pleonastic to write “_by some means or another_.” For the same reason
_some means or other_ may be condemned; its only excuse is that “other”
refers not to “means” but qualifies the word “procedure” (understood).
If this form of speech is desired, the correct utterance would be _one
mean or another_.
~memoranda~ should never be used as a singular. It is the plural of
_memorandum_ and the distinction should always be observed in speech or
writing.
~me~ or ~my going~: Erroneous combinations sometimes used by persons
careless with their diction. Do not say “Instead of _me_ (or _my_)
_going_ to London I went to Bermuda”; say, rather, “Instead of
going....” Here “me” and “my” are redundant.
~merely~: Sometimes misused for _simply_. _Merely_ implies no addition;
_simply_, no admixture or complication; _e. g._, “The boys were there
_merely_ as spectators; it is _simply_ incredible that they should have
so disgraced themselves”; “It is _simply_ water.”
~midst~: The STANDARD DICTIONARY has the following: “In our, your, or
their _midst_, in the _midst_ of us, you, or them: a form pronounced
analogically irreproachable by Fitzedward Hall, in _Modern English_ p.
50, but objected to by some authorities.” Dr. William Mathews is one of
these. In his work on “Words: their Use and Abuse,” he asks “Would any
one say ‘In our middle?’... The possessive pronoun can properly be used
only to indicate possession or appurtenance.”
~mighty~ used as a synonym for _very_, _exceedingly_, or
_extraordinarily_ is colloquial but borders on the vulgar. “_Mighty_
fine,” “A _mighty_ shame,” “_Mighty_ doubtful” are phrases to be
avoided.
~misspell~: Do not write this word _mispell_. Its component parts are
_mis_ + _spell_, and it retains the double _s_.
~mistakable~: Although formerly correctly _mistakeable_ this word does
not now retain the “e” after the “k”--an evidence of spelling reform
along lines of least resistance due probably to phonology.
~mistaken~: Originally _mistake_ meant “to take amiss, misconceive, or
misunderstand,” and on this account some persons claim that _you are
mistaken_ means “you are misunderstood”; and that when this observation
is made it expresses precisely the reverse of the meaning that the
speaker desires to convey. According to them to tell a man he is
_mistaken_, that is, misunderstood, is a very different thing from
telling him that he mistakes or personally misunderstands.
The STANDARD DICTIONARY treating this word says: The anomalous use of
_mistaken_ has naturally attracted the attention of speech-reformers;
we ought to mean, “You are misapprehended or misunderstood,” they
tell us, when we say “You are _mistaken_,” and if we mean “You are
in error,” we ought to say so. But suppose the alleged misuse of
_mistaken_ gives rise to no misunderstanding whatever--that everybody,
high or low, throughout the English-speaking world, knows what is meant
when one says “You are _mistaken_”--in that case, to let alone seems to
be wisdom. The corruption, if it be one, has the sanction not only of
universal employment, but of antiquity.
~mitten~: An obsolete substitute for glove now revived as a
colloquialism in the phrase ~to get the mitten~, that is “to get the
glove with the hand withdrawn: said of a rejected suitor for a lady’s
hand.” An allied phrase is ~to give the mitten to~. None of these is
used in polite society.
~moment~, ~minute~: These words are not exactly synonymous. A _moment_
is an infinitesimal part of time; as, “in a _moment_, in the twinkling
of an eye” (I Cor. XV. 52). A _minute_ is the sixtieth part of an hour.
One does not take a _minute_ to wink the eye.
~monetary~. Compare FINANCIAL.
~moneys~, not ~monies~, although often so (improperly) spelt. The rule
is clear. Words ending in _y_ necessarily have as their penultimate
letter either a vowel or a consonant. If a vowel the plural is formed
by adding _s_; if a consonant by changing the _y_ into _ies_. Thus,
_boy_, _boys_; _baby_, _babies_.
~money to burn~: A slang phrase used to denote possession of ample
means.
~more~: Superlatives are often used, though improperly in a comparison
of two. “He is the _more_ promising pupil of the two”--not _most_.
Certain scrupulously careful writers, as Augustine Birrell, will even
write “the _more_ part,” instead of the customary “the _most_ part”;
and this usage, though possibly pedantic, is in other respects to be
commended.
~more strictly correct~: A pleonasm. A correct statement may for the
sake of emphasis be qualified as _strictly correct_. If “more strictly
correct” is good grammar then “most strictly correct” would be also.
Both sentences are erroneous.
~more than probable~: That which is _probable_ is likely to happen, but
that which is _more than probable_ is almost sure to happen. To object
to “more than probable,” as some persons do, one would have to show
that “probable” was absolute and incapable of degrees of comparison,
whence of course it is a matter of common observation that some things
are highly probable, while others are barely so. That a lover of truth
will speak the truth is highly probable, whereas that a confirmed liar
will do so is so little probable that the probabilities are on the
other side.
~’most~: Often used colloquially but incorrectly for “almost”; an
inexcusable and unwarranted abbreviation. Do not say “my work is _most_
done”; say rather, “... is _almost_ done.” _Most_ is used occasionally
and correctly for “very”--a use that some writers condemn as incorrect
but which is sanctioned by literary usage. Shakespeare says: “So, Sir,
heartily well met, and _most_ glad of your company.”--_Coriolanus_, iv.
3.
~most~ is well used as a superlative. _Most_ perfect, thorough,
intense, complete, extraordinary, are in common use and have the
support of literary usage.
Frederic Johnston says: “Concerning the phrase ‘most perfect’ some
question might be raised. ‘Perfect’ means, literally, ‘made through, to
the end,’ ‘utterly finished,’ therefore, of supreme excellence. In that
case, ‘more’ and ‘most’ perfect are meaningless. We are to remember,
however, that the literal is not always the true meaning of a word.
Thus ‘melancholy’ does not mean full of ‘black bile,’ but ‘gloomy’
for any reason. Moreover, it has of late been pointed out by the best
authorities that the true sense of a word is not what it _ought_ to
mean, but what it _does_ mean, in the mouths and ears of the upper half
of the people. And there can be little doubt that ‘perfect,’ in this
case, merely expresses great rather than supreme excellence. We may
even say, further, that the word in its original sense could not be
used without a qualifying word (as ‘nearly perfect’ for example) in a
world in which nothing is utterly free from defect. To go about saying
that things are ‘nearly perfect’ would be gross pedantry.”
* * * * *
For the sanction of literary usage see the quotations:
“It would be strange, doubtless, to call this the best of Burns’s
writings: we mean to say, only, that it seems to us the _most
perfect_ of its kind as a piece of poetical composition strictly so
called.”--CARLYLE, _Essay on Burns_, referring to his poem “The Jolly
Beggars.”
“Our battle is more full of names than yours,
Our men _more perfect_ in the use of arms.”
--SHAKESPEARE, _2 Hen. IV_. iv. 1.
“_Most perfect_ goodness.”--_Cymbeline_ i. 7.
~mought~: Although recorded by the dictionaries as the imperfect of
“may” and often used for _might_, the use is one which does sufficient
violence to euphony to be characterized as undesirable.
~muchly~: Although formerly in vogue is now obsolete and stigmatized as
slang, and as such to be avoided.
~mug~; A vulgar characterization for the human face.
~murderous~ should not be used for “dangerous” or “deadly.”
~music~. See CHIN.
~Mussulman~: The plural of this word is formed by adding
_s_--Mussulmans _not_ Mussul_men_. Here the word “man” is no component
part of _Mussulman_.
~mutual~, ~common~: These words are often confounded and have been
so by writers of correct English. _Mutual_ implies interchange;
_common_ belonging to more than two persons. Before the middle of the
eighteenth century, _mutual_ had two meanings: “joint” or “common,” and
“reciprocal.” When Dr. Samuel Johnson published his great dictionary
he gave it but one meaning, that of _reciprocal_, and, his authority
as a scholar having grown so great, this meaning became considered
the only one which might be correctly given to the word. “_Mutual_,”
says Crabb, “supposes a sameness in condition at the same time;
_reciprocal_ supposes an alternation or succession of returns.” Thus
we properly speak of “our _common_ country, _mutual_ affection,
_reciprocal_ obligations.” While _mutual_ applies to the acts and
opinions of persons, and therefore to what is personal, it is not
applicable to persons. Macaulay condemned the phrase “_mutual_ friend”
as a low vulgarism. A “_common_ friend” is certainly more accurate but
unfortunately carries with it the disagreeable idea of inferiority, and
probably for this reason is seldom or never used. There is authority of
such prolific writers as Scott and Dickens for “_mutual_ friend,” but
the rapidity with which they wrote their books may suggest that they
paid little heed to such refinements of language as did Macaulay. Yet
centuries of English literature authorize the employment of _mutual_ in
the sense of _joint_ or _common_. On the other hand, the very strong
disapproval with which this and like uses of _mutual_ are regarded
by many writers of good taste may not unreasonably be considered as
sufficient ground for avoiding _mutual friend_ and kindred expressions.
“_Mutual_ friends,” says Phelps, “would not be accurate” meaning that
two persons are friends each to the other.
~my~. Compare ME.
~myself~: An emphatic pronoun sometimes misused for “I” or “me”;
as, “The property was willed to my wife and _myself_.” For “myself”
substitute “to me” and the sentence is correct. “Myself” is used
correctly with a reflexive verb, that is, one whose object, expressed
or implied, denotes the same person or thing as the subject; _e. g._,
“I will control _myself_.”
N
~nasty~: This word should not be applied to that which is merely
“disagreeable,” as _nasty_ weather, for strong terms should not be
robbed of their significance by being applied to conditions which could
only be referred to in such terms by exaggeration. A pigsty is properly
termed _nasty_, as there filth finds its habitat, and an obscene book
is _nasty_ as morally foul.
~naught~. Compare OUGHT under AUGHT.
~need~, ~needs~: As an adverb _need_ is now obsolete; _needs_ means
“necessarily.” Do not say “as _need_ he must,” say, rather, “as _needs_
he must.”
~neglect~, ~negligence~: The meanings of these words are sometimes
confused. _Neglect_ is the act of failing to perform something, as
a duty or task, to leave undone; _negligence_ is the _habitual_
omission of that which should be done. _Negligence_ is a trait of
character while _neglect_ may result from preoccupation. Fernald in
“Synonyms, Antonyms, and Prepositions,” says: “_Neglect_ is transitive,
_negligence_ is intransitive; we speak of _neglect_ of his books,
friends, or duties, in which case we could not use _negligence_.”
~negociate~, ~negotiate~: The first, now obsolete, was the spelling
formerly in vogue; the second is the correct spelling of to-day.
~neither~, ~either~: For “none” and “any one,” is not the best usage;
“That he [Shakespeare] wrote the plays which bear his name we know;
but ... we do not know the years ... in which _either_ (correctly,
_any one_) of them was first performed”; “Peasant, yeoman, artisan,
tradesman, and gentleman could then be distinguished from one another
almost as far as they could be seen. Except in cases of unusual
audacity, _neither_ (correctly, _no one_, or _none_) presumed to wear
the dress of his betters.”
~neither~, ~nor~: In considering these words the STANDARD DICTIONARY
says: “As disjunctive correlatives, each accompanied by a singular
nominative, often incorrectly followed by a plural verb form; as,
‘_neither_ he _nor_ I _were_ (correctly _was_) there.’” _Neither_, that
is, _not either_, means not the one nor the other of two. “Through
diligence he attained a position which he _neither_ aspired to _nor_
coveted”--the proper correlative to use here is _nor_.
~nerve~: A slang term sometimes used as a substitute for “impudence,”
“over-assurance” or “independence,” any one of which is preferable.
~never~, ~not~: While literary authority sanctions the use of _never_
for _not_ in cases where a lapse of considerable time is thought of,
as, “I shall be there--_never_ fear” (for _do not_ fear now, or at
any time in the interim, that I shall disappoint you), it does not
justify its use in a sentence where the time referred to is momentary
or short. The emphatic use of this adverb in the sense of not a single
one, not at all, is perfectly good, as instanced by Coleridge--“And
_never_ a saint took pity on my soul in agony.” But the usage will not
sanction an extension to things which, from their very nature, could
take place--as, say, death--but once. Thus, do not say “Robert Fulton
_never_ invented the steamboat”; say, rather, “Robert Fulton _did not_
invent the steamboat.” “Paul Jones _was never_ born in the United
States” is incorrect. Say “... _was not_ born in the United States.” Do
not say “I met him to-day but he _never_ mentioned the subject.” Say,
rather “... but he _did not_ mention the subject.”
~never so~: Often misused for _ever so_ from which it should be
carefully discriminated. _Never so_ means “to an extent or degree
beyond the actual or conceivable; no matter how.” In common use _ever
so_, meaning no more than “very” or “exceedingly,” is often confounded
with and used for _never so_.
~never mean~: A common slip of the tongue in such phrases as “I
_never mean_ to” which is frequently used when “I _mean never_ to” is
intended. Compare DON’T.
~nibs~: A vulgar title given usually satirically, to a person in
authority; as “His _nibs_ sailed to-day”: a term to avoid.
~nice~: This word has undergone a peculiar transformation in sense.
Derived from the Latin _nescius_, ignorant, and originally meaning
“ignorant, silly weak,” it has now come to signify “characterized
by discrimination and judgment, acute, discerning; as, a _nice_
criticism.” The word has, however, also been used colloquially in the
sense of “pleasing, jolly, or socially agreeable; as, a _nice_ girl,”
and the use has been condemned but is too well established to be
abandoned.
~nicely~ as a colloquialism for “very well”--as “He is doing
_nicely_”--should be avoided.
~nifty~: A vulgarism for “stylish.”
~nightly~, ~nocturnal~: These words do not have the same signification.
The one means night by night, the other happening at night. A man has
_nightly_ sleep in which he suffers from _nocturnal_ dreams.
~no~: According to critics _no_ never properly qualifies a verb, that
is, it should never be substituted for “not.” But the practise has
literary sanction.
~no~: Often used for “any” by the illiterate. Do not say “We didn’t see
_no_ flats”; say, rather, “We did not see _any_ flats.”
~nobby~: A vulgar synonym for “having an elegant or flashy appearance;
showy; stylish”: haberdasher’s cant. Compare NIFTY.
~nohow~: A vulgarism for “in no way” or “by no means.” If after a
negative, say “in any way,” “by any means,” “at all.” “I don’t believe
in them _nohow_” should be “I don’t believe in them _in the least_,” or
“_at all_.”
~nominate~: Distinguish from “denominate,” which is now only an
obsolete sense of the word. To _nominate_ is to designate or specify;
as, “Is it so _nominated_ in the bond?” whereas to “denominate” is to
give a name or epithet to. Washington was _nominated_ president, but
was _denominated_ “Father of his country.”
~nominatives~: The coupling of singular and plural. What number,
singular or plural, shall the verb take. It couples two sentences--one
on either side--the one having a singular nominative and the other a
plural. As to which sentence shall be first and which second, there is
commonly but little compulsion: it is a matter of choice. But should
this choice affect the verb?--“The wages of sin _is_ death.” “Death
_is_ the wages of sin.” It is merely a matter of taste in forceful
diction which nominative shall precede. Yet which is to govern the
number of the verb? “What we seek _is_ riches”; “Riches _are_ what
we seek”--Probably these two forms of one idea best illustrate the
better usage, which appears to be that the verb is dependent upon the
nominative which precedes. In explanation of the scriptural phrase, it
may be stated that although the prevailing rule with the translators
of the Bible appears to have been to use plural verbs when either
nominative was plural (that is, in all such cases), still “Death,”
being here that upon which special emphasis is laid and to which
attention is particularly drawn, is permitted to govern the verb.
~no more~: Often incorrectly used for “_any_ more.” Do not say “I don’t
want to see you _no more_”; but “I don’t want to see you _any more_,”
or “_again_.”
~none~: Although etymologically equivalent to _not_ (a single) _one_
this word is commonly used as a singular under a mistaken idea that it
can not be used correctly as a plural, but many writers of standard
English have used it as a plural. The STANDARD DICTIONARY authorizes
the use of the word both as a singular and plural according to the
meaning of the context. Where the singular or the plural equally
expresses the sense, the plural is commonly used and is justified by
the highest authority. “Did you buy melons?” “There _were none_ in
the market.” “Did you bring me a letter?” “There _was none_ in your
box.” “_None_ of the three cases _have_ been received” is correct. In
illustrating this point the STANDARD DICTIONARY gives the following
quotation: “Mind says one, soul says another, brain or matter says a
third, but none of these _are_ right.” And says, “In the preceding
quotation the ‘are,’ altho ungrammatical, connects ‘right’ with any one
of the persons named--not with any one of the things named. If _is_
be substituted for ‘are,’ ‘right’ may be as reasonably connected with
‘mind,’ ‘soul,’ or ‘brain’ as with the persons (or classes of persons)
spoken of.” _None_ used with a plural verb is found repeatedly in such
English classics as the works of Bacon and Shakespeare, as well as in
the Authorized Version of the Bible.
~nor~, ~or~: Discriminate carefully between these words when using them
after _no_ and _not_. In such a sentence as “He has _no_ cash _or_
credit,” the word “credit” is used as an alternative for “cash,” and
merely, though perhaps redundantly, to amplify the thought. But if one
says “He has _no_ cash _nor_ credit” the meaning is very different,
and implies he is without both, “credit” being here considered as an
additional asset. In more involved statements the distinction may be of
great importance. “Will _or_ disposition,” “power _or_ faculty,” may
be but pairs of synonyms. The locution “will _nor_ disposition” “power
_nor_ faculty,” distinguishes the two members of a pair as different.
~not~. Compare NEVER.
~notable~: Discriminate carefully between the different meanings
of this word. A _no'table_ event is an event worthy of note; a
_not'able_ woman is one who exercises care or skill or is prudent as in
housewifery.
~noted~. Compare NOTORIOUS.
~nothing like~: Not to be used adverbially for _not nearly_. Do not say
“He was _nothing like_ as handsome as his brother,” but “He was _not
nearly_ so handsome,” etc.
~nothing to nobody~: An ungrammatical phrase used for “no one’s
business.” Say, rather, “not anything to any one.”
~not on your life~: A vulgar phrase for “not by any means.”
~notorious~ is so commonly applied to that which is unfavorably known
to the general public, as a _notorious_ crime, just as _noted_ is
applied to that which is favorably distinguished, as a _noted_ speech,
that it is well not to confound the expressions, but to reserve
their use for their own several functions. However, the rule is not
invariably followed; for the following expression by Spencer, on
“Education” is good. “It is _notorious_ that the mind like the body,
can not assimilate beyond a certain rate.”
~no use~: Often incorrectly used for “_of_ no use.” Do not say “It’s
_no use_ to discuss it with you,” say, rather, “It is _of no use_ to
discuss it.”
~novice~. Compare AMATEUR.
~number~ should not be used with such words as _innumerable_ and
_numerous_, which themselves contain the idea of _number_ (Latin
_numerus_). Say “A _countless_ number,” not “an _innumerable_ number.”
~numerous~: Often misused for _many_. Do not say “_numerous_ cattle
were in pasture”; say, rather, “_Many_ cattle were in pasture.”
~nutty~: Used in the sense “lacking in intelligence,” this word is a
vulgarism to be avoided.
O
~obnoxious~: Formerly this word meant “liable, amenable, subject,”
but the meaning is sometimes forgotten in the more recently acquired
sense, “odious, hurtful.” This difference is beautifully illustrated
by a question propounded to Dean Alford--“Which of these two is right,
‘Death is _obnoxious_ to man’ or ‘Men are _obnoxious_ to death?’”
Death, or the idea of death, is certainly distasteful to most men, but,
this notwithstanding, all men are subject to death.
~observance~: Distinguish from ~observation~. Though the act of
observing is signified by both, it is, as regards _observance_, in the
sense of holding sacred, whereas, so far as _observation_ is concerned
it is in the sense of making examination or careful note. Thus there
is an _observance_ of the law, but an _observation_ of the works of
nature.
~occupancy~, ~occupation~: The word _occupancy_ differs only slightly
from _occupation_ in meaning. The first refers rather to the state
or fact of possession, while the second carries with it an idea of
the rights or results of such _occupancy_. The right or legal fact of
_occupancy_ entitles a person to _occupation_ at will. One may speak of
the _occupancy_ of a domain and the _occupation_, not occupancy, of a
region by troops.
~occur~, ~take place~: These terms are not always synonymous.
_Occurrences_ are due to chance or accident but things _take place_ by
arrangement. Compare TRANSPIRE.
~of~: That the force of this word is not fully understood is proved
by the fact that many ministers choose to omit it from the title of
Scriptural books. Dean Alford in referring to the habit of announcing
“The Book Genesis” instead of “The Book _of_ Genesis,” says, “This
simply betrays the ignorance of the meaning of the preposition _of_.
It is used to denote authorship, as the Book _of_ Daniel; to denote
subject matter, as the first Book _of_ Kings; and as a note of
apposition signifying _which is called_, as the Book _of_ Genesis....
The pedant, who ignores _of_ in the reading-desk must however, to be
consistent, omit it elsewhere: I left the city London, and passed
through County Kent, leaving realm England at town Dover.” _Of_ is
also frequently misused for _from_. Nothing but custom can justify the
common form of receipt, “Received _of_...”.
~of any~: Sometimes used incorrectly for _of all_; as, “This is the
finest _of any_ I have seen”; say, rather, “finer _than any other_,” or
“finest _of all_.”
~off of~: The preposition _off_, when noting origin and used in the
sense of _from_ is frequently followed most ungrammatically by _of_.
No well educated person would say “I got these eggs _off of_ Farmer
Jones,” nor would they “buy a steak _off of_ the butcher” but “of” or
“from” him. _Off_ should not be used of a person, where _from_ would
suffice. You take a book _from_, not _off_, your friend; who may take
it _off_ a shelf. You do not even, in correct speech, take a contagious
disease _off_ him, as though it were something visible and tangible,
and were bodily removed from his person.