statesman; Grant, a great soldier."
(9) The subject of address is followed by a comma: "John, you are a good
man."
(10) In numeration, commas are used to express periods of three figures:
"Mountains 25,000 feet high; 1,000,000 dollars."
The _Semicolon_ marks a slighter connection than the comma. It is
generally confined to separating the parts of compound sentences. It is
much used in contrasts:
(1) "Gladstone was great as a statesman; he was sublime as a man."
(2) The Semicolon is used between the parts of all compound sentences in
which the grammatical subject of the second part is different from that
of the first: "The power of England relies upon the wisdom of her
statesmen; the power of America upon the strength of her army and navy."
(4) The Semicolon is used before words and abbreviations which introduce
particulars or specifications following after, such as, _namely, as,
e.g., vid., i.e., etc._: "He had three defects; namely, carelessness,
lack of concentration and obstinacy in his ideas." "An island is a
portion of land entirely surrounded by water; as Cuba." "The names of
cities should always commence with a capital letter; _e.g._, New York,
Paris." "The boy was proficient in one branch; viz., Mathematics."
"No man is perfect; i.e., free from all blemish."
The _Colon_ except in conventional uses is practically obsolete.
(1) It is generally put at the end of a sentence introducing a long
quotation: "The cheers having subsided, Mr. Bryan spoke as follows:"
(2) It is placed before an explanation or illustration of the subject
under consideration: "This is the meaning of the term:"
(3) A direct quotation formally introduced is generally preceded by a
colon: "The great orator made this funny remark:"
(4) The colon is often used in the title of books when the secondary or
subtitle is in apposition to the leading one and when the conjunction
_or_ is omitted: "Acoustics: the Science of Sound."
(5) It is used after the salutation in the beginning of letters: "Sir: My
dear Sir: Gentlemen: Dear Mr. Jones:" etc. In this connection a dash very
often follows the colon.
(6) It is sometimes used to introduce details of a group of things
already referred to in the mass: "The boy's excuses for being late were:
firstly, he did not know the time, secondly, he was sent on an errand,
thirdly, he tripped on a rock and fell by the wayside."
The _Period_ is the simplest punctuation mark. It is simply used to mark
the end of a complete sentence that is neither interrogative nor
exclamatory.
(1) After every sentence conveying a complete meaning: "Birds fly."
"Plants grow." "Man is mortal."
(2) In abbreviations: after every abbreviated word: Rt. Rev. T. C.
Alexander, D.D., L.L.D.
(3) A period is used on the title pages of books after the name of the
book, after the author's name, after the publisher's imprint: _American
Trails_. By Theodore Roosevelt. New York. Scribner Company.
The _Mark of Interrogation_ is used to ask or suggest a question.
(1) Every question admitting of an answer, even when it is not expected,
should be followed by the mark of interrogation: "Who has not heard of
Napoleon?"
(2) When several questions have a common dependence they should be
followed by one mark of interrogation at the end of the series: "Where
now are the playthings and friends of my boyhood; the laughing boys; the
winsome girls; the fond neighbors whom I loved?"
(3) The mark is often used parenthetically to suggest doubt: "In 1893 (?)
Gladstone became converted to Home Rule for Ireland."
The _Exclamation_ point should be sparingly used, particularly in prose.
Its chief use is to denote emotion of some kind.
(1) It is generally employed with interjections or clauses used as
interjections: "Alas! I am forsaken." "What a lovely landscape!"
(2) Expressions of strong emotion call for the exclamation: "Charge,
Chester, charge! On, Stanley, on!"
(3) When the emotion is very strong double exclamation points may be
used: "Assist him!! I would rather assist Satan!!"
The _Dash_ is generally confined to cases where there is a sudden break
from the general run of the passage. Of all the punctuation marks it is
the most misused.
(1) It is employed to denote sudden change in the construction or
sentiment: "The Heroes of the Civil War,--how we cherish them." "He was a
fine fellow--in his own opinion."
(2) When a word or expression is repeated for oratorical effect, a dash
is used to introduce the repetition: "Shakespeare was the greatest of all
poets--Shakespeare, the intellectual ocean whose waves washed the
continents of all thought."
(3) The Dash is used to indicate a conclusion without expressing it: "He
is an excellent man but--"
(4) It is used to indicate what is not expected or what is not the
natural outcome of what has gone before: "He delved deep into the bowels
of the earth and found instead of the hidden treasure--a button."
(5) It is used to denote the omission of letters or figures: "J--n J--s"
for John Jones; 1908-9 for 1908 and 1909; Matthew VII:5-8 for Matthew
VII:5, 6, 7, and 8.
(6) When an ellipsis of the words, _namely, that is, to wit_, etc., takes
place, the dash is used to supply them: "He excelled in three branches--
arithmetic, algebra, and geometry."
(7) A dash is used to denote the omission of part of a word when it is
undesirable to write the full word: He is somewhat of a r----l (rascal).
This is especially the case in profane words.
(8) Between a citation and the authority for it there is generally a dash:
"All the world's a stage."--_Shakespeare_.
(9) When questions and answers are put in the same paragraph they should
be separated by dashes: "Are you a good boy? Yes, Sir.--Do you love study?
I do."
_Marks of Parenthesis_ are used to separate expressions inserted in the
body of a sentence, which are illustrative of the meaning, but have no
essential connection with the sentence, and could be done without. They
should be used as little as possible for they show that something is
being brought into a sentence that does not belong to it.
(1) When the unity of a sentence is broken the words causing the break
should be enclosed in parenthesis: "We cannot believe a liar (and Jones
is one), even when he speaks the truth."
(2) In reports of speeches marks of parenthesis are used to denote
interpolations of approval or disapproval by the audience: "The masses
must not submit to the tyranny of the classes (hear, hear), we must show
the trust magnates (groans), that they cannot ride rough-shod over our
dearest rights (cheers);" "If the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), will
not be our spokesman, we must select another. (A voice,--Get Robinson)."
When a parenthesis is inserted in the sentence where no comma is
required, no point should be used before either parenthesis. When
inserted at a place requiring a comma, if the parenthetical matter
relates to the whole sentence, a comma should be used before each
parenthesis; if it relates to a single word, or short clause, no stop
should come before it, but a comma should be put after the closing
parenthesis.
The _Quotation marks_ are used to show that the words enclosed by them
are borrowed.
(1) A direct quotation should be enclosed within the quotation marks:
Abraham Lincoln said,--"I shall make this land too hot for the feet of
slaves."
(2) When a quotation is embraced within another, the contained quotation
has only single marks: Franklin said, "Most men come to believe 'honesty
is the best policy.'"
(3) When a quotation consists of several paragraphs the quotation marks
should precede each paragraph.
(4) Titles of books, pictures and newspapers when formally given are
quoted.
(5) Often the names of ships are quoted though there is no occasion for it.
The _Apostrophe_ should come under the comma rather than under the
quotation marks or double comma. The word is Greek and signifies a turning
away from. The letter elided or turned away is generally an _e_. In poetry
and familiar dialogue the apostrophe marks the elision of a syllable, as
"I've for I have"; "Thou'rt for thou art"; "you'll for you will," etc.
Sometimes it is necessary to abbreviate a word by leaving out several
letters. In such case the apostrophe takes the place of the omitted letters
as "cont'd for continued." The apostrophe is used to denote the elision of
the century in dates, where the century is understood or to save the
repetition of a series of figures, as "The Spirit of '76"; "I served in the
army during the years 1895, '96, '97, '98 and '99." The principal use of
the apostrophe is to denote the possessive case. All nouns in the singular
number whether proper names or not, and all nouns in the plural ending with
any other letter than _s_, form the possessive by the addition of the
apostrophe and the letter _s_. The only exceptions to this rule are, that,
by poetical license the additional _s_ may be elided in poetry for sake of
the metre, and in the scriptural phrases "For goodness' sake." "For
conscience' sake," "For Jesus' sake," etc. Custom has done away with the
_s_ and these phrases are now idioms of the language. All plural nouns
ending in _s_ form the possessive by the addition of the apostrophe only as
boys', horses'. The possessive case of the personal pronouns never take the
apostrophe, as ours, yours, hers, theirs.
CAPITAL LETTERS
_Capital letters_ are used to give emphasis to or call attention to
certain words to distinguish them from the context. In manuscripts they
may be written small or large and are indicated by lines drawn
underneath, two lines for SMALL CAPITALS and three lines for CAPITALS.
Some authors, notably Carlyle, make such use of Capitals that it
degenerates into an abuse. They should only be used in their proper
places as given in the table below.
(1) The first word of every sentence, in fact the first word in writing
of any kind should begin with a capital; as, "Time flies." "My dear
friend."
(2) Every direct quotation should begin with a capital; "Dewey said,--
'Fire, when you're ready, Gridley!'"
(3) Every direct question commences with a capital; "Let me ask you;
'How old are you?'"
(4) Every line of poetry begins with a capital; "Breathes there a man
with soul so dead?"
(5) Every numbered clause calls for a capital: "The witness asserts: (1)
That he saw the man attacked; (2) That he saw him fall; (3) That he
saw his assailant flee."
(6) The headings of essays and chapters should be wholly in capitals; as,
CHAPTER VIII--RULES FOR USE OF CAPITALS.
(7) In the titles of books, nouns, pronouns, adjectives and adverbs
should begin with a capital; as, "Johnson's Lives of the Poets."
(8) In the Roman notation numbers are denoted by capitals; as, I II III V
X L C D M--1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000.
(9) Proper names begin with a capital; as, "Jones, Johnson, Caesar, Mark
Antony, England, Pacific, Christmas."
Such words as river, sea, mountain, etc., when used generally are common,
not proper nouns, and require no capital. But when such are used with an
adjective or adjunct to specify a particular object they become proper
names, and therefore require a capital; as, "Mississippi River, North
Sea, Alleghany Mountains," etc. In like manner the cardinal points north,
south, east and west, when they are used to distinguish regions of a
country are capitals; as, "The North fought against the South."
When a proper name is compounded with another word, the part which is not
a proper name begins with a capital if it precedes, but with a small
letter if it follows, the hyphen; as "Post-homeric," "Sunday-school."
(10) Words derived from proper names require a Capital; as, "American,
Irish, Christian, Americanize, Christianize."
In this connection the names of political parties, religious sects and
schools of thought begin with capitals; as, "Republican, Democrat, Whig,
Catholic, Presbyterian, Rationalists, Free Thinkers."
(11) The titles of honorable, state and political offices begin with a
capital; as, "President, Chairman, Governor, Alderman."
(12) The abbreviations of learned titles and college degrees call for
capitals; as, "LL.D., M.A., B.S.," etc. Also the seats of learning
conferring such degrees as, "Harvard University, Manhattan College," etc.
(13) When such relative words as father, mother, brother, sister, uncle,
aunt, etc., precede a proper name, they are written and printed with
capitals; as, Father Abraham, Mother Eddy, Brother John, Sister Jane,
Uncle Jacob, Aunt Eliza. Father, when used to denote the early Christian
writer, is begun with a capital; "Augustine was one of the learned
Fathers of the Church."
(14) The names applied to the Supreme Being begin with capitals: "God,
Lord, Creator, Providence, Almighty, The Deity, Heavenly Father, Holy
One." In this respect the names applied to the Saviour also require
capitals: "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Man of Galilee, The Crucified, The
Anointed One." Also the designations of Biblical characters as "Lily of
Israel, Rose of Sharon, Comfortress of the Afflicted, Help of Christians,
Prince of the Apostles, Star of the Sea," etc. Pronouns referring to God
and Christ take capitals; as, "His work, The work of Him, etc."
(15) Expressions used to designate the Bible or any particular division
of it begin with a capital; as, "Holy Writ, The Sacred Book, Holy Book,
God's Word, Old Testament, New Testament, Gospel of St. Matthew, Seven
Penitential Psalms."
(16) Expressions based upon the Bible or in reference to Biblical
characters begin with a capital: "Water of Life, Hope of Men, Help of
Christians, Scourge of Nations."
(17) The names applied to the Evil One require capitals: "Beelzebub,
Prince of Darkness, Satan, King of Hell, Devil, Incarnate Fiend, Tempter
of Men, Father of Lies, Hater of Good."
(18) Words of very special importance, especially those which stand out
as the names of leading events in history, have capitals; as, "The
Revolution, The Civil War, The Middle Ages, The Age of Iron," etc.
(19) Terms which refer to great events in the history of the race require
capitals; "The Flood, Magna Charta, Declaration of Independence."
(20) The names of the days of the week and the months of the year and the
seasons are commenced with capitals: "Monday, March, Autumn."
(21) The Pronoun _I_ and the interjection _O_ always require the use of
capitals. In fact all the interjections when uttered as exclamations
commence with capitals: "Alas! he is gone." "Ah! I pitied him."
(22) All _noms-de-guerre_, assumed names, as well as names given for
distinction, call for capitals, as, "The Wizard of the North," "Paul
Pry," "The Northern Gael," "Sandy Sanderson," "Poor Robin," etc.
(23) In personification, that is, when inanimate things are represented
as endowed with life and action, the noun or object personified begins
with a capital; as, "The starry Night shook the dews from her wings."
"Mild-eyed Day appeared," "The Oak said to the Beech--'I am stronger
than you.'"
CHAPTER VI
LETTER WRITING
Principles of Letter-Writing--Forms--Notes
Many people seem to regard letter-writing as a very simple and easily
acquired branch, but on the contrary it is one of the most difficult
forms of composition and requires much patience and labor to master its
details. In fact there are very few perfect letter-writers in the
language. It constitutes the direct form of speech and may be called
conversation at a distance. Its forms are so varied by every conceivable
topic written at all times by all kinds of persons in all kinds of moods
and tempers and addressed to all kinds of persons of varying degrees in
society and of different pursuits in life, that no fixed rules can be
laid down to regulate its length, style or subject matter. Only general
suggestions can be made in regard to scope and purpose, and the forms of
indicting set forth which custom and precedent have sanctioned.
The principles of letter-writing should be understood by everybody who
has any knowledge of written language, for almost everybody at some time
or other has necessity to address some friend or acquaintance at a
distance, whereas comparatively few are called upon to direct their
efforts towards any other kind of composition.
Formerly the illiterate countryman, when he had occasion to communicate
with friends or relations, called in the peripatetic schoolmaster as his
amanuensis, but this had one draw-back,--secrets had to be poured into an
ear other than that for which they were intended, and often the
confidence was betrayed.
Now, that education is abroad in the land, there is seldom any occasion
for any person to call upon the service of another to compose and write a
personal letter. Very few now-a-days are so grossly illiterate as not to
be able to read and write. No matter how crude his effort may be it is
better for any one to write his own letters than trust to another. Even
if he should commence,--"deer fren, i lift up my pen to let ye no that i
hove been sik for the past 3 weeks, hopping this will findye the same,"
his spelling and construction can be excused in view of the fact that his
intention is good, and that he is doing his best to serve his own turn
without depending upon others.
The nature, substance and tone of any letter depend upon the occasion
that calls it forth, upon the person writing it and upon the person for
whom it is intended. Whether it should be easy or formal in style, plain
or ornate, light or serious, gay or grave, sentimental or matter-of-fact
depend upon these three circumstances.
In letter writing the first and most important requisites are to be
natural and simple; there should be no straining after effect, but simply
a spontaneous out-pouring of thoughts and ideas as they naturally occur
to the writer. We are repelled by a person who is stiff and labored in
his conversation and in the same way the stiff and labored letter bores
the reader. Whereas if it is light and in a conversational vein it
immediately engages his attention.
The letter which is written with the greatest facility is the best kind
of letter because it naturally expresses what is in the writer, he has
not to search for his words, they flow in a perfect unison with the ideas
he desires to communicate. When you write to your friend John Browne to
tell him how you spent Sunday you have not to look around for the words,
or study set phrases with a view to please or impress Browne, you just
tell him the same as if he were present before you, how you spent the
day, where you were, with whom you associated and the chief incidents
that occurred during the time. Thus, you write natural and it is such
writing that is adapted to epistolary correspondence.
There are different kinds of letters, each calling for a different style
of address and composition, nevertheless the natural key should be
maintained in all, that is to say, the writer should never attempt to
convey an impression that he is other than what he is. It would be silly
as well as vain for the common street laborer of a limited education to
try to put on literary airs and emulate a college professor; he may have
as good a brain, but it is not as well developed by education, and he
lacks the polish which society confers. When writing a letter the street
laborer should bear in mind that only the letter of a street-laborer is
expected from him, no matter to whom his communication may be addressed
and that neither the grammar nor the diction of a Chesterfield or
Gladstone is looked for in his language. Still the writer should keep in
mind the person to whom he is writing. If it is to an Archbishop or some
other great dignitary of Church or state it certainly should be couched
in terms different from those he uses to John Browne, his intimate
friend. Just as he cannot say "Dear John" to an Archbishop, no more can
he address him in the familiar words he uses to his friend of everyday
acquaintance and companionship. Yet there is no great learning required
to write to an Archbishop, no more than to an ordinary individual. All
the laborer needs to know is the form of address and how to properly
utilize his limited vocabulary to the best advantage. Here is the form
for such a letter:
17 Second Avenue,
New York City.
January 1st, 1910.
Most Rev. P. A. Jordan,
Archbishop of New York.
Most Rev. and dear Sir:--
While sweeping the crossing at Fifth
Avenue and 50th street on last Wednesday
morning, I found the enclosed Fifty Dollar
Bill, which I am sending to you in the hope
that it may be restored to the rightful
owner.
I beg you will acknowledge receipt and
should the owner be found I trust you will
notify me, so that I may claim some reward
for my honesty.
I am, Most Rev. and dear Sir,
Very respectfully yours,
Thomas Jones.
Observe the brevity of the letter. Jones makes no suggestions to the
Archbishop how to find the owner, for he knows the course the Archbishop
will adopt, of having the finding of the bill announced from the Church
pulpits. Could Jones himself find the owner there would be no occasion to
apply to the Archbishop.
This letter, it is true, is different from that which he would send to
Browne. Nevertheless it is simple without being familiar, is just a plain
statement, and is as much to the point for its purpose as if it were
garnished with rhetoric and "words of learned length and thundering
sound."
Letters may be divided into those of friendship, acquaintanceship, those
of business relations, those written in an official capacity by public
servants, those designed to teach, and those which give accounts of the
daily happenings on the stage of life, in other words, news letters.
_Letters of friendship_ are the most common and their style and form
depend upon the degree of relationship and intimacy existing between the
writers and those addressed. Between relatives and intimate friends the
beginning and end may be in the most familiar form of conversation,
either affectionate or playful. They should, however, never overstep the
boundaries of decency and propriety, for it is well to remember that,
unlike conversation, which only is heard by the ears for which it is
intended, written words may come under eyes other than those for whom
they were designed. Therefore, it is well never to write anything which
the world may not read without detriment to your character or your
instincts. You can be joyful, playful, jocose, give vent to your feelings,
but never stoop to low language and, above all, to language savoring in
the slightest degree of moral impropriety.
_Business letters_ are of the utmost importance on account of the
interests involved. The business character of a man or of a firm is often
judged by the correspondence. On many occasions letters instead of
developing trade and business interests and gaining clientele, predispose
people unfavorably towards those whom they are designed to benefit.
Ambiguous, slip-shod language is a detriment to success. Business letters
should be clear, concise, to the point and, above all, honest, giving no
wrong impressions or holding out any inducements that cannot be fulfilled.
In business letters, just as in business conduct, honesty is always the
best policy.
_Official letters_ are mostly always formal. They should possess clearness,
brevity and dignity of tone to impress the receivers with the proper
respect for the national laws and institutions.
Letters designed to teach or _didactic letters_ are in a class all by
themselves. They are simply literature in the form of letters and are
employed by some of the best writers to give their thoughts and ideas a
greater emphasis. The most conspicuous example of this kind of composition
is the book on Etiquette by Lord Chesterfield, which took the form of a
series of letters to his son.
_News letters_ are accounts of world happenings and descriptions of
ceremonies and events sent into the newspapers. Some of the best authors
of our time are newspaper men who write in an easy flowing style which is
most readable, full of humor and fancy and which carries one along with
breathless interest from beginning to end.
The principal parts of a letter are (1) the _heading_ or introduction;
(2) the _body_ or substance of the letter; (3) the _subscription_ or
closing expression and signature; (4) the _address_ or direction on the
envelope. For the _body_ of a letter no forms or rules can be laid down
as it altogether depends on the nature of the letter and the relationship
between the writer and the person addressed.
There are certain rules which govern the other three features and which
custom has sanctioned. Every one should be acquainted with these rules.
THE HEADING
The _Heading_ has three parts, viz., the name of the place, the date of
writing and the designation of the person or persons addressed; thus:
73 New Street,
Newark, N. J.,
February 1st, 1910.
Messr. Ginn and Co.,
New York
Gentlemen:
The name of the place should never be omitted; in cities, street and
number should always be given, and except when the city is large and very
conspicuous, so that there can be no question as to its identity with
another of the same or similar name, the abbreviation of the State should
be appended, as in the above, Newark, N. J. There is another Newark in
the State of Ohio. Owing to failure to comply with this rule many letters
go astray. The _date_ should be on every letter, especially business
letters. The date should never be put at the bottom in a business letter,
but in friendly letters this may be done. The _designation_ of the
person or persons addressed differs according to the relations of the
correspondents. Letters of friendship may begin in many ways according to
the degrees of friendship or intimacy. Thus:
My dear Wife:
My dear Husband:
My dear Friend:
My darling Mother:
My dearest Love:
Dear Aunt:
Dear Uncle:
Dear George: etc.
To mark a lesser degree of intimacy such formal designations as the
following may be employed:
Dear Sir:
My dear Sir:
Dear Mr. Smith:
Dear Madam: etc.
For clergymen who have the degree of Doctor of Divinity, the designation
is as follows:
Rev. Alban Johnson, D. D.
My dear Sir: or Rev. and dear Sir: or more familiarly
Dear Dr. Johnson:
Bishops of the Roman and Anglican Communions are addressed as
_Right Reverend_.
The Rt. Rev., the Bishop of Long Island. or
The Rt. Rev. Frederick Burgess, Bishop of Long Island.
Rt. Rev. and dear Sir:
Archbishops of the Roman Church are addressed as _Most Reverend_ and
Cardinals as _Eminence_. Thus:
The Most Rev. Archbishop Katzer.
Most Rev. and dear Sir:
His Eminence, James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore.
May it please your Eminence:
The title of the Governor of a State or territory and of the President of
the United States is _Excellency_. However, _Honorable_ is more commonly
applied to Governors:--
His Excellency, William Howard Taft,
President of the United States.
Sir:--
His Excellency, Charles Evans Hughes,
Governor of the State of New York.
Sir:--
Honorable Franklin Fort,
Governor of New Jersey.
Sir:--
The general salutation for Officers of the Army and Navy is _Sir_. The
rank and station should be indicated in full at the head of the letter,
thus:
General Joseph Thompson,
Commanding the Seventh Infantry.
Sir:
Rear Admiral Robert Atkinson,
Commanding the Atlantic Squadron.
Sir:
The title of officers of the Civil Government is Honorable and they are
addressed as _Sir_.
Hon. Nelson Duncan,
Senator from Ohio.
Sir:
Hon. Norman Wingfield,
Secretary of the Treasury.
Sir:
Hon. Rupert Gresham,
Mayor of New York.
Sir:
Presidents and Professors of Colleges and Universities are generally
addressed as _Sir_ or _Dear Sir_.
Professor Ferguson Jenks,
President of .......... University.
Sir: or Dear Sir:
Presidents of Societies and Associations are treated as business men and
addressed as _Sir_ or _Dear Sir_.
Mr. Joseph Banks,
President of the Night Owls.
Dear Sir: or Sir:
Doctors of Medicine are addressed as _Sir: My dear Sir: Dear Sir:_
and more familiarly My dear Dr: or Dear Dr: as
Ryerson Pitkin, M. D.
Sir:
Dear Sir:
My dear Dr:
Ordinary people with no degrees or titles are addressed as Mr. and Mrs.
and are designed Dear Sir: Dear Madam: and an unmarried woman of any age
is addressed on the envelope as Miss So-and-so, but always designed in
the letter as
Dear Madam:
The plural of Mr. as in addressing a firm is _Messrs_, and the
corresponding salutation is _Dear Sirs: or Gentlemen:_
In England _Esq._ is used for _Mr._ as a mark of slight superiority and
in this country it is sometimes used, but it is practically obsolete.
Custom is against it and American sentiment as well. If it is used it
should be only applied to lawyers and justices of the peace.
SUBSCRIPTION
The _Subscription_ or ending of a letter consists of the term of respect
or affection and the signature. The term depends upon the relation of the
person addressed. Letters of friendship can close with such expressions
as:
Yours lovingly,
Yours affectionately,
Devotedly yours,
Ever yours, etc.
as between husbands and wives or between lovers. Such gushing
terminations as Your Own Darling, Your own Dovey and other pet and silly
endings should be avoided, as they denote shallowness. Love can be
strongly expressed without dipping into the nonsensical and the farcical.
Formal expressions of Subscription are:
Yours Sincerely,
Yours truly,
Respectfully yours,
and the like, and these may be varied to denote the exact bearing or
attitude the writer wishes to assume to the person addressed: as,
Very sincerely yours,
Very respectfully yours,
With deep respect yours,
Yours very truly, etc.
Such elaborate endings as
"In the meantime with the highest respect, I am yours to command,"
"I have the honor to be, Sir, Your humble Servant,"
"With great expression of esteem, I am Sincerely yours,"
"Believe me, my dear Sir, Ever faithfully yours,"
are condemned as savoring too much of affectation.
It is better to finish formal letters without any such qualifying
remarks. If you are writing to Mr. Ryan to tell him that you have a house
for sale, after describing the house and stating the terms simply sign
yourself
Your obedient Servant
Yours very truly,
Yours with respect,
James Wilson.
Don't say you have the honor to be anything or ask him to believe
anything, all you want to tell him is that you have a house for sale and
that you are sincere, or hold him in respect as a prospective customer.
Don't abbreviate the signature as: _Y'rs Resp'fly_ and always make
your sex obvious. Write plainly
Yours truly,
_John Field_
and not _J. Field_, so that the person to whom you send it may not take
you for _Jane Field_.
It is always best to write the first name in full. Married women should
prefix _Mrs._ to their names, as
Very sincerely yours,
_Mrs._ Theodore Watson.
If you are sending a letter acknowledging a compliment or some kindness
done you may say, _Yours gratefully,_ or _Yours very gratefully,_ in
proportion to the act of kindness received.
It is not customary to sign letters of degrees or titles after your name,
except you are a lord, earl or duke and only known by the title, but as
we have no such titles in America it is unnecessary to bring this matter
into consideration. Don't sign yourself,
Sincerely yours,
Obadiah Jackson, M.A. or L.L. D.
If you're an M. A. or an L.L. D. people generally know it without your
sounding your own trumpet. Many people, and especially clergymen, are
fond of flaunting after their names degrees they have received _honoris
causa_, that is, degrees as a mark of honor, without examination. Such
degrees should be kept in the background. Many a deadhead has these
degrees which he could never have earned by brain work.
Married women whose husbands are alive may sign the husband's name with
the prefix _Mrs:_ thus,
Yours sincerely,
_Mrs._ William Southey.
but when the husband is dead the signature should be--
Yours sincerely,
_Mrs._ Sarah Southey.
So when we receive a letter from a woman we are enabled to tell whether
she has a husband living or is a widow. A woman separated from her
husband but not a _divorcee_ should _not_ sign his name.
ADDRESS
The _address_ of a letter consists of the name, the title and the
residence.
Mr. Hugh Black,
112 Southgate Street,
Altoona,
Pa.
Intimate friends have often familiar names for each other, such as pet
names, nicknames, etc., which they use in the freedom of conversation,
but such names should never, under any circumstances, appear on the
envelope. The subscription on the envelope should be always written with
propriety and correctness and as if penned by an entire stranger. The
only difficulty in the envelope inscription is the title. Every man is
entitled to _Mr._ and every lady to _Mrs._ and every unmarried lady to
_Miss_. Even a boy is entitled to _Master_. When more than one is addressed
the title is _Messrs._ _Mesdames_ is sometimes written of women. If the
person addressed has a title it is courteous to use it, but titles never
must be duplicated. Thus, we can write
Robert Stitt, M. D., but never
Dr. Robert Stitt, M. D, or
Mr. Robert Stitt, M. D.
In writing to a medical doctor it is well to indicate his profession by
the letters M. D. so as to differentiate him from a D. D. It is better to
write Robert Stitt, M. D., than Dr. Robert Stitt.
In the case of clergymen the prefix Rev. is retained even when they have
other titles; as
Rev. Tracy Tooke, LL. D.
When a person has more titles than one it is customary to only give him
the leading one. Thus instead of writing Rev. Samuel MacComb, B. A.,
M. A., B. Sc., Ph. D., LL. D., D. D. the form employed is Rev. Samuel
MacComb, LL. D. LL. D. is appended in preference to D. D. because in most
cases the "Rev." implies a "D. D." while comparatively few with the prefix
"Rev." are entitled to "LL. D."
In the case of _Honorables_ such as Governors, Judges, Members of Congress,
and others of the Civil Government the prefix "Hon." does away with _Mr._
and _Esq._ Thus we write Hon. Josiah Snifkins, not Hon. Mr. Josiah Snifkins
or Hon. Josiah Snifkins, Esq. Though this prefix _Hon._ is also often
applied to Governors they should be addressed as Excellency. For instance:
His Excellency,
Charles E. Hughes,
Albany,
N. Y.
In writing to the President the superscription on the envelope should be
To the President,
Executive Mansion,
Washington, D. C.
Professional men such as doctors and lawyers as well as those having
legitimately earned College Degrees may be addressed on the envelopes by
their titles, as
Jonathan Janeway, M. D.
Hubert Houston, B. L.
Matthew Marks, M. A., etc.
The residence of the person addressed should be plainly written out in
full. The street and numbers should be given and the city or town written
very legibly. If the abbreviation of the State is liable to be confounded
or confused with that of another then the full name of the State should
be written. In writing the residence on the envelope, instead of putting
it all in one line as is done at the head of a letter, each item of the
residence forms a separate line. Thus,
Liberty,
Sullivan County,
New York.
215 Minna St.,
San Francisco,
California.
There should be left a space for the postage stamp in the upper right
hand corner. The name and title should occupy a line that is about
central between the top of the envelope and the bottom. The name should
neither be too much to right or left but located in the centre, the
beginning and end at equal distances from either end.
In writing to large business concerns which are well known or to public
or city officials it is sometimes customary to leave out number and street.
Thus,
Messrs. Seigel, Cooper Co.,
New York City,
Hon. William J. Gaynor,
New York City.
NOTES
_Notes_ may be regarded as letters in miniature confined chiefly to
invitations, acceptances, regrets and introductions, and modern etiquette
tends towards informality in their composition. Card etiquette, in fact,
has taken the place of ceremonious correspondence and informal notes are
now the rule. Invitations to dinner and receptions are now mostly written
on cards. "Regrets" are sent back on visiting cards with just the one
word _"Regrets"_ plainly written thereon. Often on cards and notes of
invitation we find the letters R. S. V. P. at the bottom. These letters
stand for the French _repondez s'il vous plait_, which means "Reply, if
you please," but there is no necessity to put this on an invitation card
as every well-bred person knows that a reply is expected. In writing
notes to young ladies of the same family it should be noted that the
eldest daughter of the house is entitled to the designation _Miss_ without
any Christian name, only the surname appended. Thus if there are three
daughters in the Thompson family Martha, the eldest, Susan and Jemina,
Martha is addressed as _Miss_ Thompson and the other two as _Miss_ Susan
Thompson and _Miss_ Jemina Thompson respectively.
Don't write the word _addressed_ on the envelope of a note.
Don't _seal_ a note delivered by a friend.
Don't write a note on a postal card.
Here are a few common forms:--
FORMAL INVITATIONS
Mr. and Mrs. Henry Wagstaff request the
honor of Mr. McAdoo's presence on Friday
evening, June 15th, at 8 o'clock to meet the
Governor of the Fort.
19 Woodbine Terrace
June 8th, 1910.
This is an invitation to a formal reception calling for evening dress.
Here is Mr. McAdoo's reply in the third person:--
Mr. McAdoo presents his compliments to
Mr. and Mrs. Henry Wagstaff and accepts with
great pleasure their invitation to meet the
Governor of the Fort on the evening of June
fifteenth.
215 Beacon Street,
June 10th, 1910.
Here is how Mr. McAdoo might decline the invitation:--
Mr. McAdoo regrets that owing to a prior
engagement he must forego the honor of paying
his respects to Mr. and Mrs. Wagstaff and the
Governor of the Fort on the evening of June
fifteenth.
215 Beacon St.,
June 10th, 1910.
Here is a note addressed, say to Mr. Jeremiah Reynolds.
Mr. and Mrs. Oldham at home on Wednesday
evening October ninth from seven to eleven.
21 Ashland Avenue,
October 5th.
Mr. Reynolds makes reply:--
Mr. Reynolds accepts with high appreciation
the honor of Mr. and Mrs. Oldham's invitation
for Wednesday evening October ninth.
Windsor Hotel
October 7th
or
Mr. Reynolds regrets that his duties render
it impossible for him to accept Mr. and Mrs.
Oldham's kind invitation for the evening of
October ninth.
Windsor Hotel,
October 7th,
Sometimes less informal invitations are sent on small specially designed
note paper in which the first person takes the place of the third. Thus
360 Pine St.,
Dec. 11th, 1910.
Dear Mr. Saintsbury:
Mr. Johnson and I should be much pleased to
have you dine with us and a few friends next
Thursday, the fifteenth, at half past seven.
Yours sincerely,
Emma Burnside.
Mr. Saintsbury's reply:
57 Carlyle Strand
Dec. 13th, 1910.
Dear Mrs. Burnside:
Let me accept very appreciatively your
invitation to dine with Mr. Burnside and you
on next Thursday, the fifteenth, at half past
seven.
Yours sincerely,
Henry Saintsbury.
Mrs. Alexander Burnside.
NOTES OF INTRODUCTION
Notes of introduction should be very circumspect as the writers are in
reality vouching for those whom they introduce. Here is a specimen of
such a note.
603 Lexington Ave.,
New York City,
June 15th, 1910.
Rev. Cyrus C. Wiley, D. D.,
Newark, N. J.
My dear Dr. Wiley:
I take the liberty of
presenting to you my friend, Stacy Redfern,
M. D., a young practitioner, who is anxious
to locate in Newark. I have known him many
years and can vouch for his integrity and
professional standing. Any courtesy and
kindness which you may show him will be very
much appreciated by me.
Very sincerely yours,
Franklin Jewett.
CHAPTER VII
ERRORS
Mistakes--Slips of Authors--Examples and Corrections--Errors of Redundancy.
In the following examples the word or words in parentheses are uncalled
for and should be omitted:
1. Fill the glass (full).
2. They appeared to be talking (together) on private affairs.
3. I saw the boy and his sister (both) in the garden.
4. He went into the country last week and returned (back) yesterday.
5. The subject (matter) of his discourse was excellent.
6. You need not wonder that the (subject) matter of his discourse was
excellent; it was taken from the Bible.
7. They followed (after) him, but could not overtake him.
8. The same sentiments may be found throughout (the whole of) the book.
9. I was very ill every day (of my life) last week.
10. That was the (sum and) substance of his discourse.
11. He took wine and water and mixed them (both) together.
12. He descended (down) the steps to the cellar.
13. He fell (down) from the top of the house.
14. I hope you will return (again) soon.
15. The things he took away he restored (again).
16. The thief who stole my watch was compelled to restore it (back again).
17. It is equally (the same) to me whether I have it today or tomorrow.
18. She said, (says she) the report is false; and he replied, (says he)
if it be not correct I have been misinformed.
19. I took my place in the cars (for) to go to New York.
20. They need not (to) call upon him.
21. Nothing (else) but that would satisfy him.
22. Whenever I ride in the cars I (always) find it prejudicial to my
health.
23. He was the first (of all) at the meeting.
24. He was the tallest of (all) the brothers.
25. You are the tallest of (all) your family.
26. Whenever I pass the house he is (always) at the door.
27. The rain has penetrated (through) the roof.
28. Besides my uncle and aunt there was (also) my grandfather at the
church.
29. It should (ever) be your constant endeavor to please your family.
30. If it is true as you have heard (then) his situation is indeed pitiful.
31. Either this (here) man or that (there) woman has (got) it.
32. Where is the fire (at)?
33. Did you sleep in church? Not that I know (of).
34. I never before (in my life) met (with) such a stupid man.
35. (For) why did he postpone it?
36. Because (why) he could not attend.
37. What age is he? (Why) I don't know.
38. He called on me (for) to ask my opinion.
39. I don't know where I am (at).
40. I looked in (at) the window.
41. I passed (by) the house.
42. He (always) came every Sunday.
43. Moreover, (also) we wish to say he was in error.
44. It is not long (ago) since he was here.
45. Two men went into the wood (in order) to cut (down) trees.
Further examples of redundancy might be multiplied. It is very common in
newspaper writing where not alone single words but entire phrases are
sometimes brought in, which are unnecessary to the sense or explanation
of what is written.
GRAMMATICAL ERRORS OF STANDARD AUTHORS
Even the best speakers and writers are sometimes caught napping. Many of
our standard authors to whom we have been accustomed to look up as
infallible have sinned more or less against the fundamental principles of
grammar by breaking the rules regarding one or more of the nine parts of
speech. In fact some of them have recklessly trespassed against all nine,
and still they sit on their pedestals of fame for the admiration of the
crowd. Macaulay mistreated the article. He wrote,--"That _a_ historian
should not record trifles is perfectly true." He should have used _an_.
Dickens also used the article incorrectly. He refers to "Robinson Crusoe"
as "_an_ universally popular book," instead of _a_ universally popular
book.
The relation between nouns and pronouns has always been a stumbling block
to speakers and writers. Hallam in his _Literature of Europe_ writes,
"No one as yet had exhibited the structure of the human kidneys, Vesalius
having only examined them in dogs." This means that Vesalius examined
human kidneys in dogs. The sentence should have been, "No one had as yet
exhibited the kidneys in human beings, Vesalius having examined such
organs in dogs only."
Sir Arthur Helps in writing of Dickens, states--"I knew a brother author
of his who received such criticisms from him (Dickens) very lately and
profited by _it_." Instead of _it_ the word should be _them_ to agree
with criticisms.
Here are a few other pronominal errors from leading authors:
"Sir Thomas Moore in general so writes it, although not many others so
late as _him_." Should be _he_.--Trench's _English Past and Present_.
"What should we gain by it but that we should speedily become as poor as
_them_." Should be _they_.--Alison's _Essay on Macaulay_.
"If the king gives us leave you or I may as lawfully preach, as
_them_ that do." Should be _they_ or _those_, the latter
having persons understood.--Hobbes's _History of Civil Wars_.
"The drift of all his sermons was, to prepare the Jews for the reception
of a prophet, mightier than _him_, and whose shoes he was not worthy
to bear." Should be than _he_.--Atterbury's _Sermons_.
"Phalaris, who was so much older than _her_." Should be _she_.--Bentley's
_Dissertation on Phalaris_.
"King Charles, and more than _him_, the duke and the Popish faction were
at liberty to form new schemes." Should be than _he_.--Bolingbroke's
_Dissertations on Parties_.
"We contributed a third more than the Dutch, who were obliged to the same
proportion more than _us_." Should be than _we_.--Swift's _Conduct of the
Allies_.
In all the above examples the objective cases of the pronouns have been
used while the construction calls for nominative cases.
"Let _thou_ and _I_ the battle try"--_Anon_.
Here _let_ is the governing verb and requires an objective case after it;
therefore instead of _thou_ and _I_, the words should be _you_ (_sing_.)
and _me_.
"Forever in this humble cell, Let thee and I, my fair one, dwell"
--_Prior_.
Here _thee_ and _I_ should be the objectives _you_ and _me_.
The use of the relative pronoun trips the greatest number of authors.
Even in the Bible we find the relative wrongly translated:
Whom do men say that I am?--_St. Matthew_.
Whom think ye that I am?--_Acts of the Apostles_.
_Who_ should be written in both cases because the word is not in the
objective governed by say or think, but in the nominative dependent on
the verb _am_.
"_Who_ should I meet at the coffee house t'other night, but my old
friend?"--_Steele_.
"It is another pattern of this answerer's fair dealing, to give us hints
that the author is dead, and yet lay the suspicion upon somebody, I know
not _who_, in the country."--Swift's _Tale of a Tub_.
"My son is going to be married to I don't know _who_."--Goldsmith's
_Good-natured Man_.
The nominative _who_ in the above examples should be the objective
_whom_.
The plural nominative _ye_ of the pronoun _thou_ is very often
used for the objective _you_, as in the following:
"His wrath which will one day destroy _ye both_."--_Milton_.
"The more shame for _ye_; holy men I thought _ye_."--_Shakespeare_.
"I feel the gales that from _ye_ blow."--_Gray_.
"Tyrants dread _ye_, lest your just decree Transfer the power and
set the people free."--_Prior_.
Many of the great writers have played havoc with the adjective in the
indiscriminate use of the degrees of comparison.
"Of two forms of the same word, use the fittest."--_Morell_.
The author here in _trying_ to give good advice sets a bad example.
He should have used the comparative degree, "Fitter."
Adjectives which have a comparative or superlative signification do not
admit the addition of the words _more_, _most_, or the terminations,
_er_, _est_, hence the following examples break this rule:
"Money is the _most universal_ incitement of human misery."--Gibbon's
_Decline and Fall_.
"The _chiefest_ of which was known by the name of Archon among the
Grecians."--Dryden's _Life of Plutarch_.
"The _chiefest_ and largest are removed to certain magazines they call
libraries."--Swift's _Battle of the Books_.
The two _chiefest_ properties of air, its gravity and elastic force,
have been discovered by mechanical experiments.--_Arbuthno_.
"From these various causes, which in greater or _lesser_ degree,
affected every individual in the colony, the indignation of the people
became general."--Robertson's _History of America_.
"The _extremest_ parts of the earth were meditating a submission."
--Atterbury's _Sermons_.
"The last are indeed _more preferable_ because they are founded on some new
knowledge or improvement in the mind of man."--Addison, _Spectator_.
"This was in reality the _easiest_ manner of the two."--Shaftesbury's
_Advice to an Author_.
"In every well formed mind this second desire seems to be the _strongest_
of the two."--Smith's _Theory of Moral Sentiments_.
In these examples the superlative is wrongly used for the comparative.
When only two objects are compared the comparative form must be used.
Of impossibility there are no degrees of comparison, yet we find the
following:
"As it was impossible they should know the words, thoughts and secret
actions of all men, so it was _more impossible_ they should pass judgment
on them according to these things."--Whitby's _Necessity of the Christian
Religion_.
A great number of authors employ adjectives for adverbs. Thus we find:
"I shall endeavor to live hereafter _suitable_ to a man in my station."
--_Addison_.
"I can never think so very _mean_ of him."--Bentley's _Dissertation on
Phalaris_.
"His expectations run high and the fund to supply them is _extreme_
scanty."--_Lancaster's Essay on Delicacy_.
The commonest error in the use of the verb is the disregard of the
concord between the verb and its subject. This occurs most frequently
when the subject and the verb are widely separated, especially if some
other noun of a different number immediately precedes the verb. False
concords occur very often after _either_, _or_, _neither_, _nor_, and
_much_, _more_, _many_, _everyone_, _each_.
Here are a few authors' slips:--
"The terms in which the sale of a patent _were_ communicated to the
public."--Junius's _Letters_.
"The richness of her arms and apparel _were_ conspicuous."--Gibbon's
_Decline and Fall_.
"Everyone of this grotesque family _were_ the creatures of national
genius."--D'Israeli.
"He knows not what spleen, languor or listlessness _are_."--Blair's
_Sermons_.
"Each of these words _imply_, some pursuit or object relinquished."
--_Ibid_.
"Magnus, with four thousand of his supposed accomplices _were_ put
to death."--_Gibbon_.
"No nation gives greater encouragements to learning than we do; yet at
the same time _none are_ so injudicious in the application."
--_Goldsmith_.
"_There's two_ or _three_ of us have seen strange sights."--_Shakespeare_.
The past participle should not be used for the past tense, yet the
learned Byron overlooked this fact. He thus writes in the _Lament of
Tasso_:--
"And with my years my soul _begun to pant_ With feelings of strange
tumult and soft pain."
Here is another example from Savage's _Wanderer_ in which there is
double sinning:
"From liberty each nobler science _sprung_, A Bacon brighten'd and a
Spenser _sung_."
Other breaches in regard to the participles occur in the following:--
"Every book ought to be read with the same spirit and in the same manner
as it is _writ_"--Fielding's _Tom Jones_.
"The Court of Augustus had not _wore_ off the manners of the republic"
--Hume's _Essays_.
"Moses tells us that the fountains of the earth were _broke_ open or
clove asunder."--Burnet.
"A free constitution when it has been _shook_ by the iniquity of
former administrations."--_Bolingbroke_.
"In this respect the seeds of future divisions were _sowed_ abundantly."
--_Ibid_.
In the following example the present participle is used for the infinitive
mood:
"It is easy _distinguishing_ the rude fragment of a rock from the splinter
of a statue."--Gilfillan's _Literary Portraits_.
_Distinguishing_ here should be replaced by _to distinguish_.
The rules regarding _shall_ and _will_ are violated in the following:
"If we look within the rough and awkward outside, we _will_ be
richly rewarded by its perusal."--Gilfillan's _Literary Portraits_.
"If I _should_ declare them and speak of them, they should be more
than I am able to express."--_Prayer Book Revision of Psalms XI_.
"If I _would_ declare them and speak of them, they are more than can
be numbered."--_Ibid_.
"Without having attended to this, we _will_ be at a loss, in understanding
several passages in the classics."--Blair's _Lectures_.
"We know to what cause our past reverses have been owing and _we_
will have ourselves to blame, if they are again incurred."--Alison's
_History of Europe_.
Adverbial mistakes often occur in the best writers. The adverb _rather_ is
a word very frequently misplaced. Archbishop Trench in his "English Past
and Present" writes, "It _rather_ modified the structure of our sentences
than the elements of our vocabulary." This should have been written,--"It
modified the structure of our sentences _rather than_ the elements of our
vocabulary."
"So far as his mode of teaching goes he is _rather_ a disciple of
Socrates than of St. Paul or Wesley." Thus writes Leslie Stephens of Dr.
Johnson. He should have written,--" So far as his mode of teaching goes
he is a disciple of Socrates _rather_ than of St. Paul or Wesley."
The preposition is a part of speech which is often wrongly used by some
of the best writers. Certain nouns, adjectives and verbs require
particular prepositions after them, for instance, the word _different_
always takes the preposition _from_ after it; _prevail_ takes _upon_;
_averse_ takes _to_; _accord_ takes _with_, and so on.
In the following examples the prepositions in parentheses are the ones
that should have been used:
"He found the greatest difficulty _of_ (in) writing."--Hume's
_History of England_.
"If policy can prevail _upon_ (over) force."--_Addison_.
"He made the discovery and communicated _to_ (with) his friends."
--Swift's _Tale of a Tub_.
"Every office of command should be intrusted to persons _on_ (in)
whom the parliament shall confide."--_Macaulay_.
Several of the most celebrated writers infringe the canons of style by
placing prepositions at the end of sentences. For instance Carlyle, in
referring to the Study of Burns, writes:--"Our own contributions to it,
we are aware, can be but scanty and feeble; but we offer them with good
will, and trust they may meet with acceptance from those they are
intended _for_."
--"for whom they are intended," he should have written.
"Most writers have some one vein which they peculiarly and obviously
excel _in_."--_William Minto_.
This sentence should read,--Most writers have some one vein in which they
peculiarly and obviously excel.
Many authors use redundant words which repeat the same thought and idea.
This is called tautology.
"Notwithstanding which (however) poor Polly embraced them all around."
--_Dickens_.
"I judged that they would (mutually) find each other."--_Crockett_.
"....as having created a (joint) partnership between the two Powers in
the Morocco question."--_The Times_.
"The only sensible position (there seems to be) is to frankly acknowledge
our ignorance of what lies beyond."--_Daily Telegraph_.
"Lord Rosebery has not budged from his position--splendid, no doubt,--of
(lonely) isolation."--_The Times_.
"Miss Fox was (often) in the habit of assuring Mrs. Chick."--_Dickens_.
"The deck (it) was their field of fame."--_Campbell_.
"He had come up one morning, as was now (frequently) his wont,"
--_Trollope_.
The counsellors of the Sultan (continue to) remain sceptical
--_The Times_.
Seriously, (and apart from jesting), this is no light matter.--_Bagehot_.
To go back to your own country with (the consciousness that you go back
with) the sense of duty well done.--_Lord Halsbury_.
The _Peresviet_ lost both her fighting-tops and (in appearance)
looked the most damaged of all the ships--_The Times_.
Counsel admitted that, that was a fair suggestion to make, but he
submitted that it was borne out by the (surrounding) circumstances.
--_Ibid_.
Another unnecessary use of words and phrases is that which is termed
circumlocution, a going around the bush when there is no occasion for
it,--save to fill space.
It may be likened to a person walking the distance of two sides of a
triangle to reach the objective point. For instance in the quotation:
"Pope professed to have learned his poetry from Dryden, whom, whenever an
opportunity was presented, he praised through the whole period of his
existence with unvaried liberality; and perhaps his character may receive
some illustration, of a comparison he instituted between him and the man
whose pupil he was" much of the verbiage may be eliminated and the
sentence thus condensed:
"Pope professed himself the pupil of Dryden, whom he lost no opportunity
of praising; and his character may be illustrated by a comparison with
his master."
"His life was brought to a close in 1910 at an age not far from the one
fixed by the sacred writer as the term of human existence."
This in brevity can be put, "His life was brought to a close at the age
of seventy;" or, better yet, "He died at the age of seventy."
"The day was intensely cold, so cold in fact that the thermometer crept
down to the zero mark," can be expressed: "The day was so cold the
thermometer registered zero."
Many authors resort to circumlocution for the purpose of "padding," that
is, filling space, or when they strike a snag in writing upon subjects of
which they know little or nothing. The young writer should steer clear of
it and learn to express his thoughts and ideas as briefly as possible
commensurate with lucidity of expression.
Volumes of errors in fact, in grammar, diction and general style, could
be selected from the works of the great writers, a fact which eloquently
testifies that no one is infallible and that the very best is liable to
err at times. However, most of the erring in the case of these writers
arises from carelessness or hurry, not from a lack of knowledge.
As a general rule it is in writing that the scholar is liable to slip; in
oral speech he seldom makes a blunder. In fact, there are many people who
are perfect masters of speech,--who never make a blunder in conversation,
yet who are ignorant of the very principles of grammar and would not know
how to write a sentence correctly on paper. Such persons have been
accustomed from infancy to hear the language spoken correctly and so the
use of the proper words and forms becomes a second nature to them. A
child can learn what is right as easy as what is wrong and whatever
impressions are made on the mind when it is plastic will remain there.
Even a parrot can be taught the proper use of language. Repeat to a
parrot.--"Two and two _make_ four" and it never will say "two and two
_makes_ four."
In writing, however, it is different. Without a knowledge of the
fundamentals of grammar we may be able to speak correctly from
association with good speakers, but without such a knowledge we cannot
hope to write the language correctly. To write even a common letter we
must know the principles of construction, the relationship of one word to
another. Therefore, it is necessary for everybody to understand at least
the essentials of the grammar of his own language.
CHAPTER VIII
PITFALLS TO AVOID
Common Stumbling Blocks--Peculiar Constructions--Misused Forms.
ATTRACTION
Very often the verb is separated from its real nominative or subject by
several intervening words and in such cases one is liable to make the
verb agree with the subject nearest to it. Here are a few examples
showing that the leading writers now and then take a tumble into this
pitfall:
(1) "The partition which the two ministers made of the powers of
government _were_ singularly happy."--_Macaulay_.
(Should be _was_ to agree with its subject, _partition_.)
(2) "One at least of the qualities which fit it for training ordinary men
_unfit_ it for _training_ an extraordinary man."--_Bagehot_.
(Should be _unfits_ to agree with subject _one_.)
(3) "The Tibetans have engaged to exclude from their country those
dangerous influences whose appearance _were_ the chief cause of our
action."--_The Times_.
(Should be _was_ to agree with _appearance_.)
(4) "An immense amount of confusion and indifference _prevail_ in these
days."--_Telegraph_.
(Should be _prevails_ to agree with amount.)
ELLIPSIS
Errors in ellipsis occur chiefly with prepositions.
His objection and condoning of the boy's course, seemed to say the least,
paradoxical.
(The preposition _to_ should come after objection.)
Many men of brilliant parts are crushed by force of circumstances and
their genius forever lost to the world.
(Some maintain that the missing verb after genius is _are_, but such
is ungrammatical. In such cases the right verb should be always
expressed: as--their genius _is_ forever lost to the world.)
THE SPLIT INFINITIVE
Even the best speakers and writers are in the habit of placing a
modifying word or words between the _to_ and the remaining part of the
infinitive. It is possible that such will come to be looked upon in time
as the proper form but at present the splitting of the infinitive is
decidedly wrong. "He was scarcely able _to_ even _talk_" "She commenced
_to_ rapidly _walk_ around the room." "_To have_ really _loved_ is better
than not _to have_ at all _loved_." In these constructions it is much
better not to split the infinitive. In every-day speech the best speakers
sin against this observance.
In New York City there is a certain magistrate, a member of "the 400,"
who prides himself on his diction in language. He tells this story: A
prisoner, a faded, battered specimen of mankind, on whose haggard face,
deeply lined with the marks of dissipation, there still lingered faint
reminders of better days long past, stood dejected before the judge.
"Where are you from?" asked the magistrate. "From Boston," answered the
accused. "Indeed," said the judge, "indeed, yours is a sad case, and yet
you don't seem _to_ thoroughly _realise_ how low you have sunk." The man
stared as if struck. "Your honor does me an injustice," he said bitterly.
"The disgrace of arrest for drunkenness, the mortification of being
thrust into a noisome dungeon, the publicity and humiliation of trial in
a crowded and dingy courtroom I can bear, but to be sentenced by a Police
Magistrate who _splits his infinitives_--that is indeed the last blow."
ONE
The indefinite adjective pronoun _one_ when put in place of a personal
substantive is liable to raise confusion. When a sentence or expression
is begun with the impersonal _one_ the word must be used throughout in
all references to the subject. Thus, "One must mind one's own business if
one wishes to succeed" may seem prolix and awkward, nevertheless it is
the proper form. You must not say--"One must mind his business if he
wishes to succeed," for the subject is impersonal and therefore cannot
exclusively take the masculine pronoun. With _any one_ it is different.
You may say--"If any one sins he should acknowledge it; let him not try
to hide it by another sin."
ONLY
This is a word that is a pitfall to the most of us whether learned or
unlearned. Probably it is the most indiscriminately used word in the
language. From the different positions it is made to occupy in a sentence
it can relatively change the meaning. For instance in the sentence--"I
_only_ struck him that time," the meaning to be inferred is, that the
only thing I did to him was to _strike_ him, not kick or otherwise abuse
him. But if the _only_ is shifted, so as to make the sentence read-"I
struck him _only_ that time" the meaning conveyed is, that only on that
occasion and at no other time did I strike him. If another shift is made
to-"I struck _only_ him that time," the meaning is again altered so that
it signifies he was the only person I struck.
In speaking we can by emphasis impress our meaning on our hearers, but in
writing we have nothing to depend upon but the position of the word in
the sentence. The best rule in regard to _only_ is to place it
_immediately before_ the word or phrase it modifies or limits.
ALONE
is another word which creates ambiguity and alters meaning. If we
substitute it for only in the preceding example the meaning of the
sentence will depend upon the arrangement. Thus "I _alone_ struck him at
that time" signifies that I and no other struck him. When the sentence
reads "I struck him _alone_ at that time" it must be interpreted that he
was the only person that received a blow. Again if it is made to read "I
struck him at that time _alone_" the sense conveyed is that that was the
only occasion on which I struck him. The rule which governs the correct
use of _only_ is also applicable to _alone_.
OTHER AND ANOTHER
These are words which often give to expressions a meaning far from that
intended. Thus, "I have _nothing_ to do with that _other_ rascal across
the street," certainly means that I am a rascal myself. "I sent the
despatch to my friend, but another villain intercepted it," clearly
signifies that my friend is a villain.
A good plan is to omit these words when they can be readily done without,
as in the above examples, but when it is necessary to use them make your
meaning clear. You can do this by making each sentence or phrase in which
they occur independent of contextual aid.
AND WITH THE RELATIVE
Never use _and_ with the _relative_ in this manner: "That is the dog I
meant _and which_ I know is of pure breed." This is an error quite
common. The use of _and_ is permissible when there is a parallel relative
in the preceding sentence or clause. Thus: "There is the dog which I
meant and which I know is of pure breed" is quite correct.
LOOSE PARTICIPLES
A participle or participial phrase is naturally referred to the nearest
nominative. If only one nominative is expressed it claims all the
participles that are not by the construction of the sentence otherwise
fixed. "John, working in the field all day and getting thirsty, drank
from the running stream." Here the participles _working_ and _getting_
clearly refer to John. But in the sentence,--"Swept along by the mob I
could not save him," the participle as it were is lying around loose and
may be taken to refer to either the person speaking or to the person
spoken about. It may mean that I was swept along by the mob or the
individual whom I tried to save was swept along.
"Going into the store the roof fell" can be taken that it was the roof
which was going into the store when it fell. Of course the meaning
intended is that some person or persons were going into the store just as
the roof fell.
In all sentence construction with participles there should be such
clearness as to preclude all possibility of ambiguity. The participle
should be so placed that there can be no doubt as to the noun to which it
refers. Often it is advisable to supply such words as will make the
meaning obvious.
BROKEN CONSTRUCTION
Sometimes the beginning of a sentence presents quite a different
grammatical construction from its end. This arises from the fact
probably, that the beginning is lost sight of before the end is reached.
This occurs frequently in long sentences. Thus: "Honesty, integrity and
square-dealing will bring anybody much better through life than the
absence of either." Here the construction is broken at _than_. The use of
_either_, only used in referring to one of two, shows that the fact is
forgotten that three qualities and not two are under consideration. Any
one of the three meanings might be intended in the sentence, viz.,
absence of any one quality, absence of any two of the qualities or
absence of the whole three qualities. Either denotes one or the other of
two and should never be applied to any one of more than two. When we fall
into the error of constructing such sentences as above, we should take
them apart and reconstruct them in a different grammatical form.
Thus,--"Honesty, integrity and square-dealing will bring a man much
better through life than a lack of these qualities which are almost
essential to success."
DOUBLE NEGATIVE
It must be remembered that two negatives in the English language destroy
each other and are equivalent to an affirmative. Thus "I _don't_ know
_nothing_ about it" is intended to convey, that I am ignorant of the
matter under consideration, but it defeats its own purpose, inasmuch as
the use of nothing implies that I know something about it. The sentence
should read--"I don't know anything about it."
Often we hear such expressions as "He was _not_ asked to give _no_
opinion," expressing the very opposite of what is intended. This sentence
implies that he was asked to give his opinion. The double negative,
therefore, should be carefully avoided, for it is insidious and is liable
to slip in and the writer remain unconscious of its presence until the
eye of the critic detects it.
FIRST PERSONAL PRONOUN
The use of the first personal pronoun should be avoided as much as
possible in composition. Don't introduce it by way of apology and never
use such expressions as "In my opinion," "As far as I can see," "It
appears to me," "I believe," etc. In what you write, the whole
composition is expressive of your views, since you are the author,
therefore, there is no necessity for you to accentuate or emphasize
yourself at certain portions of it.
Moreover, the big _I's_ savor of egotism! Steer clear of them as far as
you can. The only place where the first person is permissible is in
passages where you are stating a view that is not generally held and
which is likely to meet with opposition.
SEQUENCE OF TENSES
When two verbs depend on each other their tenses must have a definite
relation to each other. "I shall have much pleasure in accepting your
kind invitation" is wrong, unless you really mean that just now you
decline though by-and-by you intend to accept; or unless you mean that
you do accept now, though you have no pleasure in doing so, but look
forward to be more pleased by-and-by. In fact the sequence of the
compound tenses puzzle experienced writers. The best plan is to go back
in thought to the time in question and use the tense you would _then_
naturally use. Now in the sentence "I should have liked to have gone to
see the circus" the way to find out the proper sequence is to ask
yourself the question--what is it I "should have liked" to do? and the
plain answer is "to go to see the circus." I cannot answer--"To have gone
to see the circus" for that would imply that at a certain moment I would
have liked to be in the position of having gone to the circus. But I do
not mean this; I mean that at the moment at which I am speaking I wish I
had gone to see the circus. The verbal phrase _I should have liked_
carries me back to the time when there was a chance of seeing the circus
and once back at the time, the going to the circus is a thing of the
present. This whole explanation resolves itself into the simple
question,--what should I have liked _at that time_, and the answer is "to
go to see the circus," therefore this is the proper sequence, and the
expression should be "I should have liked to go to see the circus."
If we wish to speak of something relating to a time _prior_ to that
indicated in the past tense we must use the perfect tense of the
infinitive; as, "He appeared to have seen better days." We should say "I
expected to _meet him_," not "I expected _to have met him_." "We intended
_to visit you_," not "_to have visited_ you." "I hoped they _would_
arrive," not "I hoped they _would have_ arrived." "I thought I should
_catch_ the bird," not "I thought I should _have caught_ the bird." "I
had intended _to go_ to the meeting," not "I had intended to _have gone_
to the meeting."
BETWEEN--AMONG
These prepositions are often carelessly interchanged. _Between_ has
reference to two objects only, _among_ to more than two. "The money was
equally divided between them" is right when there are only two, but if
there are more than two it should be "the money was equally divided among
them."
LESS--FEWER
_Less_ refers is quantity, _fewer_ to number. "No man has _less_ virtues"
should be "No man has _fewer_ virtues." "The farmer had some oats and a
_fewer_ quantity of wheat" should be "the farmer had some oats and a
_less_ quantity of wheat."
FURTHER--FARTHER
_Further_ is commonly used to denote quantity, _farther_ to denote
distance. "I have walked _farther_ than you," "I need no _further_
supply" are correct.
EACH OTHER--ONE ANOTHER
_Each other_ refers to two, _one another_ to more than two. "Jones and
Smith quarreled; they struck each other" is correct. "Jones, Smith and
Brown quarreled; they struck one another" is also correct. Don't say,
"The two boys teach one another" nor "The three girls love each other."
EACH, EVERY, EITHER, NEITHER
These words are continually misapplied. _Each_ can be applied to two
or any higher number of objects to signify _every one_ of the number
_independently_. Every requires _more than two_ to be spoken of and
denotes all the _persons_ or _things_ taken _separately_. _Either_
denotes _one or the other of two_, and should not be used to include
both. _Neither_ is the negative of either, denoting not the other,
and not the one, and relating to _two persons_ or _things_ considered
separately.
The following examples illustrate the correct usage of these words:
_Each_ man of the crew received a reward.
_Every_ man in the regiment displayed bravery.
We can walk on _either_ side of the street.
_Neither_ of the two is to blame.
NEITHER-NOR