out West,” is an impropriety of speech. Say, rather, “He has gone (or
is in the) West.”
~ways~, for ~way~: In the sense of “space or distance,” the erroneous
form _ways_, for _way_, is often used colloquially, perhaps originally
through confusion with the suffix _-ways_; as, “The church is a long
_ways_ from here,” which should be “The church is a long _way_,” etc.
~weary~. Compare TIRED.
~weather, under the~: In the sense of “somewhat ill,” as though
depressed by the weather, this is a colloquialism better avoided.
~went~: This word should never be used as a participle; say, “He
_went_” or “he has _gone_” instead of “he _has went_.” Never use _went_
after any part of the verb _have_. Do not say “I _have went_ there
often”; but “I _have been_ there often.” _Went_ should never be used
for _go_. Some illiterate people say “I should _have went_” when they
mean “I should _have gone_.”
~were her~: Often used incorrectly as in the sentence “If I were
_her_.” Say, rather, “If I were _she_.” Her is the objective case; here
the nominative _she_ should be used.
~wharf~: E. S. Gould declares that as _dwarves_ would be an improper
plural for dwarf, so is _wharves_ for wharf. However, both forms are
now admitted. Compare DOCK.
~what~: As _what_ is both antecedent and relative the use of the
antecedent with this word is wrong. “All _what_ he said was false”
should be corrected by the elision of “all.” _What_ is used only in
reference to things, whereas _that_ can be said of persons, animals,
and things, and can be substituted for it.
~what was~, ~what was not~: “What was” and “what wasn’t my surprise”
may both be used correctly to express considerable surprise, and
with almost the same meaning, the one expression differing from the
other but by a shade in sense. “How great was my surprise,” and “What
surprise could equal or be greater, than mine,” would about paraphrase
the usages. The former sentence implies great surprise, but the
possibility (though unreferred to) of a greater; the latter indicates
that there could not be any greater surprise.
~wheels in the~ (or ~his~) ~head, to have~: A slang phrase used as a
substitute for “to be eccentric, peculiar, or erratic.”
~whence~: “_Whence_ came you” is sufficient and correct. “From
_whence_” is pleonastic, the _whence_ being nothing less than “_from_
where” and thus including the _from_. Compare THENCE.
~where~: The prepositions _to_ or _at_ should never end a sentence
beginning with _where_. Such use is vulgar and illiterate. Avoid:
“_Where_ has he gone _to_?” “_Where_ was I _at_?”
~whereabouts~: This word, plural in form, but singular in construction,
always takes a verb, in the singular. “Husband and wife disappeared;
their whereabouts _is_ a mystery.”
~wherever~: This word, although a combination of two words “where” and
“ever” is not spelt “where ever” when written as a solid word. Then it
drops the first “e” in “ever” and is correctly “wherever.”
~whether~: Avoid such a locution as “whether or no,” which is rapidly
gaining ground, and say instead the preferable phrase, “whether or
not.” _Whether_ properly means “which of two.” Therefore, in expressing
doubt, make mention merely of the exact thing doubted without using
the word _whether_ unless it be to introduce an alternative subject of
doubt or a comparison of doubts. Just as _either_, which is strictly
applicable to two only is wrongly applied to more than two, so is
_whether_, which is a contraction of _which of either_.
~which~. Compare THAT, WHO.
~who~: Often improperly used for _whom_: a mark of ignorance when so
applied. Do not say “_Who_ do you refer to?” but “To _whom_ do you
refer?” Not “_Who_ is that for?” nor “Who did you give it to?” but “For
_whom_ is that?” “To _whom_ did you give it?” Compare THAT, WHO.
~whole~, ~whole of~: The _whole_ or _whole of_ should be used before
a plural noun carefully, and then only when the body is referred to
collectively. In general the word _entire_ would better express the
phrase. In such cases _all_ should never be employed, as this relates
to the individual of which the body is composed. Thus, one may say,
“The _whole_ staff accompanied the general,” or (for emphasis) “The
_whole of_ the staff,” etc., but it would be better to say “The
_entire_ staff.”
If referring to the individual officers, the sentence should read
“_All_ members of the staff accompanied the general.”
~whole push, the~. See PUSH.
~widow woman~: A pleonasm. Do not use the word _widow_, which applies
only to a woman, with the words _woman_ or _lady_. It is an error
of speech, common in rural districts, against which it is wise to
continually guard.
~wife~. Compare LADY.
~wild~: A colloquialism for “angry” which is to be preferred.
~windbag~: A coarse term for a boastful and wordy talker: not used by
persons who cultivate a refined diction. “Braggart,” “braggadocia,” are
more elegant, yet equally expressive terms.
~with~, ~and~: A nominative singular is sometimes used with an
objective after _with_ to form, jointly, the subject of a plural verb;
as “The captain _with_ all his crew _were_ drowned.” But according to
best usage the conjunction _and_ is substituted for “with”; thus, “The
captain _and_ all his crew _were_ drowned.” Where the objective is
separated parenthetically by commas, a verb in the singular is used;
as, “Aguinaldo, with all his followers, _was_ captured by Gen. Funston.”
~without~: This, as used for “except” or “unless” is at the present
day a vulgarism. “_Without_ you intend business, do not call”; say,
_unless_.
~witness~. Compare SEE.
~woman~. Compare LADY.
~worse~: An adverb sometimes used for _more_; as, “He disliked tea
_worse_ than coffee”: a vulgarism.
~worst kind~: For _much_ or _extremely_; as, “I need (or want) a new
pen the _worst kind_”: a vulgarism, besides equivocally suggesting “the
worst kind of a pen.”
~would better~. Compare HAD BETTER.
~would say~: A hackneyed expression used by many commercial
correspondents; inelegant and useless.
~would seem~ should not be used for “seems.”
~wrath~. Compare TEMPER.
~write you~: This expression, for “write to you,” though common, is
not grammatically correct. Where an object is expressed the dative
“to” may be omitted. “He shipped _me_ costly fabrics,” for “he shipped
costly fabrics to _me_” is permissible, but “he shipped _me_” without
any objective, or rather other objective of _me_ would imply that the
person speaking had been shipped. Of the expression “I will write you,”
the only justification for it that can be found is in the supposition
that the words “a letter” are understood.
Y
~yappy~: A slang term used as an equivalent of “foolish” which is to be
preferred.
~yes~: Discard such vulgarisms as _yeh_ and _yep_ and pronounce as a
single syllable, and not with affectation, as, sometimes in England
_ya-as_, or with a Yankee drawl _ye-es_. Avoid, too, the objectionable
habit of using this word as the sole response in conversation; a habit
which is indeed fatally destructive of conversation, which should
partake more or less of an interchange of ideas. “Yes! she would
reply encouragingly ... and yes! conclusively, like an incarnation of
stupidity dealing in monosyllables.” (MEREDITH, “Beauchamp’s Career,”
vol. iii. ch. 10, p. 185.) Also, when speaking in English do not inject
the German “Ja!” when you wish to signify assent. This practice is
rapidly gaining ground among the middle class.
~Yid~: A Jew: an appellation common among the vulgar and therefore one
to be avoided.
~you~ even when used in relation to one person, is still grammatically
plural, always requiring the plural verb; as, “You _were_ fortunate,”
not “You _was_ fortunate”; “If you _were_ to curse you would sin,” not
“If you _was_ to curse,” etc.
~you and I~, ~you or I~: Phrases in which the objective pronoun _me_
and the first personal pronoun _I_ are often confused; as, “This
will not do for _you and I_,” instead of “This will not do for _you
and me_.’” The rule is very simple, viz.: use _I_ or _me_ in such
connection just as if the words “you and” or “you or” were omitted.
“They were not citizens as (_you and_) _I_”; “He is not so tall as
(_you or_) _I_.”
~you don’t say?~ Compare IS THAT SO?
~your’s truly~: An incorrect form, _yours_ being a possessive pronoun
does not need the sign of the possessive after it.
Z
~zeugma~: “Is the joining of two or more words (as nouns) to a third
(as a verb) with which only one or a part of them can be made to agree
except by using the nouns in different senses, or by taking the verb in
different senses in relation to the different nouns, or by letting the
underlying logical relation overrule the grammatical--in Greek a very
common figure, but in English quite unusual and ordinarily a violation
of the principles of construction and a grave fault in diction. “The
_control_, as well as the _support_, which a father _exercises_ over
his family _were_, by the dispensation of Providence, withdrawn”;
_control_ is properly _exercised_, but _support_ is not; the verb-form
_were_ is made plural to accord, not with the grammatical relation
of _control_ and _support_, but with the logical relation underlying
_as well_ as regarded as equivalent to _and_.”--STANDARD DICTIONARY.
Compare WITH, AND.
Transcriber's Note
The following apparent errors have been corrected:
p. 7 "bargain." changed to "bargain.”"
p. 17 "I have" changed to "“I have"
p. 21 "Polly." changed to "Polly.”"
p. 43 "·COLERIDGE" changed to "--COLERIDGE"
p. 44 "“steal" changed to "“steal”"
p. 70 "_the other_" changed to "_the other_”"
p. 82 "severly" changed to "severely"
p. 90 "_from the effects of_" changed to "“_from the effects of_"
p. 94 "LADY" changed to "LADY."
p. 106 "last month; say" changed to "last month”; say"
p. 109 "vulger" changed to "vulgar"
p. 111 "_had that_" changed to "_how that_"
p. 113 "~if~. ~whether~" changed to "~if~, ~whether~"
p. 125 "beat.”" changed to "“beat.”"
p. 142 "_Mussulman_" changed to "_Mussulman_."
p. 143 "Macaulay" changed to "Macaulay."
p. 154 "have seen;" changed to "have seen”;"
p. 165 "intensely comic” or “absurd.’”" changed to "“intensely comic”
or “absurd.”"
p. 173 "The perference" changed to "The preference"
p. 187 "_converse_" changed to "_converse_."
p. 187 "_Rev._ Jones,”" changed to "“_Rev._ Jones,”"
p. 191 "_Jesus_" changed to "_Jesus’_"
p. 205 "rather." changed to "rather,"
p. 227 "surprise" changed to "surprise."
p. 232 "WITH AND" changed to "WITH, AND"
The following possible errors have been left as printed:
p. ix Vesilius
On p. 108, the entry for "hen-party" refers to a non-existent entry for
"stag-party".
p. 126 a object
The following are used inconsistently in the text:
matinée and matinée
slipshod and slip-shod