Chapter 7

"You shall stifle in your own report,andsmell ofcalumny."—Shakespeare.

Tautology.Among the things to be avoided in writing istautology, which isthe repeating of the same thought, whether in the same or in different words.

Tautophony."A regard for harmony requires us, in the progress of a sentence, to avoid repeating a sound by employing the same word more than once, or using, in contiguous words, similar combinations of letters. This fault is known astautology."—Dr. G. P. Quackenbos, "Advanced Course of Composition and Rhetoric," p. 300. Dr. Quackenbos is in error. The repetition of the samesenseis tautology, and the repetition of the samesound, or, as Dr. Quackenbos has it, "the repeating of a sound by employing the same word more than once, or by using in contiguous words similar combinations of letters," istautophony.

Teach.To impart knowledge, to inform, to instruct; as, "Teachme how to do it"; "Teachme to swim"; "Hetaughtme to write." The uncultured often misuselearnforteach. SeeLearn.

Tense.The errors made in the use of the tenses are manifold. The one most frequently made by persons ofculture—the one that everybody makes would, perhaps, be nearer the fact—is that of using theimperfectinstead of theperfecttense; thus, "I neversawit played but once": say,have seen. "He was the largest man I eversaw": say,have seen. "I never in my lifehadsuch trouble": say,have had. Another frequent error, the making of which is not confined to the unschooled, is that of using two verbs in a past tense when only one should be in that time; thus, "I intended tohave gone": say,to go. "It was my intention tohavecome": say,to come. "I expected tohave foundyou here": say,to find. "I was very desirous tohave gone": say,to go. "He was better than I expected tohave foundhim": say,to find.

Among other common errors are the following: "Iseenhim when hedoneit": say, "Isawhim when hedidit." "I should havewenthome": say,gone. "If he hadwent": say,gone. "I wish you hadwent": say,gone. "He haswentout": say,gone. "Icometo town this morning": say,came. "Hecometo me for advice": say,came. "Itbegunvery late": say,began. "It had alreadybegan": say,begun. "The following toasts weredrank": say,drunk. "His text was that Godwaslove": say,islove. Another error is made in such sentences as these: "If I hadhaveknown": say,had known. "If he hadhavecome as he promised": say,had come. "If you hadhavetold me": say,had told.

Testimony.SeeEvidence.

Than.Thanandasimplying comparison have the same case after as before them. "He owes more thanme": read, thanI—i. e., more thanI owe. "John is not so old asher": read, asshe—i. e., asshe is. We should say, then, "He is stronger thanshe," "She is older thanhe," "You are richer thanI," etc. But it does not alwayshappen that the nominative case comes afterthanoras. "I love you more thanhim," "I give you more thanhim," "I love you as well ashim"; that is to say, "I love you more thanI love him," "I give you more thanI give him," "I love you as well asI love him." Take awayhimand puthein all these cases, and the grammar is just as good, but the meaning is quite different. "I love you as well ashim," means that I love you as wellas I love him; but, "I love you as well ashe," means that I love you as wellas he loves you.

Than whom.Cobbett, in his "Grammar of the English Language," says: "There is an erroneous way of employingwhom, which I must point out to your particular attention, because it is so often seen in very good writers, and because it is very deceiving. 'The Duke of Argyll,than whomno man was more hearty in the cause.' 'Cromwell,than whomno man was better skilled in artifice.' A hundred such phrases might be collected from Hume, Blackstone, and even from Drs. Blair and Johnson. Yet they are bad grammar. In all such cases,whoshould be made use of: for it isnominativeand not objective. 'No man was more hearty in the causethan he was'; 'No man was better skilled in artificethan he was.'[36]It is a very common Parliament-house phrase, and therefore presumablycorrupt; but it is a Dr. Johnson phrase, too: 'Pope,than whomfew men had more vanity.' The Doctor did not say, 'Myself,than whomfew men have been found more base, having, in my dictionary, described a pensioner as a slave of state, and having afterward myself become a pensioner.'

"I differ in this matter from Bishop Lowth, who saysthat 'The relativewho, having reference to no verb or preposition understood, but only to its antecedent, when it followsthan, isalways in the objective case; even though the pronoun, if substituted in its place, would be in the nominative.' And then he gives an instance from Milton. 'Beelzebub,than whom, Satan except, none higher sat.' It is curious enough that this sentence of the Bishop is, itself, ungrammatical! Our poor unfortunateitis so placed as to make it a matter of doubt whether the Bishop meant it to relate towhoor toits antecedent. However, we know its meaning; but, though he says thatwho, when it followsthan, is always in the objective case, he gives us no reason for this departure from a clear general principle; unless we are to regard as a reason the example of Milton, who has committed many hundreds, if not thousands, of grammatical errors, many of which the Bishop himself has pointed out. There is a sort of side-wind attempt at reason in the words, 'having reference to noverborprepositionunderstood.' I do not see thereason, even if this could be; but it appears to me impossible that a noun or pronoun can exist in a grammatical state without having reference to someverborpreposition, either expressed or understood. What is meant by Milton? 'Than Beelzebub, nonesathigher, except Satan.' And when, in order to avoid the repetition of the word Beelzebub, the relative becomes necessary, the full construction must be, 'no devil sat higherthan whosat, except Satan'; and not, 'no devil sat higherthan whomsat.'[37]The supposition that there can be a noun or pronoun which has reference tono verbandno preposition, is certainly a mistake."

Of this, Dr. Fitzedward Hall remarks, in his "Recent Exemplifications of False Philology": "That any onebut Cobbett would abide this as English is highly improbable; and how the expression—a quite classical one—which he discards can be justified grammatically, except by calling itsthana preposition, others may resolve at their leisure and pleasure."

Thanks.There are many persons who think it in questionable taste to usethanksforthank you.

That.The best writers often appear to grope after a separate employment for the several relatives.

"'That'is the proper restrictive, explicative, limiting, or defining relative.

"'That,' the neuter of the definite article, was early in use as a neuter relative. All the other oldest relatives gradually dropt away, and 'that' came to be applied also to plural antecedents, and to masculines and feminines. When 'as,' 'which,' and 'who' came forward to share the work of 'that,' there seems to have arisen not a little uncertainty about the relatives, and we find curious double forms: 'whom that,' 'which that,' 'which as,' etc. Gower has, 'VenuswhosepriestthatI am'; Chaucer writes—'This Abbotwhich thatwas an holy man,' 'his lovethe which thathe oweth.' By the Elizabethan period, these double forms have disappeared, and all the relatives are used singly without hesitation. From then till now, 'that' has been struggling with 'who' and 'which' to regain superior favor, with varying success. 'Who' is used for persons, 'which' for things, in both numbers; so is 'that'; and the only opportunity of a special application of 'that' lies in the important distinction between coördination and restriction. Now, as 'who' and 'which' are most commonly preferred for coördination, it would be a clear gain to confine them to this sense, and to reserve 'that' for the restrictive application alone. This arrangement, then, wouldfall in withthe most general use of 'that,' especially beyond the limits of formal composition.

"The use of 'that' solely as restrictive, with 'who' and 'which' solely as coördinating,also avoids ambiguitiesthat often attend the indiscriminate use of 'who' and 'which' for coördinate and for restrictive clauses. Thus, when we say, 'his conduct surprised his English friends,whohad not known him long,' we may mean either that his English friends generally were surprised (the relative being, in that case,coördinating), or that only a portion of them—namely, the particular portion that had not known him long—were surprised. In this last case the relative is meant to define or explain the antecedent, and the doubt would be removed by writing thus: 'his English friendsthathad not known him long.' So in the following sentence there is a similar ambiguity in the use of 'which': 'the next winterwhichyou will spend in town will give you opportunities of making a more prudent choice.' This may mean, either 'you will spend next winter in town' ('which' being coördinating), or 'the next of the winters when you are to live in town,' let that come when it may. In the former case, 'which' is the proper relative; in the latter case, the meaning is restrictive or defining, and would be best brought out by 'that': 'the next winterthatyou will spend in town.'

"A further consideration in favor of employing 'that' for explicative clauses is the unpleasant effect arising from thetoo frequent repetition of 'who' and 'which.'Grammarians often recommend 'that' as a means of varying the style; but this end ought to be sought in subservience to the still greater end of perspicuity.

"The following examples will serve further to illustrate the distinction betweenthat, on the one hand, andwhoandwhich, on the other:

"'In general, Mr. Burchell was fondest of the company of children,whomhe used to call harmless little men.' 'Whom' is here idiomatically used, being the equivalent of 'and themhe used to call,' etc.

"'Bacon at last, a mighty man, arose,Whoma wise king and nation choseLord Chancellor of both their laws.'

Here, also, 'whom' is equal to 'and him.'

"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 companywhomhe has entertained magnificently.' Compare another of Addison's sentences: 'a man of polite imagination is let into a great many pleasuresthatthe vulgar are not capable of receiving.'

"Both relatives are introduced discriminatingly in this passage:—'She had learned that from Mrs. Wood,whohad heard it from her husband,whohad heard it at the public-house from the landlord,whohad been let into the secret by the boythatcarried 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 boatmanwhotook me across the ferry.' If 'who' is the proper relative here, the meaning is, 'I met the boatman,and hetook 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 boywhohas learned to dance is James.' This means either 'the youngest boy is James,and hehas 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,whichgives currency to manners, should be exemplary': here the meaning is 'the court should be exemplary,for the courtgives currency to manners.' 'Which' is the idiomatic relative in this case. 'The cat,whichyou 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 theorywhichdoes not tend to the improvement of practice is utterly unworthy of regard.' The meaning is restrictive; 'a theorythatdoes not tend.' The following sentence is one of many from Goldsmith that give 'that' instead of 'which':—'Age,thatlessens 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 thingwhichought 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,whichare signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.' This gives an erroneous impression, and should be 'all wordsthatare 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 rightswhichhave for many years been relinquished': say instead, 'incorporeal rightsthathave 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,whichalarmed his mother very much.' The antecedentis obviously not the noun 'wall,' but the fact expressed by the entire clause—'William ran,' etc. 'He by no means wants sense,whichonly 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;whichyou must allow marks a great mind.' 'We have done many thingswhichwe ought not to have done,' might mean 'we ought notto have done many things'; that is, 'we ought to have done few things.' 'That' would give the exact sense intended: 'we have done many thingsthatwe ought not to have done.' 'He began to look after his affairs himself,whichwas 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 whichI was a witness, is incorrectly stated in the "Life of Sir Walter."'—Leslie's 'Memoirs.' The relative should be restrictive: 'thatI was a witnessof.'

"'There are many wordswhichare adjectiveswhichhave nothing to do with the qualities of the nounsto whichthey are put.'—Cobbett. Better: 'there are many wordsthatare adjectivesthathave nothing to do with the qualities of the nouns (that) they are putto.'

"'Other objects,of whichwe have not occasion to speak so frequently, we do not designate by a name of their own.' This, if amended, would be: 'other objectsthatwe have not occasion to speakofso frequently, we do not,' etc.

"'Sorrow for the dead is the only sorrowfrom whichwe refuse to be divorced': 'the only sorrow (that) we refuse to be divorcedfrom.'

"'Why, there is not a single sentence in this playthatI do not know the meaningof.'—Addison.

"'Originality is a thing we constantly clamorfor, and constantly quarrelwith.'—Carlyle.

"'A spirit more amiable, but less vigorous, than Luther's would have shrunk back from the dangerswhichhe braved and surmounted': 'thathe braved'; 'the dangersbravedandsurmountedby him.'

"'Nor is it at all improbable that the emigrants had been guilty of those faultsfrom whichcivilized menwhosettle among an uncivilized people are rarely free.'—Macaulay. 'Nor is it at all improbable that the emigrants had been guilty ofthefaultsthat(suchfaultsas) civilized menthat settle(settling, orsettled) among an uncivilized people are rarely freefrom.'

"'Prejudices are notions or opinionswhichthe mind entertains without knowing the grounds and reasons of them, andwhichare 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 opinionsentertainedby the mind without knowing the grounds and reasons of them, andassentedto 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 thishe did.'"—Bain's "Higher English Grammar."

This word is sometimes vulgarly used forso; thus, "I wasthatnervous I forgot everything"; "I wasthatfrightened 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,theLatin, andtheGreek," 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 histhensituation," 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 whetherthen, as an adjective, will ever again find favor with careful writers.

Thence.SeeWhence.

Think for.We not unfrequently hear a superfluousfortacked to a sentence; thus, "You will find that he knows more about the affair than you thinkfor."

Those kind."Thosekind of applesarebest": read, "Thatkind of applesisbest." 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, "Thosesortorkindof people."

Those who.This phrase, applied in a restrictive sense, is the modern substitute for the ancient idiomthey that, an idiom in accordance with the true meaning ofthat.

"'They thattold me the story said'; 'Blessed arethey thatmourn'; 'and Simon andthey thatwere with him'; 'I lovethem thatlove me, andthey thatseek me early shall find me'; 'they thatare whole have no need ofa physician'; 'how sweet is the rest ofthem thatlabor!' 'I can not tell who to compare them to so fitly as tothem thatpick pockets in the presence of the judge'; 'they thatenter into the state of marriage cast a die of the greatest contingency' (J. Taylor).

"'Thatman hath perfect blessednessWhowalketh not astray,'

if expressed according to the old idiom would be, 'theman hath—thatwalketh.'

"'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 'thatcaseto whichyou allude' for 'the case (that) you alludeto.'

"Take now the following: 'The Duke of Wellington is not one ofthose whointerfere with mattersover whichhe has no control': 'the Duke is not one ofthem thatinterfere in mattersthatthey have no controlover(mattersthatthey 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 ofthose that'; or, 'the Duke is not one tointerferein matters out of his province'; 'the duke is not onethat interfereswithwhathe has no controlover.'"—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 theseusés et cassésold-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 thatto, the sign of the infinitive mood, should not be used for the infinitive itself: thus, "He has not done it, nor is he likelyto." It should be, "nor is he likelyto do it."

We often findto, 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 oftentois used instead ofat; thus, "I have beentothe theatre,tochurch,tomy uncle's,toa concert," and so on. In all these cases, the preposition to use is clearlyat, and notto. See, also,And.

To the Fore.An old idiomatic phrase, now freely used again.

Tongue."Muchtongueand much judgment seldom go together."—L'Estrange. SeeLanguage.

Toward.Those who profess to know about such things say that etymology furnishes no pretext for the adding ofstowardin such words asbackward,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 greenBy husbandry of manythrifty years."

"He plods hisweary way." "Hence to youridle 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 thelunatic asylum,thecriminal court, thecondemned cell, theblind asylum, thecholera hospital, thefoundling asylum, and the like.

"Still in harmonious intercourse they livedThe 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 sisterperspire.Transpireis 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 mattertranspire"; "Ittranspires[leaks out] that S. & B. control the enterprise"; "Soon after the funeral ittranspired[became known] that the dead woman was alive"; "It hastranspired[leaked out] that the movement originated with John Blank"; "No report of the proceedings was allowed totranspire"; "It has not yettranspiredwho the candidate is to be." The word is incorrectly used thus: "The Mexican wartranspiredin 1847"; "The drill willtranspireunder shelter"; "The accidenttranspiredone day last week"; "Years willtranspirebefore it will be finished"; "More than a centurytranspiredbefore it was revisited by civilized man."

Trifling Minutiæ.The meaning oftriflesand ofminutiæis so nearly the same that no one probably ever uses the phrasetrifling minutiæexcept from thoughtlessness.

Trustworthy.SeeReliable.

Try.This word is often improperly used formake. Wemakeexperiments, nottrythem, which is as incorrect as it would be to say,trytheattempt, or thetrial.

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 isunderhand. Anunderhand, not anunderhanded, proceeding.

Universal—All."He isuniversallyesteemed byallwho know him." If he isuniversallyesteemed, he must be esteemed byallwho know him; and, if he is esteemed byallwho know him, he must beuniversallyesteemed.

Upward of.This phrase is often used, if not improperly, at least inelegantly, formore than; thus, "I have been here forupward ofa year"; "Forupward ofthree quarters of a century she has," etc., meaning, formore thanthree quarters of a century.

Utter.This verb is often misused forsay,express. Touttermeans tospeak, topronounce; and its derivativeutterancemeans the act, manner, or power of uttering, vocal expression; as, "the utterance of articulate sounds." Weuttera cry;expressa thought or sentiment;speakour mind; and, though prayers aresaid, they may beutteredin a certain tone or manner. "Mr. Blank is right in all heutters": read,says. "The courtuttereda sentiment that all will applaud": read,expresseda sentiment.

The primary meaning of the adjectiveutteris 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 utterutternonsense—i. e., he will utter that which is without the pale of sense. For example, we can not sayutterconcord, but we can sayutterdiscord—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 mostvaluablecontributors 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 ofgreatorlargeto 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,"veracityis 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 calledverbiage: verbosity, wordiness.

"I thought what I read of itverbiage."—Johnson.

Sometimes a better name than verbiage for wordiness would beemptiness. 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, "Clearnessmay beattainedin 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 rules1thus far laid down2furnish ample foundation for3the general statement that an easy and natural4expression, an exact verbal incarnation of one's thinking,5together with the power of using appropriate figures, and of making nice discriminations between approximate synonyms,6each being an important factor in correct style, are attained in two ways.7(1) Through moral8and mental discipline. (2) Through continuous and intimate9acquaintance with such authors as best exemplify those attainments."10

1. Would notlawscover the whole ground? 2.En passantI would remark that Dr. Townsend did not make these laws, though he so intimates. 3. I suggest the wordjustifyin 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 adjectiveclearwould express, if properly used in the sentence. 6.Approximatesynonyms!! 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 ProfessorTownsend 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] repressingelsewhere[there], in order to equalize wealth, we shall doan[a]immensedeal of mischief, and without bringing about a more agreeable condition of thingsthan now[we] shallsimplydiscourage enterprise, repress industry, and check material growthin all directions." Read without the eighteen words in italics and with the four inclosed.

"Nothing disgusts sooner than the empty pomp of language."

Vice.SeeCrime.

Vicinity.This word is sometimes incorrectly used without the possessive pronoun; thus, "Washington and vicinity," instead of "Washington anditsvicinity." The primary meaning ofvicinityis nearness, proximity. In many of the cases in which vicinity is used,neighborhoodwould be the better word, thoughvicinityis perhaps preferable where it is a question of mere locality.

Vocation—Avocation.These words are frequently confounded. A man'svocationis his profession, his calling, his business; and hisavocationsare the things that occupy him incidentally. Mademoiselle Bernhardt'svocationis acting; heravocationsare painting and sculpture."The tracing of resemblances among the objects and events of the world is a constantavocationof 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 "thevulgarpeople." 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 beindecent, but is notvulgar.

Was."He said he had come to the conclusion that therewasno God." "The greatest of Byron's workswashis 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 readis, notwas.

Wharf.SeeDock.

What."He would not believe butwhatI did it": read, butthat. "I do not doubtbut whatI shall go to Boston to-morrow": read, doubtthat. We say properly, "I have nothingbut whatyou see"; "You have brought everythingbut whatI wanted."

Whence.As this adverb means—unaided—fromwhat place, source, or cause, it is, as Dr. Johnson styled it, "a vicious mode of speech" to sayfrom whence, Milton to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor is there any more propriety in the phrasefrom thence, asthencemeans—unaided—from that place. "Whencedo you come?" not "From whencedo you come?" Likewise, "He wenthence," not "from hence."

Whether.This conjunction is often improperly repeated in a sentence; thus, "I have not decided whether I shall go to Boston orwhether I shall goto Philadelphia."

Which.This pronoun as aninterrogativeapplies topersonsas well as tothings; as arelative, it is now made to refer tothings only.

"Whichis employed in coördinate sentences, whereit, orthey, 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 ofwhich.Whoandwhichmight be termed thecoördinating relatives.

"Whichis likewise used inrestrictiveclauses that limit or explain the antecedent; as, 'The housewhichhe built still remains.' Here the clause introduced bywhichspecifies, 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 towho, our most idiomatic writers preferthatin this particular application, and would say, 'The housethathe built still remains.'"

"Whichsometimes has a special reference attaching to it, as the neuter relative: 'Cæsar crossed the Rubicon,whichwas in effect a declaration of war.' The antecedent in this instance is notRubicon, but the entire clause.

"There is a peculiar usage wherewhichmayseemto be still regularly used in reference to persons, as in 'John is a soldier,whichI should like to be,' that is, 'And I should liketo be a soldier.'" SeeThat.

Who.There are few persons, even among the most cultivated, who do not make frequent mistakes in the use of this pronoun. They say, "Whodid you see?" "Whodid you meet?" "Whodid he marry?" "Whodid youhear?" "Whodid he know?" "Whoare you writing to?" "Whoare you looking at?" In all these sentences the interrogative pronoun is in the objective case, and should be used in the objective form, which iswhom, and notwho. 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.

Whowas little used as a relative till about the sixteenth century. Bain says: "In modern use, more especially in books,whois frequently employed to introduce a clause intended to restrict, define, limit, or explain a noun (or its equivalent); as, 'That is the manwhospoke to us yesterday.'"

"Here the clause introduced bywhois necessary to define or explain the antecedentthe man; without it, we do not know whothe manis. Such relative clauses are typicaladjectiveclauses—i. e., they have the same effect as adjectives in limiting nouns. This may be called therestrictiveuse of the relative.

"Now it will be found that the practice of our most idiomatic writers and speakers is to preferthattowhoin this application.

"Whois properly used in such coördinate sentences as, 'I met the watchman,whotold me there had been a fire.' Here the two clauses are distinct and independent; in such a case,and hemight be substituted forwho.

"Another form of the same use is when the secondclause is of the kind termed adverbial, where we may resolvewhointo a personal or demonstrative pronoun and conjunction. 'Why should we consult Charles,who(for he,seeing that he) knows nothing of the matter?'

"Whomay be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side withwhom. For many good writers and speakers say 'whoare you talking of?' 'whodoes the garden belong to?' 'whois this for?' 'whofrom?'" etc.

If this be true—ifwho maybe regarded as a modern objective form, side by side withwhom—then, of course, such expressions as "Whodid you see?" "Whodid you meet?" "Whodid he marry?" "Whowere you with?" "Whowill 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 arecorrect, few grammarians will concede. SeeThat.

Whole.This word is sometimes most improperly used forall; thus, "ThewholeGermans 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.SeeHealthy.

Whose.Mr. George Washington Moon discountenances the use ofwhoseas the possessive ofwhich. He says, "The best writers, when speaking of inanimate objects, useof whichinstead ofwhose." The correctness of this statement is doubtful. The truth is, I think, that good writers use that form for the possessive case ofwhichthat in their judgment is, in each particular case, the more euphonious, giving the preference, perhaps, toof which. On this subject Dr. Campbell says: "The possessive ofwhois properlywhose. The pronounwhich, 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 ofwho, and thus have substituted one syllable in the room of three, as in the example following: 'Philosophy,whoseend is to instruct us in the knowledge of nature,' for 'Philosophy,theendof whichis 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 ofwho, and practically ofwhich, is yet frequently employed for the purpose of restriction: 'We are the more likely to guard watchfully against those faultswhosedeformity we have seen fully displayed in others.' This is better than 'the deformityof whichwe have seen.' 'Propositions ofwhosetruth we have no certain knowledge.'—Locke." Dr. Fitzedward Hall says that the use ofwhoseforof 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 widowwoman? It would be perfectly correct to say awidowedwoman.

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 ofunless; as, "You will never live to my agewithoutyou keep yourself in breath and exercise"; "I shall not gowithoutmy father consents": properly,unlessmy father consents, or,withoutmy father's consent.

Worst.We should sayat the worst, notat worst.

Wove.The past participle of the verbto weaveiswoven. "Where was this clothwoven?" notwove.

You are mistaken.SeeMistaken.

You was.Good usage does, and it is to be hoped always will, consideryou wasa gross vulgarism, certain grammarians to the contrary notwithstanding.Youis 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 useyouin 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 thethirdperson plural. The exact equivalent in German of ourHow are you?is,How are they?Those who would sayyou wasshould be consistent, and in like manner sayyou hasandyou 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.

THE END.

Back to Index Next