"True ease in writing comes from art, not chance,As those move easiest who have learned to dance."
"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, althoughridemeans, 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 forought,in duty bound, underobligationto; thus, "You had arightto tell me," meaning, "You should have told me." "The Colonists contended that theyhad no rightto pay taxes," meaning, "They wereunder no obligationto 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 thesense 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 withgumsandarctics, is often, in defiance of good taste, used forovershoes.
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 isSunday.
Sarcasm.Bain says thatsarcasmis 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 thatsarcasmis 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 calledsatire. Satire is general rather than individual, its object being the reformation of abuses. Alampoon, which has been defined as apersonal 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 verbto seeis carelessly used by good writers and speakers when they should use the perfect; thus, "I neversawanything like it before," when the meaning intended is, "Ihavenever [in all my life]seenanything like it before [until now]." We say properly, "I neversawanything like itwhen I was in Paris"; but, when the period of time referred to extends to the time when the statement is made, it must behave seen.Like mistakes are made in the use of other verbs, but they are hardly as common; yet we often hear such expressions as, "Iwasnever in Philadelphia," "I neverwentto the theatre in my life," instead ofhave beenin Philadelphia, andhave goneto the theatre.
Section.The use of this word for region, neighborhood, vicinity, part (of the town or country), is said to be a Westernism. Asectionis a division of the public lands containing six hundred and forty acres.
Seem—Appear.Graham, in his "English Synonymes," says of these two words: "Whatseemsis in the mind; whatappearsis external. Thingsappearas they present themselves to the eye; theyseemas they are represented to the mind. Thingsappeargood or bad, as far as we can judge by our senses. Thingsseemright 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 theyappear, our senses are deceived; when things are not what theyseem, our judgment is at fault."
"No man had ever a greater power over himself, or was less the man heseemedto be, which shortly afterappearedto everybody, when he cared less to keep on the mask."—Clarendon.
Seldom or ever.This phrase should be "seldomifever," or "seldom ornever."
Seraphim.This is the plural ofseraph. "One of theseraphim." "To Thee cherubim and seraphim continually do cry." SeeCherubim.
Set—Sit.The former of these two verbs is often incorrectly used for the latter. Toset; imperfect tense,set; participles,setting,set. Tosit; imperfect tense,sat; participles,sitting,sat. Tosetmeans to put, to place, to plant;to put in any place, condition, state, or posture. We say, tosetabout, tosetagainst, tosetout, tosetgoing, tosetapart, tosetaside, tosetdown (to put in writing). Tositmeans to rest on the lower part of the body, to repose on a seat, to perch, as a bird, etc. We say, "Situp," i. e., rise from lying to sitting; "We willsitup," i. e., will not go to bed; "Sitdown," i. e., place yourself on a seat. Wesita horse and wesitfor a portrait. Garmentssitwell or otherwise. Congresssits, so does a court. "I havesatup long enough." "I havesetit on the table." Wesetdown figures, but wesitdown on the ground. Weseta hen, and a hensitson eggs. We should say, therefore, "as cross as asitting[not, as asetting] hen."
Settle.This word is often inelegantly, if not incorrectly, used forpay. Wepayour way,payour fare,payour 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 ofshallandwillcan much better be learned from example than from precept. Many persons who use them, and alsoshouldandwould, 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, "WillI 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, andWILLin the second and third persons, merely announce future action. Thus, "Ishallgo to town to-morrow." "Ishallnot; Ishallwait for better weather." "Weshallbe glad to see you." "Ishallsoon be twenty." "Weshallset out early, andshalltry to arrive by noon." "Youwillbe pleased." "Youwillsoon be twenty." "Youwillfind him honest." "Hewillgo with us."Shall,in an affirmative sentence, in the second and third persons, announces the speaker's intention to control. Thus, "Youshallhear me out." "Youshallgo, sick or well." "Heshallbe my heir." "Theyshallgo, 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, "Iwill[I promise to] assist you." "Iwill[I am determined to] have my right." "Wewill[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, "ShallI go with you?" "Whenshallwe see you again?" "WhenshallI receive it?" "WhenshallI get well?" "Whenshallwe get there?" "Shallhe come with us?" "Shallyou demand indemnity?" "Shallyou go to town to-morrow?" "Whatshallyou 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, "Willyou have an apple?" "Willyou go with me to my uncle's?" "Willhe be of the party?" "Willthey be willing to receive us?" "Whenwillhe be here?"Willcan not be used interrogatively in the first person singular or plural. We can not say, "WillI go?" "WillI help you?" "WillI be late?" "Willwe get there in time?" "Willwe see you again soon?"Official courtesy, in order to avoid the semblance ofcompulsion, conveys its commands in theyou-willform instead of the strictly grammaticalyou-shallform. It says, for example, "Youwillproceed to Key West, where you will find further instructions awaiting you."A clever writer on the use ofshallandwillsays that whatever concerns one's beliefs, hopes, fears, likes, or dislikes, can not be expressed in conjunction withI will. Are there no exceptions to this rule? If I say, "I think Ishallgo to Philadelphia to-morrow," I convey the impression that my going depends upon circumstances beyond my control; but if I say, "I think Iwillgo 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 Ishalllose it"; "I hope that Ishallbe well"; "I believe that Ishallhave the ague"; "I hope that Ishallnot be left alone"; "I fear that weshallhave bad weather"; "Ishalldislike the country"; "Ishalllike the performance." The writer referred to asks, "How can one say, 'Iwillhave 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; howshallyou get out of it?" "Oh, Iwillhave the headache!" We request that peoplewilldo thus or so, and not that theyshall. Thus, "It is requested that no onewillleave the room."Shallis rarely, if ever, used forwill; it iswillthat is used forshall. Expressions like the following are common: "Wherewillyou be next week?" "Iwillbe at home." "Wewillhave dinner at six o'clock." "Howwillyou go about it?" "Whenwillyou begin?" "Whenwillyou set out?" "Whatwillyou do with it?" In all such expressions, when it is a question of mere future action onthe part of the person speaking or spoken to, the auxiliary must beshall, and notwill.Shouldandwouldfollow the regimen ofshallandwill.Wouldis often used forshould;shouldrarely forwould. Correct speakers say, "Ishouldgo to town to-morrow if I had a horse." "Ishouldnot; Ishouldwait for better weather." "Weshouldbe glad to see you." "Weshouldhave started earlier, if the weather had been clear." "Ishouldlike to go to town, andwouldgo if I could." "Iwouldassist you if I could." "Ishouldhave been ill if I had gone." "IwouldI were home again!" "Ishouldgo fishing to-day if I were home." "Ishouldso like to go to Europe!" "Ishouldprefer to see it first." "Ishouldbe delighted." "Ishouldbe glad to have you sup with me." "I knew that Ishouldbe ill." "I feared that Ishouldlose it." "I hoped that Ishouldsee him." "I thought Ishouldhave the ague." "I hoped that Ishouldnot be left alone." "I was afraid that weshouldhave bad weather." "I knew Ishoulddislike the country." "Ishouldnot like to do it, andwillnot [determination] unless compelled to."
Shall,in an affirmative sentence, in the first person, andWILLin the second and third persons, merely announce future action. Thus, "Ishallgo to town to-morrow." "Ishallnot; Ishallwait for better weather." "Weshallbe glad to see you." "Ishallsoon be twenty." "Weshallset out early, andshalltry to arrive by noon." "Youwillbe pleased." "Youwillsoon be twenty." "Youwillfind him honest." "Hewillgo with us."
Shall,in an affirmative sentence, in the second and third persons, announces the speaker's intention to control. Thus, "Youshallhear me out." "Youshallgo, sick or well." "Heshallbe my heir." "Theyshallgo, 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, "Iwill[I promise to] assist you." "Iwill[I am determined to] have my right." "Wewill[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, "ShallI go with you?" "Whenshallwe see you again?" "WhenshallI receive it?" "WhenshallI get well?" "Whenshallwe get there?" "Shallhe come with us?" "Shallyou demand indemnity?" "Shallyou go to town to-morrow?" "Whatshallyou 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, "Willyou have an apple?" "Willyou go with me to my uncle's?" "Willhe be of the party?" "Willthey be willing to receive us?" "Whenwillhe be here?"
Willcan not be used interrogatively in the first person singular or plural. We can not say, "WillI go?" "WillI help you?" "WillI be late?" "Willwe get there in time?" "Willwe see you again soon?"
Official courtesy, in order to avoid the semblance ofcompulsion, conveys its commands in theyou-willform instead of the strictly grammaticalyou-shallform. It says, for example, "Youwillproceed to Key West, where you will find further instructions awaiting you."
A clever writer on the use ofshallandwillsays that whatever concerns one's beliefs, hopes, fears, likes, or dislikes, can not be expressed in conjunction withI will. Are there no exceptions to this rule? If I say, "I think Ishallgo to Philadelphia to-morrow," I convey the impression that my going depends upon circumstances beyond my control; but if I say, "I think Iwillgo 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 Ishalllose it"; "I hope that Ishallbe well"; "I believe that Ishallhave the ague"; "I hope that Ishallnot be left alone"; "I fear that weshallhave bad weather"; "Ishalldislike the country"; "Ishalllike the performance." The writer referred to asks, "How can one say, 'Iwillhave 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; howshallyou get out of it?" "Oh, Iwillhave the headache!" We request that peoplewilldo thus or so, and not that theyshall. Thus, "It is requested that no onewillleave the room."
Shallis rarely, if ever, used forwill; it iswillthat is used forshall. Expressions like the following are common: "Wherewillyou be next week?" "Iwillbe at home." "Wewillhave dinner at six o'clock." "Howwillyou go about it?" "Whenwillyou begin?" "Whenwillyou set out?" "Whatwillyou do with it?" In all such expressions, when it is a question of mere future action onthe part of the person speaking or spoken to, the auxiliary must beshall, and notwill.
Shouldandwouldfollow the regimen ofshallandwill.Wouldis often used forshould;shouldrarely forwould. Correct speakers say, "Ishouldgo to town to-morrow if I had a horse." "Ishouldnot; Ishouldwait for better weather." "Weshouldbe glad to see you." "Weshouldhave started earlier, if the weather had been clear." "Ishouldlike to go to town, andwouldgo if I could." "Iwouldassist you if I could." "Ishouldhave been ill if I had gone." "IwouldI were home again!" "Ishouldgo fishing to-day if I were home." "Ishouldso like to go to Europe!" "Ishouldprefer to see it first." "Ishouldbe delighted." "Ishouldbe glad to have you sup with me." "I knew that Ishouldbe ill." "I feared that Ishouldlose it." "I hoped that Ishouldsee him." "I thought Ishouldhave the ague." "I hoped that Ishouldnot be left alone." "I was afraid that weshouldhave bad weather." "I knew Ishoulddislike the country." "Ishouldnot like to do it, andwillnot [determination] unless compelled to."
Shimmy."We derive from the French language our wordchemise—pronouncedshemmeeze. 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 itshimmy, resume the use of the old English wordsshiftandsmock. Good usage unqualifiedly condemnsgents,pants,kids,gums, andshimmy."—"Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech."
Should.SeeOught.
Sick—Ill.These words are often used indiscriminately.Sick, however, is the stronger word, and generally the betterword to use.Illis used in England more than with us: theresickis generally limited to the expressing of nausea; as, "sick at the stomach."
Signature, over or under?A man writesunder, notover, a signature. Charles Dickens wroteunderthe signature of "Boz"; Mr. Samuel L. Clemens writesunderthe signature of "Mark Twain." The reason given in Webster's Dictionary for preferring the use ofunderis absurd; viz., that the paper isunderthe 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 writeundera 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 procuringsleep is abenediction"; a placard, that they have "CharlottedeRusse" 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 asimile. It is generally denoted bylike,as, orso; as,
"I have ventured,Likelittle wanton boys that swim on bladders,These many summers in a sea of glory.""Thy smile isasthe 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 judgmentsaswith our watches; noneGo just alike, yet each believes his own."—Pope."Grace abused brings forth the foulest deeds,Asrichest soil the most luxuriant weeds."—Cowper.
"I have ventured,Likelittle wanton boys that swim on bladders,These many summers in a sea of glory."
"Thy smile isasthe 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 judgmentsaswith our watches; noneGo just alike, yet each believes his own."—Pope.
"Grace abused brings forth the foulest deeds,Asrichest soil the most luxuriant weeds."—Cowper.
"Asno roads are so rough as those that have just been mended,sono sinners are so intolerant as those who have just turned saints."—"Lacon."
Sin.SeeCrime.
Since—Ago.Dr. Johnson says of these two adverbs: "Reckoning time toward the present, we usesince; as, 'It is a yearsinceit happened': reckoning from the present, we useago; as, 'It is a yearago.' This is not, perhaps, always observed."
Dr. Johnson's rule will hardly suffice as a sure guide.Sinceis often used forago, butagonever forsince.Agois derived from the participleagone, whilesincecomes from apreposition. We say properly, "not long" or "some timeago[agone]."Sincerequires a verbal clause after it; as, "SinceI saw you"; "Sincehe was here."
Sing.Of the two forms—sangandsung—for the imperfect tense of the verb tosing, the former—sang—is to be preferred.
Sit.SeeSet.
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 ofcant, 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.SeeClever.
Smell of.SeeTaste of.
So.SeeAs;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 largeas 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 bysolecismany 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 asolecismmay at another be regarded as correct language. Asolecism, therefore, differs from abarbarism, inasmuch as the latter consists in the use of a word or expression which is altogether contraryto 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 forsomewhat; thus, "She issomebetter to-day." It is likewise often misused forabout; thus, "I think it issometen miles from here": read, "aboutten miles from here."
Specialty.This form has within a recent period been generally substituted forspeciality. There is no apparent reason, however, why theishould 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.Afallacyis a sophism, a logical artifice, a deceitful or false appearance; whilespeciousmeans having the appearance of truth, plausible. Hence we see that the very essence of afallacyis itsspeciousness. We may very properly say that afallacyis more or lessspecious, but we can not properly say that a fallacyisspecious, 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,splendidandawfulseem 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 forsay. Whensaysays all onewantsto say, why use a more pretentious word?
Stop."Where are youstopping?" "At the Metropolitan." The proper word to use here isstaying.To stopmeans to cease to go forward, to leave off; andto staymeans to abide, to tarry, to dwell, to sojourn. Westay, notstop, 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 astorma 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 oftwosyllables whose place, without any good reason, is being usurped by the Latin wordimmediately, offivesyllables.
Street.We livein, noton—meet our acquaintancesin, noton—things occurin, noton—houses are builtin, noton, 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 ofdiction; simplicity, conciseness, gravity, elegance, diffuseness, floridity, force, feebleness, coarseness, etc., belong to the domain ofstyle.
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 ofshallandwill, 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 Ibeable,' 'if Iwerestrong enough,' 'if thoushouldcome.'
"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 Iweresure of what you tell me, I would go.'
"When the conditional clause isaffirmativeandcertain, the verb isindicative: 'If thatisthe 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.
"Asfuturityis by its nature uncertain, the subjunctive is extensively used for future conditionality: 'If itrain, we shall not be able to go'; 'if Ibewell'; 'if hecomeshortly'; 'if thoureturnat all in peace'; 'though heslayme, 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 hereturn'; 'no fear lest dinnercool'; 'thou shalt stone him with stones, that hedie'; 'take heed lest at any time your heartsbeovercharged 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 distinguishingour ignorance from our knowledge. 'If any of my readershaslooked 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 ignoranceisbliss,' which I (ironically) admit. Had Gray been speaking seriously, he would have said, 'if ignorancebebliss,' he himself dissenting from the proposition.
"A wish contrary to the fact takes the subjunctive: 'I wish hewerehere' (which he is not).
"An intention not yet carried out is also subjunctive: 'The sentence is that youbeimprisoned.'
"The only correct form of the future subjunctive is—'if I should.' We may say, 'I do not know whether or not Ishallcome'; 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 memberabsentshimself, he shall forfeit a penny for the use of the club'; this ought to be either 'absent,' or 'should absent.' 'If thouneglectestordoestunwillingly what I command thee, I will rack thee with old cramps'; better, 'if thouneglectordounwillingly,' 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 bookwerein the library (as it is not), it should be at your service.'
"'If the bookbein the library,' means, 'I do not knowwhether it be or not.' We have thus the power of discriminatingthreedifferent suppositions. 'If the bookisin the library' (as I know it is); 'if itbe' (I am uncertain); 'if itwere' (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 theyhadgyves on,' implying that they had not.
"The same power of the past tense is exemplified in 'if Icould, 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: 'HadI the power,' 'wereI 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, hewouldsucceed'; 'if I had seen him, Ishouldhave 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 'twere(would be) wellItwere(should be) done quickly.'
"'If 'twere done when 'tis done, then 'twere(would be) wellItwere(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, thathadbeen otherwise blamable, were employed'; 'Ihadfainted, unless I had believed,' etc.
"'Which elseliefurled and shrouded in the soul.'
"'Which elseliefurled 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 pluperfectsubjunctive 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; 'Ihadfainted' is, in construction, analogous to 'Ishouldhave fainted'; the word for futurity, 'shall,' not being necessary to the sense, is withdrawn, and its past inflexion transferred to 'have.' Compare Germ.würde habenandhätte."
In addition to the foregoing, we find in Professor Bain's "Composition Grammar" the following:
"The case most suited to the subjunctive iscontingent futurity, or the expression of an event unknown absolutely, as being still in the future: 'If to-morrowbefine, I will walk with you.'
"'Unless Iwereprepared,' insinuates pretty strongly that I am or am not prepared, according to the manner of the principal clause.
"'What's a tall man unless hefight?'"'The sword hath ended him: so shall it thee,Unless thouyieldthee as my prisoner.'"'Who but must laugh, if such a man therebe?Who would not weep, if Atticuswerehe?'
"'What's a tall man unless hefight?'
"'The sword hath ended him: so shall it thee,Unless thouyieldthee as my prisoner.'
"'Who but must laugh, if such a man therebe?Who would not weep, if Atticuswerehe?'
"'I am to second Ion if hefail'; the failing is left quite doubtful. 'I should very imperfectly execute the task which I have undertaken if Iweremerely 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 beforeit close'; 'wait till hereturn'; 'thou shall stand by the river's brink against hecome'; 'take heed lest passionswaythy judgment'; 'speak to me, though itbein wrath'; 'if hesmitehim with an instrument of iron so that hedie, he is a murderer'; 'beware this night that thoucrossnot my footsteps' (Shelley).
"Again. 'Whatever thisbe'; 'whoever hebe'; 'howe'er itbe' (Tennyson); and such like.
"'Andas long, O God,assheHavea grain of love for me,So long, no doubt, no doubt,Shall I nurse in my dark heart,However weary, a spark of willNot to be trampled out.'
"'Andas long, O God,assheHavea grain of love for me,So long, no doubt, no doubt,Shall I nurse in my dark heart,However weary, a spark of willNot 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 'thoushouldst': 'if thou, Lord,shouldstmark 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.
"'Ifyoushouldabandon your Penelope and your home for Calypso, ——': 'shouldyou abandon ——.'
"'Gonot my horse the better,I must become a borrower of the nightFor a dark hour or twain.'"'Here had we now our country's honor roof'dWerethe graced person of our Banquo present.'"'Bethou a spirit of health or goblin damn'd,Bringwith thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell,Bethy intents wicked or charitable,Thou com'st in such a questionable shapeThat I will speak to thee.'"'Comeone,comeall, this rock shall flyFrom its firm base as soon as I.'—Scott.
"'Gonot my horse the better,I must become a borrower of the nightFor a dark hour or twain.'
"'Here had we now our country's honor roof'dWerethe graced person of our Banquo present.'
"'Bethou a spirit of health or goblin damn'd,Bringwith thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell,Bethy intents wicked or charitable,Thou com'st in such a questionable shapeThat I will speak to thee.'
"'Comeone,comeall, this rock shall flyFrom its firm base as soon as I.'—Scott.
"The following examples are given by Mätzner:
"'Varney's communications,bethey what they might, were operating in his favor.'—Scott.
"'Governing persons,werethey never so insignificant intrinsically, have for most part plenty of Memoir-writers.'—Carlyle.
"'EvenwereI disposed, I could not gratify the reader.'—Warren.
"'Bring them back to me,costwhat it may.'—Coleridge, 'Wallenstein.'
"'Andwillyou,nillyou, I will marry you.'—'Taming of the Shrew.'
"Wereis used in the principal clause for 'should be' or 'would be.'[32]
"'Iwere(=should be) a fool, not less than if a pantherWere panic-stricken by the antelope's eye,If she escape me.'—Shelley."'Were you but riding forth to air yourself,Such partingweretoo petty.'
"'Iwere(=should be) a fool, not less than if a pantherWere panic-stricken by the antelope's eye,If she escape me.'—Shelley.
"'Were you but riding forth to air yourself,Such partingweretoo petty.'
"'Hewere(=would be) no lion, were not Romans hinds.'
"'Should he be roused out of his sleep to-night, ...Itwerenot well; indeed itwerenot well.'—Shelley.
"'Should he be roused out of his sleep to-night, ...Itwerenot well; indeed itwerenot well.'—Shelley.
"Hadis sometimes used in the principal clause for 'should have' or 'would have.'[33]
"'Had I known this before we set out, I think Ihad(= would have) remained at home.'—Scott.
"'Hadst thou been kill'd when first thou didst presume,Thouhadstnot lived to kill a son of mine.'"'If heHad killed me, hehaddone a kinder deed.'"'For once hehadbeen ta'en or slain,An it had not been his ministry.'—Scott."'If thou hadst said him nay, ithadbeen sin.'[34]
"'Hadst thou been kill'd when first thou didst presume,Thouhadstnot lived to kill a son of mine.'
"'If heHad killed me, hehaddone a kinder deed.'
"'For once hehadbeen ta'en or slain,An it had not been his ministry.'—Scott.
"'If thou hadst said him nay, ithadbeen sin.'[34]
"'Hadbetter, 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.
"'Ihadas lief not be.' That is—'Iwouldas liefhavenot (to) be' = 'I would as willingly (or as soon) have non-existence.'
"'Hadyou rather Cæsar were living——?' 'Wouldyou ratherhave(wouldyoupreferthat) Cæsar were living?'
"'Hehadbetter reconsider the matter' is 'hewouldbetterhave(to) reconsider the matter.'
"'Ihadrather be a kitten and cry mewThan one of these same metre ballad-mongers;Ihadrather hear a brazen canstick turned.'
"'Ihadrather be a kitten and cry mewThan one of these same metre ballad-mongers;Ihadrather 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, Ihaddelevere than my scherte,That ye hadde rad his legend, as I have.'
"'By God, Ihaddelevere than my scherte,That ye hadde rad his legend, as I have.'
"Compare now:
"'Ahme were leverewith laweloosemy lyfThen so to fote hemfalle.'—Wright, 'Polit. S.'
"'Ahme were leverewith laweloosemy lyfThen so to fote hemfalle.'—Wright, 'Polit. S.'
"Here 'were' is unquestionably for 'would be'; and the whole expression might be given by 'had,' thus: 'Ah,I haddelevere ——,' '(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 werelevere ——.' The interchange helps us to see more clearly that 'hadde' is to be explained as subjunctive for 'would have.'" SeeIndicative and Subjunctive.
Such."I have never before seensucha large ox." By a little transposing of the words of this sentence, we have, "I have never before seen an oxsuchlarge," which makes it quite clear that we should sayso large an oxand notsuch a large ox. As proof that this error in the use ofsuchis common, we find in Mr. George Washington Moon's "Dean's English and Bad English," the sentence, "With all due deference tosucha high authority onsucha very important matter." With a little transposing, this sentence is made to read, "With all due deference to an authoritysuchhigh on a mattersuchvery important." It is clear that the sentence should read, "With all due deference tosohigh an authority onsovery important a matter." The phrases,sucha handsome,sucha lovely,sucha long,suchnarrow, etc., are incorrect, and should besohandsome,solovely,solong, and so on.
Summon.This verb comes in for its full share of mauling. We often hear such expressions as "I willsummonshim," instead ofsummonhim; and "He wassummonsed," instead ofsummoned.
Superfluous Words."Whenever I try to write well, Ialwaysfind I can do it." "I shall have finished by thelatterend of the week." "Iron sinksdownin water." "He combinedtogetherall the facts." "My brother called on me, and webothtook a walk." "I can do itequallyas well as he." "We could not forbearfromdoing it." "Before I go, I mustfirstbe paid." "We were compelled to returnback." "We forced them to retreatbackfully a mile." "His conduct was approvedofby everybody." "They conversedtogetherfor a long time." "The balloon roseupvery rapidly." "Give me anotherone." "Come home as soon aseveryou can." "Who finds himinmoney?" "He came in lastof all." "He hasgotall he can carry." "What have yougot?" "No matter what I havegot." "I havegotthe headache." "Have yougotany brothers?" "No, but I havegota sister." All the words initalicsare superfluous.
Superior.This word is not unfrequently used for able, excellent, gifted; as, "She is asuperiorwoman," meaning anexcellentwoman; "He is asuperiorman," meaning anableman. The expressionan inferior manis not less objectionable.
Supposititious.This word isproperlyused in the sense of put by a trick into the place or character belonging to another, spurious, counterfeit, not genuine; andimproperlyin the sense of conjectural, hypothetical, imaginary, presumptive; as, "This is asupposititiouscase," meaning animaginaryorpresumptivecase. "The English critic derived his materials from a stray copy of somesupposititiousindexes 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 callswosh.
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 theNot 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.Artis 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 arerays 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 isleof 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 veriestswosh, 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 withsails"; i. e., withships. "The man was old, careworn, and gray"; i. e., literally,his hair, not the man, was gray. "Nine tenthsof every man's happiness depends on the reception he meets with in the world." "He had seen seventywinters." "Thus spoke thetempter": 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 verbto takeis open to being considered a vulgar verb when used in reference to dinner, tea, or to refreshments of anykind. 'Will youtake' is not consideredcomme il faut; the verb in favor for the offering of civilities beingto have." According to "The Queen," then, we must say, "Will youhavesome dinner, tea, coffee, wine, fish, beef, salad," etc.
Taste of.The redundantof, often used, in this country, in connection with the transitive verbsto tasteandto smell, is a Yankeeism. Wetasteorsmella thing, not tasteofnor smellofa thing. The neuter verbsto tasteandto smellare often followed byof. "If buttertastes ofbrass." "For age buttastes ofpleasures."