Lady.To use the termlady, whether in the singular or in the plural, simply to designate the sex, is in the worst possible taste. There is a kind of pin-feather gentility which seems to have a settled aversion to using the termsmanandwoman. Gentlemen and ladies establish their claims to being called such by their bearing, and not by arrogating to themselves,even indirectly, the titles. In England, the titleladyis properly correlative tolord; but there, as in this country, it is used as a term of complaisance, and is appropriately applied to women whose lives are exemplary, and who have received that school and home education which enables them to appear to advantage in the better circles of society. Such expressions as "She is a finelady, a cleverlady, a well-dressedlady, a goodlady, amodestlady, a charitablelady, an amiablelady, a handsomelady, a fascinatinglady," and the like, are studiously avoided by persons of refinement.Ladiessay, "wewomen, thewomenof America,women'sapparel," and so on;vulgarwomen talk about "usladies, theladiesof America,ladies'apparel," and so on. If a woman of culture and refinement—in short, a lady—is compelled from any cause soever to work in a store, she is quite content to be called a sales-woman; not so, however, with your young woman who, being in a store, is in a better position than ever before. She, Heaven bless her! boils with indignation if she is not denominated a sales-lady. Lady is often the proper term to use, and then it would be very improper to use any other; but it is very certain that the termsladyandgentlemanare least used by those persons who are most worthy of being designated by them. With a nice discrimination worthy of special notice, one of our daily papers recently said: "Miss Jennie Halstead, daughter of the proprietor of the 'Cincinnati Commercial,' is one of the most brilliant youngwomenin Ohio."
In a late number of the "London Queen" was the following: "The termsladiesandgentlemenbecome in themselves vulgarisms when misapplied, and the improper application of the wrong term at the wrong time makes all the difference in the world to ears polite. Thus, calling a man agentlemanwhen he should be called aman, or speaking of a man as amanwhen he should be spoken of as agentleman; or alluding to a lady as awomanwhen she should be alluded to as alady, or speaking of a woman as aladywhen she should properly be termed awoman. Tact and a sense of the fitness of things decide these points, there being no fixed rule to go upon to determine when a man is amanor when he is agentleman; and, although heis far oftener termed the one than the other, he does not thereby lose his attributes of a gentleman. In common parlance, a man is always amanto a man, and never agentleman; to a woman, he is occasionally amanand occasionally agentleman; but a man would far oftener term a woman awomanthan he would term her alady. When a man makes use of an adjective in speaking of a lady, he almost invariably calls her awoman. Thus, he would say, 'I met a rather agreeablewomanat dinner last night'; but he wouldnotsay, 'I met an agreeablelady'; but he might say, 'Alady, a friend of mine, told me,' etc., when he wouldnotsay, 'Awoman, a friend of mine, told me,' etc. Again, a man would say, 'Which of theladiesdid you take in to dinner?' He would certainly not say, 'Which of thewomen,' etc.
"Speaking of peopleen masse, it would be to belong to a very advanced school to refer to them in conversation as 'men and women,' while it would be all but vulgar to style them 'ladies and gentlemen,' the compromise between the two being to speak of them as 'ladies and men.' Thus a lady would say, 'I have asked two or three ladies and several men'; she would not say, 'I have asked several men and women'; neither would she say, 'I have asked several ladies and gentlemen.' And, speaking of numbers, it would be very usual to say, 'There were a great many ladies, and but very few men present,' or, 'The ladies were in the majority, so few men being present.' Again, a lady would not say, 'I expect two or three men,' but she would say, 'I expect two or three gentlemen.' When people are on ceremony with each other [one another], they might, perhaps, in speaking of a man, call him agentleman; but, otherwise, it would be more usual to speak of him as aman. Ladies, when speaking of each other [one another], usuallyemploy the termwomanin preference to that oflady. Thus they would say, 'She is a very good-naturedwoman,' 'What sort of awomanis she?' the termladybeing entirely out of place under such circumstances. Again, the term youngladygives place as far as possible to the termgirl, although it greatly depends upon the amount of intimacy existing as to which term is employed."
Language.A note in Worcester's Dictionary says: "Languageis a very general term, and is not strictly confined to utterance by words, as it is also expressed by the countenance, by the eyes, and by signs.Tonguerefers especially to an original language; as, 'the Hebrewtongue.' The modern languages are derived from the originaltongues." If this be correct, then he who speaks French, German, English, Spanish, and Italian, may properly say that he speaks fivelanguages, but only onetongue.
Lay—Lie.Errors are frequent in the use of these two irregular verbs.Layis often used forlie, andlieis sometimes used forlay. This confusion in their use is due in some measure, doubtless, to the circumstance thatlayappears in both verbs, it being the imperfect tense ofto lie. We say, "A masonlaysbricks," "A shipliesat anchor," etc. "I mustliedown"; "I mustlaymyself down"; "I mustlaythis book on the table"; "Helieson the grass"; "Helayshis plans well"; "Helayon the grass"; "Helaidit away"; "He haslainin bed long enough"; "He haslaid upsome money," "ina stock," "downthe law"; "He islayingout the grounds"; "Shipslieat the wharf"; "Henslayeggs"; "The shiplayat anchor"; "The henlaidan egg." It will be seen thatlayalways expresses transitive action, and thatlieexpresses rest.
"Hereliesour sovereign lord, the king,Whose word no man relies on;He never says a foolish thing,Nor ever does a wise one."
"Hereliesour sovereign lord, the king,Whose word no man relies on;He never says a foolish thing,Nor ever does a wise one."
—Written on the bedchamber door of Charles II, by the Earl of Rochester.
Learn.This verb was long ago used as a synonym ofteach, but in this sense it is now obsolete. Toteachis to give instruction; tolearnis to take instruction. "I willlearn, if you willteachme." SeeTeach.
Leave.There are grammarians who insist that this verb should not be used without an object, as, for example, it is used in such sentences as, "When do you leave?" "I leave to-morrow." The object of the verb—home, town, or whatever it may be—is, of course, understood; but this, say these gentlemen, is not permissible. On this point opinions will, I think, differ; they will, however, not differ with regard to the vulgarity of usingleavein the sense oflet; thus, "Leaveme be"; "Leaveit alone"; "Leaveher be—don't bother her"; "Leaveme see it."
Lend.SeeLoan.
Lengthy.This word is of comparatively recent origin, and, though it is said to be an Americanism, it is a good deal used in England. The most careful writers, however, both here and elsewhere, much prefer the wordlong: "alongdiscussion," "alongdiscourse," etc.
Leniency.Mr. Gould calls this word andlenience"two philological abortions."Lenityis undoubtedly the proper word to use, though both Webster and Worcester do recognizeleniencyandlenience.
Less.This word is much used instead offewer.Lessrelates to quantity;fewerto number. Instead of, "There were notlessthan twenty persons present," we shouldsay, "There were notfewerthan twenty persons present."
Lesser.This form of the comparative oflittleis accounted a corruption ofless. It may, however, be used instead oflesswith propriety in verse, and also, in some cases, in prose. We may say, for example, "Of two evils choose theless," or "thelesser." The latter form, in sentences like this, is the more euphonious.
Liable.Richard Grant White, in inveighing against the misuse of this word, cites the example of a member from a rural district, who called out to a man whom he met in the village, where he was in the habit of making little purchases: "I say, mister, kin yer tell me whar I'd beli'bleto find some beans?" See, also,Apt.
Lie.SeeLay.
Like—As.Both these words express similarity;like(adjective) comparing things,as(adverb) comparing action, existence, or quality. Like is followed by an object only, and does not admit of a verb in the same construction.Asmust be followed by a verb expressed or understood. We say, "He lookslikehis brother," or "He looksashis brotherlooks." "DoasI do," not "likeI do." "You must speakasJames does," not "likeJames does." "He diedashe had lived,likea dog." "It isasblueasindigo"; i. e., "as indigo is."
Like, To.SeeLove.
Likely.SeeApt.
Lit.This form of the past participle of the verbto lightis now obsolete. "Have youlightedthe fire?" "The gas islighted."Hetforheatedis a similar, but much greater, vulgarism.
Loan—Lend.There are those who contend that there is no such verb asto loan, although it has been found inour literature for more than three hundred years. Whether there is properly such a verb or not, it is quite certain that it is only those having a vulgarpenchantfor big words who will prefer it to its synonymlend. Better far to say "Lendme your umbrella" than "Loanme your umbrella."
Locate—Settle.The use of the verbto locatein the sense ofto settleis said to be an Americanism. Although the dictionaries recognizeto locateas a neuter verb, as such it is marked "rarely used," and, in the sense ofto settle, it is among the vulgarisms that careful speakers and writers are studious to avoid. A mansettles, notlocates, in Nebraska. "Where do you intend tosettle?" notlocate. See, also,Settle.
Loggerheads."In the mean time France is atloggerheads internally."—"New York Herald," April 29, 1881. Loggerheadsinternally?!
Looks beautifully.It is sometimes interesting to note the difference betweenvulgarbad grammar andgenteelbad grammar, or, more properly, between non-painstaking and painstaking bad grammar. The former uses, for example, adjectives instead of adverbs; the latter uses adverbs instead of adjectives. The former says, "This bonnet is trimmedshocking"; the latter says, "This bonnet looksshockingly." In the first sentence the epithet qualifies the verbis trimmed, and consequently should have its adverbial form—shockingly; in the second sentence the epithet qualifies theappearance—a noun—of the bonnet, and consequently should have its adjectival form—shocking. The second sentence means to say, "This bonnet presents a shocking appearance." The bonnet certainly does not reallylook; it islooked at, and to thelookerits appearance isshocking. So we say, in like manner, of a person, that he or she lookssweet, orcharming, orbeautiful, orhandsome,orhorrid, orgraceful, ortimid, and so on, always using an adjective. "Miss Coghlan, as Lady Teazle, lookedcharmingly." The grammar of the "New York Herald" would not have been any more incorrect if it had said that Miss Coghlan lookedgladly, orsadly, ormadly, ordelightedly, orpleasedly. A person may looksickorsickly, but in both cases the qualifying word is an adjective. The verbs tosmell, tofeel, tosound, and toappearare also found in sentences in which the qualifying word must be an adjective and not an adverb. We say, for example, "The rose smellssweet"; "The butter smellsgood, orbad, orfresh"; "I feelglad, orsad, orbad, ordespondent, orannoyed, ornervous"; "This construction soundsharsh"; "Howdelightfulthe country appears!"
On the other hand, tolook, tofeel, tosmell, tosound, and toappearare found in sentences where the qualifying word must be an adverb; thus, "He feels his losskeenly"; "The king lookedgraciouslyon her"; "I smell itfaintly." We might also say, "He feelssad[adjective], because he feels his losskeenly" (adverb); "He appearswell" (adverb).
The expression, "She seemed confusedly, ortimidly," is not a whit more incorrect than "She looked beautifully, orcharmingly." SeeAdjectives.
Love—Like.Men who are at all careful in the selection of language to express their thoughts, and have not an undue leaning toward the superlative,lovefew things: their wives, their sweethearts, their kinsmen, truth, justice, and their country. Women, on the contrary, as a rule,lovea multitude of things, and, among their loves, the thing they perhaps love most is—taffy.
Luggage—Baggage.The former of these words is generally used in England, the latter in America.
Lunch.This word, when used as a substantive, may at the best be accounted an inelegant abbreviation ofluncheon. The dictionaries barely recognize it. The proper phraseology to use is, "Have youlunched?" or, "Have you had yourluncheon?" or, better, "Have you hadluncheon?" as we may in most cases presuppose that the person addressed would hardly take anybody's else luncheon.
Luxurious—Luxuriant.The line is drawn much more sharply between these two words now than it was formerly. Luxurious was once used, to some extent at least, in the sense ofrank growth, but now all careful writers and speakers use it in the sense ofindulgingordelighting in luxury. We talk of aluxurioustable, aluxuriousliver,luxuriousease,luxuriousfreedom. Luxuriant, on the other hand, is restricted to the sense ofrank, orexcessive, growth or production; thus,luxuriantweeds,luxuriantfoliage or branches,luxuriantgrowth.
"Prune theluxuriant, the uncouth refine,But show no mercy to an empty line."—Pope.
"Prune theluxuriant, the uncouth refine,But show no mercy to an empty line."—Pope.
Mad.Professor Richard A. Proctor, in a recent number of "The Gentleman's Magazine," says: "The wordmadin America seems nearly always to meanangry. Formad, as we use the word, Americans saycrazy. Herein they have manifestly impaired the language." Have they?
"Now, in faith, Gratiano,You give your wife too unkind a cause of grief;An 'twere, to me, I would bemad atit."—"Merchant of Venice."
"Now, in faith, Gratiano,You give your wife too unkind a cause of grief;An 'twere, to me, I would bemad atit."—"Merchant of Venice."
"And being exceedinglymadagainst them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities."—Acts xxvi, II.
Make a visit.The phrase "makea visit," according to Dr. Hall, whatever it once was, is no longer English.
Male.SeeFemale.
Marry.There has been some discussion, at one time and another, with regard to the use of this word. Is John Jones marriedtoSally Brown orwithSally Brown, or are they married to each other? Inasmuch as the woman loses her name in that of the man to whom she is wedded, and becomes a member of his family, not he of hers—inasmuch as, with few exceptions, it is her life that is merged in his—it would seem that,properly, Sally Brown is marriedtoJohn Jones, and that this would be the proper way to make the announcement of their having been wedded, and not John JonestoSally Brown.
There is also a difference of opinion as to whether the active or the passive form is preferable in referring to a person's wedded state. In speaking definitely of theactof marriage, the passive form is necessarily used with reference to either spouse. "John Jones was married to Sally Brown on Dec. 1, 1881"; not, "John JonesmarriedSally Brown" on such a date, for (unless they were Quakers) some third person married him to her and her to him. But, in speaking indefinitely of thefactof marriage, the active form is a matter of course. "Whom did John Jones marry?" "He married Sally Brown." "John Jones, when he had sown his wild oats, married [married himself, as the French say] and settled down."Got marriedis a vulgarism.
May.In the sense ofcan,may, in a negative clause, has become obsolete. "Though wemaysay a horse, wemaynot say a ox." The firstmayhere is permissible; not so, however, the second, which should becan.
Meat.At table, we ask for and offer beef, mutton, veal, steak, turkey, duck, etc., and do not ask for nor offermeat, which, to say the least, is inelegant. "Will you have [not, take] another piece ofbeef[not, ofthebeef]?" not, "Will you have another piece ofmeat?"
Memorandum.The plural ismemoranda, except when the singular means a book; then the plural ismemorandums.
Mere.This word is not unfrequently misplaced, and sometimes, as in the following sentence, in consequence of being misplaced, it is changed to an adverb: "It is true of men as of God, that wordsmerelymeet with no response." What the writer evidently intended to say is, thatmerewords meet with no response.
Metaphor.Animpliedcomparison is called a metaphor; it is a more terse form of expression than the simile. Take, for example, this sentence from Spenser's "Philosophy of Style": "As, in passing through the crystal, beams of white light are decomposed into the colors of the rainbow; so, in traversing the soul of the poet, the colorless rays of truth are transformed into brightly-tinted poetry." Expressed in metaphors, this becomes: "The white light of truth, in traversing the many-sided, transparent soul of the poet, is refracted into iris-hued poetry."
Worcester's definition of ametaphoris: "A figure of speech founded on the resemblance which one object is supposed to bear, in some respect, to another, or a figure by which a word is transferred from a subject to which it properly belongs to another, in such a manner that acomparison is implied, though not formally expressed; a comparison or simile comprised in a word; as, 'Thy word is alampto my feet.'" Ametaphordiffers from asimilein being expressed without any sign of comparison; thus, "thesilvermoon" is ametaphor; "the moon is bright as silver" is a simile. Examples:
"But look, the morn, in russet mantle clad,Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastern hill.""Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased—Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow?""At length ErasmusStemmed the wild torrent of a barbarous age,And drove those holy Vandals off the stage."
"But look, the morn, in russet mantle clad,Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastern hill."
"Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased—Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow?"
"At length ErasmusStemmed the wild torrent of a barbarous age,And drove those holy Vandals off the stage."
"Censure is the tax a man pays to the public for being eminent."
Metonymy.The rhetorical figure that puts the effect for the cause, the cause for the effect, the container for the thing contained, the sign, or symbol, for the thing signified, or the instrument for the agent, is calledmetonymy.
"One very common species ofmetonymyis, when the badge is put for the office. Thus we say themiterfor the priesthood; thecrownfor royalty; for military occupation we say thesword; and for the literary professions, those especially of theology, law, and physic, the common expression is thegown."—Campbell.
Dr. Quackenbos, in his "Course of Composition and Rhetoric," says: "Metonymyis the exchange of names between things related. It is founded, not on resemblance, but on the relation of, 1. Cause and effect; as,'They haveMosesandthe prophets,' i. e., their writings; 'Gray hairsshould be respected,' i. e.,old age. 2. Progenitor and posterity; as, 'Hear, O Israel!' i. e.,descendants of Israel. 3. Subject and attribute; as, 'Youthandbeautyshall be laid in dust,' i. e.,the youngandbeautiful. 4. Place and inhabitant; as, 'Whatlandis so barbarous as to allow this injustice?' i. e., whatpeople. 5. Container and thing contained; as, 'Ourshipsnext opened fire,' i. e., oursailors. 6. Sign and thing signified; as, 'Thesceptershall not depart from Judah,' i. e.,kinglypower. 7. Material and thing made of it; as, 'Hissteelgleamed on high,' i. e., hissword."
"Petitions having proved unsuccessful, it was determined to approach the throne more boldly."
Midst, The.SeeIn our midst.
Mind—Capricious."Lord Salisbury'smindiscapricious."—"Tribune," April 3, 1881. SeeEquanimity of Mind.
Misplaced Clauses.In writing and speaking, it is as important to give each clause its proper place as it is to place the words properly. The following are a few instances of misplaced clauses and adjuncts: "All these circumstances brought close to us a state of things which we never thought to have witnessed [to witness] in peaceful England.In the sister island, indeed, we had read of such horrors, but now they were brought home to our very household hearth."—Swift. Better: "We had read, indeed, of such horrors occurring in the sister island," etc.
"The savage people in many places in America, except the government of families, have no government at all, and live at this day in that savage manner as I have said before."—Hobbes. Better: "The savage people ... in America have no government at all, except the government of families," etc.
"I shall have a comedy for you, in a season or two at farthest, that I believe will be worth your acceptance."—Goldsmith. Bettered: "In a season or two at farthest, I shall have a comedy for you that I believe will be worth your acceptance."
Among the following examples of the wrong placing of words and clauses, there are some that are as amusing as they are instructive: "This orthography is regarded as normalin England." What the writer intended was, "in Englandas normal"—a very different thought. "The Normal School is a commodious building capable of accommodating three hundred students four stories high." "Housekeeper.—A highly respectable middle-aged Person who has beenfilling the above Situation with a gentleman for upwards of eleven years and who is now deceased is anxious to meet a similar one." "To Piano-Forte Makers.—A lady keeping a first-class school requiring a good piano, is desirous of receiving a daughter of the above in exchange for the same." "The Moor, seizing a bolster boiling over with rage and jealousy, smothers her." "The Dying Zouave the most wonderful mechanical representation ever seen of the last breath of life being shot in the breast and life's blood leaving the wound." "Mr. T—— presents his compliments to Mr. H——, and I have got a hat that is not his, and, if he have a hat that is not yours, no doubt they are the expectant ones." SeeOnly.
Misplaced Words."Of all the faults to be found in writing," says Cobbett, "this is one of the most common, and perhaps it leads to the greatest number of misconceptions. All the words may be the proper words to be used upon the occasion, and yet, by amisplacingof a part of them, the meaning may be wholly destroyed; and even made to be the contrary of what it ought to be."
"I asked the question with no other intention than to set the gentleman free from the necessity of silence, and to give him an opportunity of mingling on equal terms with a polite assembly from which,however uneasy, he could not thenescape,by a kind introductionof the only subject on which I believed him to be able to speak with propriety."—Dr. Johnson.
"This," says Cobbett, "is a very bad sentence altogether. 'However uneasy' applies toassemblyand not togentleman. Only observe how easily this might have been avoided. 'From whichhe,however uneasy, could not then escape.' After this we have, 'hecould not thenescape,by a kind introduction.' We know what ismeant; but theDoctor, with all hiscommas, leaves the sentence confused. Let us see whether we can not make it clear. 'I asked the question with no other intention than, by a kind introduction of the only subject on which I believed him to be able to speak with propriety, to set the gentleman free from the necessity of silence, and to give him an opportunity of mingling on equal terms with a polite assembly from which he, however uneasy, could not then escape.'"
"Reason is the glory of human nature, and one of the chief eminences whereby we are raised above our fellow-creatures, the brutes,in this lower world."—Doctor Watts' "Logic."
"I have before showed an error," Cobbett remarks, "in thefirstsentence of Doctor Watts' work. This is thesecondsentence. The wordsin this lower worldare not wordsmisplacedonly; they are whollyunnecessary, and they do great harm; for they do these two things: first, they implythat there are brutes in the higher world; and, second, they excite a doubtwhether we are raised above those brutes.
"I might greatly extend the number of my extracts from these authors; but here, I trust, are enough. I had noted down abouttwo hundred errorsin Dr. Johnson's 'Lives of the Poets'; but, afterward perceiving that he had revised and corrected 'The Rambler' withextraordinary care, I chose to make my extracts from that work rather than from the 'Lives of the Poets.'"
The position of the adverb should be as near as possible to the word it qualifies. Sometimes we place it before the auxiliary and sometimes after it, according to the thought we wish to express. The difference between "The fish shouldproperlybe broiled" and "The fish should beproperlybroiled" is apparent at a glance. "The colon may beproperlyused in the following cases": should be, "mayproperlybe used." "This mode of expressionrather suitsa familiar than a grave style": should be, "suits a familiarrather thana grave style." "It is a frequent errorin the writings evenof some good authors": should be, "in the writings ofeven some goodauthors." "Boththe circumstances of contingency and futurity are necessary": should be, "The circumstances of contingency and futurity arebothnecessary." "He has made charges ... which he has failedutterlyto sustain."—"New York Tribune." Here it is uncertain at first sight which verb the adverb is intended to qualify; but the nature of the case makes it probable that the writer meant "has utterly failed to sustain."
Mistaken."If I am notmistaken, you are in the wrong": say, "If Imistake not." "I tell you, you aremistaken." Heremistakenmeans, "You are wrong; you do not understand"; but it might be taken to mean, "Imistake you." For "you aremistaken," say, "youmistake." If, as Horace and Professor Davidson aver, usage in language makes right, then the grammarians ought long ago to have invented some theory upon which the locutionyou are mistakencould be defended. Until they do invent such a theory, it will be better to sayyou mistake,he mistakes, and so on; oryou are, orhe is—as the case may be—in error.
More perfect.Such expressions as, "themoreperfect of the two," "themostperfect thing of the kind I have ever seen," "themostcomplete cooking-stove ever invented," and the like, can not be defended logically, as nothing can be more perfect than perfection, or more complete than completeness. Still such phrases are, and probably will continue to be, used by good writers.
Most."Everybody abuses this word," says Mr. Gould in his "Good English"; and then, in another paragraph, he adds: "If a man would cross outmostwherever he can find it in any book in the English language, he would inalmost every instance improve the style of the book." That this statement may appear within bounds, he gives many examples from good authors, some of which are the following: "amostprofound silence"; "amostjust idea"; "amostcomplete orator"; "this wasmostextraordinary"; "an object ofmostperfect esteem"; "amostextensive erudition"; "he gave itmostliberally away"; "it is,mostassuredly, not because I value his services least"; "wouldmostseriously affect us"; "that such a system mustmostwidely andmostpowerfully," etc.; "it ismosteffectually nailed to the counter"; "it ismostundeniable that," etc.
This word is much, and very erroneously, used foralmost. "He comes heremostevery day." The user of such a sentence as this means to say that he comesnearlyevery day, but hereally says, if he says anything, that he comes more every day than he does every night. In such sentencesalmost, and notmost, is the word to use.
Mutual.This word is much misused in the phrase "ourmutualfriend." Macaulay says: "Mutualfriend is a low vulgarism forcommonfriend."Mutualproperly relates to two persons, and implies reciprocity of sentiment—sentiment, be it what it may, received and returned. Thus, we say properly, "John and James have amutualaffection, or amutualaversion," i. e., they like or dislike each other; or, "John and James aremutuallydependent," i. e., they are dependent on each other. In using the wordmutual, care should be taken not to add the wordsfor each otheroron each other, the thought conveyed by these words being already expressed in the wordmutual. "Dependenton each other" is the exact equivalent of "mutually dependent"; hence, saying that John and James aremutuallydependenton each otheris as redundant in form as it would be to say that the editors of "The Great Vilifier" are the biggest, greatest mud-slingers in America.
Myself.This form of the personal pronoun is properly used in the nominative case only whereincreased emphasisis aimed at.
"I had as lief not be as live to beIn awe of such a thing as Imyself."
"I had as lief not be as live to beIn awe of such a thing as Imyself."
"I will do itmyself," "I saw itmyself." It is, therefore, incorrect to say, "Mrs. Brown and myself were both very much pleased."
Name.This word is sometimes improperly used formention; thus, "I nevernamedthe matter to any one": should be, "I nevermentionedthe matter to any one."
Neighborhood.SeeVicinity.
Neither.SeeEither.
Neither—Nor."He wouldneithergive wine,noroil,normoney."—Thackeray. The conjunction should be placed before the excluded object; "neithergive" implies neither some otherverb, a meaning not intended. Rearrange thus, taking all the common parts of the contracted sentences together: "He would giveneitherwine,noroil,normoney." So, "She canneitherhelp her beauty,norher courage,norher cruelty" (Thackeray), should be, "She can helpneither," etc. "He hadneithertime to interceptnorto stop her" (Scott), should be, "He had timeneitherto intercept," etc. "Someneithercan for witsnorcritics pass" (Pope), should be, "Some canneitherfor witsnorcritics pass."
Never.Grammarians differ with regard to the correctness of usingneverin such sentences as, "He is in error,thoughneverso wise," "Charm heneverso wisely." In sentences like these, to say the least, it is better, in common with the great majority of writers, to useever.
New.This adjective is often misplaced. "He has anewsuit of clothes and anewpair of gloves." It is not thesuitand thepairthat are new, but theclothesand thegloves.
Nice.Archdeacon Hare remarks of the use, or rather misuse, of this word: "That stupid vulgarism by which we use the wordniceto denote almost every mode of approbation, for almost every variety of quality, and, from sheer poverty of thought, or fear of saying anything definite, wrap up everything indiscriminately in this characterless domino, speaking at the same breath of anicecheese-cake, anicetragedy, anicesermon, aniceday, anicecountry, as if a universal deluge ofniaiserie—forniceseems originally to have been onlyniais—had whelmed the whole island." Nice is as good a word as any other in its place, but its place is not everywhere. We talk very properly about anicedistinction, anicediscrimination, anicecalculation, anicepoint, and about a person's beingnice, and over-nice, and the like; but we certainly ought not to talk about "Othello's" being anicetragedy, about Salvini's being aniceactor, or New York bay's being aniceharbor.[23]
Nicely.The very quintessence of popinjay vulgarity is reached whennicelyis made to do service forwell, in this wise: "How do you do?" "Nicely." "How are you?" "Nicely."
No.This word of negation is responded to bynorinsentences like this: "Let your meaning be obscure, andnograce of dictionnorany music of well-turned sentences will make amends."
"Whether he is there orno." Supply the ellipsis, and we have, "Whether he is there ornothere." Clearly, the word to use in sentences like this is notno, butnot. And yet our best writers sometimes inadvertently usenowithwhether. Example: "But perhaps some people are quite indifferentwhetherornoit is said," etc.—Richard Grant White, in "Words and Their Uses," p. 84. Supply the ellipsis, and we have, "said ornosaid." In a little book entitled "Live and Learn," I find, "Nolessthan fifty persons were there; Nofewer," etc. In correcting one mistake, the writer himself makes one. It should be, "Notfewer," etc. If we ask, "There were fifty persons there, were there or were therenot?" the reply clearly would be, "There werenotfewer than fifty." "There wasnoone of them who would not have been proud," etc., should be, "There wasnotone of them."
Not.The correlative ofnot, when it stands in the first member of a sentence, isnororneither. "Notfor thy ivorynorthy gold will I unbind thy chain." "I willnotdo it,neithershall you."
The wrong placing ofnotoften gives rise to an imperfect negation; thus, "John and James werenotthere," means that John and James were not therein company. It does not exclude the presence of one of them. The negative should precede in this case: "Neither JohnnorJames was there." "Our company wasnotpresent" (as a company, but some of us might have been), should be, "No member of our company was present."
Not—but only."Errors frequently arise in the use ofnot—butonly, to understand which we must attend tothe force of the whole expression. 'He didnotpretend to extirpate French music,but onlyto cultivate and civilize it.' Here thenotis obviously misplaced. 'He pretended, or professed,notto extirpate.'"—Bain.
Notorious.Though this word can not be properly used in any but a bad sense, we sometimes see it used instead ofnoted, which may be used in either a good or a bad sense.Notoriouscharacters are always persons to be shunned, whereasnotedcharacters may or may not be persons to be shunned.
"This is the tax a man must pay for his virtues—they hold up a torch to his vices and render those frailtiesnotoriousin him which would pass without observation in another."—Lacon.
Novice.SeeAmateur.
Number.It is not an uncommon thing for a pronoun in the plural number to be used in connection with an antecedent in the singular. At present, the following notice may be seen in some of our Broadway omnibuses: "Fifty dollars reward for the conviction of any person caught collecting or keeping fares given tothemto deposit in the box." Should be, tohim. "A person may be very near-sighted iftheycan not recognize an acquaintance ten feet off." Should be, ifhe.
The verbto beis often used in the singular instead of in the plural; thus, "Thereisseveral reasons why it would be better": say,are. "How manyisthere?" say,are. "Thereisfour": say,are. "Wasthere many?" say,were. "No matter how many therewas": say,were.
A verb should agree in number with its subject, and not with its predicate. We say, for example, "Deathisthe wages of sin," and "The wages of sinaredeath."
"When singular nouns connected byandare precededbyeach,every, orno, the verb must be singular." We say, for example, "Eachboy andeachgirlstudies." "Everyleaf, andeverytwig, andeverydrop of waterteemswith life." "Nobook andnopaperwasarranged."
Eachbeing singular, a pronoun or verb to agree with it must also be singular; thus, "Let them depend each onhisown exertions"; "Each city hasitspeculiar privileges"; "Everybody has a right to look afterhisown interest."
Errors are often the result of not repeating the verb; thus, "Its significance is as varied as the passions": correctly, "asarethe passions." "The words are as incapable of analysis as the thing signified": correctly, "asisthe thing signified."
Observe.The dictionaries authorize the use of this word as a synonym ofsayandremark; as, for example, "What did youobserve?" for "What did yousay, orremark?" In this sense, however, it is better to leaveobserveto the exclusive use of those who delight in being fine.
O'clock."It is a quartertoten o'clock." What does this statement mean, literally? Weunderstandby it that it lacks a quarter of ten, i. e., of being ten; but it does not really mean that. Inasmuch astomeans toward, itreallymeans a quarter after nine. We should say, then, a quarterof, which means, literally, a quarterout often.
Of all others."The vice of covetousness,of all others, enters deepest into the soul." This sentence says that covetousness is one of theothervices. A thing can not beanotherthing, nor can it be one of a number ofotherthings. The sentence should be, "Of all the vices, covetousness enters deepest into the soul"; or, "The vice of covetousness, of all the vices, enters," etc.; or, "The vice of covetousness,aboveall others, enters," etc.
Of any.This phrase is often used whenof allis meant; thus, "This is the largestof anyI have seen." Should be, "the largestof all," etc.
Off of.In such sentences as, "Give me a yardoff ofthis piece of calico," either theoffor theofis vulgarly superfluous. The sentence would be correct with either one, but not with both of them. "The apples felloff ofthe tree": read, "felloffthe tree."
Often.This adverb is properly compared by changing its termination: often, oftener, oftenest. Why some writers usemoreandmostto compare it, it is not easy to see; this mode of comparing it is certainly not euphonious.
Oh—O.It is only the most careful writers who use these two interjections with proper discrimination. The distinction between them is said to be modern.Ohis simply an exclamation, and should always be followed by some mark of punctuation, usually by an exclamation point. "Oh! you are come at last." "Oh, help him, you sweet heavens!" "Oh, woe is me!" "Oh! I die, Horatio."O, in addition to being an exclamation, denotes a calling to or adjuration; thus, "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth!" "O grave, where is thy victory?" "O heavenly powers, restore him!" "O shame! where is thy blush?"
Older—Elder."He is theolderman of the two, and theoldestin the neighborhood." "He is theelderof the two sons, and theeldestof the family." "Theelderson is heir to the estate; he isolderthan his brother by ten years."
On to.We getona chair,onan omnibus,ona stump, andona spree, and not onto.
One.Certain pronouns of demonstrative signification are called indefinite because they refer to no particular subject. This is one of them. If we were putting a supposition by way of argument or illustration, we might say,"SupposeIwere to lose my way in a wood"; or, "Supposeyouwere to lose your way in a wood"; or, "Supposeonewere to loseone'sway in a wood." All these forms are used, but, as a rule, the last is to be preferred. The first verges on egotism, and the second makes free with another's person, whereas the third is indifferent. "Ifone'shonesty were impeached, what shouldonedo?" is more courtly than to take either one's self or the person addressed for the example.
Oneshould be followed byone, and not byhe. "The better acquaintedoneis with any kind of rhetorical trick, the less liableheis to be misled by it." Should be, "the less liableoneis to be misled by it."
In the phrase, "any of the littleones,"oneis the numeral employed in the manner of a pronoun, by indicating something that has gone before, or, perhaps, has to come after. "I like peaches, but I must have a ripeone, or ripeones."
Professor Bain says, in his "Composition Grammar":
"This pronoun continually lands writers in difficulties. English idiom requires that, when the pronoun has to be again referred to, it should be used itself a second time. The correct usage is shown by Pope: 'Onemay be ashamed to consume halfone'sdays in bringing sense and rhyme together.' It would be against idiom to say 'halfhisdays.'
"Still, the repetition of the pronoun is often felt to be heavy, and writers have recourse to various substitutions. Even an ear accustomed to the idiom can scarcely accept with unmixed pleasure this instance from Browning: