peculiarity as _dare_. Meaning _to lack_ and used as a principal verb,
it takes _s_; meaning _to be necessary_, and used as an auxiliary
(without _to_), it does not; _e.g._: “He _needs_ money; still he _need_
not beg.”
The participle and the infinitive may be used absolutely, as:
“_Speaking_ [or, _to speak_] generally, it is advisable to go.” This
absolute form should be but sparingly employed.
_If_, _although_, and other conditional conjunctions do not necessarily
require the subjunctive mood. They do require it, (1) When the
conception is contrary to facts; _e.g._: “If the world were round.” (2)
When the supposition is a mere mental conception, without reference
to how the matter will really be decided, or to what the result will
be; _e.g._: “If he went away [or, were to go away], I should be
happy.” [In such expressions as, “If it rains, I shall not go out;” the
indicative is to be preferred to the subjunctive.]
As a principal verb, _do_ may be employed for active transitive verbs
only. For these verbs, moreover, _do_ ought not be used--except to
avoid excessive repetition--when they are of but one syllable, unless
they are followed by other words forming a phrase, for which phrase
_do_ may stand. _E.g._: “He carves marble better I _do_;” but, “He
writes better than I write.” [In this last sentence it would, of
course, be incorrect to omit the verb after _I_; as the first form
of the verb (_writes_) can not be used with _I_.] Many good writers
employ _do_ for active intransitive verbs such as _fly_, _run_,
_act_; but this use should be avoided. As an auxiliary, _do_ may not
be used without its principal verb unless the form of the principal
verb already employed permits such use; _i.e._, unless this preceding
verb may be repeated without change after the _do_. _E.g._: “He has
not looked well lately, nor _does_ he to-day;” should be “He * * * ;
nor does he look well to-day.” [A similar remark applies to other
auxiliaries when employed without their principal verbs.]
“The verses are _as follows_;” [or, “_as follow_.”] Both expressions
are sanctioned by good usage.
_Some_ may be correctly used in such expressions as, “some fifty men,”
“some ten miles;” _i.e._, “_about_ fifty men,” &c. This employment of
_some_ is becoming obsolete.
_You_ may properly occur in the same sentence with, and as an
equivalent of, _Your Majesty_, _Your Excellency_, &c. _E.g._: “Your
Majesty says your Majesty has” &c.; or: “Your Majesty says you have”
&c. [The first is, of course, much more formal than the second, and
should be preferred when addressing persons of high station.]
“It is I, your brother, who _begs_ you.” “It is I, your brother, who
_beg_ you.” In the first, the emphasis is on the word _brother_; in
the second, on the _I_. [In the latter, it is better to enclose _your
brother_ in parentheses, the comma being omitted.]
In “_not only_--_but also_,” the _also_ may be omitted. _E.g._: “He not
only killed the man, _but_ he mutilated the corpse.” [It is generally
better to use the complete form, “not only--but also.”]
Do not use _like_ for _as_. Say: “As did Nero of old, so Thebaw put
countless numbers of victims to death;” not, “_Like_ Nero of old,
Thebaw” &c. The use of _like_ for _as_ is defended on the ground that
the sentence may be expanded into: “Being like Nero, Thebaw” &c. Still,
it is the actions of the men that are compared, not the men themselves.
Avoid such awkward collocations as, “This is _a far_ [or _much_]
_richer_ man than his brother.” Say, “This man is far [much] richer
[or, richer by far] than” &c. A like remark applies to _such_,
_similar_, and many other words. Say, “A horse such as that is worth
one hundred dollars;” rather than, “Such a horse as that is” &c.
The _or_ in _whether_--_or_ may be left out; but it is generally better
to express it. So: “I do not know whether he will come _or_ not,” is
better than, “I do not know whether he will come.”
The adjective is often used for the adverb before a present participle
employed as an adjective to qualify a noun. _E.g._: “a plain-speaking
man,” “a good-looking man,” “a right-living man.” [In such expressions,
it is better to unite the adjective and the participle with a hyphen.]
With a past participle, the adjective is very rarely used. _E.g._:
“a plainly furnished house,” “a well dressed man.” Occasionally the
adjective occurs with the past participle; _e.g._: “a plain-spoken man.”
When the construction is changed from the negative to the affirmative,
repeat the subject pronoun; or, if a noun is the subject, insert the
personal pronoun before the second verb. Thus: “He does not walk, but
_he_ rides.” With _whosoever_, _whoever_, &c., as subjects, it is not
necessary to use the pronoun before the affirmative verb. _E.g._: “That
whosoever believeth on Him might not perish, _but have_ everlasting
life.” When a change of tense, mood or voice occurs, it is generally
advisable to insert the pronoun before the second verb, although--as
is elsewhere explained--it is necessary to do so only when the verbs
are emphatically distinguished or contrasted. [When the change is from
the affirmative to the negative, the repetition of the subject or the
insertion of the pronoun is not necessary. Indeed, the the repetition
of the subject depends largely on the emphasis desired or on the
“sound” of the sentence.]
Say, “Solomon, _son_ of David,” rather than, “Solomon, _the_ son of
David.” [The rule is that the article ought not to be used before
those appositive nouns which are strictly limited by other definite
words.] The insertion of the article before _David_ is not absolutely
incorrect; but the omission of it produces a good effect and sometimes
prevents ambiguity, as in, “John, [the] son of Smith, and Jones, are
here.” Where a second addition occurs, the article must be omitted even
although it has been used before the first addition. Thus: “The Apostle
James, son (or, the son) of Zebedee, and _brother_ (not, _the_ brother)
of St John”.
Say, “The eldest son of a duke is called Marquis [not _a_ Marquis].”
The article is not to be used before titles as titles, or names as
names. [_E.g._: “Derive Thames.”] With two or more nouns, the article
need not be repeated when there is no ambiguity. When there is, it
should be repeated. Thus: “The Queen and King are here,” is correct.
[The repetition of the article would, of course, add emphasis to
the expression, _i.e._, it would draw attention to each individual
person or thing. _E.g._: “A cool temper, a sound judgment, a kindly
disposition.”]
“The European and _the_ African _race_;” or, “The European _race_ and
_the_ African _race_.” Here two races are meant: the one European, and
the other African. “The European and African _races_,” has the same
meaning. “The European and _the_ African races,” means there are two
or more European and two or more African races. This latter meaning
would be more clearly expressed by inserting the word _races_ after the
word _European_.
“The conductor and _the_ driver,” implies two men. “The conductor and
driver,” implies one man. Say, therefore: “Solomon, the historian and
builder;” not, “Solomon, the historian and _the_ builder.”
“The bay or lame horse,” refers to one horse. “The bay _or the_ lame
horse,” refers to two horses. [In the former sentence, it would be
better to put a comma after _bay_.] The rule in all these cases is,
that the article must be repeated when there are two or more persons or
things. With but one person or thing, the article _may_ be repeated,
as in poetry or for the sake of emphasis. _E.g._: “A sadder and _a_
wiser man.” It follows from the foregoing rule, that there should be
no repetition of the article in such a phrase as, “He is a better poet
than _musician_.” “He is a better poet than _a_ musician,” would mean,
“He is a better poet than a musician _is_.”
“The logical and grammatical analysis of a language is [are]”
&c. If but one analysis is meant--_i.e._, if there is but one
subject--the verb should be in the singular, _is_. If two analyses
are meant--_i.e._, if there are two subjects--the verb may be in the
plural, _are_. In the latter case, however, it is better to supply
the article before _grammatical_. [“The logical and _the_ grammatical
analysis are,” &c.] It is still better to supply the first subject
[“The logical _analysis_ and” &c.]: the verb being made plural. The
supplying of this ellipsis [_analysis_] avoids the clash between a
singular subject alone and a plural verb. Upon the same principle,
“The position of the materialist and _that_ of the idealist are
reconcilable,” is to be preferred to, “The position of the materialist
and of the idealist are reconcilable.” [The determining principle in
all these cases is not whether the adjectives have the same meaning,
but whether they qualify the same subject.]
Do not say, “No greater or wiser _a_ man ever lived.” Say, “No greater
or wiser man” &c.
The gerundial noun with _the_ is generally to be preferred to the
simple gerund. _E.g._: “The eating of meat is forbidden,” is better
than, “Eating meat” &c. [In some instances the latter form would cause
confusion of meaning.]
An excellent, but rather loosely worded, rule for the use of _shall_
and _will_ is as follows: “If the speaker is nominative to the verb,
and also determines the accomplishment of the idea expressed by
the verb; or if the speaker neither is nominative to the verb nor
determines the accomplishment of the idea expressed by the verb, use
_will_. In all other cases, use _shall_.”
Say, “It _should_ seem that he has done so.” [Not, “It _would_ seem”
&c.]
In impersonal assertions, such as: “It is hoped [desired, &c.] that
all should sit down,” _shall_ and _should_ ought to be used. In
direct and personal assertions, such as: “I desired that my conductor
would explain,” _will_ and _would_ are to be preferred. [_Shall_ and
_should_ are, in such constructions, not incorrect; but _will_ and
_would_ are preferable. Perhaps the best rule, in sentences such as the
foregoing, is, that when a command is intended, _shall_ and _should_
_must_ be used; when a hope or wish is intended, _will_ and _would_
_may_ be used.]
In a subordinate clause, to express simple futurity, use _shall_ and
_should_ when the subject of the subordinate clause is the subject of
the principal clause also; _will_ and _would_ when it is not. Thus: “I
believe I shall live;” “I believe he will live;” “He believes he shall
live.”
Again, in an independent clause use _shall_ and _should_ when the event
spoken of is under our control; _will_ and _would_ when it is not.
_E.g._: “You said it _should_ be done;” “You said it _would_ rain.”
Do not say, “I _would_ be happy to go, if” &c.; or, “I _will_ be
happy to go.” Use _should_ and _shall_. [The idea of willingness, or
volition, is sufficiently expressed in the word _happy_. Hence, _would_
and _will_ are tautological.]
After nouns and adjectives following intransitive and passive verbs the
infinitive with _to_ is generally preferable to the gerund in _-ing_,
to express purpose, end, design. _E.g._: “He has power _to_ act;” “It
is fitted _to_ produce that result.”
“Solomon, son of David, who slew Goliath;” is correct. “Solomon, son of
David, who built the Temple;” is incorrect. [The relative should refer
to the nearest antecedent. So, change the second phrase into, “The son
of David, Solomon, who” &c.; or, “Solomon, who was the son of David,
and who” &c.; or employ some other form.]
Say, “He who was, and who is, and who is to come;” or, “He who was, who
is and who is to come.” That is, repeat the relative, especially when
a conjunction occurs. [If the sentence were to read, “He who was, is
and is to come;” _He_ might seem to be the subject of the first and the
second _is_, and not of some verb unexpressed.] The possessives also
should be repeated before nouns that are to be distinguished. _E.g._:
“Their form and _their_ use give us great trouble.”
Do not use _that_ for _who_ or _which_, when the antecedent is
explicit. Say: “My father, who [not, _that_] is dead.”
_Who_ or _which_ is to be preferred to _that_ when the relative
is separated from its verb or its antecedent, and is emphasized
by isolation. _E.g._: “There are many persons _who_, had they
opportunities, would succeed in life.”
_Who_ or _which_ is to be preferred to _that_ when the relative is
governed in the objective by a preposition that has the appearance of
an adverb (_beyond_, _over_, _under_, &c.). _E.g._: “The limit beyond
_which_ no one has gone,” is better than, “The limit _that_ no one has
gone beyond.”
Avoid the use of _than whom_ when _whom_ is not really in the objective
case. Instead of _than whom_ [which is grammatically incorrect] and
_than who_ [which, although grammatically correct, has a very strange
sound] employ some other form. _E.g._: In place of “Nero, than whom
no crueller man has ever lived, was” &c.; say, “Nero--and no crueller
man has ever lived--was” &c.; or, “No crueller man than Nero has ever
lived. He was” &c. [Of course, when the relative is in the objective
case, _whom_ is correct after _than_; _e.g._: “My brother, than whom I
love no one more dearly, is ill.”]
_Who_ or _which_ may sometimes [_e.g._, to avoid undue repetition] be
used for _that_; but _that_ ought never to be used for _who_ or _which_.
After indefinite pronouns or indefinite pronominal adjectives
(_others_, _several_, _many_, _some_, _none_, _one_, &c.), _who_ or
_which_ is to be preferred to _that_.
After personal pronouns prefer _who_ or _which_. _E.g._: “He who is
wise,” &c.
After the conjunction _that_, prefer _who_ or _which_. _E.g._: “He said
_that_ the man _who_ saw him” &c.
It is not improper to follow the demonstrative _this_ by the relative
_that_. _E.g._: “It was _this that_ caused his death.”
When _who_ or _which_ is used restrictively for _that_, it is well to
place _the_ or _that_ before the antecedent, _e.g._: “_The_ States [or,
_those_ States] _which_ border on Canada,” &c.
The objective relative may be omitted whenever the antecedent and the
subject of the relative sentence come into juxtaposition; _e.g._:
“Give me the book you have.”
The personal pronoun _it_ and the relative pronoun _which_ may have as
antecedents a short, clear clause; but this usage is not desirable. So,
although, “He gave me his word of honour: which I had not expected,” is
not incorrect; yet it is better to say, “He gave me his word of honour:
a thing I had” &c.; or, “He gave me his word of honour. I had never
expected this.”
Avoid such a relative construction as: “That was the man _who_, the
witness said, had broken into the store.” Say: “That man, the witness
said, had” &c.; or: “That was the man, the witness said, who” &c.; or:
“That was the man whom the witness accused of having broken” &c. [The
fault of the first construction is that, for an instant, the mind is in
doubt whether _who_ or _whom_ ought to be used.]
Distinguish, according to the sense you wish to convey, between the
use of the adjective and that of the adverb, after intransitive verbs
expressing action [_go_, _come_, _arrive_, _depart_, &c.] _E.g._: “He
arrived safe.” “He arrived safely.” The former denotes his condition
upon arrival, without reference to his condition upon the way. The
latter denotes his condition upon the way, without reference to his
condition upon arrival. So say: “He came safely through numberless
perils, but dropped dead upon the threshold of his own home.”
_Lesser_ may be used of dimensions, but not of quantity. Thus: “He is
lesser than his brother,” is not incorrect; but, “He is smaller than
[or, shorter than, or not so large as],” &c., is better. “There is
lesser wheat than corn,” is incorrect.
GENERAL SUGGESTIONS UPON COMPOSITION.
To avoid ambiguity, report a speech in the _first_, not in the _third_
person.
Try to avoid the use of words that have two or more meanings: _any_,
_certain_, _left_, _lie_, &c. [_Any_ is sometimes used incorrectly for
_indefinitely large_; _e.g._: “He gave me _any_ number of books.”]
Avoid using a word that leaves us for a moment doubtful what part of
speech it is. _E.g._: “The good remains, he said,” &c. [Until something
further is given, we are in doubt whether _remains_ is a noun, the
subject of some unexpressed verb; or a verb, agreeing with its subject,
_good_, used as a noun.]
_Avoid_ the excessive use of such expressions as, _of this sort_, _of
this kind_, _in this way_, _in this manner_. It is better to repeat the
words to which the reference is made.
Avoid what is called the prospective use of _it_. Say, “To give is
good;” not, “It is good to give.”
It is often said that a sentence ought not to end with a preposition.
There is no objection, however, to such an ending, provided the
preposition governs a relative pronoun and is not likely to be mistaken
for some other part of speech. Thus: “The rule that I always adhere
to,” is quite correct. [If preferred, “The rule to which I always
adhere,” may, of course, be used.] It is hardly necessary to say that
the clause or sentence should not end with the _to_ of the infinitive;
_i.e._, _to_, the sign of the infinitive, ought never to be used alone.
Avoid the excessive use of _there is_, _there are_, _there will be_, &c.
To relieve the monotony and to give force to the expression, change
such constructions as, “He replied that he deemed it best that his
example should not be followed;” into, “He deemed it best, he replied,
that his example should not be followed.”
Force may often be gained by the use of particular, in place of
general, terms. _E.g._: _gold_ for _great riches_, _a crust of bread_
for _poverty_. On the same principle, a particular proper name may be
used _effectively_ for a common, or class, name. _E.g._: “Solomon,” is
more forcible than “the wisest man;” “Nero,” than “the most cruel man.”
The great rule, however, for force, or effect, is that the reader
shall be kept _in suspense_; that is, that he shall be made to feel
the incompleteness of the sentence, until the end is reached. To
attain this object the following directions have been given: (1) Put a
conditional clause first, not last. _E.g._: “If he wishes, I will go
away.” [When the conditional clause is very emphatic, it may be placed
last.] (2) Let participial phrases come before the words qualified
by them. _E.g._: “Wasted by disease, worn out with toil, he was fast
sinking into the grave.” [This remark will often apply to adjectives
and adverbs, as well as to participles. _E.g._: “Weary of life, glad to
depart, he quietly passed away.”] (3) Use suspensive words: _not only_,
_but also_; _either_, _or_; _partly_, _partly_; _on the one hand_, _on
the other_; _in the first_, _second_, &c., _place_. Of course, this
“principle of suspense” is not to be too frequently employed.
Emphatic words must be in emphatic positions; _i.e._, at the
_beginning_ or at the _end_ of the proposition. “Coward though he was,
he was forced to fight;” is much more striking than, “He was forced to
fight, although he was a coward.”
The most emphatic place for the subject is at the end, its ordinary
place being at the beginning of the proposition.
On a similar principle, the object is made emphatic by putting it
before its verb.
Again, emphasis may be given by the use, before the emphatic noun, of
such an expression as, _as for the_, _as to the_, _concerning_, &c.
Avoid putting a minimizing expression, such as, _at least_, _at all
events_, _at any rate_, between two emphatic expressions.
Avoid the placing of an unemphatic word at the end of the proposition.
The following sentence is weak, because this rule has not been
observed. “The documents proved how just in all his dealings he was.”
What have been called “short, chippy endings” should be avoided, as
such endings spoil the rythm which should exist even in prose. _E.g._:
“The man, pierced with balls, died;” is bad.
Prepositions and pronouns attached to emphatic words need not, however,
be removed from the end. So: “Bear witness how he loved him,” is
correct. [In such instances the emphatic and the unemphatic word form,
as it were, a compound expression.]
Avoid, on the other hand, a monotonous final emphasis.
Frequently an idea may be expressed more forcibly in the form of a
question than in that of an assertion.
Brevity may often be obtained by the use of a word for a phrase.
_E.g._: _unintelligible_, _indelible_.
Brevity may be obtained, also, by the use of metaphors, in place of
literal words or phrases.
The omission of the present participle often gives brevity and force to
the sentence. _E.g._: “The Indians [being] on the war-path, what dared
we do?”
Brevity may be gained by using the imperative for other moods. _E.g._:
“Do this, and you will suffer;” for, “If you do this” &c. [This use of
the imperative should be indulged in but sparingly.]
Repeat the nominative when the verbs of the various clauses are of
diverse moods, tenses or voices _and_ are emphatically distinguished.
_E.g._: “He is, and _he_ always has been, rich.”
Repeat the preposition after an intervening conjunction, especially if
a verb and a pronoun also intervene. _E.g._: “The man does not remember
the respect he ought to have for those persons who have helped him, and
_for_ his old friend C. in particular.” [If the preposition _for_ were
not repeated after _and_, the sentence might mean that the man does not
remember his old friend C. in particular.]
Do not repeat the sign _to_ of the infinitive unless attention is
called to each individual verb.
When otherwise there would be doubt as to whether an infinitive
expresses a purpose or not, and it is intended that it shall express
a purpose, use _in order that_, _for the purpose of_ [followed by the
form in _-ing_], or some such phrase. [Purpose may be clearly shewn, of
course, by the use of _that_ with an auxiliary verb. _E.g._: “He died
that we might live;” which is equivalent to: “He died in order to give
us life.”]
To avoid ambiguity, or to add emphasis, repeat the subordinate
conjunction. _E.g._: “When the hunter had returned to the far-off camp,
and _when_ he had recounted his adventures” &c.
Be careful in the use of participial constructions. _E.g._: “They will
be shunned on their return, accompanied by the oppressors of their
country;” may mean, “on account of their being accompanied” &c.; or,
“when they are accompanied” &c. So: “Children, playing on the ice,
often fall;” may mean: “Children that play” &c.; or “Children, when
they play” &c. It is best to confine the use of the participial phrase
to the adverbial meaning [“Children, _when_ they play” &c.]; and with
other meanings to employ the relative pronoun [“Children that play”
&c.]. When the participial phrase precedes the main proposition, the
former usually implies _cause_; when it follows, _time_. _E.g._:
“Seeing this, he withdrew” [_i.e._ “He withdrew _because_ he saw
this.”] “He withdrew, seeing this” [_i.e._, “He withdrew _when_ he
saw this.”] If there is doubt as to which meaning is intended, use an
introductory phrase, such as, _while seeing_, _upon seeing_.
There are various constructions that may take the place of the relative
pronoun or of the relative clause. The infinitive may often be used
with effect. _E.g._: “He was the last that died,” may be expressed
as: “He was the last to die.” Again, _if_ or some other conditional
word may be used to introduce a dependent clause. _E.g._: “If a man
sins, he will be punished” [_i.e._, “The man that sins” &c.] Again,
the conjunction and the demonstrative pronoun may be used. _E.g._: “He
wasted his time at X., which was very foolish;” may be changed into:
“He wasted his time at X., and this was” &c. Again, pronominal adverbs
(_whereby_, _wherein_, &c.) may take the place of the relative and a
preposition.
Very often, after a negative, the antecedent to the relative should be
repeated, or a summing-up noun introduced. _E.g._: “He said he would
not hear me--a refusal that I expected.” When otherwise there would be
ambiguity, the same construction should be used with an affirmative.
Prefer verbal clauses to verbal nouns. “That he had betrayed his
country was not so plainly shown,” is better than: “His having
betrayed” &c.