ILL. See SICK.

ILLY. It will astonish not a few to learn that there is no such word as

_illy_. The form of the adverb, as well as of the adjective and the

noun, is _ill_. A thing is _ill_ formed, or _ill_ done, or _ill_ made,

or _ill_ constructed, or _ill_ put together.

"_Ill_ fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,

Where wealth accumulates and men decay."--Goldsmith.

IMMODEST. This adjective and its synonyms, _indecent_ and _indelicate_,

are often used without proper discrimination being made in their

respective meanings. _Indecency_ and _immodesty_ are opposed to

morality: the former in externals, as dress, words, and looks; the

latter in conduct and disposition. "_Indecency_," says Crabb, "may be a

partial, _immodesty_ is a positive and entire breach of the moral law.

_Indecency_ is less than _immodesty_, but more than _indelicacy_." It is

_indecent_ for a man to marry again very soon after the death of his

wife. It is _indelicate_ for any one to obtrude himself upon another's

retirement. It is _indecent_ for women to expose their persons as do

some whom we can not call _immodest_.

"Immodest words admit of no defense,

For want of decency is want of sense."

--Earl of Roscommon.

IMPROPRIETY. As a rhetorical term, defined as an error in using words in

a sense different from their recognized signification.

IMPUTE. Non-painstaking writers not unfrequently use _impute_ instead of

_ascribe_. "The numbers [of blunders] that have been _imputed_ to him

are endless."--"Appletons' Journal." The use of _impute_ in this

connection is by no means indefensible; still it would have been better

to use _ascribe_.

IN OUR MIDST. The phrases _in our midst_ and _in their midst_ are

generally supposed to be of recent introduction; and, though they have

been used by some respectable writers, they nevertheless find no favor

with those who study propriety in the use of language. To the phrase _in

the midst_ no one objects. "Jesus came and stood in the midst." "There

was a hut _in the midst_ of the forest."

IN RESPECT OF. "The deliberate introduction of incorrect forms, whether

by the coinage of new or the revival of obsolete and inexpressive

syntactical combinations, ought to be resisted even in trifles,

especially where it leads to the confusion of distinct ideas. An example

of this is the recent use of the adverbial phrases _in respect of_, _in

regard of_, for _in_ or _with_ respect _to_, or regard _to_. This

innovation is without any syntactical ground, and ought to be condemned

and avoided as a mere grammatical crotchet."--George P. Marsh, "Lectures

on the English Language," p. 660.

IN SO FAR AS. A phrase often met with, and in which the _in_ is

superfluous. "A want of proper opportunity would suffice, _in_ so far as

the want could be shown." "We are to act up to the extent of our

knowledge; but, _in_ so far as our knowledge falls short," etc.

INAUGURATE. This word, which means to install in office with certain

ceremonies, is made, by many lovers of big words, to do service for

_begin_; but the sooner these rhetorical high-fliers stop _inaugurating_

and content themselves with simply _beginning_ the things they are

called upon to do in the ordinary routine of daily life, the sooner they

will cease to set a very bad example.

INDECENT. See IMMODEST.

INDEX EXPURGATORIUS. William Cullen Bryant, who was a careful student of

English, while he was editor of the "New York Evening Post," sought to

prevent the writers for that paper from using "over and above (for 'more

than'); artiste (for 'artist'); aspirant; authoress; beat (for

'defeat'); bagging (for 'capturing'); balance (for 'remainder'); banquet

(for 'dinner' or 'supper'); bogus; casket (for 'coffin'); claimed (for

'asserted'); collided; commence (for 'begin'); compete; cortége (for

'procession'); cotemporary (for 'contemporary'); couple (for 'two');

darky (for 'negro'); day before yesterday (for 'the day before

yesterday'); début; decrease (as a verb); democracy (applied to a

political party); develop (for 'expose'); devouring element (for

'fire'); donate; employé; enacted (for 'acted'); indorse (for

'approve'); en route; esq.; graduate (for 'is graduated'); gents (for

'gentlemen'); 'Hon.'; House (for 'House of Representatives'); humbug;

inaugurate (for 'begin'); in our midst; item (for 'particle, extract, or

paragraph'); is being done, and all passives of this form; jeopardize;

jubilant (for 'rejoicing'); juvenile (for 'boy'); lady (for 'wife');

last (for 'latest'); lengthy (for 'long'); leniency (for 'lenity');

loafer; loan or loaned (for 'lend' or 'lent'); located; majority

(relating to places or circumstances, for 'most'); Mrs. President, Mrs.

Governor, Mrs. General, and all similar titles; mutual (for 'common');

official (for 'officer'); ovation; on yesterday; over his signature;

pants (for 'pantaloons'); parties (for 'persons'); partially (for

'partly'); past two weeks (for 'last two weeks,' and all similar

expressions relating to a definite time); poetess; portion (for 'part');

posted (for 'informed'); progress (for 'advance'); reliable (for

'trustworthy'); rendition (for 'performance'); repudiate (for 'reject'

or 'disown'); retire (as an active verb); Rev. (for 'the Rev.'); rôle

(for 'part'); roughs; rowdies; secesh; sensation (for 'noteworthy

event'); standpoint (for 'point of view'); start, in the sense of

setting out; state (for 'say'); taboo; talent (for 'talents' or

'ability'); talented; tapis; the deceased; war (for 'dispute' or

'disagreement')."

This index is offered here as a curiosity rather than as a guide, though

in the main it might safely be used as such. No valid reason, however,

can be urged for discouraging the use of several words in the list; the

words aspirant, banquet, casket, compete, decrease, progress, start,

talented, and deceased, for example.

INDICATIVE AND SUBJUNCTIVE. "'I _see_ the signal,' is unconditional;

'_if_ I _see_ the signal,' is the same fact expressed in the form of a

condition. The one form is said to be in the _indicative_ mood, the mood

that simply _states or indicates_ the action; the other form is in the

_subjunctive_, conditional, or conjunctive mood. There is sometimes a

slight variation made in English, to show that an affirmation is made as

a condition. The mood is called 'subjunctive,' because the affirmation

_is subjoined to_ another affirmation: '_If I see the signal_, I will

call out.'

"Such forms as 'I may see,' 'I can see,' have sometimes been considered

as a variety of mood, to which the name 'Potential' is given. But this

can not properly be maintained. There is no trace of any inflection

corresponding to this meaning, as we find with the subjunctive.

Moreover, such a mood would have itself to be subdivided into indicative

and subjunctive forms: 'I may go,' 'if I may go.' And further, we might

proceed to constitute other moods on the same analogy, as, for example,

an obligatory mood--'I must go,' or 'I ought to go'; a mood of

resolution--'I will go, you shall go'; a mood of gratification--'I am

delighted to go'; of deprecation--'I am grieved to go.' The only

difference in the two last instances is the use of the sign of the

infinitive 'to,' which does not occur after 'may,' 'can,' 'must,'

'ought,' etc.; but that is not an essential difference. Some grammarians

consider the form 'I do go' a separate mood, and term it the emphatic

mood. But all the above objections apply to it likewise, as well as many

others."--Bain. See SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.

INDIVIDUAL. This word is often most improperly used for _person_; as,

"The _individual_ I saw was not over forty"; "There were several

_individuals_ on board that I had never seen before." _Individual_

means, etymologically, that which can not be divided, and is used, in

speaking of things as well as of persons, to express unity. It is

opposed to the whole, or that which is divisible into parts.

INDORSE. Careful writers generally discountenance the use of _indorse_

in the sense of _sanction_, _approve_, _applaud_. In this signification

it is on the list of prohibited words in some of our newspaper offices.

"The following rules are _indorsed_ by nearly all writers upon this

subject."--Dr. Townsend. It is plain that the right word to use here is

_approved_. "The public will heartily _indorse_ the sentiments uttered

by the court."--New York "Evening Telegram." "The public will heartily

_approve_ the sentiments _expressed_ by the court," is what the sentence

should be.

INFINITIVE MOOD. When we can choose, it is generally better to use the

verb in the infinitive than in the participial form. "Ability being in

general the power _of doing_," etc. Say, _to do_. "I desire to reply ...

to the proposal _of substituting_ a tax upon land values ... and

_making_ this tax, as near [nearly] as may be, equal to rent," etc. Say,

_to substitute_ and _to make_. "This quality is of prime importance when

the chief object is _the imparting of_ knowledge." Say, _to impart_.

INITIATE. This is a pretentious word, which, with its derivatives, many

persons--especially those who like to be grandiloquent--use, when homely

English would serve their turn much better.

INNUMERABLE NUMBER. A repetitional expression to be avoided. We may say

_innumerable_ times, or _numberless_ times, but we should not say an

_innumerable number_ of times.

INTERROGATION. The rhetorical figure that asks a question in order to

emphasize the reverse of what is asked is called _interrogation_; as,

"Do we mean to submit to this measure? Do we mean to submit, and consent

that we ourselves, our country and its rights, shall be trampled on?"

"Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice?"

INTRODUCE. See PRESENT.

IRONY. That mode of speech in which what is meant is contrary to the

literal meaning of the words--in which praise is bestowed when censure

is intended--is called _irony_. Irony is a kind of delicate sarcasm or

satire--raillery, mockery.

"In writings of humor, figures are sometimes used of so delicate a

nature that it shall often happen that some people will see things in a

direct contrary sense to what the author and the majority of the readers

understand them: to such the most innocent _irony_ may appear

irreligion."--Cambridge.

IRRITATE. See AGGRAVATE.

IS BEING BUILT. A tolerable idea of the state of the discussion

regarding the propriety of using the locution _is being built_, and all

like expressions, will, it is hoped, be obtained from the following

extracts. The Rev. Peter Bullions, in his "Grammar of the English

Language," says:

"There is properly _no passive_ form, in English, _corresponding to the

progressive_ form in the _active_ voice, except where it is made by the

participle _ing_, in a passive sense; thus, 'The house is building';

'The garments are making'; 'Wheat is selling,' etc. An attempt has been

made by some grammarians, of late, to banish such expressions from the

language, though they have been used in all time past by the best

writers, and to justify and defend a clumsy solecism, which has been

recently introduced chiefly through the newspaper press, but which has

gained such currency, and is becoming so familiar to the ear, that it

seems likely to prevail, with all its uncouthness and deformity. I refer

to such expressions as 'The house is being built'; 'The letter is being

written'; 'The mine is being worked'; 'The news is being telegraphed,'

etc., etc.

"This mode of expression _had no existence_ in the language till _within

the last fifty years_.[7] This, indeed, would not make the expression

wrong, were it otherwise unexceptionable; but its recent origin shows

that it is not, as is pretended, a _necessary_ form.

"This form of expression, when analyzed, is found not to express what it

is intended to express, and would be used only by such as are either

ignorant of its import or are careless and loose in their use of

language. To make this manifest, let it be considered, first, that there

is _no progressive form_ of the verb _to be_, and no need of it; hence,

there is no such expression in English as _is being_. Of course the

expression '_is being_ built,' for example, is not a compound of _is

being_ and _built_, but of _is_ and _being built_; that is, of the verb

_to be_ and the _present participle passive_. Now, let it be observed

that the only verbs in which the present participle passive expresses a

continued action are those mentioned above as the first class, in which

the regular passive form expresses a _continuance_ of the action; as,

_is loved_, _is desired_, etc., and in which, of course, the form in

question (_is being built_) is not required. Nobody would think of

saying, 'He is being loved'; 'This result is being desired.'

"The use of this form is justified only by _condemning an established

usage_ of the language; namely, the passive sense in some verbs of the

participle in _ing_. In reference to this it is flippantly asked, 'What

does the house build?' 'What does the letter write?' etc.--taking for

granted, without attempting to prove, that the participle in _ing_ can

not have a passive sense in any verb. The following are a few examples

from writers of the best reputation, which this novelty would condemn:

'While the ceremony was performing.'--Tom. Brown. 'The court was then

holding.'--Sir G. McKenzie. 'And still be doing, never done.'--Butler.

'The books are selling.'--Allen's 'Grammar.' 'To know nothing of what is

transacting in the regions above us.'--Dr. Blair. 'The spot where this

new and strange tragedy was acting.'--E. Everett. 'The fortress was

building.'--Irving. 'An attempt is making in the English

parliament.'--D. Webster. 'The church now erecting in the city of New

York.'--'N. A. Review.' 'These things were transacting in

England.'--Bancroft.

"This new doctrine is in _opposition_ to the almost _unanimous judgment_

of the _most distinguished grammarians_ and critics, who have considered

the subject, and expressed their views concerning it. The following are

a specimen: 'Expressions of this kind are condemned by some critics; but

the usage is unquestionably of far better authority, and (according to

my apprehension) in far better taste, than the more complex phraseology

which some late writers adopt in its stead; as, "The books are now being

sold."'--Goold Brown. 'As to the notion of introducing a new and more

complex passive form of conjugation, as, "The bridge _is being built_,"

"The bridge _was being built_," and so forth, it is one of the most

absurd and monstrous innovations ever thought of. "The work _is now

being published_," is certainly no better English than, "The work _was

being published_, _has been being published_, _had been being

published_, _shall or will be being published_, _shall or will have

been being published_," and so on through all the moods and tenses. What

a language shall we have when our verbs are thus conjugated!'--Brown's

'Gr. of Eng. Gr.,' p. 361. De War observes: 'The participle in _ing_ is

also passive in many instances; as, "The house is building," "I heard of

a plan forming,"' etc.--Quoted in 'Frazee's Grammar,' p. 49. 'It would

be an absurdity, indeed, to give up the only way we have of denoting the

incomplete state of action by a passive form (viz., by the participle in

_ing_ in the passive sense).'--Arnold's 'English Grammar,' p. 46. 'The

present participle is often used passively; as, "The ship is building."

The form of expression, _is being built_, _is being committed_, etc., is

almost universally condemned by grammarians, but it is sometimes met

with in respectable writers; it occurs most frequently in newspaper

paragraphs and in hasty compositions. See Worcester's "Universal and

Critical Dictionary."'--Weld's 'Grammar,' pp. 118 and 180. 'When we say,

"The house is building," the advocates of the new theory ask, "Building

what?" We might ask, in turn, when you say, "The field ploughs

well,"--"Ploughs what?" "Wheat sells well,"--"Sells what?" If usage

allows us to say, "Wheat sells at a dollar," in a sense that is not

active, why may we not say, "Wheat is selling at a dollar," in a sense

that is not active?'--Hart's 'Grammar,' p. 76. 'The prevailing practice

of the best authors is in favor of the simple form; as, "The house is

building."'--Wells' 'School Grammar,' p. 148. 'Several other expressions

of this sort now and then occur, such as the newfangled and most uncouth

solecism "_is being done_," for the good old English idiom "_is

doing_"--an absurd periphrasis driving out a pointed and pithy turn of

the English language.'--'N. A. Review,' quoted by Mr. Wells, p. 148.

'The phrase, "is being built," and others of a similar kind, have been

for a few years insinuating themselves into our language; still they are

not English.'--Harrison's 'Rise, Progress, and Present Structure of the

English Language.' 'This mode of expression [the house is being built]

is becoming quite common. It is liable, however, to several important

objections. It appears formal and pedantic. It has not, as far as I

know, the support of any respectable grammarian. The easy and natural

expression is, "The house is building."'--Prof. J. W. Gibbs."

Mr. Richard Grant White, in his "Words and Their Uses," expresses his

opinion of the locution _is being_ in this wise: "In bad eminence, at

the head of those intruders in language which to many persons seem to be

of established respectability, but the right of which to be at all is

not fully admitted, stands out the form of speech _is being done_, or

rather, _is being_, which, about seventy or eighty years ago, began to

affront the eye, torment the ear, and assault the common sense of the

speaker of plain and idiomatic English." Mr. White devotes thirty pages

of his book to the discussion of the subject, and adduces evidence that

is more than sufficient to convince those who are content with an _ex

parte_ examination that "it can hardly be that such an incongruous and

ridiculous form of speech as _is being done_ was contrived by a man who,

by any stretch of the name, should be included among grammarians."

Mr. George P. Marsh, in his "Lectures on the English Language," says

that the deviser of the locution in question was "some grammatical

pretender," and that it is "an awkward neologism, which neither

convenience, intelligibility, nor syntactical congruity demands."

To these gentlemen, and to those who are of their way of thinking with

regard to _is being_, Dr. Fitzedward Hall replies at some length, in an

article published in "Scribner's Monthly" for April, 1872. Dr. Hall

writes:

"'All really well educated in the English tongue lament the many

innovations introduced into our language from America; and I doubt if

more than one of these novelties deserve acceptation. That one is,

substituting a compound participle for an active verb used in a neuter

signification: for instance, "The house is _being built_," instead of,

"The house is _building_."' Such is the assertion and such is the

opinion of some anonymous luminary,[8] who, for his liberality in

welcoming a supposed Americanism, is somewhat in advance of the herd of

his countrymen. Almost any popular expression which is considered as a

novelty, a Briton is pretty certain to assume, off-hand, to have

originated on our side of the Atlantic. Of the assertion I have quoted,

no proof is offered; and there is little probability that its author had

any to offer. 'Are being,' in the phrase 'are being thrown up,'[9] is

spoken of in 'The North American Review'[10] as 'an outrage upon English

idiom, "to be detested, abhorred, execrated, and given over to six

thousand" penny-paper editors'; and the fact is, that phrases of the

form here pointed at have hitherto enjoyed very much less favor with us

than with the English.

"As lately as 1860, Dr. Worcester, referring to _is being built_, etc.,

while acknowledging that 'this new form has been used by some

respectable writers,' speaks of it as having 'been introduced' 'within a

few years.' Mr. Richard Grant White, by a most peculiar process of

ratiocination, endeavors to prove that what Dr. Worcester calls 'this

new form' came into existence just fifty-six years ago. He premises that

in Jarvis's translation of 'Don Quixote,' published in 1742, there

occurs 'were carrying,' and that this, in the edition of 1818, is

sophisticated into 'were being carried.' 'This change,' continues our

logician, 'and the appearance of _is being_ with a perfect participle in

a very few books published between A. D. 1815 and 1820, indicate the

former period as that of the origin of this phraseology, which, although

more than half a century old, is still pronounced a novelty as well as a

nuisance.'

"Who, in the next place, devised our modern imperfects passive? The

question is not, originally, of my asking; but, as the learned are at

open feud on the subject, it should not be passed by in silence. Its

deviser is, more than likely, as undiscoverable as the name of the

valiant antediluvian who first tasted an oyster. But the deductive

character of the miscreant is another thing; and hereon there is a war

between the philosophers. Mr. G. P. Marsh, as if he had actually spotted

the wretched creature, passionately and categorically denounces him as

'some grammatical pretender.' 'But,' replies Mr. White, 'that it is the

work of any grammarian is more than doubtful. Grammarians, with all

their faults, do not deform language with fantastic solecisms, or even

seek to enrich it with new and startling verbal combinations. They

rather resist novelty, and devote themselves to formulating that which

use has already established.' In the same page with this, Mr. White

compliments the great unknown as 'some precise and feeble-minded soul,'

and elsewhere calls him 'some pedantic writer of the last generation.'

To add even one word toward a solution of the knotty point here

indicated transcends, I confess, my utmost competence. It is painful to

picture to one's self the agonizing emotions with which certain

philologists would contemplate an authentic effigy of the Attila of

speech who, by his _is being built_ or _is being done_, first offered

violence to the whole circle of the proprieties. So far as I have

observed, the first grammar that exhibits them is that of Mr. R. S.

Skillern, M. A., the first edition of which was published at Gloucester

in 1802. Robert Southey had not, on the 9th of October, 1795, been out

of his minority quite two months when, evidently delivering himself in a

way that had already become familiar enough, he wrote of 'a fellow whose

uttermost upper grinder _is being torn out_ by the roots by a

mutton-fisted barber.'[11] This is in a letter. But repeated instances

of the same kind of expression are seen in Southey's graver writings.

Thus, in his 'Colloquies,' etc.,[12] we read of 'such [nunneries] as at

this time _are being reëstablished_.'

"'While my hand _was being drest_ by Mr. Young, I spoke for the first

time,' wrote Coleridge, in March, 1797.

"Charles Lamb speaks of realities which '_are being acted_ before us,'

and of 'a man who _is being strangled_.'

"Walter Savage Landor, in an imaginary conversation, represents Pitt as

saying: 'The man who possesses them may read Swedenborg and Kant while

he _is being tossed_ in a blanket.' Again: 'I have seen nobles, men and

women, kneeling in the street before these bishops, when no ceremony of

the Catholic Church _was being performed_.' Also, in a translation from

Catullus: 'Some criminal _is being tried_ for murder.'

"Nor does Mr. De Quincey scruple at such English as 'made and _being

made_,' 'the bride that _was being married_ to him,' and 'the shafts of

Heaven _were_ even now _being forged_.' On one occasion he writes, 'Not

done, not even (according to modern purism) _being done_'; as if

'purism' meant exactness, rather than the avoidance of neoterism.

"I need, surely, name no more, among the dead, who found _is being

built_, or the like, acceptable. 'Simple-minded common people and those

of culture were alike protected against it by their attachment to the

idiom of their mother tongue, with which they felt it to be directly at

variance.' So Mr. White informs us. But the writers whom I have quoted

are formidable exceptions. Even Mr. White will scarcely deny to them the

title of 'people of culture.'

"So much for offenders past repentance; and we all know that the sort of

phraseology under consideration is daily becoming more and more common.

The best written of the English reviews, magazines, and journals are

perpetually marked by it; and some of the choicest of living English

writers employ it freely. Among these, it is enough if I specify Bishop

Wilberforce and Mr. Charles Reade.[13]

"Extracts from Bishop Jewel downward being also given, Lord Macaulay,

Mr. Dickens, 'The Atlantic Monthly,' and 'The Brooklyn Eagle' are

alleged by Mr. White in proof that people still use such phrases as

'Chelsea Hospital _was building_,' and 'the train _was preparing_.'

'Hence we see,' he adds,[14] 'that the form _is being done_, _is being

made_, _is being built_, lacks the support of authoritative usage from

the period of the earliest classical English to the present day.' I

fully concur with Mr. White in regarding 'neither "The Brooklyn Eagle"

nor Mr. Dickens as a very high authority in the use of language'; yet,

when he has renounced the aid of these contemned straws, what has he to

rest his inference on, as to the present day, but the practice of Lord

Macaulay and 'The Atlantic Monthly'? Those who think fit will bow to the

dictatorship here prescribed to them; but there may be those with whom

the classic sanction of Southey, Coleridge, and Landor will not be

wholly void of weight. All scholars are aware that, to convey the sense

of the imperfects passive, our ancestors, centuries ago, prefixed, with

_is_, etc., _in_, afterward corrupted into _a_, to a verbal substantive.

'The house _is in building_' could be taken to mean nothing but _ædes

ædificantur_; and, when the _in_ gave place to _a_,[15] it was still

manifest enough, from the context, that _building_ was governed by a

preposition. The second stage of change, however, namely, when the _a_

was omitted, entailed, in many cases, great danger of confusion. In the

early part of the last century, when English was undergoing what was

then thought to be purification, the polite world substantially resigned

_is a-building_ to the vulgar. Toward the close of the same century,

when, under the influence of free thought, it began to be felt that even

ideas had a right to faithful and unequivocal representation, a just

resentment of ambiguity was evidenced in the creation of _is being

built_. The lament is too late that the instinct of reformation did not

restore the old form. It has gone forever; and we are now to make the

best of its successors. '"The brass _is forging_,"' in the opinion of

Dr. Johnson, is 'a vicious expression, probably corrupted from a phrase

more pure, but now somewhat obsolete, ... "the brass _is a-forging_."'

Yet, with a true Tory's timidity and aversion to change, it is not

surprising that he went on preferring what he found established, vicious

as it confessedly was, to the end. But was the expression 'vicious'

solely because it was a corruption? In 1787 William Beckford wrote as

follows of the fortune-tellers of Lisbon: '_I saw one dragging into

light_, as I passed by the ruins of a palace thrown down by the

earthquake. Whether a familiar of the Inquisition was griping her in his

clutches, or _whether she was taking to account by some disappointed

votary_, I will not pretend to answer.' Are the expressions here

italicized either perspicuous or graceful? Whatever we are to have in

their place, we should be thankful to get quit of them.

"Inasmuch as, concurrently with _building_ for the active participle,

and _being built_ for the corresponding passive participle, we possessed

the former, with _is_ prefixed, as the active present imperfect, it is

in rigid accordance with the symmetry of our verb that, to construct the

passive present-imperfect, we prefix _is_ to the latter, producing the

form _is being built_. Such, in its greatest simplicity, is the

procedure which, as will be seen, has provoked a very levanter of ire

and vilification. But anything that is new will be excepted to by minds

of a certain order. Their tremulous and impatient dread of removing

ancient landmarks even disqualifies them for thoroughly investigating

its character and pretensions. In _has built_ and _will build_, we find

the active participle perfect and the active infinitive subjoined to

auxiliaries; and so, in _has been built_ and _will be built_, the

passive participle perfect and the passive infinitive are subjoined to

auxiliaries. In _is building_ and _is being built_, we have, in strict

harmony with the constitution of the perfect and future tenses, an

auxiliary followed by the active participle present and the passive

participle present. _Built_ is determined as active or passive by the

verbs which qualify it, _have_ and _be_; and the grammarians are right

in considering it, when embodied in _has built_, as active, since its

analogue, embodied in _has been built_, is the exclusively passive _been

built_. Besides this, _has been_ + _built_ would signify something like

_has existed, built_,[16] which is plainly neuter. We are debarred,

therefore, from such an analysis; and, by parity of reasoning, we may

not resolve _is being built_ into _is being_ + _built_. It must have

been an inspiration of analogy, felt or unfelt, that suggested the form

I am discussing. _Is being_ + _built_, as it can mean, pretty nearly,

only _exists, built_, would never have been proposed as adequate to

convey any but a neuter sense; whereas it was perfectly natural for a

person aiming to express a passive sense to prefix _is_ to the passive

concretion _being built_.[17]

"The analogical justification of _is being built_ which I have brought

forward is so obvious that, as it occurred to myself more than twenty

years ago, so it must have occurred spontaneously to hundreds besides.

It is very singular that those who, like Mr. Marsh and Mr. White, have

pondered long and painfully over locutions typified by _is being built_,

should have missed the real ground of their grammatical defensibleness,

and should have warmed themselves, in their opposition to them, into

uttering opinions which no calm judgment can accept.

"'One who _is being beaten_' is, to Archbishop Whately, 'uncouth

English.' '"The bridge _is being built_," and other phrases of the like

kind, have pained the eye' of Mr. David Booth. Such phrases, according

to Mr. M. Harrison, 'are not English.' To Professor J. W. Gibbs 'this

mode of expression ... appears formal and pedantic'; and 'the easy and

natural expression is, "The house _is building_."'[18] In all this,

little or nothing is discernible beyond sheer prejudice, the prejudice

of those who resolve to take their stand against an innovation,

regardless of its utility, and who are ready to find an argument against

it in any random epithet of disparagement provoked by unreasoning

aversion. And the more recent denouncers in the same line have no more

reason on their side than their elder brethren.

"In Mr. Marsh's estimation, _is being built_ illustrates 'corruption of

language'; it is 'clumsy and unidiomatic'; it is 'at best but a

philological coxcombry'; it 'is an awkward neologism, which neither

convenience, intelligibility, nor syntactical congruity demands, and the

use of which ought, therefore, to be discountenanced, as an attempt at

the artificial improvement of the language in a point which needed no

amendment.' Again, 'To reject' _is building_ in favor of the modern

phrase 'is to violate the laws of language by an arbitrary change; and,

in this particular case, the proposed substitute is at war with the

genius of the English tongue.' Mr. Marsh seems to have fancied that,

wherever he points out a beauty in _is building_, he points out,

inclusively, a blemish in _is being built_.

"The fervor and feeling with which Mr. White advances to the charge are

altogether tropical. 'The full absurdity of this phrase, the essence of

its nonsense, seems not to have been hitherto pointed out.' It is not

'consistent with reason'; and it is not 'conformed to the normal

development of the language.' It is 'a monstrosity, the illogical,

confusing, inaccurate, unidiomatic character of which I have at some

length, but yet imperfectly, set forth.' Finally, 'In fact, it means

nothing, and is the most incongruous combination of words and ideas that

ever attained respectable usage in any civilized language.' These be

'prave 'ords'; and it seems a pity that so much sterling vituperative

ammunition should be expended in vain. And that it is so expended thinks

Mr. White himself; for, though passing sentence in the spirit of a

Jeffreys, he is not really on the judgment-seat, but on the lowest

hassock of despair. As concerns the mode of expression exemplified by

_is being built_, he owns that 'to check its diffusion would be a

hopeless undertaking.' If so, why not reserve himself for service

against some evil not avowedly beyond remedy?

"Again we read, 'Some precise and feeble-minded soul, having been taught

that there is a passive voice in English, and that, for instance,

_building_ is an active participle, and _builded_ or _built_ a passive,

felt conscientious scruples at saying "the house _is building_." For

what could the house build?' As children say at play, Mr. White burns

here. If it had occurred to him that the 'conscientious scruples' of his

hypothetical, 'precise, and feeble-minded soul' were roused by _been

built_, not by _built_, I suspect his chapter on _is being built_ would

have been much shorter than it is at present, and very different. 'The

fatal absurdity in this phrase consists,' he tells us, 'in the

combination of _is_ with _being_; in the making of the verb _to be_ a

supplement, or, in grammarians' phrase, an auxiliary to itself--an

absurdity so palpable, so monstrous, so ridiculous, that it should need

only to be pointed out to be scouted.'[19] Lastly, 'The question is thus

narrowed simply to this, Does _to be being_ (_esse ens_) mean anything

more or other than _to be_?'

"Having convicted Mr. White of a mistaken analysis, I am not concerned

with the observations which he founds on his mistake. However, even if

his analysis had been correct, some of his arguments would avail him

nothing. For instance, _is being built_, on his understanding of it,

that is to say, _is being_ + _built_, he represents by _ens ædificatus

est_, as 'the supposed corresponding Latin phrase.'[20] The Latin is

illegitimate; and he infers that, therefore, the English is the same.

But _ædificans est_, a translation, on the model which he offers, of the

active _is building_, is quite as illegitimate as _ens æedificatus est_.

By parity of _non-sequitur_, we are, therefore, to surrender the active

_is building_. Assume that a phrase in a given language is indefensible

unless it has its counterpart in some other language; from the very

conception and definition of an idiom every idiom is illegitimate.

"I now pass to another point. '_To be_ and _to exist_ are,' to Mr.

White's apprehension, 'perfect synonyms, or more nearly perfect,

perhaps, than any two verbs in the language. In some of their meanings

there is a shade of difference, but in others there is none whatever;

and the latter are those which serve our present purpose. When we say,

"He, _being_ forewarned of danger, fled," we say, "He, _existing_

forewarned of danger, fled." When we say that a thing _is_ done, we say

that it _exists_ done.... _Is being done_ is simply _exists existing

done_.' But, since _is_ and _exists_ are equipollent, and so _being_ and

_existing, is being_ is the same as the unimpeachable _is existing_. Q.

_non_ E. D. _Is existing_ ought, of course, to be no less objectionable

to Mr. White than _is being_. Just as absurd, too, should he reckon the

Italian _sono stato_, _era stato_, _sia stato_, _fossi stato_, _saro

stato_, _sarei stato_, _essere stato_, and _essendo stato_. For in

Italian both _essere_ and _stare_ are required to make up the verb

substantive, as in Latin both _esse_ and the offspring of _fuere_ are

required; and _stare_, primarily 'to stand,' is modified into a true

auxiliary. The alleged 'full absurdity of this phrase,' to wit, _is

being built_, 'the essence of its nonsense,' vanishes thus into thin

air. So I was about to comment bluntly, not forgetting to regret that

any gentleman's cultivation of logic should fructify in the shape of

irrepressible tendencies to suicide. But this would be precipitate.

Agreeably to one of Mr. White's judicial placita, which I make no

apology for citing twice, 'no man who has preserved all his senses will

doubt for a moment that "to exist a mastiff or a mule" is absolutely the

same as "to be a mastiff or a mule."' Declining to admit their identity,

I have not preserved all my senses; and, accordingly--though it may be

in me the very superfetation of lunacy--I would caution the reader to

keep a sharp eye on my arguments, hereabouts particularly. The Cretan,

who, in declaring all Cretans to be liars, left the question of his

veracity doubtful to all eternity, fell into a pit of his own digging.

Not unlike the unfortunate Cretan, Mr. White has tumbled headlong into

his own snare. It was, for the rest, entirely unavailing that he

insisted on the insanity of those who should gainsay his fundamental

postulate. Sanity, of a crude sort, may accept it; and sanity may put it

to a use other than its propounder's.

"Mr. Marsh, after setting forth the all-sufficiency of _is building_, in

the passive sense, goes on to say: 'The reformers who object to the

phrase I am defending must, in consistency, employ the proposed

substitute with all passive participles, and in other tenses as well as

the present. They must say, therefore, "The subscription-paper _is being

missed_, but I know that a considerable sum _is being wanted_ to make up

the amount"; "the great Victoria Bridge _has been being built_ more than

two years"; "when I reach London, the ship Leviathan _will be being

built_"; "if my orders had been followed, the coat _would have been

being made yesterday_"; "if the house _had_ then _been being built_, the

mortar _would have been being mixed_."' We may reply that, while awkward

instances of the old form are most abundant in our literature, there is

no fear that the repulsive elaborations which have been worked out in

ridicule of the new forms will prove to have been anticipations of

future usage. There was a time when, as to their adverbs, people

compared them, to a large extent, with _-er_ and _-est_, or with _more_

and _most_, just as their ear or pleasure dictated. They wrote

_plainlier_ and _plainliest_, or _more plainly_ and _most plainly_; and

some adverbs, as _early_, _late_, _often_, _seldom_, and _soon_, we

still compare in a way now become anomalous. And as our forefathers

treated their adverbs we still treat many adjectives. _Furthermore_,

_obligingness_, _preparedness_, and _designedly_ seem quite natural; yet

we do not feel that they authorize us to talk of 'the _seeingness_ of

the eye,' 'the _understoodness_ of a sentence,' or of 'a statement

_acknowledgedly_ correct.' 'The now too notorious fact' is tolerable;

but 'the never to be sufficiently execrated monster Bonaparte' is

intolerable. The sun may be _shorn_ of his splendor; but we do not allow

cloudy weather to _shear_ him of it. How, then, can any one claim that a

man who prefers to say _is being built_ should say _has been being

built_? Are not awkward instances of the old form, typified by _is

building_, as easily to be picked out of extant literature as such

instances of the new form, likely ever to be used, are to be invented?

And 'the reformers' have not forsworn their ears. Mr. Marsh, at p. 135

of his admirable 'Lectures,' lays down that 'the adjective _reliable_,

in the sense of _worthy of confidence_, is altogether unidiomatic'; and

yet, at p. 112, he writes '_reliable_ evidence.' Again, at p. 396 of the

same work, he rules that _whose_, in 'I passed a house _whose_ windows

were open,' is 'by no means yet fully established'; and at p. 145 of his

very learned 'Man and Nature' he writes 'a quadrangular pyramid, the

perpendicular of _whose_ sides,' etc. Really, if his own judgments sit

so very loose on his practical conscience, we may, without being

chargeable with exaction, ask of him to relax a little the rigor of his

requirements at the hands of his neighbors.

"Beckford's Lisbon fortune-teller, before had into court, was

'_dragging_ into light,' and, perchance, '_was taking_ to account.' Many

moderns would say and write '_being dragged_ into light,' and '_was

being taken_ to account.' But, if we are to trust the conservative

critics, in comparison with expressions of the former pattern, those of

the latter are 'uncouth,' 'clumsy,' 'awkward neologisms,' 'philological

coxcombries,' 'formal and pedantic,' 'incongruous and ridiculous forms

of speech,' 'illogical, confusing, inaccurate monstrosities.' Moreover,

they are neither 'consistent with reason' nor 'conformed to the normal

development of the language'; they are 'at war with the genius of the

English tongue'; they are 'unidiomatic'; they are 'not English.' In

passing, if Mr. Marsh will so define the term _unidiomatic_ as to evince

that it has any applicability to the case in hand, or if he will arrest

and photograph 'the genius of the English tongue,' so that we may know

the original when we meet with it, he will confer a public favor. And

now I submit for consideration whether the sole strength of those who

decry _is being built_ and its congeners does not consist in their

talent for calling hard names. If they have not an uneasy

subconsciousness that their cause is weak, they would, at least, do well

in eschewing the violence to which, for want of something better, the

advocates of weak causes proverbially resort.

"I once had a friend who, for some microscopic penumbra of heresy, was

charged, in the words of his accuser, with 'as near an approach to the

sin against the Holy Ghost as is practicable to human infirmity.'

Similarly, on one view, the feeble potencies of philological turpitude

seem to have exhibited their most consummate realization in engendering

_is being built_. The supposed enormity perpetrated in its production,

provided it had fallen within the sphere of ethics, would, at the least,

have ranked, with its denunciators, as a brand-new exemplification of

total depravity. But, after all, what incontestable defect in it has any

one succeeded in demonstrating? Mr. White, in opposing to the

expression objections based on an erroneous analysis, simply lays a

phantom of his own evoking; and, so far as I am informed, other

impugners of _is being built_ have, absolutely, no argument whatever

against it over and beyond their repugnance to novelty. Subjected to a

little untroubled contemplation, it would, I am confident, have ceased

long ago to be matter of controversy; but the dust of prejudice and

passion, which so distempers the intellectual vision of theologians and

politicians, is seen to make, with ruthless impartiality, no exception

of the perspicacity of philologists.

"Prior to the evolution of _is being built_ and _was being built_, we

possessed no discriminate equivalents to _ædificatur_ and

_ædificabatur_; _is built_ and _was built_, by which they were rendered,

corresponding exactly to _ædificatus est_ and _ædificatus erat_. _Cum

ædificaretur_ was to us the same as _ædificabatur_. On the wealth of the

Greek in expressions of imperfect passive I need not dwell. With rare

exceptions, the Romans were satisfied with the present-imperfect and the

past-imperfect; and we, on the comparatively few occasions which present

themselves for expressing other imperfects, shall be sure to have

recourse to the old forms rather than to the new, or else to use

periphrases.[21] The purists may, accordingly, dismiss their

apprehensions, especially as the neoterists have, clearly, a keener

horror of phraseological ungainliness than themselves. One may have no

hesitation about saying 'the house _is being built_,' and may yet recoil

from saying that 'it _should have been being built_ last Christmas'; and

the same person--just as, provided he did not feel a harshness,

inadequacy, and ambiguity in the passive 'the house _is building_,' he

would use the expression--will, more likely than not, elect _is in

preparation_ preferentially to _is being prepared_. If there are any

who, in their zealotry for the congruous, choose to adhere to the new

form in its entire range of exchangeability for the old, let it be hoped

that they will find, in Mr. Marsh's speculative approbation of

consistency, full amends for the discomfort of encountering smiles or

frowns. At the same time, let them be mindful of the career of Mr.

White, with his black flag and no quarter. The dead Polonius was, in

Hamlet's phrase, at supper, 'not where he eats, but where he _is

eaten_.' Shakespeare, to Mr. White's thinking, in this wise expressed

himself at the best, and deserves not only admiration therefor, but to

be imitated. 'While the ark _was built_,' 'while the ark _was

prepared_,' writes Mr. White himself.[22] Shakespeare is commended for

his ambiguous _is eaten_, though _in eating_ or _an eating_ would have

been not only correct in his day, but, where they would have come in his

sentence, univocal. With equal reason a man would be entitled to

commendation for tearing his mutton-chops with his fingers, when he

might cut them up with a knife and fork. '_Is eaten_,' says Mr. White,

'does not mean _has been eaten_.' Very true; but a continuous unfinished

passion--Polonius's still undergoing manducation, to speak

Johnsonese--was in Shakespeare's mind; and his words describe a passion

no longer in generation. The King of Denmark's lord chamberlain had no

precedent in Herod, when 'he _was eaten_ of worms'; the original,

γενόμενος σκωληκόβρωτος, yielding, but for its participle, 'he became

worm-eaten.'

"Having now done with Mr. White, I am anxious, before taking leave of

him, to record, with all emphasis, that it would be the grossest

injustice to write of his elegant 'Life and Genius of Shakespeare,' a

book which does credit to American literature, in the tone which I have

found unavoidable in dealing with his 'Words and their Uses.'"

The student of English who has honestly weighed the arguments on both

sides of the question, must, I believe, be of opinion that our language

is the richer for having two forms for expressing the Progressive

Passive. Further, he must, I believe, be of opinion that in very many

cases he conforms to the most approved usage of our time by employing

the old form; that, however, if he were to employ the old form in all

cases, his meaning would sometimes be uncertain.

IT. Cobbett discourses of this little neuter pronoun in this wise: "The

word _it_ is the greatest troubler that I know of in language. It is so

small and so convenient that few are careful enough in using it. Writers

seldom spare this word. Whenever they are at a loss for either a

nominative or an objective to their sentence, they, without any kind of

ceremony, clap in an _it_. A very remarkable instance of this pressing

of poor _it_ into actual service, contrary to the laws of grammar and of

sense, occurs in a piece of composition, where we might, with justice,

insist on correctness. This piece is on the subject of grammar; it is a

piece written by a _Doctor of Divinity_ and read by him to students in

grammar and language in an academy; and the very sentence that I am now

about to quote is selected by the author of a grammar as testimony of

high authority in favor of the excellence of his work. Surely, if

correctness be ever to be expected, it must be in a case like this. I

allude to two sentences in the 'Charge of the Reverend Doctor

Abercrombie to the Senior Class of the Philadelphia Academy,' published

in 1806; which sentences have been selected and published by Mr. Lindley

Murray as a testimonial of the _merits_ of his grammar; and which

sentences are by Mr. Murray given to us in the following words: 'The

unwearied exertions of this gentleman _have_ done more toward

elucidating the obscurities and embellishing the structure of our

language than any _other writer_ on the subject. _Such a work_ has long

been wanted, and from the success with which _it_ is executed, can not

be too highly appreciated.'

"As in the learned Doctor's opinion obscurities can be elucidated, and

as in the same opinion Mr. Murray is an able hand at this kind of work,

it would not be amiss were the grammarian to try his skill upon this

article from the hand of his dignified eulogist; for here is, if one may

use the expression, a constellation of obscurities. Our poor oppressed

_it_, which we find forced into the Doctor's service in the second

sentence, relates to '_such a work_,' though this work is nothing that

has an existence, notwithstanding it is said to be '_executed_.' In the

first sentence, the 'exertions' become, all of a sudden, a '_writer_':

the _exertions_ have done more than 'any _other_ writer'; for, mind you,

it is not the _gentleman_ that has done anything; it is 'the

_exertions_' that _have_ done what is said to be done. The word

_gentleman_ is in the possessive case, and has nothing to do with the

action of the sentence. Let us give the sentence a turn, and the Doctor

and the grammarian will hear how it will sound. 'This gentleman's

_exertions_ have done more than any _other writer_.' This is on a level

with 'This gentleman's _dog_ has killed more hares than any _other

sportsman_.' No doubt Doctor Abercrombie _meant_ to say, 'The exertions

of this gentleman have done more _than those_ of any other writer. Such

a work as this gentleman's has long been wanted; his work, seeing the

successful manner of its execution, can not be too highly commended.'

_Meant!_ No doubt at all of that! And when we hear a Hampshire ploughboy

say, 'Poll Cherrycheek have giv'd a thick handkecher,' we know very well

that he _means_ to say, 'Poll Cherrycheek has given me this

handkerchief'; and yet we are too apt to _laugh at him_ and to call him

_ignorant_; which is wrong, because he has no pretensions to a knowledge

of grammar, and he may be very skillful as a ploughboy. However, we will

not laugh at Doctor Abercrombie, whom I knew, many years ago, for a very

kind and worthy man. But, if we may, in any case, be allowed to laugh at

the ignorance of our fellow-creatures, that case certainly does arise

when we see a professed grammarian, the author of voluminous precepts

and examples on the subject of grammar, producing, in imitation of the

possessors of valuable medical secrets, testimonials vouching for the

efficacy of his literary panacea, and when, in those testimonials, we

find most flagrant instances of bad grammar.

"However, my dear James, let this strong and striking instance of the

misuse of the word _it_ serve you in the way of caution. Never put an

_it_ upon paper without thinking well of what you are about. When I see

many _its_ in a page, I always tremble for the writer."

JEOPARDIZE. This is a modern word which we could easily do without, as

it means neither more nor less than its venerable progenitor _to

jeopard_, which is greatly preferred by all careful writers.

JUST GOING TO. Instead of "I am _just going to_ go," it is better to

say, "I am just _about_ to go."

KIDS. "This is another vile contraction. Habit blinds people to the

unseemliness of a term like this. How would it sound if one should speak

of silk gloves as _silks_?"

KIND. See POLITE.

KNIGHTS TEMPLARS. The name of this ancient body has been adopted by a

branch of the Masonic fraternity, but in a perverted form--_Knights

Templar_; and this form is commonly seen in print, whether referring to

the old knights or to their modern imitators. This doubtless is due to

the erroneous impression that _Templar_ is an adjective, and so can not

take the plural form; while in fact it is a case of two nouns in

apposition--a double designation--meaning Knights of the order of

Templars. Hence the plural should be _Knights Templars_, and not

_Knights Templar_. Members of the contemporaneous order of St. John of

Jerusalem were commonly called Knights Hospitallers.

LADY. To use the term _lady_, whether in the singular or in the plural,

simply to designate the sex, is in the worst possible taste. There is a

kind of pin-feather gentility which seems to have a settled aversion to

using the terms _man_ and _woman_. Gentlemen and ladies establish their

claims to being called such by their bearing, and not by arrogating to

themselves, _even indirectly_, the titles. In England, the title _lady_

is properly correlative to _lord_; but there, as in this country, it is

used as a term of complaisance, and is appropriately applied to women

whose lives are exemplary, and who have received that school and home

education which enables them to appear to advantage in the better

circles of society. Such expressions as "She is a fine _lady_, a clever

_lady_, a well-dressed _lady_, a good _lady_, a modest _lady_, a

charitable _lady_, an amiable _lady_, a handsome _lady_, a fascinating

_lady_," and the like, are studiously avoided by persons of refinement.

_Ladies_ say, "we _women_, the _women_ of America, _women's_ apparel,"

and so on; _vulgar_ women talk about "us _ladies_, the _ladies_ of

America, _ladies'_ apparel," and so on. If a woman of culture and

refinement--in short, a lady--is compelled from any cause soever to work

in a store, she is quite content to be called a sales-_woman_; not so,

however, with your young woman who, being in a store, is in a better

position than ever before. She, Heaven bless her! boils with indignation

if she is not denominated a sales-_lady_. Lady is often the proper term

to use, and then it would be very improper to use any other; but it is

very certain that the terms _lady_ and _gentleman_ are least used by

those persons who are most worthy of being designated by them. With a

nice discrimination worthy of special notice, one of our daily papers

recently said: "Miss Jennie Halstead, daughter of the proprietor of the

'Cincinnati Commercial,' is one of the most brilliant young _women_ in

Ohio."

In a late number of the "London Queen" was the following: "The terms

_ladies_ and _gentlemen_ become in themselves vulgarisms when

misapplied, and the improper application of the wrong term at the wrong

time makes all the difference in the world to ears polite. Thus, calling

a man a _gentleman_ when he should be called a _man_, or speaking of a

man as a _man_ when he should be spoken of as a _gentleman_; or alluding

to a lady as a _woman_ when she should be alluded to as a _lady_, or

speaking of a woman as a _lady_ when she should properly be termed a

_woman_. Tact and a sense of the fitness of things decide these points,

there being no fixed rule to go upon to determine when a man is a _man_

or when he is a _gentleman_; and, although he is far oftener termed the

one than the other, he does not thereby lose his attributes of a

gentleman. In common parlance, a man is always a _man_ to a man, and

never a _gentleman_; to a woman, he is occasionally a _man_ and

occasionally a _gentleman_; but a man would far oftener term a woman a

_woman_ than he would term her a _lady_. When a man makes use of an

adjective in speaking of a lady, he almost invariably calls her a

_woman_. Thus, he would say, 'I met a rather agreeable _woman_ at dinner

last night'; but he would _not_ say, 'I met an agreeable _lady_'; but he

might say, 'A _lady_, a friend of mine, told me,' etc., when he would

_not_ say, 'A _woman_, a friend of mine, told me,' etc. Again, a man

would say, 'Which of the _ladies_ did you take in to dinner?' He would

certainly not say, 'Which of the _women_,' etc.

"Speaking of people _en masse_, it would be to belong to a very advanced

school to refer to them in conversation as 'men and women,' while it

would be all but vulgar to style them 'ladies and gentlemen,' the

compromise between the two being to speak of them as 'ladies and men.'

Thus a lady would say, 'I have asked two or three ladies and several

men'; she would not say, 'I have asked several men and women'; neither

would she say, 'I have asked several ladies and gentlemen.' And,

speaking of numbers, it would be very usual to say, 'There were a great

many ladies, and but very few men present,' or, 'The ladies were in the

majority, so few men being present.' Again, a lady would not say, 'I

expect two or three men,' but she would say, 'I expect two or three

gentlemen.' When people are on ceremony with each other [_one another_],

they might, perhaps, in speaking of a man, call him a _gentleman_; but,

otherwise, it would be more usual to speak of him as a _man_. Ladies,

when speaking of each other [_one another_], usually employ the term

_woman_ in preference to that of _lady_. Thus they would say, 'She is a

very good-natured _woman_,' 'What sort of a _woman_ is she?' the term

_lady_ being entirely out of place under such circumstances. Again, the

term young _lady_ gives place as far as possible to the term _girl_,

although it greatly depends upon the amount of intimacy existing as to

which term is employed."

LANGUAGE. A note in Worcester's Dictionary says: "_Language_ is a very

general term, and is not strictly confined to utterance by words, as it

is also expressed by the countenance, by the eyes, and by signs.

_Tongue_ refers especially to an original language; as, 'the Hebrew

_tongue_.' The modern languages are derived from the original

_tongues_." If this be correct, then he who speaks French, German,

English, Spanish, and Italian, may properly say that he speaks five

_languages_, but only one _tongue_.

LAY--LIE. Errors are frequent in the use of these two irregular verbs.

_Lay_ is often used for _lie_, and _lie_ is sometimes used for _lay_.

This confusion in their use is due in some measure, doubtless, to the

circumstance that _lay_ appears in both verbs, it being the imperfect

tense of _to lie_. We say, "A mason _lays_ bricks," "A ship _lies_ at

anchor," etc. "I must _lie_ down"; "I must _lay_ myself down"; "I must

_lay_ this book on the table"; "He _lies_ on the grass"; "He _lays_ his

plans well"; "He _lay_ on the grass"; "He _laid_ it away"; "He has

_lain_ in bed long enough"; "He has _laid up_ some money," "_in_ a

stock," "_down_ the law"; "He is _laying_ out the grounds"; "Ships _lie_

at the wharf"; "Hens _lay_ eggs"; "The ship _lay_ at anchor"; "The hen

_laid_ an egg." It will be seen that _lay_ always expresses transitive

action, and that _lie_ expresses rest.

"Here _lies_ our sovereign lord, the king,

Whose word no man relies on;

He never says a foolish thing,

Nor ever does a wise one."

--Written on the bedchamber door of Charles II, by the Earl of

Rochester.

LEARN. This verb was long ago used as a synonym of _teach_, but in this

sense it is now obsolete. To _teach_ is to give instruction; to _learn_

is to take instruction. "I will _learn_, if you will _teach_ me." See

TEACH.

LEAVE. There are grammarians who insist that this verb should not be

used without an object, as, for example, it is used in such sentences

as, "When do you leave?" "I leave to-morrow." The object of the

verb--home, town, or whatever it may be--is, of course, understood; but

this, say these gentlemen, is not permissible. On this point opinions

will, I think, differ; they will, however, not differ with regard to the

vulgarity of using _leave_ in the sense of _let_; thus, "_Leave_ me be";

"_Leave_ it alone"; "_Leave_ her be--don't bother her"; "_Leave_ me see

it."

LEND. See LOAN.

LENGTHY. This word is of comparatively recent origin, and, though it is

said to be an Americanism, it is a good deal used in England. The most

careful writers, however, both here and elsewhere, much prefer the word

_long_: "a _long_ discussion," "a _long_ discourse," etc.

LENIENCY. Mr. Gould calls this word and _lenience_ "two philological

abortions." _Lenity_ is undoubtedly the proper word to use, though both

Webster and Worcester do recognize _leniency_ and _lenience_.

LESS. This word is much used instead of _fewer_. _Less_ relates to

quantity; _fewer_ to number. Instead of, "There were not _less_ than

twenty persons present," we should say, "There were not _fewer_ than

twenty persons present."

LESSER. This form of the comparative of _little_ is accounted a

corruption of _less_. It may, however, be used instead of _less_ with

propriety in verse, and also, in some cases, in prose. We may say, for

example, "Of two evils choose the _less_," or "the _lesser_." The latter

form, in sentences like this, is the more euphonious.

LIABLE. Richard Grant White, in inveighing against the misuse of this

word, cites the example of a member from a rural district, who called

out to a man whom he met in the village, where he was in the habit of

making little purchases: "I say, mister, kin yer tell me whar I'd be

_li'ble_ to find some beans?" See, also, APT.

LIE. See LAY.

LIKE--AS. Both these words express similarity; _like_ (adjective)

comparing things, _as_ (adverb) comparing action, existence, or quality.

Like is followed by an object only, and does not admit of a verb in the

same construction. _As_ must be followed by a verb expressed or

understood. We say, "He looks _like_ his brother," or "He looks _as_ his

brother _looks_." "Do _as_ I do," not "_like_ I do." "You must speak

_as_ James does," not "_like_ James does." "He died _as_ he had lived,

_like_ a dog." "It is _as_ blue _as_ indigo"; i. e., "as indigo is."

LIKE, TO. See LOVE.

LIKELY. See APT.

LIT. This form of the past participle of the verb _to light_ is now

obsolete. "Have you _lighted_ the fire?" "The gas is _lighted_." _Het_

for _heated_ is a similar, but much greater, vulgarism.

LOAN--LEND. There are those who contend that there is no such verb as

_to loan_, although it has been found in our literature for more than

three hundred years. Whether there is properly such a verb or not, it is

quite certain that it is only those having a vulgar _penchant_ for big

words who will prefer it to its synonym _lend_. Better far to say

"_Lend_ me your umbrella" than "_Loan_ me your umbrella."

LOCATE--SETTLE. The use of the verb _to locate_ in the sense of _to

settle_ is said to be an Americanism. Although the dictionaries

recognize _to locate_ as a neuter verb, as such it is marked "rarely

used," and, in the sense of _to settle_, it is among the vulgarisms that

careful speakers and writers are studious to avoid. A man _settles_, not

_locates_, in Nebraska. "Where do you intend to _settle_?" not _locate_.

See, also, SETTLE.

LOGGERHEADS. "In the mean time France is at _loggerheads

internally_."--"New York Herald," April 29, 1881. Loggerheads

_internally_?!

LOOKS BEAUTIFULLY. It is sometimes interesting to note the difference

between _vulgar_ bad grammar and _genteel_ bad grammar, or, more

properly, between non-painstaking and painstaking bad grammar. The

former uses, for example, adjectives instead of adverbs; the latter uses

adverbs instead of adjectives. The former says, "This bonnet is trimmed

_shocking_"; the latter says, "This bonnet looks _shockingly_." In the

first sentence the epithet qualifies the verb _is trimmed_, and

consequently should have its adverbial form--_shockingly_; in the second

sentence the epithet qualifies the _appearance_--a noun--of the bonnet,

and consequently should have its adjectival form--_shocking_. The second

sentence means to say, "This bonnet presents a shocking appearance." The

bonnet certainly does not really _look_; it is _looked at_, and to the

_looker_ its appearance is _shocking_. So we say, in like manner, of a

person, that he or she looks _sweet_, or _charming_, or _beautiful_, or

_handsome_, or _horrid_, or _graceful_, or _timid_, and so on, always

using an adjective. "Miss Coghlan, as Lady Teazle, looked _charmingly_."

The grammar of the "New York Herald" would not have been any more

incorrect if it had said that Miss Coghlan looked _gladly_, or _sadly_,

or _madly_, or _delightedly_, or _pleasedly_. A person may look _sick_

or _sickly_, but in both cases the qualifying word is an adjective. The

verbs to _smell_, to _feel_, to _sound_, and to _appear_ are also found

in sentences in which the qualifying word must be an adjective and not

an adverb. We say, for example, "The rose smells _sweet_"; "The butter

smells _good_, or _bad_, or _fresh_"; "I feel _glad_, or _sad_, or

_bad_, or _despondent_, or _annoyed_, or _nervous_"; "This construction

sounds _harsh_"; "How _delightful_ the country appears!"

On the other hand, to _look_, to _feel_, to _smell_, to _sound_, and to

_appear_ are found in sentences where the qualifying word must be an

adverb; thus, "He feels his loss _keenly_"; "The king looked

_graciously_ on her"; "I smell it _faintly_." We might also say, "He

feels _sad_ [adjective], because he feels his loss _keenly_" (adverb);

"He appears _well_" (adverb).

The expression, "_She seemed confusedly_, or _timidly_," is not a whit

more incorrect than "_She looked beautifully_, or _charmingly_." See

ADJECTIVES.

LOVE--LIKE. Men who are at all careful in the selection of language to

express their thoughts, and have not an undue leaning toward the

superlative, _love_ few things: their wives, their sweethearts, their

kinsmen, truth, justice, and their country. Women, on the contrary, as a

rule, _love_ a multitude of things, and, among their loves, the thing

they perhaps love most is--taffy.

LUGGAGE--BAGGAGE. The former of these words is generally used in

England, the latter in America.

LUNCH. This word, when used as a substantive, may at the best be

accounted an inelegant abbreviation of _luncheon_. The dictionaries

barely recognize it. The proper phraseology to use is, "Have you

_lunched_?" or, "Have you had your _luncheon_?" or, better, "Have you

had _luncheon_?" as we may in most cases presuppose that the person

addressed would hardly take anybody's else luncheon.

LUXURIOUS--LUXURIANT. The line is drawn much more sharply between these

two words now than it was formerly. Luxurious was once used, to some

extent at least, in the sense of _rank growth_, but now all careful

writers and speakers use it in the sense of _indulging_ or _delighting

in luxury_. We talk of a _luxurious_ table, a _luxurious_ liver,

_luxurious_ ease, _luxurious_ freedom. Luxuriant, on the other hand, is

restricted to the sense of _rank_, or _excessive_, growth or production;

thus, _luxuriant_ weeds, _luxuriant_ foliage or branches, _luxuriant_

growth.

"Prune the _luxuriant_, the uncouth refine,

But show no mercy to an empty line."--Pope.

MAD. Professor Richard A. Proctor, in a recent number of "The

Gentleman's Magazine," says: "The word _mad_ in America seems nearly

always to mean _angry_. For _mad_, as we use the word, Americans say

_crazy_. Herein they have manifestly impaired the language." Have they?

"Now, in faith, Gratiano,

You give your wife too unkind a cause of grief;

An 'twere, to me, I would be _mad at_ it."

--"Merchant of Venice."

"And being exceedingly _mad_ against them, I persecuted them even unto

strange cities."--Acts xxvi, II.

MAKE A VISIT. The phrase "_make_ a visit," according to Dr. Hall,

whatever it once was, is no longer English.

MALE. See FEMALE.

MARRY. There has been some discussion, at one time and another, with

regard to the use of this word. Is John Jones married _to_ Sally Brown

or _with_ Sally Brown, or are they married to each other? Inasmuch as

the woman loses her name in that of the man to whom she is wedded, and

becomes a member of his family, not he of hers--inasmuch as, with few

exceptions, it is her life that is merged in his--it would seem that,

_properly_, Sally Brown is married _to_ John Jones, and that this would

be the proper way to make the announcement of their having been wedded,

and not John Jones _to_ Sally Brown.

There is also a difference of opinion as to whether the active or the

passive form is preferable in referring to a person's wedded state. In

speaking definitely of the _act_ of marriage, the passive form is

necessarily used with reference to either spouse. "John Jones was

married to Sally Brown on Dec. 1, 1881"; not, "John Jones _married_

Sally Brown" on such a date, for (unless they were Quakers) some third

person married him to her and her to him. But, in speaking indefinitely

of the _fact_ of marriage, the active form is a matter of course. "Whom

did John Jones marry?" "He married Sally Brown." "John Jones, when he

had sown his wild oats, married [married himself, as the French say] and

settled down." _Got married_ is a vulgarism.

MAY. In the sense of _can_, _may_, in a negative clause, has become

obsolete. "Though we _may_ say a horse, we _may_ not say a ox." The

first _may_ here is permissible; not so, however, the second, which

should be _can_.

MEAT. At table, we ask for and offer beef, mutton, veal, steak, turkey,

duck, etc., and do not ask for nor offer _meat_, which, to say the

least, is inelegant. "Will you have [not, take] another piece of _beef_

[not, of _the_ beef]?" not, "Will you have another piece of _meat_?"

MEMORANDUM. The plural is _memoranda_, except when the singular means a

book; then the plural is _memorandums_.

MERE. This word is not unfrequently misplaced, and sometimes, as in the

following sentence, in consequence of being misplaced, it is changed to

an adverb: "It is true of men as of God, that words _merely_ meet with

no response." What the writer evidently intended to say is, that _mere_

words meet with no response.

METAPHOR. An _implied_ comparison is called a metaphor; it is a more

terse form of expression than the simile. Take, for example, this

sentence from Spenser's "Philosophy of Style": "As, in passing through

the crystal, beams of white light are decomposed into the colors of the

rainbow; so, in traversing the soul of the poet, the colorless rays of

truth are transformed into brightly-tinted poetry." Expressed in

metaphors, this becomes: "The white light of truth, in traversing the

many-sided, transparent soul of the poet, is refracted into iris-hued

poetry."

Worcester's definition of a _metaphor_ is: "A figure of speech founded

on the resemblance which one object is supposed to bear, in some

respect, to another, or a figure by which a word is transferred from a

subject to which it properly belongs to another, in such a manner that a

_comparison is implied, though not formally expressed_; a comparison or

simile comprised in a word; as, 'Thy word is a _lamp_ to my feet.'" A

_metaphor_ differs from a _simile_ in being expressed without any sign

of comparison; thus, "the _silver_ moon" is a _metaphor_; "the moon is

bright as silver" is a simile. Examples:

"But look, the morn, in russet mantle clad,

Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastern hill."

"Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased--

Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow?"

"At length Erasmus

Stemmed the wild torrent of a barbarous age,

And drove those holy Vandals off the stage."

"Censure is the tax a man pays to the public for being eminent."

METONYMY. The rhetorical figure that puts the effect for the cause, the

cause for the effect, the container for the thing contained, the sign,

or symbol, for the thing signified, or the instrument for the agent, is

called _metonymy_.

"One very common species of _metonymy_ is, when the badge is put for the

office. Thus we say the _miter_ for the priesthood; the _crown_ for

royalty; for military occupation we say the _sword_; and for the

literary professions, those especially of theology, law, and physic, the

common expression is the _gown_."--Campbell.

Dr. Quackenbos, in his "Course of Composition and Rhetoric," says:

"_Metonymy_ is the exchange of names between things related. It is

founded, not on resemblance, but on the relation of, 1. Cause and

effect; as,'They have _Moses_ and _the prophets_,' i. e., their

writings; '_Gray hairs_ should be respected,' i. e., _old age_. 2.

Progenitor and posterity; as, 'Hear, O Israel!' i. e., _descendants of

Israel_. 3. Subject and attribute; as, '_Youth_ and _beauty_ shall be

laid in dust,' i. e., _the young_ and _beautiful_. 4. Place and

inhabitant; as, 'What _land_ is so barbarous as to allow this

injustice?' i. e., what _people_. 5. Container and thing contained; as,

'Our _ships_ next opened fire,' i. e., our _sailors_. 6. Sign and thing

signified; as, 'The _scepter_ shall not depart from Judah,' i. e.,

_kingly_ power. 7. Material and thing made of it; as, 'His _steel_

gleamed on high,' i. e., his _sword_."

"Petitions having proved unsuccessful, it was determined to approach the

throne more boldly."

MIDST, THE. See IN OUR MIDST.

MIND--CAPRICIOUS. "Lord Salisbury's _mind_ is _capricious_."--"Tribune,"

April 3, 1881. See EQUANIMITY OF MIND.

MISPLACED CLAUSES. In writing and speaking, it is as important to give

each clause its proper place as it is to place the words properly. The

following are a few instances of misplaced clauses and adjuncts: "All

these circumstances brought close to us a state of things which we never

thought to have witnessed [_to witness_] in peaceful England. _In the

sister island, indeed, we had read of such horrors_, but now they were

brought home to our very household hearth."--Swift. Better: "We had

read, indeed, of such horrors occurring in the sister island," etc.

"The savage people in many places in America, except the government of

families, have no government at all, and live at this day in that savage

manner as I have said before."--Hobbes. Better: "The savage people ...

in America have no government at all, except the government of

families," etc.

"I shall have a comedy for you, in a season or two at farthest, that I

believe will be worth your acceptance."--Goldsmith. Bettered: "In a

season or two at farthest, I shall have a comedy for you that I believe

will be worth your acceptance."

Among the following examples of the wrong placing of words and clauses,

there are some that are as amusing as they are instructive: "This

orthography is regarded as normal _in England_." What the writer

intended was, "in England _as normal_"--a very different thought. "The

Normal School is a commodious building capable of accommodating three

hundred students four stories high." "HOUSEKEEPER.--A highly respectable

middle-aged Person who has been filling the above Situation with a

gentleman for upwards of eleven years and who is now deceased is anxious

to meet a similar one." "TO PIANO-FORTE MAKERS.--A lady keeping a

first-class school requiring a good piano, is desirous of receiving a

daughter of the above in exchange for the same." "The Moor, seizing a

bolster boiling over with rage and jealousy, smothers her." "The Dying

Zouave the most wonderful mechanical representation ever seen of the

last breath of life being shot in the breast and life's blood leaving

the wound." "Mr. T---- presents his compliments to Mr. H----, and I have

got a hat that is not his, and, if he have a hat that is not yours, no

doubt they are the expectant ones." See ONLY.

MISPLACED WORDS. "Of all the faults to be found in writing," says

Cobbett, "this is one of the most common, and perhaps it leads to the

greatest number of misconceptions. All the words may be the proper words

to be used upon the occasion, and yet, by a _misplacing_ of a part of

them, the meaning may be wholly destroyed; and even made to be the

contrary of what it ought to be."

"I asked the question with no other intention than to set the gentleman

free from the necessity of silence, and to give him an opportunity of

mingling on equal terms with a polite assembly from which, _however

uneasy_, he could not then _escape_, _by a kind introduction_ of the

only subject on which I believed him to be able to speak with

propriety."--Dr. Johnson.

"This," says Cobbett, "is a very bad sentence altogether. '_However

uneasy_' applies to _assembly_ and not to _gentleman_. Only observe how

easily this might have been avoided. 'From which _he_, _however uneasy_,

could not then escape.' After this we have, '_he_ could not then

_escape_, _by a kind introduction_.' We know what is _meant_; but the

Doctor, with all his _commas_, leaves the sentence confused. Let us see

whether we can not make it clear. 'I asked the question with no other

intention than, by a kind introduction of the only subject on which I

believed him to be able to speak with propriety, to set the gentleman

free from the necessity of silence, and to give him an opportunity of

mingling on equal terms with a polite assembly from which he, however

uneasy, could not then escape.'"

"Reason is the glory of human nature, and one of the chief eminences

whereby we are raised above our fellow-creatures, the brutes, _in this

lower world_."--Doctor Watts' "Logic."

"I have before showed an error," Cobbett remarks, "in the _first_

sentence of Doctor Watts' work. This is the _second_ sentence. The words

_in this lower world_ are not words _misplaced_ only; they are wholly

_unnecessary_, and they do great harm; for they do these two things:

first, they imply _that there are brutes in the higher world_; and,

second, they excite a doubt _whether we are raised above those brutes_.

"I might greatly extend the number of my extracts from these authors;

but here, I trust, are enough. I had noted down about _two hundred

errors_ in Dr. Johnson's 'Lives of the Poets'; but, afterward perceiving

that he had revised and corrected 'The Rambler' with _extraordinary

care_, I chose to make my extracts from that work rather than from the

'Lives of the Poets.'"

The position of the adverb should be as near as possible to the word it

qualifies. Sometimes we place it before the auxiliary and sometimes

after it, according to the thought we wish to express. The difference

between "The fish should _properly_ be broiled" and "The fish should be

_properly_ broiled" is apparent at a glance. "The colon may be

_properly_ used in the following cases": should be, "may _properly_ be

used." "This mode of expression _rather suits_ a familiar than a grave

style": should be, "suits a familiar _rather than_ a grave style." "It

is a frequent error _in the writings even_ of some good authors": should

be, "in the writings of _even some good_ authors." "_Both_ the

circumstances of contingency and futurity are necessary": should be,

"The circumstances of contingency and futurity are _both_ necessary."

"He has made charges ... which he has failed _utterly_ to

sustain."--"New York Tribune." Here it is uncertain at first sight which

verb the adverb is intended to qualify; but the nature of the case makes

it probable that the writer meant "has utterly failed to sustain."

MISTAKEN. "If I am not _mistaken_, you are in the wrong": say, "If I

_mistake not_." "I tell you, you are _mistaken_." Here _mistaken_ means,

"You are wrong; you do not understand"; but it might be taken to mean,

"I _mistake you_." For "you are _mistaken_," say, "you _mistake_." If,

as Horace and Professor Davidson aver, usage in language makes right,

then the grammarians ought long ago to have invented some theory upon

which the locution _you are mistaken_ could be defended. Until they do

invent such a theory, it will be better to say _you mistake_, _he

mistakes_, and so on; or _you are_, or _he is_--as the case may be--_in

error_.

MORE PERFECT. Such expressions as, "the _more_ perfect of the two," "the

_most_ perfect thing of the kind I have ever seen," "the _most_ complete

cooking-stove ever invented," and the like, can not be defended

logically, as nothing can be more perfect than perfection, or more

complete than completeness. Still such phrases are, and probably will

continue to be, used by good writers.

MOST. "Everybody abuses this word," says Mr. Gould in his "Good

English"; and then, in another paragraph, he adds: "If a man would cross

out _most_ wherever he can find it in any book in the English language,

he would in _al_most every instance improve the style of the book." That

this statement may appear within bounds, he gives many examples from

good authors, some of which are the following: "a _most_ profound

silence"; "a _most_ just idea"; "a _most_ complete orator"; "this was

_most_ extraordinary"; "an object of _most_ perfect esteem"; "a _most_

extensive erudition"; "he gave it _most_ liberally away"; "it is, _most_

assuredly, not because I value his services least"; "would _most_

seriously affect us"; "that such a system must _most_ widely and _most_

powerfully," etc.; "it is _most_ effectually nailed to the counter"; "it

is _most_ undeniable that," etc.

This word is much, and very erroneously, used for _almost_. "He comes

here _most_ every day." The user of such a sentence as this means to say

that he comes _nearly_ every day, but he _really says_, if he says

anything, that he comes more every day than he does every night. In such

sentences _almost_, and not _most_, is the word to use.

MUTUAL. This word is much misused in the phrase "our _mutual_ friend."

Macaulay says: "_Mutual_ friend is a low vulgarism for _common_ friend."

_Mutual_ properly relates to two persons, and implies reciprocity of

sentiment--sentiment, be it what it may, received and returned. Thus, we

say properly, "John and James have a _mutual_ affection, or a _mutual_

aversion," i. e., they like or dislike each other; or, "John and James

are _mutually_ dependent," i. e., they are dependent on each other. In

using the word _mutual_, care should be taken not to add the words _for

each other_ or _on each other_, the thought conveyed by these words

being already expressed in the word _mutual_. "Dependent on each other"

is the exact equivalent of "mutually dependent"; hence, saying that John

and James are _mutually_ dependent _on each other_ is as redundant in

form as it would be to say that the editors of "The Great Vilifier" are

the biggest, greatest mud-slingers in America.

MYSELF. This form of the personal pronoun is properly used in the

nominative case only where _increased emphasis_ is aimed at.

"I had as lief not be as live to be

In awe of such a thing as I _myself_."

"I will do it _myself_," "I saw it _myself_." It is, therefore,

incorrect to say, "Mrs. Brown and myself were both very much pleased."

NAME. This word is sometimes improperly used for _mention_; thus, "I

never _named_ the matter to any one": should be, "I never _mentioned_

the matter to any one."

NEIGHBORHOOD. See VICINITY.

NEITHER. See EITHER.

NEITHER--NOR. "He would _neither_ give wine, _nor_ oil, _nor_

money."--Thackeray. The conjunction should be placed before the excluded

object; "neither _give_" implies neither some other _verb_, a meaning

not intended. Rearrange thus, taking all the common parts of the

contracted sentences together: "He would give _neither_ wine, _nor_ oil,

_nor_ money." So, "She can _neither_ help her beauty, _nor_ her courage,

_nor_ her cruelty" (Thackeray), should be, "She can help _neither_,"

etc. "He had _neither_ time to intercept _nor_ to stop her" (Scott),

should be, "He had time _neither_ to intercept," etc. "Some _neither_

can for wits _nor_ critics pass" (Pope), should be, "Some can _neither_

for wits _nor_ critics pass."

NEVER. Grammarians differ with regard to the correctness of using

_never_ in such sentences as, "He is in error, though _never_ so wise,"

"Charm he _never_ so wisely." In sentences like these, to say the least,

it is better, in common with the great majority of writers, to use

_ever_.

NEW. This adjective is often misplaced. "He has a _new_ suit of clothes

and a _new_ pair of gloves." It is not the _suit_ and the _pair_ that

are new, but the _clothes_ and the _gloves_.

NICE. Archdeacon Hare remarks of the use, or rather misuse, of this

word: "That stupid vulgarism by which we use the word _nice_ to denote

almost every mode of approbation, for almost every variety of quality,

and, from sheer poverty of thought, or fear of saying anything definite,

wrap up everything indiscriminately in this characterless domino,

speaking at the same breath of a _nice_ cheese-cake, a _nice_ tragedy, a

_nice_ sermon, a _nice_ day, a _nice_ country, as if a universal deluge

of _niaiserie_--for _nice_ seems originally to have been only

_niais_--had whelmed the whole island." Nice is as good a word as any

other in its place, but its place is not everywhere. We talk very

properly about a _nice_ distinction, a _nice_ discrimination, a _nice_

calculation, a _nice_ point, and about a person's being _nice_, and

over-_nice_, and the like; but we certainly ought not to talk about

"Othello's" being a _nice_ tragedy, about Salvini's being a _nice_

actor, or New York bay's being a _nice_ harbor.[23]

NICELY. The very quintessence of popinjay vulgarity is reached when

_nicely_ is made to do service for _well_, in this wise: "How do you

do?" "_Nicely_." "How are you?" "_Nicely_."

NO. This word of negation is responded to by _nor_ in sentences like

this: "Let your meaning be obscure, and _no_ grace of diction _nor_ any

music of well-turned sentences will make amends."

"Whether he is there or _no_." Supply the ellipsis, and we have,

"Whether he is there or _no_ there." Clearly, the word to use in

sentences like this is not _no_, but _not_. And yet our best writers

sometimes inadvertently use _no_ with _whether_. Example: "But perhaps

some people are quite indifferent _whether_ or _no_ it is said,"

etc.--Richard Grant White, in "Words and Their Uses," p. 84. Supply the

ellipsis, and we have, "said or _no_ said." In a little book entitled

"Live and Learn," I find, "No _less_ than fifty persons were there; No

_fewer_," etc. In correcting one mistake, the writer himself makes one.

It should be, "_Not_ fewer," etc. If we ask, "There were fifty persons

there, were there or were there _not_?" the reply clearly would be,

"There were _not_ fewer than fifty." "There was _no_ one of them who

would not have been proud," etc., should be, "There was _not_ one of

them."

NOT. The correlative of _not_, when it stands in the first member of a

sentence, is _nor_ or _neither_. "_Not_ for thy ivory _nor_ thy gold

will I unbind thy chain." "I will _not_ do it, _neither_ shall you."

The wrong placing of _not_ often gives rise to an imperfect negation;

thus, "John and James were _not_ there," means that John and James were

not there _in company_. It does not exclude the presence of one of them.

The negative should precede in this case: "Neither John _nor_ James was

there." "Our company was _not_ present" (as a company, but some of us

might have been), should be, "No member of our company was present."

NOT--BUT ONLY. "Errors frequently arise in the use of _not_--but _only_,

to understand which we must attend to the force of the whole

expression. 'He did _not_ pretend to extirpate French music, _but only_

to cultivate and civilize it.' Here the _not_ is obviously misplaced.

'He pretended, or professed, _not_ to extirpate.'"--Bain.

NOTORIOUS. Though this word can not be properly used in any but a bad

sense, we sometimes see it used instead of _noted_, which may be used in

either a good or a bad sense. _Notorious_ characters are always persons

to be shunned, whereas _noted_ characters may or may not be persons to

be shunned.

"This is the tax a man must pay for his virtues--they hold up a torch to

his vices and render those frailties _notorious_ in him which would pass

without observation in another."--Lacon.

NOVICE. See AMATEUR.

NUMBER. It is not an uncommon thing for a pronoun in the plural number

to be used in connection with an antecedent in the singular. At present,

the following notice may be seen in some of our Broadway omnibuses:

"Fifty dollars reward for the conviction of any person caught collecting

or keeping fares given to _them_ to deposit in the box." Should be, to

_him_. "A person may be very near-sighted if _they_ can not recognize an

acquaintance ten feet off." Should be, if _he_.

The verb _to be_ is often used in the singular instead of in the plural;

thus, "There _is_ several reasons why it would be better": say, _are_.

"How many _is_ there?" say, _are_. "There _is_ four": say, _are_. "_Was_

there many?" say, _were_. "No matter how many there _was_": say, _were_.

A verb should agree in number with its subject, and not with its

predicate. We say, for example, "Death _is_ the wages of sin," and "The

wages of sin _are_ death."

"When singular nouns connected by _and_ are preceded by _each_,

_every_, or _no_, the verb must be singular." We say, for example,

"_Each_ boy and _each_ girl _studies_." "_Every_ leaf, and _every_ twig,

and _every_ drop of water _teems_ with life." "_No_ book and _no_ paper

_was_ arranged."

_Each_ being singular, a pronoun or verb to agree with it must also be

singular; thus, "Let them depend each on _his_ own exertions"; "Each

city has _its_ peculiar privileges"; "Everybody has a right to look

after _his_ own interest."

Errors are often the result of not repeating the verb; thus, "Its

significance is as varied as the passions": correctly, "as _are_ the

passions." "The words are as incapable of analysis as the thing

signified": correctly, "as _is_ the thing signified."

OBSERVE. The dictionaries authorize the use of this word as a synonym of

_say_ and _remark_; as, for example, "What did you _observe_?" for "What

did you _say_, or _remark_?" In this sense, however, it is better to

leave _observe_ to the exclusive use of those who delight in being fine.

O'CLOCK. "It is a quarter _to_ ten o'clock." What does this statement

mean, literally? We _understand_ by it that it lacks a quarter of ten,

i. e., of being ten; but it does not really mean that. Inasmuch as _to_

means toward, it _really_ means a quarter after nine. We should say,

then, a quarter _of_, which means, literally, a quarter _out of_ ten.

OF ALL OTHERS. "The vice of covetousness, _of all others_, enters

deepest into the soul." This sentence says that covetousness is one of

the _other_ vices. A thing can not be _another_ thing, nor can it be one

of a number of _other_ things. The sentence should be, "Of all the

vices, covetousness enters deepest into the soul"; or, "The vice of

covetousness, of all the vices, enters," etc.; or, "The vice of

covetousness, _above_ all others, enters," etc.

OF ANY. This phrase is often used when _of all_ is meant; thus, "This is

the largest _of any_ I have seen." Should be, "the largest _of all_,"

etc.

OFF OF. In such sentences as, "Give me a yard _off of_ this piece of

calico," either the _off_ or the _of_ is vulgarly superfluous. The

sentence would be correct with either one, but not with both of them.

"The apples fell _off of_ the tree": read, "fell _off_ the tree."

OFTEN. This adverb is properly compared by changing its termination:

often, oftener, oftenest. Why some writers use _more_ and _most_ to

compare it, it is not easy to see; this mode of comparing it is

certainly not euphonious.

OH--O. It is only the most careful writers who use these two

interjections with proper discrimination. The distinction between them

is said to be modern. _Oh_ is simply an exclamation, and should always

be followed by some mark of punctuation, usually by an exclamation

point. "Oh! you are come at last." "Oh, help him, you sweet heavens!"

"Oh, woe is me!" "Oh! I die, Horatio." _O_, in addition to being an

exclamation, denotes a calling to or adjuration; thus, "Hear, O heavens,

and give ear, O earth!" "O grave, where is thy victory?" "O heavenly

powers, restore him!" "O shame! where is thy blush?"

OLDER--ELDER. "He is the _older_ man of the two, and the _oldest_ in the

neighborhood." "He is the _elder_ of the two sons, and the _eldest_ of

the family." "The _elder_ son is heir to the estate; he is _older_ than

his brother by ten years."

ON TO. We get _on_ a chair, _on_ an omnibus, _on_ a stump, and _on_ a

spree, and not on _to_.

ONE. Certain pronouns of demonstrative signification are called

indefinite because they refer to no particular subject. This is one of

them. If we were putting a supposition by way of argument or

illustration, we might say, "Suppose _I_ were to lose my way in a

wood"; or, "Suppose _you_ were to lose your way in a wood"; or, "Suppose

_one_ were to lose _one's_ way in a wood." All these forms are used,

but, as a rule, the last is to be preferred. The first verges on

egotism, and the second makes free with another's person, whereas the

third is indifferent. "If _one's_ honesty were impeached, what should

_one_ do?" is more courtly than to take either one's self or the person

addressed for the example.

_One_ should be followed by _one_, and not by _he_. "The better

acquainted _one_ is with any kind of rhetorical trick, the less liable

_he_ is to be misled by it." Should be, "the less liable _one_ is to be

misled by it."

In the phrase, "any of the little _ones_," _one_ is the numeral employed

in the manner of a pronoun, by indicating something that has gone

before, or, perhaps, has to come after. "I like peaches, but I must have

a ripe _one_, or ripe _ones_."

Professor Bain says, in his "Composition Grammar":

"This pronoun continually lands writers in difficulties. English idiom

requires that, when the pronoun has to be again referred to, it should

be used itself a second time. The correct usage is shown by Pope: '_One_

may be ashamed to consume half _one's_ days in bringing sense and rhyme

together.' It would be against idiom to say 'half _his_ days.'

"Still, the repetition of the pronoun is often felt to be heavy, and

writers have recourse to various substitutions. Even an ear accustomed

to the idiom can scarcely accept with unmixed pleasure this instance

from Browning:

"'Alack! _one_ lies _oneself_

Even in the stating that _one's_ end was truth,

Truth only, if _one_ states so much in words.'

"The representative 'I' or 'we' occasionally acts the part of 'one.' The

following sentence presents a curious alternation of 'we' with

'one'--possibly not accidental (George Eliot): 'It's a desperately

vexatious thing that, after all _one's_ reflections and quiet

determinations, _we_ should be ruled by moods that _one_ can't calculate

on beforehand.' By the use of 'we' here, a more pointed reference is

suggested, while the vagueness actually remains.

"Fenimore Cooper, like Scott, is not very particular; an example may be

quoted: 'Modesty is a poor man's wealth; but, as _we_ grow substantial

in the world, patroon, _one_ can afford to begin to speak truth of

_himself_ as well as of _his_ neighbor.' Were Cooper a careful writer,

we might persuade ourselves that he chose 'we' and 'one' with a purpose:

'we' might indicate that the speaker had himself and the patroon

directly in his eye, although at the same time he wanted to put it

generally; and 'one' might hint that modesty succeeded in getting the

better of him. But 'himself' and 'his' would alone show that such

speculations are too refined for the occasion.

"The form 'a man,' which was at one time common, seems to be reviving.

In 'Adam Bede' we have, '_A man_ can never do anything at variance with

his own nature.' We might substitute 'one.'

"'Men' was more frequent in good writing formerly than now. 'Neither do

_men_ light a candle, and put it under a bushel.' 'Do _men_ gather

grapes of thorns?' Hume is fond of expressing a general subject by

'men.'

"'Small birds are much more exposed to the cold than large _ones_.' This

usage is hardly 'indefinite'; and it needs no further exemplification."

ONLY. This word, when used as an adjective, is more frequently misplaced

than any other word in the language. Indeed, I am confident that it is

not correctly placed half the time, either in conversation or in

writing. Thus, "In its pages, papers of sterling merit [only] will

_only_ appear" (Miss Braddon); "Things are getting dull down in Texas;

they _only_ shot [only] three men down there last week"; "I have _only_

got [only] three." _Only_ is sometimes improperly used for _except_ or

_unless_; thus, "The trains will not stop _only_ when the bell rings."

The meaning here is clearly "_except_ when the bell rings."

Dr. Bain, in his "Higher English Grammar," speaking of the order of

words, says:

"The word requiring most attention is _only_.

"According to the position of _only_, the same words may be made to

express very different meanings.

"'He _only_ lived for their sakes.' Here _only_ must be held as

qualifying '_lived_ for their sakes,' the emphasis being on _lived_, the

word immediately adjoining. The meaning then is 'he _lived_,' but did

not _work_, did not _die_, did not do any other thing for their sakes.

"'He lived _only_ for their sakes.' _Only_ now qualifies 'for their

sakes,' and the sentence means he lived for this one reason, namely, for

their sakes, and not for any other reason.

"'He lived for their sakes _only_.' The force of the word when placed at

the end is peculiar. Then it often has a diminutive or disparaging

signification. 'He lived for their sakes,' and not for any more worthy

reason. 'He gave sixpence _only_,' is an insinuation that more was

expected.

"By the use of _alone_, instead of _only_, other meanings are expressed.

'He _alone_ lived for their sakes'; that is, _he, and nobody else_, did

so. 'He lived for their sakes _alone_,' or, 'for the sake of them

_alone_'; that is, not for the sake of any other persons. 'It was

_alone_ by the help of the Confederates that any such design could be

carried out.' Better _only_.

"'When men grow virtuous in their old age, they _only_ make a sacrifice

to God of the devil's leavings.'--Pope. Here _only_ is rightly placed.

'Think _only_ of the past as its remembrance gives you pleasure,' should

be, 'think of the past, _only_ as its remembrance,' etc. 'As he did not

leave his name, it was _only_ known that a gentleman had called on

business': it was known _only_. 'I can _only_ refute the accusation by

laying before you the whole': this would mean, 'the only thing I am able

to do is to refute; I may not retaliate, or let it drop, I must _refute_

it.' 'The negroes are to appear at church _only_ in boots'; that is,

when the negroes go to church they are to have no clothing but boots.

'The negroes are to appear _only_ at church in boots' might mean that

they are not to appear anywhere but at church, whether in boots or out

of them. The proper arrangement would be to connect the adverbial

adjunct, _in boots_, with its verb, _appear_, and to make _only_ qualify

_at church_ and no more: 'the negroes are to appear in boots _only_ at

church.'"

It thus appears very plain that we should look well to our _onlys_.

OUGHT--SHOULD. These two words, though they both imply obligation,

should not be used indiscriminately. _Ought_ is the stronger term; what

we _ought_ to do, we are morally bound to do. We _ought_ to be truthful

and honest, and _should_ be respectful to our elders and kind to our

inferiors.

OVERFLOWN. _Flown_ is the past participle of _to fly_, and _flowed_ of

_to flow_. As, therefore, a river does not _fly_ over its banks, but

_flows_ over them, we should say of it that it has over_flowed_, and not

that it has over_flown_.

OVERLY. This word is now used only by the unschooled.

OWING. See DUE.

PANTS. This abbreviation is not used by those who are careful in the

choice of words. The purist does not use the word _pantaloons_ even, but

_trousers_. _Pants_ are worn by _gents_ who eat _lunches_ and _open_

wine, and _trousers_ are worn by _gentlemen_ who eat _luncheons_ and

_order_ wine.

PARAPHERNALIA. This is a law term. In Roman law, it meant the goods

which a woman brought to her husband besides her dowry. In English law,

it means the goods which a woman is allowed to have after the death of

her husband, besides her dower, consisting of her apparel and ornaments

suitable to her rank. When used in speaking of the affairs of every-day

life, it is generally misused.

PARLOR. This word, in the sense of _drawing-room_, according to Dr.

Hall, except in the United States and some of the English colonies, is

obsolete.

PARTAKE. This is a very fine word to use for _eat_; just the word for

young women who hobble on French heels.

PARTIALLY--PARTLY. "It is only _partially_ done." This use of the adverb

_partially_ is sanctioned by high authority, but that does not make it

correct. A thing done in part is _partly_, not _partially_, done.

PARTICIPLES. When the present participle is used substantively, in

sentences like the following, it is preceded by the definite article and

followed by the preposition _of_. The omitting of the preposition is a

common error. Thus, "Or, it is _the drawing_ a conclusion which was

before either unknown or dark," should be, "the drawing _of_ a

conclusion." "Prompted by the most extreme vanity, he persisted in the

writing bad verses," should be, "in writing bad verses," or "in the

writing _of_ bad verses." "There is a misuse of the article _a_ which is

very common. It is the using it before the word _most_."--Moon. Most

writers would have said "the using _of_ it." Mr. Moon argues for his

construction.

PARTICLES. "Nothing but study of the best writers and practice in

composition will enable us to decide what are the prepositions and

conjunctions that ought to go with certain verbs. The following examples

illustrate some common blunders:

"'It was characterized _with_ eloquence': read, 'by.'

"'A testimonial _of_ the merits of his grammar': read, 'to.'

"'It was an example of the love _to form_ comparisons': read, 'of

forming.'

"'Repetition is always to be preferred _before_ obscurity': read, 'to.'

"'He made an effort _for meeting_ them': read, 'to meet.'

"'They have no _other_ object _but_ to come': read, 'other object than,'

or omit 'other.'

"Two verbs are not unfrequently followed by a single preposition, which

accords with one only; e. g., 'This duty _is repeated_ and inculcated

_upon_ the reader.' 'Repeat _upon_' is nonsense; we must read 'is

repeated _to_ and inculcated upon.'"--Nichol's "English Composition," p.

39. We often see _for_ used with the substantive _sympathy_; the best

practice, however, uses _with_; thus, "Words can not express the deep

sympathy I feel _with_ you."--Queen Victoria.

PARTY. This is a very good word in its place, but it is very much out of

its place when used--as it often is by the vulgar--where good taste

would use the word _person_.

PATRONIZE. This word and its derivatives would be much less used by the

American tradesman than they are, if he were better acquainted with

their true meaning. Then he would solicit his neighbors' _custom_, not

their _patronage_. A man can have no _patrons_ without incurring

obligations--without becoming a _protégé_; while a man may have

customers innumerable, and, instead of placing himself under obligations

to them, he may place them under obligations to him. Princes are the

_patrons_ of those tradesmen whom they allow to call themselves their

purveyors; as, "John Smith, Haberdasher to H. R. H. the Prince of

Wales." Here the Prince _patronizes_ John Smith.

PELL-MELL. This adverb means mixed or mingled together; as, "Men,

horses, chariots, crowded _pell-mell_." It can not properly be applied

to an individual. To say, for example, "He rushed pell-mell down the

stairs," is as incorrect as it would be to say, "He rushed down the

stairs _mixed together_."

PER. This Latin preposition is a good deal used in English, as, for

example, in such phrases as _per_ day, _per_ man, _per_ pound, _per_

ton, and so on. In all such cases it is better to use plain English, and

say, _a_ day, _a_ man, _a_ pound, _a_ ton, etc. _Per_ is correct before

Latin nouns only; as, per annum, per diem, per cent., etc.

PERFORM. "She _performs_ on the piano beautifully." In how much better

taste it is to say simply, "She _plays_ the piano well," or, more

superlatively, "exceedingly well," or "admirably"! If we talk about

_performing_ on musical instruments, to be consistent, we should call

those who _perform_, piano-performers, cornet-performers,

violin-performers, and so on.

PERPETUALLY. This word is sometimes misused for _continually_. Dr.

William Mathews, in his "Words, their Use and Abuse," says: "The Irish

are _perpetually_ using _shall_ for _will_." _Perpetual_ means never

ceasing, continuing without intermission, uninterrupted; while

_continual_ means that which is constantly renewed and recurring with

perhaps frequent stops and interruptions. As the Irish do something

_besides_ misuse _shall_, the Doctor should have said that they

_continually_ use _shall_ for _will_. I might perhaps venture to

intimate that _perpetually_ is likewise misused in the following

sentence, which I copy from the "London Queen," if I were not conscious

that the monster who can write and print such a sentence would not

hesitate to cable a thunderbolt at an offender on the slightest

provocation. Judge, if my fears are groundless: "But some few people

contract the ugly habit of making use of these expressions unconsciously

and continuously, _perpetually_ interlarding their conversation with

them."

PERSON. See PARTY; also, INDIVIDUAL.

PERSONALTY. This word does not, as some persons think, mean the articles

worn on one's person. It is properly a law term, and means _personal

property_. "There is but one case on record of a peer of England leaving

over $7,500,000 personalty."

PERSONIFICATION. That rhetorical figure which attributes sex, life, or

action to inanimate objects, or ascribes to objects and brutes the acts

and qualities of rational beings, is called _personification_ or

_prosopopœia_.

"The mountains _sing together_, the hills rejoice and _clap their

hands_." "The worm, _aware_ of his intent, _harangued_ him thus."

"See, _Winter_ comes to _rule_ the varied year,

_Sullen_ and _sad_ with all his rising train."--Thomson.

"So saying, her rash hand, in evil hour,

Forth reaching to the fruit, she plucked, she ate!

_Earth felt the wound; and Nature from her seat,

Sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe,

That all was lost._"--Milton.

"War and Love are strange compeers.

War sheds blood, and Love sheds tears;

War has swords, and Love has darts;

War breaks heads, and Love breaks hearts."

"Levity is often less foolish and gravity less wise than each of them

appears."

"The English language, by reserving the distinction of gender for living

beings that have sex, gives especial scope for personification. The

highest form of personification should be used seldom, and only when

justified by the presence of strong feeling."--Bain.

"Knowledge and wisdom, far from being one,

Have ofttimes no connection. Knowledge dwells

In heads replete with thoughts of other men;

Wisdom in minds attentive to their own.

Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;

Wisdom is humble that he knows no more."--Cowper.

PHENOMENON. Plural, _phenomena_.

PLEAD. The imperfect tense and the perfect participle of the verb _to

plead_ are both _pleaded_ and not _plead_. "He _pleaded_ not guilty."

"You should have _pleaded_ your cause with more fervor."

PLENTY. In Worcester's Dictionary we find the following note: "_Plenty_

is much used colloquially as an adjective, in the sense of _plentiful_,

both in this country and in England; and this use is supported by

respectable authorities, though it is condemned by various critics.

Johnson says: 'It is used barbarously, I think, for _plentiful_'; and

Dr. Campbell, in his 'Philosophy of Rhetoric,' says: '_Plenty_ for

_plentiful_ appears to me so gross a vulgarism that I should not have

thought it worthy of a place here if I had not sometimes found it in

works of considerable merit.'" We should say, then, that money is

_plentiful_, and not that it is _plenty_.

PLEONASM. Redundancy or pleonasm is the use of more words than are

necessary to express the thought clearly. "They returned _back again_ to

the _same_ city _from_ whence they came _forth_": the five words in

italics are _redundant_ or _pleonastic_. "The different departments of

science and of art _mutually_ reflect light _on each other_": either of

the expressions in italics embodies the whole idea. "The _universal_

opinion of _all_ men" is a pleonastic expression often heard. "I wrote

you _a letter_ yesterday": here _a letter_ is redundant.

Redundancy is _sometimes_ permissible for the surer conveyance of

meaning, for emphasis, and in the language of poetic embellishment.

POLITE. This word is much used by persons of doubtful culture, where

those of the better sort use the word _kind_. We accept _kind_, not

_polite_ invitations; and, when any one has been obliging, we tell him

that he has been _kind_; and, when an interviewing reporter tells us of

his having met with a _polite_ reception, we may be sure that the person

by whom he has been received deserves well for his considerate kindness.

"I thank you and Mrs. Pope for my _kind_ reception."--Atterbury.

PORTION. This word is often incorrectly used for _part_. A _portion_ is

properly a part assigned, allotted, set aside for a special purpose; a

share, a division. The verb _to portion_ means to divide, to parcel, to

endow. We ask, therefore, "In what _part_ [not, in what _portion_] of

the country, state, county, town, or street do you live?"--or, if we

prefer grandiloquence to correctness, _reside_. In the sentence, "A

large _portion_ of the land is unfilled," the right word would be

either _part_ or _proportion_, according to the intention of the writer.