POSTED. A word very much and very ineleg_The Verbalist A Manual Devoted to Brief Discussions of the Right and the Wrong Use of Words and to Some Other Matters of Interest to Those Who Would Speak and Write with Propriety.

expressions as, "I will _post_ you," "I must _post_ myself up," "If I

had been better _posted_," and the like, are, at the best, but one

remove from slang.

PREDICATE. This word is often very incorrectly used in the sense of _to

base_; as, "He _predicates_ his opinion on insufficient data." Then we

sometimes hear people talk about predicating an action upon certain

information or upon somebody's statement. To predicate means primarily

_to speak before_, and has come to be properly used in the sense of

_assumed_ or believed to be the consequence of. Examples: "Contentment

is _predicated_ of virtue"; "Good health may be _predicated_ of a good

constitution." He who is not very sure that he uses the word correctly

would do better not to use it at all.

PREJUDICE--PREPOSSESS. Both these words mean, to incline in one

direction or the other for some reason not founded in justice; but by

common consent _prejudice_ has come to be used in an unfavorable sense,

and _prepossess_ in a favorable one. Thus, we say, "He is _prejudiced_

against him," and "He is _prepossessed_ in his favor." We sometimes hear

the expression, "He is _prejudiced_ in his favor," but this can not be

accounted a good use of the word.

PREPOSITIONS. The errors made in the use of the prepositions are very

numerous. "The indolent child is one who [that?] has a strong aversion

_from_ action of any sort."--Graham's "English Synonymes," p. 236. The

prevailing and best modern usage is in favor of _to_ instead of _from_

after _averse_ and _aversion_, and before the object. "Clearness ...

enables the reader to see thoughts without noticing the language _with_

which they are clothed."--Townsend's "Art of Speech." We clothe thoughts

_in_ language. "Shakespeare ... and the Bible are ... models _for_ the

English-speaking tongue."--Ibid. If this means models of English, then

it should be _of_; but if it means models for English organs of speech

to practice on, then it should be _for_; or if it means models to model

English tongues after, then also it should be _for_. "If the resemblance

is too faint, the mind is fatigued _while_ attempting to trace the

analogies." "Aristotle is in error _while_ thus describing

governments."--Ibid. Here we have two examples, not of the misuse of the

preposition, but of the erroneous use of the adverb _while_ instead of

the preposition _in_. "For my part I can not think that Shelley's

poetry, except _by_ snatches and fragments, has the value of the good

work of Wordsworth or Byron."--Matthew Arnold. Should be, "except _in_

snatches." "Taxes with us are collected nearly [almost] solely _from_

real and personal estate."--"Appletons' Journal." Taxes are levied _on_

estates and collected _from_ the owners.

"If I am not commended _for_ the beauty of my works, I may hope to be

pardoned for their brevity." Cobbett comments on this sentence as

follows: "We may commend him _for_ the beauty of his works, and we may

_pardon_ him _for_ their brevity, if we deem the brevity _a fault_; but

this is not what he means. He means that, at any rate, he shall have the

_merit_ of brevity. 'If I am not commended for the beauty of my works, I

may hope to be pardoned _on account of_ their brevity.' This is what the

Doctor meant; but this would have marred a little the antithesis: it

would have unsettled a little of the balance of that _seesaw_ in which

Dr. Johnson so much delighted, and which, falling into the hands of

novel-writers and of members of Parliament, has, by moving unencumbered

with any of the Doctor's reason or sense, lulled so many thousands

asleep! Dr. Johnson created a race of writers and speakers. 'Mr.

Speaker, that the state of the nation is very critical, all men will

allow; but that it is wholly desperate, few will believe.' When you hear

or see a sentence like this, be sure that the person who speaks or

writes it has been reading Dr. Johnson, or some of his imitators. But,

observe, these imitators go no further than the frame of the sentences.

They, in general, take care not to imitate the Doctor in knowledge and

reasoning."

The rhetoricians would have us avoid such forms of expression as, "The

boy went _to_ and asked the advice _of_ his teacher"; "I called _on_ and

had a conversation _with_ my brother."

Very often the preposition is not repeated in a sentence, when it should

be. We say properly, "He comes from Ohio or _from_ Indiana"; or, "He

comes _either_ from Ohio or Indiana."

PREPOSSESS. See PREJUDICE.

PRESENT--INTRODUCE. Few errors are more common, especially among those

who are always straining to be fine, than that of using _present_, in

the social world, instead of _introduce_. _Present_ means to place in

the presence of a superior; _introduce_, to bring to be acquainted. A

person is presented at court, and on an official occasion to our

President; but persons who are unknown to each other are _introduced_ by

a common acquaintance. And in these introductions, it is the younger who

is introduced to the older; the lower to the higher in place or social

position; the gentleman to the lady. A lady should say, as a rule, that

Mr. Blank was introduced to her, not that she was introduced to Mr.

Blank.

PRESUMPTIVE. This word is sometimes misused by the careless for

_presumptuous_.

PREVENTIVE. A useless and unwarranted syllable is sometimes added to

this word--_preventative_.

PREVIOUS. This adjective is much used in an adverbial sense; thus,

"_Previous_ to my return," etc. Until _previous_ is recognized as an

adverb, if we would speak grammatically, we must say, "_Previously_ to

my return." "_Previously_ to my leaving England, I called on his

lordship."

PROCURE. This is a word much used by people who strive to be fine.

"Where did you _get_ it?" with them is, "Where did you _procure_ it?"

PROFANITY. The extent to which some men habitually interlard their talk

with oaths is disgusting even to many who, on occasion, do not

themselves hesitate to give expression to their feelings in oaths portly

and unctuous. If these fellows could be made to know how offensive to

decency they make themselves, they would, perhaps, be less profane.

PROMISE. This word is sometimes very improperly used for _assure_; thus,

"I _promise_ you I was very much astonished."

PRONOUNS OF THE FIRST PERSON. "The ordinary uses of 'I' and 'we,' as the

singular and plural pronouns of the first person, would appear to be

above all ambiguity, uncertainty, or dispute. Yet when we consider the

force of the plural 'we,' we are met with a contradiction; for, as a

rule, only one person can speak at the same time to the same audience.

It is only by some exceptional arrangement, or some latitude or license

of expression, that several persons can be conjoint speakers. For

example, a plurality may sing together in chorus, and may join in the

responses at church, or in the simultaneous repetition of the Lord's

Prayer or the Creed. Again, one person may be the authorized spokesman

in delivering a judgment or opinion held by a number of persons in

common. Finally, in written compositions, the 'we' is not unsuitable,

because a plurality of persons may append their names to a document.

"A speaker using 'we' may speak for himself and one or more others;

commonly he stands forward as the representative of a class, more or

less comprehensive. 'As soon as my companion and I had entered the

field, _we_ saw a man coming toward _us_'; '_we_ like _our_ new curate';

'you do _us_ poets the greatest injustice'; '_we_ must see to the

efficiency of _our_ forces.' The widest use of the pronoun will be

mentioned presently.

"'We' is used for 'I' in the decrees of persons in authority; as when

King Lear says:

'Know that _we_ have divided

In three _our_ kingdom.'

By the fiction of plurality a veil of modesty is thrown over the

assumption of vast superiority over human beings generally. Or, 'we' may

be regarded as an official form whereby the speaker personally is

magnified or enabled to rise to the dignity of the occasion.

"The editorial 'we' is to be understood on the same principle. An author

using 'we' appears as if he were not alone, but sharing with other

persons the responsibility of his views.

"This representative position is at its utmost stretch in the practice

of using 'we' for human beings generally; as in discoursing on the laws

of human nature. The preacher, the novelist, or the philosopher, in

dwelling upon the peculiarity of our common constitution, being himself

an example of what he is speaking of, associates the rest of mankind

with him, and speaks collectively by means of 'we.' '_We_ are weak and

fallible'; '_we_ are of yesterday'; '_we_ are doomed to dissolution.'

'Here have _we_ no continuing city, but _we_ seek one to come.'

"It is not unfrequent to have in one sentence, or in close proximity,

both the editorial and the representative meaning, the effect being

ambiguity and confusion. 'Let _us_ [the author] now consider why _we_

[humanity generally] overrate distant good.' In such a case the author

should fall back upon the singular for himself--'_I_ will now

consider--.' '_We_ [speaker] think _we_ [himself and hearers together]

should come to the conclusion.' Say, either '_I_ think,' or '_you_

would.'

"The following extract from Butler exemplifies a similar confusion:

'Suppose _we_ [representative] are capable of happiness and of misery in

degrees equally intense and extreme, yet _we_ [rep.] are capable of the

latter for a much longer time, beyond all comparison. _We_ [change of

subject to a limited class] see men in the tortures of pain--. Such is

_our_ [back to representative] make that anything may become the

instrument of pain and sorrow to _us_.' The 'we' at the commencement of

the second sentence--'_We_ see men in the tortures'--could be

advantageously changed to 'you,' or the passive construction could be

substituted; the remaining _we_'s would then be consistently

representative.

"From the greater emphasis of singularity, energetic speakers and

writers sometimes use 'I' as representative of mankind at large. Thus:

'The current impressions received through the senses are not voluntary

in origin. What _I_ see in walking is seen because _I_ have an organ of

vision.' The question of general moral obligation is forcibly stated by

Paley in the individual form, 'Why am _I_ obliged to keep my word?' It

is sometimes well to confine the attention of the hearer or reader to

his own relation to the matter under consideration, more especially in

difficult or non-popular argument or exposition. The speaker, by using

'I,' does the action himself, or makes himself the example, the hearer

being expected to put himself in the same position."--Bain's

"Composition Grammar."

PRONOUNS OF THE SECOND PERSON. "Anomalous usages have sprung up in

connection with these pronouns. The plural form has almost wholly

superseded the singular; a usage more than five centuries old.[24]

"The motive is courtesy. The singling out of one person for address is

supposed to be a liberty or an excess of familiarity; and the effect is

softened or diluted by the fiction of taking in others. If our address

is uncomplimentary, the sting is lessened by the plural form; and if the

reverse, the shock to modesty is not so great. This is a refinement that

was unknown to the ancient languages. The orators of Greece delighted in

the strong, pointed, personal appeal implied in the singular 'thou.' In

modern German, 'thou' (_du_) is the address of familiarity and intimacy;

while the ordinary pronoun is the curiously indirect 'they' (_Sie_). On

solemn occasions, we may revert to 'thou.' Cato, in his meditative

soliloquy on reading Plato's views on the immortality of the soul before

killing himself, says: 'Plato, _thou_ reasonest well.' So in the

Commandments, 'thou' addresses to each individual an unavoidable appeal:

'_Thou_ shall not----.' But our ordinary means of making the personal

appeal is, 'you, _sir_,' 'you, _madam_,' 'my _Lord_, you----,' etc.; we

reserve 'thou' for the special case of addressing the Deity. The

application of the motive of courtesy is here reversed; it would be

irreverent to merge this vast personality in a promiscuous assemblage.

"'You' is not unfrequently employed, like 'we,' as a representative

pronoun. The action is represented with great vividness, when the person

or persons addressed may be put forward as the performers: 'There is

such an echo among the old ruins, and vaults, that if _you_ stamp a

little louder than ordinary, _you_ hear the sound repeated'; 'Some

practice is required to see these animals in the thick forest, even when

_you_ hear them close by _you_.'

"There should not be a mixture of 'thou' and 'you' in the same passage.

Thus, Thackeray (Adventures of Philip): 'So, as _thy_ sun rises, friend,

over the humble house-tops round about _your_ home, shall _you_ wake

many and many a day to duty and labor.' So, Cooper (Water-Witch):

'_Thou_ hast both master and mistress? _You_ have told us of the latter,

but we would know something of the former. Who is _thy_ master?'

Shakespeare, Scott, and others might also be quoted.

"'Ye' and 'you' were at one time strictly distinguished as different

cases; 'ye' was nominative, 'you' objective (dative or accusative). But

the Elizabethan dramatists confounded the forms irredeemably; and 'you'

has gradually ousted 'ye' from ordinary use. 'Ye' is restricted to the

expression of strong feeling, and in this employment occurs chiefly in

the poets."--Bain's "Composition Grammar."

PROOF. This word is much and very improperly used for _evidence_, which

is only the medium of _proof_, _proof_ being the effect of _evidence_.

"What _evidence_ have you to offer in _proof_ of the truth of your

statement?" See also EVIDENCE.

PROPOSE--PURPOSE. Writers and speakers often fail to discriminate

properly between the respective meanings of these two verbs. _Propose_,

correctly used, means, to put forward or to offer for _the

consideration of others_; hence, _a proposal_ is a scheme or design

offered for acceptance or consideration, a proposition. _Purpose_ means,

to intend, to design, to resolve; hence, _a purpose_ is an intention, an

aim, that which one sets _before one's self_. Examples: "What do you

_purpose_ doing in the matter?" "What do you _propose_ that we shall do

in the matter?" "I will do" means "I _purpose_ doing, or to do." "I

_purpose_ to write a history of England from the accession of King James

the Second down to a time which is within the memory of men still

living."--Macaulay. It will be observed that Macaulay says, "I purpose

_to write_" and not, "I purpose _writing_," using the verb in the

infinitive rather than in the participial form. "On which he _purposed_

to mount one of his little guns." See INFINITIVE.

PROPOSITION. This word is often used when _proposal_ would be better,

for the reason that _proposal_ has but one meaning, and is shorter by

one syllable. "He demonstrated the _proposition_ of Euclid, and rejected

the _proposal_ of his friend."

PROSAIST. Dr. Hall is of opinion that this is a word we shall do well to

encourage. It is used by good writers.

PROVEN. This form for the past participle of the verb _to prove_ is said

to be a Scotticism. It is not used by careful writers and speakers. The

correct form is _proved_.

PROVIDING. The present participle of the verb _to provide_ is sometimes

vulgarly used for the conjunction _provided_, as in this sentence from

the "London Queen": "Society may be congratulated, ... _providing_

that," etc.

PROVOKE. See AGGRAVATE.

PUNCTUATION. The importance of punctuation can not be overestimated; it

not only helps to make plain the meaning of what one writes, but it may

prevent one's being misconstrued. Though no two writers could be found

who punctuate just alike, still in the main those who pay attention to

the art put in their stops in essentially the same manner. The

difference that punctuation may make in the meaning of language is well

illustrated by the following anecdote:

At Ramessa there lived a benevolent and hospitable prior, who caused

these lines to be painted over his door:

"Be open evermore,

O thou my door!

To none be shut--to honest or to poor!"

In time the good prior was succeeded by a man as selfish as his

predecessor was generous. The lines over the door of the priory were

allowed to remain; one stop, however, was altered, which made them read

thus:

"Be open evermore,

O thou my door!

To none--be shut to honest or to poor!"

He punctuates best who makes his punctuation contribute most to the

clear expression of his thought; and that construction is best that has

least need of being punctuated.

THE COMMA.--The chief difference in the punctuation of different

writers is usually in their use of the comma, in regard to which there

is a good deal of latitude; much is left to individual taste. Nowadays

the best practice uses it sparingly. An idea of the extent to which

opinions differ with regard to the use of the comma may be formed from

the following excerpt from a paper prepared for private use:

"In the following examples, gathered from various sources--chiefly

from standard books--the superfluous commas are inclosed in

parentheses:

"1. 'It remains(,) perhaps(,) to be said(,) that, if any lesson at

all(,) as to these delicate matters(,) is needed(,) in this period, it

is not so much a lesson,' etc. 2. 'The obedience is not due to the

power of a right authority, but to the spirit of fear, and(,)

therefore(,) is(,) in reality(,) no obedience at all.' 3. 'The patriot

disturbances in Canada ... awakened deep interest among the people of

the United States(,) who lived adjacent to the frontier.' 4.

'Observers(,) who have recently investigated this point(,) do not all

agree,' etc. 5. 'The wind did(,) in an instant(,) what man and steam

together had failed to do in hours.' 6. 'All the cabin passengers(,)

situated beyond the center of the boat(,) were saved.' 7. 'No other

writer has depicted(,) with so much art or so much accuracy(,) the

habits, the manners,' etc. 8. 'If it shall give satisfaction to those

who have(,) in any way(,) befriended it, the author will feel,' etc.

9. 'Formed(,) or consisting of(,) clay.' 10. 'The subject [witchcraft]

grew interesting; and(,) to examine Sarah Cloyce and Elizabeth

Proctor, the deputy-governor(,) and five other magistrates(,) went to

Salem.' 11. 'The Lusitanians(,) who had not left their home(,) rose as

a man,' etc. 12. 'Vague reports ... had preceded him to Washington,

and his Mississippi friends(,) who chanced to be at the capital(,)

were not backward to make their boast of him.' 13. 'Our faith has

acquired a new vigor(,) and a clearer vision.' 14. 'In 1819(,) he

removed to Cambridge.' 15. 'Doré was born at Strasburg(,) in 1832, and

labors,' etc. 16. 'We should never apply dry compresses, charpie, or

wadding(,) to the wound.' 17. '--to stand idle, to look, act, or

think(,) in a leisurely way.' 18. '--portraits taken from the farmers,

schoolmasters, and peasantry(,) of the neighborhood.' 19. '--gladly

welcomed painters of Flanders, Holland, and Spain(,) to their

shores.'

"In all these cases, the clauses between or following the inclosed

commas are so closely connected grammatically with the immediately

preceding words or phrases, that they should be read without a

perceptible pause, or with only a slight one for breath, without

change of voice. Some of the commas would grossly pervert the meaning

if strictly construed. Thus, from No. 3 it would appear that the

people of the United States in general lived adjacent to the frontier;

from No. 4, that all observers have recently investigated the point in

question; from No. 6, that all the cabin passengers were so situated

that they were saved, whereas it is meant that only a certain small

proportion of them were saved; from No. 10 (Bancroft), that somebody

whose name is accidentally omitted went to Salem 'to examine Sarah

Cloyce and Elizabeth Proctor, the deputy-governor, and five other

magistrates'; from No. 11, that none of the Lusitanians had left their

home, whereas it was the slaughter by the Romans of a great number of

them who _had_ left their home that caused the rising.

"Commas are frequently omitted, and in certain positions very

generally, where the sense and correct reading require a pause. In the

following examples, such commas, omitted in the works from which they

were taken, are inclosed in brackets:

"1. 'The modes of thought[,] and the types of character which those

modes produce[,] are essentially and universally transformed.' 2.

'Taken by itself[,] this doctrine could have no effect whatever;

indeed[,] it would amount to nothing but a verbal proposition.' 3.

'Far below[,] the little stream of the Oder foamed over the rocks.' 4.

'When the day returned[,] the professor, the artist[,] and I rowed to

within a hundred yards of the shore.' 5. 'Proceeding into the interior

of India[,] they passed through Belgaum.' 6. 'If Loring is defeated

in the Sixth District[,] it can be borne.'

"In No. 3, the reader naturally enunciates 'the little stream of the

Oder' as in the objective case after 'below'; but there he comes to a

predicate which compels him to go back and read differently. In No. 4,

it appears that 'the day returned the professor,' and then 'the artist

and I rowed,' etc."

All clauses should generally be isolated by commas; where, however,

the connection is very close or the clause is very short, no point may

be necessary. "But his pride is greater than his ignorance, and what

he wants in knowledge he supplies by sufficiency." "A man of polite

imagination can converse with a picture, and find an agreeable

companion in a statue." "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him."

"The prince, his father being dead, succeeded." "To confess the truth,

I was much at fault." "As the heart panteth after the water-brooks, so

panteth my soul after thee." "Where the bee sucks, there suck I." "His

father dying, he succeeded to the estate." "The little that is known,

and the circumstance that little is known, must be considered as

honorable to him."

The comma is used before and after a phrase when coördinating and not

restrictive. "The jury, having retired for half an hour, brought in a

verdict." "The stranger, unwilling to obtrude himself on our notice,

left in the morning." "Rome, the city of the Emperors, became the city

of the Popes." "His stories, which made everybody laugh, were often

made to order." "He did not come, which I greatly regret." "The

younger, who was yet a boy, had nothing striking in his appearance."

"They passed the cup to the stranger, who drank heartily." "Peace at

any price, which these orators seem to advocate, means war at any

cost." "Sailors, who are generally superstitious, say it is unlucky to

embark on Friday."

Adverbs and short phrases, _when they break the connection_, should be

between commas. Some of the most common words and phrases so used are

the following: Also, too, there, indeed, perhaps, surely, moreover,

likewise, however, finally, namely, therefore, apparently, meanwhile,

consequently, unquestionably, accordingly, notwithstanding, in truth,

in fact, in short, in general, in reality, no doubt, of course, as it

were, at all events, to be brief, to be sure, now and then, on the

contrary, in a word, by chance, in that case, in the mean time, for

the most part. "History, in a word, is replete with moral lessons."

"As an orator, however, he was not great." "There is, remember, a

limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue." "Our civilization,

therefore, is not an unmixed good." "This, I grant you, is not of

great importance."

If, however, the adverb does not break the connection, but readily

coalesces with the rest of the sentence, the commas are omitted.

"Morning will come at last, however dark the night may be." "We then

proceeded on our way." "Our civilization is therefore not an unmixed

good." "Patience, I say; your mind perhaps may change."

Adverbial phrases and clauses beginning a sentence are set off by

commas. "In truth, I could not tell." "To sum up, the matter is this."

"Everything being ready, they set out." "By looking a little deeper,

the reason will be found." "Finally, let me sum up the argument." "If

the premises were admitted, I should deny the conclusion." "Where your

treasure is, there will your heart be also."

Words used in apposition should be isolated by commas. "Newton, the

great mathematician, was very modest." "And he, their prince, shall

rank among my peers." In such sentences, however, as, "The

mathematician Newton was very modest," and "The Emperor Napoleon was a

great soldier," commas are not used.

The name or designation of a person addressed is isolated by commas.

"It touches you, my lord, as well as me." "John, come here." "Mr.

President, my object is peace." "Tell me, boy, where do you live?"

"Yes, sir, I will do as you say." "Mr. Brown, what is your number?"

Pairs of words.--"Old and young, rich and poor, wise and foolish, were

involved." "Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I give my

hand and heart to this vote." "Interest and ambition, honor and shame,

friendship and enmity, gratitude and revenge, are the prime movers in

public transactions."

A restrictive clause is not separated by a comma from the noun. "Every

one must love a boy who [that] is attentive and docile." "He preaches

sublimely who [that] lives a holy life." "The things which [that] are

seen are temporal." "A king depending on the support of his subjects

can not rashly go to war." "The sailor who [that] is not superstitious

will embark any day."

The comma is used after adjectives, nouns, and verbs in sentences like

the following:

"Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils

Shrunk to this little measure?"

"He fills, he bounds, connects and equals all."

"Who to the enraptured heart, and ear, and eye

Teach beauty, virtue, truth, and love, and melody."[25]

"He rewarded his friends, chastised his foes, set Justice on her seat,

and made his conquest secure."

The comma is used to separate adjectives in opposition, but closely

connected. "Though deep, yet clear; though gentle, yet not dull."

"Liberal, not lavish, is kind Nature's hand." "Though black, yet

comely; and though rash, benign."

After a nominative, where the verb is understood. "To err is human; to

forgive, divine." "A wise man seeks to shine in himself; a fool, in

others." "Conversation makes a ready man; writing, an exact man;

reading, a full man."

A long subject is often separated from the predicate by a comma. "Any

one that refuses to earn an honest livelihood, is not an object of

charity." "The circumstance of his being unprepared to adopt immediate

and decisive measures, was represented to the Government." "That he

had persistently disregarded every warning and persevered in his

reckless course, had not yet undermined his credit with his dupes."

"That the work of forming and perfecting the character is difficult,

is generally allowed."

In a series of adjectives that precede their noun, a comma is placed

after each except the last; there usage omits the point. "A beautiful,

tall, willowy, sprightly girl." "A quick, brilliant, studious, learned

man."[26]

A comma is placed between short members of compound sentences,

connected by _and_, _but_, _for_, _nor_, _or_, _because_, _whereas_,

_that_ expressing purpose (so that, in order that), and other

conjunctions. "Be virtuous, that you may be respected." "Love not

sleep, lest you come to poverty." "Man proposes, but God disposes."

A comma must not be placed before _that_ except when it is equivalent

to _in order that_. "He says that he will be here."

A comma must not be placed before _and_ when it connects two words

only. "Time and tide wait for no man." "A rich and prosperous people."

"Plain and honest truth wants no artificial covering."

A comma is sometimes necessary to prevent ambiguity. "He who pursues

pleasure only defeats the object of his creation." Without a comma

before or after _only_, the meaning of this sentence is doubtful.

The following sentences present some miscellaneous examples of the use

of the comma by writers on punctuation: "Industry, as well as genius,

is essential to the production of great works." "Prosperity is secured

to a state, not by the acquisition of territory or riches, but by the

encouragement of industry." "Your manners are affable, and, for the

most part, pleasing."[27]

"However fairly a bad man may appear to act, we distrust him." "Why,

this is rank injustice." "Well, follow the dictates of your

inclination." "The comma may be omitted in the case of _too_, _also_,

_therefore_, and _perhaps_, when introduced so as not to interfere

with the harmonious flow of the period; and, particularly, when the

sentence is short."[28] "Robert Horton, M. D., F. R. S." "To those who

labor, sleep is doubly pleasant"; "Sleep is doubly pleasant to those

who labor." "Those who persevere, succeed." "To be overlooked,

slighted, and neglected; to be misunderstood, misrepresented, and

slandered; to be trampled under foot by the envious, the ignorant, and

the vile; to be crushed by foes, and to be distrusted and betrayed

even by friends--such is too often the fate of genius." "She is tall,

though not so handsome as her sister." "Verily, verily, I say unto

you." "Whatever is, is right." "What is foreordained to be, will be."

"The Emperor Augustus was a patron of the fine arts." "Augustus, the

Emperor, was a patron of the fine arts." "United, we stand; divided,

we fall." "God said, Let there be light." "July 21, 1881." "President

Garfield was shot, Saturday morning, July 2, 1881; he died, Monday

night, Sept. 19, 1881." "I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient

servant, John Jones." "New York, August, 1881." "Room 20, Equitable

Building, Broadway, New York."

"_When you are in doubt as to the propriety of inserting commas, omit

them_; IT IS BETTER TO HAVE TOO FEW THAN TOO MANY."--Quackenbos.

THE SEMICOLON.--Reasons are preceded by semicolons; "Economy is no

disgrace; for it is better to live on a little than to outlive a great

deal." Clauses in opposition are separated by a semicolon when the

second is introduced by an adversative: "Straws swim at the surface;

but pearls lie at the bottom"; "Lying lips are an abomination to the

Lord; but they that deal truly are his delight." Without the

adversative, the colon is to be preferred: "Prosperity showeth vice:

adversity, virtue." The great divisions of a sentence must be pointed

with a semicolon when the minor divisions are pointed with commas:

"Mirth should be the embroidery of conversation, not the web; and wit

the ornament of the mind, not the furniture." The things enumerated

must be separated by semicolons, when the enunciation of particulars

is preceded by a colon: "The value of a maxim depends on four things:

the correctness of the principle it embodies; the subject to which it

relates; the extent of its application; and the ease with which it may

be practically carried out." When _as_ introduces an example, it is

preceded by a semicolon. When several successive clauses have a common

connection with a preceding or following clause, they are separated by

semicolons; as, "Children, as they gamboled on the beach; reapers, as

they gathered the harvest; mowers, as they rested from using the

scythe; mothers, as they busied themselves about the household--were

victims to an enemy, who disappeared the moment a blow was struck."

"Reason as we may, it is impossible not to read in such a fate much

that we know not how to interpret; much of provocation to cruel deeds

and deep resentment; much of apology for wrong and perfidy; much of

doubt and misgiving as to the past; much of painful recollections;

much of dark foreboding." "Philosophers assert that Nature is

unlimited; that her treasures are endless; that the increase of

knowledge will never cease."

THE COLON.--This point is less used now than formerly: its place is

supplied by the period, the semicolon, or the dash; and sometimes,

even by the comma. The colon is used very differently by different

writers. "He was heard to say, 'I have done with this world.'" Some

writers would put a colon, some a comma, after _say_. "When the quoted

passage is brought in without any introductory word, if short," says

Quackenbos, "it is generally preceded by a comma; if long, by a colon;

as, 'A simpleton, meeting a philosopher, asked him, "What affords wise

men the greatest pleasure?" Turning on his heel, the sage replied,

"To get rid of fools."'"

Formal enumerations of particulars, and direct quotations, when

introduced by such phrases as _in these words_, _as follows_, _the

following_, _namely_, _this_, _these_, _thus_, etc., are properly

preceded by a colon. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that

all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness." "Lord Bacon has summed up the whole matter

in the following words: 'A little philosophy inclineth men's minds to

atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds to religion.'"

"The human family is composed of five races: first, the Caucasian;

second, the Mongolian; third, the," etc.

"All were attentive to the godlike man

When from his lofty couch he thus began:

'Great queen,'" etc.--Dryden.

When the quotation, or other matter, begins a new paragraph, the colon

is, by many writers, followed with a dash; as, "The cloth being

removed, the President rose and said:--

"'Ladies and gentlemen, we are,'" etc.

The colon is used to mark the greater breaks in sentences, when the

lesser breaks are marked by semicolons. "You have called yourself an

atom in the universe; you have said that you are but an insect in the

solar blaze: is your present pride consistent with these professions?"

"A clause is either independent or dependent: independent, if it forms

an assertion by itself; dependent, if it enters into some other clause

with the value of a part of speech." A colon is sometimes used instead

of a period to separate two short sentences, which are closely

connected. "Never flatter people: leave that to such as mean to

betray them." "Some things we can, and others we can not do: we can

walk, but we can not fly."

THE PERIOD.--Complete sentences are always followed either by a

period, or by an exclamation or an interrogation point.[29]

The period is also used after abbreviations; as, R. D. Van Nostrand,

St. Louis, Mo.; Jno. B. Morris, M. D., F. R. S., London, Eng.; Jas. W.

Wallack, Jr., New York City, N. Y.; Jas. B. Roberts, Elocutionist,

Phila., Pa.

INTERROGATION-POINT.--This point is used after questions put by the

writer, and after questions reported directly. "What can I do for

you?" "Where are you going?" "What do you say?" cried the General.

"The child still lives?" It should not be used when the question is

reported indirectly. "He asked me where I was going." "The Judge asked

the witness if he believed the man to be guilty."

EXCLAMATION-POINT.--This mark is placed after interjections, after

sentences and clauses of sentences of passionate import, and after

solemn invocations and addresses. "Zounds! the man's in earnest."

"Pshaw! what can we do?" "Bah! what's that to me?" "Indeed! then I

must look to it." "Look, my lord, it comes!" "Rest, rest, perturbed

spirit!" "O heat, dry up my brains!" "Dear maid, kind sister, sweet

Ophelia!" "While in this part of the country, I once more

revisited--and, alas, with what melancholy presentiments!--the home of

my youth." "O rose of May!" "Oh, from this time forth, my thoughts be

bloody or be nothing worth!" "O heavens! die two months ago, and not

forgotten yet?"

"Night, sable goddess! from her ebon throne,

In rayless majesty now stretches forth

Her leaden scepter o'er a slumbering world.

Silence, how dead! and darkness, how profound!"--Young.

"Hail, holy light! offspring of heaven just born!"--Milton.

"But thou, O Hope! with eyes so fair,

What was thy delighted measure?"--Collins.

It will be observed that the interjection O is an exception to the

rule: it is often followed by a comma, but never by an

exclamation-point.

An exclamation-point sometimes gives the same words quite another

meaning. The difference between "What's that?" and "What's that!" is

obvious.

THE DASH.--Cobbett did not favor the use of this mark, as we see from

the following: "Let me caution you against the use of what, by some,

is called the _dash_. The dash is a stroke along the line; thus, 'I am

rich--I was poor--I shall be poor again.' This is wild work indeed!

Who is to know what is intended by these _dashes_? Those who have

thought proper, like Mr. Lindley Murray, to place the _dash_ amongst

the _grammatical points_, ought to give us some rule relative to its

different longitudinal dimensions in different cases. The _inch_, the

_three-quarter-inch_, the _half-inch_, the _quarter-inch_: these would

be something determinate; but '_the dash_,' without measure, must be a

perilous thing for the young grammarian to handle. In short, '_the

dash_' is a cover for ignorance as to the use of points, and it can

answer no other purpose."

This is one of the few instances in which Cobbett was wrong. The

_dash_ is the proper point with which to mark an unexpected or

emphatic pause, or a sudden break or transition. It is very often

preceded by another point. "And Huitzilopochtli--a sweet name to roll

under one's tongue--for how many years has this venerable war-god

blinked in the noonday sun!" "Crowds gathered about the newspaper

bulletins, recalling the feverish scenes that occurred when the

President's life was thought to be hanging by a thread. 'Wouldn't it

be too bad,' said one, 'if, after all--no, I won't allow myself to

think of it.'" "Was there ever--but I scorn to boast." "You are--no,

I'll not tell you what you are."

"He suffered--but his pangs are o'er;

Enjoyed--but his delights are fled;

Had friends--his friends are now no more;

And foes--his foes are dead."--Montgomery.

"Greece, Carthage, Rome,--where are they?" "He chastens;--but he

chastens to save."

Dashes are much used where parentheses were formerly employed. "In the

days of Tweed the expression to divide fair--forcible, if not

grammatical--acquired much currency." "In truth, the character of the

great chief was depicted two thousand five hundred years before his

birth, and depicted--such is the power of genius--in colors which will

be fresh as many years after his death." "To render the Constitution

perpetual--which God grant it may be!--it is necessary that its

benefits should be practically felt by all parts of the country."

PARENTHESIS.--This mark is comparatively little used nowadays. The

dash is preferred, probably because it disfigures the page less. The

office of the parenthesis is to isolate a phrase which is merely

incidental, and which might be omitted without detriment to the

grammatical construction.

"Know then this truth (enough for man to know),

Virtue alone is happiness below."--Pope.

"The bliss of man (could pride that blessing find)

Is not to act or think beyond mankind."

BRACKETS.--This mark is used principally to inclose words improperly

omitted by the writer, or words introduced for the purpose of

explanation or to correct an error. The bracket is often used in this

book.

THE APOSTROPHE.--This point is used to denote the omission of letters

and sometimes of figures; as, Jan'y, '81; _I've_ for _I have_;

_you'll_ for _you will_; _'tis_ for _it is_; _don't_ for _do not_;

_can't_ for _can not_; It was in the year '93; the spirit of '76; It

was in the years 1812, '13, and '14.

Also to denote the possessive case; as, Brown's house; the king's

command; Moses' staff; for conscience' sake; the boys' garden.

Also with _s_ to denote the plural of letters, figures, and signs; as,

Cross your _t_'s, dot your _i_'s, and mind your _p_'s and _q_'s; make

your 5's better, and take out the _x_'s.

CAPITALS.--A capital letter should begin every sentence, every line of

verse, and every direct quotation.

All names of the Deity, of Jesus Christ, of the Trinity, and of the

Virgin Mary must begin with a capital. Pronouns are usually

capitalized when they refer to the Deity.

Proper names, and nouns and adjectives formed from proper names, names

of streets, of the months, of the days of the week, and of the

holidays, are capitalized.

Titles of nobility and of high office, when used to designate

particular persons, are capitalized; as, the Earl of Dunraven, the

Mayor of Boston, the Baron replied, the Cardinal presided.

THE PARAGRAPH.--In writing for the press, the division of matter into

paragraphs is often quite arbitrary; in letter-writing, on the

contrary, the several topics treated of should, as a rule, be isolated

by paragraphic divisions. These divisions give one's letters a

shapely appearance that they otherwise never have.

PURCHASE. This word is much preferred to its synonym _buy_, by that

class of people who prefer the word _reside_ to _live_, _procure_ to

_get_, _inaugurate_ to _begin_, and so on. They are generally of those

who are great in pretense, and who would be greater still if they were

to pretend to all they have to pretend to.

PURPOSE. See PROPOSE.

QUANTITY. This word is often improperly used for _number_. _Quantity_

should be used in speaking of what is measured or weighed; _number_, of

what is counted. Examples: "What _quantity_ of apples have you, and what

_number_ of pineapples?" "Delaware produces a large _quantity_ of

peaches and a large _number_ of melons."

QUIT.--This word means, properly, to leave, to go away from, to forsake;

as, "Avaunt! _quit_ my sight." This is the only sense in which the

English use it. In America, it is generally used in the sense of to

leave off, to stop; as, "_Quit_ your nonsense"; "_Quit_ laughing";

"_Quit_ your noise"; "He has _quit_ smoking," and so on.

QUITE. This word originally meant completely, perfectly, totally,

entirely, fully; and this is the sense in which it was used by the early

writers of English. It is now often used in the sense of _rather_; as,

"It is _quite_ warm"; "She is _quite_ tall"; "He is _quite_ proficient."

Sometimes it is incorrectly used in the sense of _considerable_; as,

_quite_ an amount, _quite_ a number, _quite_ a fortune. _Quite_,

according to good modern usage, may qualify an adjective, but not a

noun. "She is quite the lady," is a vile phrase, meaning, "She is very

or _quite_ ladylike."

RAILROAD DEPOT. Few things are more offensive to fastidious ears than to

hear a railway _station_ called a _depot_. A depot is properly a place

where goods or stores of any kind are kept; and the places at which the

trains of a railroad--or, better, rail_way_--stop for passengers, or the

points from which they start and at which they arrive, are, properly,

the _stations_.

RAILWAY. The English prefer this word to rail_road_.

RAISE THE RENT. An expression incorrectly used for _increase the rent_.

RARELY. It is no uncommon thing to see this adverb improperly used in

such sentences as, "It is very _rarely_ that the puppets of the romancer

assume," etc.--"Appletons' Journal," February, 1881, p. 177. "But," says

the defender of this phraseology, "_rarely_ qualifies a verb--the verb

_to be_." Not at all. The sentence, if written out in full, would be,

"It is a very rare thing that," etc., or "The circumstance is a very

rare one that," etc., or "It is a very rare occurrence that," etc. To

those who contend for "It is very _rarely_ that," etc., I would say, It

is very _sadly_ that persons of culture will write and then defend--or

rather try to defend--such grammar.

RATIOCINATE. See EFFECTUATE.

REAL.--This adjective is often vulgarly used in the sense of the adverb

_very_; thus, _real_ nice, _real_ pretty, _real_ angry, _real_ cute, and

so on.

RECOMMEND. This word, which means to commend or praise to another, to

declare worthy of esteem, trust, or favor, is sometimes put to strange

uses. Example: "Resolved, that the tax-payers of the county be

_recommended_ to meet," etc. What the resolving gentlemen meant was,

that the tax-payers should be _counseled_ to meet.

REDUNDANCY. See PLEONASM.

RELIABLE. This is a modern word which is often met with; but it is not

used by our careful writers. They prefer its synonym _trustworthy_, and

argue that, in consequence of being ill-formed, _reliable_ can not

possibly have the signification in which it is used.

REMAINDER. See BALANCE.

RENDITION. This word is much misused for _rendering_. Example: "The

excellence of Mr. Gilbert's _rendition_ of certain characters, Sir Peter

and Sir Antony, for instance, is not equaled," etc. _Rendition_ means

the act of yielding possession, surrender, as the _rendition_ of a town

or fortress. The sentence above should read, "The excellence of Mr.

Gilbert's _rendering_," etc. _Rendition_ is also sometimes improperly

used for _performance_.

REPLY. See ANSWER.

REPUTATION. See CHARACTER.

RESIDE. A big word that Mr. Wouldbe uses where Mr. Is uses the little

word _live_.

RESIDENCE. In speaking of a man's domicile, it is not only in better

taste but more correct to use the term _house_ than _residence_. A man

has a _residence_ in New York, when he has lived here long enough to

have the right to exercise the franchise here; and he may have a _house_

in Fifth Avenue where he _lives_. People who _are_ live in houses;

people who _would be_ reside in residences. The former _buy_ things; the

latter _purchase_ them.

REST. See BALANCE.

RESTIVE. Some of the dictionaries, Richard Grant White, and some other

writers, contend that this word, when properly used, means unwilling to

go, standing still stubbornly, obstinate, stubborn, and nothing else. In

combating this opinion, Fitzedward Hall says: "Very few instances, I

apprehend, can be produced, from our literature, of this use of

_restive_." Webster gives impatient, uneasy, as a second meaning; and

this is the sense in which the word is nearly always used.

RETIRE. It is only the over-nice who use _retire_ in the sense of _go to

bed_.

REVEREND--HONORABLE. Many persons are in doubt whether they should or

should not put _the_ before these adjectives. Emphatically, yes, they

should. See "Words and Their Uses," by Richard Grant White, for a full

discussion of the question; also "Good English," by Edward S. Gould.

RHETORIC. The art which has for its object the rendering of language

effective is called _rhetoric_. Without some study of the art of

composition, no one can expect to write well, or to judge the literary

work of others.

"True ease in writing comes from art, not chance,

As those move easiest who have learned to dance."

RIDE--DRIVE. Fashion, both in England and in this country, says that we

must always use the second of these words when we speak of going out in

a carriage, although _ride_ means, according to all the lexicographers,

"to be carried on a horse or other animal, or in any kind of vehicle or

carriage."

RIGHT. Singularly enough, this word is made, by some people, to do

service for _ought_, _in duty bound_, under _obligation_ to; thus, "You

had a _right_ to tell me," meaning, "You should have told me." "The

Colonists contended that they _had no right_ to pay taxes," meaning,

"They were _under no obligation_ to pay taxes," i. e., that it was

unjust to tax them.

RIGHT HERE. The expressions "right here" and "right there" are

Americanisms. Correctly, "just here" and "just there."

ROLLING. The use of this participial adjective in the sense of

undulating is said to be an Americanism. Whether an Americanism or not,

it would seem to be quite unobjectionable.

RUBBERS. This word, in common with _gums_ and _arctics_, is often, in

defiance of good taste, used for _overshoes_.

SABBATH. This term was first used in English for Sunday, or Lord's day,

by the Puritans. Nowadays it is little used in this sense. The word to

use is _Sunday_.

SARCASM. Bain says that _sarcasm_ is vituperation softened in the

outward expression by the arts and figures of disguise--epigram,

innuendo, irony--and embellished with the figures of illustration. Crabb

says that _sarcasm_ is the indulgence only of personal resentment, and

is never justifiable.

SATIRE. The holding up to ridicule of the follies and weaknesses of

mankind, by way of rebuke, is called _satire_. Satire is general rather

than individual, its object being the reformation of abuses. A

_lampoon_, which has been defined as a _personal satire_, attacks the

individual rather than his fault, and is intended to injure rather than

to reform.

Said Sheridan: "Satires and lampoons on particular people circulate more

by giving copies in confidence to the friends of the parties than by

printing them."

SAW. The imperfect tense of the verb _to see_ is carelessly used by good

writers and speakers when they should use the perfect; thus, "I never

_saw_ anything like it before," when the meaning intended is, "I _have_

never [in all my life] _seen_ anything like it before [until now]." We

say properly, "I never _saw_ anything like it _when I was in Paris_";

but, when the period of time referred to extends to the time when the

statement is made, it must be _have seen_. Like mistakes are made in

the use of other verbs, but they are hardly as common; yet we often hear

such expressions as, "I _was_ never in Philadelphia," "I never _went_ to

the theatre in my life," instead of _have been_ in Philadelphia, and

_have gone_ to the theatre.

SECTION. The use of this word for region, neighborhood, vicinity, part

(of the town or country), is said to be a Westernism. A _section_ is a

division of the public lands containing six hundred and forty acres.

SEEM--APPEAR. Graham, in his "English Synonymes," says of these two

words: "What _seems_ is in the mind; what _appears_ is external. Things

_appear_ as they present themselves to the eye; they _seem_ as they are

represented to the mind. Things _appear_ good or bad, as far as we can

judge by our senses. Things _seem_ right or wrong as we determine by

reflection. Perception and sensation have to do with appearing;

reflection and comparison, with seeming. When things are not what they

_appear_, our senses are deceived; when things are not what they _seem_,

our judgment is at fault."

"No man had ever a greater power over himself, or was less the man he

_seemed_ to be, which shortly after _appeared_ to everybody, when he

cared less to keep on the mask."--Clarendon.

SELDOM OR EVER. This phrase should be "seldom _if_ ever," or "seldom or

_never_."

SERAPHIM. This is the plural of _seraph_. "One of the _seraphim_." "To

Thee cherubim and seraphim continually do cry." See CHERUBIM.

SET--SIT. The former of these two verbs is often incorrectly used for

the latter. To _set_; imperfect tense, _set_; participles, _setting_,

_set_. To _sit_; imperfect tense, _sat_; participles, _sitting_, _sat_.

To _set_ means to put, to place, to plant; to put in any place,

condition, state, or posture. We say, to _set_ about, to _set_ against,

to _set_ out, to _set_ going, to _set_ apart, to _set_ aside, to _set_

down (to put in writing). To _sit_ means to rest on the lower part of

the body, to repose on a seat, to perch, as a bird, etc. We say, "_Sit_

up," i. e., rise from lying to sitting; "We will _sit_ up," i. e., will

not go to bed; "_Sit_ down," i. e., place yourself on a seat. We _sit_ a

horse and we _sit_ for a portrait. Garments _sit_ well or otherwise.

Congress _sits_, so does a court. "I have _sat_ up long enough." "I have

_set_ it on the table." We _set_ down figures, but we _sit_ down on the

ground. We _set_ a hen, and a hen _sits_ on eggs. We should say,

therefore, "as cross as a _sitting_ [not, as a _setting_] hen."

SETTLE. This word is often inelegantly, if not incorrectly, used for

_pay_. We _pay_ our way, _pay_ our fare, _pay_ our hotel-bills, and the

like. See, also, LOCATE.

SHALL AND WILL. The nice distinctions that should be made between these

two auxiliaries are, in some parts of the English-speaking world, often

disregarded, and that, too, by persons of high culture. The proper use

of _shall_ and _will_ can much better be learned from example than from

precept. Many persons who use them, and also _should_ and _would_, with

well-nigh unerring correctness, do so unconsciously; it is simply habit

with them, and they, though their culture may be limited, will receive a

sort of verbal shock from Biddy's inquiry, "_Will_ I put the kettle on,

ma'am?" when your Irish or Scotch countess would not be in the least

disturbed by it.

SHALL, _in an affirmative sentence, in the first person, and_ WILL _in

the second and third persons, merely announce future action_. Thus, "I

_shall_ go to town to-morrow." "I _shall_ not; I _shall_ wait for

better weather." "We _shall_ be glad to see you." "I _shall_ soon be

twenty." "We _shall_ set out early, and _shall_ try to arrive by

noon." "You _will_ be pleased." "You _will_ soon be twenty." "You

_will_ find him honest." "He _will_ go with us."

SHALL, _in an affirmative sentence, in the second and third persons,

announces the speaker's intention to control_. Thus, "You _shall_ hear

me out." "You _shall_ go, sick or well." "He _shall_ be my heir."

"They _shall_ go, whether they want to go or not."

WILL, _in the first person, expresses a promise, announces the

speaker's intention to control, proclaims a determination_. Thus, "I

_will_ [I promise to] assist you." "I _will_ [I am determined to] have

my right." "We _will_ [we promise to] come to you in the morning."

SHALL, _in an interrogative sentence, in the first and third persons,

consults the will or judgment of another; in the second person, it

inquires concerning the intention or future action of another_. Thus,

"_Shall_ I go with you?" "When _shall_ we see you again?" "When

_shall_ I receive it?" "When _shall_ I get well?" "When _shall_ we get

there?" "_Shall_ he come with us?" "_Shall_ you demand indemnity?"

"_Shall_ you go to town to-morrow?" "What _shall_ you do about it?"

WILL, _in an interrogative sentence, in the second person, asks

concerning the wish, and, in the third person, concerning the purpose

or future action of others_. Thus, "_Will_ you have an apple?" "_Will_

you go with me to my uncle's?" "_Will_ he be of the party?" "_Will_

they be willing to receive us?" "When _will_ he be here?"

_Will_ can not be used interrogatively in the first person singular or

plural. We can not say, "_Will_ I go?" "_Will_ I help you?" "_Will_ I

be late?" "_Will_ we get there in time?" "_Will_ we see you again

soon?"

Official courtesy, in order to avoid the semblance of compulsion,

conveys its commands in the _you-will_ form instead of the strictly

grammatical _you-shall_ form. It says, for example, "You _will_

proceed to Key West, where you will find further instructions awaiting

you."

A clever writer on the use of _shall_ and _will_ says that whatever

concerns one's beliefs, hopes, fears, likes, or dislikes, can not be

expressed in conjunction with _I will_. Are there no exceptions to

this rule? If I say, "I think I _shall_ go to Philadelphia to-morrow,"

I convey the impression that my going depends upon circumstances

beyond my control; but if I say, "I think I _will_ go to Philadelphia

to-morrow," I convey the impression that my going depends upon

circumstances within my control--that my going or not depends on mere

inclination. We certainly must say, "I fear that I _shall_ lose it";

"I hope that I _shall_ be well"; "I believe that I _shall_ have the

ague"; "I hope that I _shall_ not be left alone"; "I fear that we

_shall_ have bad weather"; "I _shall_ dislike the country"; "I _shall_

like the performance." The writer referred to asks, "How can one say,

'I _will_ have the headache'?" I answer, Very easily, as every young

woman knows. Let us see: "Mary, you know you promised John to drive

out with him to-morrow; how _shall_ you get out of it?" "Oh, I _will_

have the headache!" We request that people _will_ do thus or so, and

not that they _shall_. Thus, "It is requested that no one _will_ leave

the room."

_Shall_ is rarely, if ever, used for _will_; it is _will_ that is used

for _shall_. Expressions like the following are common: "Where _will_

you be next week?" "I _will_ be at home." "We _will_ have dinner at

six o'clock." "How _will_ you go about it?" "When _will_ you begin?"

"When _will_ you set out?" "What _will_ you do with it?" In all such

expressions, when it is a question of mere future action on the part

of the person speaking or spoken to, the auxiliary must be _shall_,

and not _will_.

_Should_ and _would_ follow the regimen of _shall_ and _will_. _Would_

is often used for _should_; _should_ rarely for _would_. Correct

speakers say, "I _should_ go to town to-morrow if I had a horse." "I

_should_ not; I _should_ wait for better weather." "We _should_ be

glad to see you." "We _should_ have started earlier, if the weather

had been clear." "I _should_ like to go to town, and _would_ go if I

could." "I _would_ assist you if I could." "I _should_ have been ill

if I had gone." "I _would_ I were home again!" "I _should_ go fishing

to-day if I were home." "I _should_ so like to go to Europe!" "I

_should_ prefer to see it first." "I _should_ be delighted." "I

_should_ be glad to have you sup with me." "I knew that I _should_ be

ill." "I feared that I _should_ lose it." "I hoped that I _should_ see

him." "I thought I _should_ have the ague." "I hoped that I _should_

not be left alone." "I was afraid that we _should_ have bad weather."

"I knew I _should_ dislike the country." "I _should_ not like to do

it, and _will_ not [determination] unless compelled to."

SHIMMY. "We derive from the French language our word

_chemise_--pronounced _shemmeeze_. In French, the word denotes a man's

shirt, as well as the under garment worn by women. In this country, it

is often pronounced by people who should know better--_shimmy_. Rather

than call it _shimmy_, resume the use of the old English words _shift_

and _smock_. Good usage unqualifiedly condemns _gents_, _pants_, _kids_,

_gums_, and _shimmy_."--"Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech."

SHOULD. See OUGHT.

SICK--ILL. These words are often used indiscriminately. _Sick_, however,

is the stronger word, and generally the better word to use. _Ill_ is

used in England more than with us: there _sick_ is generally limited to

the expressing of nausea; as, "sick at the stomach."

SIGNATURE, OVER OR UNDER? A man writes _under_, not _over_, a signature.

Charles Dickens wrote _under_ the signature of "Boz"; Mr. Samuel L.

Clemens writes _under_ the signature of "Mark Twain." The reason given

in Webster's Dictionary for preferring the use of _under_ is absurd;

viz., that the paper is _under_ the hand in writing. The expression is

elliptical, and has no reference to the position either of the signature

or of the paper. "Given under my hand and seal" means "under the

guarantee of my signature and my seal." "Under his own signature" or

"name" means "under his own character, without disguise." "Under the

signature of Boz" means "under the disguise of the assumed name Boz." We

always write _under_ a certain date, though the date be placed, as it

often is, at the bottom of the page.

SIGNS. In one of the principal business streets of New York there is a

sign which reads, "German Lace Store." Now, whether this is a store that

makes a specialty of German laces, or whether it is a store where all

kinds of lace are sold, kept by a German or after the German fashion, is

something that the sign doubtless means to tell us, but, owing to the

absence of a hyphen ("German-Lace Store," or "German Lace-Store"), does

not tell us. Nothing is more common than erroneous punctuation in signs,

and gross mistakes by the unlettered in the wording of the simplest

printed matter.

The bad taste, incorrect punctuation, false grammar, and ridiculous

nonsense met with on signs and placards, and in advertisements, are

really surprising. An advertisement tells us that "a pillow which

assists in procuring sleep is a _benediction_"; a placard, that they

have "Charlotte _de_ Russe" for sale within, which means, if it means

anything, that they have for sale somebody or something called Charlotte

of Russian; and, then, on how many signs do we see the possessive case

when the plural number is intended!

SIMILE. In rhetoric, a direct and formal comparison is called a

_simile_. It is generally denoted by _like_, _as_, or _so_; as,

"I have ventured,

_Like_ little wanton boys that swim on bladders,

These many summers in a sea of glory."

"Thy smile is _as_ the dawn of vernal day."--Shakespeare.

"_As_, down in the sunless retreats of the ocean,

Sweet flow'rets are springing no mortal can see;

_So_, deep in my bosom, the prayer of devotion,

Unheard by the world, rises silent to thee."--Moore.

"'Tis with our judgments _as_ with our watches; none

Go just alike, yet each believes his own."--Pope.

"Grace abused brings forth the foulest deeds,

_As_ richest soil the most luxuriant weeds."--Cowper.

"_As_ no roads are so rough as those that have just been mended, _so_ no

sinners are so intolerant as those who have just turned

saints."--"Lacon."

SIN. See CRIME.

SINCE--AGO. Dr. Johnson says of these two adverbs: "Reckoning time

toward the present, we use _since_; as, 'It is a year _since_ it

happened': reckoning from the present, we use _ago_; as, 'It is a year

_ago_.' This is not, perhaps, always observed."

Dr. Johnson's rule will hardly suffice as a sure guide. _Since_ is often

used for _ago_, but _ago_ never for _since_. _Ago_ is derived from the

participle _agone_, while _since_ comes from a preposition. We say

properly, "not long" or "some time _ago_ [agone]." _Since_ requires a

verbal clause after it; as, "_Since_ I saw you"; "_Since_ he was here."

SING. Of the two forms--_sang_ and _sung_--for the imperfect tense of

the verb to _sing_, the former--_sang_--is to be preferred.

SIT. See SET.

SLANG. The slang that is heard among respectable people is made up of

genuine words, to which an arbitrary meaning is given. It is always low,

generally coarse, and not unfrequently foolish. With the exception of

_cant_, there is nothing that is more to be shunned. We sometimes meet

with persons of considerable culture who interlard their talk with slang

expressions, but it is safe to assert that they are always persons of

coarse natures.

SMART. See CLEVER.

SMELL OF. See TASTE OF.

SO. See AS; SUCH; THAT.

SO MUCH SO. "The shipments by the coast steamers are very large, _so

much so_ [large?] as to tax the capacity of the different

lines."--"Telegram," September 19, 1881. The sentence should be, "The

shipments by the coast steamers are very large, _so large_ as to tax,"

etc.

SOLECISM. In rhetoric, a solecism is defined as an offense against the

rules of grammar by the use of words in a wrong construction; false

syntax.

"Modern grammarians designate by _solecism_ any word or expression which

does not agree with the established usage of writing or speaking. But,

as customs change, that which at one time is considered a _solecism_ may

at another be regarded as correct language. A _solecism_, therefore,

differs from a _barbarism_, inasmuch as the latter consists in the use

of a word or expression which is altogether contrary to the spirit of

the language, and can, properly speaking, never become established as

correct language."--"Penny Cyclopædia." See, also, BARBARISM.

SOME. This word is not unfrequently misused for _somewhat_; thus, "She

is _some_ better to-day." It is likewise often misused for _about_;

thus, "I think it is _some_ ten miles from here": read, "_about_ ten

miles from here."

SPECIALTY. This form has within a recent period been generally

substituted for _speciality_. There is no apparent reason, however, why

the _i_ should be dropped, since it is required by the etymology of the

word, and is retained in nearly all other words of the same formation.

SPECIOUS FALLACY. A _fallacy_ is a sophism, a logical artifice, a

deceitful or false appearance; while _specious_ means having the

appearance of truth, plausible. Hence we see that the very essence of a

_fallacy_ is its _speciousness_. We may very properly say that a

_fallacy_ is more or less _specious_, but we can not properly say that a

fallacy _is_ specious, since without speciousness we can have no

fallacies.

SPLENDID. This poor word is used by the gentler sex to qualify well-nigh

everything that has their approval, from a sugar-plum to the national

capitol. In fact, _splendid_ and _awful_ seem to be about the only

adjectives some of our superlative young women have in their

vocabularies.

STANDPOINT. This is a word to which many students of English seriously

object, and among them are the editors of some of our daily papers, who

do not allow it to appear in their columns. The phrase to which no one

objects is, _point of view_.

STATE. This word, which properly means to make known specifically, to

explain particularly, is often misused for _say_. When _say_ says all

one _wants_ to say, why use a more pretentious word?

STOP. "Where are you _stopping_?" "At the Metropolitan." The proper word

to use here is _staying_. _To stop_ means to cease to go forward, to

leave off; and _to stay_ means to abide, to tarry, to dwell, to sojourn.

We _stay_, not _stop_, at home, at a hotel, or with a friend, as the

case may be.

STORM. Many persons indulge in a careless use of this word, using it

when they mean to say simply that it rains or snows. To a _storm_ a

violent commotion of the atmosphere is indispensable. A very high wind

constitutes a storm, though it be dry.

STRAIGHTWAY. Here is a good Anglo-Saxon word of _two_ syllables whose

place, without any good reason, is being usurped by the Latin word

_immediately_, of _five_ syllables.

STREET. We live _in_, not _on_--meet our acquaintances _in_, not

_on_--things occur _in_, not _on_--houses are built _in_, not _on_, the

street, and so forth.

STYLE. This is a term that is used to characterize the peculiarities

that distinguish a writer or a composition. Correctness and clearness

properly belong to the domain of _diction_; simplicity, conciseness,

gravity, elegance, diffuseness, floridity, force, feebleness,

coarseness, etc., belong to the domain of _style_.

SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD. This mood is unpopular with not a few now-a-day

grammarians. One says that it is rapidly falling into disuse; that, in

fact, there is good reason to suppose it will soon become obsolete.

Another says that it would, perhaps, be better to abolish it entirely,

as its use is a continual source of dispute among grammarians and of

perplexity to schools. Another says that it is a universal

stumbling-block; that nobody seems to understand it, although almost

everybody attempts to use it.

That the subjunctive mood is much less used now than it was a hundred

years ago is certain, but that it is obsolescent is very far from

certain. It would not be easy, I think, to find a single contemporary

writer who does not use it. That it is not always easy to determine what

form of it we should employ is very true; but if we are justified in

abolishing it altogether, as Mr. Chandler suggests, because its correct

use is not always easy, then we are also justified in abolishing the use

of _shall_ and _will_, and of the prepositions, for surely their right

use is likewise at times most puzzling. Meanwhile, most persons will

think it well to learn to use the subjunctive mood properly. With that

object in view, one can not, perhaps, do better than to attend to what

Dr. Alexander Bain, Professor of Logic in the University of Aberdeen,

says upon the subject. In Professor Bain's "Higher English Grammar" we

find:

"In subordinate clauses.--In a clause expressing a condition, and

introduced by a conjunction of condition, the verb is sometimes, but not

always, in the subjunctive mood: 'If I _be_ able,' 'if I _were_ strong

enough,' 'if thou _should_ come.'

"The subjunctive inflexions have been wholly lost. The sense that

something is wanting appears to have led many writers to use indicative

forms where the subjunctive might be expected. The tendency appears

strongest in the case of 'wert,' which is now used as indicative (for

'wast') only in poetical or elevated language.

"The following is the rule given for the use of the subjunctive mood:

"When in a conditional clause it is intended to express doubt or denial,

use the subjunctive mood.[30] 'If I _were_ sure of what you tell me, I

would go.'

"When the conditional clause is _affirmative_ and _certain_, the verb is

_indicative_: 'If that _is_ the case' (as you now tell me, and as I

believe), 'I can understand you.' This is equivalent to a clause of

assumption, or supposition: 'That being the case,' 'inasmuch as that is

the case,' etc.

"As _futurity_ is by its nature uncertain, the subjunctive is

extensively used for future conditionality: 'If it _rain_, we shall not

be able to go'; 'if I _be_ well'; 'if he _come_ shortly'; 'if thou

_return_ at all in peace'; 'though he _slay_ me, yet will I trust in

him.' These events are all in the uncertain future, and are put in the

subjunctive.[31]

"A future result or consequence is expressed by the subjunctive in such

instances as these: 'I will wait till he _return_'; 'no fear lest dinner

_cool_'; 'thou shalt stone him with stones, that he _die_'; 'take heed

lest at any time your hearts _be_ overcharged with surfeiting.'

"Uncertainty as to a past event may arise from our own ignorance, in

which case the subjunctive is properly employed, and serves the useful

purpose of distinguishing our ignorance from our knowledge. 'If any of

my readers _has_ looked with so little attention upon the world around

him'; this would mean--'as I know that they have.' The meaning intended

is probably--'as I do not know whether they have or not,' and therefore

the subjunctive 'have' is preferable. 'If ignorance _is_ bliss,' which I

(ironically) admit. Had Gray been speaking seriously, he would have

said, 'if ignorance _be_ bliss,' he himself dissenting from the

proposition.

"A wish contrary to the fact takes the subjunctive: 'I wish he _were_

here' (which he is not).

"An intention not yet carried out is also subjunctive: 'The sentence is

that you _be_ imprisoned.'

"The only correct form of the future subjunctive is--'if I should.' We

may say, 'I do not know whether or not I _shall_ come'; but 'if I shall

come,' expressing a condition, is not an English construction. 'If he

will' has a real meaning, as being the present subjunctive of the verb

'will': 'if he be willing,' 'if he have the will.' It is in accordance

with good usage to express a future subjunctive meaning by a present

tense; but in that case the form must be strictly subjunctive, and not

indicative. 'If any member _absents_ himself, he shall forfeit a penny

for the use of the club'; this ought to be either 'absent,' or 'should

absent.' 'If thou _neglectest_ or _doest_ unwillingly what I command

thee, I will rack thee with old cramps'; better, 'if thou _neglect_ or

_do_ unwillingly,' or 'if thou should neglect.' The indicative would be

justified by the speaker's belief that the supposition is sure to turn

out to be the fact.

"The past subjunctive may imply denial; as, 'if the book _were_ in the

library (as it is not), it should be at your service.'

"'If the book _be_ in the library,' means, 'I do not know whether it be

or not.' We have thus the power of discriminating _three_ different

suppositions. 'If the book _is_ in the library' (as I know it is); 'if

it _be_' (I am uncertain); 'if it _were_' (as I know it is not). So, 'if

it rains,' 'if it rain,' 'if it rained.' 'Nay, and the villains march

wide between the legs, as if they _had_ gyves on,' implying that they

had not.

"The same power of the past tense is exemplified in 'if I _could_, I

would,' which means, 'I can not'; whereas, 'if I can, I will,' means 'I

do not know.'

"The past subjunctive may be expressed by an inversion: '_Had_ I the

power,' '_were_ I as I have been.'

"In Principal Clauses.--The principal clause in a conditional statement

also takes the subjunctive form when it refers to what is future and

contingent, and when it refers to what is past and uncertain, or denied.

'If he should try, he _would_ succeed'; 'if I had seen him, I _should_

have asked him.'

"The usual forms of the subjunctive in the principal clause are 'would,'

'should,' 'would have,' 'should have'; and it is to be noted that in

this application the second persons take the inflexional ending of the

indicative: 'shouldst,' 'wouldst.'

"'If 'twere done when 'tis done, then 't_were_ (would be) well

It _were_ (should be) done quickly.'

"The English idiom appears sometimes to permit the use of an indicative

where we should expect a subjunctive form. 'Many acts, that _had_ been

otherwise blamable, were employed'; 'I _had_ fainted, unless I had

believed,' etc.

"'Which else _lie_ furled and shrouded in the soul.'

"In 'else' there is implied a conditional clause that would suit 'lie';

or the present may be regarded as a more vivid form of expression. 'Had'

may be indicative; just as we sometimes find pluperfect indicative for

pluperfect subjunctive in the same circumstances in Latin. We may refer

it to the general tendency, as already seen in the uses of 'could,'

'would,' 'should,' etc., to express conditionality by a past tense; or

the indicative may be used as a more direct and vivid mode. 'Had' may be

subjunctive; 'I _had_ fainted' is, in construction, analogous to 'I

_should_ have fainted'; the word for futurity, 'shall,' not being

necessary to the sense, is withdrawn, and its past inflexion transferred

to 'have.' Compare Germ. _würde haben_ and _hätte_."

In addition to the foregoing, we find in Professor Bain's "Composition

Grammar" the following:

"The case most suited to the subjunctive is _contingent futurity_, or

the expression of an event unknown absolutely, as being still in the

future: 'If to-morrow _be_ fine, I will walk with you.'

"'Unless I _were_ prepared,' insinuates pretty strongly that I am or am

not prepared, according to the manner of the principal clause.

"'What's a tall man unless he _fight_?'

"'The sword hath ended him: so shall it thee,

Unless thou _yield_ thee as my prisoner.'

"'Who but must laugh, if such a man there _be_?

Who would not weep, if Atticus _were_ he?'

"'I am to second Ion if he _fail_'; the failing is left quite doubtful.

'I should very imperfectly execute the task which I have undertaken if I

_were_ merely to treat of battles and sieges.' Macaulay thus implies

that the scope of his work is to be wider than mere battles and sieges.

"The subjunctive appears in some other constructions. 'I hope to see the

exhibition before _it close_'; 'wait till he _return_'; 'thou shall

stand by the river's brink against he _come_'; 'take heed lest passion

_sway_ thy judgment'; 'speak to me, though it _be_ in wrath'; 'if he

_smite_ him with an instrument of iron so that he _die_, he is a

murderer'; 'beware this night that thou _cross_ not my footsteps'

(Shelley).

"Again. 'Whatever this _be_'; 'whoever he _be_'; 'howe'er it _be_'

(Tennyson); and such like.

"'And _as long_, O God, _as_ she

_Have_ a grain of love for me,

So long, no doubt, no doubt,

Shall I nurse in my dark heart,

However weary, a spark of will

Not to be trampled out.'

"The Future Subjunctive is given in our scheme of the verb as 'should'

in all persons: 'If I should, if thou should, if he should.' In old

English, we have 'thou _shouldst_': 'if thou, Lord, _shouldst_ mark

iniquities.'

"An inverted conditional form has taken deep root in our language, and

may be regarded as an elegant and forcible variety. While dispensing

with the conjunction, it does not cause ambiguity; nevertheless,

conditionality is well marked.

"'_If_ you _should_ abandon your Penelope and your home for Calypso,

----': '_should_ you abandon ----.'

"'_Go_ not my horse the better,

I must become a borrower of the night

For a dark hour or twain.'

"'Here had we now our country's honor roof'd

_Were_ the graced person of our Banquo present.'

"'_Be_ thou a spirit of health or goblin damn'd,

_Bring_ with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell,

_Be_ thy intents wicked or charitable,

Thou com'st in such a questionable shape

That I will speak to thee.'

"'_Come_ one, _come_ all, this rock shall fly

From its firm base as soon as I.'--Scott.

"The following examples are given by Mätzner:

"'Varney's communications, _be_ they what they might, were operating in

his favor.'--Scott.

"'Governing persons, _were_ they never so insignificant intrinsically,

have for most part plenty of Memoir-writers.'--Carlyle.

"'Even _were_ I disposed, I could not gratify the reader.'--Warren.

"'Bring them back to me, _cost_ what it may.'--Coleridge, 'Wallenstein.'

"'And _will_ you, _nill_ you, I will marry you.'--'Taming of the Shrew.'

"_Were_ is used in the principal clause for 'should be' or 'would

be.'[32]

"'I _were_ (=should be) a fool, not less than if a panther

Were panic-stricken by the antelope's eye,

If she escape me.'--Shelley.

"'Were you but riding forth to air yourself,

Such parting _were_ too petty.'

"'He _were_ (=would be) no lion, were not Romans hinds.'

"'Should he be roused out of his sleep to-night, ...

It _were_ not well; indeed it _were_ not well.'--Shelley.

"_Had_ is sometimes used in the principal clause for 'should have' or

'would have.'[33]

"'Had I known this before we set out, I think I _had_ (= would have)

remained at home.'--Scott.

"'Hadst thou been kill'd when first thou didst presume,

Thou _hadst_ not lived to kill a son of mine.'

"'If he

Had killed me, he _had_ done a kinder deed.'

"'For once he _had_ been ta'en or slain,

An it had not been his ministry.'--Scott.

"'If thou hadst said him nay, it _had_ been sin.'[34]

"'_Had_ better, rather, best, as lief, as well, etc.,' is a form that is

explained under this heading. 'Had' stands for 'would have.' The

exploded notion that 'had' is a corrupted 'would' must be guarded

against.

"'I _had_ as lief not be.' That is--'I _would_ as lief _have_ not (_to_)

be' = 'I would as willingly (or as soon) have non-existence.'

"'_Had_ you rather Cæsar were living----?' '_Would_ you rather _have_

(_would_ you _prefer_ that) Cæsar were living?'

"'He _had_ better reconsider the matter' is 'he _would_ better _have_

(_to_) reconsider the matter.'

"'I _had_ rather be a kitten and cry mew

Than one of these same metre ballad-mongers;

I _had_ rather hear a brazen canstick turned.'

"Let us compare this form with another that appears side by side with it

in early writers. (Cp. Lat. 'habeo' and 'mihi est.')

"The construction of 'had' is thus illustrated in Chaucer, as in--Nonne

Prestes Tale, 300:

"'By God, I _hadde_ levere than my scherte,

That ye hadde rad his legend, as I have.'

"Compare now:

"'Ah _me were levere_ with lawe _loose_ my lyf

Then so to fote hem _falle_.'--Wright, 'Polit. S.'

"Here 'were' is unquestionably for 'would be'; and the whole expression

might be given by 'had,' thus: 'Ah, _I hadde_ levere ----,' '(to)

_loose_' and '(to) _falle_,' changing from subjects of 'were' to objects

of 'hadde.'

"So, in the Chaucer example above, if we substitute 'be' for 'have,' we

shall get the same meaning, thus: 'By God, _me were_ levere ----.' The

interchange helps us to see more clearly that 'hadde' is to be explained

as subjunctive for 'would have.'" See INDICATIVE AND SUBJUNCTIVE.

SUCH. "I have never before seen _such_ a large ox." By a little

transposing of the words of this sentence, we have, "I have never before

seen an ox _such_ large," which makes it quite clear that we should say

_so large an ox_ and not _such a large ox_. As proof that this error in

the use of _such_ is common, we find in Mr. George Washington Moon's

"Dean's English and Bad English," the sentence, "With all due deference

to _such_ a high authority on _such_ a very important matter." With a

little transposing, this sentence is made to read, "With all due

deference to an authority _such_ high on a matter _such_ very

important." It is clear that the sentence should read, "With all due

deference to _so_ high an authority on _so_ very important a matter."

The phrases, _such_ a handsome, _such_ a lovely, _such_ a long, _such_

narrow, etc., are incorrect, and should be _so_ handsome, _so_ lovely,

_so_ long, and so on.

SUMMON. This verb comes in for its full share of mauling. We often hear

such expressions as "I will _summons_ him," instead of _summon_ him;

and "He was _summonsed_," instead of _summoned_.

SUPERFLUOUS WORDS. "Whenever I try to write well, I _always_ find I can

do it." "I shall have finished by the _latter_ end of the week." "Iron

sinks _down_ in water." "He combined _together_ all the facts." "My

brother called on me, and we _both_ took a walk." "I can do it _equally_

as well as he." "We could not forbear _from_ doing it." "Before I go, I

must _first_ be paid." "We were compelled to return _back_." "We forced

them to retreat _back_ fully a mile." "His conduct was approved _of_ by

everybody." "They conversed _together_ for a long time." "The balloon

rose _up_ very rapidly." "Give me another _one_." "Come home as soon as

_ever_ you can." "Who finds him _in_ money?" "He came in last _of all_."

"He has _got_ all he can carry." "What have you _got_?" "No matter what

I have _got_." "I have _got_ the headache." "Have you _got_ any

brothers?" "No, but I have _got_ a sister." All the words in _italics_

are superfluous.

SUPERIOR. This word is not unfrequently used for able, excellent,

gifted; as, "She is a _superior_ woman," meaning an _excellent_ woman;

"He is a _superior_ man," meaning an _able_ man. The expression _an

inferior man_ is not less objectionable.

SUPPOSITITIOUS. This word is _properly_ used in the sense of put by a

trick into the place or character belonging to another, spurious,

counterfeit, not genuine; and _improperly_ in the sense of conjectural,

hypothetical, imaginary, presumptive; as, "This is a _supposititious_

case," meaning an _imaginary_ or _presumptive_ case. "The English critic

derived his materials from a stray copy of some _supposititious_ indexes

devised by one of the 'Post' reporters."--"Nation." Here is a correct

use of the word.

SWOSH. There is a kind of ill-balanced brain in which the reflective and

the imaginative very much outweight the perceptive. Men to whom this

kind of an organization has been given generally have active minds, but

their minds never present anything clearly. To their mental vision all

is ill-defined, chaotic. They see everything in a haze. Whether such men

talk or write, they are verbose, illogical, intangible,

will-o'-the-wispish. Their thoughts are phantomlike; like shadows, they

continually escape their grasp. In their talk they will, after long

dissertations, tell you that they have not said just what they would

like to say; there is always a subtle, lurking something still

unexpressed, which something is the real essence of the matter, and

which your penetration is expected to divine. In their writings they are

eccentric, vague, labyrinthine, pretentious, transcendental,[35] and

frequently ungrammatical. These men, if write they must, should confine

themselves to the descriptive; for when they enter the essayist's

domain, which they are very prone to do, they write what I will venture

to call _swosh_.

We find examples in plenty of this kind of writing in the essays of Mr.

Ralph Waldo Emerson. Indeed, the impartial critic who will take the

trouble to examine any of Mr. Emerson's essays at all carefully, is

quite sure to come to the conclusion that Mr. Emerson has seen

everything he has ever made the subject of his essays very much as

London is seen from the top of Saint Paul's in a fog.

Mr. Emerson's definition of Nature runs thus: "Philosophically

considered, the universe is composed of Nature and the Soul. Strictly

speaking, therefore, all that is separate from us, all which philosophy

distinguishes from the _Not Me_--that is, both Nature and Art, and all

other men, and my own body--must be ranked under this name 'NATURE.' In

enumerating the values of Nature and casting up their sum, I shall use

the word in both senses--in its common and in its philosophical import.

In inquiries so general as our present one, the inaccuracy is not

material; no confusion of thought will occur. _Nature_, in the common

sense, refers to essences unchanged by man: space, the air, the river,

the leaf. _Art_ is applied to the mixture of his will with the same

things, as in a house, a canal, a picture, a statue. But his operations,

taken together, are so insignificant--a little chipping, baking,

patching, and washing--that in an impression so grand as that of the

world on the human mind they do not vary the result."

In "Letters and Social Aims" Mr. Emerson writes: "Eloquence is the power

to translate a truth into language perfectly intelligible to the person

to whom you speak. He who would convince the worthy Mr. Dunderhead of

any truth which Dunderhead does not see, must be a master of his art.

Declamation is common; but such possession of thought as is here

required, such practical chemistry as the conversion of a truth written

in God's language into a truth in Dunderhead's language, is one of the

most beautiful and cogent weapons that is forged in the shop of the

Divine Artificer."

The first paragraph of Mr. Emerson's "Essay on Art" reads: "All

departments of life at the present day--Trade, Politics, Letters,

Science, or Religion--seem to feel, and to labor to express, the

identity of their law. They are rays of one sun; they translate each

into a new language the sense of the other. They are sublime when seen

as emanations of a Necessity contradistinguished from the vulgar Fate by

being instant and alive, and dissolving man, as well as his works, in

its flowing beneficence. This influence is conspicuously visible in the

principles and history of Art."

Another paragraph from Mr. Emerson's "Essay on Eloquence": "The orator,

as we have seen, must be a substantial personality. Then, first, he must

have power of statement--must have the fact, and know how to tell it. In

a knot of men conversing on any subject, the person who knows most about

it will have the ear of the company, if he wishes it, and lead the

conversation, no matter what genius or distinction other men there

present may have; and, in any public assembly, him who has the facts,

and can and will state them, people will listen to, though he is

otherwise ignorant, though he is hoarse and ungrateful, though he

stutters and screams."

Mr. Emerson, in his "Essay on Prudence," writes: "There are all degrees

of proficiency in knowledge of the world. It is sufficient to our

present purpose to indicate three. One class live to the utility of the

symbol, esteeming health and wealth a final good. Another class live

above this mark to the beauty of the symbol, as the poet and artist, and

the naturalist and man of science. A third class live above the beauty

of the symbol to the beauty of the thing signified; these are wise men.

The first class have common sense; the second, taste; and the third,

spiritual perception. Once in a long time a man traverses the whole

scale, and sees and enjoys the symbol solidly; then, also, has a clear

eye for its beauty; and, lastly, whilst he pitches his tent on this

sacred volcanic isle of nature, does not offer to build houses and

barns thereon, reverencing the splendor of God which he sees bursting

through each chink and cranny."

Those who are wont to accept others at their self-assessment and to see

things through other people's eyes--and there are many such--are in

danger of thinking this kind of writing very fine, when in fact it is

not only the veriest _swosh_, but that kind of swosh that excites at

least an occasional doubt with regard to the writer's sanity. We can

make no greater mistake than to suppose that the reason we do not

understand these rhetorical contortionists is because they are so subtle

and profound. We understand them quite as well as they understand

themselves. At their very best, they are but incoherent diluters of

other men's ideas. They have but one thing to recommend them--honesty.

They believe in themselves.

"Whatever is dark is deep. Stir a puddle, and it is deeper than a

well."--Swift.

SYNECDOCHE. The using of the name of a part for that of the whole, the

name of the whole for that of a part, or the using of a definite number

for an indefinite, is called, in rhetoric, _synecdoche_. "The bay was

covered with _sails_"; i. e., with _ships_. "The man was old, careworn,

and gray"; i. e., literally, _his hair_, not the man, was gray. "_Nine

tenths_ of every man's happiness depends on the reception he meets with

in the world." "He had seen seventy _winters_." "Thus spoke the

_tempter_": here the part of the character is named that suits the

occasion.

"His roof was at the service of the outcast; the unfortunate ever found

a welcome at his threshold."

TAKE. I copy from the "London Queen": "The verb _to take_ is open to

being considered a vulgar verb when used in reference to dinner, tea, or

to refreshments of any kind. 'Will you _take_' is not considered _comme

il faut_; the verb in favor for the offering of civilities being _to

have_." According to "The Queen," then, we must say, "Will you _have_

some dinner, tea, coffee, wine, fish, beef, salad," etc.

TASTE OF. The redundant _of_, often used, in this country, in connection

with the transitive verbs _to taste_ and _to smell_, is a Yankeeism. We

_taste_ or _smell_ a thing, not taste _of_ nor smell _of_ a thing. The

neuter verbs _to taste_ and _to smell_ are often followed by _of_. "If

butter _tastes of_ brass." "For age but _tastes of_ pleasures."

"You shall stifle in your own report,

and _smell of_ calumny."--Shakespeare.

TAUTOLOGY. Among the things to be avoided in writing is _tautology_,

which is _the repeating of the same thought_, whether in the same or in

different words.

TAUTOPHONY. "A regard for harmony requires us, in the progress of a

sentence, to avoid repeating a sound by employing the same word more

than once, or using, in contiguous words, similar combinations of

letters. This fault is known as _tautology_."--Dr. G. P. Quackenbos,

"Advanced Course of Composition and Rhetoric," p. 300. Dr. Quackenbos is

in error. The repetition of the same _sense_ is tautology, and the

repetition of the same _sound_, or, as Dr. Quackenbos has it, "the

repeating of a sound by employing the same word more than once, or by

using in contiguous words similar combinations of letters," is

_tautophony_.

TEACH. To impart knowledge, to inform, to instruct; as, "_Teach_ me how

to do it"; "_Teach_ me to swim"; "He _taught_ me to write." The

uncultured often misuse _learn_ for _teach_. See LEARN.

TENSE. The errors made in the use of the tenses are manifold. The one

most frequently made by persons of culture--the one that everybody

makes would, perhaps, be nearer the fact--is that of using the

_imperfect_ instead of the _perfect_ tense; thus, "I never _saw_ it

played but once": say, _have seen_. "He was the largest man I ever

_saw_": say, _have seen_. "I never in my life _had_ such trouble": say,

_have had_. Another frequent error, the making of which is not confined

to the unschooled, is that of using two verbs in a past tense when only

one should be in that time; thus, "I intended to _have gone_": say, _to

go_. "It was my intention to _have_ come": say, _to come_. "I expected

to _have found_ you here": say, _to find_. "I was very desirous to _have

gone_": say, _to go_. "He was better than I expected to _have found_

him": say, _to find_.

Among other common errors are the following: "I _seen_ him when he

_done_ it": say, "I _saw_ him when he _did_ it." "I should have _went_

home": say, _gone_. "If he had _went_": say, _gone_. "I wish you had

_went_": say, _gone_. "He has _went_ out": say, _gone_. "I _come_ to

town this morning": say, _came_. "He _come_ to me for advice": say,

_came_. "It _begun_ very late": say, _began_. "It had already _began_":

say, _begun_. "The following toasts were _drank_": say, _drunk_. "His

text was that God _was_ love": say, _is_ love. Another error is made in

such sentences as these: "If I had _have_ known": say, _had known_. "If

he had _have_ come as he promised": say, _had come_. "If you had _have_

told me": say, _had told_.

TESTIMONY. See EVIDENCE.

THAN. _Than_ and _as_ implying comparison have the same case after as

before them. "He owes more than _me_": read, than _I_--i. e., more than

_I owe_. "John is not so old as _her_": read, as _she_--i. e., as _she

is_. We should say, then, "He is stronger than _she_," "She is older

than _he_," "You are richer than _I_," etc. But it does not always

happen that the nominative case comes after _than_ or _as_. "I love you

more than _him_," "I give you more than _him_," "I love you as well as

_him_"; that is to say, "I love you more than _I love him_," "I give you

more than _I give him_," "I love you as well as _I love him_." Take away

_him_ and put _he_ in all these cases, and the grammar is just as good,

but the meaning is quite different. "I love you as well as _him_," means

that I love you as well _as I love him_; but, "I love you as well as

_he_," means that I love you as well _as he loves you_.

THAN WHOM. Cobbett, in his "Grammar of the English Language," says:

"There is an erroneous way of employing _whom_, which I must point out

to your particular attention, because it is so often seen in very good

writers, and because it is very deceiving. 'The Duke of Argyll, _than

whom_ no man was more hearty in the cause.' 'Cromwell, _than whom_ no

man was better skilled in artifice.' A hundred such phrases might be

collected from Hume, Blackstone, and even from Drs. Blair and Johnson.

Yet they are bad grammar. In all such cases, _who_ should be made use

of: for it is _nominative_ and not objective. 'No man was more hearty in

the cause _than he was_'; 'No man was better skilled in artifice _than

he was_.'[36] It is a very common Parliament-house phrase, and therefore

presumably _corrupt_; but it is a Dr. Johnson phrase, too: 'Pope, _than

whom_ few men had more vanity.' The Doctor did not say, 'Myself, _than

whom_ few men have been found more base, having, in my dictionary,

described a pensioner as a slave of state, and having afterward myself

become a pensioner.'

"I differ in this matter from Bishop Lowth, who says that 'The relative

_who_, having reference to no verb or preposition understood, but only

to its antecedent, when it follows _than_, is _always in the objective

case_; even though the pronoun, if substituted in its place, would be in

the nominative.' And then he gives an instance from Milton. 'Beelzebub,

_than whom_, Satan except, none higher sat.' It is curious enough that

this sentence of the Bishop is, itself, ungrammatical! Our poor

unfortunate _it_ is so placed as to make it a matter of doubt whether

the Bishop meant it to relate to _who_ or to _its antecedent_. However,

we know its meaning; but, though he says that _who_, when it follows

_than_, is always in the objective case, he gives us no reason for this

departure from a clear general principle; unless we are to regard as a

reason the example of Milton, who has committed many hundreds, if not

thousands, of grammatical errors, many of which the Bishop himself has

pointed out. There is a sort of side-wind attempt at reason in the

words, 'having reference to no _verb_ or _preposition_ understood.' I do

not see the _reason_, even if this could be; but it appears to me

impossible that a noun or pronoun can exist in a grammatical state

without having reference to some _verb_ or _preposition_, either

expressed or understood. What is meant by Milton? 'Than Beelzebub, none

_sat_ higher, except Satan.' And when, in order to avoid the repetition

of the word Beelzebub, the relative becomes necessary, the full

construction must be, 'no devil sat higher _than who_ sat, except

Satan'; and not, 'no devil sat higher _than whom_ sat.'[37] The

supposition that there can be a noun or pronoun which has reference to

_no verb_ and _no preposition_, is certainly a mistake."

Of this, Dr. Fitzedward Hall remarks, in his "Recent Exemplifications of

False Philology": "That any one but Cobbett would abide this as English

is highly improbable; and how the expression--a quite classical

one--which he discards can be justified grammatically, except by calling

its _than_ a preposition, others may resolve at their leisure and

pleasure."

THANKS. There are many persons who think it in questionable taste to use

_thanks_ for _thank you_.

THAT. The best writers often appear to grope after a separate employment

for the several relatives.

"'THAT' _is the proper restrictive, explicative, limiting, or defining

relative_.

"'_That_,' the neuter of the definite article, was early in use as a

neuter relative. All the other oldest relatives gradually dropt away,

and 'that' came to be applied also to plural antecedents, and to

masculines and feminines. When 'as,' 'which,' and 'who' came forward to

share the work of 'that,' there seems to have arisen not a little

uncertainty about the relatives, and we find curious double forms: 'whom

that,' 'which that,' 'which as,' etc. Gower has, 'Venus _whose_ priest

_that_ I am'; Chaucer writes--'This Abbot _which that_ was an holy man,'

'his love _the which that_ he oweth.' By the Elizabethan period, these

double forms have disappeared, and all the relatives are used singly

without hesitation. From then till now, 'that' has been struggling with

'who' and 'which' to regain superior favor, with varying success. 'Who'

is used for persons, 'which' for things, in both numbers; so is 'that';

and the only opportunity of a special application of 'that' lies in the

important distinction between coördination and restriction. Now, as

'who' and 'which' are most commonly preferred for coördination, it would

be a clear gain to confine them to this sense, and to reserve 'that' for

the restrictive application alone. This arrangement, then, would _fall

in with the most general use of 'that,' especially beyond the limits of

formal composition_.

"The use of 'that' solely as restrictive, with 'who' and 'which' solely

as coördinating, _also avoids ambiguities_ that often attend the

indiscriminate use of 'who' and 'which' for coördinate and for

restrictive clauses. Thus, when we say, 'his conduct surprised his

English friends, _who_ had not known him long,' we may mean either that

his English friends generally were surprised (the relative being, in

that case, _coördinating_), or that only a portion of them--namely, the

particular portion that had not known him long--were surprised. In this

last case the relative is meant to define or explain the antecedent, and

the doubt would be removed by writing thus: 'his English friends _that_

had not known him long.' So in the following sentence there is a similar

ambiguity in the use of 'which': 'the next winter _which_ you will spend

in town will give you opportunities of making a more prudent choice.'

This may mean, either 'you will spend next winter in town' ('which'

being coördinating), or 'the next of the winters when you are to live in

town,' let that come when it may. In the former case, 'which' is the

proper relative; in the latter case, the meaning is restrictive or

defining, and would be best brought out by 'that': 'the next winter

_that_ you will spend in town.'

"A further consideration in favor of employing 'that' for explicative

clauses is the unpleasant effect arising from the _too frequent

repetition of 'who' and 'which.'_ Grammarians often recommend 'that' as

a means of varying the style; but this end ought to be sought in

subservience to the still greater end of perspicuity.

"The following examples will serve further to illustrate the distinction

between _that_, on the one hand, and _who_ and _which_, on the other:

"'In general, Mr. Burchell was fondest of the company of children,

_whom_ he used to call harmless little men.' 'Whom' is here

idiomatically used, being the equivalent of '_and them_ he used to

call,' etc.

"'Bacon at last, a mighty man, arose,

_Whom_ a wise king and nation chose

Lord Chancellor of both their laws.'

The Verbalist A Manual Devoted to Brief Discussions of the Right and the Wrong Use of Words and to Some Other Matters of Interest to Those Who Would Speak and Write with Propriety. · 第 10 / 15 题

POSTED. A word very much and very inelegantly used for _informed_. Such