Chapter II: Syntax (4)

Some apparent exceptions, already anticipated, must here be explained. It may be said that _I shall execute your orders_ being the speaker’s promise, _You will go to your room_ being the speaker’s command, and _Sha’n’t_ (the nursery abbreviation for _I shall not do it_) being the speaker’s refusal, these are all coloured futures, so that Sh. and W. should be reversed in each. They are such in effect, but they are not in form. In each, the other form would be possible and correct. The first is a promise only so far as the hearer chooses to take as a promise the plain future or impersonal prophecy; but the speaker emphasizes his obedience by implying that of course, since the order has been given, it will be executed; the matter is settled without his unimportant consent. The other two gain force by the opposite assumption that the speaker’s will and the future are absolutely identical, so that what he intends may be confidently stated as a future fact. In the first example the desired submissiveness, in the other two the desired imperiousness, supercilious or passionate, are attained by the same impersonality.

Before giving the rule for second-person questions, we observe that questions generally follow the rule of the class of statement they correspond to. This was shown in the pure system (Rule 1). There are no questions (apart from those already accounted for by the pure system) belonging to the coloured future (Rule 2). In the plain future (Rule 3), first and third person questions are like the plain-future statements. But second-person questions under the plain future invariably use Sh. or W. according as the answer for which the speaker is prepared has Sh. or W. Care is necessary, however, in deciding what that answer is. In _Should (would) you like a bathe?_ _should_ is almost always right, because the answer expected is almost always either _Yes, I should_, or _No, I should not_, the question being asked for real information. It is true that _Would you like?_ is very commonly used, like the equally wrong _I would like_; but it is only correct when the answer is intended to be given by the asker:--_No, of course you would not._ A clearer illustration of this is the following sentence, which requires Sh. or W. according to circumstances: _Will (shall) you, now so fresh and fair, be in a hundred years nothing but mouldering dust?_. This might possibly be asked in expectation of an answer from the person apostrophized--_Yes, I shall._ Much more probably it would be asked in expectation of the answer from the speaker himself to his own question--_Alas! yes, you will._ And _shall_ ought to be used for the question only in the first case, _will_ in the second case. Similarly, _Ah, yes, that is all very well; but will (shall) you be able to do it?_ Use _will_ if the answer is meant to be _No, of course you will not_; _shall_, if the answer expected is _Yes, I shall_, or _No, I shall not_.

In practice, Sh. is more commonly required, because questions asked for information are commoner than rhetorical ones. But observe the common _Would you believe it?_, Answer, _No, of course you would not._ _Should you believe it?_, also possible, would indicate real curiosity about the other person’s state of mind, which is hardly ever felt. _Would you believe it?_, however, might also be accounted for on the ground that the answer would be _No, I would not_, which would be a coloured-future form, meaning _I should never consent to believe_.

Rule 4. Second-person Questions

Second-person questions invariably have Sh. or W. by assimilation to the answer expected.

It may be added, since it makes the application of the rule easier, that the second-person questions belonging not to the plain future but to the pure system are also, though not because of assimilation, the same in regard to Sh. and W. as their answers. Thus _Will you come?_ _Yes, I will_ (each on its merits), as well as _Shall you be there?_ _Yes, I shall_ (assimilation). _Should you not have known?_ _Yes, I should_ (each on its merits; _should_ means _ought_), as well as _What should you think?_ _I should think you were right_ (assimilation). The true form for all second-person questions, then, can be ascertained by deciding what the expected answer is.

This completes what need be said about principal sentences, with the exception of one important usage that might cause perplexity. If some one says to me ‘You would think so yourself if you were in my position’, I may either answer ‘No, I should not’ regularly, or may catch up his word, and retain the W., though the alteration of person requires Sh. Thus--‘Would I, though? No, I wouldn’t’. Accordingly,

Rule 5. Echoes

A speaker repeating and adapting another’s words may neglect to make the alteration from Sh. to W., or from W. to Sh., that an alteration of the person strictly requires.

We have now all the necessary rules for principal sentences, and can put down a few examples of the right usage, noteworthy for various reasons, and some blunders, the latter being illustrated in proportion to their commonness. The number of the rule observed or broken will be added in brackets for reference. The passage from Johnson with which the correct examples begin is instructive.

_Right._

I would (2) injure no man, and should (3) provoke no resentment; I would (2) relieve every distress, and should (3) enjoy the benedictions of gratitude. I would (2) choose my friends among the wise, and my wife among the virtuous; and therefore should (3) be in no danger from treachery or unkindness. My children should (2) by my care be learned and pious, and would (3) repay to my age what their childhood had received.--JOHNSON.

Chatham, it should (1) seem, ought to have taken the same side.--MACAULAY.

For instance, when we allege, that it is against reason to tax a people under so many restraints in trade as the Americans, the noble lord in the blue riband shall (2) tell you....--BURKE.

The ‘critic fly’, if it do but alight on any plinth or single cornice of a brave stately building, shall (2) be able to declare, with its half-inch vision, that here is a speck, and there an inequality.--CARLYLE.

John, why should you waste yourself (1) upon those ugly giggling girls?--R. G. WHITE.

It wouldn’t be quite proper to take her alone, would it? What should (4) you say?--R. G. WHITE.

Whether I have attained this, the future shall decide (2. I consent to accept the verdict of the future).--_Times._

_Wrong._

We give first many examples of the mistake that is out of all proportion the commonest--using the coloured future when the speaker’s mood is sufficiently given by a separate word. In the second example, for instance, _I would ask the favour_ would be quite right, and would mean _I should like to ask_. As it stands, it means _I should like to like to ask_. The same applies to the other instances, which are only multiplied to show how dangerous this particular form is.

Among these ... I would be inclined to place (3) those who acquiesce in the phenomenalism of Mr. Herbert Spencer.--_Daily Telegraph._

As one of the founders of the Navy League, I would like (3) to ask the favour of your well-known courtesy....--_Times._

I would be glad (3) to have some account of his behaviour.--RICHARDSON.

I would like (3) also to talk with you about the thing which has come to pass.--JOWETT.

But give your definition of romance. I would like to hear it (3).--F. M. CRAWFORD.

These are typical of thousands of paragraphs in the newspaper.... We would (3) wish for brighter news.--_Westminster Gazette._

I have already had some offers of assistance, and I would be glad (3) to receive any amount towards the object.--_Times._

Some examples follow that have not this excuse; and the first two deserve comment--the first because it results in serious ambiguity, the second because it is possibly not wrong.

The two fleets present seven Russian battleships against four Japanese--less than two to one; two Russian armoured cruisers against eight, and seven Russian torpedo-boat destroyers against an indefinite number of the enemy. Here we will (3) not exaggerate in attributing to the Japanese three or four to one.--MAHAN.

With _will_, the meaning must be: We won’t call them three or four to one, because that would be exaggeration. But the meaning is intended to be: We will call them that, and it will be no exaggeration. _Shall_ is absolutely necessary, however, to make it bear that interpretation.

This character who delights us may commit murder like Macbeth, or fly the battle for his sweetheart as did Antony, or betray his country like Coriolanus, and yet we will rejoice (3) in every happiness that comes to him.--W. B. YEATS.

It is possible that this is the use of _will_ described as the ‘habitual’ use--he will often stand on his head--under Rule 1. But this is very rare, though admissible, in the first person of the present. _We shall rejoice_, or simply _we rejoice_, would be the plain way of saying it.

If this passion was simply painful, we would (3) shun with the greatest care all persons and places that could excite such a passion.--BURKE.

What would (3) we be without our appetites?--S. FERRIER.

If I was ever to be detected, I would (3) have nothing for it but to drown myself.--S. FERRIER.

I will (3) never forget, in the year 1858, one notorious revivalist.--_Daily Telegraph._

As long as I am free from all resentment, hardness, and scorn, I would (3) be able to face the life with much more calm and confidence than I would....--WILDE.

In the next two, if ‘I think’, and the _if_-clause, were removed, the _shall_ and _will_ would stand, expressing resolve according to Rule 2. But with those additions it is clear that prophecy or pure future is meant; and _shall_ and _will_ should be _will_ and _shall_.

Nothing, I think, shall ever make me (3) forgive him.--RICHARDSON.

We were victorious in 1812, and we will (3) be victorious now at any cost, if we are strong in an alliance between the governing class and the governed.--_Times._

=We now proceed to Subordinate Clauses, and first to the Substantival.= The word ‘reported’ will mean ‘made indirect’ or ‘subordinated substantivally’, not always actually reported.

=Reported statement= is quite simple when it is of the pure system or the coloured future; the Sh. or W. of the original statement is retained in the reported form, unaffected by any change of person that the reporting involves. Thus: (Pure system) _He forgave me_ (_you_, or _her_), _though he said I_ (_you_, or _she_) _should not have left him in the lurch like that._ (Coloured future) _You said I_ (or _he_) _should repent it_; either of these is a report of either _You shall repent it_ or _He shall repent it_. (Coloured future) _You said you_ (or _I said I_) _would apologize_; both are reports of _I will apologize_.

But with the plain-future system there is difficulty and some inconsistency. The change of person sometimes required by reported speech has almost always the effect here of introducing Sh. if _I_ or _we_ appears in the words as reported, and usually the effect of introducing W. if _you_, _he_, or _they_, appears. The following are all the types in which doubt can arise, except that each of these may occur in either number, and in past or present. The form that would be required by analogy (keeping the original Sh. or W.) is given first, and the one generally used instead is added in brackets. Reporting _I shall never succeed_, we get

You said you should (would) never succeed.

He says he shall (will) never succeed.

Reporting _you will_ (or _he will_) _never succeed_, we get

You say I will (shall) never succeed.

He said I would (should) never succeed.

Even those persons who have generally a just confidence in their own correctness about Sh. and W. will allow that they have some doubt about the first pair; and nearly every one will find W. in the second pair, however reasonable and consistent, intolerable.

If the reader will now go through the four sentences again, and substitute for _succeed_ the phrase _do it_ (which may or may not mean _succeed_), he will see that the orthodox _should_ and _shall_ of the first pair become actually more natural than the commoner _would_ and _will_; and that even in the second pair _will_ and _would_ are now tolerable. The reason is that with _do it_ there is risk of confusion with the reported forms of _I will never do it_ and _you shall never do it_, which are not plain futures, but coloured futures meaning something quite different.

=Reported questions= present the same difficulties. Again those only are doubtful that belong to the plain future. There, for instance, reporting _Shall you do it?_ we can say by the correct analogy _I asked him whether he should_; and we generally do so if the verb, as here, lends itself to ambiguity: _I asked him whether he would do it_ is liable to be mistaken for the report of _Will you do it?_--a request. If on the other hand (as in reporting _Shall you be there?_) there is little risk of misunderstanding, _I asked him whether he would_ is commoner. And again it is only in extreme cases, if even then, that the original W. can be kept when the report introduces _I_ in place of the original question’s _you_ or _he_. For instance, the original question being _How will he be treated?_, it may be just possible to say _You had made up your mind how I would be treated_, because _You had made up your mind how I should be treated_ almost inevitably suggests (assisted by the ambiguity of _making up your mind_, which may imply either resolve or inference) that the original question was _How shall he be treated?_

It would be well, perhaps, if writers who take their responsibilities seriously would stretch a point sometimes to keep the more consistent and less ambiguous usage alive; but for practical purposes the rule must run:

Rule 6. Substantival Clauses.

In these (whether ‘reported’ strictly or otherwise subordinated) pure-system or coloured-future forms invariably keep the Sh. or W. of the original statement or question, unaffected by any change of person. Reports of plain-future forms do this also, if there would be serious danger of ambiguity, but almost always have Sh. in the first person, and usually W. in the second and third persons.

As the division of substantival clauses into indirect (or reported or subordinate or oblique) statements, questions, _and commands_, is familiar, it may be well to explain that in English the reported command strictly so called hardly exists. In what has the force of a reported command it is in fact a statement that is reported. For instance, _He said I was to go_, though used as the indirect form of _Go_, is really the indirect of the statement _You are to go_. _He ordered that they should be released_ (though the actual words were _Be they_, or _Let them be, released_) is formed on the coloured-future statement, _They shall be released_. It is therefore unnecessary to give special rules for reported command. But there are one or two types of apparent indirect command about which, though there is no danger of error, the reader may feel curious.

a. _I stipulate that I shall, you shall, he shall, do it._ Why _shall_ in all persons? because the original form is: _I_ (_you_, _he_) _shall do it_, _I stipulate that_, where _shall_ means _am to_, _are to_, _is to_; that is, it is a pure-system form.

b. _I beg that you_ (or _he_) _will do it._ _He begs that I will do it._ Again the original is pure-system: _You_ (or _he_) _will_ (i. e., you consent to) _do it: that is what I beg._ _I will_ (i. e., I consent to) _do it: that is what he begs._

c. _I beg that I_ (or _he_) _shall not suffer for it._ _You begged that I should not suffer for it._ Observe that b. has _will_ and a. and c. _shall_, because it is only in b. that the volition of the subject of _shall_ or _will_ is concerned.

d. _I wish you would not sneeze._ Before subordination this is: _You will not sneeze: that is what I wish._ W. remains, but _will_ becomes _would_ to give the remoteness always connected with wish, which is seen also, for instance, in _I wish I were_ instead of _I wish I be_.

Before going on to examples of substantival clauses, we also register, again rather for the curious than for the practical reader, the peculiar but common use of _should_ contained in the following:

It is not strange that his admiration for those writers should have been unbounded.--MACAULAY.

In this use _should_ goes through all persons and is equivalent to a gerund with possessive: _that a man should be_ is the same as _a man’s being_. We can only guess at its origin; our guess is that (1) _should_ is the remote form for _shall_, as _would_ for _will_ in d. above, substituted in order to give an effect of generality; and (2) the use of _shall_ is the archaic one seen in _You shall find_, &c. So: a man shall be afraid of his shadow; that a man should be afraid (as a generally observed fact) is strange.

After each of the substantival clauses, of which examples now follow, we shall say whether it is a reported (subordinated) statement, or question, and give what we take to be the original form of the essential words, even when further comment is unnecessary.

Examples of Sh. and W. in Substantival clauses.

_Right._

You, my dear, believe you shall be unhappy, if you have Mr. Solmes: your parents think the contrary; and that you will be undoubtedly so, were you to have Mr. Lovelace.--RICHARDSON.

Statement. The original of the first is _I shall be_; of the second, _she will be_. In this and the next three the strictly analogical form that we recommended is kept.

I have heard the Princess declare that she should not willingly die in a crowd.--JOHNSON.

Statement. I should not.

People imagine they should be happy in circumstances which they would find insupportably burthensome in less than a week.--COWPER.

Statement. We should. _They would_ is not ‘reported’.

Do you really fancy you should be more beholden to your correspondent, if he had been damning you all the time for your importunity?--STEVENSON.

Statement. I should be.

The nation had settled the question that it would not have conscription.--_Times._

Statement. We will not. The blundering insertion of _the question_--perhaps due to some hazy notion of ‘putting the question’--may be disregarded.

When the war will end still depends on Japan.--_Times._

Question. When will it end?

Shaftesbury’s anger vented itself in threats that the advisers of this dissolution should pay for it with their heads.--J. R. GREEN.

Statement. You shall pay.

He [i. e., James II] regarded his ecclesiastical supremacy as a weapon.... Under Henry and Elizabeth it had been used to turn the Church of England from Catholic to Protestant. Under James it should be used to turn it back again.--J. R. GREEN.

Statement. Under me it shall be. The reporting word not expressed.

She could not bear the sight of all these things that reminded her of Anthony and of her sin. Perhaps she should die soon; she felt very feeble.--ELIOT.

Statement. I shall. Again the reporting word absent.

There will never perhaps be a time when every question between London and Washington shall be laid at rest.--_Times._

This is not properly speaking reported speech. But the _shall_ is accounted for by a sort of allusion to a supposed prophecy--every _question shall one day be laid at rest_. In that prophecy, _shall_ would convey that the prophet gave his personal guarantee for it, and would come under Rule 2. This is not to be confused with the use of _shall_ in indefinite clauses that will be noticed later.

_Wrong._

The four began their descent, not knowing at what step they should meet death nor which of them should reach the shore alive.--F. M. CRAWFORD.

Questions. At what step shall we meet? Which of us will reach? The first is accordingly right, the second wrong. The modern writer--who has been at the pains to use the strictly correct _should_ in the first place rather than the now common _would_--has not seen, as Richardson did in the first of the right examples, that his two clauses are dissimilar.

I hope that our sympathy shall survive these little revolutions undiminished.--STEVENSON.

Statement. Will survive. It is possible, however, that the original was thought of, or rather felt, as Our sympathy shall survive. But as the effect of that is to give the speaker’s personal guarantee for the truth of the thing, it is clearly not a proper statement to make dependent on the doubtful word _hope_.

After mentioning the advance made in reforms of the military force of the country he [Lord Lansdowne] announced that the Government should not oppose the motion, readily availing themselves of Lord Wemyss’s suggestion that....--_Times._

Statement. We shall not, or the Government will not. Probably Lord Lansdowne said _we_, and that accounts for _should_. But if _The Times_ chooses to represent _we_ by _the Government_, it must also represent _shall_ by _would_.

It came with a strange stunning effect upon us all--the consciousness that never again would we hear the grind of those positive boot-heels on the gravel.--CROCKETT.

Statement. We shall never.

I think that if the matter were handed over to the parish councils ... we would within a twelvemonth have exactly such a network of rifle clubs as is needed.--CONAN DOYLE.

Statement. We should. Of these two instances it may be thought that the writers would have made the mistake in the original unsubordinated sentence, instead of its arising in the process of subordination; our experience is, however, that many people do in fact go wrong in subordinate clauses who are alive to the danger in simple sentences.

The Prime Minister ... would at once have asked the Opposition if they could suggest any further means for making the inquiry more drastic and complete, with the assurance that if they could suggest any such means, they would at once be incorporated in the Government scheme.--_Spectator._

Statement. They shall be incorporated. We have classed this as wrong on the assumption, supported by the word _assurance_, that the Prime Minister gave a promise, and therefore used the coloured future, and did not state a fact and use the plain future.

Another type of subordinate clause important for Sh. and W. is =the conditional protasis or if-clause=. It is not necessary, nor with modern writers usual, to mark the future or conditional force of this separately, since it is sufficiently indicated by the apodosis. For instance, _If you come I shall be glad_; _if you came I should be glad_; _if you had come I should have been glad_. But in formal style or with a slight difference of meaning, it is often superfluously done in the protasis too. Sh. is then used for all persons, as, _If he should come, you would learn how the matter stands_. So:

Japan will adhere to her pledge of neutrality unless Russia shall first violate hers.--_Times._

But to the rule that the protasis takes _shall_ there are three exceptions, real or apparent; W. is found under the following circumstances:

(1.) An original pure-system or coloured-future W. is not changed to Sh. by being used in subordination to _if_ (or _unless_). It is retained with its full original force instead of some verb like _wish_ or _choose_. In _If we would believe we might move mountains_, the meaning is _If we chose to believe_, different from that of _If we believed_ or _should believe_. So

It would be much better if you would not be so hypocritical, Captain Wybrow.--ELIOT.

If you consented not to be, or did not insist on being.

It would be valuable if he would somewhat expand his ideas regarding local defence by Volunteers.--_Times._

If he consented to.

(2.) When the _if_-clause (though a genuine condition) is incorrectly expressed for the sake of brevity and compresses two verbs into one, the W. proper to the retained verb is sometimes necessarily used instead of the Sh. proper to the verb that, though it contains in strict logic the essential protasis, has been crushed out. Thus: _If it will be useless I shall prefer not to do it._ It is not the uselessness that is the condition of the preference; for the use or uselessness is subsequent to the decision; it is my conviction of the uselessness; so that the full form would be _If I shall be_ (or _am_ in ordinary speech) _convinced that it will be useless, I shall prefer_, &c. The following example can be defended on this ground, _if never again will he_ standing for _if he shall realize that he will never_; the feebleness that decides his not wishing is subsequent to it, and can only condition it if taken in the sense of his anticipation of feebleness.

And if there is to be no recovery, _if never again will he_ be young and strong and passionate, if the actual present shall be to him always like a thing read in a book or remembered out of the far-away past; he will not greatly wish for the continuance of a twilight that....--STEVENSON.

The next is more difficult only because, besides the compression, the _if_-clause is protasis not to the expressed main sentence, but to another that is suppressed.

I shall wait for fine weather, if that will ever come.--R. G. WHITE.

Given fully, this would run: I shall wait for fine weather; (at least I should say so) if (I were sure that) that will ever come.

(3.) When an _if_-clause is not a condition at all, as for instance where it expresses contrast, and is almost equivalent to _although_, the ordinary plain-future use prevails. Thus: _If annihilation will end our joys it will also end our griefs._ Contrast with this the real condition, in: _If annihilation shall end_ (or _ends_) _our joys, we shall never regret the loss of them._

=Indefinite clauses, relative or other=, bearing the same relation to a conditional or future principal sentence that a conditional protasis bears to its apodosis follow the same rules. Thus _Whoever compares the two will find_ is equivalent to _If any one compares_; _When we have won the battle we can decide that question_ is equivalent to _If ever we have won_. Accordingly we can if we choose write _Whoever shall compare_, and _When we shall have won_; but we cannot write _When we will have won_, and must only write _Whoever will compare_ if we distinctly mean _Whoever chooses to compare_. As there is sometimes difficulty in analysing indefinite clauses of this sort, one or two instances had better be considered.

The candidate who should have distinguished himself most was to be chosen.

This is clear enough; it is equivalent to _if any one should have ... he was...._

We must ask ourselves what victory will cost the Russian people when at length it will become possible to conclude the peace so ardently desired.--_Times._

Equivalent to _If ever it at length becomes_. _Will_ is therefore wrong; either _becomes_, or _shall become_.

Nothing can now prevent it from continuing to distil upwards until there shall be no member of the legislature who shall not know....--HUXLEY.

This is a complicated example. The _shalls_ will be right if it appears that each _shall_-clause is equivalent to a conditional protasis. We may show it by starting at the end as with the house that Jack built and constructing the sentence backwards, subordinating by stages, and changing _will_ to _shall_ as the protases come in; it will be allowed that _until_ means _to the time when_, and that _when_ may be resolved into _if ever_. Thus we get: _a._ One will know. _b._ None will be a member of the legislature unless one shall know. _c._ It will distil to the time if ever none shall be a member unless one shall know.

Think what I will about them, I must take them for politeness’ sake.--R. G. WHITE.

Although _think what I will_ is an indefinite relative clause, meaning practically _whatever I think_, _will_ here is right, the strict sense being _whatever I choose to think_. Indeed the time of _think_ is probably not, at any rate need not be, future at all; compare _Think what I will, I do not tell my thoughts._

We now give

=Rule 7. Conditional protasis and Indefinite Clauses=

In the protasis or _if_-clause of conditional sentences Sh. may be used with all persons. Generally neither Sh. nor W. is used. W. is only used (1) when the full meaning of _wish_ is intended; it may then be used with all persons; (2) when the protasis is elliptically expressed; W. may then be necessary with the second and third persons; (3) when the _if_-clause is not a real conditional protasis; there is then no reason for Sh. with second and third persons. Indefinite classes of similar character follow the same rules.

A few right but exceptional, and some wrong subordinate clauses may now be added.

Examples of Sh. and W. in Subordinate Clauses.

_Right._

As an opiate, or spirituous liquors, shall suspend the operation of grief....--BURKE.

We may conceive Mr. Worldly Wiseman accosting such an one, and the conversation that should thereupon ensue.--STEVENSON.

She is such a spare, straight, dry old lady--such a pew of a woman--that you should find as many individual sympathies in a chip.--DICKENS.

In these three we have the archaic _shall_ of personal assurance that comes under Rule 2, and its corresponding conditional, appearing in subordinate clauses. There is no objection to it except that, in modern writers, its context must be such as to exonerate it from the charge of affectation.

The longing of the army for a fresh struggle which should restore its glory.--J. R. GREEN.

This use of Sh. after final relatives is seen, if the compound sentence is resolved, to point to an original coloured future: We long for a fresh struggle; a fresh struggle shall restore (that is, we intend it to restore) our glory.

He was tormented by that restless jealousy which should seem to belong only to minds burning with the desire of fame.--MACAULAY.

This is the _should seem_ explained under Rule 1 appearing also as subordinate.

_Wrong._

It should never be, but often is, forgotten that when the apodosis of a conditional sentence (with or without expressed protasis) is subordinate it is nevertheless still an apodosis, and has still Sh. in the first, W. in the second and third persons.

In ‘he struck him a blow’, we do not feel the first object to be datival, as we would in ‘he gave him a blow’.--H. SWEET.

I cannot let the moment pass at which I would have been enjoying a visit to you after your severe illness without one word of sympathy.--GLADSTONE.

It would mean that I would always be haunted by an intolerable sense of disgrace.--WILDE.

But though I would not willingly part with such scraps of science, I do not set the same store by them.--STEVENSON.

We must reconcile what we would like to do with what we can do.--_Times._

All these are wrong; in the last two the mistake is perhaps accounted for by the presence of _willingly_ and _like_. _I would not willingly_ can indeed be defended at the cost of admitting that _willingly_ is mere tautology, and saying that _I would not_ means _I should not consent to_, according to Rule 2.

It may be worth while to add that the subordinate apodosis still follows the rule even if it is subordinated to _if_, so that it is part of the protasis of another conditional sentence. The following, which is of course quite correct, seems, but only seems, to break the rules both for protasis and apodosis: If you would be patient for yourself, you should be patient for me. But we have W. with second person in the protasis because _would be patient_ is also apodosis to the implied protasis _if occasion should arise_; and the _should_ with second person in the apodosis is not a conditional _should_ at all, but a pure-system _should_, which would be the same with any person; it means simply _you ought_, or _it would be your duty_.

The result in part of a genuine anxiety lest the Chinese would gradually grow until they monopolized the country.--_Times._

We have purposely refrained until now from invoking the subjunctive, because the word is almost meaningless to Englishmen, the thing having so nearly perished. But on this instance it must be remarked that when conjunctions like _lest_, which could once or still can take a subjunctive (as _lest he die_), use a compound form instead, they use the Sh. forms for all persons. It is a matter of little importance, since hardly any one would go wrong in such a sentence.

THE PERFECT INFINITIVE

This has its right and its wrong uses. The right are obvious, and can be left alone. Even of the wrong some are serviceable, if not strictly logical. _I hoped to have succeeded_, for instance, means _I hoped to succeed, but I did not succeed_, and has the advantage of it in brevity; it is an idiom that it would be a pity to sacrifice on the altar of Reason. So:

Philosophy began to congratulate herself upon such a proselyte from the world of business, and hoped to have extended her power under the auspices of such a leader.--BURKE.

And here he cannot forbear observing, that it was the duty of that publisher to have rebutted a statement which he knew to be a calumny.--BORROW.

I was going to have asked, when....--SLADEN.

But other perfects, while they are still more illogical than these, differ as little in meaning from the present as the _deposuisse_, dear to the hearts of elegiac writers ancient and modern, differs from _deponere_. And whereas there is at least metre, and very useful metre, in _deposuisse_, there is in our corresponding perfect infinitive neither rhyme nor reason. Thus,

With whom on those golden summer evenings I should have liked to have taken a stroll in the hayfield.--THACKERAY.

_To have taken_ means simply to take; the implication of non-fulfilment that justified the perfects above is here needless, being already given in _I should have liked_; and the doubled _have_ is ugly in sound. Similar are

If my point had not been this, I should not have endeavoured to have shown the connexion.--_Times._

The author can only wish it had been her province to have raised plants of nobler growth.--S. FERRIER.

Had you given your advice in any determined or positive manner, I had been ready to have been concluded by it.--RICHARDSON.

Jim Scudamore would have been the first man to have acknowledged the anomaly.--CROCKETT.

Though certainly before she commenced her mystic charms she would have liked to have known who he was.--BEACONSFIELD.

Peggy would have liked to have shown her turban and bird of paradise at the ball.--THACKERAY.

It might have been thought to be a question of bare alternatives, and to have been susceptible of no compromise.--BAGEHOT.

The less excusable that Bagehot has started with the correct _to be_.

Another very common form, still worse, occurs especially after _seem_ and _appear_, and results from the writer’s being too lazy to decide whether he means _He seems to have been_, or _He seemed to be_. The mistake may be in either verb or both.

[Repudiating the report of an interview] I warned him when he spoke to me that I could not speak to him at all if I was to be quoted as an authority. _He seemed to have taken_ this as applying only to the first question he asked me.--_Westminster Gazette._ (seems)

They, as it has been said of Sterne, seemed to have wished, every now and then, to have thrown their wigs into the faces of their auditors.--I. DISRAELI. (seem to have wished ... to throw)

Lady Austen’s fashionable friends occasioned no embarrassment; they _seemed to have preferred_ some more fashionable place for summering in, for they _are_ not again spoken of.--SOUTHEY. (seem)

Sometimes _have_ is even transferred from the verb with which it would make sense to the other with which it makes nonsense.

On the point of church James was obdurate.... He would like to have insisted on the other grudging items.--SLADEN.

In the next, the perfect is wanted; for a child that has been flogged cannot be left unflogged--not, that is, in the past; and the future is not meant.

A child flogged left-handedly had better be left unflogged.--POE.

We add, for the reader’s refreshment rather than for practical purposes, an illustration of where careless treatment of _have_ may end:

Oh, Burgo, hadst thou not have been a very child, thou shouldst have known that now, at this time of day--after all that thy gallant steed had done for thee--it was impossible for thee or him.--TROLLOPE.

CONDITIONALS

These, which cost the schoolboy at his Latin and Greek some weary hours, need not detain us long. The reader passes lightly and unconsciously in his own language over mixtures that might have caused him searchings of heart in a dead one.

But there is one corrupt and meaningless form, apparently gaining ground, that calls for protest. When a clause begins with _as if_, it must be remembered that there is an ellipse. _I treat her as tenderly as if she were my daughter_ would be in full _I treat her as tenderly as I should if she were_, &c. If this is forgotten, there is danger in some sentences, though not in this one, of using a present indicative in the place where the verb _were_ stands. So:

We will not appear like fools in this matter, and as if we _have_ no authority over our own daughter.--RICHARDSON.

This may be accounted for, but not justified, as an attempt to express what should be merely implied, our actual possession of authority.

As if the fruit or the flower not only _depends_ on a root as one of the conditions among others of its development, but _is_ itself actually the root.--MORLEY.

This is absolutely indefensible so far as _is_ is concerned; _depends_ has the same motive as _have_ in the Richardson.

But this looks as if he _has_ included the original 30,000 men.--_Times._

There have been rumours lately, as if the present state of the nation _may_ seem to this species of agitators a favourable period for recommencing their intrigues.--SCOTT.

This is a place where _as if_ should not have been used at all. If it is used, the verb should be _seemed_, not _may seem_, the full form being _as there would be_ (_rumours_). Read _suggesting that_ for _as if_, and _seems_ for _may seem_.

General Linevitch reports that the army is concentrating as if it _intends_ to make a stand.--_Times._

A mixture between _it apparently intends_ and _as if it intended_.

As if the same end _may_ not, and must not, be compassed, according to its circumstances, by a great diversity of ways.--BURKE.

_May_ should be _might_. _As if it may not_ is made to do the work of _as if it might not, as of course it may_.

The same rule applies to _as though_.

The use of true subjunctive forms (if he be, though it happen) in conditional sentences is for various reasons not recommended. These forms, with the single exception of _were_, are perishing so rapidly that an experienced word-actuary[11] puts their expectation of life at one generation. As a matter of style, they should be avoided, being certain to give a pretentious air when handled by any one except the skilful and practised writers who need no advice from us. And as a matter of grammar, the instinct for using subjunctives rightly is dying with the subjunctive, so that even the still surviving _were_ is often used where it is completely wrong. So

It would be advisable to wait for fuller details before making any attempt to appraise the significance of the raid from the military point of view, if, indeed, the whole expedition _were_ not planned with an eye to effect.--_Times._

Here the last clause means _though perhaps it was only planned with an eye to effect_ (_and therefore has no military significance_). But _if_ followed by _were not_ necessarily means that it certainly is. The mistake here results in making the clause look as if it were the protasis to _It would be advisable_, with which it has in fact nothing whatever to do; it is a note on the words _military significance_. Write _was_ for _were_.

... and who, taking my offered hand, bade me ‘Good morning’--nightfall though it _were_.--_Times._

The sentence describes a meeting with a person who knew hardly any English; he said good morning, though it _was_ nightfall. A single example may be added of the intrusion of _were_ for _was_ in a sentence that is not conditional.

Dr. Chalmers was a believer in an Establishment as he conceived an Establishment should be. Whether such an Establishment _were_ possible or not it is not for me now to discuss.--LORD ROSEBERY.

_Were_, however, is often right and almost necessary: other subjunctives are never necessary, often dangerous, and in most writers unpleasantly formal. The tiro had much better eschew them.

‘DOUBT THAT’ AND ‘DOUBT WHETHER’

Instances will be found in Part II of verbs constructed with wrong prepositions or conjunctions. Most mistakes of this kind are self-evident; but the verb ‘doubt’, which is constructed with ‘that’ or ‘whether’ according to the circumstances under which the doubt is expressed, requires special notice. The broad distinction is between the positive, ‘I doubt whether (that)’ and the negative, ‘I do not doubt that (whether)’; and the rule, in order to include implied as well as expressed negatives, questions as well as statements, will run thus:

The word used depends upon the writer’s or speaker’s opinion as to the reasonableness of the doubt, no matter in whose mind it is said to exist or not to exist.

1. If there is nothing to show that the writer considers the doubt an unreasonable one, the word is always ‘whether’, which reminds us that there is a suppressed alternative:

I doubt whether this is true (or not).

Every one is at liberty to doubt whether ... (or not).

To this part of the rule there is no exception.

2. If it is evident that the writer disapproves of the doubt, the words introducing it amount to an affirmation on his part that the thing doubted is undoubtedly true; the alternative is no longer offered; ‘that’ is therefore the word:

I do not doubt that (i. e., I am sure that)....

Who can doubt that...?

This, however, is modified by 3.

3. The ‘vivid’ use of ‘whether’. When the writer’s point is rather the extravagance of the doubt than the truth of the thing doubted, ‘whether’ is often retained:

It is as if a man should doubt whether he has a head on his shoulders.

Can we imagine any man seriously doubting whether...?

Here, according to 2., we ought to have ‘that’, since the writer evidently regards the doubt as absurd. But in the first sentence it is necessary for the force of the illustration that the deplorable condition of the doubter’s mind should be vividly portrayed: accordingly, he is represented to us as actually handling the two alternatives. Similarly, in the second, we are invited to picture to ourselves, if we can, a hesitation so ludicrous in the writer’s opinion. We shall illustrate this point further by a couple of sentences in which again the state of mind of the doubter, not the truth of the thing doubted, is clearly the point, but in which ‘that’ has been improperly substituted for the vivid ‘whether’:

She found herself wondering at the breath she drew, doubting that another would follow.--MEREDITH.

I am afraid that you will become so afraid of men’s motives as to doubt that any one can be honest.--TROLLOPE.

The mistake commonly made is to use ‘that’ for ‘whether’ in violation of 1. ‘Whether’ is seldom used in place of ‘that’, and apparent violations of 2. often prove to be legitimate exceptions of the ‘vivid’ kind. Some of our examples may suggest that when the dependent clause is placed before the verb, ‘that’ appears because the writer had not decided what verb of doubt or denial to use. This is probably the true explanation of many incorrect _thats_, but is not a sufficient defence. It supplies, on the contrary, an additional reason for adhering to ‘whether’: the reader is either actually misled or at any rate kept in needless suspense as to what is going to be said, because the writer did not make up his mind at the right time how to say it. ‘Whether’ at the beginning at once proclaims an open question: after ‘that’ we expect (or ought to expect) ‘I have _no_ reason to doubt’.

In all the following, ‘whether’ should have been used.

There is nothing for it but to doubt such diseases exist.--H. G. WELLS.

‘Whether’ is never suppressed.

I do not think it would have pleased Mr. Thackeray; and to doubt that he would have wished to see it carried out determines my view of the matter.--GREENWOOD.

That the movement is as purely industrial as the leaders of the strike claim may be doubted.--_Times._

And I must be allowed to doubt that there is any class who deliberately omit....--_Times._

He may doubt that his policy will be any more popular in England a year or two hence than it is now.--GREENWOOD.

I doubt the correctness of the assertion.... I doubt, I say, that Becky would have selected either of these young men.--THACKERAY.

But that his army, if it retreats, will carry with it all its guns ... we are inclined to doubt.--_Times._

It was generally doubted that France would permit the use of her port.--_Times._

PREPOSITIONS

In an uninflected language like ours these are ubiquitous, and it is quite impossible to write tolerably without a full knowledge, conscious or unconscious, of their uses. Misuse of them, however, does not often result in what may be called in the fullest sense blunders of syntax, but mostly in offences against idiom. It is often impossible to convince a writer that the preposition he has used is a wrong one, because there is no reason in the nature of things, in logic, or in the principles of universal grammar (whichever way it may be put), why that preposition should not give the desired meaning as clearly as the one that we tell him he should have used. Idioms are special forms of speech that for some reason, often inscrutable, have proved congenial to the instinct of a particular language. To neglect them shows a writer, however good a logician he may be, to be no linguist--condemns him, from that point of view, more clearly than grammatical blunders themselves. But though the subject of prepositions is thus very important, the idioms in which they appear are so multitudinous that it is hopeless to attempt giving more than the scantiest selection; this may at least put writers on their guard. Usages of this sort cannot be acquired from dictionaries and grammars, still less from a treatise like the present, not pretending to be exhaustive; good reading with the idiomatic eye open is essential. We give a few examples of what to avoid.

1. After adjectives and adverbs.

Another stroke of palsy soon rendered Sir Sampson _unconscious_ even _to_ the charms of Grizzy’s conversation.--S. FERRIER.

Being _oblivious to_ the ill feeling it would be certain to engender.--_Cheltenham Examiner._

To me it is incredible that the British people, who own one-half of the world’s sea-going ships, should be so _oblivious to_ the manner in which....--_Times._

Insensible to, but unconscious of; indifferent to, but oblivious of

The adjectives _different_ and _averse_, with their adverbs or nouns, _differently_, _difference_, _aversion_, _averseness_, call for a few words of comment. There is no essential reason whatever why either set should not be as well followed by _to_ as by _from_. But _different to_ is regarded by many newspaper editors and others in authority as a solecism, and is therefore better avoided by those to whom the approval of such authorities is important. It is undoubtedly gaining ground, and will probably displace _different from_ in no long time; perhaps, however, the conservatism that still prefers _from_ is not yet to be named pedantry. It is at any rate defensive, and not offensive pedantry, _different to_ (though ‘found in writers of all ages’--_Oxford Dictionary_) being on the whole the aggressor. With _averse_, on the other hand, though the _Oxford Dictionary_ gives a long roll of good names on each side, the use of _from_ may perhaps be said to strike most readers as a distinct protest against the more natural _to_, so that _from_ is here the aggressor, and the pedantry, if it is pedantry, is offensive. Our advice is to write _different from_ and _averse to_. We shall give a few examples, and add to them two sentences in which the incorrect use of _from_ with other words looks like the result of insisting on the slightly artificial use of it after different and averse.

My experience caused me to make quite _different_ conclusions _to_ those of the Coroner for Westminster.--_Times._

It will be noticed that _to_ is more than usually uncomfortable when it does not come next to _different_.

We must feel charitably towards those who think _differently to_ ourselves.--_Daily Telegraph._

Why should these profits be employed _differently to_ the profits made by capitalists at home?--LORD GOSCHEN.

Ah, how _different_ were my feelings as I sat proudly there on the box _to_ those I had the last time I mounted that coach!--THACKERAY.

What is the great _difference_ of the one _to_ the other?--_Daily Telegraph._

_From_ would in this last be clearly better than _to_; but _between the two_ would be better than either.

The Queen and the cabinet, however, were entirely _averse to_ meddling with the council.--MORLEY.

Perhaps he is not _averse from_ seeing democrats on this, as on railway rates, range themselves with him.--_Times._

In all democratic circles _aversion from_ the Empire of the Tsar may be intensified by the events of the last few days.--_Times._

_To_ no kind of begging are people so _averse_ as _to_ begging pardon.--_Guesses at Truth._

This _averseness_ in the dissenting churches _from_ all that looks like absolute government.--BURKE.

I deeply regret the _aversion to_ ‘conscience clauses’.--GLADSTONE.

But she had no sort of _aversion for_ either Puritan or Papist.--J. R. GREEN.

_Disagree from_ (for _with_), and _adverse from_ (for _to_), seem to have resulted from the superstition against _averse_ and _different to_.

A general proposition, which applies just as much to those who _disagree from_ me as to those who agree with me.--LORD ROSEBERY.

There were politicians in this country who had been very _adverse from_ the Suez Canal scheme altogether.--F. GREENWOOD.

2. After verbs.

I _derive_ an unholy pleasure _in_ noting.--_Guernsey Evening Press._

We must _content ourselves_ for the moment _by_ observing that from the juridical standpoint the question is a doubtful one.--_Times._

The petition which now reaches us from Bloemfontein ... _contents itself by_ begging that the isolation laws may be carried out nearer to the homes of the patients.--_Times._

I content you _by_ submitting: I content myself _with_ saying.

‘Doing one’s duty’ generally _consists of_ being moral, kind and charitable.--_Daily Telegraph._

The external world which is dealt with by natural science _consisted_, according to Berkeley, _in_ ideas. According to Mr. Mill it _consists of_ sensations and permanent possibilities of sensation.--BALFOUR.

The moon consists _of_ green cheese: virtue consists _in_ being good. _Consist of_ gives a material, _consist in_ a definition. Mr. Balfour’s ‘elegant variation’ (see _Airs and Graces_) is certainly wrong, though nominalists and realists will perhaps differ about which should have been used in both sentences, and no one below the degree of a metaphysician can pretend to decide between them.

A scholar _endowed by_ [with] an ample knowledge and persuasive eloquence to cite and instance.--MEREDITH.

I say to you plainly there is no end _to_ [at] which your practical faculty can _aim_....--EMERSON.

He urged that it was an undesirable thing to be always _tinkering with_ this particular trade.--_Times._

We tamper _with_, but tinker _at_, the thing that is to be operated on.

You may hunt the alien from his overcrowded tenement, you may _forbid_ him, if you like, _from toiling_ ten hours a day for a wage of a few shillings.--_Times._

_His toiling_, or _him to toil_.

His readiness, not only at catching a point, but at making the most of it _on a moment’s notice_, was amazing.--BRYCE.

_On_ the spur of the moment, but _at_ a moment’s notice. The motive was, no doubt, to avoid repeating _at_; but such devices are sins if they are detected.

Nataly had her sense of safety in _acquiescing to_ such a voice.--MEREDITH.

We acquiesce _in_, not _to_, though either phrase is awkward enough with _a voice_; _to_ is probably accounted for again by the desire to avoid repeating _in_.

3. After nouns.

There can be no _fault found to_ her manners or sentiments.--SCOTT.