"In the following instance the relative is restrictive or defining, and
'that' would be preferable: 'the conclusion of the "Iliad" is like the
exit of a great man out of company _whom_ he has entertained
magnificently.' Compare another of Addison's sentences: 'a man of polite
imagination is let into a great many pleasures _that_ the vulgar are not
capable of receiving.'
"Both relatives are introduced discriminatingly in this passage:--'She
had learned that from Mrs. Wood, _who_ had heard it from her husband,
_who_ had heard it at the public-house from the landlord, _who_ had been
let into the secret by the boy _that_ carried the beer to some of the
prisoners.'
"The following sentences are ambiguous under the modern system of using
'who' for both purposes:--'I met the boatman _who_ took me across the
ferry.' If 'who' is the proper relative here, the meaning is, 'I met the
boatman, _and he_ took me across,' it being supposed that the boatman is
known and definite. But if there be several boatmen, and I wish to
indicate one in particular by the circumstance that he had taken me
across the ferry, I should use 'that.' 'The youngest boy _who_ has
learned to dance is James.' This means either 'the youngest boy is
James, _and he_ has learned to dance,' or, 'of the boys, the youngest
that has learned to dance is James.' This last sense is restrictive, and
'that' should be used.
"Turning now to 'which,' we may have a series of parallel examples. 'The
court, _which_ gives currency to manners, should be exemplary': here the
meaning is 'the court should be exemplary, _for the court_ gives
currency to manners.' 'Which' is the idiomatic relative in this case.
'The cat, _which_ you despise so much, is a very useful animal.' The
relative here also is coördinating, and not restrictive. If it were
intended to point out one individual cat specially despised by the
person addressed, 'that' would convey the sense. 'A theory _which_ does
not tend to the improvement of practice is utterly unworthy of regard.'
The meaning is restrictive; 'a theory _that_ does not tend.' The
following sentence is one of many from Goldsmith that give 'that'
instead of 'which':--'Age, _that_ lessens the enjoyment of life,
increases our desire of living.' Thackeray also was fond of this usage.
But it is not very common.
"'Their faith tended to make them improvident; but a wise instinct
taught them that if there was one thing _which_ ought not to be left to
fate, or to the precepts of a deceased prophet, it was the artillery'; a
case where 'that' is the proper relative.
"'All words, _which_ are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of
mistake.' This gives an erroneous impression, and should be 'all words
_that_ are signs of complex ideas.'
"'In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of judges is to
direct juries by analogy to the Statute of Limitations, to decide
against incorporeal rights _which_ have for many years been
relinquished': say instead, 'incorporeal rights _that_ have for many
years,' and the sense is clear.
"It is necessary for the proper understanding of 'which' to advert to
its peculiar function of referring to a whole clause as the antecedent:
'William ran along the top of the wall, _which_ alarmed his mother very
much.' The antecedent is obviously not the noun 'wall,' but the fact
expressed by the entire clause--'William ran,' etc. 'He by no means
wants sense, _which_ only serves to aggravate his former folly'; namely,
(not 'sense,' but) the circumstance 'that he does not want sense.' 'He
is neither over-exalted by prosperity, nor too much depressed by
misfortune; _which_ you must allow marks a great mind.' 'We have done
many things _which_ we ought not to have done,' might mean 'we ought not
_to have done many things_'; that is, 'we ought to have done few
things.' 'That' would give the exact sense intended: 'we have done many
things _that_ we ought not to have done.' 'He began to look after his
affairs himself, _which_ was the way to make them prosper.'
"We must next allude to the cases where the relative is governed by a
preposition. We can use a preposition before 'who' and 'which,' but when
the relative is 'that,' the preposition must be thrown to the end of the
clause. Owing to an imperfect appreciation of the genius of our
language, offense was taken at this usage by some of our leading writers
at the beginning of last century, and to this circumstance we must refer
the disuse of 'that' as the relative of restriction.[38]
"'It is curious that the only circumstance connected with Scott, and
related by Lockhart, _of which_ I was a witness, is incorrectly stated
in the "Life of Sir Walter."'--Leslie's 'Memoirs.' The relative should
be restrictive: '_that_ I was a witness _of_.'
"'There are many words _which_ are adjectives _which_ have nothing to do
with the qualities of the nouns _to which_ they are put.'--Cobbett.
Better: 'there are many words _that_ are adjectives _that_ have nothing
to do with the qualities of the nouns (_that_) they are put _to_.'
"'Other objects, _of which_ we have not occasion to speak so frequently,
we do not designate by a name of their own.' This, if amended, would be:
'other objects _that_ we have not occasion to speak _of_ so frequently,
we do not,' etc.
"'Sorrow for the dead is the only sorrow _from which_ we refuse to be
divorced': 'the only sorrow (_that_) we refuse to be divorced _from_.'
"'Why, there is not a single sentence in this play _that_ I do not know
the meaning _of_.'--Addison.
"'Originality is a thing we constantly clamor _for_, and constantly
quarrel _with_.'--Carlyle.
"'A spirit more amiable, but less vigorous, than Luther's would have
shrunk back from the dangers _which_ he braved and surmounted': '_that_
he braved'; 'the dangers _braved_ and _surmounted_ by him.'
"'Nor is it at all improbable that the emigrants had been guilty of
those faults _from which_ civilized men _who_ settle among an
uncivilized people are rarely free.'--Macaulay. 'Nor is it at all
improbable that the emigrants had been guilty of _the_ faults _that_
(_such_ faults _as_) civilized men _that settle_ (_settling_, or
_settled_) among an uncivilized people are rarely free _from_.'
"'Prejudices are notions or opinions _which_ the mind entertains without
knowing the grounds and reasons of them, and _which_ are assented to
without examination.'--Berkeley. The 'which' in both cases should be
'that,' but the relative may be entirely dispensed with by participial
conversion: 'prejudices are notions or opinions _entertained_ by the
mind without knowing the grounds and reasons of them, and _assented_ to
without examination.'
"The too frequent repetition of 'who' and 'which' may be avoided by
resolving them into the conjunction and personal or other pronoun: 'In
such circumstances, the utmost that Bosquet could be expected to do was
to hold his ground, (_which_) _and this_ he did.'"--Bain's "Higher
English Grammar."
This word is sometimes vulgarly used for _so_; thus, "I was _that_
nervous I forgot everything"; "I was _that_ frightened I could hardly
stand."
THE. Bungling writers sometimes write sheer nonsense, or say something
very different from what they have in their minds, by the simple
omission of the definite article; thus, "The indebtedness of the
English tongue to the French, Latin and Greek is disclosed in almost
every sentence framed." According to this, there is such a thing as a
French, Latin and Greek tongue. Professor Townsend meant to say: "The
indebtedness of the English tongue to the French, _the_ Latin, and _the_
Greek," etc.
THEN. The use of this word as an adjective is condemned in very emphatic
terms by some of our grammarians, and yet this use of it has the
sanction of such eminent writers as Addison, Johnson, Whately, and Sir
J. Hawkins. Johnson says, "In his _then_ situation," which, if brevity
be really the soul of wit, certainly has much more soul in it than "In
the situation he then occupied." However, it is doubtful whether _then_,
as an adjective, will ever again find favor with careful writers.
THENCE. See WHENCE.
THINK FOR. We not unfrequently hear a superfluous _for_ tacked to a
sentence; thus, "You will find that he knows more about the affair than
you think _for_."
THOSE KIND. "_Those_ kind of apples _are_ best": read, "_That_ kind of
apples _is_ best." It is truly remarkable that many persons who can
justly lay claim to the possession of considerable culture use this
barbarous combination. It would be just as correct to say, "Those flock
of geese," or "Those drove of cattle," as to say, "Those _sort_ or
_kind_ of people."
THOSE WHO. This phrase, applied in a restrictive sense, is the modern
substitute for the ancient idiom _they that_, an idiom in accordance
with the true meaning of _that_.
"'_They that_ told me the story said'; 'Blessed are _they that_ mourn';
'and Simon and _they that_ were with him'; 'I love _them that_ love me,
and _they that_ seek me early shall find me'; '_they that_ are whole
have no need of a physician'; 'how sweet is the rest of _them that_
labor!' 'I can not tell who to compare them to so fitly as to _them
that_ pick pockets in the presence of the judge'; '_they that_ enter
into the state of marriage cast a die of the greatest contingency' (J.
Taylor).
"'_That_ man hath perfect blessedness
_Who_ walketh not astray,'
if expressed according to the old idiom would be, '_the_ man
hath--_that_ walketh.'
"'That' and 'those,' as demonstrative adjectives, refer backward, and
are not therefore well suited for the forward reference implied in
making use of 'that which' and 'those who' as restrictive relatives. It
is also very cumbrous to say '_that_ case _to which_ you allude' for
'the case (_that_) you allude _to_.'
"Take now the following: 'The Duke of Wellington is not one of _those
who_ interfere with matters _over which_ he has no control': 'the Duke
is not one of _them that_ interfere in matters _that_ they have no
control _over_ (matters _that_ they can not control, _beyond their
control_, _out of their province_).' If 'them that' sounds too
antiquated, we may adopt as a convenient compromise, 'the Duke is not
one of _those that_'; or, 'the Duke is not one to _interfere_ in matters
out of his province'; 'the duke is not one _that interferes_ with _what_
he has no control _over_.'"--Bain.
THREADBARE QUOTATIONS. Among the things that are in bad taste in
speaking and writing, the use of threadbare quotations and expressions
is in the front rank. Some of these _usés et cassés_ old-timers are the
following: "Their name is legion"; "hosts of friends"; "the upper ten";
"Variety is the spice of life"; "Distance lends enchantment to the
view"; "A thing of beauty is a joy for ever"; "the light fantastic toe";
"own the soft impeachment"; "fair women and brave men"; "revelry by
night"; "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
TO. It is a well-established rule of grammar that _to_, the sign of the
infinitive mood, should not be used for the infinitive itself: thus, "He
has not done it, nor is he likely _to_." It should be, "nor is he likely
_to do it_."
We often find _to_, when the sign of the infinitive, separated by an
adverb from the verb to which it belongs. Professor A. P. Peabody says
that no standard English writer makes this mistake, and that, so far as
he knows, it occurs frequently with but one respectable American writer.
Very often _to_ is used instead of _at_; thus, "I have been _to_ the
theatre, _to_ church, _to_ my uncle's, _to_ a concert," and so on. In
all these cases, the preposition to use is clearly _at_, and not _to_.
See, also, AND.
TO THE FORE. An old idiomatic phrase, now freely used again.
TONGUE. "Much _tongue_ and much judgment seldom go
together."--L'Estrange. See LANGUAGE.
TOWARD. Those who profess to know about such things say that etymology
furnishes no pretext for the adding of _s_ to _ward_ in such words as
_backward_, _forward_, _toward_, _upward_, _onward_, _downward_,
_afterward_, _heavenward_, _earthward_, and the like.
TRANSFERRED EPITHET. This is the shifting of a qualifying word from its
proper subject to some allied subject. Examples:
"The little fields made green
By husbandry of many _thrifty years_."
"He plods his _weary way_." "Hence to your _idle bed_!" By this figure
the diction is rendered more terse and vigorous; it is much used in
verse. For the sake of conciseness, it is used in prose in such phrases
as the _lunatic asylum_, the _criminal court_, the _condemned cell_,
the _blind asylum_, the _cholera hospital_, the _foundling asylum_, and
the like.
"Still in harmonious intercourse they lived
The rural day, and talked the flowing heart."
"There be some who, with everything to make them happy, plod their
discontented and melancholy way through life, less grateful than the dog
that licks the hand that feeds it."
TRANSPIRE. This is one of the most frequently misused words in the
language. Its primary meaning is to evaporate insensibly through the
pores, but in this sense it is not used; in this sense we use its twin
sister _per_spire. _Transpire_ is now properly used in the sense of to
escape from secrecy, to become known, to leak out; and improperly used
in the sense of to occur, to happen, to come to pass, and to elapse. The
word is correctly used thus: "You will not let a word concerning the
matter _transpire_"; "It _transpires_ [leaks out] that S. & B. control
the enterprise"; "Soon after the funeral it _transpired_ [became known]
that the dead woman was alive"; "It has _transpired_ [leaked out] that
the movement originated with John Blank"; "No report of the proceedings
was allowed to _transpire_"; "It has not yet _transpired_ who the
candidate is to be." The word is incorrectly used thus: "The Mexican war
_transpired_ in 1847"; "The drill will _transpire_ under shelter"; "The
accident _transpired_ one day last week"; "Years will _transpire_ before
it will be finished"; "More than a century _transpired_ before it was
revisited by civilized man."
TRIFLING MINUTIÆ. The meaning of _trifles_ and of _minutiæ_ is so nearly
the same that no one probably ever uses the phrase _trifling minutiæ_
except from thoughtlessness.
TRUSTWORTHY. See RELIABLE.
TRY. This word is often improperly used for _make_. We _make_
experiments, not _try_ them, which is as incorrect as it would be to
say, _try_ the _attempt_, or the _trial_.
UGLY. In England, this word is restricted to meaning ill-favored; with
us it is often used--and not without authority--in the sense of
ill-tempered, vicious, unmanageable.
UNBEKNOWN. This word is no longer used except by the unschooled.
UNDERHANDED. This word, though found in the dictionaries, is a
vulgarism, and as such is to be avoided. The proper word is _underhand_.
An _underhand_, not an _underhanded_, proceeding.
UNIVERSAL--ALL. "He is _universally_ esteemed by _all_ who know him." If
he is _universally_ esteemed, he must be esteemed by _all_ who know him;
and, if he is esteemed by _all_ who know him, he must be _universally_
esteemed.
UPWARD OF. This phrase is often used, if not improperly, at least
inelegantly, for _more than_; thus, "I have been here for _upward of_ a
year"; "For _upward of_ three quarters of a century she has," etc.,
meaning, for _more than_ three quarters of a century.
UTTER. This verb is often misused for _say_, _express_. To _utter_ means
to _speak_, to _pronounce_; and its derivative _utterance_ means the
act, manner, or power of uttering, vocal expression; as, "the utterance
of articulate sounds." We _utter_ a cry; _express_ a thought or
sentiment; _speak_ our mind; and, though prayers are _said_, they may be
_uttered_ in a certain tone or manner. "Mr. Blank is right in all he
_utters_": read, _says_. "The court _uttered_ a sentiment that all will
applaud": read, _expressed_ a sentiment.
The primary meaning of the adjective _utter_ is outer, on the outside;
but it is no longer used in this sense. It is now used in the sense of
complete, total, perfect, mere, entire; but he who uses it
indiscriminately as a synonym of these words will frequently utter
_utter_ nonsense--i. e., he will utter that which is without the pale of
sense. For example, we can not say _utter_ concord, but we can say
_utter_ discord--i. e., without the pale of concord.
VALUABLE. The following sentence, which recently appeared in one of the
more fastidious of our morning papers, is offered as an example of
extreme slipshodness in the use of language: "Sea captains are among the
most _valuable_ contributors to the Park aviary." What the writer
probably meant to say is, "Sea captains are among those whose
contributions to the Park aviary are the most valuable."
VAST. This word is often met with in forcible-feeble diction, where it
is used instead of _great_ or _large_ to qualify such words as number,
majority, multitude, and the like. Big words and expletives should be
used only where they are really needed; where they are not really
needed, they go wide of the object aimed at. The sportsman that hunts
small game with buck-shot comes home empty-handed.
VERACITY. The loss would be a small one if we were to lose this word and
its derivatives. Truth and its derivatives would supply all our needs.
In the phrase so often heard, "A man of truth and veracity," _veracity_
is entirely superfluous, it having precisely the same meaning as truth.
The phrase, "A big, large man," is equally good diction.
VERBIAGE. An unnecessary profusion of words is called _verbiage_:
verbosity, wordiness.
"I thought what I read of it _verbiage_."--Johnson.
Sometimes a better name than verbiage for wordiness would be
_emptiness_. Witness: "Clearness may be developed and cultivated in
three ways, (_a_) By constantly practicing in heart and life the
thoughts and ways of honesty and frankness." The first sentence
evidently means, "Clearness may be _attained_ in three ways"; but what
the second sentence means--if it means anything--is more than I can
tell. Professor L. T. Townsend, "Art of Speech," vol. i, p. 130, adds:
"This may be regarded as the surest path to greater transparency of
style." The transparency of Dr. Townsend's style is peculiar. Also, p.
144, we find: "The laws and rules[1] thus far laid down[2] furnish ample
foundation for[3] the general statement that an easy and natural[4]
expression, an exact verbal incarnation of one's thinking,[5] together
with the power of using appropriate figures, and of making nice
discriminations between approximate synonyms,[6] each being an important
factor in correct style, are attained in two ways.[7] (1) Through
moral[8] and mental discipline. (2) Through continuous and intimate[9]
acquaintance with such authors as best exemplify those attainments."[10]
1. Would not _laws_ cover the whole ground? 2. _En passant_ I would
remark that Dr. Townsend did not make these laws, though he so
intimates. 3. I suggest the word _justify_ in place of these four. 4.
What is natural is easy; _easy_, therefore, is superfluous. 5. If this
means anything, it does not mean more than the adjective _clear_ would
express, if properly used in the sentence. 6. _Approximate_ synonyms!!
Who ever heard of any antagonistic or even of dissimilar synonyms? 7.
The transparency of this sentence is not unlike the transparency of
corrugated glass. 8. What has morality to do with correctness? 9. An
intimate acquaintance would suffice for most people. 10. Those
attainments! What are they? Dr. Townsend's corrugated style makes it
hard to tell.
This paragraph is so badly conceived throughout that it is well-nigh
impossible to make head, middle, or tail of it; still, if I am at all
successful in guessing what Professor Townsend wanted to say in it,
then--when shorn of its redundancy and high-flown emptiness--it will
read somewhat like this: "The laws thus far presented justify the
general statement that a clear and natural mode of expression--together
with that art of using appropriate figures and that ability properly to
discriminate between synonyms which are necessary to correctness--is
attained in two ways. (1) By mental discipline. (2) By the study of our
best authors."
The following sentence is from a leading magazine: "If we begin a system
of interference, _regulating men's gains_, bolstering here, _in order to
strengthen this interest_, [and] repressing _elsewhere_ [there], in
order to equalize wealth, we shall do _an_ [a] _immense_ deal of
mischief, and without bringing about a more agreeable condition of
things _than now_ [we] shall _simply_ discourage enterprise, repress
industry, and check material growth _in all directions_." Read without
the eighteen words in italics and with the four inclosed.
"Nothing disgusts sooner than the empty pomp of language."
VICE. See CRIME.
VICINITY. This word is sometimes incorrectly used without the possessive
pronoun; thus, "Washington and vicinity," instead of "Washington and
_its_ vicinity." The primary meaning of _vicinity_ is nearness,
proximity. In many of the cases in which vicinity is used,
_neighborhood_ would be the better word, though _vicinity_ is perhaps
preferable where it is a question of mere locality.
VOCATION--AVOCATION. These words are frequently confounded. A man's
_vocation_ is his profession, his calling, his business; and his
_avocations_ are the things that occupy him incidentally. Mademoiselle
Bernhardt's _vocation_ is acting; her _avocations_ are painting and
sculpture. "The tracing of resemblances among the objects and events of
the world is a constant _avocation_ of the human mind."
VULGAR. By the many, this word is probably more frequently used
improperly than properly. As a noun, it means the common people, the
lower orders, the multitude, the many; as an adjective, it means coarse,
low, unrefined, as "the _vulgar_ people." The sense in which it is
misused is that of immodest, indecent. The wearing, for example, of a
gown too short at the top may be _indecent_, but is not _vulgar_.
WAS. "He said he had come to the conclusion that there _was_ no God."
"The greatest of Byron's works _was_ his whole work taken
together."--Matthew Arnold. What is true at all times should be
expressed by using the verb in the present tense. The sentences above
should read _is_, not _was_.
WHARF. See DOCK.
WHAT. "He would not believe but _what_ I did it": read, but _that_. "I
do not doubt _but what_ I shall go to Boston to-morrow": read, doubt
_that_. We say properly, "I have nothing _but what_ you see"; "You have
brought everything _but what_ I wanted."
WHENCE. As this adverb means--unaided--_from_ what place, source, or
cause, it is, as Dr. Johnson styled it, "a vicious mode of speech" to
say _from whence_, Milton to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor is there
any more propriety in the phrase _from thence_, as _thence_
means--unaided--from that place. "_Whence_ do you come?" not "_From
whence_ do you come?" Likewise, "He went _hence_," not "_from hence_."
WHETHER. This conjunction is often improperly repeated in a sentence;
thus, "I have not decided whether I shall go to Boston or _whether I
shall go_ to Philadelphia."
WHICH. This pronoun as an _interrogative_ applies to _persons_ as well
as to _things_; as a _relative_, it is now made to refer to _things
only_.
"_Which_ is employed in coördinate sentences, where _it_, or _they_, and
a conjunction might answer the purpose; thus, 'At school I studied
geometry, _which_ (and it) I found useful afterward.' Here the new
clause is something independent added to the previous clause, and not
limiting that clause in any way. So in the adjectival clause; as, 'He
struck the poor dog, _which_ (and it, or although it) had never done him
harm.' Such instances represent the most accurate meaning of _which_.
_Who_ and _which_ might be termed the COÖRDINATING RELATIVES.
"_Which_ is likewise used in _restrictive_ clauses that limit or explain
the antecedent; as, 'The house _which_ he built still remains.' Here the
clause introduced by _which_ specifies, or points out, the house that is
the subject of the statement, namely, by the circumstance that a certain
person built it. As remarked with regard to _who_, our most idiomatic
writers prefer _that_ in this particular application, and would say,
'The house _that_ he built still remains.'"
"_Which_ sometimes has a special reference attaching to it, as the
neuter relative: 'Cæsar crossed the Rubicon, _which_ was in effect a
declaration of war.' The antecedent in this instance is not _Rubicon_,
but the entire clause.
"There is a peculiar usage where _which_ may _seem_ to be still
regularly used in reference to persons, as in 'John is a soldier,
_which_ I should like to be,' that is, 'And I should like _to be a
soldier_.'" See THAT.
WHO. There are few persons, even among the most cultivated, who do not
make frequent mistakes in the use of this pronoun. They say, "_Who_ did
you see?" "_Who_ did you meet?" "_Who_ did he marry?" "_Who_ did you
hear?" "_Who_ did he know?" "_Who_ are you writing to?" "_Who_ are you
looking at?" In all these sentences the interrogative pronoun is in the
objective case, and should be used in the objective form, which is
_whom_, and not _who_. To show that these sentences are not correct, and
are not defensible by supposing any ellipsis whatsoever, we have only to
put the questions in another form. Take the first one, and, instead of
"Who did you see?" say, "Who saw you?" which, if correct, justifies us
in saying, "Who knew he," which is the equivalent of "Who did he know?"
But "Who saw you?" in this instance, is clearly not correct, since it
says directly the opposite of what is intended.
_Who_ was little used as a relative till about the sixteenth century.
Bain says: "In modern use, more especially in books, _who_ is frequently
employed to introduce a clause intended to restrict, define, limit, or
explain a noun (or its equivalent); as, 'That is the man _who_ spoke to
us yesterday.'"
"Here the clause introduced by _who_ is necessary to define or explain
the antecedent _the man_; without it, we do not know who _the man_ is.
Such relative clauses are typical _adjective_ clauses--i. e., they have
the same effect as adjectives in limiting nouns. This may be called the
RESTRICTIVE use of the relative.
"Now it will be found that the practice of our most idiomatic writers
and speakers is to prefer _that_ to _who_ in this application.
"_Who_ is properly used in such coördinate sentences as, 'I met the
watchman, _who_ told me there had been a fire.' Here the two clauses are
distinct and independent; in such a case, _and he_ might be substituted
for _who_.
"Another form of the same use is when the second clause is of the kind
termed adverbial, where we may resolve _who_ into a personal or
demonstrative pronoun and conjunction. 'Why should we consult Charles,
_who_ (_for he_, _seeing that he_) knows nothing of the matter?'
"_Who_ may be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with
_whom_. For many good writers and speakers say '_who_ are you talking
of?' '_who_ does the garden belong to?' '_who_ is this for?' '_who_
from?'" etc.
If this be true--if _who may_ be regarded as a modern objective form,
side by side with _whom_--then, of course, such expressions as "_Who_
did you see?" "_Who_ did you meet?" "_Who_ did he marry?" "_Who_ were
you with?" "_Who_ will you give it to?" and the like, are correct. That
they are used colloquially by well-nigh everybody, no one will dispute;
but that they are _correct_, few grammarians will concede. See THAT.
WHOLE. This word is sometimes most improperly used for _all_; thus, "The
_whole_ Germans seem to be saturated with the belief that they are
really the greatest people on earth, and that they would be universally
recognized as being the greatest, if they were not so exceeding modest."
"The whole Russians are inspired with the belief that their mission is
to conquer the world."--Alison.
WHOLESOME. See HEALTHY.
WHOSE. Mr. George Washington Moon discountenances the use of _whose_ as
the possessive of _which_. He says, "The best writers, when speaking of
inanimate objects, use _of which_ instead of _whose_." The correctness
of this statement is doubtful. The truth is, I think, that good writers
use that form for the possessive case of _which_ that in their judgment
is, in each particular case, the more euphonious, giving the preference,
perhaps, to _of which_. On this subject Dr. Campbell says: "The
possessive of _who_ is properly _whose_. The pronoun _which_,
originally indeclinable, had no possessive. This was supplied, in the
common periphrastic manner, by the help of the preposition and the
article. But, as this could not fail to enfeeble the expression, when so
much time was given to mere conjunctives, all our best authors, both in
prose and verse, have now come regularly to adopt, in such cases, the
possessive of _who_, and thus have substituted one syllable in the room
of three, as in the example following: 'Philosophy, _whose_ end is to
instruct us in the knowledge of nature,' for 'Philosophy, _the_ end _of
which_ is to instruct us.' Some grammarians remonstrate; but it ought to
be remembered that use, well established, must give law to grammar, and
not grammar to use."
Professor Bain says: "_Whose_, although the possessive of _who_, and
practically of _which_, is yet frequently employed for the purpose of
restriction: 'We are the more likely to guard watchfully against those
faults _whose_ deformity we have seen fully displayed in others.' This
is better than 'the deformity _of which_ we have seen.' 'Propositions of
_whose_ truth we have no certain knowledge.'--Locke." Dr. Fitzedward
Hall says that the use of _whose_ for _of which_, where the antecedent
is not only irrational but inanimate, has had the support of high
authority for several hundred years.
WIDOW WOMAN. Since widows are always women, why say a widow _woman_? It
would be perfectly correct to say a _widowed_ woman.
WIDOWHOOD. There is good authority for using this word in speaking of
men as well as of women.
WITHOUT. This word is often improperly used instead of _unless_; as,
"You will never live to my age _without_ you keep yourself in breath and
exercise"; "I shall not go _without_ my father consents": properly,
_unless_ my father consents, or, _without_ my father's consent.
WORST. We should say _at the worst_, not _at worst_.
WOVE. The past participle of the verb _to weave_ is _woven_. "Where was
this cloth _woven_?" not _wove_.
YOU ARE MISTAKEN. See MISTAKEN.
YOU WAS. Good usage does, and it is to be hoped always will, consider
_you was_ a gross vulgarism, certain grammarians to the contrary
notwithstanding. _You_ is the form of the pronoun in the second person
plural, and must, if we would speak correctly, be used with the
corresponding form of the verb. The argument that we use _you_ in the
singular number is so nonsensical that it does not merit a moment's
consideration. It is a custom we have--and have in common with other
peoples--to speak to one another in the second person plural, and that
is all there is of it. The Germans speak to one another in the _third_
person plural. The exact equivalent in German of our _How are you?_ is,
_How are they?_ Those who would say _you was_ should be consistent, and
in like manner say _you has_ and _you does_.
YOURS, &C. The ignorant and obtuse not unfrequently profess themselves
at the bottom of their letters "Yours, &c." And so forth! forth what?
Few vulgarisms are equally offensive, and none could be more so. In
printing correspondence, the newspapers often content themselves with
this short-hand way of intimating that the writer's name was preceded by
some one of the familiar forms of ending letters; this an occasional
dunderhead seems to think is sufficient authority for writing himself,
_Yours, &c._