THE VERBALIST.

A--AN. The second form of the indefinite article is used for the sake of

euphony only. Herein everybody agrees, but what everybody does not agree

in is, that it is euphonious to use _an_ before a word beginning with an

aspirated _h_, when the accented syllable of the word is the second. For

myself, so long as I continue to aspirate the _h's_ in such words as

_heroic_, _harangue_, and _historical_, I shall continue to use _a_

before them; and when I adopt the Cockney mode of pronouncing such

words, then I shall use _an_ before them. To my ear it is just as

euphonious to say, "I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a

tender one, and will plant it upon _an_ high mountain and eminent," as

it is to say _an_ harangue, _an_ heroic, or _an_ historical. _An_ is

well enough before the doubtful British aspiration, but before the

distinct American aspiration it is wholly out of place. The reply will

perhaps be, "But these _h's_ are silent; the change of accent from the

first syllable to the second neutralizes their aspiration." However true

this may be in England, it is not at all true in America; hence we

Americans should use _a_ and not _an_ before such _h's_ until we decide

to ape the Cockney mode of pronouncing them.

Errors are not unfrequently made by omitting to repeat the article in a

sentence. It should always be repeated when a noun or an adjective

referring to a distinct thing is introduced; take, for example, the

sentence, "He has a black and white horse." If two horses are meant, it

is clear that it should be, "He has a black and _a_ white horse." See

THE.

ABILITY--CAPACITY. The distinctions between these two words are not

always observed by those who use them. "_Capacity_ is the power of

receiving and retaining knowledge with facility; _ability_ is the power

of applying knowledge to practical purposes. Both these faculties are

requisite to form a great character: capacity to conceive, and ability

to execute designs. Capacity is shown in quickness of apprehension.

Ability supposes something done; something by which the mental power is

exercised in executing, or performing, what has been perceived by the

capacity."--Graham's "English Synonymes."

ABORTIVE. An outlandish use of this word may be occasionally met with,

especially in the newspapers. "A lad was yesterday caught in the act of

_abortively_ appropriating a pair of shoes." That is abortive that is

untimely, that has not been borne its full time, that is immature. We

often hear _abortion_ used in the sense of failure, but never by those

that study to express themselves in chaste English.

ABOVE. There is little authority for using this word as an adjective.

Instead of, "the _above_ statement," say, "the _foregoing_ statement."

_Above_ is also used very inelegantly for _more than_; as, "above a

mile," "above a thousand"; also, for _beyond_; as, "above his strength."

ACCIDENT. See CASUALTY.

ACCORD. "He [the Secretary of the Treasury] was shown through the

building, and the information he desired was _accorded_

him."--Reporters' English.

"The heroes prayed, and Pallas from the skies

_Accords_ their vow."--Pope.

The goddess of wisdom, when she granted the prayers of her worshipers,

may be said to have _accorded_; not so, however, when the clerks of our

Sub-Treasury answer the inquiries of their chief.

ACCUSE. See BLAME IT ON.

ACQUAINTANCE. See FRIEND.

AD. This abbreviation for the word _advertisement_ is very justly

considered a gross vulgarism. It is doubtful whether it is permissible

under any circumstances.

ADAPT--DRAMATIZE. In speaking and in writing of stage matters, these

words are often misused. To _adapt_ a play is to modify its construction

with the view of improving its form for representation. Plays translated

from one language into another are usually more or less _adapted_; i.

e., altered to suit the taste of the public before which the translation

is to be represented. To _dramatize_ is to change the form of a story

from the narrative to the dramatic; i. e., to make a drama out of a

story. In the first instance, the product of the playwright's labor is

called an _adaptation_; in the second, a _dramatization_.

ADJECTIVES. "Very often adjectives stand where adverbs might be

expected; as, 'drink _deep_,' 'this looks _strange_,' 'standing

_erect_.'

"We have also examples of one adjective qualifying another adjective;

as, '_wide_ open,' '_red_ hot,' 'the _pale_ blue sky.' Sometimes the

corresponding adverb is used, but with a different meaning; as, 'I found

the way _easy_--_easily_'; 'it appears _clear_--_clearly_.' Although

there is a propriety in the employment of the adjective in certain

instances, yet such forms as '_indifferent_ well,' '_extreme_ bad,' are

grammatical errors. 'He was interrogated _relative_ to that

circumstance,' should be _relatively_, or _in relation to_. It is not

unusual to say, 'I would have done it _independent_ of that

circumstance,' but _independently_ is the proper construction.

"The employment of adjectives for adverbs is accounted for by the

following considerations:

"(1.) In the classical languages the neuter adjective may be used as an

adverb, and the analogy would appear to have been extended to English.

"(2.) In the oldest English the adverb was regularly formed from the

adjective by adding 'e,' as 'soft, soft_e_,' and the dropping of the 'e'

left the adverb in the adjective form; thus, '_clæne_,' adverb, became

'clean,' and appears in the phrase '_clean_ gone'; '_fæste_, fast,' 'to

stick _fast_.' By a false analogy, many adjectives that never formed

adverbs in _-e_ were freely used as adverbs in the age of Elizabeth:

'Thou didst it _excellent_,' '_equal_ (for _equally_) good,'

'_excellent_ well.' This gives precedent for such errors as those

mentioned above.

"(3.) There are cases where the subject is qualified rather than the

verb, as with verbs of incomplete predication, 'being,' 'seeming,'

'arriving,' etc. In 'the matter seems _clear_,' 'clear' is part of the

predicate of 'matter.' 'They arrived _safe_': 'safe' does not qualify

'arrived,' but goes with it to complete the predicate. So, 'he sat

_silent_,' 'he stood _firm_.' 'It comes _beautiful_' and 'it comes

_beautifully_' have different meanings. This explanation applies

especially to the use of participles as adverbs, as in Southey's lines

on Lodore; the participial epithets applied there, although appearing to

modify 'came,' are really additional predications about 'the water,' in

elegantly shortened form. 'The church stood _gleaming_ through the

trees': 'gleaming' is a shortened predicate of 'church'; and the full

form would be, 'the church stood _and gleamed_.' The participle retains

its force as such, while acting the part of a coördinating adjective,

complement to 'stood'; 'stood gleaming' is little more than 'gleamed.'

The feeling of adverbial force in 'gleaming' arises from the subordinate

participial form joined with a verb, 'stood,' that seems capable of

predicating by itself. '_Passing_ strange' is elliptical: 'passing

(surpassing) _what is_ strange.'"--Bain.

"The comparative adjectives _wiser_, _better_, _larger_, etc., and the

contrasting adjectives _different_, _other_, etc., are often so placed

as to render the construction of the sentence awkward; as, 'That is a

much _better_ statement of the case _than_ yours,' instead of, 'That

statement of the case is much _better than_ yours'; 'Yours is a _larger_

plot of ground _than_ John's,' instead of, 'Your plot of ground is

_larger than_ John's'; 'This is a _different_ course of proceeding

_from_ what I expected,' instead of, 'This course of proceeding is

_different from_ what I expected'; 'I could take no _other_ method of

silencing him _than_ the one I took,' instead of, 'I could take no

method of silencing him _other than_ the one I took.'"--Gould's "Good

English," p. 69.

ADMINISTER. "Carson died from blows _administered_ by policeman

Johnson."--"New York Times." If policeman Johnson was as barbarous as is

this use of the verb _to administer_, it is to be hoped that he was

hanged. Governments, oaths, medicine, affairs--such as the affairs of

the state--are _administered_, but not blows: _they_ are _dealt_.

ADOPT. This word is often used instead of _to decide upon_, and of _to

take_; thus, "The measures _adopted_ [by Parliament], as the result of

this inquiry, will be productive of good." Better, "The measures

_decided upon_," etc. Instead of, "What course shall you _adopt_ to get

your pay?" say, "What course shall you _take_," etc. _Adopt_ is properly

used in a sentence like this: "The course (or measures) proposed by Mr.

Blank was _adopted_ by the committee." That is, what was Blank's was

_adopted_ by the committee--a correct use of the word, as _to adopt_,

means, to assume as one's own.

_Adopt_ is sometimes so misused that its meaning is inverted. "Wanted to

adopt," in the heading of advertisements, not unfrequently is intended

to mean that the advertiser wishes to be _relieved_ of the care of a

child, not that he wishes to _assume_ the care of one.

AGGRAVATE. This word is often used when the speaker means to provoke,

irritate, or anger. Thus, "It _aggravates_ [provokes] me to be

continually found fault with"; "He is easily _aggravated_ [irritated]."

To _aggravate_ means to make worse, to heighten. We therefore very

properly speak of _aggravating_ circumstances. To say of a person that

he is _aggravated_ is as incorrect as to say that he is _palliated_.

AGRICULTURIST. This word is to be preferred to _agriculturalist_. See

CONVERSATIONIST.

ALIKE. This word is often most bunglingly coupled with _both_. Thus,

"These bonnets are both alike," or, worse still, if possible, "both just

alike." This reminds one of the story of Sam and Jem, who were very like

each other, especially Sam.

ALL. See UNIVERSAL.

ALL OVER. "The disease spread _all over_ the country." It is more

logical and more emphatic to say, "The disease spread _over all_ the

country."

ALLEGORY. An elaborated metaphor is called an _allegory_; both are

figurative representations, the words used signifying something beyond

their literal meaning. Thus, in the eightieth Psalm, the Jews are

represented under the symbol of a vine:

"Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen,

and planted it. Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to

take deep root, and it filled the land. The hills were covered with the

shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. She

sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river. Why

hast thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass by

the way do pluck her? The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the

wild beast of the field doth devour it."

An allegory is sometimes so extended that it makes a volume; as in the

case of Swift's "Tale of a Tub," Arbuthnot's "John Bull," Bunyan's

"Pilgrim's Progress," etc. Fables and parables are short allegories.

ALLOW. This word is frequently misused in the West and South, where it

is made to do service for _assert_ or _to be of opinion_. Thus, "He

_allows_ that he has the finest horse in the country."

ALLUDE. The treatment this word has received is to be specially

regretted, as its misuse has well-nigh robbed it of its true meaning,

which is, to intimate delicately, to refer to without mentioning

directly. _Allude_ is now very rarely used in any other sense than that

of to speak of, to mention, to name, which is a long way from being its

legitimate signification. This degradation is doubtless a direct outcome

of untutored desire to be fine and to use big words.

ALONE. This word is often improperly used for _only_. That is _alone_

which is unaccompanied; that is _only_ of which there is no other.

"Virtue _alone_ makes us happy," means that virtue unaided suffices to

make us happy; "Virtue _only_ makes us happy," means that nothing else

can do it--that that, and that only (not alone), can do it. "This means

of communication is employed by man _alone_." Dr. Quackenbos should

have written, "By man _only_". See also ONLY.

AMATEUR--NOVICE. There is much confusion in the use of these two words,

although they are entirely distinct from each other in meaning. An

_amateur_ is one versed in, or a lover and practicer of, any particular

pursuit, art, or science, but _not_ engaged in it professionally. A

_novice_ is one who is new or inexperienced in any art or business--a

beginner, a tyro. A professional actor, then, who is new and unskilled

in his art, is a _novice_ and not an _amateur_. An amateur may be an

artist of great experience and extraordinary skill.

AMELIORATE. "The health of the Empress of Germany is greatly

_ameliorated_." Why not say _improved_?

AMONG. See BETWEEN.

AMOUNT OF PERFECTION. The observant reader of periodical literature

often notes forms of expression which are perhaps best characterized by

the word _bizarre_. Of these queer locutions, _amount of perfection_ is

a very good example. Mr. G. F. Watts, in the "Nineteenth Century," says,

"An _amount of perfection_ has been reached which I was by no means

prepared for." What Mr. Watts meant to say was, doubtless, that a

_degree of excellence_ had been reached. There are not a few who, in

their prepossession for everything transatlantic, seem to be of opinion

that the English language is generally better written in England than it

is in America. Those who think so are counseled to examine the diction

of some of the most noted English critics and essayists, beginning, if

they will, with Matthew Arnold.

AND. Few vulgarisms are more common than the use of _and_ for _to_.

Examples: "Come _and_ see me before you go"; "Try _and_ do what you can

for him"; "Go _and_ see your brother, if you can." In such sentences as

these, the proper particle to use is clearly _to_ and not _and_.

_And_ is sometimes improperly used instead of _or_; thus, "It is obvious

that a language like the Greek _and_ Latin" (language?), etc., should

be, "a language like the Greek _or the_ Latin" (language), etc. There is

no such thing as a Greek and Latin language.

ANSWER--REPLY. These two words should not be used indiscriminately. An

_answer_ is given to a question; a _reply_, to an assertion. When we are

addressed, we _answer_; when we are accused, we _reply_. We _answer_

letters, and _reply_ to any arguments, statements, or accusations they

may contain. Crabb is in error in saying that _replies_ "are used in

personal discourse only." _Replies_, as well as _answers_, are written.

We very properly write, "I have now, I believe, _answered_ all your

questions and _replied_ to all your arguments." A _rejoinder_ is made to

a _reply_. "Who goes there?" he cried; and, receiving no _answer_, he

fired. "The advocate _replied_ to the charges made against his client."

ANTICIPATE. Lovers of big words have a fondness for making this verb do

duty for _expect_. _Anticipate_ is derived from two Latin words meaning

_before_ and _to take_, and, when properly used, means, to take

beforehand; to go before so as to preclude another; to get the start or

ahead of; to enjoy, possess, or suffer, in expectation; to foretaste. It

is, therefore, misused in such sentences as, "Her death is hourly

_anticipated_"; "By this means it is _anticipated_ that the time from

Europe will be lessened two days."

ANTITHESIS. A phrase that opposes contraries is called an _antithesis_.

"I see a chief who leads my chosen sons,

All armed with points, _antitheses_, and puns."

The following are examples:

"Though gentle, yet not dull;

Strong, without rage; without o'erflowing, full."

"Contrasted faults through all their manners reign;

Though poor, luxurious; though submissive, vain;

Though grave, yet trifling; zealous, yet untrue;

And e'en in penance planning sins anew."

The following is an excellent example of _personification_ and

_antithesis_ combined:

"Talent convinces; Genius but excites:

That tasks the reason; this the soul delights.

Talent from sober judgment takes its birth,

And reconciles the pinion to the earth;

Genius unsettles with desires the mind,

Contented not till earth be left behind."

In the following extract from Johnson's "Life of Pope," individual

peculiarities are contrasted by means of antitheses:

"Of genius--that power which constitutes a poet; that quality without

which judgment is cold, and knowledge is inert; that energy which

collects, combines, amplifies, and animates--the superiority must, with

some hesitation, be allowed to Dryden. It is not to be inferred that of

this poetical vigor Pope had only a little, because Dryden had more; for

every other writer, since Milton, must give place to Pope; and even of

Dryden it must be said that, if he has brighter paragraphs, he has not

better poems. Dryden's performances were always hasty, either excited by

some external occasion or extorted by domestic necessity; he composed

without consideration and published without correction. What his mind

could supply at call or gather in one excursion was all that he sought

and all that he gave. The dilatory caution of Pope enabled him to

condense his sentiments, to multiply his images, and to accumulate all

that study might produce or chance might supply. If the flights of

Dryden, therefore, are higher, Pope continues longer on the wing. If of

Dryden's fire the blaze is brighter, of Pope's the heat is more regular

and constant. Dryden often surpasses expectation, and Pope never falls

below it. Dryden is read with frequent astonishment, and Pope with

perpetual delight. Dryden's page is a natural field, rising into

inequalities, and diversified by the varied exuberance of abundant

vegetation; Pope's is a velvet lawn, shaven by the scythe, and leveled

by the roller."

There are forms of antithesis in which the contrast is only of a

secondary kind.

ANY. This word is sometimes made to do service for _at all_. We say

properly, "She is not _any_ better"; but we can not properly say, "She

does not see _any_," meaning that she is blind.

ANYBODY ELSE. "Public School Teachers are informed that _anybody else's_

is correct."--"New York Times," Sunday, July 31, 1881. An English writer

says: "In such phrases as anybody else, and the like, _else_ is often

put in the possessive case; as, 'anybody else's servant'; and some

grammarians defend this use of the possessive case, arguing that

_somebody else_ is a compound noun." It is better grammar and more

euphonious to consider _else_ as being an adjective, and to form the

possessive by adding the apostrophe and _s_ to the word that _else_

qualifies; thus, anybody's else, nobody's else, somebody's else.

ANYHOW. "An exceedingly vulgar phrase," says Professor Mathews, in his

"Words: Their Use and Abuse." "Its use, _in any manner_, by one who

professes to write and speak the English tongue with purity, is

unpardonable." Professor Mathews seems to have a special dislike for

this colloquialism. It is recognized by the lexicographers, and I think

is generally accounted, even by the careful, permissible in

conversation, though incompatible with dignified diction.

ANXIETY OF MIND. See EQUANIMITY OF MIND.

APOSTROPHE. Turning from the person or persons to whom a discourse is

addressed and appealing to some person or thing absent, constitutes

what, in rhetoric, is called the _apostrophe_. The following are some

examples:

"O gentle sleep,

Nature's soft nurse, how have I frighted thee,

That thou no more wilt weigh my eyelids down,

And steep my senses in forgetfulness?"

"Sail on, thou lone imperial bird

Of quenchless eye and tireless wing!"

"Help, angels, make assay!

Bow, stubborn knees! and heart with strings of steel,

Be soft as sinews of the new-born babe:

All may yet be well!"

APPEAR. See SEEM.

APPRECIATE. If any word in the language has cause to complain of

ill-treatment, this one has. _Appreciate_ means, to estimate

_justly_--to set the _true_ value on men or things, their worth, beauty,

or advantages of any sort whatsoever. Thus, an overestimate is no more

_appreciation_ than is an underestimate; hence it follows that such

expressions as, "I appreciate it, or her, or him, _highly_," can not be

correct. We _value_, or _prize_, things highly, not _appreciate_ them

highly. This word is also very improperly made to do service for _rise_,

or _increase_, in value; thus, "Land _appreciates_ rapidly in the West."

Dr. L. T. Townsend blunders in the use of _appreciate_ in his "Art of

Speech," vol. i, p. 142, thus: "The laws of harmony ... may allow

copiousness ... in parts of a discourse ... in order that the

condensation of other parts may be the _more highly appreciated_."

APPREHEND--COMPREHEND. The English often use the first of these two

words where we use the second. Both express an effort of the thinking

faculty; but to _apprehend_ is simply to take an idea into the mind--it

is the mind's first effort--while to _comprehend_ is _fully to

understand_. We are dull or quick of _apprehension_. Children

_apprehend_ much that they do not _comprehend_. Trench says: "We

_apprehend_ many truths which we do not _comprehend_." "_Apprehend_,"

says Crabb, "expresses the weakest kind of belief, the having [of] the

least idea of the presence of a thing."

APT. Often misused for _likely_, and sometimes for _liable_. "What is he

_apt_ to be doing?" "Where shall I be _apt_ to find him?" "If properly

directed, it will be _apt_ to reach me." In such sentences as these,

_likely_ is the proper word to use. "If you go there, you will be _apt_

to get into trouble." Here either _likely_ or _liable_ is the proper

word, according to the thought the speaker would convey.

ARCTICS. See RUBBERS.

ARTIST. Of late years this word has been appropriated by the members of

so many crafts, that it has well-nigh been despoiled of its meaning.

Your cook, your barber, your tailor, your boot-maker, and so on to

satiety, are all _artists_. Painters, sculptors, architects, actors, and

singers, nowadays, generally prefer being thus called, rather than to be

spoken of as _artists_.

AS. "Not _as_ I know": read, "not _that_ I know." "This is not _as_ good

as the last": read, "not _so_ good." "It may be complete _so_ far as

the specification is concerned": correctly, "_as_ far as."

_As_, preceded by _such_ or by _same_, has the force of a relative

applying to persons or to things. "He offered me the _same_ conditions

_as_ he offered you." "The same conditions _that_" would be equally

proper. See, also, LIKE.

ASCRIBE. See IMPUTE.

AT. Things are sold _by_, not _at_, auction. "The scene is more

beautiful _at_ night than by day": say, "_by_ night."

AT ALL. "It is not strange, for my uncle is King of Denmark." Had

Shakespeare written, "It is not _at all_ strange," it is clear that his

diction would have been much less forcible. "I do not wish for any _at

all_"; "I saw no one _at all_"; "If he had any desire _at all_ to see

me, he would come where I am." The _at all_ in sentences like these is

superfluous. Yet there are instances in which the phrase is certainly a

very convenient one, and seems to be unobjectionable. It is much used,

and by good writers.

AT BEST. Instead of _at best_ and _at worst_, we should say at _the_

best and at _the_ worst.

AT LAST. See AT LENGTH.

AT LEAST. This adverbial phrase is often misplaced. "'The Romans

understood liberty _at least_ as well as we.' This must be interpreted

to mean, 'The Romans understood liberty _as well as we_ understand

liberty.' The intended meaning is, 'that whatever things the Romans

failed to understand, they understood _liberty_.' To express this

meaning we might put it thus: 'The Romans understood _at least_ liberty

as well as we _do_'; 'liberty, _at least_, the Romans understood as well

as we do.' 'A tear, _at least_, is due to the unhappy'; '_at least_ a

tear is due to the unhappy'; 'a tear is due _at least_ to the unhappy';

'a tear is due to the unhappy _at least_'--all express different

meanings. 'This can not, _often at least_, be done'; 'this can not be

done _often, at least_.' (1. 'It often happens that this can not be

done.' 2. 'It does not often happen that this can be done.') So, 'man is

_always_ capable of laughing'; 'man is capable of laughing

_always_.'"--Bain.

AT LENGTH. This phrase is often used instead of _at last_. "_At length_

we managed to get away": read, "_at last_." "_At length_ we heard from

him." To hear from any one _at length_ is to hear fully; i. e., in

detail.

AUTHORESS. With regard to the use of this and certain other words of

like formation, Mr. Gould, in his "Good English," says: "_Poet_ means

simply a person who writes poetry; and _author_, in the sense under

consideration, a person who writes poetry or prose--not a _man_ who

writes, but a _person_ who writes. Nothing in either word indicates sex;

and everybody knows that the functions of both poets and authors are

common to both sexes. Hence, _authoress_ and _poetess_ are superfluous.

And they are superfluous, also, in another respect--that they are very

rarely used, indeed they hardly _can_ be used, independently of the

_name_ of the writer, as Mrs., or Miss, or a female Christian name. They

are, besides, philological absurdities, because they are fabricated on

the false assumption that their primaries indicate _men_. They are,

moreover, liable to the charge of affectation and prettiness, to say

nothing of pedantic pretension to accuracy.

"If the _ess_ is to be permitted, there is no reason for excluding it

from _any_ noun that indicates a person; and the next editions of our

dictionaries may be made complete by the addition of _writress_,

_officeress_, _manageress_, _superintendentess_, _secretaryess_,

_treasureress_, _walkeress_, _talkeress_, and so on to the end of the

vocabulary."

AVOCATION. See VOCATION.

BAD COLD. Inasmuch as colds are never _good_, why say a _bad_ cold? We

may talk about _slight_ colds and _severe_ colds, but not about _bad_

colds.

BAGGAGE. See LUGGAGE.

BALANCE. This word is very frequently and very erroneously used in the

sense of _rest_, _remainder_. It properly means _the excess of one thing

over another_, and in this sense and in no other should it be used.

Hence it is improper to talk about the _balance_ of the edition, of the

evening, of the money, of the toasts, of the men, etc. In such cases we

should say the _rest_ or the _remainder_.

BARBARISM. Defined as an offense against good usage, by the use of an

improper word, i. e., a word that is antiquated or improperly formed.

_Preventative_, _enthuse_, _agriculturalist_, _donate_, etc., are

barbarisms. See also SOLECISM.

BEEN TO. We not unfrequently hear a superfluous _to_ tacked to a

sentence; thus, "Where have you been _to_?"

BEG. We often see letters begin with the words, "I _beg_ to acknowledge

the receipt of your favor," etc. We should write, "I _beg leave_ to

acknowledge," etc. No one would say, "I beg to tell you," instead of, "I

beg _leave_ to tell you."

BEGIN--COMMENCE. These words have the same meaning; careful speakers,

however, generally prefer to use the former. Indeed, there is rarely any

good reason for giving the preference to the latter. See also COMMENCE.

BEING BUILT. See IS BEING BUILT.

BELONGINGS. An old idiomatic expression now coming into use again.

BESIDE--BESIDES. In the later unabridged editions of Webster's

dictionary we find the following remarks concerning the use of these two

words: "_Beside_ and _besides_, whether used as prepositions or

adverbs, have been considered synonymous from an early period of our

literature, and have been freely interchanged by our best writers. There

is, however, a tendency in present usage to make the following

distinction between them: 1. That _beside_ be used only and always as a

preposition, with the original meaning _by the side of_; as, to sit

_beside_ a fountain; or with the closely allied meaning _aside from_, or

_out of_; as, this is _beside_ our present purpose: 'Paul, thou art

_beside_ thyself.' The adverbial sense to be wholly transferred to the

cognate word. 2. That _besides_, as a preposition, take the remaining

sense, _in addition to_; as, _besides_ all this; _besides_ the

consideration here offered: 'There was a famine in the land _besides_

the first famine.' And that it also take the adverbial sense of

_moreover_, _beyond_, etc., which had been divided between the words;

as, _besides_, there are other considerations which belong to this

case."

BEST. See AT BEST.

BETWEEN. This word is often misused for _among_; thus, "The word

_fellow_, however much in use it may be _between_ men, sounds very

objectionable from the lips of women."--"London Queen." Should be,

"_among_ men." _Between_ is used in reference to two things, parties, or

persons; _among_, in reference to a greater number. "Castor and Pollux

with one soul _between_ them." "You have _among_ you many a purchased

slave."

BLAME IT ON. Here is a gross vulgarism which we sometimes hear from

persons of considerable culture. They use it in the sense of _accuse_ or

_suspect_; thus, "He _blames it on_ his brother," meaning that he

_accuses_ or _suspects_ his brother of having done it, or of being at

fault for it.

BOGUS. A colloquial term incompatible with dignified diction.

BOTH. We sometimes hear such absurd sentences as, "They _both_ resemble

each other very much"; "They are _both_ alike"; "They _both_ met in the

street." _Both_ is likewise redundant in the following sentence: "It

performs at the same time the offices _both_ of the nominative and

objective cases."

BOUND. The use of this word in the sense of _determined_ is not only

inelegant but indefensible. "I am _bound_ to have it," should be, "I am

_determined_ to have it."

BRAVERY--COURAGE. The careless often use these two words as though they

were interchangeable. _Bravery_ is inborn, is instinctive; _courage_ is

the product of reason, calculation. There is much merit in being

courageous, little merit in being brave. Men who are simply _brave_ are

careless, while the courageous man is always cautious. _Bravery_ often

degenerates into temerity. _Moral courage_ is that firmness of principle

which enables a man to do what he deems to be his duty, although his

action may subject him to adverse criticism. True _moral courage_ is one

of the rarest and most admirable of virtues.

Alfred the Great, in resisting the attacks of the Danes, displayed

_bravery_; in entering their camp as a spy, he displayed _courage_.

BRING--FETCH--CARRY. The indiscriminate use of these three words is very

common. To _bring_ is to convey to or toward--a simple act; to _fetch_

means to _go_ and bring--a compound act; to _carry_ often implies motion

from the speaker, and is followed by _away_ or _off_, and thus is

opposed to _bring_ and _fetch_. Yet one hears such expressions as, "Go

to Mrs. D.'s and _bring_ her this bundle; and here, you may _fetch_ her

this book also." We use the words correctly thus: "_Fetch_, or _go

bring_, me an apple from the cellar"; "When you come home _bring_ some

lemons"; "_Carry_ this book home with you."

BRITISH AGAINST AMERICAN ENGLISH. "The most important peculiarity of

American English is a laxity, irregularity, and confusion in the use of

particles. The same thing is, indeed, observable in England, but not to

the same extent, though some gross departures from idiomatic propriety,

such as _different to_ for _different from_, are common in England,

which none but very ignorant persons would be guilty of in America....

In the tenses of the verbs, I am inclined to think that well-educated

Americans conform more closely to grammatical propriety than the

corresponding class in England.... In general, I think we may say that,

in point of naked syntactical accuracy, the English of America is not at

all inferior to that of England; but we do not discriminate so precisely

in the meaning of words, nor do we habitually, in either conversation or

in writing, express ourselves so gracefully, or employ so classic a

diction, as the English. Our taste in language is less fastidious, and

our licenses and inaccuracies are more frequently of a character

indicative of want of refinement and elegant culture than those we hear

in educated society in England."--George P. Marsh.

BRITISH AGAINST AMERICAN ORTHOËPY. "The causes of the differences in

pronunciation [between the English and the Americans] are partly

physical, and therefore difficult, if not impossible, to resist; and

partly owing to a difference of circumstances. Of this latter class of

influences, the universality of reading in America is the most obvious

and important. The most marked difference is, perhaps, in the length or

prosodical quantity of the vowels; and both of the causes I have

mentioned concur to produce this effect. We are said to drawl our words

by protracting the vowels and giving them a more diphthongal sound than

the English. Now, an Englishman who reads will habitually utter his

vowels more fully and distinctly than his countryman who does not; and,

upon the same principle, a nation of readers, like the Americans, will

pronounce more deliberately and clearly than a people so large a

proportion of whom are unable to read, as in England. From our universal

habit of reading, there results not only a greater distinctness of

articulation, but a strong tendency to assimilate the spoken to the

written language. Thus, Americans incline to give to every syllable of a

written word a distinct enunciation; and the popular habit is to say

_dic-tion-ar-y_, _mil-it-ar-y_, with a secondary accent on the

penultimate, instead of sinking the third syllable, as is so common in

England. There is, no doubt, something disagreeably stiff in an anxious

and affected conformity to the very letter of orthography; and to those

accustomed to a more hurried utterance we may seem to drawl, when we are

only giving a full expression to letters which, though etymologically

important, the English habitually slur over, sputtering out, as a

Swedish satirist says, one half of the word, and swallowing the other.

The tendency to make the long vowels diphthongal is noticed by

foreigners as a peculiarity of the orthoëpy of our language; and this

tendency will, of course, be strengthened by any cause which produces

greater slowness and fullness of articulation. Besides the influence of

the habit of reading, there is some reason to think that climate is

affecting our articulation. In spite of the coldness of our winters, our

flora shows that the climate of even our Northern States belongs, upon

the whole, to a more southern type than that of England. In southern

latitudes, at least within the temperate zone, articulation is generally

much more distinct than in the northern regions. Witness the

pronunciation of Spanish, Italian, Turkish, as compared with English,

Danish, and German. Participating, then, in the physical influences of a

southern climate, we have contracted something of the more distinct

articulation that belongs to a dry atmosphere and a clear sky. And this

view of the case is confirmed by the fact that the inhabitants of the

Southern States incline, like the people of southern Europe, to throw

the accent toward the end of the word, and thus, like all nations that

use that accentuation, bring out all the syllables. This we observe very

commonly in the comparative Northern and Southern pronunciation of

proper names. I might exemplify by citing familiar instances; but, lest

that should seem invidious, it may suffice to say that, not to mention

more important changes, many a Northern member of Congress goes to

Washington a _dactyl_ or a _trochee_, and comes home an _amphibrach_ or

an _iambus_. Why or how external physical causes, as climate and modes

of life, should affect pronunciation, we can not say; but it is evident

that material influences of some sort are producing a change in our

bodily constitution, and we are fast acquiring a distinct national

Anglo-American type. That the delicate organs of articulation should

participate in such tendencies is altogether natural; and the operation

of the causes which give rise to them is palpable even in our

handwriting, which, if not uniform with itself, is generally,

nevertheless, so unlike common English script as to be readily

distinguished from it.

"To the joint operation, then, of these two causes--universal reading

and climatic influences--we must ascribe our habit of dwelling upon

vowel and diphthongal sounds, or of drawling, if that term is insisted

upon.... But it is often noticed by foreigners as both making us more

readily understood by them when speaking our own tongue, and as

connected with a flexibility of organ, which enables us to acquire a

better pronunciation of other languages than is usual with Englishmen.

In any case, as, in spite of the old adage, speech is given us that we

may make ourselves understood, our drawling, however prolonged, is

preferable to the nauseous, foggy, mumbling thickness of articulation

which characterizes the cockney, and is not unfrequently affected by

Englishmen of a better class."--George P. Marsh.

BRYANT'S PROHIBITED WORDS. See INDEX EXPURGATORIUS.

BUT. This word is misused in various ways. "I do not doubt _but_ he will

be here": read, doubt _that_. "I should not wonder _but_": read, _if_.

"I have no doubt _but_ that he will go": suppress _but_. "I do not doubt

_but_ that it is true": suppress _but_. "There can be no doubt _but_

that the burglary is the work of professional cracksmen."--"New York

Herald." Doubt _that_, and not _but that_. "A careful canvass leaves no

doubt _but_ that the nomination," etc.: suppress _but_. "There is no

reasonable doubt _but_ that it is all it professes to be": suppress

_but_. "The mind no sooner entertains any proposition _but_ it presently

hastens," etc.: read, _than_. "No other resource _but_ this was allowed

him": read, _than_.

BY. See AT.

CALCULATE. This word means to ascertain by computation, to reckon, to

estimate; and, say some of the purists, it never means anything else

when properly used. _If this is true_, we can not say a thing is

_calculated_ to do harm, but must, if we are ambitious to have our

English irreproachable, choose some other form of expression, or at

least some other word, _likely_ or _apt_, for example. Cobbett, however,

says, "That, to Her, whose great example is so well _calculated_ to

inspire," etc.; and, "The first two of the three sentences are well

enough _calculated_ for ushering," etc. _Calculate_ is sometimes

vulgarly used for _intend_, _purpose_, _expect_; as, "He _calculates_ to

get off to-morrow."

CALIBER. This word is sometimes used very absurdly; as, "Brown's Essays

are of a much higher _caliber_ than Smith's." It is plain that the

proper word to use here is _order_.

CANT. _Cant_ is a kind of affectation; affectation is an effort to sail

under false colors; an effort to sail under false colors is a kind of

falsehood; and falsehood is a term of Latin origin which we often use

instead of the stronger Saxon term LYING!

"Who is not familiar," writes Dr. William Matthews, "with scores of pet

phrases and cant terms which are repeated at this day apparently without

a thought of their meaning? Who ever attended a missionary meeting

without hearing 'the Macedonian cry,' and an account of some 'little

interest' and 'fields white for the harvest'? Who is not weary of the

ding-dong of 'our Zion,' and the solecism of 'in our midst'; and who

does not long for a verbal millennium when Christians shall no longer

'feel to take' and 'grant to give'?"

"How much I regret," says Coleridge, "that so many religious persons of

the present day think it necessary to adopt a certain cant of manner and

phraseology [and of tone of voice] as a token to each other [one

another]! They _improve_ this and that text, and they must do so and so

in a prayerful way; and so on."

CAPACITY. See ABILITY.

CAPTION. This word is often used for _heading_, but, thus used, it is

condemned by careful writers. The true meaning of _caption_ is a

seizure, an arrest. It does not come from a Latin word meaning _a

head_, but from a Latin word meaning _to seize_.

CARET. Cobbett writes of the caret to his son: "The last thing I shall

mention under this head is the _caret_ [^], which is used to point

upward to a part which has been omitted, and which is inserted between

the line where the caret is placed and the line above it. Things should

be called by their right names, and this should be called the

_blunder-mark_. I would have you, my dear James, scorn the use of the

thing. _Think_ before you write; let it be your custom to _write

correctly_ and in _a plain hand_. Be careful that neatness, grammar, and

sense prevail when you write to a blacksmith about shoeing a horse as

when you write on the most important subjects. Habit is powerful in all

cases; but its power in this case is truly wonderful. When you write,

bear constantly in mind that some one is to _read_ and to _understand_

what you write. This will make your handwriting and also your meaning

_plain_. Far, I hope, from my dear James will be the ridiculous, the

contemptible affectation of writing in a slovenly or illegible hand, or

that of signing his name otherwise than in plain letters."

CARRY. See BRING.

CASE. Many persons of considerable culture continually make mistakes in

conversation in the use of the cases, and we sometimes meet with gross

errors of this kind in the writings of authors of repute. Witness the

following: "And everybody is to know him except _I_."--George Merideth

in "The Tragic Comedies," Eng. ed., vol. i, p. 33. "Let's you and _I_

go": say, _me_. We can not say, Let _I_ go. Properly, Let's go, i. e.,

let us go, or, let you and _me_ go. "He is as good as _me_": say, as

_I_. "She is as tall as _him_": say, as _he_. "You are older than _me_":

say, than _I_. "Nobody said so but _he_": say, but _him_. "Every one

can master a grief but _he_ that hath it": correctly, but _him_. "John

went out with James and _I_": say, and _me_. "You are stronger than

_him_": say, than _he_. "Between you and _I_": say, and _me_. "Between

you and _they_": say, and _them_. "He gave it to John and _I_": say, and

_me_. "You told John and _I_": say, and _me_. "He sat between him and

_I_": say, and _me_. "He expects to see you and _I_": say, and _me_.

"You were a dunce to do it. Who? _me_?" say, _I_. Supply the ellipsis,

and we should have, Who? _me_ a dunce to do it? "Where are you going?

Who? _me_?" say, _I_. We can't say, _me_ going. "_Who_ do you mean?"

say, _whom_. "Was it _them_?" say, _they_. "If I _was him_, I would do

it": say, _were he_. "If I _was her_, I would not go": say, _were she_.

"Was it _him_?" say, _he_. "Was it _her_?" say, _she_. "For the benefit

of those _whom_ he thought were his friends": say, _who_. This error is

not easy to detect on account of the parenthetical words that follow it.

If we drop them, the mistake is very apparent; thus, "For the benefit of

those _whom_ were his friends."

"On the supposition," says Bain, "that the interrogative _who_ has

_whom_ for its objective, the following are errors: '_who_ do you take

me to be?' '_who_ should I meet the other day?' '_who_ is it by?' '_who_

did you give it to?' '_who_ to?' '_who_ for?' But, considering that

these expressions _occur with the best writers and speakers_, that they

_are more energetic_ than the other form, and that they _lead to no

ambiguity_, it may be doubted whether grammarians have not exceeded

their province in condemning them."

Cobbett, in writing of the pronouns, says: "When the relatives are

placed in the sentence at a distance from their antecedents or verbs or

prepositions, the ear gives us no assistance. '_Who_, of all the men in

the world, do you think I _saw_ to-day?' '_Who_, for the sake of

numerous services, the office was given to.' In both these cases it

should be _whom_. Bring the verb in the first and the preposition in the

second case closer to the relative, as, _who I saw_, _to who the office

was given_, and you see the error at once. But take care! '_Whom_, of

all the men in the world, do you think, _was_ chosen to be sent as an

ambassador?' '_Whom_, for the sake of his numerous services, _had_ an

office of honor bestowed upon him.' These are nominative cases, and

ought to have _who_; that is to say, _who was chosen_, _who had an

office_."

"Most grammarians," says Dr. Bain, in his "Higher English Grammar,"

"have laid down this rule: 'The verb _to be_ has the same case after as

before it.' Macaulay censures the following as a solecism: 'It was _him_

that Horace Walpole called a man who never made a bad figure but as an

author.' Thackeray similarly adverts to the same deviation from the

rule: '"Is that _him_?" said the lady in _questionable grammar_.' But,

notwithstanding this," continues Dr. Bain, "we certainly hear in the

actual speech of all classes of society such expressions as 'it was

_me_,' 'it was _him_,' 'it was _her_,' more frequently than the

prescribed form.[1] 'This shy creature, my brother says, is _me_'; 'were

it _me_, I'd show him the difference.'--Clarissa Harlowe. 'It is not

_me_[2] you are in love with.'--Addison. 'If there is one character more

base than another, it is _him_ who,' etc.--Sydney Smith. 'If I were

_him_'; 'if I had been _her_,' etc. The authority of good writers is

strong on the side of objective forms. There is also the analogy of the

French language; for while 'I am here' is _je suis ici_, the answer to

'who is there?' is _moi_ (me); and _c'est moi_ (it is _me_) is the

legitimate phrase--never _c'est je_ (it is I)."

But _moi_, according to all French grammarians, is very often in the

nominative case. _Moi_ is in the nominative case when used in reply to

"Who is there?" and also in the phrase "C'est moi," which makes "It is

_I_" the correct translation of the phrase, and not "It is _me_." The

French equivalent of "I! I am here," is "Moi! je suis ici." The

Frenchman uses _moi_ in the nominative case when _je_ would be

inharmonious. Euphony with him is a matter of more importance than

grammatical correctness. Bescherelle gives many examples of _moi_ in the

nominative. Here are two of them: "Mon avocat et moi sommes de cet avis.

Qui veut aller avec lui? Moi." If we use such phraseology as "It is

_me_," we must do as the French do--consider _me_ as being in the

nominative case, and offer _euphony_ as our reason for thus using it.

When shall we put nouns (or pronouns) preceding verbal, or participial,

nouns, as they are called by some grammarians--infinitives in _ing_, as

they are called by others--in the possessive case?

"'I am surprised at _John's_ (or _his_, _your_, etc.) _refusing_ to go.'

'I am surprised at _John_ (or _him_, _you_, etc.) _refusing_ to go.' [In

the latter sentence _refusing_ is a participle.] The latter construction

is not so common with pronouns as with nouns, especially with such nouns

as do not readily take the possessive form. 'They prevented _him going_

forward': better, 'They prevented _his going_ forward.' 'He was

dismissed without any _reason being_ assigned.' 'The boy died through

his _clothes being_ burned.' 'We hear little of any _connection being_

kept up between the two nations.' 'The men rowed vigorously for fear of

the _tide turning_ against us.' _But most examples of the construction

without the possessive form are_ OBVIOUSLY DUE TO MERE SLOVENLINESS....

'In case of _your being_ absent': here _being_ is an infinitive [verbal,

or participial, noun] qualified by the possessive _your_. 'In case of

_you being_ present': here _being_ would have to be construed as a

participle. _The possessive construction is, in this case, the primitive

and regular construction_; THE OTHER IS A MERE LAPSE. The difficulty of

adhering to the possessive form occurs when the subject is not a person:

'It does not seem safe to rely on the rule of _demand_ creating supply':

in strictness, '_Demand's_ creating supply.' 'A petition was presented

against the _license being_ granted.' But for the awkwardness of

extending the possessive to impersonal subjects, it would be right to

say, 'against the _license's being_ granted.' 'He had conducted the ball

without any _complaint being_ urged against him.' The possessive would

be suitable, but undesirable and unnecessary."--Professor Alexander

Bain.

"Though the _ordinary_ syntax of the possessive case is sufficiently

plain and easy, there is, perhaps, among all the puzzling and disputable

points of grammar, nothing more difficult of decision than are some

questions that occur respecting the right management of this case. The

observations that have been made show that possessives before

participles are seldom to be approved. The following example is

manifestly inconsistent with itself; and, _in my opinion, the three

possessives are all wrong_: 'The kitchen, too, now begins to give

dreadful note of preparation; not from _armorers_ accomplishing the

knights, but from the _shopmaid's_ chopping force-meat, the

_apprentice's_ cleaning knives, and the _journeyman's_ receiving a

practical lesson in the art of waiting at table.' 'The daily instances

of _men's_ dying around us.' Say rather, 'Of _men_ dying around us.' The

leading word in sense ought not to be made the adjunct in

construction."--Goold Brown.

CASUALTY. This word is often heard with the incorrect addition of a

syllable, _casuality_, which is not recognized by the lexicographers.

Some writers object to the word casualty, and always use its synonym

_accident_.

CELEBRITY. "A number of _celebrities_ witnessed the first

representation." This word is frequently used, especially in the

newspapers, as a concrete term; but it would be better to use it in its

abstract sense only, and in sentences like the one above to say

_distinguished persons_.

CHARACTER--REPUTATION. These two words are not synonyms, though often

used as such. _Character_ means the sum of distinguishing qualities.

"Actions, looks, words, steps, form the alphabet by which you may spell

characters."--Lavater. _Reputation_ means the estimation in which one is

held. One's reputation, then, is what is thought of one's character;

consequently, one may have a good reputation and a bad character, or a

good character and a bad reputation. Calumny may injure _reputation_,

but not _character_. Sir Peter does not leave his _character_ behind

him, but his _reputation_--his _good name_.

CHEAP. The dictionaries define this adjective as meaning, bearing a low

price, or to be had at a low price; but nowadays good usage makes it

mean that a thing may be had, or has been sold, at a bargain. Hence, in

order to make sure of being understood, it is better to say

_low-priced_, when one means low-priced, than to use the word _cheap_.

What is low-priced, as everybody knows, is often _dear_, and what is

high-priced is often _cheap_. A diamond necklace might be _cheap_ at

ten thousand dollars, and a pinchbeck necklace dear at ten dollars.

CHERUBIM. The Hebrew plural of _cherub_. "We are authorized," says Dr.

Campbell, "both by use and analogy, to say either _cherubs_ and

_seraphs_, according to the English idiom, or _cherubim_ and _seraphim_,

according to the Oriental. The former suits better the familiar, the

latter the solemn, style. As the words _cherubim_ and _seraphim_ are

plural, the terms _cherubims_ and _seraphims_, as expressing the plural,

are quite improper."--"Philosophy of Rhetoric."

CITIZEN. This word properly means one who has certain political rights;

when, therefore, it is used, as it often is, to designate persons who

may be aliens, it, to say the least, betrays a want of care in the

selection of words. "Several _citizens_ were injured by the explosion."

Here some other word--_persons_, for example--should be used.

CLEVER. In this country the word _clever_ is most improperly used in the

sense of good-natured, well-disposed, good-hearted. It is properly used

in the sense in which we are wont most inelegantly to use the word

_smart_, though it is a less colloquial term, and is of wider

application. In England the phrase "a _clever_ man" is the equivalent of

the French phrase, "_un homme d'esprit_." The word is properly used in

the following sentences: "Every work of Archbishop Whately must be an

object of interest to the admirers of _clever_ reasoning"; "Cobbett's

letter ... very _clever_, but very mischievous"; "Bonaparte was

certainly as _clever_ a man as ever lived."

CLIMAX. A clause, a sentence, a paragraph, or any literary composition

whatsoever, is said to end with a _climax_ when, by an artistic

arrangement, the more effective is made to follow the less effective in

regular gradation. Any great departure from the order of ascending

strength is called an _anti-climax_. Here are some examples of climax:

"Give all diligence; add to your faith, virtue; and to virtue,

knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, patience;

and to patience, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to

brotherly kindness, charity."

"What is every year of a wise man's life but a criticism on the past!

Those whose life is the shortest live long enough to laugh at one half

of it; the boy despises the infant, the man the boy, the sage both, and

the Christian all."

"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in

faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action, how

like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god!"

CO. The prefix _co_ should be used only when the word to which it is

joined begins with a vowel, as in _co-eval_, _co-incident_,

_co-operate_, etc. _Con_ is used when the word begins with a consonant,

as in _con-temporary_, _con-junction_, etc. _Co-partner_ is an exception

to the rule.

COMMENCE. The Britons use or misuse this word in a manner peculiar to

themselves. They say, for example, "commenced merchant," "commenced

actor," "commenced politician," and so on. Dr. Hall tells us that

_commence_ has been employed in the sense of "begin to be," "become,"

"set up as," by first-class writers, for more than two centuries.

Careful speakers make small use of _commence_ in any sense; they prefer

to use its Saxon equivalent, _begin_. See, also, BEGIN.

COMPARISON. When only two objects are compared, the comparative and not

the superlative degree should be used; thus, "Mary is the _older_ of the

two"; "John is the _stronger_ of the two"; "Brown is the _richer_ of

the two, and the _richest_ man in the city"; "Which is the _more_

desirable, health or wealth?" "Which is the _most_ desirable, health,

wealth, or genius?"

"Of two such lessons, why forget

The _nobler_ and the _manlier_ one?"

COMPLETED. This word is often incorrectly used for _finished_. That is

_complete_ which lacks nothing; that is _finished_ which has had all

done to it that was intended. The builder of a house may _finish_ it and

yet leave it very _incomplete_.

CONDIGN. It is safe to say that most of those who use this word do not

know its meaning, which is, suitable, deserved, merited, proper. "His

endeavors shall not lack _condign_ praise"; i. e., his endeavors shall

not lack _proper_ or their _merited_ praise. "A villain _condignly_

punished" is a villain punished _according to his deserts_. To use

_condign_ in the sense of _severe_ is just as incorrect as it would be

to use _deserved_ or _merited_ in the sense of _severe_.

CONFIRMED INVALID. This phrase is a convenient mode of expressing the

idea it conveys, but it is difficult to defend, inasmuch as _confirmed_

means strengthened, established.

CONSEQUENCE. This word is sometimes used instead of _importance_ or

_moment_; as, "They were all persons of more or less _consequence_":

read, "of more or less _importance_." "It is a matter of no

_consequence_": read, "of no _moment_."

CONSIDER. "This word," says Mr. Richard Grant White, in his "Words and

Their Uses," "is perverted from its true meaning by most of those who

use it." _Consider_ means, to meditate, to deliberate, to reflect, to

revolve in the mind; and yet it is made to do service for _think_,

_suppose_, and _regard_. Thus: "I _consider_ his course very

unjustifiable"; "I have always _considered_ it my duty," etc.; "I

_consider_ him as being the cleverest man of my acquaintance."

CONTEMPTIBLE. This word is sometimes used for _contemptuous_. An old

story says that a man once said to Dr. Parr, "Sir, I have a

_contemptible_ opinion of you." "That does not surprise me," returned

the Doctor; "all your opinions are _contemptible_." What is worthless or

weak is _contemptible_. Despicable is a word that expresses a still more

intense degree of the contemptible. A traitor is a _despicable_

character, while a poltroon is only _contemptible_.

CONTINUALLY. See PERPETUALLY.

CONTINUE ON. The _on_ in this phrase is generally superfluous. "We

continued on our way" is idiomatic English, and is more euphonious than

the sentence would be without the particle. The meaning is, "We

continued to travel _on_ our way." In such sentences, however, as

"Continue _on_," "He continued to read _on_," "The fever continued _on_

for some hours," and the like, the _on_ generally serves no purpose.

CONVERSATIONIST. This word is to be preferred to _conversationalist_.

Mr. Richard Grant White says that _conversationalist_ and

_agriculturalist_ are inadmissible. On the other hand, Dr. Fitzedward

Hall says: "As for _conversationist_ and _conversationalist_,

_agriculturist_ and _agriculturalist_, as all are alike legitimate

formations, it is for convention to decide which we are to prefer."

CONVOKE--CONVENE. At one time and another there has been some discussion

with regard to the correct use of these two words. According to Crabb,

"There is nothing imperative on the part of those that _assemble_, or

_convene_, and nothing binding on those _assembled_, or _convened_: one

_assembles_, or _convenes_, by invitation or request; one attends to the

notice or not, at pleasure. _Convoke_, on the other hand, is _an act of

authority_; it is the call of one who has the authority to give the

call; it is heeded by those who feel themselves bound to attend."

Properly, then, President Arthur _convokes_, not _convenes_, the Senate.

CORPOREAL--CORPORAL. These adjectives, though regarded as synonyms, are

not used indiscriminately. _Corporal_ is used in reference to the body,

or animal frame, in its proper sense; _corporeal_, to the animal

substance in an extended sense--opposed to spiritual. _Corporal_

punishment; _corporeal_ or _material_ form or substance.

"That to _corporeal_ substances could add

Speed most spiritual."--Milton.

"What seemed _corporal_

Melted as breath into the wind."--Shakespeare.

COUPLE. In its primitive signification, this word does not mean simply

two, but two that are united by some bond; such as, for example, the tie

that unites the sexes. It has, however, been so long used to mean two of

a kind considered together, that in this sense it may be deemed

permissible, though the substitution of the word _two_ for it would

often materially improve the diction.

COURAGE. See BRAVERY.

CRIME--VICE--SIN. The confusion that exists in the use of these words is

due largely to an imperfect understanding of their respective meanings.

_Crime_ is the violation of the law of a state; hence, as the laws of

states differ, what is crime in one state may not be crime in another.

_Vice_ is a course of wrong-doing, and is not modified either by

country, religion, or condition. As for _sin_, it is very difficult to

define what it is, as what is sinful in the eyes of one man may not be

sinful in the eyes of another; what is sinful in the eyes of a Jew may

not be sinful in the eyes of a Christian; and what is sinful in the eyes

of a Christian of one country may not be sinful in the eyes of a

Christian of another country. In the days of slavery, to harbor a

runaway slave was a _crime_, but it was, in the eyes of most people,

neither a _vice_ nor a _sin_.

CRUSHED OUT. "The rebellion was finally _crushed out_." Out of what? We

may _crush_ the life out of a man, or _crush_ a man to death, and

_crush_, not _crush out_, a rebellion.

CULTURED. This word is said to be a product of Boston--an excellent

place for anybody or anything to come from. Many persons object to its

use on the ground that there can be no such participial adjective,

because there is no verb in use from which to form it. We have in use

the substantive _culture_, but, though the dictionaries recognize the

verb _to culture_, we do not use it. Be this objection valid or be it

not, _cultured_ having but two syllables, while its synonym _cultivated_

has four, it is likely to find favor with those who employ short words

when they convey their meaning as well as long ones. Other adjectives of

this kind are, moneyed, whiskered, slippered, lettered, talented,

cottaged, lilied, anguished, gifted, and so forth.

CURIOUS. This word is often used instead of _strange_ or _remarkable_.

"A _curious_ fact": better, "a _remarkable_ fact." "A _curious_

proceeding": better, "a _strange_ proceeding."

DANGEROUS. "He is pretty sick, but not _dangerous_." Dangerous people

are generally most dangerous when they are most vigorous. Say, rather,

"He is sick, but not _in danger_."

DEAREST. "A gentleman once began a letter to his bride thus: 'My

_dearest_ Maria.' The lady replied: 'My dear John, I beg that you will

mend either your morals or your grammar. You call me your "_dearest_

Maria"; am I to understand that you have other Marias'?"--Moon's "Bad

English."

DECEIVING. "You are _deceiving_ me." Not unfrequently _deceiving_ is

used when the speaker means _trying to deceive_. It is when we do not

suspect deception that we are deceived.

DECIMATE. This word, meaning as it properly does to tithe, to take the

tenth part, is hardly permissible in the sense in which it is used in

such sentences as, "The regiment held its position, though terribly

_decimated_ by the enemy's artillery." "Though terribly _tithed_" would

be equally correct.

DEMEAN. This word is sometimes erroneously used in the sense of _to

debase_, _to disgrace_, _to humble_. It is a reflexive verb, and its

true meaning is _to behave_, _to carry_, _to conduct_; as, "He _demeans

himself_ in a gentlemanly manner," i. e., He _behaves_, or _carries_, or

_conducts_, himself in a gentlemanly manner.

DENUDE. "The vulture," says Brande, "has some part of the head and

sometimes of the neck _denuded_ of feathers." Most birds might be

_denuded_ of the feathers on their heads; not so, however, the vulture,

for his head is always featherless. A thing can not be _denuded_ of what

it does not have. Denuding a vulture's head and neck of the feathers is

like _denuding_ an eel of its scales.

DEPRECATE. Strangely enough, this word is often used in the sense of

disapprove, censure, condemn; as, "He _deprecates_ the whole

proceeding"; "Your course, from first to last, is universally

_deprecated_." But, according to the authorities, the word really means,

to endeavor to avert by prayer; to pray exemption or deliverance from;

to beg off; to entreat; to urge against.

"Daniel kneeled upon his knees to _deprecate_ the captivity of his

people."--Hewyt.

DESPITE. This word is often incorrectly preceded by _in_ and followed by

_of_; thus, "_In_ despite _of_ all our efforts to detain him, he set

out"; which should be, "Despite all our efforts," etc., or "_In spite

of_ all our efforts," etc.

DETERMINED. See BOUND.

DICTION. This is a general term, and is applicable to a single sentence

or to a connected composition. _Bad diction_ may be due to errors in

grammar, to a confused disposition of words, or to an improper use of

words. _Diction_, to be good, requires to be only correct and clear. Of

excellent examples of bad diction there are very many in a little work

by Dr. L. T. Townsend, Professor of Sacred Rhetoric in Boston

University, the first volume of which has lately come under my notice.

The first ten lines of Dr. Townsend's preface are:

"The leading genius[1] of the People's College at Chautauqua Lake, with

a [the?] view of providing for his course[2] a text-book, asked for the

publication of the following laws and principles of speech.[3]

"The author, not seeing sufficient reason[4] for withholding what had

been of much practical benefit[5] to himself, consented.[6]

"The subject-matter herein contained is an outgrowth from[7] occasional

instructions[8] given[9] while occupying the chair[10] of Sacred

Rhetoric."

1. The phrase _leading genius_ is badly chosen. Founder, projector,

head, organizer, principal, or president--some one of these terms would

probably have been appropriate. 2. What course? Race-course, course of

ethics, æsthetics, rhetoric, or what?[3] 3. "The following laws and

principles of speech." And how came these laws and principles in

existence? Who made them? We are to infer, it would seem, that Professor

Townsend made them, and that the world would have had to go without the

laws that govern language and the principles on which language is formed

had it pleased Professor Townsend to withhold them. 4. "_Sufficient_

reason"! Then there were reasons why Professor Townsend ought to have

kept these good things all to himself; only, they were not _sufficient_.

5. "Practical benefit"! Is there _any_ such thing as impractical

benefit? Are not all benefits practical? and, if they are, what purpose

does the epithet _practical_ serve? 6. Consented to what? It is easy to

see that the Doctor means _acceded to the request_, but he is a long way

from saying so. The object writers usually have in view is to convey

thought, not to set their readers to guessing. 7. _The outgrowth of_

would be English. 8. "Occasional instructions"! Very vague, and well

calculated to set the reader to guessing again. 9. Given to whom? 10.

"_The_ chair." The definite article made it necessary for the writer to

specify what particular chair of Sacred Rhetoric he meant.

These ten lines are a fair specimen of the diction of the entire volume.

Page 131. "To render a _given ambiguous or_ unintelligible sentence

transparent, the following suggestions are recommended." The words in

italics are unnecessary, since what is ambiguous is unintelligible. Then

who has ever heard of _recommending suggestions_?

Dr. Townsend speaks of _mastering a subject before publishing it_.

Publishing a subject?

Page 133. "Violations of simplicity, whatever the type, show either that

_the mind of_ the writer is tainted with affectation, or _else_ that _an

effort is making_ to conceal _conscious_ poverty of _sentiment_ under

loftiness of expression." Here is an example of a kind of sentence that

can be mended in only one way--by rewriting, which might be done thus:

Violations of simplicity, whatever the type, show either that the writer

is tainted with affectation, or that he is making an effort to conceal

poverty of thought under loftiness of expression.

Page 143. "This _quality_ is fully _stated_ and recommended," etc. Who

has ever heard of _stating a quality_?

On page 145 Dr. Townsend says: "A person can not read a single book of

poor style without having his own style vitiated." _A book of poor

style_ is an awkward expression, to say the least. _A single

badly-written book_ would have been unobjectionable.

Page 160. "The presented picture produces instantly a definite effect."

Why this unusual disposition of words? Why not say, in accordance with

the idiom of the language, "The picture presented instantly produces,"

etc.?

Page 161. "The boy studies ... geography and hates everything connected

with the sea and land." Why _the_ boy? As there are few things besides

seals and turtles that are connected with the sea _and_ land, the boy in

question has few things to hate.

On page 175, Dr. Townsend heads a chapter thus: "_Art_ of acquiring

_Skill_ in the use of Poetic Speech." This reminds one of the man who

tried to lift himself over a fence by taking hold of the seat of his

breeches. "_How_ to acquire skill" is probably what is meant.

On page 232, "Jeremy Taylor is among the best models of long sentences

which are both clear and logical." Jeremy Taylor is a clear and logical

long sentence?! True, our learned rhetorician says so, but he doesn't

mean it. He means, "In Jeremy Taylor we find some of the best examples

of long sentences which are at once clear and logical."

Since the foregoing was written, the second volume of Professor

Townsend's "Art of Speech" has been published. In the brief preface to

this volume we find this characteristic sentence: "The author has felt

that _clergymen_ more than _those_ of other professions will study this

treatise." The antecedent of the relative _those_ being _clergymen_, the

sentence, it will be perceived, says: "The author has felt that

_clergymen_ more than _clergymen of other professions_ will study this

treatise." Comment on such "art" as Professor Townsend's is not

necessary.

I find several noteworthy examples of bad diction in an article in a

recent number of an Australian magazine. The following are some of them:

"_Large capital_ always manages to make _itself_ master of the

situation; it is the small capitalist and the small landholder that

would suffer," etc. Should be, "_The large capitalist ... himself_,"

etc. Again: "The small farmer would ... be despoiled ... of the meager

profit which _strenuous_ labor had conquered from the _reluctant_ soil."

Not only are the epithets in italics superfluous, and consequently

weakening in their effect, but idiom does not permit _strenuous_ to be

used to qualify _labor_: _hard_ labor and _strenuous_ effort. Again:

"Capital has always the choice _of_ a large field." Should be, "the

choice _offered by_ a large field." Again: "Should capital be withdrawn,

tenements would soon prove insufficient." Should be, "_the number of_

tenements would," etc. Again: "Men of wealth, therefore, would find

their Fifth Avenue mansions and their summer villas a little more

burdened with taxes, but with this increase happily balanced by the

exemption of their bonds and mortgages, their plate and furniture." The

thought here is so simple that we easily divine it; but, if we look at

the sentence at all carefully, we find that, though we supply the

ellipses in the most charitable manner possible, the sentence really

says: "Men would find their mansions more burdened, but would find them

with this increased burden happily balanced by the exemption," etc. The

sentence should have been framed somewhat in this wise: "Men ... would

find their ... mansions ... more burdened with taxes, but this increase

in the taxes on their real estate would be happily balanced by the

exemption from taxation of their bonds, mortgages, plate, and

furniture." Again: "Men generally ... would be inclined to laugh at the

idea of intrusting the modern politician with such gigantic

opportunities for enriching his favorites." We do not _intrust_ one

another with _opportunities_. _To enrich_ would better the diction.

Again: "The value of land that has accrued from labor is not ... a just

object for confiscation." Correctly: "The value of land that has

_resulted_ from labor is not _justly_ ... an object _of_ confiscation."

_Accrue_ is properly used more in the sense of _spontaneous growth_.

Again: "If the state attempts to confiscate this increase by means of

taxes, either rentals will increase correspondingly, or such a check

will be put upon _the_ growth _of each place_ and _all the_ enterprises

_connected with it_ that greater injury would be done than if things had

been left untouched." We have here, it will be observed, a confusion of

moods; the sentence begins in the indicative and ends in the

conditional. The words in italics are worse than superfluous. Rewritten:

"If the state _should_ attempt to confiscate this increase by means of

taxes, either rentals _would_ increase correspondingly, or such a check

_would_ be put upon growth and enterprise that greater injury would,"

etc. Again: "The _theory_ that land ... is a _boon_ of Nature, to which

every person has an inalienable right equal to every other person, is

not new." The words _theory_ and _boon_ are here misused. A _theory_ is

a system of suppositions. The things man receives from Nature are

_gifts_, not _boons_: the gift of reason, the gift of speech, etc. The

sentence should be: "The _declaration_ (or _assertion_) that land ... is

a _gift_ of Nature, to which every person has an inalienable right equal

to _that of any_ other person, is not new." Or, more simply and quite as

forcibly: "... to which one person has an inalienable right equal to

that of another, is not new." Or, more simply still, and more forcibly:

"... to which one _man_ has as good a right as another, is not new." By

substituting the word _man_ for _person_, we have a word of one syllable

that expresses, in this connection, all that the longer word expresses.

The fewer the syllables, if the thought be fully expressed, the more

vigorous the diction. Inalienability being foreign to the discussion,

the long word _inalienable_ only encumbers the sentence.

"We have thus[1] passed in review[2] the changes and improvements[3]

which the revision contains[4] in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

It has[5] not, indeed,[6] been possible to refer to[7] them all; but so

many illustrations[8] have been given in[9] the several classes

described that the reader will have[10] a satisfactory[11] survey of the

whole subject. Whatever may be said of other portions[12] of the New

Testament, we think it will be generally admitted that in this Epistle

the changes have improved the old[13] translation. They are such as[14]

make the English version[15] conform more completely[16] to the Greek

original. If this be[17] true, the revisers have done a good work for

the Church.[18] If it be true[19] with regard to all the New Testament

books, the work which they have done will remain[20] a blessing to the

readers of those books for[21] generations to come. But the blessing

will be only in the clearer presentation of the Divine truth, and,

therefore, it will be only to the glory of God."

This astonishingly slipshod bit of composition is from the pen of the

Rev. Dr. Timothy Dwight. If the learned Professor of Divinity in Yale

College deemed it worth while to give a little thought to manner as well

as to matter, it is probable that his diction would be very different

from what it is; and, if he were to give a few minutes to the making of

verbal corrections in the foregoing paragraph, he would, perhaps, do

something like this: 1, change _thus_ to _now_; 2, write _some of_ the

changes; 3, strike out _and improvements_; 4, for _contains changes_

substitute some other form of expression; 5, instead of _has been_,

write _was_; 6, strike out _indeed_; 7, instead of _refer to_, write

_cite_; 8, change _illustrations_ to _examples_; 9, instead of _in_,

write _of_; 10, instead of _the reader will have_, write _the reader

will be able to get_; 11, change _satisfactory_ to _tolerable_; 12,

change _portions_ to _parts_; 13, not talk of the _old_ translation, as

we have no new one; 14, strike out as superfluous the words _are such

as_; 15, change _version_ to _text_; 16, substitute _nearly_ for

_completely_, which does not admit of comparison; 17, substitute the

indicative for the conditional; 18, end sentence with the word _work_;

19, introduce _also_ after _be_; 20, instead of _remain_, in the sense

of _be_, use _be_; 21, introduce _the_ after _for_. As for the last

sentence, it reminds one of Mendelssohn's "Songs without Words," though

here we have, instead of a song and no words, words and no song, or

rather no meaning. As is often true of cant, we have here simply a

syntactical arrangement of words signifying--nothing.

If Professor Dwight were of those who, in common with the Addisons and

Macaulays and Newmans, think it worth while to give some attention to

diction, the thought conveyed in the paragraph under consideration

would, perhaps, have been expressed somewhat in this wise:

"We have now passed in review some of the changes that, in the revision,

have been made in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It was not

possible to cite them all, but a sufficient number of examples of the

several classes described have been given to enable the reader to get a

tolerable survey of the whole subject. Whatever may be said of the other

parts of the New Testament, we think it will be generally admitted that

in this Epistle the changes have improved the translation. They make the

English text conform more nearly to the Greek. This being true, the

revisers have done a good work; and, if it be also true with regard to

all the New Testament books, the work which they have done will be a

blessing to the readers of these books for the generations to come."

DIE WITH. Man and brute die _of_, and not _with_, fevers, consumption,

the plague, pneumonia, old age, and so on.

DIFFER. Writers differ _from_ one another in opinion with regard to the

particle we should use with this verb. Some say they differ _with_,

others that they differ _from_, their neighbors in opinion. The weight

of authority is on the side of always using _from_, though A may differ

_with_ C from D in opinion with regard, say, to the size of the fixed

stars. "I differ, as to this matter, _from_ Bishop Lowth."--Cobbett.

_Different to_ is heard sometimes instead of _different from_.

DIRECTLY. The Britons have a way of using this word in the sense of

_when_, _as soon as_. This is quite foreign to its true meaning, which

is immediately, at once, straightway. They say, for example,

"_Directly_ he reached the city, he went to his brother's." "Directly he

[the saint] was dead, the Arabs sent his woolen shirt to the

sovereign."--"London News." Dr. Hall says of its use in the sense of _as

soon as_: "But, after all, it may simply anticipate on the English of

the future."

DIRT. This word means filth or anything that renders foul and unclean,

and means nothing else. It is often improperly used for earth or loam,

and sometimes even for sand or gravel. We not unfrequently hear of a

_dirt_ road when an unpaved road is meant.

DISCOMMODE. This word is rarely used; _incommode_ is accounted the

better form.

DISREMEMBER. This is a word vulgarly used in the sense of _forget_. It

is said to be more frequently heard in the South than in the North.

DISTINGUISH. This verb is sometimes improperly used for _discriminate_.

We _distinguish_ by means of the senses as well as of the understanding;

we _discriminate_ by means of the understanding only. "It is difficult,

in some cases, to _distinguish between_," etc.: should be, "It is

difficult, in some cases, to _discriminate between_," etc. We

_distinguish_ one thing _from another_, and _discriminate between_ two

or more things.

DOCK--WHARF. The first of these words is often improperly used for the

second. Of docks there are several kinds: a _naval dock_ is a place for

the keeping of naval stores, timber, and materials for ship-building; a

_dry dock_ is a place where vessels are drawn out of the water for

repairs; a _wet dock_ is a place where vessels are kept afloat at a

certain level while they are loaded and unloaded; a _sectional dock_ is

a contrivance for raising vessels out of the water on a series of

air-tight boxes. A _dock_, then, is a place into which things are

received; hence, a man might fall _into_ a dock, but could no more fall

_off_ a dock than he could fall off a hole. A _wharf_ is a sort of quay

built by the side of the water. A similar structure built at a right

angle with the shore is generally called a _pier_. Vessels lie at

_wharves_ and _piers_, not at _docks_.

DONATE. This word, which is defined as meaning to give, to contribute,

is looked upon by most champions of good English as being an

abomination. _Donation_ is also little used by careful writers.

"_Donate_," says Mr. Gould, "may be dismissed with this remark: so long

as its place is occupied by _give_, _bestow_, _grant_, _present_, etc.,

it is not needed; and it should be unceremoniously bowed out, or thrust

out, of the seat into which it has, temporarily, intruded."

DONE. This past participle is often very inelegantly, if not improperly,

used thus: "He did not cry out as some have _done_ against it," which

should read, "He did not cry out as some have against it"; i. e., "as

some _have cried out_ against it."

"Done is frequently a very great offender against grammar," says

Cobbett. "_To do_ is the _act of doing_. We see people write, 'I _did_

not speak yesterday so well as I wished to have _done_.' Now, what is

meant by the writer? He means to say that he _did_ not speak so well as

he then _wished_, or was wishing, _to speak_. Therefore, the sentence

should be, 'I did not speak yesterday so well as I wished _to do_.' That

is to say, 'so well as I wished to do it'; that is to say, to do or to

perform _the act of speaking_.

"Take great care not to be too free in your use of the verb _to do_ in

any of its times or modes. It is a nice little handy word, and, like our

oppressed _it_, it is made use of very often when the writer is at a

_loss_ for what to put down. _To do_ is to _act_, and therefore it never

can, in any of its parts, supply the place of a _neuter_ verb. 'How do

you do?' Here _do_ refers to the _state_, and is essentially passive or

neuter. Yet, to employ it for this purpose is very common. Dr. Blair, in

his 23d Lecture, says: 'It is somewhat unfortunate that this Number of

the "Spectator" did not _end_, as it might have _done_, with the former

beautiful period.' That is to say, _done it_. And then we ask, Done

what? Not the _act of ending_, because in this case there is _no action_

at all. The verb means _to come to an end_, _to cease_, _not to go any

further_. This same verb _to end_ is sometimes an active verb: 'I _end_

my sentence'; _then_ the verb _to do_ may supply its place; as, 'I have

not ended my sentence so well as I might have _done_'; that is, done

_it_; that is, done, or performed, the _act of ending_. But the Number

of the 'Spectator' was no _actor_; it was expected to _perform_ nothing;

it was, by the Doctor, wished to have _ceased_ to proceed. 'Did not

_end_ as it very well might have ended....' This would have been

correct; but the Doctor wished to avoid the _repetition_, and thus he

fell into bad grammar. 'Mr. Speaker, I do not _feel_ so well satisfied

as I should have _done_ if the Right Honorable Gentleman had explained

the matter more fully.' To _feel_ satisfied is--when the satisfaction is

to arise from conviction produced by fact or reasoning--a senseless

expression; and to supply its place, when it is, as in this case, a

neuter verb, by _to do_, is as senseless. Done _what_? Done _the act of

feeling_! 'I do not _feel_ so well satisfied as I should have _done_, or

_executed_, or _performed_ the _act of feeling_'! What incomprehensible

words!"

DON'T. Everybody knows that _don't_ is a contraction of _do not_, and

that _doesn't_ is a contraction of _does not_; and yet _nearly_

everybody is guilty of using _don't_ when he should use _doesn't_. "So

you _don't_ go; John _doesn't_ either, I hear."

DOUBLE GENITIVE. An anecdote of Mr. Lincoln--an anecdote of Mr.

Lincoln's. We see at a glance that these two phrases are very different

in meaning. So, also, a portrait of Brown--a portrait of Brown's. No

precise rule has ever been given to guide us in our choice between these

two forms of the possessive case. Sometimes it is not material which

form is employed; where, however, it is material--and it generally

is--we must consider the thought we wish to express, and rely on our

discrimination.

DRAMATIZE. See ADAPT.

DRAWING-ROOM. See PARLOR.

DRESS--GOWN. Within the memory of many persons the outer garment worn by

women was properly called a _gown_ by everybody, instead of being

improperly called a _dress_, as it now is by nearly everybody.

DRIVE. See RIDE.

DUE--OWING. These two words, though close synonyms, should not be used

indiscriminately. The mistake usually made is in using _due_ instead of

_owing_. That is _due_ which ought to be paid as a debt; that is _owing_

which is to be referred to as a source. "It was _owing_ to his exertions

that the scheme succeeded." "It was _owing_ to your negligence that the

accident happened." "A certain respect is _due_ to men's prejudices."

"This was _owing_ to an indifference to the pleasures of life." "It is

_due_ to the public that I should tell all I know of the matter."

EACH OTHER. "Their great authors address themselves, not to their

country, but to _each other_."--Buckle. _Each other_ is properly applied

to two only; _one another_ must be used when the number considered

exceeds two. Buckle should have written _one another_ and not _each

other_, unless he meant to intimate that the Germans had only two great

authors, which is not probable.

EAT. Grammarians differ very widely with regard to the conjugation of

this verb; there is no doubt, however, that from every point of view the

preferable forms for the preterite and past participle are respectively

_ate_ and _eaten_. To refined ears the other forms smack of vulgarity,

although supported by good authority. "I _ate_ an apple." "I have

_eaten_ dinner." "John _ate_ supper with me." "As soon as you have

_eaten_ breakfast we will set out."

EDITORIAL. The use of this adjective as a substantive is said to be an

Americanism.

EDUCATION. This is one of the most misused of words. A man may be well

acquainted with the contents of text-books, and yet be a person of

little _education_; on the other hand, a man may be a person of good

education, and yet know little of the contents of text-books. Abraham

Lincoln and Edwin Forrest knew comparatively little of what is generally

learned in schools; still they were men of culture, men of _education_.

A man may have ever so much book-knowledge and still be a boor; but a

man can not be a person of good education and not be--so far as manner

is concerned--a gentleman. _Education_, then, is a whole of which

Instruction and Breeding are the parts. The man or the woman--even in

this democratic country of ours--who _deserves_ the title of gentleman

or lady is always a person of education; i. e., he or she has a

sufficient acquaintance with books and with the usages of social

intercourse to acquit himself or herself creditably in the society of

cultivated people. Not moral worth, nor learning, nor wealth, nor all

three combined, can unaided make a gentleman, for with all three a man

might be _uneducated_--i. e., coarse, unbred, unschooled in those things

which alone make men welcome in the society of the refined.

EFFECTUATE. This word, together with _ratiocinate_ and _eventuate_, is

said to be a great favorite with the rural members of the Arkansas

legislature.

EFFLUVIUM. The plural of this word is _effluvia_. It is a common error

with those who have no knowledge of Latin to speak of "a disagreeable

effluvia," which is as incorrect as it would be to talk about "a

disagreeable vapors."

EFFORT WITHOUT EFFECT. "Some writers deal in expletives to a degree that

tires the ear and offends the understanding. With them everything is

_excessively_, or _immensely_, or _extremely_, or _vastly_, or

_surprisingly_, or _wonderfully_, or _abundantly_, or the like. The

notion of such writers is that these words give _strength_ to what they

are saying. This is a great error. Strength must be found in the

_thought_, or it will never be found in the _words_. Big-sounding words,

without thoughts corresponding, are effort without effect."--William

Cobbett. See FORCIBLE-FEEBLE.

EGOIST. "One of a class of philosophers who professed to be sure of

nothing but their own existence."--Reid.