher and pupil, there is nothing, in my
opinion, to counterbalance the obvious utility of such exercises.
Professor Bain speaks to the same effect:[4] "For an English exercise,
the matter should in some way or other be supplied, and the pupil
disciplined in giving it expression. I know of no better method than
to prescribe passages containing good matter, but in some respects
imperfectly worded, to be amended according to the laws and the
proprieties of style. Our older writers might be extensively, though
not exclusively, drawn upon for this purpose."
To some of the friends whose help has been already acknowledged in
"English Lessons for English People," I am indebted for further help
in revising these pages. I desire to express especial obligations to
the Rev. J. H. Lupton, late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge,
and Second Master of St. Paul's School, for copious and valuable
suggestions; also to several of my colleagues at the City of London
School, among whom I must mention in particular the Rev. A. R. Vardy,
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
* * * * *
Before electrotyping the Fourth and Revised Edition, I wish to say one
word as to the manner in which this book has been used by my highest
class, as a collection of Rules for reference in their construing
lessons. In construing, from Thucydides especially, I have found Rules
5, 30, 34, 36, 37, and 40_a_, of great use. The rules about Metaphor
and Climax have also been useful in correcting faults of taste in
their Latin and Greek compositions. I have hopes that, used in this
way, this little book may be of service to the highest as well as to
the middle classes of our schools.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Punctuation is fully discussed in most English Grammars, and is
therefore referred to in this book only so far as is necessary to
point out the slovenly fault of trusting too much to punctuation, and
too little to arrangement.
[2] Before meeting with Professor Bain's rule, I had shown that the
difference between the Relatives is generally observed by Shakespeare.
See "Shakespearian Grammar," paragraph 259.
[3] Sir Archibald Alison stands on a very different footing. The
extracts from this author are intended to exhibit the dangers of
verbosity and exaggeration.
[4] "English Composition and Rhetoric," p. vii.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
INDEX OF RULES 11-13
RULES 14-40
SHORT EXERCISES 41-63
CONTINUOUS EXERCISES--CLARENDON 64-70
" " BURNET 70-73
" " BUTLER 74-75
" " SIR ARCHIBALD ALISON 76-78
INDEX OF RULES.
I. CLEARNESS AND FORCE.
WORDS.
1. Use words in their proper sense.
2. Avoid exaggerations.
3. Avoid useless circumlocution and "fine writing."
4. Be careful in the use of "not ... and," "any," "but," "only," "not
... or," "that."
4 _a_. Be careful in the use of ambiguous words, _e.g._ "certain."
5. Be careful in the use of "he," "it," "they," "these," &c.
6. Report a speech in the First Person, where necessary to avoid
ambiguity.
6 _a_. Use the Third Person where the exact words of the speaker are
not intended to be given.
6 _b_. Omission of "that" in a speech in the Third Person.
7. When you use a Participle implying "when," "while," "though," or
"that," show clearly by the context what is implied.
8. When using the Relative Pronoun, use "who" or "which," if the
meaning is "and he" or "and it," "for he" or "for it." In other cases
use "that," if euphony allows. Exceptions.
9. Do not use "and which" for "which."
10. Equivalents for the Relative: (_a_) Participle or Adjective; (_b_)
Infinitive; (_c_) "Whereby," "whereto," &c.; (_d_) "If a man;" (_e_)
"And he," "and this," &c.; (_f_) "what;" (_g_) omission of Relative.
10 _a'_. Repeat the Antecedent before the Relative, where the
non-repetition causes any ambiguity. See 38.
11. Use particular for general terms. Avoid abstract Nouns.
11 _a_. Avoid Verbal Nouns where Verbs can be used.
12. Use particular persons instead of a class.
13. Use metaphor instead of literal statement.
14. Do not confuse metaphor.
14 _a_. Do not mix metaphor with literal statement.
14 _b_. Do not use poetic metaphor to illustrate a prosaic subject.
ORDER OF WORDS IN A SENTENCE.
15. Emphatic words must stand in emphatic positions; _i.e._, for the
most part, at the beginning or the end of the sentence.
15 _a_. Unemphatic words must, as a rule, be kept from the end.
Exceptions.
15 _b_. An interrogation sometimes gives emphasis.
16. The Subject, if unusually emphatic, should often be transferred
from the beginning of the sentence.
17. The Object is sometimes placed before the Verb for emphasis.
18. Where several words are emphatic, make it clear which is the most
emphatic. Emphasis can sometimes be given by adding an epithet, or an
intensifying word.
19. Words should be as near as possible to the words with which they
are grammatically connected.
20. Adverbs should be placed next to the words they are intended to
qualify.
21. "Only"; the strict rule is that "only" should be placed before the
word it affects.
22. When "not only" precedes "but also," see that each is followed by
the same part of speech.
23. "At least," "always," and other adverbial adjuncts, sometimes
produce ambiguity.
24. Nouns should be placed near the Nouns that they define.
25. Pronouns should follow the Nouns to which they refer, without the
intervention of any other Noun.
26. Clauses that are grammatically connected should be kept as close
together as possible. Avoid parentheses. But see 55.
27. In conditional sentences, the antecedent or "if-clauses" must be
kept distinct from the consequent clauses.
28. Dependent clauses preceded by "that" should be kept distinct from
those that are independent.
29. Where there are several infinitives, those that are dependent on
the same word must be kept distinct from those that are not.
30. The principle of Suspense.
30 _a_. It is a violation of the principle of suspense to introduce
unexpectedly at the end of a long sentence, some short and unemphatic
clause beginning with (_a_) "not," (_b_) "which."
31. Suspense must not be excessive.
32. In a sentence with "if," "when," "though," &c., put the
"if-clause," antecedent, or protasis, first.
33. Suspense is gained by placing a Participle or Adjective, that
qualifies the Subject, before the Subject.
34. Suspensive Conjunctions, _e.g._ "either," "not only," "on the one
hand," &c., add clearness.
35. Repeat the Subject, where its omission would cause obscurity or
ambiguity.
36. Repeat a Preposition after an intervening Conjunction, especially
if a Verb and an Object also intervene.
37. Repeat Conjunctions, Auxiliary Verbs, and Pronominal Adjectives.
37 _a_. Repeat Verbs after the Conjunctions "than," "as," &c.
38. Repeat the Subject, or some other emphatic word, or a summary of
what has been said, if the sentence is so long that it is difficult to
keep the thread of meaning unbroken.
39. Clearness is increased, when the beginning of the sentence
prepares the way for the middle, and the middle for the end, the whole
forming a kind of ascent. This ascent is called "climax."
40. When the thought is expected to ascend, but descends, feebleness,
and sometimes confusion, is the result. The descent is called
"bathos."
40 _a_. A new construction should not be introduced unexpectedly.
41. Antithesis adds force and often clearness.
42. Epigram.
43. Let each sentence have one, and only one, principal subject of
thought. Avoid heterogeneous sentences.
44. The connection between different sentences must be kept up by
Adverbs used as Conjunctions, or by means of some other connecting
words at the beginning of the sentence.
45. The connection between two long sentences or paragraphs sometimes
requires a short intervening sentence showing the transition of
thought.
II. BREVITY.
46. Metaphor is briefer than literal statement.
47. General terms are briefer, though less forcible, than particular
terms.
47 _a_. A phrase may sometimes be expressed by a word.
48. Participles may often be used as brief (though sometimes
ambiguous) equivalents of phrases containing Conjunctions and Verbs.
49. Participles, Adjectives, Participial Adjectives, and Nouns may be
used as equivalents for phrases containing the Relative.
50. A statement may sometimes be briefly implied instead of being
expressed at length.
51. Conjunctions may be omitted. Adverbs, _e.g._ "very," "so."
Exaggerated epithets, _e.g._ "incalculable," "unprecedented."
51 _a_. The imperative may be used for "if &c."
52. Apposition may be used, so as to convert two sentences into one.
53. Condensation may be effected by not repeating (1) the common
Subject of several Verbs; (2) the common Object of several Verbs or
Prepositions.
54. Tautology. Repeating what may be implied.
55. Parenthesis maybe used with advantage to brevity. See 26.
56. Brevity often clashes with clearness. Let clearness be the first
consideration.
CLEARNESS AND FORCE.
_Numbers in brackets refer to the Rules._
WORDS.
*1. Use words in their proper sense.*
Write, not "His _apparent_ guilt justified his friends in disowning
him," but "his _evident_ guilt." "Conscious" and "aware," "unnatural"
and "supernatural," "transpire" and "occur," "circumstance" and
"event," "reverse" and "converse," "eliminate" and "elicit," are often
confused together.
This rule forbids the use of the same word in different senses. "It is
in my _power_ to refuse your request, and since I have _power_ to do
this, I may lawfully do it." Here the second "power" is used for
"authority."
This rule also forbids the slovenly use of "nice," "awfully,"
"delicious," "glorious," &c. See (2).
*2. Avoid exaggerations.*
"The _boundless_ plains in the heart of the empire furnished
_inexhaustible_ supplies of corn, that would have almost sufficed for
twice the population."
Here "inexhaustible" is inconsistent with what follows. The words
"unprecedented," "incalculable," "very," and "stupendous" are often
used in the same loose way.
*3. Avoid useless circumlocution and "fine writing."*
"Her Majesty here _partook of lunch_." Write "_lunched_."
"Partook of" implies sharing, and is incorrect as well as lengthy.
So, do not use "apex" for "top," "species" for "kind," "individual"
for "man," "assist" for "help," &c.
*4. Be careful how you use the following words: "not ... and," "any,"
"only," "not ... or," "that."*[5]
*And.* See below, "Or."
*Any.*--"I am not bound to receive _any_ messenger that you send."
Does this mean _every_, or _a single_? Use "every" or "a single."
*Not.*--(1) "I do _not_ intend to help you, because you are my enemy
&c." ought to mean (2), "I intend not to help you, and my reason for
not helping you is, because you are my enemy." But it is often wrongly
used to mean (3), "I intend to help you, not because you are my enemy
(but because you are poor, blind, &c.)." In the latter case, _not_
ought to be separated from _intend_. By distinctly marking the limits
to which the influence of _not_ extends, the ambiguity may be removed.
*Only* is often used ambiguously for _alone_. "The rest help me to
revenge myself; you _only_ advise me to wait." This ought to mean,
"you only _advise_, instead of _helping_;" but in similar sentences
"you only" is often used for "you alone." But see 21.
*Or.*--When "or" is preceded by a negative, as "I do not want butter
_or_ honey," "or" ought not, strictly speaking, to be used like "and,"
nor like "nor." The strict use of "not ... or" would be as follows:--
"You say you don't want both butter _and_ honey--you want butter _or_
honey; I, on the contrary, _do not want butter or honey_--I want them
both."
Practically, however, this meaning is so rare, that "I don't want
butter _or_ honey" is regularly used for "I want neither butter nor
honey." But where there is the slightest danger of ambiguity, it is
desirable to use _nor_.
The same ambiguity attends "not ... and." "I do not see Thomas _and_
John" is commonly used for "I see neither Thomas nor John;" but it
might mean, "I do not see them both--I see only one of them."
*That.*--The different uses of "that" produce much ambiguity, _e.g._
"I am so much surprised by this statement _that_ I am desirous of
resigning, _that_ I scarcely know what reply to make." Here it is
impossible to tell, till one has read past "resigning," whether the
first "that" depends upon "so" or "statement." Write: "The statement
that I am desirous of resigning surprises me so much that I scarcely
know &c."
*4 a. Be careful in the use of ambiguous words, e.g. "certain."*
"Certain" is often used for "some," as in "Independently of his
earnings, he has a _certain_ property," where the meaning might be
"unfailing."
Under this head may be mentioned the double use of words, such as
"left" in the same form and sound, but different in meaning. Even
where there is no obscurity, the juxtaposition of the same word twice
used in two senses is inelegant, _e.g._ (Bain), "He turned to the
_left_ and _left_ the room."
I have known the following slovenly sentence misunderstood: "Our
object is that, with the aid of practice, we may sometime arrive at
the point where we think eloquence in its most praiseworthy form _to
lie_." "To lie" has been supposed to mean "to deceive."
*5. Be careful how you use "he," "it," "they," "these," &c.* (For
"which" see 8.) The ambiguity arising from the use of _he_ applying to
different persons is well known.
"He told his friend that if _he_ did not feel better in half an hour
he thought _he_ had better return." See (6) for remedy.
Much ambiguity is also caused by excessive use of such phrases as _in
this way_, _of this sort_, &c.
"God, foreseeing the disorders of human nature, has given us certain
passions and affections which arise from, or whose objects are, these
disorders. _Of this sort_ are fear, resentment, compassion."
Repeat the noun: "Among these passions and affections are fear &c."
Two distinct uses of _it_ may be noted. _It_, when referring to
something that precedes, may be called "retrospective;" but when to
something that follows, "prospective." In "Avoid indiscriminate
charity: _it_ is a crime," "it" is retrospective.[6] In "_It_ is a
crime to give indiscriminately," "it" is prospective.
The prospective "it," if productive of ambiguity, can often be omitted
by using the infinitive as a subject: "To give indiscriminately is a
crime."
*6. Report a speech in the First, not the Third Person, where
necessary to avoid ambiguity.* Speeches in the third person afford a
particular, though very common case, of the general ambiguity
mentioned in (5). Instead of "He told his friend that if _he_ did not
feel better &c.," write "He said to his friend, 'If, _I_ (or _you_)
don't feel better &c.'"
*6 a. Sometimes, where the writer cannot know the exact words, or
where the exact words are unimportant, or lengthy and uninteresting,
the Third Person is preferable.* Thus, where Essex is asking Sir
Robert Cecil that Francis Bacon may be appointed Attorney-General, the
dialogue is (as it almost always is in Lord Macaulay's writings) in
the First Person, _except where it becomes tedious and uninteresting
so as to require condensation_, and then it drops into the Third
Person:
"Sir Robert _had nothing to say but_ that he thought his own abilities
equal to the place which he hoped to obtain, and that his father's
long services deserved such a mark of gratitude from the Queen."
*6 b. Omission of "that" in a speech reported in the Third
Person.*--Even when a speech is reported in the third person, "that"
need not always be inserted before the dependent verb. Thus, instead
of "He said that he took it ill that his promises were not believed,"
we may write, "'He took it ill,' he said, 'that &c.'" This gives a
little more life, and sometimes more clearness also.
*7. When you use a Participle, as "walking," implying "when," "while,"
"though," "that," make it clear by the context what is implied.*
"Republics, in the first instance, are never desired for their own
sakes. I do not think they will finally be desired at all,
_unaccompanied_ by courtly graces and good breeding."
Here there is a little doubt whether the meaning is "_since_ they are,
or, _if_ they are, unaccompanied."
*That or when.*--"Men _walking_ (_that_ walk, or _when_ they walk) on
ice sometimes fall."
It is better to use "men walking" to mean "men _when_ they walk." If
the relative is meant, use "men that walk," instead of the participle.
(1) "_While_ he was } _Walking_ on { (1) the road, } he fell."
(2) "_Because_ he was } { (2) the ice, }
When the participle precedes the subject, it generally implies a
cause: "_Seeing_ this, he retired." Otherwise it generally has its
proper participial meaning, _e.g._ "He retired, _keeping_ his face
towards us." If there is any ambiguity, write "_on_ seeing,"--"_at the
same time_, or _while_, keeping."
(1) "_Though_ he was} {(1) he nevertheless stood
} { his ground."
(2) "_Since_ he was } _Struck_ with terror, {(2) he rapidly retreated."
(3) "_If_ he is } {(3) he will soon retreat."
*8. When using the Relative Pronoun, use "who" and "which" where the
meaning is "and he, it, &c.," "for he, it, &c." In other cases use
"that," if euphony allows.*
"I heard this from the inspector, _who_ (and he) heard it from the
guard _that_ travelled with the train."
"Fetch me (all) the books _that_ lie on the table, and also the
pamphlets, _which_ (and these) you will find on the floor."
An adherence to this rule would remove much ambiguity. Thus: "There
was a public-house next door, _which_ was a great nuisance," means
"_and this_ (_i.e._ the fact of its being next door) was a great
nuisance;" whereas _that_ would have meant "Next door was a
public-house _that_ (_i.e._ the public-house) was a great nuisance."
*"Who," "which," &c. introduce a new fact about the antecedent,
whereas "that" introduces something without which the antecedent is
incomplete or undefined.* Thus, in the first example above,
"inspector" is complete in itself, and "who" introduces a new _fact_
about him; "guard" is incomplete, and requires "_that_ travelled with
the train" to complete the meaning.
It is not, and cannot be, maintained that this rule, though observed
in Elizabethan English, is observed by our best modern authors.
(Probably a general impression that "that" cannot be used to refer to
persons has assisted "who" in supplanting "that" as a relative.) But
the convenience of the rule is so great that beginners in composition
may with advantage adhere to the rule. The following are some of the
cases where _who_ and _which_ are mostly used, contrary to the rule,
instead of _that_.
*Exceptions:*--
(_a_) When the antecedent is defined, _e.g._ by a possessive case,
modern English uses _who_ instead of _that_. It is rare, though it
would be useful,[7] to say "His English friends _that_ had not seen
him" for "the English friends, or those of his English friends, that
had not seen him."
(_b_) _That_ sounds ill when separated from its verb and from its
antecedents, and emphasized by isolation: "There are many persons
_that_, though unscrupulous, are commonly good-tempered, and _that_,
if not strongly incited by self-interest, are ready for the most part
to think of the interest of their neighbours." Shakespeare frequently
uses _who_ after _that_ when the relative is repeated. See
"Shakespearian Grammar," par. 260.
(_c_) If the antecedent is qualified by _that_, the relative must not
be _that_. Besides other considerations, the repetition is
disagreeable. Addison ridicules such language as "_That_ remark _that_
I made yesterday is not _that_ _that_ I said _that_ I regretted _that_
I had made."
(_d_) _That_ cannot be preceded by a preposition, and hence throws the
preposition to the end. "This is the rule _that_ I adhere _to_." This
is perfectly good English, though sometimes unnecessarily avoided.
But, with some prepositions, the construction is harsh and
objectionable, _e.g._ "This is the mark _that_ I jumped _beyond_,"
"Such were the prejudices _that_ he rose _above_." The reason is that
some of these disyllabic prepositions are used as adverbs, and, when
separated from their nouns, give one the impression that they are used
as adverbs.
(_e_) After pronominal adjectives used for personal pronouns, modern
English prefers _who_. "There are many, others, several, those, _who_
can testify &c."
(_f_) After _that_ used as a conjunction there is sometimes a dislike
to use _that_ as a relative. See (_c_).
*9. Do not use redundant "and" before "which."[8]*
"I gave him a very interesting book for a present, _and which_ cost me
five shillings."
In short sentences the absurdity is evident, but in long sentences it
is less evident, and very common.
"A petition was presented for rescinding that portion of the bye-laws
which permits application of public money to support sectarian
schools over which ratepayers have no control, this being a violation
of the principle of civil and religious liberty, _and which_ the
memorialists believe would provoke a determined and conscientious
resistance."
Here _which_ ought grammatically to refer to "portion" or "schools."
But it seems intended to refer to "violation." Omit "and," or repeat
"a violation" before "which," or turn the sentence otherwise.
*10. Equivalents for Relative.*
*(_a_) Participle.*--"Men _thirsting_ (for 'men _that thirst_') for
revenge are not indifferent to plunder." The objection to the
participle is that here, as often, it creates a little ambiguity. The
above sentence may mean, "men, _when_ they thirst," or "_though_ they
thirst," as well as "men _that_ thirst." Often however there is no
ambiguity: "I have documents _proving_ this conclusively."
*(_b_) Infinitive.*--Instead of "He was the first _that_ entered" you
can write "_to_ enter;" for "He is not a man _who_ will act
dishonestly," "_to_ act." This equivalent cannot often be used.
*(_c_) Whereby, wherein, &c.,* can sometimes be used for "by _which_,"
"in _which_," so as to avoid a harsh repetition of "_which_." "The
means _whereby_ this may be effected." But this use is somewhat
antiquated.
*(_d_) If.*--"The man _that_ does not care for music is to be pitied"
can be written (though not so forcibly), "_If_ a man does not care for
music, he is to be pitied." It is in long sentences that this
equivalent will be found most useful.
*(_e_) And this.*--"He did his best, _which_ was all that could be
expected," can be written, "_and this_ was all that, &c."
*(_f_) What.*--"Let me repeat _that which_[9] you ought to know, that
_that which_ is worth doing is worth doing well." "Let me repeat,
_what_ you ought to know, that _what_ is worth doing is worth doing
well."
*(_g_) Omission of Relative.*--It is sometimes thought ungrammatical
to omit the relative, as in "The man (that) you speak of." On the
contrary, _that_ when an object (not when a subject) may be omitted,
wherever the antecedent and the subject of the relative sentence are
brought into juxtaposition by the omission.
*10 a'. Repeat the Antecedent in some new form, where there is any
ambiguity.* This is particularly useful after a negative: "He said
that he would not even hear me, _which_ I confess I had expected."
Here the meaning may be, "I had expected that he would," or "that he
would not, hear me." Write, "_a refusal_, or, _a favour_, that I
confess I had expected." See (38).
*11. Use particular for general terms.*--This is a most important
rule. Instead of "I have neither the necessaries of life nor the means
of procuring them," write (if you can _with truth_), "I have not a
crust of bread, nor a penny to buy one."
CAUTION.--There is a danger in this use. The meaning is vividly
expressed but sometimes may be exaggerated or imperfect. _Crust of
bread_ may be an exaggeration; on the other hand, if the speaker is
destitute not only of bread, but also of shelter and clothing, then
_crust of bread_ is an imperfect expression of the meaning.
In philosophy and science, where the language ought very often to be
inclusive and brief, general and not particular terms must be used.
*11 a. Avoid Verbal Nouns where Verbs can be used instead.* The
disadvantage of the use of Verbal Nouns is this, that, unless they are
immediately preceded by prepositions, they are sometimes liable to be
confounded with participles. The following is an instance of an
excessive use of Verbal Nouns:
"The pretended confession of the secretary was only collusion to lay
the jealousies of the king's _favouring_ popery, which still hung upon
him, notwithstanding his _writing_ on the Revelation, and _affecting_
to enter on all occasions into controversy, _asserting_ in particular
that the Pope was Antichrist."
Write "notwithstanding that he wrote and affected &c."
*12. Use a particular Person instead of a class.*
"What is the splendour of _the greatest monarch_ compared with the
beauty of _a flower_?" "What is the splendour of Solomon compared with
the beauty of a daisy?"
Under this head may come the forcible use of Noun for Adjective: "This
fortress is _weakness_ itself."
An excess of this use is lengthy and pedantically bombastic, _e.g._,
the following paraphrase for "in every British colony:"--"under Indian
palm-groves, amid Australian gum-trees, in the shadow of African
mimosas, and beneath Canadian pines."
*13. Use Metaphor instead of literal statement.*
"The ship _ploughs_ the sea" is clearer than "the ship _cleaves_ the
sea," and shorter than "the ship _cleaves_ the sea _as a plough
cleaves the land_."
Of course there are some subjects for which Metaphor should not be
used. See (14 _a_) and (14 _b_).
*14. Do not confuse Metaphor.*
"In a moment the thunderbolt was upon them, _deluging_ their country
with invaders."
The following is attributed to Sir Boyle Roche: "Mr. Speaker, I smell
a rat, I see him brewing in the air; but, mark me, I shall yet nip him
in the bud."
Some words, once metaphorical, have ceased to be so regarded. Hence
many good writers say "_under_ these _circumstances_" instead of "_in_
these circumstances."
An excessive regard for disused metaphor savours of pedantry:
disregard is inelegant. Write, not, "_unparalleled_ complications,"
but "_unprecedented_ complications;" and "_he threw light on_
obscurities," instead of "_he unravelled_ obscurities."
*14 a. Do not introduce literal statement immediately after Metaphor.*
"He was the father of Chemistry, and brother to the Earl of Cork."
"He was a very thunderbolt of war,
And was lieutenant to the Earl of Mar."
*14 b. Do not use poetic metaphor to illustrate a prosaic subject.*
Thus, we may say "a poet _soars_," or even, though rarely, "a nation
_soars_ to greatness," but you could not say "Consols _soared to_
94-1/2." Even commonplace subjects may be illustrated by metaphor: for
it is a metaphor, and quite unobjectionable, to say "Consols
_mounted_, or _jumped_ to 94-1/2." But commonplace subjects must be
illustrated by metaphor that is commonplace.
ORDER OF WORDS IN A SENTENCE.
*15. Emphatic words must stand in emphatic positions; i.e. for the
most part, at the beginning or at the end of the sentence.* This rule
occasionally supersedes the common rules about position. Thus, the
place for an adverb, as a rule, should be between the subject and
verb: "He _quickly_ left the room;" but if _quickly_ is to be
emphatic, it must come at the beginning or end, as in "I told him to
leave the room slowly, but he left _quickly_."
Adjectives, in clauses beginning with "if" and "though," often come at
the beginning for emphasis: "_Insolent_ though he was, he was silenced
at last."
*15 a. Unemphatic words must, as a rule, be kept from the end of the
sentence.* It is a common fault to break this rule by placing a short
and unemphatic predicate at the end of a long sentence.
"To know some Latin, even if it be nothing but a few Latin roots, _is
useful_." Write, "It is useful, &c."
So "the evidence proves how kind to his inferiors _he is_."
Often, where an adjective or auxiliary verb comes at the end, the
addition of an emphatic adverb justifies the position, _e.g._ above,
"is _very_ useful," "he has _invariably_ been."
A short "chippy" ending, even though emphatic, is to be avoided. It is
abrupt and unrhythmical, _e.g._ "The soldier, transfixed with the
spear, _writhed_." We want a _longer_ ending, "fell writhing to the
ground," or, "writhed in the agonies of death." A "chippy" ending is
common in bad construing from Virgil.
*Exceptions.*--Prepositions and pronouns attached to emphatic words
need not be moved from the end; _e.g._ "He does no harm that I hear
_of_." "Bear witness how I loved _him_."
*N.B. In all styles, especially in letter-writing, a final emphasis
must not be so frequent as to become obtrusive and monotonous.*
*15 b. An interrogation sometimes gives emphasis.* "No one can doubt
that the prisoner, had he been really guilty, would have shown some
signs of remorse," is not so emphatic as "Who can doubt, Is it
possible to doubt, &c.?"
Contrast "No one ever names Wentworth without thinking of &c." with
"But Wentworth,--who ever names him without thinking of those harsh
dark features, ennobled by their expression into more than the majesty
of an antique Jupiter?"
*16. The subject, if unusually emphatic, should often be removed from
the beginning of the sentence.* The beginning of the sentence is an
emphatic position, though mostly not so emphatic as the end. Therefore
the principal subject of a sentence, being emphatic, and being wanted
early in the sentence to tell us what the sentence is about, comes as
a rule, at or near the beginning: "_Thomas_ built this house."
Hence, since the beginning is the _usual_ place for the subject, if we
want to emphasize "Thomas" _unusually_, we must remove "Thomas" from
the beginning: "This house was built by _Thomas_," or "It was _Thomas_
that built this house."
Thus, the emphasis on "conqueror" is not quite so strong in "_A mere
conqueror_ ought not to obtain from us the reverence that is due to
the great benefactors of mankind," as in "We ought not to bestow the
reverence that is due to the great benefactors of mankind, _upon a
mere conqueror_." Considerable, but less emphasis and greater
smoothness (19) will be obtained by writing the sentence thus: "We
ought not to bestow upon a mere conqueror &c."
Where the same subject stands first in several consecutive sentences,
it rises in emphasis, and need not be removed from the beginning, even
though unusual emphasis be required:
"The captain was the life and soul of the expedition. _He_ first
pointed out the possibility of advancing; _he_ warned them of the
approaching scarcity of provisions; _he_ showed how they might
replenish their exhausted stock &c."
*17. The object is sometimes placed before the verb for emphasis.*
This is most common in antithesis. "_Jesus_ I know, and _Paul_ I know;
but who are ye?" "_Some_ he imprisoned, _others_ he put to death."
Even where there is no antithesis the inversion is not uncommon:
"Military _courage_, the boast of the sottish German, of the frivolous
and prating Frenchman, of the romantic and arrogant Spaniard, he
neither possesses nor values."
This inversion sometimes creates ambiguity in poetry, _e.g._ "The son
the father slew," and must be sparingly used in prose.
Sometimes the position of a word may be considered appropriate by
some, and inappropriate by others, according to different
interpretations of the sentence. Take as an example, "Early in the
morning the nobles and gentlemen who attended on the king assembled in
the great hall of the castle; and here they began to talk of what a
dreadful storm it had been the night before. But Macbeth could
scarcely understand what they said, for he was thinking of something
worse." The last sentence has been amended by Professor Bain into
"_What they said_, Macbeth could scarcely understand." But there
appears to be an antithesis between the guiltless nobles who can think
about the weather, and the guilty Macbeth who cannot. Hence, "what
they said" ought not, and "Macbeth" ought, to be emphasized: and
therefore "Macbeth" ought to be retained at the beginning of the
sentence.
The same author alters, "The praise of judgment Virgil has justly
contested with him, but his invention remains yet unrivalled," into
"Virgil has justly contested with him the praise of judgment, but no
one has yet rivalled his invention"--an alteration which does not seem
to emphasize sufficiently the antithesis between what had been
'contested,' on the one hand, and what remained as yet 'unrivalled' on
the other.
More judiciously Professor Bain alters, "He that tells a lie is not
sensible how great a task he undertakes; for he must be forced to
invent twenty more to maintain one," into "for, to maintain one, he
must invent twenty more," putting the emphatic words in their emphatic
place, at the end.
*18. Where several words are emphatic, make it clear which is the most
emphatic.* Thus, in "The state was made, under the pretence of serving
it, in reality the prize of their contention to each of these opposite
parties," it is unpleasantly doubtful whether the writer means (1)
_state_ or (2) _parties_ to be emphatic.
If (1), "As for the _state_, these two parties, under the pretence of
serving it, converted it into a prize for their contention." If (2),
write, "Though served in profession, the state was in reality
converted into a prize for their contention by these two _parties_."
In (1) _parties_ is subordinated, in (2) _state_.
Sometimes the addition of some intensifying word serves to emphasize.
Thus, instead of "To effect this they used all devices," we can write
"To effect this they used _every conceivable device_." So, if we want
to emphasize fidelity in "The business will task your skill and
fidelity," we can write "Not only your skill _but also_ your
fidelity." This, however, sometimes leads to exaggerations. See (2).
Sometimes antithesis gives emphasis, as in "You _do_ not know this,
but you _shall_ know it." Where antithesis cannot be used, the
emphasis must be expressed by turning the sentence, as "I _will make
you_ know it," or by some addition, as "You shall _hereafter_ know
it."
*19. Words should be as near as possible to the words with which they
are grammatically connected.* See Paragraphs 20 to 29. For exceptions
see 30.
*20. Adverbs should be placed next to the words they are intended to
affect.* When unemphatic, adverbs come between the subject and the
verb, or, if the tense is compound, between the parts of the compound
tense: "He _quickly_ left the room;" "He has _quickly_ left the room;"
but, when emphatic, after the verb: "He left, or has left, the room
_quickly_."[10] When such a sentence as the latter is followed by a
present participle, there arises ambiguity. "I told him to go slowly,
but he left the room _quickly_, dropping the purse on the floor." Does
_quickly_ here modify _left_ or _dropping_? The remedy[11] is, to give
the adverb its unemphatic place, "He _quickly_ left the room, dropping
&c.," or else to avoid the participle, thus: "He _quickly_ dropped the
purse and left the room," or "He dropped the purse and _quickly_ left
the room."
*21. "Only" requires careful use. The strict[12] rule is, that "only"
should be placed before the word affected by it.*
The following is ambiguous:
"The heavens are not open to the faithful _only_ at intervals."
The best rule is to avoid placing "only" between two emphatic words,
and to avoid using "only" where "alone" can be used instead.
In strictness perhaps the three following sentences:
(1) He _only_ beat three,
(2) He beat _only_ three,
(3) He beat three _only_, ought to be explained, severally, thus:
(1) He did no more than beat, did not kill, three.
(2) He beat no more than three.
(3) He beat three, and that was all he did. (Here _only_ modifies the
whole of the sentence and depreciates the action.)
But the best authors sometimes transpose the word. "He _only_ lived"
ought to mean "he did not die or make any great sacrifice;" but "He
_only_ lived but till he was a man" (_Macbeth_, v. 8. 40) means "He
lived _only_ till he was a man." Compare also, "Who _only_ hath
immortality."
_Only_ at the beginning of a statement = _but_. "I don't like to
importune you, _only_ I know you'll forgive me." Before an imperative
it diminishes the favour asked: "_Only_ listen to me." This use of
_only_ is mostly confined to letters.
Very often, _only_ at the beginning of a sentence is used for _alone_:
"_Only_ ten came," "_Only_ Caesar approved." _Alone_ is less ambiguous.
The ambiguity of _only_ is illustrated by such a sentence as, "Don't
hesitate to bring a few friends of yours to shoot on my estate at any
time. _Only_ five (fifteen) came yesterday," which might mean, "I
don't mind a _few_; _only_ don't bring so many as _fifteen_;" or else
"Don't hesitate to bring a few _more_; no more than _five_ came
yesterday." In conversation, ambiguity is prevented by emphasis; but
in a letter, _only_ thus used might cause unfortunate mistakes. Write
"Yesterday _only_ five came," if you mean "no more than five."
*22. When "not only" precedes "but also," see that each is followed by
the same part of speech.*
"He _not only_ gave me advice _but also_ help" is wrong. Write "He
gave me, _not only_ advice, _but also_ help." On the other hand, "He
_not only_ gave me a grammar, _but also_ lent me a dictionary," is
right. Take an instance. "He spoke _not only_ forcibly _but also_
tastefully (adverbs), and this too, _not only_ before a small
audience, _but also_ in (prepositions) a large public meeting, and his
speeches were _not only_ successful, _but also_ (adjective) worthy of
success."
*23. "At least," "always," and other adverbial adjuncts, sometimes
produce ambiguity.*
"I think you will find my Latin exercise, _at all events_, as good as
my cousin's." Does this mean (1) "my Latin exercise, though not
perhaps my other exercises;" or (2), "Though not very good, yet, at
all events, as good as my cousin's"? Write for (1), "My Latin
exercise, at all events, you will find &c." and for (2), "I think you
will find my Latin exercise as good as my cousin's, at all events."
The remedy is to avoid placing "at all events" between two emphatic
words.
As an example of the misplacing of an adverbial adjunct, take "From
abroad he received most favourable reports, but in the City he heard
that a panic had broken out on the Exchange, and that the funds were
fast falling." This ought to mean that the "hearing," and not (as is
intended) that the "breaking out of the panic," took place in the
City.
In practice, an adverb is often used to qualify a remote word, where
the latter is _more emphatic than any nearer word_. This is very
common when the Adverbial Adjunct is placed in an emphatic position at
the beginning of the sentence: "_On this very spot_ our guide declared
that Claverhouse had fallen."
*24. Nouns should be placed near the nouns that they define.* In the
very common sentence "The death is announced of Mr. John Smith, an
author whose works &c.," the transposition is probably made from a
feeling that, if we write "The death of Mr. John Smith is announced,"
we shall be obliged to begin a new sentence, "He was an author whose
works &c." But the difficulty can be removed by writing "We regret to
announce, or, we are informed of, the death of Mr. John Smith, an
author, &c."
*25. Pronouns should follow the nouns to which they refer without the
intervention of another noun.* Avoid, "John Smith, the son of Thomas
Smith, _who_ gave me this book," unless _Thomas Smith_ is the
antecedent of _who_. Avoid also "John supplied Thomas with money: _he_
(John) was very well off."
When, however, one of two preceding nouns is decidedly superior to the
other in emphasis, the more emphatic may be presumed to be the noun
referred to by the pronoun, even though the noun of inferior emphasis
intervenes. Thus: "At this moment the colonel came up, and took the
place of the wounded general. _He_ gave orders to halt." Here _he_
would naturally refer to _colonel_, though _general_ intervenes. A
_conjunction_ will often show that a pronoun refers to the subject of
the preceding sentence, and not to another intervening noun. "The
sentinel at once took aim at the approaching soldier, and fired. He
_then_ retreated to give the alarm."
It is better to adhere, in most cases, to Rule 25, which may be called
(Bain) the Rule of Proximity. The Rule of Emphasis, of which an
instance was given in the last paragraph, is sometimes misleading. A
distinction might be drawn by punctuating thus:
"David the father of Solomon, who slew Goliath." "David, the father of
Solomon who built the Temple." But the propriety of omitting a comma
in each case is questionable, and it is better to write so as not to
be at the mercy of commas.