Chapter VII: Part 7

"'Unless I _were_ prepared,' insinuates pretty strongly that I am or am not prepared, according to the manner of the principal clause.

"'What's a tall man unless he _fight_?'

"'The sword hath ended him: so shall it thee,
Unless thou _yield_ thee as my prisoner.'

"'Who but must laugh, if such a man there _be_?
Who would not weep, if Atticus _were_ he?'

"'I am to second Ion if he _fail_'; the failing is left quite doubtful. 'I should very imperfectly execute the task which I have undertaken if I _were_ merely to treat of battles and sieges.' Macaulay thus implies that the scope of his work is to be wider than mere battles and sieges.

"The subjunctive appears in some other constructions. 'I hope to see the exhibition before _it close_'; 'wait till he _return_'; 'thou shall stand by the river's brink against he _come_'; 'take heed lest passion _sway_ thy judgment'; 'speak to me, though it _be_ in wrath'; 'if he _smite_ him with an instrument of iron so that he _die_, he is a murderer'; 'beware this night that thou _cross_ not my footsteps' (Shelley).

"Again. 'Whatever this _be_'; 'whoever he _be_'; 'howe'er it _be_' (Tennyson); and such like.

"'And _as long_, O God, _as_ she
_Have_ a grain of love for me,
So long, no doubt, no doubt,
Shall I nurse in my dark heart,
However weary, a spark of will
Not to be trampled out.'

"The Future Subjunctive is given in our scheme of the verb as 'should' in all persons: 'If I should, if thou should, if he should.' In old English, we have 'thou _shouldst_': 'if thou, Lord, _shouldst_ mark iniquities.'

"An inverted conditional form has taken deep root in our language, and may be regarded as an elegant and forcible variety. While dispensing with the conjunction, it does not cause ambiguity; nevertheless, conditionality is well marked.

"'_If_ you _should_ abandon your Penelope and your home for Calypso, ----': '_should_ you abandon ----.'

"'_Go_ not my horse the better,
I must become a borrower of the night
For a dark hour or twain.'

"'Here had we now our country's honor roof'd
_Were_ the graced person of our Banquo present.'

"'_Be_ thou a spirit of health or goblin damn'd,
_Bring_ with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell,
_Be_ thy intents wicked or charitable,
Thou com'st in such a questionable shape
That I will speak to thee.'

"'_Come_ one, _come_ all, this rock shall fly
From its firm base as soon as I.'--Scott.

"The following examples are given by Mätzner:

"'Varney's communications, _be_ they what they might, were operating in his favor.'--Scott.

"'Governing persons, _were_ they never so insignificant intrinsically, have for most part plenty of Memoir-writers.'--Carlyle.

"'Even _were_ I disposed, I could not gratify the reader.'--Warren.

"'Bring them back to me, _cost_ what it may.'--Coleridge, 'Wallenstein.'

"'And _will_ you, _nill_ you, I will marry you.'--'Taming of the Shrew.'

"_Were_ is used in the principal clause for 'should be' or 'would be.'[32]

"'I _were_ (=should be) a fool, not less than if a panther
Were panic-stricken by the antelope's eye,
If she escape me.'--Shelley.

"'Were you but riding forth to air yourself,
Such parting _were_ too petty.'

"'He _were_ (=would be) no lion, were not Romans hinds.'

"'Should he be roused out of his sleep to-night, ...
It _were_ not well; indeed it _were_ not well.'--Shelley.

"_Had_ is sometimes used in the principal clause for 'should have' or 'would have.'[33]

"'Had I known this before we set out, I think I _had_ (= would have) remained at home.'--Scott.

"'Hadst thou been kill'd when first thou didst presume,
Thou _hadst_ not lived to kill a son of mine.'

"'If he
Had killed me, he _had_ done a kinder deed.'

"'For once he _had_ been ta'en or slain,
An it had not been his ministry.'--Scott.

"'If thou hadst said him nay, it _had_ been sin.'[34]

"'_Had_ better, rather, best, as lief, as well, etc.,' is a form that is explained under this heading. 'Had' stands for 'would have.' The exploded notion that 'had' is a corrupted 'would' must be guarded against.

"'I _had_ as lief not be.' That is--'I _would_ as lief _have_ not (_to_) be' = 'I would as willingly (or as soon) have non-existence.'

"'_Had_ you rather Cæsar were living----?' '_Would_ you rather _have_ (_would_ you _prefer_ that) Cæsar were living?'

"'He _had_ better reconsider the matter' is 'he _would_ better _have_ (_to_) reconsider the matter.'

"'I _had_ rather be a kitten and cry mew
Than one of these same metre ballad-mongers;
I _had_ rather hear a brazen canstick turned.'

"Let us compare this form with another that appears side by side with it in early writers. (Cp. Lat. 'habeo' and 'mihi est.')

"The construction of 'had' is thus illustrated in Chaucer, as in--Nonne Prestes Tale, 300:

"'By God, I _hadde_ levere than my scherte,
That ye hadde rad his legend, as I have.'

"Compare now:

"'Ah _me were levere_ with lawe _loose_ my lyf
Then so to fote hem _falle_.'--Wright, 'Polit. S.'

"Here 'were' is unquestionably for 'would be'; and the whole expression might be given by 'had,' thus: 'Ah, _I hadde_ levere ----,' '(to) _loose_' and '(to) _falle_,' changing from subjects of 'were' to objects of 'hadde.'

"So, in the Chaucer example above, if we substitute 'be' for 'have,' we shall get the same meaning, thus: 'By God, _me were_ levere ----.' The interchange helps us to see more clearly that 'hadde' is to be explained as subjunctive for 'would have.'" See INDICATIVE AND SUBJUNCTIVE.

SUCH. "I have never before seen _such_ a large ox." By a little transposing of the words of this sentence, we have, "I have never before seen an ox _such_ large," which makes it quite clear that we should say _so large an ox_ and not _such a large ox_. As proof that this error in the use of _such_ is common, we find in Mr. George Washington Moon's "Dean's English and Bad English," the sentence, "With all due deference to _such_ a high authority on _such_ a very important matter." With a little transposing, this sentence is made to read, "With all due deference to an authority _such_ high on a matter _such_ very important." It is clear that the sentence should read, "With all due deference to _so_ high an authority on _so_ very important a matter." The phrases, _such_ a handsome, _such_ a lovely, _such_ a long, _such_ narrow, etc., are incorrect, and should be _so_ handsome, _so_ lovely, _so_ long, and so on.

SUMMON. This verb comes in for its full share of mauling. We often hear such expressions as "I will _summons_ him," instead of _summon_ him; and "He was _summonsed_," instead of _summoned_.

SUPERFLUOUS WORDS. "Whenever I try to write well, I _always_ find I can do it." "I shall have finished by the _latter_ end of the week." "Iron sinks _down_ in water." "He combined _together_ all the facts." "My brother called on me, and we _both_ took a walk." "I can do it _equally_ as well as he." "We could not forbear _from_ doing it." "Before I go, I must _first_ be paid." "We were compelled to return _back_." "We forced them to retreat _back_ fully a mile." "His conduct was approved _of_ by everybody." "They conversed _together_ for a long time." "The balloon rose _up_ very rapidly." "Give me another _one_." "Come home as soon as _ever_ you can." "Who finds him _in_ money?" "He came in last _of all_." "He has _got_ all he can carry." "What have you _got_?" "No matter what I have _got_." "I have _got_ the headache." "Have you _got_ any brothers?" "No, but I have _got_ a sister." All the words in _italics_ are superfluous.

SUPERIOR. This word is not unfrequently used for able, excellent, gifted; as, "She is a _superior_ woman," meaning an _excellent_ woman; "He is a _superior_ man," meaning an _able_ man. The expression _an inferior man_ is not less objectionable.

SUPPOSITITIOUS. This word is _properly_ used in the sense of put by a trick into the place or character belonging to another, spurious, counterfeit, not genuine; and _improperly_ in the sense of conjectural, hypothetical, imaginary, presumptive; as, "This is a _supposititious_ case," meaning an _imaginary_ or _presumptive_ case. "The English critic derived his materials from a stray copy of some _supposititious_ indexes devised by one of the 'Post' reporters."--"Nation." Here is a correct use of the word.

SWOSH. There is a kind of ill-balanced brain in which the reflective and the imaginative very much outweight the perceptive. Men to whom this kind of an organization has been given generally have active minds, but their minds never present anything clearly. To their mental vision all is ill-defined, chaotic. They see everything in a haze. Whether such men talk or write, they are verbose, illogical, intangible, will-o'-the-wispish. Their thoughts are phantomlike; like shadows, they continually escape their grasp. In their talk they will, after long dissertations, tell you that they have not said just what they would like to say; there is always a subtle, lurking something still unexpressed, which something is the real essence of the matter, and which your penetration is expected to divine. In their writings they are eccentric, vague, labyrinthine, pretentious, transcendental,[35] and frequently ungrammatical. These men, if write they must, should confine themselves to the descriptive; for when they enter the essayist's domain, which they are very prone to do, they write what I will venture to call _swosh_.

We find examples in plenty of this kind of writing in the essays of Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson. Indeed, the impartial critic who will take the trouble to examine any of Mr. Emerson's essays at all carefully, is quite sure to come to the conclusion that Mr. Emerson has seen everything he has ever made the subject of his essays very much as London is seen from the top of Saint Paul's in a fog.

Mr. Emerson's definition of Nature runs thus: "Philosophically considered, the universe is composed of Nature and the Soul. Strictly speaking, therefore, all that is separate from us, all which philosophy distinguishes from the _Not Me_--that is, both Nature and Art, and all other men, and my own body--must be ranked under this name 'NATURE.' In enumerating the values of Nature and casting up their sum, I shall use the word in both senses--in its common and in its philosophical import. In inquiries so general as our present one, the inaccuracy is not material; no confusion of thought will occur. _Nature_, in the common sense, refers to essences unchanged by man: space, the air, the river, the leaf. _Art_ is applied to the mixture of his will with the same things, as in a house, a canal, a picture, a statue. But his operations, taken together, are so insignificant--a little chipping, baking, patching, and washing--that in an impression so grand as that of the world on the human mind they do not vary the result."

In "Letters and Social Aims" Mr. Emerson writes: "Eloquence is the power to translate a truth into language perfectly intelligible to the person to whom you speak. He who would convince the worthy Mr. Dunderhead of any truth which Dunderhead does not see, must be a master of his art. Declamation is common; but such possession of thought as is here required, such practical chemistry as the conversion of a truth written in God's language into a truth in Dunderhead's language, is one of the most beautiful and cogent weapons that is forged in the shop of the Divine Artificer."

The first paragraph of Mr. Emerson's "Essay on Art" reads: "All departments of life at the present day--Trade, Politics, Letters, Science, or Religion--seem to feel, and to labor to express, the identity of their law. They are rays of one sun; they translate each into a new language the sense of the other. They are sublime when seen as emanations of a Necessity contradistinguished from the vulgar Fate by being instant and alive, and dissolving man, as well as his works, in its flowing beneficence. This influence is conspicuously visible in the principles and history of Art."

Another paragraph from Mr. Emerson's "Essay on Eloquence": "The orator, as we have seen, must be a substantial personality. Then, first, he must have power of statement--must have the fact, and know how to tell it. In a knot of men conversing on any subject, the person who knows most about it will have the ear of the company, if he wishes it, and lead the conversation, no matter what genius or distinction other men there present may have; and, in any public assembly, him who has the facts, and can and will state them, people will listen to, though he is otherwise ignorant, though he is hoarse and ungrateful, though he stutters and screams."

Mr. Emerson, in his "Essay on Prudence," writes: "There are all degrees of proficiency in knowledge of the world. It is sufficient to our present purpose to indicate three. One class live to the utility of the symbol, esteeming health and wealth a final good. Another class live above this mark to the beauty of the symbol, as the poet and artist, and the naturalist and man of science. A third class live above the beauty of the symbol to the beauty of the thing signified; these are wise men. The first class have common sense; the second, taste; and the third, spiritual perception. Once in a long time a man traverses the whole scale, and sees and enjoys the symbol solidly; then, also, has a clear eye for its beauty; and, lastly, whilst he pitches his tent on this sacred volcanic isle of nature, does not offer to build houses and barns thereon, reverencing the splendor of God which he sees bursting through each chink and cranny."

Those who are wont to accept others at their self-assessment and to see things through other people's eyes--and there are many such--are in danger of thinking this kind of writing very fine, when in fact it is not only the veriest _swosh_, but that kind of swosh that excites at least an occasional doubt with regard to the writer's sanity. We can make no greater mistake than to suppose that the reason we do not understand these rhetorical contortionists is because they are so subtle and profound. We understand them quite as well as they understand themselves. At their very best, they are but incoherent diluters of other men's ideas. They have but one thing to recommend them--honesty. They believe in themselves.

"Whatever is dark is deep. Stir a puddle, and it is deeper than a well."--Swift.

SYNECDOCHE. The using of the name of a part for that of the whole, the name of the whole for that of a part, or the using of a definite number for an indefinite, is called, in rhetoric, _synecdoche_. "The bay was covered with _sails_"; i. e., with _ships_. "The man was old, careworn, and gray"; i. e., literally, _his hair_, not the man, was gray. "_Nine tenths_ of every man's happiness depends on the reception he meets with in the world." "He had seen seventy _winters_." "Thus spoke the _tempter_": here the part of the character is named that suits the occasion.

"His roof was at the service of the outcast; the unfortunate ever found a welcome at his threshold."

TAKE. I copy from the "London Queen": "The verb _to take_ is open to being considered a vulgar verb when used in reference to dinner, tea, or to refreshments of any kind. 'Will you _take_' is not considered _comme il faut_; the verb in favor for the offering of civilities being _to have_." According to "The Queen," then, we must say, "Will you _have_ some dinner, tea, coffee, wine, fish, beef, salad," etc.

TASTE OF. The redundant _of_, often used, in this country, in connection with the transitive verbs _to taste_ and _to smell_, is a Yankeeism. We _taste_ or _smell_ a thing, not taste _of_ nor smell _of_ a thing. The neuter verbs _to taste_ and _to smell_ are often followed by _of_. "If butter _tastes of_ brass." "For age but _tastes of_ pleasures."

"You shall stifle in your own report,
and _smell of_ calumny."--Shakespeare.

TAUTOLOGY. Among the things to be avoided in writing is _tautology_, which is _the 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 as _tautology_."--Dr. G. P. Quackenbos, "Advanced Course of Composition and Rhetoric," p. 300. Dr. Quackenbos is in error. The repetition of the same _sense_ is tautology, and the repetition of the same _sound_, 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," is _tautophony_.

TEACH. To impart knowledge, to inform, to instruct; as, "_Teach_ me how to do it"; "_Teach_ me to swim"; "He _taught_ me to write." The uncultured often misuse _learn_ for _teach_. See LEARN.

TENSE. The errors made in the use of the tenses are manifold. The one most frequently made by persons of culture--the one that everybody makes would, perhaps, be nearer the fact--is that of using the _imperfect_ instead of the _perfect_ tense; thus, "I never _saw_ it played but once": say, _have seen_. "He was the largest man I ever _saw_": say, _have seen_. "I never in my life _had_ such 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 to _have gone_": say, _to go_. "It was my intention to _have_ come": say, _to come_. "I expected to _have found_ you here": say, _to find_. "I was very desirous to _have gone_": say, _to go_. "He was better than I expected to _have found_ him": say, _to find_.

Among other common errors are the following: "I _seen_ him when he _done_ it": say, "I _saw_ him when he _did_ it." "I should have _went_ home": say, _gone_. "If he had _went_": say, _gone_. "I wish you had _went_": say, _gone_. "He has _went_ out": say, _gone_. "I _come_ to town this morning": say, _came_. "He _come_ to me for advice": say, _came_. "It _begun_ very late": say, _began_. "It had already _began_": say, _begun_. "The following toasts were _drank_": say, _drunk_. "His text was that God _was_ love": say, _is_ love. Another error is made in such sentences as these: "If I had _have_ known": say, _had known_. "If he had _have_ come as he promised": say, _had come_. "If you had _have_ told me": say, _had told_.

TESTIMONY. See EVIDENCE.

THAN. _Than_ and _as_ implying comparison have the same case after as before them. "He owes more than _me_": read, than _I_--i. e., more than _I owe_. "John is not so old as _her_": read, as _she_--i. e., as _she is_. We should say, then, "He is stronger than _she_," "She is older than _he_," "You are richer than _I_," etc. But it does not always happen that the nominative case comes after _than_ or _as_. "I love you more than _him_," "I give you more than _him_," "I love you as well as _him_"; that is to say, "I love you more than _I love him_," "I give you more than _I give him_," "I love you as well as _I love him_." Take away _him_ and put _he_ in all these cases, and the grammar is just as good, but the meaning is quite different. "I love you as well as _him_," means that I love you as well _as I love him_; but, "I love you as well as _he_," means that I love you as well _as he loves you_.

THAN WHOM. Cobbett, in his "Grammar of the English Language," says: "There is an erroneous way of employing _whom_, 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 whom_ no man was more hearty in the cause.' 'Cromwell, _than whom_ no 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, _who_ should be made use of: for it is _nominative_ and not objective. 'No man was more hearty in the cause _than he was_'; 'No man was better skilled in artifice _than he was_.'[36] It is a very common Parliament-house phrase, and therefore presumably _corrupt_; but it is a Dr. Johnson phrase, too: 'Pope, _than whom_ few men had more vanity.' The Doctor did not say, 'Myself, _than whom_ few 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 says that 'The relative _who_, having reference to no verb or preposition understood, but only to its antecedent, when it follows _than_, is _always 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 unfortunate _it_ is so placed as to make it a matter of doubt whether the Bishop meant it to relate to _who_ or to _its antecedent_. However, we know its meaning; but, though he says that _who_, when it follows _than_, 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 no _verb_ or _preposition_ understood.' I do not see the _reason_, 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 some _verb_ or _preposition_, either expressed or understood. What is meant by Milton? 'Than Beelzebub, none _sat_ higher, 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 higher _than who_ sat, except Satan'; and not, 'no devil sat higher _than whom_ sat.'[37] The supposition that there can be a noun or pronoun which has reference to _no verb_ and _no preposition_, is certainly a mistake."

Of this, Dr. Fitzedward Hall remarks, in his "Recent Exemplifications of False Philology": "That any one but 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 its _than_ a preposition, others may resolve at their leisure and pleasure."

THANKS. There are many persons who think it in questionable taste to use _thanks_ for _thank 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, 'Venus _whose_ priest _that_ I am'; Chaucer writes--'This Abbot _which that_ was an holy man,' 'his love _the which that_ he 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, would _fall in with the 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 ambiguities_ that 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, _who_ had 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 friends _that_ had not known him long.' So in the following sentence there is a similar ambiguity in the use of 'which': 'the next winter _which_ you 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 winter _that_ you will spend in town.'

"A further consideration in favor of employing 'that' for explicative clauses is the unpleasant effect arising from the _too 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 between _that_, on the one hand, and _who_ and _which_, on the other:

"'In general, Mr. Burchell was fondest of the company of children, _whom_ he used to call harmless little men.' 'Whom' is here idiomatically used, being the equivalent of '_and them_ he used to call,' etc.

"'Bacon at last, a mighty man, arose,
_Whom_ a wise king and nation chose
Lord 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 company _whom_ he has entertained magnificently.' Compare another of Addison's sentences: 'a man of polite imagination is let into a great many pleasures _that_ the vulgar are not capable of receiving.'

"Both relatives are introduced discriminatingly in this passage:--'She had learned that from Mrs. Wood, _who_ had heard it from her husband, _who_ had heard it at the public-house from the landlord, _who_ had been let into the secret by the boy _that_ carried the beer to some of the prisoners.'

"The following sentences are ambiguous under the modern system of using 'who' for both purposes:--'I met the boatman _who_ took me across the ferry.' If 'who' is the proper relative here, the meaning is, 'I met the boatman, _and he_ took me across,' it being supposed that the boatman is known and definite. But if there be several boatmen, and I wish to indicate one in particular by the circumstance that he had taken me across the ferry, I should use 'that.' 'The youngest boy _who_ has learned to dance is James.' This means either 'the youngest boy is James, _and he_ has learned to dance,' or, 'of the boys, the youngest that has learned to dance is James.' This last sense is restrictive, and 'that' should be used.

"Turning now to 'which,' we may have a series of parallel examples. 'The court, _which_ gives currency to manners, should be exemplary': here the meaning is 'the court should be exemplary, _for the court_ gives currency to manners.' 'Which' is the idiomatic relative in this case. 'The cat, _which_ you despise so much, is a very useful animal.' The relative here also is coördinating, and not restrictive. If it were intended to point out one individual cat specially despised by the person addressed, 'that' would convey the sense. 'A theory _which_ does not tend to the improvement of practice is utterly unworthy of regard.' The meaning is restrictive; 'a theory _that_ does not tend.' The following sentence is one of many from Goldsmith that give 'that' instead of 'which':--'Age, _that_ lessens the enjoyment of life, increases our desire of living.' Thackeray also was fond of this usage. But it is not very common.

"'Their faith tended to make them improvident; but a wise instinct taught them that if there was one thing _which_ ought not to be left to fate, or to the precepts of a deceased prophet, it was the artillery'; a case where 'that' is the proper relative.

"'All words, _which_ are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.' This gives an erroneous impression, and should be 'all words _that_ are signs of complex ideas.'

"'In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of judges is to direct juries by analogy to the Statute of Limitations, to decide against incorporeal rights _which_ have for many years been relinquished': say instead, 'incorporeal rights _that_ have for many years,' and the sense is clear.

"It is necessary for the proper understanding of 'which' to advert to its peculiar function of referring to a whole clause as the antecedent: 'William ran along the top of the wall, _which_ alarmed his mother very much.' The antecedent is obviously not the noun 'wall,' but the fact expressed by the entire clause--'William ran,' etc. 'He by no means wants sense, _which_ only serves to aggravate his former folly'; namely, (not 'sense,' but) the circumstance 'that he does not want sense.' 'He is neither over-exalted by prosperity, nor too much depressed by misfortune; _which_ you must allow marks a great mind.' 'We have done many things _which_ we ought not to have done,' might mean 'we ought not _to have done many things_'; that is, 'we ought to have done few things.' 'That' would give the exact sense intended: 'we have done many things _that_ we ought not to have done.' 'He began to look after his affairs himself, _which_ was the way to make them prosper.'

"We must next allude to the cases where the relative is governed by a preposition. We can use a preposition before 'who' and 'which,' but when the relative is 'that,' the preposition must be thrown to the end of the clause. Owing to an imperfect appreciation of the genius of our language, offense was taken at this usage by some of our leading writers at the beginning of last century, and to this circumstance we must refer the disuse of 'that' as the relative of restriction.[38]

"'It is curious that the only circumstance connected with Scott, and related by Lockhart, _of which_ I was a witness, is incorrectly stated in the "Life of Sir Walter."'--Leslie's 'Memoirs.' The relative should be restrictive: '_that_ I was a witness _of_.'

"'There are many words _which_ are adjectives _which_ have nothing to do with the qualities of the nouns _to which_ they are put.'--Cobbett. Better: 'there are many words _that_ are adjectives _that_ have nothing to do with the qualities of the nouns (_that_) they are put _to_.'

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

"'Sorrow for the dead is the only sorrow _from which_ we refuse to be divorced': 'the only sorrow (_that_) we refuse to be divorced _from_.'

"'Why, there is not a single sentence in this play _that_ I do not know the meaning _of_.'--Addison.

"'Originality is a thing we constantly clamor _for_, and constantly quarrel _with_.'--Carlyle.

"'A spirit more amiable, but less vigorous, than Luther's would have shrunk back from the dangers _which_ he braved and surmounted': '_that_ he braved'; 'the dangers _braved_ and _surmounted_ by him.'

"'Nor is it at all improbable that the emigrants had been guilty of those faults _from which_ civilized men _who_ settle among an uncivilized people are rarely free.'--Macaulay. 'Nor is it at all improbable that the emigrants had been guilty of _the_ faults _that_ (_such_ faults _as_) civilized men _that settle_ (_settling_, or _settled_) among an uncivilized people are rarely free _from_.'

"'Prejudices are notions or opinions _which_ the mind entertains without knowing the grounds and reasons of them, and _which_ are assented to without examination.'--Berkeley. The 'which' in both cases should be 'that,' but the relative may be entirely dispensed with by participial conversion: 'prejudices are notions or opinions _entertained_ by the mind without knowing the grounds and reasons of them, and _assented_ to without examination.'

"The too frequent repetition of 'who' and 'which' may be avoided by resolving them into the conjunction and personal or other pronoun: 'In such circumstances, the utmost that Bosquet could be expected to do was to hold his ground, (_which_) _and this_ he did.'"--Bain's "Higher English Grammar."

This word is sometimes vulgarly used for _so_; thus, "I was _that_ nervous I forgot everything"; "I was _that_ frightened I could hardly stand."

THE. Bungling writers sometimes write sheer nonsense, or say something very different from what they have in their minds, by the simple omission of the definite article; thus, "The indebtedness of the English tongue to the French, Latin and Greek is disclosed in almost every sentence framed." According to this, there is such a thing as a French, Latin and Greek tongue. Professor Townsend meant to say: "The indebtedness of the English tongue to the French, _the_ Latin, and _the_ Greek," etc.

THEN. The use of this word as an adjective is condemned in very emphatic terms by some of our grammarians, and yet this use of it has the sanction of such eminent writers as Addison, Johnson, Whately, and Sir J. Hawkins. Johnson says, "In his _then_ situation," which, if brevity be really the soul of wit, certainly has much more soul in it than "In the situation he then occupied." However, it is doubtful whether _then_, as an adjective, will ever again find favor with careful writers.

THENCE. See WHENCE.

THINK FOR. We not unfrequently hear a superfluous _for_ tacked to a sentence; thus, "You will find that he knows more about the affair than you think _for_."

THOSE KIND. "_Those_ kind of apples _are_ best": read, "_That_ kind of apples _is_ best." It is truly remarkable that many persons who can justly lay claim to the possession of considerable culture use this barbarous combination. It would be just as correct to say, "Those flock of geese," or "Those drove of cattle," as to say, "Those _sort_ or _kind_ of people."

THOSE WHO. This phrase, applied in a restrictive sense, is the modern substitute for the ancient idiom _they that_, an idiom in accordance with the true meaning of _that_.

"'_They that_ told me the story said'; 'Blessed are _they that_ mourn'; 'and Simon and _they that_ were with him'; 'I love _them that_ love me, and _they that_ seek me early shall find me'; '_they that_ are whole have no need of a physician'; 'how sweet is the rest of _them that_ labor!' 'I can not tell who to compare them to so fitly as to _them that_ pick pockets in the presence of the judge'; '_they that_ enter into the state of marriage cast a die of the greatest contingency' (J. Taylor).

"'_That_ man hath perfect blessedness
_Who_ walketh not astray,'

if expressed according to the old idiom would be, '_the_ man hath--_that_ walketh.'

"'That' and 'those,' as demonstrative adjectives, refer backward, and are not therefore well suited for the forward reference implied in making use of 'that which' and 'those who' as restrictive relatives. It is also very cumbrous to say '_that_ case _to which_ you allude' for 'the case (_that_) you allude _to_.'

"Take now the following: 'The Duke of Wellington is not one of _those who_ interfere with matters _over which_ he has no control': 'the Duke is not one of _them that_ interfere in matters _that_ they have no control _over_ (matters _that_ they can not control, _beyond their control_, _out of their province_).' If 'them that' sounds too antiquated, we may adopt as a convenient compromise, 'the Duke is not one of _those that_'; or, 'the Duke is not one to _interfere_ in matters out of his province'; 'the duke is not one _that interferes_ with _what_ he has no control _over_.'"--Bain.

THREADBARE QUOTATIONS. Among the things that are in bad taste in speaking and writing, the use of threadbare quotations and expressions is in the front rank. Some of these _usés et cassés_ old-timers are the following: "Their name is legion"; "hosts of friends"; "the upper ten"; "Variety is the spice of life"; "Distance lends enchantment to the view"; "A thing of beauty is a joy for ever"; "the light fantastic toe"; "own the soft impeachment"; "fair women and brave men"; "revelry by night"; "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

TO. It is a well-established rule of grammar that _to_, the sign of the infinitive mood, should not be used for the infinitive itself: thus, "He has not done it, nor is he likely _to_." It should be, "nor is he likely _to do it_."

We often find _to_, when the sign of the infinitive, separated by an adverb from the verb to which it belongs. Professor A. P. Peabody says that no standard English writer makes this mistake, and that, so far as he knows, it occurs frequently with but one respectable American writer.

Very often _to_ is used instead of _at_; thus, "I have been _to_ the theatre, _to_ church, _to_ my uncle's, _to_ a concert," and so on. In all these cases, the preposition to use is clearly _at_, and not _to_. See, also, AND.

TO THE FORE. An old idiomatic phrase, now freely used again.

TONGUE. "Much _tongue_ and much judgment seldom go together."--L'Estrange. See LANGUAGE.

TOWARD. Those who profess to know about such things say that etymology furnishes no pretext for the adding of _s_ to _ward_ in such words as _backward_, _forward_, _toward_, _upward_, _onward_, _downward_, _afterward_, _heavenward_, _earthward_, and the like.

TRANSFERRED EPITHET. This is the shifting of a qualifying word from its proper subject to some allied subject. Examples:

"The little fields made green
By husbandry of many _thrifty years_."

"He plods his _weary way_." "Hence to your _idle bed_!" By this figure the diction is rendered more terse and vigorous; it is much used in verse. For the sake of conciseness, it is used in prose in such phrases as the _lunatic asylum_, the _criminal court_, the _condemned cell_, the _blind asylum_, the _cholera hospital_, the _foundling asylum_, and the like.

"Still in harmonious intercourse they lived
The rural day, and talked the flowing heart."

"There be some who, with everything to make them happy, plod their discontented and melancholy way through life, less grateful than the dog that licks the hand that feeds it."

TRANSPIRE. This is one of the most frequently misused words in the language. Its primary meaning is to evaporate insensibly through the pores, but in this sense it is not used; in this sense we use its twin sister _per_spire. _Transpire_ is now properly used in the sense of to escape from secrecy, to become known, to leak out; and improperly used in the sense of to occur, to happen, to come to pass, and to elapse. The word is correctly used thus: "You will not let a word concerning the matter _transpire_"; "It _transpires_ [leaks out] that S. & B. control the enterprise"; "Soon after the funeral it _transpired_ [became known] that the dead woman was alive"; "It has _transpired_ [leaked out] that the movement originated with John Blank"; "No report of the proceedings was allowed to _transpire_"; "It has not yet _transpired_ who the candidate is to be." The word is incorrectly used thus: "The Mexican war _transpired_ in 1847"; "The drill will _transpire_ under shelter"; "The accident _transpired_ one day last week"; "Years will _transpire_ before it will be finished"; "More than a century _transpired_ before it was revisited by civilized man."

TRIFLING MINUTIÆ. The meaning of _trifles_ and of _minutiæ_ is so nearly the same that no one probably ever uses the phrase _trifling minutiæ_ except from thoughtlessness.

TRUSTWORTHY. See RELIABLE.

TRY. This word is often improperly used for _make_. We _make_ experiments, not _try_ them, which is as incorrect as it would be to say, _try_ the _attempt_, or the _trial_.

UGLY. In England, this word is restricted to meaning ill-favored; with us it is often used--and not without authority--in the sense of ill-tempered, vicious, unmanageable.

UNBEKNOWN. This word is no longer used except by the unschooled.

UNDERHANDED. This word, though found in the dictionaries, is a vulgarism, and as such is to be avoided. The proper word is _underhand_. An _underhand_, not an _underhanded_, proceeding.

UNIVERSAL--ALL. "He is _universally_ esteemed by _all_ who know him." If he is _universally_ esteemed, he must be esteemed by _all_ who know him; and, if he is esteemed by _all_ who know him, he must be _universally_ esteemed.

UPWARD OF. This phrase is often used, if not improperly, at least inelegantly, for _more than_; thus, "I have been here for _upward of_ a year"; "For _upward of_ three quarters of a century she has," etc., meaning, for _more than_ three quarters of a century.

UTTER. This verb is often misused for _say_, _express_. To _utter_ means to _speak_, to _pronounce_; and its derivative _utterance_ means the act, manner, or power of uttering, vocal expression; as, "the utterance of articulate sounds." We _utter_ a cry; _express_ a thought or sentiment; _speak_ our mind; and, though prayers are _said_, they may be _uttered_ in a certain tone or manner. "Mr. Blank is right in all he _utters_": read, _says_. "The court _uttered_ a sentiment that all will applaud": read, _expressed_ a sentiment.

The primary meaning of the adjective _utter_ is outer, on the outside; but it is no longer used in this sense. It is now used in the sense of complete, total, perfect, mere, entire; but he who uses it indiscriminately as a synonym of these words will frequently utter _utter_ nonsense--i. e., he will utter that which is without the pale of sense. For example, we can not say _utter_ concord, but we can say _utter_ discord--i. e., without the pale of concord.

VALUABLE. The following sentence, which recently appeared in one of the more fastidious of our morning papers, is offered as an example of extreme slipshodness in the use of language: "Sea captains are among the most _valuable_ contributors to the Park aviary." What the writer probably meant to say is, "Sea captains are among those whose contributions to the Park aviary are the most valuable."

VAST. This word is often met with in forcible-feeble diction, where it is used instead of _great_ or _large_ to qualify such words as number, majority, multitude, and the like. Big words and expletives should be used only where they are really needed; where they are not really needed, they go wide of the object aimed at. The sportsman that hunts small game with buck-shot comes home empty-handed.

VERACITY. The loss would be a small one if we were to lose this word and its derivatives. Truth and its derivatives would supply all our needs. In the phrase so often heard, "A man of truth and veracity," _veracity_ is entirely superfluous, it having precisely the same meaning as truth. The phrase, "A big, large man," is equally good diction.

VERBIAGE. An unnecessary profusion of words is called _verbiage_: verbosity, wordiness.

"I thought what I read of it _verbiage_."--Johnson.

Sometimes a better name than verbiage for wordiness would be _emptiness_. Witness: "Clearness may be developed and cultivated in three ways, (_a_) By constantly practicing in heart and life the thoughts and ways of honesty and frankness." The first sentence evidently means, "Clearness may be _attained_ in three ways"; but what the second sentence means--if it means anything--is more than I can tell. Professor L. T. Townsend, "Art of Speech," vol. i, p. 130, adds: "This may be regarded as the surest path to greater transparency of style." The transparency of Dr. Townsend's style is peculiar. Also, p. 144, we find: "The laws and rules[1] thus far laid down[2] furnish ample foundation for[3] the general statement that an easy and natural[4] expression, an exact verbal incarnation of one's thinking,[5] together with the power of using appropriate figures, and of making nice discriminations between approximate synonyms,[6] each being an important factor in correct style, are attained in two ways.[7] (1) Through moral[8] and mental discipline. (2) Through continuous and intimate[9] acquaintance with such authors as best exemplify those attainments."[10]

1. Would not _laws_ cover the whole ground? 2. _En passant_ I would remark that Dr. Townsend did not make these laws, though he so intimates. 3. I suggest the word _justify_ in place of these four. 4. What is natural is easy; _easy_, therefore, is superfluous. 5. If this means anything, it does not mean more than the adjective _clear_ would express, if properly used in the sentence. 6. _Approximate_ synonyms!! Who ever heard of any antagonistic or even of dissimilar synonyms? 7. The transparency of this sentence is not unlike the transparency of corrugated glass. 8. What has morality to do with correctness? 9. An intimate acquaintance would suffice for most people. 10. Those attainments! What are they? Dr. Townsend's corrugated style makes it hard to tell.

This paragraph is so badly conceived throughout that it is well-nigh impossible to make head, middle, or tail of it; still, if I am at all successful in guessing what Professor Townsend wanted to say in it, then--when shorn of its redundancy and high-flown emptiness--it will read somewhat like this: "The laws thus far presented justify the general statement that a clear and natural mode of expression--together with that art of using appropriate figures and that ability properly to discriminate between synonyms which are necessary to correctness--is attained in two ways. (1) By mental discipline. (2) By the study of our best authors."

The following sentence is from a leading magazine: "If we begin a system of interference, _regulating men's gains_, bolstering here, _in order to strengthen this interest_, [and] repressing _elsewhere_ [there], in order to equalize wealth, we shall do _an_ [a] _immense_ deal of mischief, and without bringing about a more agreeable condition of things _than now_ [we] shall _simply_ discourage enterprise, repress industry, and check material growth _in all directions_." Read without the eighteen words in italics and with the four inclosed.

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

VICE. See CRIME.

VICINITY. This word is sometimes incorrectly used without the possessive pronoun; thus, "Washington and vicinity," instead of "Washington and _its_ vicinity." The primary meaning of _vicinity_ is nearness, proximity. In many of the cases in which vicinity is used, _neighborhood_ would be the better word, though _vicinity_ is perhaps preferable where it is a question of mere locality.

VOCATION--AVOCATION. These words are frequently confounded. A man's _vocation_ is his profession, his calling, his business; and his _avocations_ are the things that occupy him incidentally. Mademoiselle Bernhardt's _vocation_ is acting; her _avocations_ are painting and sculpture. "The tracing of resemblances among the objects and events of the world is a constant _avocation_ of the human mind."

VULGAR. By the many, this word is probably more frequently used improperly than properly. As a noun, it means the common people, the lower orders, the multitude, the many; as an adjective, it means coarse, low, unrefined, as "the _vulgar_ people." The sense in which it is misused is that of immodest, indecent. The wearing, for example, of a gown too short at the top may be _indecent_, but is not _vulgar_.

WAS. "He said he had come to the conclusion that there _was_ no God." "The greatest of Byron's works _was_ his whole work taken together."--Matthew Arnold. What is true at all times should be expressed by using the verb in the present tense. The sentences above should read _is_, not _was_.

WHARF. See DOCK.

WHAT. "He would not believe but _what_ I did it": read, but _that_. "I do not doubt _but what_ I shall go to Boston to-morrow": read, doubt _that_. We say properly, "I have nothing _but what_ you see"; "You have brought everything _but what_ I wanted."

WHENCE. As this adverb means--unaided--_from_ what place, source, or cause, it is, as Dr. Johnson styled it, "a vicious mode of speech" to say _from whence_, Milton to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor is there any more propriety in the phrase _from thence_, as _thence_ means--unaided--from that place. "_Whence_ do you come?" not "_From whence_ do you come?" Likewise, "He went _hence_," not "_from hence_."

WHETHER. This conjunction is often improperly repeated in a sentence; thus, "I have not decided whether I shall go to Boston or _whether I shall go_ to Philadelphia."

WHICH. This pronoun as an _interrogative_ applies to _persons_ as well as to _things_; as a _relative_, it is now made to refer to _things only_.

"_Which_ is employed in coördinate sentences, where _it_, or _they_, and a conjunction might answer the purpose; thus, 'At school I studied geometry, _which_ (and it) I found useful afterward.' Here the new clause is something independent added to the previous clause, and not limiting that clause in any way. So in the adjectival clause; as, 'He struck the poor dog, _which_ (and it, or although it) had never done him harm.' Such instances represent the most accurate meaning of _which_. _Who_ and _which_ might be termed the COÖRDINATING RELATIVES.

"_Which_ is likewise used in _restrictive_ clauses that limit or explain the antecedent; as, 'The house _which_ he built still remains.' Here the clause introduced by _which_ specifies, or points out, the house that is the subject of the statement, namely, by the circumstance that a certain person built it. As remarked with regard to _who_, our most idiomatic writers prefer _that_ in this particular application, and would say, 'The house _that_ he built still remains.'"

"_Which_ sometimes has a special reference attaching to it, as the neuter relative: 'Cæsar crossed the Rubicon, _which_ was in effect a declaration of war.' The antecedent in this instance is not _Rubicon_, but the entire clause.

"There is a peculiar usage where _which_ may _seem_ to be still regularly used in reference to persons, as in 'John is a soldier, _which_ I should like to be,' that is, 'And I should like _to be a soldier_.'" See THAT.

WHO. There are few persons, even among the most cultivated, who do not make frequent mistakes in the use of this pronoun. They say, "_Who_ did you see?" "_Who_ did you meet?" "_Who_ did he marry?" "_Who_ did you hear?" "_Who_ did he know?" "_Who_ are you writing to?" "_Who_ are you looking at?" In all these sentences the interrogative pronoun is in the objective case, and should be used in the objective form, which is _whom_, and not _who_. To show that these sentences are not correct, and are not defensible by supposing any ellipsis whatsoever, we have only to put the questions in another form. Take the first one, and, instead of "Who did you see?" say, "Who saw you?" which, if correct, justifies us in saying, "Who knew he," which is the equivalent of "Who did he know?" But "Who saw you?" in this instance, is clearly not correct, since it says directly the opposite of what is intended.

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

"Here the clause introduced by _who_ is necessary to define or explain the antecedent _the man_; without it, we do not know who _the man_ is. Such relative clauses are typical _adjective_ clauses--i. e., they have the same effect as adjectives in limiting nouns. This may be called the RESTRICTIVE use of the relative.

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

"_Who_ is properly used in such coördinate sentences as, 'I met the watchman, _who_ told me there had been a fire.' Here the two clauses are distinct and independent; in such a case, _and he_ might be substituted for _who_.